Committee of the Whole

We'll call the uh meeting uh the committee, the whole uh special meeting for budget to order for February 14th, Valentine's Day.

Happy Valentine's Day to everybody in Vero.

Um we recognize the Lukongan speaking people known today as the Esquamalt Nation, the Songhees Nation, uh, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

So if you wish to call in, there is a public participation period and a question period on the agenda.

So if you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 595 168 127 pound.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then ask the last or announce the last four digits of your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you not to use your speaker phone.

And ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six at the right time.

To begin, please indicate your name and your street.

Speakers will have five minutes each during the public participation and two minutes to ask questions during question period.

And you will be timed.

So can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

Aside from the portions, it will be all budget, I believe, all the time this evening.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Qualitage.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

The none opposed motion carries.

And we can move directly to a public participation period, which everybody will be surprised that it's this quick.

Carl, is there anybody waiting on the phone?

Thank you, Carl.

Turn it over to you, Don.

Thank you once again, Mayor and Council, Committee of the Whole Special Budget Meeting.

Glad to be here with you tonight.

And uh very hopeful uh with uh how this is progressing.

I think last night we we actually did accomplish a lot, even though perhaps there weren't uh you know specific decisions made.

I think we made progress nonetheless, and I appreciate council's very rapt attention and focus on this.

It it uh certainly um helps the progress, the the process.

Tonight we are going to continue with a with um so what we've done so far is we've had a high level overview we've had an orientation to the budget package and to the process and we've also had a good long discussion about reserves and reserve transfers and reserve contributions.

So my plan was not to go back to that discussion if I understood correctly council is now very familiar and grounded with uh with the options available uh regarding reserves and reserve transfers so what we will do is we will carry on with non core and capital projects.

We'll start with non core.

And that's the that's where we're going to start right now with uh council's pleasure.

I did give you a hint yesterday that I was hoping to do this part of the budget workshops just a little differently than we had in the past.

One of the things that we had heard from council is that while there is a lot of information in the budget package book, there's a lot of information in the budget package book.

And sometimes I I have understood that council has been frustrated with having to flip back and forth.

And I'm hoping that perhaps this new process might alleviate some of that.

Here is what we are thinking.

And that is that while all of the both non core and capital projects, so this would apply to both of those separate sections, but starting with non core, we're grouping the projects in like themes.

So what I'm saying is that where we have several different projects of differing priorities, and in your listing, they are listed by priority, but by listing it that way, it kind of breaks up projects that might be related.

Right?

So it, you know, you can't you can't you can slice it different ways, but only one different way on a particular list or page.

So what we're saying instead is that we have grouped the projects by common theme or topic or work plan item, and we're going to display them for you on the screen in those groupings.

And on this on the slides, which you'll see in a minute, you will see both the page number and the cross-reference number for in the case of non core projects, the N dash blank blank blank number, so that you can just stay in the N section of your book and just flip to that particular page without having to flip back and forth to the project listing, if that helps you at all.

So one of the reasons why we thought this was important was because we could give counsel a little bit more of a holistic or fulsome view of what's in the budget for a particular theme or topic.

So for example, where we're talking about housing initiatives and our response to or you know the the items that are on the work plan relating to the to development and housing initiatives, we've got those all on one slide so we can talk about them all at once, as opposed to in the order, which doesn't make as much sense in that context in the listing.

Okay, so that's that's our plan.

We uh uh we recognize that in a five-year plan, you're gonna see the same projects multiple times.

In fact, about 80% of the projects on the list, both uh between noncore and capital, are you have seen already.

What I have asked our staff to do for you is when it's their turn to present to you the particular topic or grouping or theme, that they will identify for you a what's changed from when you saw some of these things last year, and B, what's new.

And you'll see in the corner of this slide, there's a little yellow.

You it's I appreciate it's a little hard to read the font, but it it's a little new button that should capture your eye to say, oh, we haven't seen this one before.

And staff will spend a little bit of extra time on those ones so that you understand the where did it come from what is it um what's the plan how does this fit into that grouping or theme um or the or work plan we do not require by any means a resolution to just accept the projects as is right we we we would in the interest of time we don't need a resolution for every project about yes or no you know backward or forward or in or out just what we're asking council to focus on instead is what changes would you like to see?

And for that, we would very much appreciate a resolution.

