Committee of the Whole

Thank you.

Uh good evening, V Royal, and welcome to the committee of the whole for Tuesday, October 14th.

Before we begin, let's start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lakongwin speaking people known today as the Squimop Nation or Kosapsin Nation and the Songhees Nations, and that this their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda from members of the audience.

Um please uh state your name and your street name.

You don't have to give your um street number uh address uh when addressing your questions, but just to put it on the record so that we know who you are and where you're from.

Uh to provide comments virtually during the public participation uh period or ask questions, you'll see a QRL, QR code or URL on the live webcast stream or under on the town's website under live broadcast.

Scan the QR code or type the URL in and a form pops up.

Type in your comment or question to be read aloud at the appropriate time by a member of a webcast team.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to an agenda item.

Question period is open to any questions and is limited to two minutes each, and you will be timed.

The 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.

Before I move to an approval of the agenda, can I add one item if my colleagues are supportive, and that's to add mayor's remarks, which normally isn't done here.

And normally this is rotational that counselors uh actually chair the meeting.

Uh, but Alana decided to schedule me in uh for this one.

Uh and the next council of the whole, I believe, will be counselor brown in November.

I I do have one question.

Certainly.

If we don't let you make the statement, does that mean you can't make it ever?

I'm not sure if I'm bound uh like uh the province bounds in NDA, but uh thank you, Councillor Russell.

Okay.

Uh just mayor's remarks after um uh the receipt and adoption of the minutes, if you would not mind.

So with that, uh certain I'm not seeing anybody online wanting to speak to it.

No hands up.

Uh sorry if I've got to take my glasses on and off, but uh it's the problem as you age, I guess.

Uh I need to invest in some good bifocals.

Um seconded.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion motion carries.

Uh can I get uh approval of the minutes for the committee of the whole uh that we had on the 9th of September, please?

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by councillor Rogers.

Seeing none opposed.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Uh motion carries.

Um mayor's remarks.

I did actually write them down this time.

Uh colleagues often bypass my remarks to get on with the important business of our agenda, but tonight it will be an exception.

I want to announce that I will not seek reelection in next year's municipal election.

I make this announcement now to encourage others to step forward and to offer my time and experience to anybody interested in in um interested in running uh in the months ahead before the election.

Uh my time as the mayor of the town of View Royal has been one of the most rewarding experiences in my nearly 40 years of combined public service, including 24 years in the Canadian Armed Forces, 11 with the province of British Columbia, and now three years as mayor and regional director.

My decision is a personal one.

I intend to pursue academic and consulting opportunities that I put on hold when my neighbors asked me to run in the last election to ensure there was a choice on the ballot where it looked like uh if I did not run, there would not be.

To my neighbors in View Royal, now 13,000 strong, up from 9,000 in 2006.

I say this.

If the future of the town matters to you, step forward, run for mayor, and run for council.

Not having a choice of candidates on a ballot is not the town's problem, it's our problem.

A community of 13,000 should never again have only one candidate for mayor and fewer than twice the number of candidates as council seats.

I'm extremely proud of this council.

For such a small municipality, we've led the way in innovation, environmental policy, land use planning, and public engagement, and we have all done that with an incredible staff to back us up.

We have maintained a high level of service while focusing on what truly matters livability, safety, affordability, sustainability, and the future.

I'll point the public and my colleagues to a good article that was put out in the Vancouver Sun, and one thing that was universal in those uh surveys is their sense of belonging was the most important to them for living in the city.

So it's something us for us to consider when we uh as we're engaged in the OCP.

If I had one uh disappointment, it would be a lack of intergovernmental cooperation.

We have made incredible progress with neighboring municipalities, with First Nations, at regional levels and at federal levels.

However, our relationship with the provincial government remains at a historic low.

Let me be bold, uh the so-called housing crisis is over.

Yeah, I said it first, if it ever truly existed.

We do not have a housing crisis, we have an affordability crisis, including housing.

When thousands of new condominiums stand empty, both in Victoria and Vancouver, it is clear we're building the wrong things.

This crisis was not caused by chance, it was caused by government policy.

The abandonment of affordable housing investment over the last several decades, unchecked immigration and international student growth, and rampant real estate speculation has left us in the place we're in now.

Today, the development and speculative real estate lobby has captured much of our provincial housing policy.

The most recent example is Bill 25, which removes the requirement of for off street parking in the so called small scale multi unit housing.

With one stroke, the province has rezoned uh all of View Royal, and now all of those cars will spill into our streets, many of which are narrow, without sidewalks, forcing pedestrians, children, seniors, and people with mobility challenges into unsafe conditions.

There's been no funding for road widening, and with a provincial deficit of $19 billion, I don't see little reason to expect any.

Across our province, from health care to homelessness, affordability to the environment, the crisis we face share a common cause, reactive short-term policy, the absence of public engagement, and the collapse of intergovernmental collaboration.

Just six percent of those resolutions passed by uh the un uh by UCBM were ever entertained in the past decade.

The Ministry of Housing continues to require municipalities to sign non-disclosure agreements just to discuss housing policy issues.

NDAs and a democracy.

Meanwhile, local governments are threatened with targets and punishment for noncompliance.

This council has done everything in its power to represent the people of Vie Royal, the environment we cherish, and the generations that follow.

But our voice, like the many voices in local governments, has grown quieter amid the for what uh the former U.S.

President Barack Obama has called the slow, quiet erosion of democracy from within.

He warned that democracies rarely fail in one dramatic moment.

They are hollowed out gradually when truth is distorted, when institutions are weakened, and when their citizens grow cynical or disengaged.

Democracy, he reminds us, is not self-executing.

It survives only through the vigilance and participation of people.

To those watching this unfold, both abroad and here at home, I say pay attention.

Democracy is fragile, but it's not less not yet lost.

It is not too late to change course and for our provincial government and all of us to admit when we have gotten it wrong, as they have in several other cases with their policies, and to do better to serve the people that we also serve.

So thanks for entertaining me uh uh uh uh for my uh time for my remarks uh colleagues i much appreciate it uh i think that moves us down to uh our uh public participation period i get that right Elna would anybody in council like to raise anything on the agenda uh as a comment to council don't be shy okay nobody here carl have we got anybody that has sent in a request for a comment.

Uh Mayor Tobias, no comments so far this evening.

Thanks, Carl.

Uh that brings us to petitions and delegations.

I'd welcome Mr.

Doug Ford, president of Nvidicus Commercial Investment Corporation, on potential for uh rezoning application for 346 Island Highway.

Just remind council and uh staff that uh Mr.

Ford is aware that under petitions and delegations, council can ask questions.

Um I think uh with staff being involved, we don't have the benefit of having a staff report with this.

Uh it's just for information.

So uh I think council um would like to hear it, and uh we'll provide an email back individually and CC staff on it for any comments or further questions we have if it suits you, Mr.

Ford.

Um, but please uh just make sure your microphone is activated and he has how much time, Elna?

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Ten minutes.

Okay.

Thank you for receiving me and listening to what I have to say.

If we could put oh great.

proceedings and held follow-up discussions.

Slide two, please.

We have listened carefully to council's concerns and have taken meaningful steps to adapt our proposal.

The building has been fully redesigned with a fresh new look and to align with the mixed-use zoning under the current OCP, incorporating approximately 6,000 square feet of commercial space on the main floor.

Recognizing council's priorities of expanding clinic space within the municipality, we are putting forward potential solutions that directly address this need.

Slide three please this proposal delivers 91 residential homes my apologies I'm just having trouble advancing to the next slide.

I'm just going to try a thing to do it for you.

This proposal delivers 91 residential homes with secure underground parking and 6,000 square feet of commercial space.

For community benefits, it delivers much needed housing variety, including townhomes, one bedroom, and family-friendly units.

It anchors the project with a modern medical clinic to direct to directly meet community health care needs.

We have 100 secured underground parking stalls, ensuring tenants' demands are met while keeping 24 commercial stalls and six visitor stalls on the surface for a total of 133 stalls.

We also have 96 bicycle stalls fully conform with the current official community plan.

Slide four, please.

Currently, our access is to the east of our site.

We were concerned about this access close proximity to the intersection of Prince Robert Drive.

We explored two alternatives.

One alternative was requiring access through the Fort Victoria RV park to utilize the proposed traffic lit intersection.

The second alternative was acquiring one or more of the duplex properties on Kislingbury, which adjoins our site to the west.

Both instances proved to be financially unviable.

We engaged Watt traffic engineers to assist in the viability of a newly proposed west end access directly off Island Highway.

Their study confirmed that the access is effective and recommended incorporating a short central left-hand turn lane to improve safety and traffic flow.

Excuse me.

Slide five, please.

While we recognize that expanded clinic services are needed, we also understand that this responsibility should not fall on the viewroyal taxpayers.

