Committee of the Whole

Good afternoon, uh View Royal, and welcome to the committee of the whole for April 9th, 2024.

And we'll begin with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Laquanguin speaking people known today as the Esquamalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

For those that are participating by telephone, if you wish to provide comments, call 778 402 9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 400 536 904 Pound.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then announce the last four digits to your phone number, ask you to mute uh the live webcast to avoid feedback, ask you not to use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and the street name for the record.

Uh speakers will have five minutes each to speak during the public participation and two minutes to ask a question during question period, and you will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

You are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website forever.

So uh called to order.

So I'd like to uh get an approval or motion to approve the current agenda.

So move.

Moved by counselor lemons, seconded by councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And can I get a motion to adopt the minutes of the previous uh council hall meetings?

Moved by councilor Brown, seconded by Councillor Qualwich.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And I think we have no petitions and delegations, Sarah.

Correct.

Which brings us to public participation period.

Would anybody in the chambers like to address counsel on any issue?

Okay.

Carol, anybody on the phone would like to address council?

Mayor Tobias, we've had no callers so far.

Thank you very much.

And down to our business items, and I will pass the chair over to Protective Services.

Counselor Brown, please.

Yeah, welcome everyone to the Protective Services portion of the meeting, the committee.

Anytime personally I've referred items on to them from the public, they've been very, very quick to respond and a lot of detail.

I know recently there was a problem, some um crime happening around um Eagle Ridge Village.

And uh I was able to put the complainant on touch with Todd, who assigned it to Corporal Gavin, who did an interesting job and sent me a very detailed report back, which I was really appreciative of.

And I thought uh Corporal Gavin saw a real common name.

I said, I used to work with a guy called Darren Gavin.

He said, Oh, that's my dad.

I worked with him in Burnaby and in uh Ninaimo, so that was kind of cool.

But anyways, just a kudos to the department as a whole.

I I think everyone finds that that they get good response when they quit contact with the police.

So building department reports.

I think that's just for to receive for information.

Is that any stuff?

Is that right, Steph?

Building department report?

Or Leanne, do you have something to say?

Uh through the chair.

No, it's just um a motion to receive.

Thank you.

Do I have a motion to receive?

So moved by Councilor Rogers, seconded by count by Councillor Madsen.

All those in favor?

Approved.

And uh no new business.

So um sorry.

And can I ask uh that that maybe we consider Councilor Lemon had something and and maybe it's a takeaway for staff, but um I I believe the previous council had written a letter um uh opposing or requesting a solution for uh the mandatory uh the mandatory requirement to keep police at the hospital um while there is somebody in the hospital and uh it's been recently observed that those cars are there all day tying up in municipal police officer and in our case it's not only West Shore but you'll find Victoria police cars and Sanix police cars there as well.

Um so uh just maybe a check with staff just to say I think Councillor Lemon vaguely recommended an advocacy letter going out on behalf of council and whether staff could report at the next council meeting um uh whether that had gone out or whether we that would just been a discussion point.

And and the thought was if not, then we would potentially move to advocate another one.

Uh Scott, please.

Uh the corporate officer is just confirming that that letter has gone out.

Counselor Rogers.

Okay.

Counselor Rogers?

Yeah, hey, I'm just a little confused.

Um, what are we talking about?

Is this new business?

Under new business, yeah.

Oh, I didn't see it at it.

Okay, thank you.

To staff.

Um, that do we know when that letter went out?

Was it two years ago, three years ago?

Okay, yes, quite a quite a while ago.

It the issue has come up and it's continued to come up from time to time.

Um, and even recently, um, the inspector did speak about this issue.

So if I if I may, Chair, um, I'd like to move that View Royal Council send a letter, without being repetitive, urging the government to find a solution to police officers languishing in emergency rooms.

Um when they what while what attending to um attending to people who arrived by police car um and taking them off the off the beat and out of out of out of um productive service to the community and i'd be happy to second for discussion i just wanted to check in with the cao though because this is new business but what councilor lemon has done is actually made a motion seeing how we are not this in our current form we are a committee of the whole and not a council to approve uh and there's no way to interject really a motion should it best be served here that the committee, if passed, then recommend to council that the motion be adopted, or should this as a be brought up as a notice of motion at a council meeting?

I think ideally it should be brought up as a notice of motion at the next meeting.

Okay, so I'll submit it as a notice of motion.

That would be fantastic.

Okay.

Thank you.

So there's no need to call a question.

No.

Okay.

Any other new business?

Uh see none I'll turn.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Welcome to the Arts and Culture segment of this today's meeting.

Um, this would be very short.

I chair's report.

Um all I have to announce that is new is um regarding the Wanapuca Performing Arts Society, uh, which continues continues to meet, and we've been meeting here.

Um, Judith Cullington, the president of the Society and I met with Michael Wirth who was the VP of Regional Casinos for um Great Canadian regarding potentials in in and around well certainly not in now we know that around the casino for a performing arts society with that work as a um would it be symbiotic with with the with the casino or would it be problematic?

And certainly um there is interest depending on how it were to work and as as long as it didn't occupy all available parking space.

So those discussions are going forward.

He was going to send it up the chain of command and uh speak with his with his superiors.

And uh meanwhile we continue to feel out potentials for a site for the uh farming art center.

Any questions?

Yeah, sorry, I'm I'm confused again.

Um so Judah spoke to who, and there's a plan to have an art center and the casino lands?

No.

Okay.

There's not a plan.

There's not a plan.

We're we're searching possibilities.

There is, you know, there's there's been some discussion uh, you know, unofficially, of what if around the casino in that area, Bureau were to be, you know, the the kind of the West Shore um entertainment hub or an entertainment district.

Um we talked to him about the possibility of uh although recognizing the impossibility of a performing arts center within the casino because they got that huge 500 seat space that is so underused, but that's not really what is needed, what is required for a performing arts center.

Um so knowing that there is the potential of a hotel in the area, um, how that could work?

It would that, you know, would that be again symbiotic?

Could it go into the lower floor?

Could it go into the but that's but that's a conversation down the road to be held with any uh with the proponents of a possible hotel.

Councilor Manson?

Yeah I I think I mentioned this before but I was mocked but uh the library um is it possible to put a the West shore the library out at the WandaFuca Rect Center is it possible to put a second floor on there that could be turned into the the art center?

I mean obviously there's a cost involved but you don't have to worry about parking or the site because it's already there.

That's true.

That's and and that's that's not been brought forward.

And who mocked you you did counselor behman that has not been brought forward but i'll tell you what i have a uh i have a committee meeting uh with the library next week i'll i'll bring it up okay thank you counselor rogers so um at some point um will the judith and the society and the municipal reps bring back a motion to each the municipalities to start investing in a plan, like making a per capita contribution?

Yes.

Okay.

And in anticipation of that, um, I I note that the CRD uh arts commission VUO is paying stage two.

All the other municipalities are paying stage one.

So we're paying a significant portion towards the center core, whereas Highlands and Maturas are not.

And um and Colwood and Langford are not.

So um that might be an avenue to approach in in terms of the CRD housing.

And and I feel a notice of motion coming on.

Just if you just said CRD housing.

What do you mean?

Sorry, the Arts Commission.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll be making a notice of motion.

To the Arts Commission?

Yeah, notice of motion were um uh I would be suggesting that we drop from stage two to stage one, paying nine dollars as opposed to twelve or twenty, and uh reallocating the funds to the West Shore uh Arts Center.

Okay, in in time.

Well, you we have a contract where we have a year or two there to give notice that we're opting to a lower level or opting out of the arts uh commission.

So um, you know, now's the time to start it and and get Langford and Colwood in set up per capita arrangement.

Okay, bear in mind I still have to show my face at the arts commission.

I know.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

We're good.

And uh that's it for me.

So I'm turning the chair over to Mayor Tobias.

Thank you, Councillor Uh Lemon.

Uh just a bit of a report reminder for um those attending that AVIC courses this weekend starting Friday and running through until Sunday.

And of course that's the uh Vancouver Island Coastal Community Coalition that's been I think it's celebrating 75 years this year of um of getting together and one of the things uh topics on the um agenda is the circular economy uh and uh other things that have been before council as well you probably had your um inboxes inundated with uh people for or against a certain resolution so please forward your um thoughts um to me so uh as uh as representing there and just to confirm councillor mackenzie uh you're intending to attend uh anyone else from council counselor lemon as well um so i will uh see you there and without further ado i think we can pass the um microphone over to i think don for a citizen budget online engagement results thank you, Chair and committee.