It helps the record keepers, the minute takers to say it is a very clear um um change, or uh, you know, whether it's a deferral from one year to the next or or some other change in timing or scope.

Um, if there is a council resolution, it really makes it clear that this is the will of council to make this change to the budget as a whole.

So very much appreciated if we could do that.

So, Don, just to recap and make it easier for us.

So if we're okay with it, um, and we'll just we'll just move ahead.

We don't need an approval.

But if we want to make in a change, we'll have to agree as a council to whatever change is being proposed.

So look at it kind of like you're going to toss in an amendment to what's already here, and then if you get a second or we'll uh approve or not approve that thing, and you can that will provide you clear direction.

Absolutely.

You've got it.

And as chair, we'll be looking to you to you know look around and everybody's in agreement, move on.

And if people want to make a change, then then yes, as you would normally, mover, seconder discussion, call the question.

And we can move on.

So just to help counsel or remind council that while you might be tempted per possibly to say, oh, I don't want to spend a hundred thousand on there uh on this particular project, can we just cut that in half and make it 50,000?

Well, certainly we can, however, there's going to be some implications to that.

And we would then need to come back to you if and and I suspect I certainly would not be prepared to say, oh, well, that means that you're not going to get XYZ.

I might like some time to fully understand or maybe talk to the other members of in other departments, um, you know, about what implication any change in uh you know uh scope might represent to to the project as a whole and the work plan as a whole.

And and and I I I will I do want to emphasize that a change in dollar value means change in scope, up or down, right?

And there will be implications for that.

And I very much appreciate if you give us a little bit of time to come back to you with what does that mean then mean before we actually put it into the budget.

I want to uh you know, I might be a little bit hopeful, but I am thinking that if we were to get through all of the non-core projects today and maybe even make some inroads on the capital projects, that would really put us in a good place to be able to get done by the end of tomorrow night.

That would be ideal.

And if not, we do have a budget workshop tentatively scheduled for six o'clock next Tuesday.

That's after the STAT holiday.

But it's only there, that's a regular council meeting day.

So it would only, you know, uh unless we could get back to it after after the regular meeting, typically we would just go from 6 p.m.

to the start of the regular meeting at 7 p.m.

So that's not very much time.

So, you know, I I think it would be really helpful to try to stay focused and try to get through this uh by the end of tomorrow night, if at all possible.

And we as staff, we want to support council making well informed decisions, all of the information that you need, not to feel rushed, but just simply to focus on the task at hand, realizing that uh some things, some some uh answers to certain questions, if they are not particularly relevant to whether or not this thing should be in the budget, certainly can be referred to staff for reports at a later date in time.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

So you will see on the following slides uh these little indicators of the priorities.

We didn't want to completely lose kind of the priority listing that you see in the uh non core schedule as non core and capital project schedules.

So we you will be able to have these indicators next to the project when you see them come up about um how uh how the how this particular project, any given project uh fits in terms of our priorities.

I do note that if you want uh, well, what do what does critical mean compared to required on page 221 at the appendix of your budget package is is how we think about those types of priorities and how we categorize them in on a general basis now for non-core projects you've heard this before non-core projects kind of by definition are those that are either infrequent or are one-time projects in the course of a five-year plan or they represent a change in a level of service so you've heard me say that this budget package is uh represents status quo levels of service, this is the place where to see where the levels of service are being proposed to be changed.

So if we're proposing a change in a level of service, you're going to see it in the non-core section.

That's where it will show up.

If the item is a non-core project, is infrequent or a one-time, then we would recommend that we use non-recurring revenue.

And by that I mean something like casino revenue or a grant or you know, something that uh, you know, a contribution from another source, or perhaps even a reserve transfer, sometimes DCCs.

If it is a change in a level of service, that likely we could think of that as a permanent change because unless council scales back that level of service at some point in the future, it's going to be virtually forever.

And for that, we use recurring revenue, otherwise known as taxation.

Okay.

So we're going to start.

We will go in order of kind of functional division, starting with general government services.

And in general government services, you do have several different uh directors that are responsible for some of those projects.

So we're going to kind of just take our turn and we'll leave it up to the particular director about whether or not they wish to come to the microphone or whether they like to stay at the staff table and speak to the particular projects.

Not all of the projects kind of group very nicely in a theme in a theme.

We we have a couple of slides that are kind of like and the miscellaneous ones that didn't really kind of fit with anybody anything else, and we'll just handle those as best we can and give you the information that you need.