That's why our updated plan provides modern clinical space at no upfront cost to the town of View Royal.

This approach directly addresses the community's health care needs while protecting taxpayers from additional financial burden, a solution shaped by your feedback and designed to benefit all.

We understand that the sweet spot for clinic space is approximately 4,000 square feet.

To put into perspective, the market value of 4,000 square feet building shell is roughly $2.5 million.

That figure reflects only the exterior structure without any partitions, electrical distribution, lighting, plumbing, air conditioning, etc.

One fully furnished with this space would be valued at approximately three million.

I'm sorry, I didn't read option one, did I?

Ah, here we are.

Importantly, this estimate is for the finished space only and does not include any specialized medical equipment or furnishings, which remain the responsibility of the tenant or operator.

By bringing forward this level of investment in a building itself, our proposal offers View Royal an extraordinary opportunity to own or lease a state-of-the-art clinic facility at no upfront taxpayer cost.

The clinic would benefit from the highly visible, easily accessible surface parking.

Slide six, please.

The developer is prepared to offset this $3 million cost, ensuring View Royal gains a purpose-built clinic, and again, I want to stress without shifting the financial burden onto taxpayers.

We reached out to our well to multiple chartered accountants for advice on whether donating the space directly to the town of URL could be structured as a charitable gift.

And we were advised that Revenue Canada would not approve it as a donation.

If URL wishes to own or lease clinic space, we are suggesting three different options.

Option number one would be waiving fees and requirements.

A combination of these fees would substantially offset the $3 million cost to provide the finished clinic space.

Those offsets would be one or more or partial of each, community amenity contributions, which are estimated at about $364,000, development cost charges, which are valued at approximately $592,000, building permit charges, and off site improvement requirements.

This option would likely require a small mortgage to make the shortfall between the offsets and the cost of the finished space.

Option two structure the property tax offset program similar to a successful model adopted by Esquimalt to stimulate development along the north side of Esquimalt Road.

Under that program, developers continued to pay the equivalent of the pre-zoning residential property tax in the first year after construction, with taxes then increasing incrementally over 10 years period until they reached full market value.

Applied in View Royal, this approach would extend over approximately 20 years of gradual tax increases, after which the development would be paying full property tax at market value.

Throughout this period, the municipality would not forgo any of the current tax revenue, ensuring that there is no financial loss.

At the same time, Viewer would gain ownership of a valuable clinic space that could be leased to medical providers, creating an ongoing source of municipal income while addressing community health care needs.

Option three would be for View Royal to choose to lease the space for a defined period of time, applying property tax revenues to offset the lease payments.

This structure would create a similar financial outcome in the short and medium term with no direct cost to the municipality.

Slide seven, please.

It's important that we move forward with clear guidance from council.

To help us align the efforts, we would greatly appreciate each councilor taking time to respond to key questions that we will email at a later date.

This will ensure that we are working together toward the same goal, a successful outcome for the township, the community, and the developer.

The questions are shown on this slide, and would be grateful if each counselor would take time to share their thoughts when they're emailed to them.

Thank you for the opportunity to present this.

And if I if I could entertain any questions.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Ford, for not only coming tonight and providing the presentation, but also uh obviously actively listening to um the broader council discussions about the need for commercial space to live make a whole community as well as the clinic.

Uh just got one to start before I pass it on to the my colleagues, and that is how many bedrooms are the townhouses that you mentioned.

There are two.

Two bedrooms.

Okay.

And uh there's no three bedrooms uh planned for now?

There are no three bedrooms.

There are two bedroom and den.

The difficulty with three bedroom units is the amount of frontage they require because each requires a window as an escape access.

Okay.

Ingress egress.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Councilor Brown, did you have any questions?

Uh making my comments and sending it to the developer.

Thank you.

Councilor Roger.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, I'm not sure to uh you know who to uh either the applicant or staff.

Um in the medical clinic discussion page where the options are are there, uh costs to offset uh ownership, and I'm yeah, I'm interested in this aspect of offsetting fees and so forth.

But there's a line item that says no requirement for off-site works.

So um I don't know if I should direct this to staff or the applicant, but I'm I'm just wondering um if the um um access, it would be left in, left out, uh, would require changes to uh island highway.

Um how would that be accomplished um under option one?

Question that I think that could go to the applicant.

I would imagine it could be accomplished through DCCs.

I'm I'm not sure where your DCCs are allocated.

But you but you have received development cost charges on other developments.

That could be it would be through the DCCs, but not necessarily uh yes based on this model, not from this project.

Okay, so hopefully um uh your worship uh will be getting staff to give us some analysis of these options.

Yeah, I think the the staff has not had an opportunity to review this yet, and I think once um we generate questions and I think it's important to include staff on our uh emails that go back for feedback and first impressions.

Um uh so that can help shape it.

But I think once you've um got some feedback, uh Mr.

Ford, we'll have you back um to uh to broaden the discussion a little bit as an agenda item that we're not constrained as a delegation that we can ask questions and make comments and if I may one more more question you you made uh specific uh pointing out to us option two is like the esquirement model uh which of these would fit uh the Callwood model I sorry Counselor Rogers I have no idea how how the council the Callwood model works.

Okay.

So hopefully again uh staff when we get that uh that would be the comparative analysis that would help.

Uh thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Uh counselor Mattson.

Yeah, um at at this point I don't have any questions in terms of the presentation and I guess my comments etc will come once once I see staff's report.

Can I just if I may would with the spaces provided, you know, 6,000 square feet and there's 4,000 for um the doc's office.

So it sounds like this would be adequate uh square footage for a pharmacy or life labs or something that would complement um this medical office is am I correct in Ashamina?

That that's correct Councilor Rogers.

That's that's what we're perceiving would be the case you know I just as you said a life labs, perhaps uh a prescription for pharmacies, other other medical facilities.

And if we and if we couldn't fill it up with them, and I'm I'm very doubtful that it would be an issue uh we could always put a coffee shop in because I think the neighborhood wants one of those as well.

Online, Council Lemon, please.

I think you're muted, Councillor Lemon.

It's got to happen once a night.

Oh it'll probably happen throughout the night.

Mr.

Ford, thank you for this.

Just uh just for clarification on option one.

Option one would waive the CAC's, and you're saying it would also waive the DCC's ed building permit fees?

I'm saying whatever whatever council and and staff decided they wanted to waive would make up a portion of the of the three million dollars and the rest would be by way of mortgage.

So you don't need to waive any of those fees should you not wish to, or you could waive those fees and have a lower mortgage.

Okay, okay.

So but the but the bottom line is it's a three thousand dollar bill or three million dollar bill.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

That's it.

Thanks, Councilor Lemon.

Uh is there anybody else online for counselors with the question?

Seeing none, um, thank you very much for your report.

And uh we'll get together an opportunity to scale an email.

Um uh Mr.

Ford, but thanks again for the presentation and uh and the offer.

And I think the next step would be after the email to consolidate that, get you on the next council of the whole uh in uh in November, um, that we could uh uh have a more fulsome discussion and provide you some feedback.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Thank you, Mr.

Ford.

Okay, I think that brings us down to staff reports, and we uh begin with the development variance permit, I believe, for signage.

Thank you, Maryor and Council.

So this presentation is regarding the property at 1449 Burnside Road West, which is also buildings 1301, 1303, and 1305.

Next slide, please.

So currently, as you can see on the on the screen, that this is the period where we introduce the application to you.

So at this time we are not asking for any decision to be made as public notifications still needs to occur at a later date following this meeting.

Next slide, please.

So this permit, sorry, this presentation is to reduce development variance permit 2025-03.

So the applicant has requested five variances to the sign by law and proposed variances are required for wayfinding and addressing the addressing the site.

So I'll also make a note that this property is located within the attached residential sign district.

And the signed bylaw defines that as any zone permitting a residential use, such as a townhouse, row house, or apartment residential form, but does not include commercial.

Next site, please.

So the town has received a sign permit application for eight signs, two of which do not require any variances and fall outside of the scope of the bylaw.

So this presentation is strictly to discuss those applications or sorry, those signs uh that require variances.

So all of the signs proposed are permanent signs um signs one two and three on the screen which are primarily along Helmkin and Burnside Road West are freestanding signs uh meaning they are not attached to the building and signs for C and four D are wall signs so they're attached directly to the building next slide please uh so the attached residential sign district does not permit any freestanding signs in association with the residential apartment use of the property.

Our bylaw specifies that it's only uh permitted for home occupation type uses uh which has set us up for where we are today requesting variances to permit freestanding signs with for the specific use.

So sign one, as you can see, requires the variance to increase the maximum sign area from 0.3 meters squared to 2.2 meters squared.

Otherwise, the sign meets all other requirements set out within section 6.2 of the sign bylaw.

Sign two, which is the smaller sign which says experience center, does not require any variances other than permitting freestanding signs for this use.