I do have several reports here for you today.

The first one with Citizen Budget Online Engagement.

Council will all already be aware that the engagement has been out there since March 11 and it wrapped up on April 1st.

And this, of course, is focused on the budget.

We promoted the engagement opportunity over social media messaging through our website, through our RSS feeds.

And I do note that while the participation hasn't been remarkable in that we have had 50 participants, which is slightly lower than the prior prior year, the results are actually quite encouraging in that, generally speaking, support for the financial plan is supported.

You will see attached to the report to the cover report, the actual report from the consultants who manage the platform on which we do the engagement.

And that does include all of the verbatim comments that I think council may be interested in reviewing if you haven't already.

Not a statistically significant survey in that participants were not randomly selected.

We have no verification that any of the participants or how many of the participants actually reside or own property in View Royal.

So it just does need to be taken with a little bit of an understanding of that factor itself.

But certainly it should provide some flavor of what our you know some people are thinking about our financial plan and funding for the various services.

I do note that this year, as directed by council, we did add two kind of smaller surveys within this larger survey, one for the library, Greater Victoria Public Library System, and one focused on West Shore Parks and Rec.

And you will see the comments about those in within that survey as well.

But generally speaking, support uh was given for both of those services.

That is my report.

Uh questions, Councillor Rogers.

Thank you, Don.

Yeah, I think thank you.

It's um even though not statistically uh proven, it was really very useful to to see the um both the uh the scoring, as it were, and the the comments, um which I really appreciated.

Um uh and I do also appreciate the um Council McKenzie's asking that we had uh the G VPL onto this because that was very um uh very interesting to see.

Um I do have did have a let me see I don't know where where it is.

It um let me see that was on our page 16.

And I guess I had a question where um the frequency of visits to the library was uh never 21 and yet um there on the next one it said um interaction online or in in person so um um i just wonder if there was a maybe uh an interpretation issue where uh individuals said i i never go in but i'm online so that that might be the the messaging that uh that they're they're saying here and and the value for money and and all that uh i really appreciate the the questions that were asked uh of this and it does seem like we've uh got to up our sales pitch to regarding the west shore west shore parks and Rec.

I was um um not that pleased that we we were seeing um a a neutral satisfaction.

So I I think uh people need to clearly get the message on onto that.

The comments I thought were interesting.

What I also thought was interesting, there was almost a Facebook um tactic going on where people were commenting about other people's comments, which was really strange.

I mean, how would people be able to see my comments um uh on on the survey?

And then it was really starting to get into an interesting battle.

I would hope we didn't wouldn't have to do that.

Uh I just wanted to hear the people, not hear the battle.

Um so uh and I guess my last point and observation is that uh that really struck me we need to increase the tax base, not the tax increase.

Interesting point.

Just a question for you, Don.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor uh Rogers.

Um perhaps it it was the next step anyway.

Will this be, or I I would I guess turn this over to Counselor uh Qualitic and Counselors Lemon?

Um, in that could we make this available?

Is it necessary to formally do this for um Victoria Library and Wonderfika Wreck?

Or would you handle that um separately?

Would you want like a a formal uh report to go?

Here's what we've learned in View Royal.

Positive or negative, it's just feedback, right?

That that maybe would lead to better questions.

How how would you like uh counsel to handle that would you would you like a a formal this report with a covering letter to go to Victoria Library I I think because there were so few responses um I'd I'd be very comfortable just taking this to to a board meeting or to you know to to executive and then you know seeing if it should go to a board meeting if the if if if if we had dozens and dozens uh yeah it's it's a small sample but but might be used and Counselor Qualowich for the West Shore Parks and Rec, would you like a covering letter and report set separate or or just you would not at this time I'd consider the information anecdotal with a um low response rate, not worthy of uh uh an official cover letter.

I promise to communicate this at the next meeting to my colleagues and uh matter of fact, uh I will be asking my colleagues if they have any recent satisfaction uh surveys that they may have uh gone through and to see if they have any feedback from the West Shore uh Parks and Rec at all.

Thank you.

Counselor Mats?

Yeah, I mean, other than giving public an opportunity to comment, given the low response rate, how worthwhile is is it for us to do this?

Uh that's a question.

I think it had value in that it it gave us some feedback.

But I think overall our feedback for the entire survey was very low.

Not for just this question.

51 people or whatever is not a big response, and I don't know what the cost was.

And I think that's a good point to bring up, maybe looking at ways that we go through our engagements to increase the number of returns on this.

But did anybody have a problem with the survey itself?

The questions that were asked?

We can't control or couldn't control how many people comment on it, but are people satisfied with the report?

Council Brown.

I think it's just receive it and leave it at that.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll get a motion to receive.

Sure.

My only other comment is it might be indicative that people are generally happy, otherwise, they'd be complaining.

Always leery to jump to that conclusion, but I agree.

Counselor Roger.

Yeah, I I won't have that same conclusion.

Um I think the um the comments, and I again I appreciate the staff categorizing and giving the number of counts on on what you know what kind of issues um people were identifying.

Um I I just wonder how much um publicity we we put to it and um and if we really wanted a um a good turnout maybe we would have done some extra PR.

It I just think that um it's a good start and we can up our game and and really make it noticeable.

Maybe we give door prizes.

Okay Don, was it was consistent with other years?

How does this track with input from other years?

Is it about the same amount of respondents?

The prior year we had 57 participants and close to the same number of comments.

Uh you know, so I would say it it it's fairly close.

As far as advertising the opportunity, uh we did send out, and in fact, we did a boost on Facebook to try to garner more participation.

Uh I think social media was hit at least two times a week, one of which would have been a weekend.

Uh, and on our website, and you know, I think I think we have done a reasonable effort at uh at public publicizing the opportunity.

Uh I I might uh argue that uh if council wishes um professional survey people to actually do a random sampling and get results that way, that certainly is another option, however, it is as at a greater cost.

So we know that it was consistent.

Uh I think the only concern is there, and maybe council, we could take that away and weave that into our discussions on greater engagement for uh that are coming uh both for committees and and general engagement practices uh to take this as one of the opportunities that we we have uh for that.

But any other questions or comments?

Uh can I get a motion to receive?

And I think we got a motion to receive.

Uh just need a seconder for it.

Councilor Brown uh is the motion.

Council Lemon's a seconder.

All those in favor?

Thank you, Don.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, the next report is the 2024 to 2028 financial plan approval.

This is the culmination of a lot of work by both staff and council.

Certainly.

As we just talked about, people have had the opportunity to look at the information online.

And I do note that it's not only on our website as the document, but also the financial plan insights where people can uh interact with the financial plan and and uh focus on areas that they are of particular interest to them.

Since council uh you know focused its uh very focused effort on the on the financial plan in February.

There have been three items that are in this report that I bring to your attention as having changed uh the numbers in the financial plan.

The first one is that council has directed that a garbage collection service budget be increased by $5,000 for the bear safe bin pilot program.

That was a recent direction of council.

That has been added to the budget, and because it would be funded by cost recovery fees, it does not impact taxation.

It's a formula that is based on our use of the system.

And that amount has increased, and those increased costs will be covered by an increase in sewer fees.

And at this point in time, you know, kind of the outside is that sewer fees would increase up to 7%.

However, I do want to qualify that by saying that we don't have the consumption data yet.

And so we don't know how much of that would be borne by the residential rate versus the institutional and other rates.

That report will be coming to council later on, early fall.

The third item is that we identified that the budget had not been fully updated with the increased cost of RCMP per member.

We made that adjustment and found room to fund that through appropriately, I think, reductions in contributions to the police operating reserve.

Since if those costs are not realized, that is the reserve that would benefit from the savings.

So all three items, while incorporated into the budget, do not affect taxation.

That is the short notes on my on my report.

Happy to answer any questions if there are any.

Thank you, Don.

So uh for this year we're still projecting after you had taken into that for 2024 6.4 that was the reasoned percent increase the total amount of revenue required for the budget has not changed.

It's still $12 million and $25,000 roughly.

However, when compared to the prior year, this is where it gets just a little bit tricky in that when you're comparing two numbers using a percentage and one of those numbers change, the percentage is going to change.

And in this case, the 2023 number changed downward because of assessment, supplementary assessments, and that affects the percentage.

So now that difference is six point six percent thank you.

Any other questions, colleagues, comments?

Councilor Roger.