So for general government services, we've got four categories.

Well, really, three, and then as I spoke of, a little bit of a miscellaneous one that follows on.

First, we're going to talk about the projects relating to communications.

We'll talk about asset management and information technology and then everything else pertinent to general government.

Are we good to go on?

Perfect.

Speaking to communications, I believe is Sarah.

Corporate administration.

Sorry.

Some such thing.

One of those.

You have seen this before.

This is a strategic item, and uh this simply has been updated to reflect um just changes in wages over time.

This position is uh showing as starting halfway through this year and then carrying on.

That is the only change.

Questions?

Annual salary.

I will turn to the second year for that, and that will give us a picture of that.

It shows it as uh 115 in year two, so it's uh a little less than that for year one.

It's coming in at fifty four seven fifty five for half a year.

Yeah, councilor yeah thank you um so which is more um important um for lack of better word um communications um coordinator or community planner I'll tackle that one um I think obviously the community planner uh position we we came to council early in the budget process to approve that position um we wouldn't have done that had that not been a top priority.

So I would say the community planner position, uh, which posting closed today.

Yeah.

Um, so it's in process.

That's the that's the priority.

Yeah, thank you.

And and um, yeah, I I recognize that we'd had that uh that discussion earlier, and uh it's nice to see it in context with the with the budget.

Um and I think one of the discussion points uh for council would be to uh consider one, the other, or both.

Thanks.

Um I I do have some questions and comments, but I noting that this is about staffing, I do you think that perhaps they might be more appropriate for a closed meeting, just for my personal comments and questions.

I think for staffing in general, but we've got a I don't think we can probably wait for everything to involve staff, including new staff, because that doesn't involve staff in general.

But if your comments are about staff in general, that could wait till a close meeting.

But did you have a comment on this line?

I I really uh can't comment on it until that meeting personally.

Okay.

Uh is there anybody online?

Uh I see uh Councilor Matson waving his hand or could it be a Mexican thing?

Yeah.

I I find this really easy to from my perspective.

It's a 1% tax increase for a position that we can do without uh so I certainly can't support this.

And so I you know, I I'd like a vote on this.

So I'd make I'd like to make a motion that we uh scrap this position and not not carry forward with it.

It'll be a recurring theme of mine for today, but uh okay.

Uh I just want to hear from other people.

So you got a motion on the floor.

Do we have a seconder for it?

I'll I'll second or come yeah, I'll second it.

Okay, and then you've got your hand up.

You're not going to motivate, but you're going to ask a question or a comment, Councilor Brown.

Yeah, I'll try to motivate.

Uh I I see great value in the position.

And realistically, uh uh even though we budget for half uh half or six months of of the year, realistically, we probably won't get anyone in place until early next year.

So I I'd be quite happy if we just took it out at half year out of this year and then carry it on with a full salary for the the subsequent years.

And it saves us, well, it's a start.

It's a $54,000 cut, right?

Or $56,000 cut.

So I'd be quite happy with that.

Uh in terms of our own maybe motivation, this isn't uh like a $54,000 item.

It for this year it may be, but it's a hundred thousand dollar a year item that that'll go on forever.

And again, that's almost a one percent increase in taxes.

So I I will be voting since we've had a second year, I'll be voting against uh or I guess my motion is not to proceed with it.

So I'll be voting in favor of that.

Properly motivated.

Uh Councilor Brown, did you want to add on your secondary?

Yeah, I'm just gonna um uh put forward an amendment.

The amendment would be to cut uh year one, the six-month uh term, the six month, and then move it on to 2025.

But keep the position.

That's my amendment to the motion.

Uh that does sound like a friendly amendment, uh Council.

So just for clarification, that would just be scrap it this year and discuss it again next year.

Correct.

So we're so we haven't made a decision because the time budget comes around is this time of year, so we would miss the beginning of the year.

So uh is the amendment now uh to to discuss next year is different than giving staff an approval to hire in 2025.

Absolutely.

I don't want to see this hired at all.

I understand that you've made that clear.

Counselor Quelich.

Well, if this wasn't complicated enough already, uh with the motivating.

I'm not sure who's motivating what way.

Um actually before we and certainly I'm I do um I think this is a position that uh we need.

I think we're kind of still in the exploratory phase of what that's gonna look like.