It meets all other requirements.

And the Experience center has been described to me as both the office where tenants would come with their inquiries or their issues and would be receiving like on site assistance as well as for new potential renters to come and kind of see like a show suite or at least the office where they'd be able to view it, photos, etc.

And sign three is another freestanding sign which has a maximum sign area of 1.7 meters squared and otherwise meets all required um rules, I guess, of the bylaw as well.

Um, so of course, when I say that it meets everything, uh, we still need to permit the freestanding signs um within this on this particular property for this use.

So next slide, please.

Um sign 4C and 4D are a little bit different in that the area that is circled in green on the image on the screen does not require any variances.

It falls outside of the scope of the bylaw.

We're not looking for any comments on those.

It is strictly the sign portion that is circled in red that they're requesting variance for.

Um so essentially they're requesting a variance for the word aspire uh to be located on the canopy, which would be identifying the building as the aspire development, um, and it would be facing Helmkin Road.

Whereas the Experience Center is once again identifying that space for tenants and or prospective tenants to say this is where you go if you need help or you're uh have questions, etc.

Um, and that is located in the courtyard of the development.

So it is not actually visible from the road.

Um next slide, please.

Um so staff are in support of the requested uh variances because the number of freestanding signs from zero to three, like it's not unusual for a larger developments to require signage.

Um for example, directional signage with addresses, or um, here's parking, et cetera.

Um, and in this case, the property fronts on both Helmkin Road and Burnside Road.

So they've requested a freestanding sign, which would be directional with addresses on each roadside, uh, which is important when considering that um across the street on Burnside is of course Sainch.

Um, so it's hard to say which direction people are coming from and where they're traveling, etc.

Um staff also support the variances um because it provides um important direction and addressing for emergency services, postal services, delivery, visitors, residents, potential renters, etc.

Which ones again, we don't know where they're coming from.

They could be coming from outside of municipality boundaries, and boundaries are not always clear, unfortunately, to those in the in the wider community.

And we support the maximum sign increases as it increases the visibility for the signs, which also increases the likelihood of someone seeing it.

And it important includes way fire way finding information, which is important for just identifying, locating, providing direction, etc.

And finally, we're in support of the two wall signs that have been proposed for the same reasons essentially.

They're just key for identifying for potential renters and or visitors, etc.

So our recommendation is as follows that council recommend a motion, or sorry, the committee recommend a motion to council after giving notice to consider them the motion, I should say.

So council authorized the issuance of the development variance permit at a following meeting.

That the number of freestanding signs be increased from zero to three in association with the apartment residential use of the property.

To increase the maximum signs areas from 0.3 meters squared to 2.2 meters squared for sign one.

And to increase the sign maximum sign area from 0.3 to 1.7 meters squared for sign three.

And to permit an unilluminated wall sign within the attached residential sign district with a maximum sign area of 0.21 meters in association with the apartment residential use, that's 4C, and to attach uh or to permit an unilluminated wall sign of a maximum area of 0.88 meters squared.

Excellent.

First sign 4D.

And I will happily answer any questions you have.

Let's start with questions.

Uh Council Brown, let's start with you.

I'm just curious why the developer needs to have even larger signs.

The reason I ask is, you know, we're quite uh aware of sign pollution.

I don't know, even for election signs, for example, we're not even allowed to put election signs up in town of Uroyal.

So I'm my signage is great.

I appreciate that, but I don't understand why they would need to have even bigger signs.

I mean, I don't understand that.

Is there some um is it because rentals or sales are slow?

I'm just guessing.

I don't know.

So um through the chair, um, it is essentially just to differentiate themselves from other rental properties or other properties that are available in town.

Um, furthermore, uh this the sizes um that they've provided are technically in alignment with the freestanding sign regulations we have in our bylaw.

So um with the exception of the maximum sign area they otherwise fit into those um measurements provided.

So I have no questions, but Councilor Rogers, go ahead.

Thanks.

Um are there any other signs in Bureau um of this size for um residential townhouses, rental condos?

Um so each assigned permit application is of course reviewed on a like case by case basis against the signed bylaw and against design guidelines.

Um other properties are not taken into consideration when we're reviewing an application simply because uh they're not quite relevant to that specific site.

Um are there any other signs of a similar size in the town?

Uh no.

However, are there other similar like signs of this that height?

Yes.

Um have they been approved?

Yes.

Um, but I I can't give you a list of them.

So you're saying there's other similar signs i imagine those would be for commercial locations uh no not necessarily commercial signs have different regulations yeah it would be helpful um uh to to know that now my other question is that um the uh you know this sign one which is the the greatest concern I have um it's in the front and this is in a uh a commons area when when we'd seen the drawings and uh one of the most enticing aspects where this was uh like Eagle Creek, a gathering space where you could have trees and and so forth and um I'm not quite understanding how this shine would fit with with uh those congregations and and as well as trees that would eventually plant and and hopefully grow to a larger size that might shade a big sign like this.

Through the chair.

Carl, would you mind going to slide four, please?

The one before that one.

Thank you.

So on the screen, we can see an overall plan of the site.

That little shaded triangle at the bottom is the section that was required for the community triangle.

And if I'm wrong in this, please correct me.

There's also a rain garden rate to like right below it.

So it's in an appropriate area outside of important infrastructure and outside of where the landscaping is.

It's in like a little grass area.

So you you mentioned that one of the merits and reasons for having this big sign would be for service deliveries, mail, emergency services.

It seems to me that wouldn't that mean other locations, other condos and so forth are then at a disservice and and uh at risk because they don't have a big sign like this?

And shouldn't they uh those individuals get a bigger sign so that there's no problems and risks are averted?

Not sure if staff can answer that one, Councillor Rogers, so please ask another question.

Yes, uh it seems to me that um um you know today uh I would assume that the the fire department uh has means of finding buildings and um um you know with the computer networks and the same with um you know mail service deliveries and delivery trucks.

So it um and I guess the the other question I have in terms of the OCP and zoning is ambience and character and also factors to be considered uh in design considerations so the the development permit would look at essential compliance with the development guidelines for signage um the proposed signs do align with that what they have proposed and what has been approved for their development permit um based off of colors and where the located canopy and etc um the freestanding signs are a little bit different um i'm not entirely sure if they were originally included in the original development permit um hence they're bringing it forward counselor mattson, did you have any questions?

Uh online, do we have any questions from counselors?

Seeing no questions.

Uh we'll go to comments now and I'll I guess I'll lead.

I I don't have much of a problem with um, and I'll just uh be on the analysis slide there with uh two and three and just to confirm they're all not illuminated, right?

They're not split in any way.

That is correct.

None of the signs are eliminated.

I I do have a problem with number one on your analysis slide.

It's just massive comparatively.

Um and I'm not sure I realize the intent of the owner is for branding.

Um, but aside from that, I think you pretty much know where you're at with Google or a delivery as Councilor Rogers had alluded to.

So um I I would suggest and and make a motion if there's some support in council that we entertain the rest of the variances, but that number one sign be compliant with our variance laws.

Because I I do appreciate it could be a bit of a maze if you're looking for somebody once you get into the property to clearly define blocks uh as they have done.

But for that main slide, I've got concerns that it's not in keeping with um the rest of you, Royal as Counselor Rogers put it.

Uh should are you making a motion?

Yes, that that's what I'll move.

Any uh council rep.

Yeah, I I concur.

I'll be supporting the motion.

I agree.

Uh just the number one sign is the only one of concern to me that the massive size of it, but the other two I'm fine with.

Any other uh counselor Rogers?

Yeah.

Um yeah, looking at um uh you know the other um locations, um Coho was way up on top of the hill for Wilford.

Just has the address.

It doesn't have email or uh uh website, um, you know, and nor to to to the size and description that uh we see in in this uh instance number one.

The other signs make sense.

I really appreciate the one on Burnside, uh you know, that would be showing where the parking is.

Um but I think um being in this uh public square, it uh it would not uh it would actually detract from that uh that whole aspect.

So I hope that the applicant would get back to the drawing board.

Thank you.

Okay, so we still need to vote uh on this.

Is there anybody online that wants to?

I didn't want you not to be mayor.

Be mayor again.

Uh yeah, yeah.

To be honest, any problems with it when I read it, but I have to acknowledge my colleagues made good sense, and so I will support the motion.

There are any comments, counselors online at all?

Uh uh um I'm just wondering what you're going to experience at the Experience Center.

I think, and staff, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but that that is the show suite and maybe sales department.

That's the experience, Councilor Lemon, as I understand it.

Is there anything else that you wanted to add about the variants at all?

Uh Council McKenzie.

I just wanted to uh yeah, voice my support for the motion.

I think anyone trying to find a spire, you know, when they Google it, they'll they'll know they've come across it, but it's just distinguishing between the three buildings, which is which.