Um I guess there were there were other uh comments and i'm not sure where you're gonna put these um you know there was the uh suggestion of allocating still 100 000 as a placeholder for um that was in this report right that is in the uh financial plan uh at this top point in time yes okay um um i'm reluctant to uh support that i guess the other aspect is uh you know very recently um uh council supported being uh participants in the e-scooter pilot that the province is offering and um i'm convinced that that is going to be a cost to the town, both in terms of staff resources, signage, street cleaning, and um I I think um we kind of missed the boat in giving some kind of reasonable effort to cover those costs, anticipate the impact on staff resources, and that worries me on this budget.

I I don't see a cost for this to participate in a pilot so yeah no I I'm I disagree.

Is the um province going to be covering cost for signage thank you, Chair.

There's no signage required unless deemed if if and not to get into too much detail here, but if the town wishes to enact bylaws that vary from the regulation, then that would uh warrant additional signage.

But at this time no additional signage was required.

Yeah, we'll see about that.

Um I guess I'm also concerned about um staff um resources for enforcement um and complaints.

Uh through the chair, enforcement would be done by RCMP and per to previous staff report.

Um this regulation actually helps with their ability to enforce.

Yeah.

I'm thinking of um uh however, in North Vancouver, uh what they done, they had put um, they felt compelled, I guess, to put something on their um website uh specifically addressing this issue and and concerns to the public and a means uh to report those concerns and issues uh to the town that would be then investigated or passed on.

For s you know, so are we expecting the residents just to simply call the cops?

Um, Councilor Rogers, I'm gonna call a point of order that now you pulled something that's obviously a topic interest into you into an agenda item that really doesn't apply.

We're really talking about the financial plan approval, of which your topic doesn't even include as a line item, which I get your point.

You're you have a concern, but I still don't see that your questioning here advances really the topic that we're discussing.

Yeah, I I guess it should be a line item.

It's a it's a special project and and it requires to be a line item.

I'd like to move that we call the question.

We can certainly do that if there's no questions.

I don't want to limit questions uh right now, but I think given that point of order.

Uh do you have a question, Counselor Brown?

Yes, please.

And and Don, you may not have the answer to this, maybe uh more for the provincial government, but property assessments.

I've been a property owner in BC for 53 years now.

And I know we get the assessment every year, and usually it's a little bit lower than the actual market value.

But a lot of people have talked to me lately.

They're they're getting um notices from the provincial government asking them what improvements have you done and stuff.

So are they actually physically going to be uh checking these places out and and and their assessments may go up?

Uh I've never ex heard of that or experienced that before it's uh new to me.

I really can't speak for BC assessments.

Uh you know the the organization that actually does the appraiser val appraisal value um in my experience yes uh appraisers often do visit specific properties just to in neighborhoods I I can't really speak more than that uh about what they do and how they determine uh but certainly I know that BC Assessment is uh you know happy to to talk to property owners and help them understand why their assessment is different from maybe what they anticipated.

And do keep in mind that the assessment values are established in July, in this case, July of 2023 for the 2024 tax roll.

And uh, you know, sometimes there can be a leg in really responding to market.

Thanks.

I mean, I certainly heard of a situation where people have appealed and think their assessment's too high.

It's just really strange to me because again, I've numerous people have told me they're getting this question, or some of them are just throwing it away.

But if you said you know, you put a deck on and you you put it in ground pool and all kind of stuff, obviously their assessment's gonna go up.

So I don't know how that affects us.

Uh maybe we don't catch up to the following year.

I don't know.

Yeah.

Thank you, Councilor Brown.

Any other questions?

So uh staff's recommendation for this is um that the committee uh recommend to council that the 2024-2028 financial plan be approved in principle as amended and that the 2024-2028 financial plan bylaw be prepared for consideration at the April 16th, 2024 council meeting.

Can I have a mover?

Moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh no, actually, you just opposed.

That's all.

Uh done, tax rate options.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh this one I think will not be quite as short as the previous two reports.

However, I I am hoping uh this year to perhaps be somewhat more brief than I was last year.

I was looking at last year's uh presentation and noticed noted that I did walk through council through um some of the the grounding information about tax rates and and the history and and kind of methodology that we use to set these because there were new members of council last year.

And I'm hoping to go through a little bit more quickly this year, um, but certainly happy to pause, go back, help explain terms if I've gone too quickly.

So so do feel free to uh you know to stop me to interrupt as we go through this presentation, because it is important that you know council feels that you have all of the information that you need, the committee feels that you have all the information that you need in order to make an informed decision.

In short, the report and my recommendation is to proceed with tax rates for 2024 using the same multiples that we established in 2023.

So that is that is a conclusion that as I analyzed what was happening with the assessments and uh you know, kind of with the with the climate, um with the budget, that to me seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

That being said, it is not the only thing to do.

And as we walk through, you'll you will see that.

So as we go through, there are many factors that affect property taxes.

Property assessments, the the we look at the average or representative property, um, everything affects the tax burden.

Of course, the tax revenue requirement is what we just finished talking about the 12 million dollars of taxation revenue that is required by the financial plan to fund all of the services that the budget pays for.

The tax ratios, otherwise known as multiples, are the things that we will be talking about a little bit more today.

Property assessments, as you know, we have no control over.

Staff have no control over those.

Council committee has no control over property assessments.

BC assessments is uh independent, and that's actually a really good thing.

We will be looking at the average or representative property, but that's just math on the assessments, so we don't have any control over that.

The tax burden, of course, is a product of how the ratios are set.

So we don't have we don't directly affect the tax burden.

And what we mean by tax burden is the proportionate share of the tax revenue that we get from each of the property classes.

The tax revenue requirement, as we just talked about, we we've already set that in the financial plan.

So today we're gonna focus primarily on the multiples and what we're seeing and the opportunity for council, if they wish, to make some changes to the um to the multiples.

I have a I have a question.

So Don, I'm just wondering in in the olden days, we used to get you know council's properties and then a bunch of commercial properties and as samples of of what the actual impact was.

And so you could really tell in all the scenarios what they looked like and what the percentage increases were.

I missed that because it's I just find it hard that that used to be such an easy way to understand what the impacts were.

I would agree.

It is attached to the report as schedule six.

It it is attached on the agenda.

It should be there.

You should see it there.

And we will be we will refer to it later on in my presentation.

Okay.

Thanks.

Thank you for the question.

The previous uh report that I had about the financial plan kind of preempted what I was was trying to display in this particular slide.

My my point in this slide was specifically to identify for the committee that now that we have set the tax revenue requirement through the financial plan being $12,025,440.

The job of this exercise is to determine how we're going to distribute that to the various property tax classes.

That's our exercise with this report.

What we see here is that the information that we had in February is different from the information that we have now, in that we were basing at the end of our discussion in February, we were basing our estimate of how much the tax rate or the taxes in total needed to increase of 6.4%.

That has changed now because we were basing it on a budget information about last year's tax revenue.

So you can see the 2023 tax revenue was budgeted at 11 million and 114,000 in change when actually because of supplementary assessments.

So BC Assessment does this thing where they where somebody appeals their property value and they never appeal and ask for it to go up, and and BC assessment goes through a whole process and ultimately we get a supplementary tax notice that says you're actually getting less money for that property and we refund property taxes.

So that's what's happened in 2023.

So then while our target revenue for 2024 hasn't changed, the 2023 actual revenue did go down.

And that is the explanation for why we thought it was going to be 6.4% increase.

Now it's turning out to be 6.6%.

And I might also argue that the it isn't out of the realm of possibility that that number could change again later on in the year if there was an appeal board decision that again affected 2023 property assessments, or uh our estimate of non market change um changes as well.

So it's it's multiple factors, multiple things moving at the same time.

But I want to assure the committee that the tax revenue requirement is the one thing that you have a hundred percent control over, and that has not changed.

Okay.

So in looking at the assessments, we need to um we we do use the average property assessment kind of as a proxy for the class, but I do want to emphasize to the committee that this isn't a real property.

For example, you can see that the single family property on the first line of this table, the average single family residential property value increased very slightly, 0.2%.

Just doing the math, right?

Strata properties increased 0.7%.

Both of those are less than 1%.

But because of other properties that are not single family and not strata, the average for the class as a whole increased 1.5%.

And that's the only number that we have to use because we can only set one residential property tax rate.

There's not different rates for different subclasses within the residential class.

So while we're going to refer to and you know the average residential property kind of as a as a measuring stick to see on our various scenarios what happens to the average residential property, do keep in mind, I cannot emphasize this enough, individual properties will experience this differently.