And I think we all know that this is going to have to happen at some point.

In what shape or form we don't know.

But I would certainly be interested in a point five FTE uh to to start with.

Uh on um uh I'm I'm throwing that out there for discussion.

And I know some of like Sarah, you know, I've kind of floated this before, and um it's certainly a happy medium.

Um, and uh in absence of a workload study, unless there's been one done that's comprehensive, uh, I certainly think it's fair to start with a 0.5 FTE for this position.

Uh just hang on a second.

So uh for a 0.5, just put a fine point on it.

So uh for budget, uh, would we be looking at fifty six thousand a year if we uh changed it to a 0.5 position for this year in potentially next, Sarah, if that was on the table?

Thank you.

It would be half of the figures that you s see in here, yeah.

Council Rogers.

Yeah, I was thinking about um uh the same point.

Um uh doing a half position.

Um, I guess question staff.

Um would a half position um be of use just to um this the whole issue for and uh help alleviate the uh concerns of staff.

The genesis of this position was a request by council, and it was started a number of years ago.

Um, well, the notes indicate since 2019 the requests have been coming forward for for um communications, publicity, promotion.

And you'll recall from the last budget discussions a lot about engagement and promotion of what it is council's doing, what the town's doing.

And in my mind, I see things like a year-long plan of things that we do regularly and promoting that within each department and getting that information out there, but also special projects specific park plans and doing engagement pieces around that and research and in communications and open houses and that type of activity uh around that.

Would a part-time position be able to facilitate open houses and and uh that type of thing at night?

Probably that would that would be a good gauge to see is that sufficient is it is it going to work is it something that perhaps would work for a couple years and then we we see what the workload is we talked about uh developing a communications plan and going from there but in my mind I see that we hire someone with experience who can lead these projects and these processes and develop an overall communications plan and then start to fill in the departmental pieces that are missing that we don't currently do.

And I think that council has for the past four or five years been asking for and wanting this type of uh engagement and promotional piece to get our good news stories out.

Thank you.

I I would support a half-time petition.

Okay, we've got one motion on the floor.

So before we go into alternate, we should probably address that motion.

We've got uh a mover, a seconder, we've got motivation.

Uh so all in favor.

And just to recap things, um, I I don't think you gentlemen were in agreement on the same motion.

I think what I heard from uh Councilor Mattson was that he didn't want the position under any circumstance in any year.

And I think um Councillor Brown, you're a little bit softer to consider it next year.

I I I will I'll I'll withdraw my amendment.

You withdraw the amendment.

So so the motion on the table is is that we're not going to entertain a communication engagement coordinator at all.

Um so all in favor.

All opposed.

So that motion is defeated.

There may be a subsequent motion on the table.

I'll pull it over you Damien that uh you could form that up.

Thank you.

Uh I'd like to make a motion that the town of Uroyal uh approve a point five FTE communications and engagement coordinator uh to begin uh at their uh pleasure, coinciding with the budget uh in twenty twenty four and uh that the you know job description be left up to staff with uh involving flexible hours and whatnot, and position could be reviewed in a in a one or two year term.

Second.

Seconded by counselor Rogers.

Did either one of you gentlemen want to motivate?

Certainly.

Uh I mean, this is something probably if you look at uh the deputy CAO's notes, it's probably my name beside it with the initial recommendation for this.

Uh this shouldn't shock anybody having uh a.5 communications uh analyst or advisor, uh advising uh levels of government.

Uh, I would probably say that, well, I've looked around at different municipalities and for our size, and we are probably one of the only ones that is absent of this position.

Uh you know, in all fairness, any downtime certainly from this uh communications advisor, certainly uh internal communications is something that advisors typically do, usually as well, uh, whether that be communicating with staff, uh, it can be uh external, internal.

There's more than enough work for uh a.5 employee uh because we know that because they've supported a full time employee in the budget.

So um a.5 is a happy medium.

I think it would be wonderful.

I think it would be a way to engage more with our community uh in a more robust uh uniform manner, uh, pushing out our branding, pushing out our ideas, uh, getting more raw and authentic feedback, which is something that we're always talking about.

Okay.

Council Rogers?

I'll make a uh a brief comment.

I'm interested in seeing how things worked.

And I knew Jen is filling in right now to do a lot of the communication as well as other staff.

And and it gets done, but uh there's a lot on their plates already that we uh we haven't grown.