I know the co-op near me often has deliveries going to the wrong uh block of apartments.

So um I think that's important, but in terms of that main sign outside saying aspire, I I don't think that's uh necessary.

Thanks, Counselor Mackenzie.

So if there are no further comments online or in house, then uh I think we uh we support the staff's recommendation with the exception of am I saying this right uh the sign number one.

Excuse me, yes.

Uh you'd also be modifying um number one, which would be uh potentially depending on um whether council agrees to uh look at another design um or like a smaller sign, for example, for sign one, or whether they just want to remove it entirely and say we only permit two freestanding signs.

Uh I'm I'm okay.

I think the only concern if I captured it right for my colleagues was was that uh the biggest sign, sign number one, and that that sign be in compliance with our with our bylaws.

Lam.

Yeah, just for um staff's um clarification.

So um my understanding is that uh council is um supportive of the number of freestanding signs.

However, what they are asking is that sign one complies with the bylaw in terms of the sign area.

Did I get it right?

Correct.

Okay, great, thank you.

Yeah.

Uh I think that's it.

So we got a mover and a second, or all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Online seeing none opposed motion carries unanimously.

I do have a related question to ask, and that is on many of our construction sites, and there have been many over the past little while, there is obviously a desire for companies that are participating in the build to hang their sign out there.

I think that is in violation of our sign bylaw, and I wanted just to be sure at what point do those come down.

To clarify, is this for like contractors?

Through the mayor, um, I'll have to go back and um have a quick look at our sign bylaw, but this the sort of the the banners that um I believe those are exempt from our sign bylaw.

I don't think there's any regulations on that.

The sign bylaw is silent.

However, what we do regulate are uh temporary signs such as um like freestanding signs um where uh the developer is advertising units for rent or units for sale, those are regulated under our assigned bylaw.

But those banners, um, I would have to go back and have a look at those regulations.

Yeah, I I my my main concern is they they don't look very pretty after three years of construction, number one.

And number two is there we probably need to adjust our bylaw to add those in.

Um that that they're compliant in kind of the same type of ways, but I would not like to see those banners remain when we give an occupancy permit.

Oh, absolutely.

Um, and and typically speaking, those banners are removed.

Usually they are on the front of construction fencing and things like that.

That is obstructing access into the site.

So most often those are are removed.

Staff would like to bring forward our sign bylaw.

We like to do a review of our sign bylaw.

It's old there are some issues with it.

And so that's one thing that we can add to it.

Thanks, Leanne.

Much appreciated.

Thank you.

And I think that brings us to a review of capital and non-core project summary.

Stephen, is this you?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes.

And can you introduce it a little bit to situate and remind council?

Because did we or didn't we not discuss these to approve our budget earlier this year?

Uh or these uh were these included in the budgetary discussions?

These were included in the budgetary discussions.

Not I think this year was a bit of a um it was a it was there was less time spent discussing projects.

So staff felt it was council's wish to circle back and uh just provide an opportunity.

I do have an introduction here that I could provide.

So the intent of this report is to provide committee with the list of 2026 projects approved by council as part of the adopted 2025 to 2029 financial plan.

These are year two projects in the adopted budget, and the community charter authorizes staff to begin work on these projects in January of 2026.

Initiating year two projects ahead of the May budget adoption in year two is best practice as it decreases capacity bottlenecks and increases the likelihood of meeting our commitment to the community by completing projects in the year which they were budgeted, at the same time reducing the risk of managing partially completed projects through the subsequent year, which in itself adds a level of operational and and budget complexity.

If there are any projects that the committee feels should be deferred to 2026 budget deliberations, as opposed to being given the green light as of January 1st, it would be appropriate for committee to make a recommendation to council to that effect for those specific projects, and staff will not start those projects until further discussions have taken place.

Any projects not recommended to be deferred for further discussion are authorized to commence this January.

As you see in the report, staff have highlighted a few projects worthy of deferral and are here to answer any questions that you may have thanks Stephen I'll start on that side uh this round with council mattson please yeah no I just in terms of these like historically what we had done is just what when it was something that was going to be on the next year wasn't gonna be money that we hadn't planned to spend this year we would just put it on the five year plan and so my understanding a number of these things were put on the five year plan and staff council didn't think that they were approved they thought they were just put away till next year for discussions.

And I know probably process wise, by doing so, we said we would do them.

And so my understanding is that if we go over these all of these items, then we will then be caught up and we won't have the same problem in the future because next time a proposal comes up, we'll have to make a decision whether we want to do it, whether it be this year or two years from now, and then we wouldn't have the discussion.

So today is to catch up with all the ones we thought we had just put aside and hadn't made a decision on.

Okay.

So I do apologize to staff for the long number of questions I will have, but that's because at the time I didn't know we'd approved them.

So um and again, it it sounds like um this is the time we're gonna have to decide which ones uh we want to be tabled that.

We want tabled for detailed discussions.

Am I right?

We're gonna we're you know, so for example, um, you know, council resolve C 114, C117, C020, that those would be tabled for the 2026 budget discussions.

Is are those budget discussions happening now?

Right now, we're gonna talk about these items.

Uh let's let's consider this report relevant relevant to the budget we've already passed, um, as opposed to starting on preparing the the next five-year plan.

So we are gonna talk about those right now, and there's gonna be other ones, you know, there were there's certainly others that I want to talk about uh in terms of deferral on this list.

On this list, of course.

Uh the idea is that council will review this list, knowing everything has been authorized, and staff understanding that that expedited budgeting process may have left some projects on the list that weren't fully discussed by council.

So it would be in order to have a uh recommendation to go to the next budget meeting to defer some of these projects as council sees fit.

You know, help me if I'm out of order here.

So um if again, if I understand that uh the list that uh council had uh discussed on June 17th that that would be going to the next budget discussion right I I think the challenge here counselor rogers is we were discussing budget items that should have begun in 2025 in 2025 right so that does give staff no runway to put out am I saying that right Scott that um our problem procedurally and historically has been that we're still talking about them halfway through the year.

So the uh it was confusing for staff to be able to actually execute the directive that we gave them.

So the intent here is to say um, and again, correct me if I'm wrong, Scott.

We have passed a budget to fund the projects in front of us for 2026.

It came out of this year's tax requisition.

That that is what our taxes were based on, as well as grants and other things that that have added up there.

Yeah, and that's what I've got a problem with.

I mean, then we've also approved 2027, 2028.

No, we haven't done the 26 budget.

We have not, Council Rogers.

Don't pull it out of scope here.

This this is we are the way we are have been doing things has been um shaving a half a year off the delivery because we're still talking about them within the year that that we were expecting to have them done.

It's not best practice for staff to be successful.

We need to come up and say we're approving these projects.

When the year starts, staff goes ahead and builds those things.

And I hear that.

What's interesting is that we've we've made some dis suggestions back in June and today we see that staff are also suggesting that um there could be other deferrals relating to the parks master plan.

They've also suggesting uh five other uh projects that could also be furred and deleted.

So, you know, we haven't missed the boat here in in terms of identifying which other ones can come on that list, right?

Right.

Good.

As long as we give staff some firm direction about the things to advance on before we get into the year that they should be advanced.

That that that is the intent, I believe, and what we're doing.

Yeah.

Right?

But we've got questions or comments.

So Councillor Brown, go ahead.

Yeah, I'm just curious.

I don't see the Atkins Road sidewalks in here set on a different list or a different time.

I don't understand why that's not on there.

Uh yeah, Chair Atkins Road is actually a 2025 budget.

So it's uh not part of the 2026.

Council Brown.

So I was happy with staff's recommendations for what to defer and not to do.

But for all the other ones, there there's a a number of them that I don't think, you know, uh that I actually approved or voted to approve.

And so my preference would be we go through all of those, even if it's you know just one at a time, just to make sure we're we're okay with them.

Because it's it's already there's it's it's really complex right now to start picking and choosing which ones out of this list, because I didn't know we would exactly be doing this.

I thought we were going through all of them.

Sure, we can we can handle this however we want.

The like I said, the intent is that we give some staff.

This is already funded in the budget.

There's a list of uh deferrals that are recommended, um, and there's some other things that folks are waiting on for things like hiring.

Um, but I'm happy to go through this one by one.

How do we want to handle that, Scott?

Will staff take notes as we go through these?

Quickly would be great, but staff are keeping notes.

I just want to remind council this is a list of projects that are currently approved.

What staff are seeking is a shorter list of projects that council is not confident in moving forward with in 2026 and would like to defer to our next set of budget deliberations.

So we're we're looking for a short list of projects that we we won't move ahead with, despite being authorized to move ahead with for 2026 alone.

Okay, thank you.

Uh would that meet your needs, Councillor Mattson?

Yeah, even if it's a quick discussion, I have some questions, just sure questions.

Okay, let's uh start at the beginning.