And in fact, we're saying that a strata property will experience it in you know over across all of the strata properties about 0.7%, and the single family even less at 0.2%.

Okay.

Indeed, we can see this again that the property assessment values are not evenly distributed both above and below the average residential property value of 1.06 million.

We can only show on a graph like this property values up to 4 million because the maximum residential property is nearly 65 million.

Didn't fit on this slide.

And we can see that 63, 63%, or 2,454 properties out of a total nearly 4,000 properties have an assessment that is less than or equal to the average property.

So I want to say that again.

So more properties are below the average than above.

This would indicate that we should be talking about the median, which is what is the middle property, right?

The median assessment is 963,000.

Okay, but for sake of argument and and uh you know we we will continue to use that average residential assessment value at 1 million.

The business class is skewed even more.

So there's 123 folios on the business tax roll, 47 of which are exempt from taxation.

They're owned by the province or the CRD or some other exempt entity.

So right now this was showing 4 million.

So of the 76 properties that have taxable assessments, exactly half of them have assessed values under a million dollars.

So think of a line that goes from one to 76 million.

All of the properties of all the properties that are taxable on that continuum, half of them are under a million on a chart that goes to 76.

Okay, so that that kind of tells you how how skewed the distribution is a little bit.

And really the point is it's not it's not really indicative to use an average value for the business class.

The class is just too small.

It's not there is no representative property.

But for the sake of argument, the median for the business class is a million and thirty-two thousand.

Okay, that kind of tells you what that's at.

And overall, the clock, the business class as a whole, the assessments went up about a half a percent.

So we're not really seeing a big movement in assessments this year like we did last year.

Not very much.

Last year was was quite different where the assessments were went up double digits.

Yeah, so I was just wondering in terms of the numbers you just gave for the uh the 76 million dollar property, all all it would have had to do is go up by one percent, and it would just have destroyed the rest of the point well taken.

Absolutely.

I I I completely agree.

Councilor Bryan?

So the hole in the ground from last July, the owner of that property, that's their assessed as the hole in the ground.

But as the people move in and occupy them, so just say 100 unit condo.

So we'll realize about properties from 100 different uh assessments rather than just one.

So theoretically, we'll we'll get more revenue, right?

Okay, thank you.

And and indeed that would be the the definition of non-market change.

They didn't have or they hardly had any assessment the year before, and it's an addition to our assessment inventory, if you will.

But there is always that leg between the assessments that are established in July and they've you know that really aren't realized till the following taxation year.

Well, go to Councilor Lemon after I asked one of my own.

Um, do we have a map, and maybe this is for Leanne or a view of those properties that uh are exempt, like I'm that are owned by the province, just so that council can get a bit of a education or refresher.

I think some of the big ones are kind of obvious, like the hospital, for instance, and whatnot, but there are also other areas that we're probably not as big that we're not aware of that we could uh take in and and kind of noted.

So I'm not looking to create any work, but if there was a view that we could see on a map where those properties kind of lived, it would be uh helpful to understand both the CRD properties and and the province.

I am not aware of a map that maps maps that out uh specifically, but certainly can look into that and provide that to council if it is easily available.

But certainly if you think of schools, hospitals, any CRD property, uh, we do have a small number of permissively exempt properties, which we report on every year.

Uh that sort of thing, you can assume that those are tax, uh, they do not contribute to our tax revenue.

Yeah, in particular, I was looking for like there are areas owned by MOTI that, you know, normally when you look around the highway, it's pretty easy to discern whatever their setback is off the highway.

But there is other areas where it comes to an exchange or whatever that's a bit of a a gray area, and we often see those areas come up because that's where uh it's on the fringe of uh authorized uh territory, or it's where you see some homeless folks and encampments and some concern there.

So having a visual of that would be understanding not only uh be relevant to financial discussions but other planning discussions as well so yeah if it's not too much trouble uh Don uh sometime Councilor Lemon please that was precisely my question um because I you know we can we can identify the hospital we can identify Sierra we can identify schools and so forth but I imagine there's about 35 that we're we don't know, we don't recognize, and I just think we're very, very charitable.

Um, so I yeah, I wasn't gonna seek a map, I was gonna ask for a list, but whatever.

Thank thank you for asking, Mayor.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon.

Uh, any other questions?

Continue, please, Doc.

Okay, thank you.

So, as our tax policy indicates, we will at this point in time every year look at how View Royals tax multiples and tax impacts uh compare to others in the region.

Sadly, I can't do that for 2024 because all the other municipalities are in the process of doing exactly what we're doing today.

But we can look at 2023.

So the first thing that we look at is uh what you see in front of you, and I do apologize.

Uh, you know, if that is almost impossible to read, it is attached to your report in paper form.

So hopefully you can you know kind of get an idea of what we're going with here.

And this is the business class or class six tax ratios for all CRD municipalities over the last five years.

So you get an idea of the trends.

The faint gray, it's it's the upper uh dotted line that indicates the median over five years for all CRD municipalities, and that's about 3.55.

So if we look at at the five year time window across CRD, the multiple for class six uh business class taxation is 3.55, so it's about you know roughly three and a half times the residential rate.

The provincial multiple is 2.45.

And the top right corner, the blue bars there, indicates View Royals multiple over that time period, and you can see it going from 3.55 to 4.30.

And in the bottom, you can see the ranking of the multiples across the CRD, and we are just a little bit above the middle.

So that kind of gives you a perspective of how View Royal ranks both in 2023 and across the last five years across the Capital Regional District.

Question?

I'm wondering if uh if there's somebody's determined what if there's any impact between uh that rate and um increasing commercial development in a in an area.

That is a very good question.

And I I I'm sure there there must be studies out there.

You know, what what from a business perspective is the best or the right rate?

Because I I would argue that it's gonna vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction depending on where people want to live, and you know, in terms of you know, getting employment, employees, and and so it's all the first all the services and transportation and everything.

So I I I would anticipate that there is so much that goes into uh attracting business, this is one of them, and I think it is a very important one of them, and that that is why I bring it to the committee's attention.

I think this is uh worth considering uh as council has and the committee has considered every year since I've been here at least, that this the recognition that the tax multiple for business class is the one area that you can directly have a chance of attracting and retaining business to View Royal.

Unfortunately, it is not the only factor, I am sure, that businesses consider.

Uh has there been a study?

Could there be a study?

I'm sure.

Not at my fingertips.

Just a comment from Councillor Mattson's question is that we'd also don't have, I think, a good idea of our vacancy rate for businesses right now, which I don't see a lot of release signs on anything.

I think we're pretty full.

So my question there is that if we're gonna try to inspire business to come, where are they going to go?

And these are good questions for the OCP that are coming up and for planning, but um uh, you know, related directly to this was uh uh from the the base commander a request for more daycare kind of everywhere.

Um that that there's a shortage of it, and that our our issue is right now not that we can't have another daycare, but where's it gonna go?

And that um maybe some uh of our discussions on OCP planning and how we do our zoning.

So uh I think it was the idea in some areas of town the first floor would be uh a commercial not just doesn't mean a corner store, that could mean a doctor's office or um uh a daycare or or or a corner store for t something.

But I I think it's a good point.

My my my challenge with uh okay, let's attract more business is like we're full right now.

And and it's great if they want to come in and do something, but there's no place to for them to do it unless they're building another building and go through rezoning.

But the Leanne might have do we have a business vacancy rate that we track or is there is there is that a West Shore um business kind of chamber that does that?

I'm not sure if anybody does um uh through the mayor uh sorry through the chair um thank you for the question um we do not track um business vacancy rates rates in here the town um and I don't uh correct me if I'm wrong um any of my other colleagues but I don't know if we've ever we have done that.

Uh I can reach out to the West Shore Chamber of Commerce to see if they track it for the West Shore and get back to the committee on that.

Uh Council Rogers.

Thanks, Leanne.

Appreciate it.

Yeah, perhaps the um the West Shore Chamber of Commerce might have uh that that sense.

Uh so Don, if um if we wanted to increase our our um um attraction to businesses, um how much of a do you uh an improvement to this rate um would have an impact on residential taxes?

So if we took it down to four, not 4.34.

With the chair's permission, may I just pin the answer to that question a little bit later?

Because we do get into some of the scenarios.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, that's good.

Yeah.

Because you know, it it's um it's one thing about the vacancies, but it's also about the derelict visit businesses that we have.