And and since we haven't, since it's been council's will, and there's been discussion point, but we haven't done it, we've added layers of engagement requirements on there, like uh all of the social media that we have, for instance, that isn't necessarily a press release.

Um, and we're paying for this engagement, whether it comes out of this pocket or not.

And I would say the way we have been doing it, it probably hasn't been a very effect uh effective uh way of spending because this is part of all of our OCPs.

It's part of any engagement we've done.

We've we're going into a significant point in time that we're gonna be doing heavy engagement, and that means we pull out our planner and other staff to be part of that engagement.

So we're we're not getting things delivered because um because they're doing it.

Even if there's a contractor involved, they're still part of the process.

So I I'd be in support of this.

I think it's it's a happy middle ground, but I I'm not having had a bit of a lens and working close with the CAO.

Um we we are understaffed and and we have been for a while.

Uh and and Counselor Matson, I get your point, but we've also grown by probably 4,000 people since we've had uh a significant staff change or or increase, and we're about to grow some more.

And and so you know, from my perspective, I just uh like us to consider that um uh as we go ahead.

So I guess that's my motivation, and I'm in support of it.

Councillor McKenzie.

Yes, so I'm uh not in support of it, mainly because this is a council-driven um requ request rather than staff driven, and staff have been uh asking for other positions which uh are higher priority.

So I think we should save the funds and and put it towards those ones that staff have uh noted as priority.

Additionally, I believe this position would start in six months, and I believe that would miss a lot of the engagement uh around the housing this year.

So uh I I don't see the point in hiring this year.

Any other comments?

Okay, so I think we've got motion on the floor, we've got motivators.

I think I could probably guess which way people are gonna vote um for my crystal ball.

So all those in favor of having an engagement coordinator part time.

And uh and I think that's where it stops.

Uh so all those in favor of a part-time communications and engagement.

So that's uh for and uh all those against.

And I think uh Councilor Mattson, Councillor McKenzie were against the motion carries for a halftime communications and engagement coordinator.

Next up.

The next item, oh why is it is it the um?

Wasn't it the survey?

Satisfaction survey, or are we just going just trying to follow your process?

I'm I'm following the list that you've got on under NORAC and Encore projects.

So we're learning as we go, aren't we?

Okay.

So when when uh I I wasn't uh clear on whether you meant do you want to talk about the next project on this on this particular slide, or do you want the next slide?

Uh no, on this slide.

Okay.

Thanks.

So this is 2027, so I think we just keep moving along.

So this doesn't impact this budget this year, so we can yeah, move to the next one.

I've been Leo, Director of Engineering and Parks.

Thank you, Maya Tabas.

I'm speaking on behalf of the asset management section of uh the non-core projects.

Uh so you'll notice in the for uh the gray-out projects, those are currently in progress.

Uh actually they're just about to uh be closed or almost completed.

Uh you'll notice 24,000 left in the budget or 24,000 in the budget for sustainable infrastructure replacement plan.

And that's because uh the plan is to update that in 2027.

So um those projects are nearly complete, and council did hear from staff on January 16th or January 9th, uh I apologize, about incorporating uh some asset management strategies into uh this um this budget exercise.

So you heard from Director Kristensen on the um on the financial side for operations, and uh this is on the capital side.

So the uh in 2024, the proposal is to a continuum of two projects that was outlined as a recommendation in the asset management strategy.

That's the establishment of a level of service of all of our asset classes, and to complete a data audit of um you basically just uh proofing out our existing asset management system, seeing where efficiencies and more accuracy can be had.

And so those are the two for this year.

Um one thing I want to mention is that uh the province of BC have released grant funding for infrastructure planning uh in the amount of ten thousand dollars and the town uh municipalities are uh able to apply for two projects so uh should council wish to approve um those two projects then I would recommend that council also come uh to come to a resolution to approve staff to apply for those grants for those two projects aside from that um happy to take any questions uh can somebody correct me i mean if we're spending other people's money do you need council's approval to apply for grants.

And is that what council wishes?

That every time and the reason why I'm saying this too is that we've just been informed on some pretty quick flash to bang times between the announcement or the extension of a grant program, and we wouldn't make the cycle if it had to go to council for approval in order to apply for a grant.