And for those of you following at home, I'm on uh the staff report for it.

Um and we'll go to page.

Oh I think I bypassed some.

Let's go to the first project here.

I think my other comment was staff had made some recommendations on items they wanted to defer.

And I was happy with those.

It's just the ones that aren't included in that list that I wanted to go over quickly.

So you want to focus on those ones?

Let's go through them all.

Because somebody will come up with something and uh we wouldn't have done it.

So let's uh go through each one.

Okay, so I am on for those of you following uh along at home.

I'm on page number three, and it is the OCP.

Any questions about that?

I do have a question.

Sure.

So we have to redo our OCP every five years, and we have a $300,000 cost to do redo this OCP.

So my question is, are we going to have to incur another three hundred thousand dollars like five years down the line to do another OCP?

And isn't there a better way of doing I it it just seems like a a lot of money to redo every five years if that's the case.

And and please don't take this as a I'm I'm doing this in terms of taxpayer dollars not as a critique of of anyone on staff.

So this is just before I can approve something I have to know that it's a good expenditure money.

So through through the chair the um the budget that council originally approved to complete the OCP is is um what we need to complete the OCP.

In terms of the um five year update to align the OCP with the um next housing needs assessment uh we'll have to I believe it is we've budgeted about $25,000 for that in twenty twenty eight is that correct to look it up here anyway.

No that's what do we do in 20 I yeah that's not in the budget currently.

Okay it's not in the current it's not pardon me it's not in the current budget but the question was what about five years in five years and so what I'm saying is if you look at the 2025 to 2028 plan it's it's in there and it's not gonna be a full OCP rewrite where it's you know a couple hundred thousand dollars it will be much less than that um but it'll depend at you know the council at the time what you know what they want to do.

Okay that's that's my main question about that so as we go through these so there's no misconception because we're gonna recommend to council that these approved and staff will come back at the next council meeting and say the committee of the whole recommends these projects be approved right so nobody's got any problems with the OCP that we've already gone through Scott um just a minor point of clarification, these projects are already approved.

So we're really seeking resolutions or recommendations for projects that we don't want in the budget any longer.

Okay that that'll make it.

Sounds even more expedient.

So I'll just whiz through these if somebody wants to stop me.

Uh full-time firefighter staff inspections increase 2026.

Questions about it?

Sure.

Is the chief around here?

No, he just left on it.

Yeah, so is this something we actually had to do be because of our union agreement?

Uh I just wondering why we have to add four new firefighters.

Chief first, I think there's a question for you here.

So my question is, the four new firefighters, I know it's over a number of years.

Um, is this something we had to do because we've unionized uh or like whatever happened to them volunt, you know, I'm happy the way our system's currently working.

Um, why do we have to have four new men at the cost of half a million dollars and four percent tax?

Okay, thank you.

That's a good question.

So to be candid, uh the the paid on call model is is gonna remain.

Um, but the challenge we're running into is our paid on call members are being hired at a rapid rate throughout British Columbia.

And we're running out of people, qualified people.

Um four uh when you refer to four firefighters being hired, that's just the tip of the iceberg at this point.

Um, I would suspect over the next couple of years we'll be asking for upwards of 12 to 16 paid firefighters in addition to what we have now just to meet our staffing needs.

Um Langford just hired uh 40.

Uh City of Culwood's just doing a fire master plan, which is probably going to recommend somewhere in the probably the 20 range to hire.

Um I was going to propose a fire master plan, and that's in the neighborhood of about $100,000.

And I'm pretty confident that once that plan gets done, it's going to recommend anywhere from 12 to 16 career hires for the fire department.

Um just with the number, the sheer number of calls, the change in the demographics of the population.

The West Shore is seeing, you know, what close to 100,000 people now.

Um with our First Nations, we're sitting around 15,000 with our population.

Um to give you a comparison I think Oak Bay is around 17,000 people and they have over 30 career positions.

So there's there's just going to be a massive shift here in the in the demographics.

The PoC model will remain but keeping qualified and and experienced firefighters we're we're fighting a losing battle at this at this point.

All our qualified people they just get up to speed and then Sanich Victoria Oak Bay Esquamalt and other departments of the mainland just start hiring them and then we end up with a an average years of service somewhere in the you know one and a half to two years range, which is is unsustainable for us.

We can't provide the the service that we're obligated to provide.

So when we say four, I would I would start telling you to think four and then start thinking eight and start thinking twelve.

The numbers are just it'll still be a composite model department to offset.

Um, but I'm talking with my colleagues and they're they're currently budgeting for for mass staff hirings and budget numbers of three to four hundred thousand dollars a year just in overtime to cover uh missing positions.

Sorry for the bad news, but that's kind of the reality of where we're sitting right now.

Thank you, Chief Hurst.

Any other questions for Chief?

I didn't like that answer.

I knew you wouldn't.

Understand.

Uh so uh there's no problems with it.

We're just gonna pull things out by exception.

Um lost one.

Any challenges with that?

So again, question 75k.

What are we spending 75,000 on?

And do we need does this mean we're hiring consultants and like because we have a whole bunch of consultants being hired, and everything at 75,000 just seems to be a number.

And like how will we establish this?

And do we can't we do these things in-house?

Um nope.

We do not have the um the the technical expertise to carry out these um these uh this bylawn house.

Um to give you um majority of municipalities have had to go out to consultants.

Um I also know municipalities who thought they could do it at house in-house did not have the expertise to do it.

We are have legislation on terms of how we're supposed to create these amenity contributions, um, pardon me, these amenity cost charges bylaws, because we can no longer have um require um community amending contributions to our policy.

So we need to establish amenity cost charges by law, or we will no longer get amenities um contributions.

And so this is a very important project that we do need to do.

Um I believe it's also um covered under um some of the funding that we have received from the province.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh next one is uh Helmkin Centennial Park Master Plan.

And if uh I mentioned any of these and their staff is recommending deferring, can you let us know right off the top because I don't have two lists in front of me?

Um any questions on the master plan?

My understanding that this is a deferral for the parks master plan in 2027.

Okay.

So this is uh a deferral request, so this will be deferred, and the expense, I'm assuming, will be also deferred.

Uh we'll move on to community satisfaction survey.

Your worship, can we can we take a vote to make that recommendation?

Uh yeah certainly can um so the Helmkin so here's the motion Helmkin Centennial Park Master Plan will be consolidated with the overall parks master plan for 2027 I don't think it's going to be consolidated but it has it certainly find a better adjective for me Council Rogers I don't want an explanation I mean it it is a separate project so after the Parks Master Plan you would have a master plan for this part so would the wording be deferred after yeah the master?

I think that's the point, isn't it?

Okay.

So for the Helmkin Centennial Park Master Plan to be deferred after the Parks Master Plan in 2027.

Sure.

So seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Online.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries, and we'll move to community satisfaction survey.

Any questions about that?

Do we actually need this?

And just now there's 45,000 that I thought we were hiring somebody who could do uh surveys, etc.

I I personally thought we get tremendous benefit from this.

The last one was done in what 2019, I think Leanne was uh and it had all kinds of good stuff and we've deferred something similar since I've been mayor and it would be nice to kind of contrast uh what the changing uh satisfaction levels are in the town to be honest with you especially with all the development and new folks coming in we've have grown by several thousand yeah my my question is can't we do it in-house didn't we hire a valid question to do that Leanne um sorry, I'm not Leanne, but uh I can answer this.

I think there is some of this project we can do in-house.

When the original project summary was put in place, we hadn't hired our part-time communications and engagement specialist so um we can come back next next budget cycle uh with a revised costing on this project.

Downwardly revised costing.

You need a motion?

No, not no.

Okay.

All right.

So uh so again we'll uh take a look at the costing for um the community and satisfaction survey and little road park plan.

I would move this should be deferred to after the park master plan.

That the parks master plan is 2027, right?

Um through the chair, no, we're hoping to begin that project in 2026 and it would be completed in 2027.

Completed in 2027.

Yeah.

My problem with that in deferring too long is we've probably got the densest street that's closest to that park, right?

Uh as far as population goes right now and that Riksgang lane.

Yes, sir.

Little Road is Or sorry, game it's not Game Road.

I was thinking the other one.

Yeah.

Uh again, uh though we've got a very dense uh apartment building going next to the Little Road Park.

And uh by deferring this again later on, it's kind of denying any sort of immediate or relatively expedient opportunities there.

That's my only concern is that the two areas that are fastest growing and most developed do have adjacent land that's probably needs some some eyes on to make it better but we're deferring that until at least 2027 probably 28 be 29 before we get a shovel in the ground to do anything.

One of the one of the uh challenges of aspire getting uh to little road um is that they can't and what I would be hoping for is that uh through the parks master plan, we all would be working creatively with landowners and sandwich to maybe create a path uh so that they would it they would be able to uh gain access directly to Little Road without having to go into square.