Um you know that uh could stand for improvement if there was an incentive for new businesses to come in and and um revamp the old hired locations.

Um we do have vacancies at um Eagle Creek, along uh if I'm if I recall.

I think the other thing is that walkable services.

If we want to um you know encourage walkable services um uh like maybe in the Choco area, um that um better tax ratio might uh might be uh an aspect.

Um anyway, so let's uh let's see what those scenarios are.

Thank you.

Can I just make one comment that's slightly off topic?

And I Leanne sounds so much better than the last time I heard her, and I just hope she's feeling better.

Thank you, Chair.

And and I'm just m make two notes uh before we move on to the next slide.

And one is I am not convinced that the absolute value of the multiple is as important in this context context as how we rank to our neighbors.

That's who our competition is, theoretically.

I'm just throwing that out there to say as long as our multiple stacks up neatly against all of our neighbors, then we are gonna be no perhaps more or less attractive than there our region is.

That's what more competition is.

Absolutely, through the chair, uh spot on.

You know, really to do to do this uh fully, I could spend a lot more time comparing the actual rates and and you know, perhaps uh, you know, comparative services.

So so that you know, this a multiple by its very nature is a a a factor of the residential rate.

The residential is always one, and by a multiple, what we mean is how many times that residential rate is the rate applied to the business class.

So that's that's a point very well taken.

And and certainly we could delve into this a lot more.

Uh this is this is uh what we offer up just as a proxy for making a bit of an estimate on our context.

The other comment that I wanted to make was just to um in case council wasn't already aware um through the chair, that daycares themselves, while they may be operated by a for-profit business, in BC assessments um uh the in the legislation that BC assessment applies, daycares are actually not classed as a business class.

They are classed as a residential class.

I I don't I can't answer much more uh give you much more information than that, but we have seen that for example, where a daycare operates in a business plaza, they will be hived off separately as class one, and the rest of the building may be class six because the use is a daycare.

So just for your information when we're talking about business class multiples, that would not apply to daycares.

Yeah, so basically, excuse me, if we had a Bear Mountain or a Skirt Mountain or a Royal Bay, uh, we could probably look at lowering the rate for commercial.

Yeah, we don't.

So we don't have any empty gravel pits in Vie Royal.

Thank you.

And moving on then to class eight, my my caution about, and you will hear me say this likely more than once, and I've said it before, we need to be very, very cautious when we talk about anything to do with class eight and uh coincidentally class five, because both of those property classes have exactly two properties each.

And in the case of class eight, one property dominates, and that being Fort Victoria.

So whenever you see class eight, I really need you to think about this affects Fort Victoria.

Okay, so but in the context of our the region for class eight, you can see that the median across the CRD is 2.39.

For the the province multiple for class eight is one, so equivalent to the residential class.

View Royal is specifically on purpose moved this multiple up, and right now it is at six.

And we are second at the top, second to the highest, um, second only to Highlands at a ratio of six.

Okay.

So the other thing that we compare, and this chart is about the taxes, municipal taxes, not overall taxes, not CRD, CR, you know, capital regional hospital district uh school taxes, but strictly municipal taxes, whether they are property taxes or parcel taxes, but for municipal purposes per capita.

And we are second to the lowest when we do this analysis for 2023.

So that I think is it should be good news to the committee that we certainly are competitive when we talk about um uh uh taxes per capital, and primarily, of course, this is going to be looking at uh residential taxes.

One more question.

I want do you have like the the rate per thousand dollars assessed value a comparison?

So we know how we're doing too.

I haven't compared across the region the rate per thousand for residential.

Um just wondering, wouldn't that be more indicative of the impact?

Yeah.

Uh because you know if V Royal had six people per household, our assessment rate for per capita would be actually quite low even if we had a high tax rate.

Well, this this does reflect the the dollars per per capital, the actual taxation dollars, not the rate per se.

Uh so this does compare the dollars, which is gonna be relative to both the assessments and the rate.

So so this is the the amount of dollars per capita that are assessed for for municipal taxes.

So like for each person in View Royal that's the average rate.

But in in Oak Bay where they might have you know a two million dollar house but only one one or two people living in it versus if you royal it was five or three anyway I just don't know how great a comparison it is compared to the assessed assessed rate per thousand or the the rate per assessed well anyways you know what I'm referring to which rate I'm referring to the actual the actual rate.

You know uh I I I do have to say because of the multiple factors uh with a comparison of this nature it is hard to find the exact right measure to to portray uh exactly how View Royal sits you know and in even if uh you know I I I hesitate to um to provide you know this kind of information uh as the end all and be all because not all services in all our municipalities are the same, right?

Geography is different and the services are different.

People have have you know closer recreation centers and so on.

You know so it it is very difficult when comparing uh municipalities uh that are not equal uh on a measure that purports that it is equal and it's it's really not so we do have to just keep that in mind when we're looking at the context.

Yeah um I think the businesses um maybe should see their their business scale and then they should look at their residential scale and maybe the businesses might have themselves an opinion of uh how the ratio is you know it and I guess uh I wonder how much you know our casinos and reserves and so forth go towards projects that benefit the residents and not the businesses so the taxes that we collect how much is is going to to which group so and how much a percentage of these um uh businesses are contributing to um uh to the residential benefit and not their own.

So you know it's a it is a case of s uh sober thought, and and um uh you know when you see this, we know that these this is an artificial low.

I mean, this is 2023, but it was the still the same principles of artificial low.

We didn't um uh and and I guess that's my point where I'm very concerned about this budget.

I'm concerned about the five-year plan.

Um, so this screen probably says it all we're in trouble.

I'm not really sensing that, Councilor Rogers.

That's your personal opinion.

Um, but uh one of the things that I would like to take out of your discussion was that is there a way for next year we could canvas businesses like we do.

I know we're not required to by law.

Um that there needs to be a public engagement for um for our budget.

But I'm just wondering about my colleagues' um appetite would be to canvas businesses to hear from them on on the current ratio and the budget as a separate uh part of it to hear uh from them any concerns that they might have.

So my strong warning is the that ratio isn't nearly as important as what's the rate in Lankford versus the late rate in Victor View Royal versus the rate and absolutely.

What I'm what I'm saying is that engaging them, we're not engaging them now, uh Councilor Mattson in in whatever way seems of of benefit to them that they can understand either comparative analysis or whatever but would my colleagues think it's valuable to also hear from businesses before we make a a decision as final as this for next year not for this year.

Go with uh Council McKenzie and Councilor Brown.

I think maybe not just specific to the tax rate but I would be interested from the businesses in general what's working for them what's not working for them perhaps it's not having the spaces like you said um so maybe not f just focused on the tax, but I would find it valuable.

Councilor Brown.

I'd be cautious.

I don't I don't like the idea.

I think uh businesses are gonna say, wow, we're paying four times more than the residential without looking at the bigger picture.

Uh and everybody gets benefits.

I mean, the companies are their employees, the I mean quite often the business owners live in town.

So I mean, what Councillor Rogers says, I mean, really it's you can't even pull those two things out.

Uh I I think leave it because I think it it could cause more controversy.

It could even drive some businesses out.

They might say, Wow, I pay way less taxes if we go to Callwood or I just just don't open a shop in North Sanich, because it's really expensive there.

Thank you.

Uh go ahead, Don.

Oh, Councillor Dunner.

Slight segue.

Um s in uh class eight, Dylan, the other um the other uh business, whatever, is that the casino?

And and only part of that is in View Royal, correct?

I mean, are they getting taxed differently?

Not twice, but differently for the part that is in View Royal and the part that is in Sainwich.

Am I saying that correct?

Uh they would be getting two property tax bills, yes.

Yes.

Go ahead, Connecticut.

Or Councillor Rogers.

Um, so class eight isn't just the Gulf course, it's Fort Vitroya, right?

Yeah, okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

So now we get to the analysis of where do we go from here?

What do we do?

What are our options?

And while we have created four different scenarios for your consideration, and they are the same flavor of scenarios that we have posed to the committee in prior years, so they shouldn't be completely unfamiliar to you, but I will go through them.

Uh we we can only uh kind of our methodology here is that we start with a base rate, and that is scenario A, where we allow uh the assessments to distribute the tax bill to the different classes.

We just let the assessments do what is determined in the the actual activity in the community has determined the assessments should do.

And then we only change one thing at a time after that, just to s isolate the effect of that change so that we can see it.

But that doesn't mean you can only do one thing.