If it's something that that aligns with what we've approved, and somebody and one of the staff has taken on their initiative to say, hey, there's a grant available for this, we better do up some more paperwork to get council to approve it, as opposed to pleasantly surprising us and saying you've already approved this thing, we're finding other money sources for it that's not coming out of your capital or or your operational expense.

Is that council's will to kind of um do that level of uh of uh of um management?

Yes, do it counselor matzen so i i guess my question would be is if i could if we uh i can i can do a few but we can right pretty much uh don you're uh you're uh please mute thank you go ahead corporal uh or counselor mattson you should take on I'll get Linda in here and we can have a squabble in a minute too so no my my question would be even if we apply for a grant and if staff puts the application in and council says, well, no, that's we're not we don't want to spend the additional funds for that project.

Uh does it hurt to apply for a grant and not eventually to accept the funds?

Just in terms of your comments, said about just giving staff cart blanch to apply for everything that they can.

No, this would be aligned to a project we've approved.

So they see a grant that would align to the project council approves.

Do we need to do staff require council's approval to apply for a grant that'll ultimately help us out?

That was my question.

Okay, so the clerk you've you've clarified it for me.

It's for something we've already approved, and they're just putting an application without having to get back to or get our approval so that the funds will go for our a pre-approved project.

Got it.

Correct.

Yeah, uh, it's just to save time because sometimes we miss deadlines.

I'll go to Scott and then uh go to you, Alison.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh sometimes uh council resolution is required as part of the grant, so it's important to that it specifies um exactly what we're applying for.

Other times we'd we'd love to show the initiative and um save the town some money.

Thank you, Alison.

Just have uh two questions.

So to clarify though, would approval mean that they would that staff would proceed with it even if they don't get the grant?

Yeah, we've already approved it.

It's gonna be funded, and then all of a sudden they see a grant.

We we've council's already approved it, but they see a grant that matches it.

Um does uh staff have the the um the freedom to go ahead and the initiative to say I can save the town some money by applying for this $5,000 grant, it'll offset us $5,000 on an eighty thousand dollar project.

We already committed the funds, perhaps from a different kitty anyway, but staff has just taken initiative to do it.

Okay, because there are some projects that if there's a grant for it, I would be in happy to proceed with it.

But if there's no grant, then I would want to review it.

So I don't know how how to phrase that.

That uh I think if we approve it based on the grant, uh receiving a grant.

I think in some cases, what I my my point was um, and that would be tied and of course come to us.

But what I'm saying is opportunities to say we've told um Ivan to plant a bunch of trees, and we've committed capital to that already and we've approved it.

And then Ivan sees a I don't know, BC hydro grant for planting lots of trees uh that just came up and it's been extended, and he can get it done that we don't have to spend any capital.

That's what I'm talking about specifically.

Don't if I may, uh, this was a little bit of the comment that I alluded to uh yesterday, where if in the project summary the project says that the funding is by grant, if pending approval, then that project is not going to proceed unless we get approval.

And a council resolution is often a requirement of the grant application process so that the funders know that council's on board with this.

If, on the other hand, the project is funded by, let's say, casino revenue, and then there is a note that staff has added to the project summary to say staff will continue to seek grants, and if approved, that will reduce the amount of casino revenue used.

So we try to give you that context in the project summary itself.

In the case of asset management program, we are confident that this is something that is very um in alignment with council's strategic plan and uh indeed you know our financial sustainability going forward.

We are hopeful that council will approve the project, and certainly um, you know, from a very from I don't have the the uh the funding is actually from casino revenue in this case.

Um but if we get grant funding that will reduce the amount of casino revenue we will use.

Council McKissie.

Thank you.

That makes sense.

And I just have a general question around the community works fund.

I'm guessing that's a limited amount and therefore prioritization of projects need to like you can't apply for it or use the fund for everywhere that it it shows up as a yeah, okay, correct.

So has anybody got uh a challenge with this?

This is casino revenue of 180 and other people's money if there's no if there's no challenge we can move to the next one so I think that's approval I can never be completely certain but I'm assuming it is our two projects uh relating non-core projects relating to information technology.

The IT strategic plan was last updated in 2021.

We renew it every three years, not five years like some maybe some other master plans or strategic plans because technology moves so quickly.

The big focus in our last IT strategic plan was on cybersecurity and resiliency, and we have completed seven of the 11 objectives towards achieving our cybersecurity goals.

In 2024, we plan to complete the remaining four objectives, and that's what the first project in the list there is about.