So I think the Parks Master Plan helps that strategic planning with our with Shanich and other neighbors.

Okay.

And my only other question about the parks master plan.

Wouldn't they have comments on all of our parks?

I mean, other than just saying we need more parks here and more parks there, they also would review what we currently have to provide short information on shortfalls.

I'm just wondering why we have to do an individual park plan for each park when we're doing a bigger park plan.

That good question.

Okay.

Um uh through the chair, that's a great question.

Um, the parks master Plan definitely dives into details, but the master plans, for example, like the Riddle Little Road Plan and the Helmkin Centennial Parks Master Plan really get into the finer details, which assists with implementation and budgeting in the future.

So it's um it is helpful.

It is quite common for uh municipalities to do um conceptual plans for for parks, um especially when it involves um building and operating maintaining infrastructure in those parks from an asset management perspective.

So it's uh it is it is good planning and best practice to do that.

And with the Little Road park one, um I I believe that uh we have communicated to the to the residents that we will be asking them what they want for Little Road Park because right now it's a hay field.

So um that was also the intent of developing a more of a small scale master plan for this particular site.

So uh no change to Little Road Well I moved at I think I moved there to be deferred to uh after the 2027 or after the park after the master part yeah okay after the master plan yes do you want us to move this one too Scott okay uh move the the speed defer uh little road park plan be deferred until after the um parks master plan uh seconded seconded by councilor Matson all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries uh asset management program improvements uh questions about it no questions okay uh was there any staff recommendation with that defer it for 50 years would that be proper asset management it's an ongoing program I would say.

Um, so 25,000 a year.

Well worth it, in my opinion.

Does it save us money after we it um it creates data to drive decisions, which I know you like, um, on asset investments.

So inf infrastructure guidance.

I'm okay with that.

We gotta work on the cool factor in engineering, just saying, Ivan.

Um, so asset management and asset management always has the best reports.

It's hard to say no to asset management.

Um truth and reconciliator uh reconciliation awareness.

Yeah, just my only comment on that is I've done a number of and maybe you've done them too, like the blanket ceremony and things, and I just don't know how much benefit there is in terms of learning about how to deal with our adjacent neighbors from those types of that types of training, and maybe there's something better we can do like actually just meet with them and Leanne.

Through the mayor um this is actually an ongoing operating item uh and um it's actually a budget to um allow staff and council to do indigenous cultural training um as well as any other um relationship building that we can do with the First Nations so it's not just ceremonies um it's also to allow staff to do indigenous cultural training which many of staff many of our staff have done.

Seeing no comments on that one um and that wasn't one obviously that staff wanted to pull out.

Uh we'll go to the next one.

Cool it climate action leadership training.

Yes, cool.

Uh any comments, questions?

Just okay.

Nada.

Uh and this brings us.

Uh I should have a question.

Yeah, go ahead.

Uh does that one go to the tender and how did we come up with the two hundred thousand?

Uh through the chair that's based on my discussions with other directors of the municipalities, both large and small.

It's usually around that amount.

Um it's actually lower than what the Goring rate is, but we feel that uh we can do some value added and do some work ourselves.

So this uh it's a the minimum number we would recommend.

Uh and then that brings us to sanitary sewer master plan update.

Questions for Ivan on it?

No, that was cool it.

Uh that was Park's master plan that we're talking about.

Any questions?

No questions going by that one DCC update.

How does this differ from the last uh right okay okay any questions about that is that another consultant and do we have to do that outside or C and C's okay um so this DCC update is a consider major update basically there's two different updates that the DCCs can be done uh staff have already administered the minor update a couple years ago however when it comes to a major update that's a lot more work and so yes we would require a consultant and in order for us to be a more efficient with consultant costs um myself we're partnering with director uh director taylor here with respect to the CACs so it'll be hitting two birds at one still in with the cost.

Council Roger?

Yes um I I note in in the description that the DCC projects aligned with updated master plans and as we're doing with the transportation master plan and the sewer master plan and soon the but the the parks master plan will will we be doing the DCC um review before we've had a chance to have the parks master plan done?

Yeah thank you chair that's a good question.

Council and staff have the ability to uh separate the DCC program should they wish and so um if the question comes up of hey, we should probably get the master plan done first before we enact the DCCs, then there's opportunities for staff to break that and to make sure that uh the DCC program considers parks updates.

Okay.

Next question, if I may, um uh we've got the the DCC bylaw and then we've got the amenity cost charges bylaw.

Will these be uh created to be um complementary and supportive of each other in in terms of what our community needs?

Uh through the chair, I'll start and and um director Lung may will may want to add, um there they actually address completely different charges, and so it's very clear under the Local Government Act what um a municipal um government can ask amenity cost charges for.

They've actually expanded that to cover like recreational facilities, um, fire halls, things like that, um, whereas DCC's is strictly like roads and sewers and you know parks and things like that.

So they do um they do um cover two different types, like two separate charges.

They're completely separate.

Uh so that one is no change uh traffic count data collection, just remind council.

This is frequently on our agenda.

I would not like to change it uh if this was an adequate sum to continue the data flowing in.

Ivan.

Thank you, Chair.

Um a good chunk of this work has already been done as part of the Transportation Master Plan, both as part of the report that's coming forthcoming in about a year and also the the pre-counts that staff did in support the Transportation Master Plan.

However, it does say in the project summary that staff don't recommend this because it's redundant with existing um existing processes that are that we're undergoing.

So council may wish to keep this in here.

That said, uh should council wish to keep this in here then I'm sure staff can find other intersections that haven't been counted to to do this work.

I'm okay with leaving it in for now given public concern of a growing community if that's okay with you.

Uh seeing nothing online for response.

All right.

Um so I think we're overriding your request to defer it uh and just to keep it in there because I think it was some money well spent.

It's kind of council's um risk mitigation plan for complaints on speed.

Um parks and trails master plan.

I again do I understand the staff are asking for deferralness from 2026 to 27 or no?

We're good.

Uh through the chair, no.

We are we would really like to begin this project in 2026 and um and it will take it will take between 12 to 18 months to complete, and council may require recall that uh staff have applied for a grant.

I just had a question to staff uh uh i'm not sure if it's still the case but historically i kept hearing that our equipment in various parks wasn't csa approved because csa changed standards and is there any way we could when we buy playground equipment we buy things that aren't going to be out of uh date in 10 years we have to throw a perfect when I think it's perfectly good equipment.

Uh through the chair um we do have a project summary on playground replacement, which is further down the list.

So that's a good question to ask at that time.

Okay, uh, thank you.

So that one stays the same invasive species removal program portage park.

No problems.

Uh seeing nothing online.

Sewer gravity main upgrade.

I did have a question too.

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, just um how do our uh so do we if we've been collecting DCCs for this and it's gonna pay for it, or will our new DCC plan incorporate uh this item or once we build it, we we can't collect DCCs for it, right?

Uh yeah, through the chair, once we build it, it's it's no longer we no longer collect for it.

Um the new sanitary master plan will introduce new projects where the revised DCC fees will pay for those for those future projects.

So DCC is covering this particular sewer line.

Uh yeah, through the chair, that's the plan.

Um it is a high cost, 1.84 million dollars to do this extensive uh sanitary upgrade.

It's it was identified in our master plan as a as an upgrade that we should consider in the midterm, and the midterms now now.

It's been six years later.

Uh so you know I I don't think we added the actual inflationary cost associated with the deferring or delaying for those six years.

But that said, um DCCs to the extent available will be used and then topped up with sewer capital reserve.

Okay.

I so part of my question is just is there I mean you probably tell me I'm wrong in this, but if we deferred it until we redone the DCC plan that incorporated more money, more requirements to pay for the sewer line, is that a possibility or um through the chair, it's a very good question.

Um, offline uh maybe I can probably check with uh Director Vella here in terms of what our DCC is for sewers.

But that said, the plan is to cover it with the DCCs to the extent available and then sewer capital reserves.

So it's um it's uh is not with respect to taxation because it's going through reserves.

That said, um maybe if you just stand by and Director Vella and I can take a look at how much we have.

Thank you.

Dr.

Rogers.

Yes, thanks.

Uh it it certainly uh is an important uh upgrade to our our sewer system.

The um tonight we heard a presentation about three four six island highway.

Um is this um uh is this upgrade and and I gather the the the line is near capacity.

So is this something that we need to build in case that we were to go ahead with three four six or in case we were to go ahead with um the um the motor court, you know, the boardwalk area.

You know, do these benefit and um or and do the DCCs help this uh project along at all?

Yeah, through the chair, hydraulically speaking, um our 2019 master plan actually incorporated or assumed that development is going to happen in that specific area that Council Rogers is speaking to.

So it's a very good accurate representation of what's going to come down in the future.

So the the this project is quite timely given that there are there is interest in that property as well as the um the property across the street.