Less than the extent indicated by the scenarios that I've run.

The recommendation today is that we choose scenario A.

That is my recommendation.

I think that you know responding to changes in assessments by changing the multiple, it isn't always it can create kind of fluctuations that have unintended uh consequences.

Certainly keeping the multiples the same is is you know kind of speaks to stability and it uh distributes the burden where there is the assessments to support that burden.

So that's uh scenario A.

It we're gonna change all of the tax rates, we're gonna increase them by 6.6 percent in order to collect the target revenue required by the financial plan.

Uh the ratios stay the same in that scenario.

Scenario B is completely different.

It it says, well, really, what we want to do is keep the burden the same from each of the classes in the on the tax roll, and we're gonna manipulate the multiples to make that happen.

But what ends up happening is it it penalizes the um the classes that uh you know, in a way that uh you know it benefits the ones whose uh assessment has increased, and of course, because it's a sum zero games, that bill has to be paid by the other class whose assessments did not change by the same amount.

So then scenario C, of course, uh, and uh scenario C and D are very similar in that we are specifically looking at one or two multiples and saying, well, we are we have a vision for in the future, let's say, of attracting more light industry and business class, and we want to get our multiple down.

We want to decrease it.

You're not going to do it all in one year, but we we we want to reduce that multiple by something, and we'll do it a little bit at a time because any decrease in a multiple for class five and especially class six is going to put the burden on the residential class.

Residential class is mostly what we've got, and they will bear the burden of any decrease in the multiple, especially to class six.

Uh scenario D is to once again, as council has in the past, increase the multiple for class eight, that it would go from six to six point five.

It could be six point one, six point two, it it could be whatever council suggests.

I've chosen a number just to demonstrate what could happen if we did this.

And again, the impact for the significant property in that class is big.

The benefit to the residential class specifically of doing that is really quite small.

So I'm I'm not suggesting that you should or shouldn't do any particular thing.

I'm just I'm just helping uh trying to help you understand um, you know, kind of the difference between um the scenarios and the impacts.

Thank you, Don.

Uh council Lowan, please.

Thank you.

Don, what would if we you you you said it's you know we can make two choices, we can mix and mat here.

What would scenario A and D look like?

Would it be status quo for um this 6.6 for residential and what what would it look like?

What would a combination look like?

So because scenario A is our base scenario where we don't change the multiples for any of the classes from the prior year, we do the same thing in scenario D, except we're only moving the one multiple for class eight.

So indeed, scenario D respects our base scenario scenario A by not moving any of the other multiples other than class eight.

That answers your question?

Okay.

So this is my happy face, not so happy face slide.

And what this correlates to in your report is Schedule 5.

So for example, schedule 5 shows the scenarios across the top of your page.

And if you look at the the table below the grade section at the line labeled total residential, and if you go across, what this is telling you is that the property that was valued at $100,000 in 2023, on average, the market, excluding non market change, went down to $99,790.

And under scenario A would pay $12 per $100,000 of taxable assessment under scenario A.

And then when you follow that across that row, you can see that scenario B is $13, scenario C is $16, and scenario D is $12.

So based on that row and those numbers, I've given scenario A and scenario D in the residential column on this slide green happy faces because the residential class doesn't care, generally speaking, whether you choose scenario A or scenario D because there isn't a significant enough of a change to have made them pay more under those two scenarios.

Scenario B, they would pay an extra dollar more per $100,000.

And scenario C, they would pay $16 or $4 more per $100,000.

And so that's why scenario C, I've I've given it the uh not as happy face.

So if you were just to look at the residential, you you could feel equally confident that the residential class will be just as happy with you under scenario A as scenario D.

Okay.

If we do the same thing for the business class, so the business row on schedule five is just two lines from the bottom, we can do the same sort of thing.

$100,000 didn't change very much from 23 to 2024.

But you can see that that it's quite a bit different in terms of the impacts of the scenarios.

That being under scenario A per 100,000, the business class assessment will pay $50 more.

Under scenario B, $55.

And scenario C, and they would pay $3.

And why is that?

Because that is the one where we purposefully reduced the business class multiple.

So it does make sense.

This is the one that they're going to prefer because we manipulated the business class multiple downwards from where it's at right now at three um, I'm sorry, this is uh from 3.96 to um yeah, 3.

4.3, I was thinking of light industry, 4.3 down to 4.

So that's the effect.

And then scenario D, where essentially the the ratio is the same as it was in scenario A, however, because of the change um in in the other uh for in class eight uh it went from fifty dollars to forty nine dollars so if you were to to just think about the business class you would choose scenario c however that is the one that the residential class likes the least because they are they're gonna pay more under that one any questions or comments on this particular slide counselor lemon then counselor brown please don what did we choose last year you chose to stick with scenario A.

We did not change the multiples from the year before.

Is that your question as well, Councillor Brown?

Yeah.

Last year you gave us a big sheet with some sample properties.

I think it's our own council.

I mean it's just for our own use, not for public use, but it was quite useful.

That was quite useful.

I I I don't know if could you do that during the break or there's no rush, but I think you must be referring to schedule six attached to your report.

Sorry.

Yeah.

Yeah, it's there.

Thank you.

It it is there, and and you will see the effect of each of these scenarios on scenarios on specific properties.

So when we talk about the actual numeric um values of the multiples in each of these scenarios, and I have added the light industry class to this as well, the numbers that have changed are in red.

So under scenario A, nothing's turned uh red text.

It's all exactly the same as we had it in 2023.

You can see that under scenario B, uh the multiples are as you see them there.

The light industry goes down by quite a bit, the business class actually goes up a little bit, recreation class goes down a lot.

And that and the reason is because the recreation class had saw a very significant increase in assessed value.

So that's uh that's what scenario uh the effect of scenario B does.

Scenario C, of course, those are the numbers that I purported.

Those could be different from you know any anybody else choosing a different number.

So those were values that we selected for the purposes of demonstrating the effect, as well as for scenario D, we went from in the recreation class from six to six point five.

Council Roderick.

Thanks.

So with with the C, um, we were doing both five and six.

What would happen if we changed just six to four point one?

Off the top of my head, I would suggest that the light industry class is so small it would uh it if you change the ratio or didn't change the ratio it it's not going to have a significant impact um specifically to the residential class or to any other classes.

But I I really would hope that we would um be able to give the business some kind of thing even if it were to be reducing it from 4.2 or what is it, you know, four point three to four point two.2.

But at that, Don, if we change any of the numbers, we're going to be increasing the amount of ratio that the residential sector pays for.

Yes.

It's got to go somewhere.

I know.

That's right.

And I guess that's why I was looking at the two bar graphs that we had where the residential was in the middle and and we were, you know, second from the bottom of the residential.

So that would um might be able to pull the two of them equal in uh in uh the miss regional um balance as it were.

So I would be curious to see what um um four point two would look like.

Council Lemon.

Thank you.

Um it if we were to go with a version of scenario D that would bring say recreation from to 6.25, for example, would that have any impact on the other sectors?

I would say yes, it would have less of an impact.

Uh in fact, you know, if if uh if we were to look at schedule six and specifically scenario D, I would think you could if if you're gonna in if you're gonna half the increase to the multiple as a as a estimate, you could half the impact that we're we're displaying under scenario D.

Generally, yeah, I would say.

And if we want if the idea is that we're gonna somehow improve view royals, uh the way view roll is perceived by businesses, we at least need to know what the rates are in other municipalities so that we can have a look at them.

Just otherwise we're you know just making up numbers because we think it looks good.

And uh I'll go to you, Councilor Rogers, in a second, but I but the other thing is is uh everybody's having a difficult time right now.

Yeah, I know.

It uh before I go to you, uh uh everybody's having a difficult time right now.

And so is the message that council is sending um that we're gonna take it easier on one class or the other and just push it on the residents.

That's the message I'm concerned about.

Uh whether it's a a few dollars or or not, it's the why are we doing this?

Is it a defensible position that we can all agree on going forward?

Or is I just took a look at the percentage of change or the growth in in the other um the other municipalities in in each one of these um the ratio scenarios and the only one to really increase recently is Machosen who had a real big hit uh because they just hit a population 5,000 with all the policing costs and everything else.

So I I mean I I'm as concerned about we're we're being a bit too intuitive about what the the impact would be in the ratio without I think having some good facts in front of us to say if our intent is to bring in more business, well, is do we have place for business?

Is our uh intent to give a break to light industry?

Uh how are we going to communicate that out as as a good decision to be made and why we made it?