We do need to update the strategic plan in 2024 and 2027.

That is a really important document that guides the next things that we do relating to technology.

And these projects are very critical to support the systems that everybody is relying on to get work done.

So I I look forward to approval of these projects.

Thank you.

And for the first one, Don, how much of the grant is covered, or is that is there grants available for that 4530?

It's a it's a small amount of a grant.

It's part of our cybersecurity insurer uh that is helping us with this.

I don't have the dollar value just off the top of $6,500.

Thanks, Steve.

$6,500 is what we would hope to get from MIABC.

Great.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Any questions online, Don?

You or Ron?

Did Don drop off?

I think.

Okay.

No, Don, you're there.

Okay.

I see ya.

Uh Councilman.

Sorry, I have a general question.

I don't want to put us off topic, but you know, last last night we were talking about the tax rate, how last year it it changed from what we had said.

And I think the example was given that, oh, we could possibly, if that was to occur or we thought that was going to occur this year, we could pull it from one of the reserves potentially.

I was wondering whether that could be the same with the casino revenue.

Like if we should we save a part of the casino revenue for um like to fill gaps because my issue is I feel like the casino revenue is not used to the full extent it could be to offset taxation.

So I just wanted to put it out there to like could we save part of casino revenue to potentially uh be a buffer around tax items.

Does that make sense?

I would suggest that would be in direct opposition for example to our move to pull west shore parks and requisition off of casino revenue dependency and onto taxation so so you're I I think if I'm understanding you correctly you're going the opposite direction you're you're wanting more reliance on casino revenue to reduce taxation and I would suggest that certainly anything is possible but is that financially sustainable.

And that when we talk about the principles of when you know you have recurring expenses, you want to use revenue sources that you can rely on each and every year.

And we we know that while we we hope and guess and project that casino revenue will be here for some time, we don't it it is certainly not all as as reliable as other sources of income such as taxation.

So I would suggest what what what you're suggesting is is certainly possible, but that would be uh uh in in the opposite direction from financial sustainability.

That's the Rogers.

Yeah, um and you're just on that point, um I was wondering with all the uh non-core uh if we're establishing a a town-based operating reliance on casino, and if we have the same philosophy of weaning ourselves off casino for the West Shore Parts and Rec, we should be doing the same uh for our town reliance on projects like this.

Just an editorial comment.

Uh, but let's go specifically to um uh the budget item 45,300.

Um in uh page 179.

Um it talks about a carry forward of 8,500.

So um is 8, you know, 500 from last year that we're putting towards this.

So really the the the new uh casino ask is um 45,000 minus eight.

That's correct.

Anytime you see uh that little table on the project summary that indicates what the carry forward is, that is money that was budgeted in 2023.

We didn't spend it, we didn't draw it for casino revenue.

So we do need to include it in this budget because that indeed is what we need to spend.

Yeah, you know, so if if we uh indeed uh as we're coming along and we see uh things, I'm just assuming that what I'm saying is a new $45,000 but in actual fact it's less.

So keep reminding us of that if you wouldn't mind.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Uh so any other questions on this item?

No.

Uh anybody uh not in favor of it.

Now's your opportunity.

See.

Sure.

I'm guessing once we come to the end and we see how much revenue we have compared to how many we've approved or how much we've approved, that then we'll have an opportunity to maybe reprioritize or review again.

Because if we continue to approve everything that is out of casino revenue, we won't have enough.

If you look at the schedule for reserve transfers, all of the spending proposed by non-core and capital projects are projected in those schedules.

So we are not proposing spending from casino revenue beyond the money available in casino revenue over the five-year plan at this point in time.

So you can rest assured.

That being said, in casino revenue, you will see in that schedule that it draws down to a very low dollar amount, I think around $30,000 in 2025.

So we are fully utilizing casino revenue at this point in time as the plan sits today, which which may change before the day is over.

I appreciate and and that's that's how it should be.

And and certainly to your question about um you know if your question was a little bit relating to when we get to the end of the day and you'd like to change your mind about one project or another because of one thing or another, certainly council always has that prerogative prerogative to do that before um the the the budget is cast in stone.

Any other questions?

Any disagreement with the approval for the uh IT section spend.

Seeing no disapproval, we'll assume that carries, and both those items can carry on.

And this one is accessibility plan.

So that this one, if you if you may, thank you, uh Chair.