Uh are we going to have sewer overflowing off the manholes?

Um the answer is likely not.

Uh but that said we do want to mitigate risks in case of uh climate change and other INI events that could that could deal with that.

Um so it is a priority in staff in uh in the eyes of staff to get this done.

So unless anybody's got an objection we can that one is sorry just a question.

Important yeah go ahead Allison I guess I think it's what uh counselor Matson and Councillor Rogers are the point they're maybe trying to get to is like is it would it be beneficial to uh to us and the amount of DCCs to wait until future development is actually um planned or occurring um so that there's more f money to to complete this, or does it not matter?

Um yeah, through the chair, it doesn't really matter because sewer DCCs can only be used for sewer sewer projects.

So it's not like you can take this DCC fees for sewers and apply it to a park project.

They're they're all separate.

And because uh we don't have um other significant uh sewer projects that use the DCCs, it really doesn't matter.

Um uh is is you don't need to wait for development to happen.

It doesn't provide a benefit to do that.

Thank you.

Just yeah, can I just my c my question is I like that if that ever 260 unit play server does get built, I don't know if we've already dealt with DCCs with them and so they wouldn't have to pay any more, but it just seems like if you've just put a new sewer line to them, those there could be a requirement for DCCs for the the new 250 uh unit building and we would get a lot of this money back.

Is that my off base there?

And I think that's what Allison was saying too.

Chair, we're trying to digest the question.

I wouldn't mind it if Councillor Matson can re-ask that.

Thanks.

Sure.

Um if that 250 unit building started to make if if it looked like it was actually going to be built, do we still have an opportunity to charge them DCCs?

Which would for the sewer DCCs if you're because now that we know we need to spend 1.8 million dollars on it, uh, that those costs would be partially, if not all, covered by the proposed developments in that area.

Through the chair, it sounds like it's the question is being can we get into debt with DCCs?

I'm gonna say the word depth, it's not the right answer, it's not the right word, but I'm gonna say it just to to frame it.

It's almost like the question is can we go into debt with DCCs and then when the building comes in that we can top up to zero sum?

Um it's a good question.

I if we were to go with the uh the project next year, and if the DCCs don't pay for it, then how we will go about it is to use the DCCs to the extent available and then top up with sewer capital reserves.

So it wouldn't be so when you the next development comes in and they have to pay DCCs for that, that would be used for future DCC projects, but not specifically the um the project uh this project itself.

Okay, it's just unclear.

We can charge DCCs for sewer even if it they they already have the new sewer line built and there won't be a requirement for them to that building requires any additional sewer funds.

Um so yeah, through the chair, they still have to pay that DCCs in the to the full extent.

They're not gonna get a break from that at all.

Yeah.

You know, uh this uh we've been thinking about this one for a long time.

Staff have given this a high priority, and the business risks that have been identified in this this report is is um very substantial and um you know terribly relevant.

High priority as an overflow could have serious health risks.

And that's the way this all is flowing down to Craigflower Creek in in that vicinity, and the uh the uh climate events that we have uh this is of utmost importance so i'm I'm really pleased to see uh and and hope even if the the costs come in higher that we achieve this in 2026 thank you i think we're uh moved us down to curbs and sidewalks uh burnside road was this one that staff is recommending deferral uh council has already recommended deferring this one back in june okay so we don't need to deal with that one I'm assuming just the question in terms of deferral, does that mean sometime in the future it'll automatically be done, or we're deferring just discussion on it because we haven't made up our minds.

I just wanted some clarification what that means.

Uh yeah, through the chair, the right now the deferral is shifting this program one year.

So you'll notice that in the year 2025 we were supposed to do the design, which is 90 $90,000.

Uh we've actually shifted that um as part of the 2025 budget deliberations so that that ninety thousand dollars starts in 2026.

Okay, so what you're saying is if we just defer this, we're approving the 1.8 million dollars for sidewalks on Burnside.

We don't need so let me let me again we're we're deferring this.

We're not do not want to build this in 2026 because I think the whole message was that if we had we should be waiting for Santach because we're just gonna go up to a dead end street and uh still be just as dangerous.

So it's um I mean this is going to be a continuous diversion and uh until staff um and sands can coordinate the resources.

Scott, that's exactly right, Councilor Rogers.

We don't want to build a sidewalk to nowhere um in a town that has a lot of need for sidewalk.

So we'd we'd like to have a bit more time to work with Sanich and see what their plans are, if any.

Uh it may not come back in 2026 on the project list.

It it may be a few years out, but we won't we won't lose track of the project.

Okay.

Can I just ask one more question?

So it will come back to a future council to talk about whether they want to do this.

Okay.

So it isn't etched in stone that we've approved it.

Thank you.

That's what I wanted to clarify.

If if I may um hi.

Seems to me that the residents of the street don't want it.

And so if I I'd be okay with putting it off until you know Sadich is actually prepared to um to beat the sidewalk at their end.

I I I got you I think that's where we're at right now.

We're we're all in saying different words and coming up with the same thing.

So we're not doing it this year, so we can defer it.

Um it is in rough shape.

The current sidewalk there now.

It'll require some attention at some point, but uh completely in agreement with all the comments everybody's said.

I think that we can we can defer this one uh because it'll knock down a whole bunch of trees.

Uh and there's not a lot of room to build this sidewalk there.

Um so uh so can we move on?

Um intersection improvements, Helmkin Road and Wakisway comments on that.

Yeah, I have no idea what we are approving.

Uh with this could bring us back with some pictures or something, because I'm uncomfortable doing this when I'm not even sure what it looks like.

We we've talked about this a number of times, but what the final outcome is I don't know.

I don't know what sort of how it's going to improve traffic and again it's a lot of money so I just would like to see it come back to us for discussion.

Okay.

So Rogers Bye.

Uh thank you chair yeah that's uh that's the um staff heard that when we presented it to council a few months back so staff are actually um getting additional analyses out on that um on this project uh with the help of mayor to bias when we had a we had a chat on the on on the site there and so uh by the near the end of this year uh council can um expect to hear a presentation from staff regarding the options and uh hopefully the council decisions then or the inquiry will help inform on uh this project which is the the construction side of things so that 1.1 million was uh provided in there last year but it was it wasn't um that was that was prior to us presenting so that number can change depending on the on the option that council chooses ivan i've got uh one question for you and that is i think the neighborhood's main concern around that has to do with safety.

There is now no left turn out anywhere that is you can't take a left turn from Camden, and you can't you don't have an advanced left here.

So we've kind of isolated an entire neighborhood to exit safely.

Um the other concern that the neighborhood has backed up by some vehicle on pedestrian is the crosswalk.

Is there a way to separate this out from the bigger than everything and expedite the safety of getting across the road to Eagle Creek and back and taking a left-hand turn?

All of the other things could come in time, but is there a way that we could do those things and defer and further study or whatever the rest of it?

Because there's some things that are going to be developed on 338-32.

The rest of those, uh pretty much the rest of the rows um have been for sale.

I'm not sure the current status as well as the access that um the new development that's already been approved will go down Canard Street.

So is there a way to take care of safety and kind of limit scope as a priority and do that and kind of break the project?

Uh yeah, Chair, that was the exact direction council gave to staff a few months ago.

So staff are working on it, and that's why we retain a specialist for it.

The law the short answer is that it's um is unfortunately not as simple as that, given the complexity of that intersection.

So uh we expect to present to council on that fairly soon.

Uh Council Rogers.

Thanks, Ivan.

Yes, I and I think uh staff you already say further analysis required due to the complex needs of the intersection and of course the bush on shoulders project.

Um, you know, when I rem I recall this uh in as part of the active transportation master plan, you know, that it was tied into uh going across the Helmican interchange all the way to um um you know Helmican Park.

And that that that's the part that makes me really nervous that um we're gonna be committing one point um one million um on a whole bunch of things, possibly the l the last scenario was uh uh um taking away traffic lanes and and um and we've already heard from neighbors the the concerns of traffic and the congestion already in that area so like the mayor says if we can focus on the pedestrian safety uh um and those kind of things don't and and we're not going anywhere near closing and removing um vehicle lanes then um let yeah hopefully we understand that what the direction is that we're not in I hopefully council is not intending to spend one point one million yeah.

Lights are cheap.

So I'm I'm I'm again I'm just really super nervous with this and gun shy from uh from previous discussions and presentations.

Okay, so I think uh that brings us down to View Royal Avenue drainage Beaumont to Stuart, uh any uh Beaumont to Plowright.

Any concerns there?

Ivan, is that a deferred?

So C017, yes, staff have uh recommended deferral of this.

Does that mean we're not expecting any more water there?

Or it's uh yeah, the chair, it's a I I inherited this project when I first came here, and it's a weird one.

Um it has to do with on site drainage, which we don't generally get involved in.