I'm uh that's what I'd love to hear from you and and to be informed by is like if we're going to make these changes, like how what's the communication message behind that?

Why are we doing it?

Um Councilor Brown and or Councillor Rogers, then Councillor Brown, please.

Yeah, thanks.

Um again, I'll reiterate to the to the charts.

I mean, uh, why are we doing it because we can see over the years um uh view well has uh and and when you look at the um the business class, you know, we've been we've we've gone up.

We were at 3.5, 3.6, we jumped up to 4.3.

And um I I would suggest it's it's um it's reasonable because we've been doing, you know, it's because our residential is so low that um comparatively speaking, that it's um it's reasonable to and I I think the rationale is do we want walkable services or not?

And I think that's that's uh uh another uh uh uh specific reason to um uh encourage businesses to uh to stay in Drewal and and come.

That's it's kind of like the message we're open for business.

Just to reiterate, unless we have more numbers that that sounds good, but we don't know that that's the case.

John.

Council Brown, please.

Are you looking for a motion tonight or or is that too uh we we can uh councils or uh stop's got a motion uh there?

Just a comment then uh for the recreational properties and a caution.

Um okay, I'll use Fort Victoria as an example.

Um if they go up, the owner of that property has got to pay more.

That's gonna be passed on to all the multiple people that live there in one of the only below market rental places in all big all uh our area, probably the whole region.

So personally I would be totally opposed to that.

Uh golf courses, uh it's great recreational, great green space, lots of trees, which is really good for the environment.

Um and it's good recreation as well.

So again, I would they're paying over a high rate anyway.

So personally I would I I like scenario A.

So when it comes to that that's what I'll be supporting.

Council quotes.

Well I certainly don't think the business that you mentioned really will have a hard time paying a tax increase to be honest with you.

And as for golf courses uh I don't think we host a full golf course for a tax rate.

Okay.

So uh I I do support scenario D actually.

Wait, which one?

Which D.

Council McKenzie?

Yes, I'm I'm leaning towards scenario A or D.

And the reason I'm considering scenario D is that although we have only two properties in the Class 8, um, in March we did hear about the need for a sewer gravity main upgrade near Fort Victoria.

And I think we know that the RV park isn't always being used for recreation.

A lot of them are living there full time.

And if we were to collect the residential tax rate for each of those people staying there full time, I imagine we'd be collecting a lot more in tax than the uh RV park is currently paying for the recreational rate.

And we have to consider the cost to the town of servicing that area relative to if it was a residential um property.

So I think it needs to be reflected in their tax rate.

Can I just say I'll jump on the scenario D bandwagon?

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm I'm caught in between uh speaking out loud here of A and D.

And you know, everybody's the concern is um everything has to be a crisis before anything's done with it, uh, seems to be the the flavor of the day.

Um, but I'm really concerned about the effect of affordability because price increases get passed on.

And and Fort Victoria, whether um you support it or don't support it, I think was a bell ringer of the affordability crisis for housing in in uh in Greater Victoria for a long time.

Uh and there are folks that have lived there for over 20 years, I think.

Uh not officially, but unofficially, perhaps.

Um, and I'm just concerned.

Um, and I'm not saying I won't vote for scenario D, but I'm also very concerned about passing the affordability down to those who least can afford it because that's where it's going to go.

Councilor Brown.

And then Councillor Lennox.

One last comment on golf courses.

Uh, you might get a situation if it gets too high.

You got Broom Hill, for example, in Souk.

Uh, the golf course hasn't been golf course for years and years.

Yeah, eventually the owner might be able to get it rezoned and redeveloped blah blah blah years down the road.

There's a lot of empty golf courses around.

And again, it's excellent green space, lots of trees, uh, and it's recreation.

If if West Shore Parks and Rec didn't tax free, can you imagine the taxes would be in that place?

I mean, and also agree with Mayor Tobias.

Fort Victoria, again, it's the cheapest place for people to live.

And maybe it should be changed.

Maybe it shouldn't be considered a recreational.

Maybe it should be changed to a different uh category because it is really a residential.

There's a probably what 12 spaces there for uh someone brings their motor home in to to to rent for a week.

I think there's about 12 spaces.

So really, is it really a recreational park?

I don't think so.

Counselor uh Lemon and then Councilor Rogers.

Um I'm supportive of scenario D.

I would be more supportive of scenario D if we if if it were to be brought to the the uh recreation piece was to be brought down to 6.25 or 6.3.

Um but I don't want Darren to do a whole lot of work, so I will say I'm supportive of scenario D.

Any uh counselor uh Rogers, please.

Yeah, thanks.

Yeah, I think Fort Victoria is um is a is a mixed bag.

It's um uh they make um monies on RVs that come to dump.

They're they're effluent.

Um they also make monies for those that are indeed tourists, that are motorhomes.

There's there's two parts, three parts.

So it's um um so I think um they probably got a profitable business margin, whatever it may be.

We should be so lucky.

Um so it it seems like um um in that regard, D is is is appropriate.

Yeah.

On the other hand, staying with A's is also like uh Dawn says, uh, we've been there, we've stayed there.

So it's it's an interesting challenge.

Okay, so let me play with this.

I think if there's no other questions or comments, uh, let's modify the staff recommendation to put uh scenario D because I'm getting a sense from my colleagues that is where your will is.

Uh so everything remains the same, although it would say 2024 municipal tax rates analysis scenario D.

Go ahead.

So speaking to D, um I do have um the concern for light industry.

Is that um what are light industries do we have?

Isn't that the one on Halo L the um the major computer chip company?

Yes.

Yeah, they are very good business.

They're a clean, clean business, and I would hate to see them leave town.

I don't know.

They um they are okay.

Let's let's the um I do recall that it was a concern that they had uh they were running out of space.

They were so profitable that they were looking to move.

I don't know if they would look to have two build two businesses, but that's a substantial tax increase that we're we would be levying on them.

I I understand it's the same as A, but um, you know, just putting it out there, just reminding you who that business is.

So option D.

For for option D is that that's really not going to affect light uh industry or uh light industry at all.

It's gonna remain the same as A.

Am I correct on the So I would encourage uh the committee to look at schedule six, specifically at column labeled scenario A and column labeled scenario D.

And you can see that with scenario D, where the recreation multiple goes from six to six point five, the difference for the class representative or average total residential, which I know is a fictitious amount, but it's our measure, the amount uh um the increase under scenario A is just under a hundred and sixty seven dollars and fif four uh fifty for uh 50 cents.

So hundred and sixty-seven and a half dollars versus in scenario D, it's a hundred and sixty-five dollars.

So scenario D makes a two dollar difference in an increase to the average residential property at a million and sixty thousand dollar assessment.

To the class five, let's take one hundred twenty Hallowell Road for an example.

The difference between scenario A and scenario D is a difference of oh, six dollars.

No, not six dollars.

I'm looking at it.

But the difference between five thousand three hundred and twenty uh five thousand three hundred and thirty dollars and five thousand two hundred and ninety-five dollars, so really like thirty-five dollars.

Is the difference between scenario A and scenario D.

Second.

Uh we got a mover and a seconder for D, and uh go to the mover for motivation.

Seconder.

It it's all been said.

Okay, uh all those in favor of scenario D.

All those opposed.

And I see Councillors Rogers, Councillor Brown opposed to scenario D.

Um uh the scenario D passes.

So I think Don, you've got good direction on that for um going ahead and preparing the bylaw.

Thank you very much.

And uh I think that's the council resolution follow-up list uh first quarter.

You Sarah is the CAO.

Okay then I think over to you, uh Scott.

Yeah, I'll introduce a report.

Um most importantly, staff are concerned with following up on council resolutions.

Um this report actually goes back to 2020.

Some of the resolutions are outstanding, organized by department.

And uh I I think probably the best way to answer questions on this is um email me or or call me after the meeting.

But uh it's really just a compilation of all the resolutions passed throughout the years.

Okay, thank you.

Um and Ivan, I've I got a picture on my phone sent to me by West Urban saying that they had been talking with you and CRD on item uh for two hospital way.

Uh but it was about the graveling of the CRD pathway.

And it uh seems complete now that that they had done that.

I just wondered if you would wanna follow up because that was been a topic for council as well.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'll take a look at that resolution.

It's it's in progress right now, the hospital trail.

Um but let me get back to you on that.

Yeah, I'll send you the picture.

I don't think you were on the CC for that.

So so uh I I think it's done.