Um that said, uh staff have been monitoring the drainage in the area, making sure the water control curves are still intact and things seem to be fine there.

We haven't had any complaints in the last ever since I've been here, to be honest.

So uh, you know, I would recommend deferral, you know, perhaps also cancellation of the project outright.

Okay.

Thanks, Sab.

So that one is deferred.

I don't think you need uh vote on that.

D uh seconded.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

Is that what you're looking for, Ellena?

Uh Admirals Road, active transportation improvements.

Yeah, can we bring this one back to us again?

I just my last recollection is we'd be losing a lane and for and putting a huge cycle lane in.

And I I just I've I have problems with that.

Even as a cyclist, I mean I used it to last week.

And anyway, I just should come back to us to make sure we I know what I'm voting for.

Okay.

Uh Ivan?

Yeah, thank you, Chair.

It's a this is a multi-step process.

It's you can you'll notice in the project summary, there's three three years worth of costs.

First year's First Nations engagement, which we're in progress right now.

Second year's design plus engagement, because there's five different government organizations we need to engage.

So right now, the reason why council has not seen anything just yet is because the conceptual options are right now with the Ministry of Transportation and Transit.

And once they tell us what uh maybe approval or not as accepted within their road quarter, that's when we'll present to council.

So um I think the the concerns are are are well noted.

We we can we appreciate that because uh the ministry has been taking a bit of time on on the concept plans.

Is is there an opportunity, I've been here?

Because what uh uh just for council's benefit, the MLA contacted me, as everybody may be aware of, there was a death um uh pedestrian uh that was struck by a vehicle, uh, a member of Songhees Nation.

Um it's not the first time that it's happened there.

Uh it's a complex area, not only for the crossings, but for the amount of communities that are involved.

Two First Nations, uh Squimalt, uh municipality, View Royal, San It's just across the bridge.

You know, it's it's a mess, plus it's about to get messier.

Ivan, can we defer this one in a way that we focus on getting that group together?

Not necessarily a leadership role, but I think for us to do anything, like there's gotta be buy-in from all of those communities to come up with its own little master plan for that area.

Is that best practice?

Um I would like to say yes, because that's like self-fulfilling in the sense that staff are already doing this as part of our transitation master plan that we're doing right now.

So uh shows alignment that you know what what council is thinking is exactly what you know we're doing.

Um so this year the Transitation Master Plan will have extensive engagement with governmental organizations, which includes uh Santa Chesquimal, Sepsim, Songhees, uh Ministry of Transportation, Transit, BZ Transit, because the Route 40 is there as well.

So this this uh road quarter will be a highlight.

Um it will it'll look at things from a master plan level, and um the trickle-down effect after that will be looking at uh detailed design.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers?

Yeah, point about taking um, you know, to take it back to Maple Bank and that whole stretch, you know, with Song's Esquamble.

Um, and and part of that um uh squamout aspect is um the fact that we have the uh bidirectional EN.

Um and uh that was fine back in uh 1994, maybe or whatever that was, 2004, but now we've got a new road, and now we're going to have a lot more commercial and traffic um coming off of those new roads.

And and um, and I think and I hope CRD is um with their ENN trail will also be uh partner and partner here to this and and the conceptual ideas on the dangers of the uh bi-directional bike lanes with the traffic coming out of these intersections, particularly if there's going to be on on this quantum band a large commercial area.

That would be again another risk to the uh local residents.

And don't forget the fast moving train.

Uh that too.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So anyway, it's um concept.

Um I I don't mind um spending the uh 300, 140, whatever the um 300,000, but as long as these are concepts that um we're going to still be fluid on uh that we would be uh taking it to the public and and getting support and and our neighbors.

Thank you.

So just for clarification, we aren't doing anything with this.

I mean, I thought staff have told us what they're doing in terms of discussions, but in terms of the 4.6 or whatever, that'll come back.

I think the first couple of years were just engagement that you've got had earmarked uh for there anyway, correct?

Uh I just wanted to remind council we're seeking $300,000 for the design and not to do the design tonight, but we will come back with that design in many phases next year.

So we're not approving the design now.

If we just put providing the money for the design that we'll eventually approve.

That's exactly right.

Thank you.

Hopefully I didn't miss any there.

North Burnside drainage improvements.

Staff's recommending deferral.

All those in favor.

Okay.

So moved.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries and that brings us down to playground replacement program.

Counselor Matson's favorite topic.

That's that that's just my question about staff recommending deferral.

But yeah until after the plague staff recommending deferral until my other question too is just about if you could deal with the CSA thing.

That that just drives me insane.

Thank you, Chair.

I'll I'll I'll first answer the deferral part.

Um the Chancellor Park upgrades is taking a bit more time to secure uh the design and concept because it is supposed to be uh fully accessible rated.

So staff that's part of this year's and it's taking quite a bit more time.

Uh next year's program is supposed to be the Chalmers Park upgrades, and given um staff levels of service, uh staff recommend a deferral of the Chalmers Park project by a year, um, just so that we could finish off the Chancellor Park.

The answer to the second question with respect to CSA requirements.

Uh we always strive to design to CSA requirements of the day.

So it's not like um like our playground's 10 years old, we have to bring it up to CSA requirements update now.

So let's spend money on it.

It's more like we have a brand new playground uh replacement that the C the that we model it to the current CSA requirements for risk management purposes.

Um just a question, Ivan.

Is is the design I forget right now for Chancellor Park, there's kind of a jungle gym and a slide, and or maybe that's all in one and a swing.

Um no uh no pain if you don't remember, but i is there an opportunity to reuse those ones or give them to other I don't know, um municipalities don't have anything.

Uh yeah, uh thank you, Chair.

The we can certainly strive to see if someone wants to have it rehomed.

I know I know that some counselors may be aware of one upgrade a few years ago where I believe the old equipment it was set aside to get removed and then it ended up in someone's backyard uh nearby.

And um that had risk repercussions on that quite simply because no one knew if those could be rehomed or if there was any issues with that equipment.

Um you know, preliminary findings have suggested that uh there may be a home for it.

Um we are challenged, however, by the fact that when you remove this equipment, it's a good chance that it'll break.

So it's yeah, it's it's almost like a we have to remove the find out.

Because it's mostly aluminum, I'm assuming and probably brittle by now.

Okay, thanks.

Uh just wanted to ask, but I also looking at cost savings, because the one the standards for CSP may have changed, but the prices have certainly gone up for the equipment.

And I'm just thinking that if we've got a lot of kids in Little Road or uh in Aspire and we're planning on doing Little Road, and part of that might be a swing or something that uh it might be a good investment to even refurbish those ones if that was the intent and put them there.

Um but uh but I can defer that to when the time comes.

So any other comments on the plague ram replacement program, and you're saying that this is not deferred, Ivan.

You're saying that parts of it aren't.

Um staff would recommend the deferral of the Chalmers Park project and to keep the Chancellor Park project.

And uh Director Taylor and I have been chatting because there is a timeline associated with the Chancellor Park was simply because we have a substantial grant.

So um I believe it's the other people's money principle is to try to spend it as soon as we can.

Absolutely.

OPM.

Uh thanks, Ivan.

Uh do we need uh any motion on that, Ivan?

Sorry, uh Chair, we we could really much use a uh vote on the deferral of Chalmers part.

So moved.

Second.

Moved by uh to defer Chalmers Park by a year, correct, Ivan?

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And where are we at now?

Uh is it island highway upgrades, four mile trestle?

Uh your worship, this was tabled in June.

Yeah, I would I would uh move deferral on this one.

Um while I'm I'm pleased that um the proposed uh project objectives no longer uh incorporates a multi-use path.

Um I think um this is not something that we have to rush into since the Christie Point developers going nowhere.

Um and um um I am deeply concerned that we will be removing a lot of trees.

So um I really don't and I the the problem is with this uh the the bookends is how do you get I think there were plans of getting into the up to the ENN on one end and and getting across shoreline.

Um you know it's um if we got a better idea of how the bookends were going to be working uh then there might be some uh understanding and willingness to spend this little bit of money uh for the big money of uh 1.5 million so it's a staff's recommendation to no it's my council's already made that recommendation back in June.

That's I'm I'm agreeing that.

Deferred as in we'll talk about it sometime in distant future yeah not approved that is that what that means uh bus shelters ivan so wait a minute we do we have to vote on that uh do you need we took a vote on that back in june okay so moved uh bus shelters any concerns yes so nothing there to add ivan we've already committed the funds um thank you, Chair.

With respect to the bus shelter installation program, we haven't spent it just yet.

I believe the plan is to spend $130,000 on it in 2026.

And um it's basic to install a whole bunch of uh bus pads at once as opposed to incremental.

It's a lot cheaper to do it that way.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh I've got no concerns or questions.

Anybody else?

Nope uh parks vehicle replacement plan.