I don't know what there are standards, but I guess they talked to CRD and and to you as well.

So uh as many things as as and colleagues, if you if there are things in here you know are complete as well, uh, as you go through them, as Scott said, then you can just email him and uh and we can uh take them off and uh then add it.

I'd also asked uh Sarah as we were prepping for the last agenda to put an advocacy kind of dashboard.

CRD already has a template so that we are refreshed about what we put a resolution for and see to kind of track the status of that that would be separate from uh kind of a resolution.

It's more or less nothing that we do, we're just advocating on behalf or it could be another tab in here to keep it simple, Scott.

Uh, but something that we could use for that.

Uh Councilor Rogers, please.

Yeah, thanks.

And just a question on uh that first page, um, and this with respect to the Highland Games uh Scottish Cultural Center.

Uh it still says that we're in pro um something's in progress.

So uh when could we uh conclude that when I deal with a lawyer and work with Mr.

Maxwell on that file.

I have reached out to him uh twice, so I will continue with that work.

So it's still before the lawyers.

It has yet to go to a lawyer.

I need to finish reaching out to Mr.

Maxwell and then I will reach out to a lawyer to draft a document.

Yeah, one one would hope that we could light some fires and just get this one off our table.

The good news is we're already using that facility when we use it at a at a good rate.

So they're honoring the provisions of this agreement.

Thank you, Counselor Rogers.

Any other comments?

And then I think we can um oh counselor McKenzie.

I was also I I mentioned it to Scott at some point that uh it would also be useful to have an approximate like completion date I was thinking for some of these items.

Um just like the target date noting that of course they can they can change but I think that was you writing it down was an indication of that you were taking that under advisement.

I think that's a a reasonable request uh when council passes the resolution um for staff to determine when that uh should be complete.

Things do happen and uh things get added to the work list, but uh we we will add that in the next quarter.

Yeah, and as it relates to budget as well, if we don't approve the budget for it, it might it's gonna automatically slip those lines as well.

Council Roger.

So yeah, just see clarification.

Um are we adding a another column that says uh to be completed uh with a date so that we could uh sort those quickly uh yeah we we would um we have to present it in some sort of order um probably by date assigned as opposed to uh anticipated completion date yeah it it it seems like you know whoever's got the file would be able to give some kind of estimate um you know particularly if we have something that's been in progress for the last four years um you know if we could start getting some sense of um either E for eternal or we actually have a date uh an ETA completion data then it would give probably give us some hope that uh we're gonna clear some things off this table uh okay I think that's probably all the comments and discussion uh that is in us.

Uh can we have receipt move receipt secondary for counselor Matson?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

And I think that brings us to budget variance projects update.

Is that still you, Scott?

That would be for Don Christensen.

Okay.

Don, sorry.

Certainly, this is the regular report that comes to the committee every month.

Uh nothing new here to add.

Uh certainly, once we have a new financial plan by law, we will uh, you know, the numbers in in this report will start to change.

Thank you very much.

Uh moved and seconded.

All those in favor to receive.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

Now I think it brings it back to you, uh Scott, uh for the CAO update.

Yeah, back to me.

Uh, this is a monthly report, uh, departmental compilation of things we're up to and highlights from each department.

And happy to entertain questions.

Questions from my colleagues, and thank you very much.

And a good reminder for the business uh uh mixer we had here.

It was uh really, really well attended.

I was uh kind of surprised.

But uh one of the things uh for Scott and Leanne, I'd I'd like to be able to do, and I think West Shore could help us out.

I know the mailouts were successful, um, but uh maybe putting a list of businesses that haven't attended last time and uh assign them to counselors to go around and knock on some doors, at least to get them showing up so we can see their faces and and uh and ask them questions about uh how they'd like to be engaged before uh we do another survey.

Uh so it was really well attended.

I just um uh the there were many attendees from kind of probably out of View Royal that were doing a business to business thing where I was really trying to encourage more View Royal businesses there that we could uh create relationships with.

And knowing some of them are bigger, that we would have to reach out to managers or assistant managers for things like thrifties or quality foods that the actual owners wouldn't necessarily be there.

So maybe some way to do that.

Um some of them are larger chains, of course, chains of uh things, of course, as well.

But uh a great, great start, I think.

That's certain that simply yeah, yeah, a couple items.

I just wanted to compliment staff for uh the traffic calming on Stormont.

I've went through it a few times just to practice, and yeah, and as long as you drive slowly, you can get through safely, and uh it really does a good job of slowing people down.

The other one is the uh the traffic circle on Don's favorite traffic circle, or our new one.

Uh can we rename it?

Don't traffic circle?

So I'm really impressed with the size in terms of being able to get around.

So it's it's not like some of the ones we had, which were are quite difficult, so they're a good size.

And I don't remember this, but what's in the middle?

Oh sorry, is there going to be something in the middle, like you know, View Royal Council statue or something?

Thank you, Chair, and yeah, Councilor Mattsman's read my mind.

Just kidding.

Um, it's gonna be landscaping there.

That said, um, and just as a fun anecdote, they we try to avoid putting in um nice statues in that because what we find is drivers basically say that's a nice statue, not knowing that they have to actually turn around around about it and they actually run into it.

So we try to stay away from those.

Counselor Brown, Counselor Rogers.

Just a quick positive comment.

They seem to be well on time, in fact, even ahead of time.

Thank you.

Yes, um, that has not gone unnoticed.

We were quite impressed with uh Don Man excavating and the development team and Ben Lubert's our deputy our uh deputy director has been on top of it.

It's it's a very well-run uh project.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah, speaking of um um what might go in in the middle of the roundabout, I guess my concern is the um the need for visibility of pedestrians and and because it's going to be so busy with pedestrians and cyclists, who knows what, uh, and we don't want any distractions to those drivers, clear sight lines.

Just a quick question, uh, maybe this Ivan goes to you and Leanne.

The uh the traffic circle by uh on Wakisway uh by Eagle Creek, uh I'm continually getting compliments about um the way that looks.

I think it's got evergreens kind of right in the center, and then a ring of lavender around that.

And uh yeah, it's kind of a source of pride up there.

Uh my question is uh are we are we kind of looking to pattern or brand um our our roundabouts in there?

We're not putting anything in there such a uh a uh uh statue of my esteemed colleague Counselor Brown, but uh it it it's something that is view royal, if you know what I mean, similar to our light post.

Just just wondering, Leanne, that's more your bailiwick, I guess.

About uh is there is there a standard that we're kind of using for look and feel for roundabouts and and that.

Um through the mayor.

Actually, it's um uh a question for our director of engineering, so I will pass that on to you to Ivan.

Love the passing the buck.

Ivan, it's all up to you now.

Yeah, thank you, Leanne.

Um, so with roundabouts, as I mentioned before, it's uh it's it is a infrastructure used to decrease the amount of Cothlicks the best as possible.

It's better than intersection for sure, or signalized intersection.

Um as a result, there's a lot of standards associated with roundabouts, much as what Councilor Rogers has mentioned, that there are standards with respect to keeping sight lines uh of um not only keeping, for example, there these these are the things engineering things about.

Uh that it's not only keeping sightlines clear to make sure that we see pedestrians, cyclists and that, but it's also to make sure that when we go through a roundabout, that there's not a light trespass that can also affect.

So it's almost like these complete uh design elements.

But uh that said, with respect to what's in the roundabout, uh there are some things that can be massaged more like species and plants and our engine department takes into account operational you know maintenance and that I won't get into too much detail there.

Uh but that said it is it's fairly tight as to what we should be putting in a roundabout.

It's not to say that what we what we can put in there but in order to keep things safe the we do abide by guidelines.

And with respect to six mile roadwind because it's a ministry uh road we do have to abide by ministry specs.

Yeah I was just looking at some some um something that we're you know uh here here's our plan for a roundabout.

And I I don't know much about roundabouts.

I know they're a circle and I know you you go around them.

Uh but what's in the middle of them, I guess is what I was talking about as far as design goes.

Is there is there is it worthwhile to consider a common look and feel for roundabouts?

Because I don't think uh I I think it it could be um could be one of those things that that are a bonus.

Yeah, absolutely.

And what we generally do uh operationally is we look at the surrounding area, the surrounding flora, uh form and character to take a look at that for sure.

So for the uh six mile road because this highway is l is more restrictive, but for uh I would imagine my my predecessors before me have taken that consideration, just looking at what uh Eagle Creek has done for uh for that roundabout by the hospital.