Uh this was one has a little bit of a mix.

Most of the projects are either in progress, and so though those are the ones highlighted in gray.

So those were on both on last year's plan and have some work already in progress with them.

That's the accessibility plan development and the truth and reconciliation awareness.

Um, I can speak to the investment program development as that's one that you have seen before.

It has not changed at all.

It got deferred from last year to 2024, and certainly is at your discretion about whether or not that is something that you want in 2024.

The only new one on this list is the Coolit Climate Action Leadership Training.

And I think our director of development services is ready to speak to that one, and perhaps the next one as well.

If there's, I believe there is a small change on that one.

Thank you, Don.

So this is a new initiative that would respond to the declared climate action emergency by encouraging action on greenhouse gas emissions at the community level and specifically in schools.

And there's a nonprofit BC organization called Sustainable Energy Association.

They work with CRD, and the proposal is to provide some pop-up funds to allow this organization to go into four schools within View Royal.

This program would be funded by our local government climate action program, which is grant money that we must use up or we lose it annually.

Thank you.

So we're looking at uh for approval for all of these.

Can I just ask a good question?

I know that council had approved the International Association of Public Participation uh framework.

And I think at the time we had a bit of discussion around encouraging training for both staff and for counselors uh should they wish to attend and i was kind of surprised not to see it up here as an item i i don't think it's all that expensive i think it would be less less than the leadership training is there i forget uh the exact amount we paid for it at uh work but i think it's around uh a thousand dollars ahead for for that for depending on the coursing and there's levels of coursing that goes on but just surprised that was it staff's intent to bring it forward or had that slipped training would typically come out of uh an our operating budget for um pro D?

Perfect.

So we wouldn't see it would just be consumed in in the things that we don't see.

Understood.

Um so anybody got any questions about what's on the screen right now?

So we've got uh five items, it's casino revenue, surplus taxation, and reserve.

No impact on tax.

Uh Damien.

Yeah, just the question about the truth in reconciliation awareness.

Is that is that something we've been doing in the past?

And has it always come out of taxation?

And would that be able to come out of anywhere else done so this item actually has been on uh several different budgets for a one time only for for like the current year only and uh I think some progress has been made in in 2023 certainly but given um you know many other factors of of which I am certainly not an expert uh this project now proposes to normalize this into our operation budget and that's what operating budget so that's why you see that as uh I believe the first year funded from surplus because it was kind of uh almost like as a as a carry forward, and then the rest of it to be through taxation because it would form a part of our regular operating budget as an ongoing thing.

Um I think that's reflecting kind of the importance of doing these activities.

It's not a large amount altogether, and uh that is is slightly different from uh what we had proposed in the past.

Okay, so I guess since this is somewhat of an exploratory phase, because you're going to be adding it in perpetuity, would you be able to pull surplus each year if there was some to offset it, or would it eventually become a part of taxation every year?

I I would suggest the my my recommendation would be to pull it from taxation and if we need to pull surplus for some other reason at the at the time when we're discussing discussing budget that would be the time to justify why an item is is uh uh you know a good justification for using surplus counselor yes I also had some questions more about the actual content of the of the training and uh I guess my concern with it um with this kind of training in general is if there's no practice um element to it, you know.

I think it's great to have this uh if we're then engaging our neighbors and um doing more.

So we're not just having the training, we're practicing what we learn.

Um but also this was about training at all.

I think this was actually exactly what your point is.

If you go to one page 169, this is all about the the relationship, not about the training with Songhis and the Squamo.

I don't oh, maybe staff can clarify.

Is it it's not training?

Sorry.

Yeah, maybe you can clarify because I understood that it was training to better understand um in indigenous culture so that you could then develop those relationships with our neighbors.

Yeah.

Go ahead, Leah.

Great.

Uh thank you, Mary Tobias.

Um, and thank you for the question.

So the truth and Reconciliation awareness project, it's sort of it it's it builds upon it sort of is building blocks, I guess.

And um to give you an idea, so this year, I think it was nine staff members um took the Sonia's um Indigenous cultural training, which was a is actually a program that was developed um th um through um the province um through Ministry of Health.

And um it's uh an it's an eight week or pardon me, no, I think there's eight modules and um it's fairly intensive course.

And so um we had a lot of interest among staff this this year and so that's great.

So we're hoping to you know continue that and as new you know new people join the town um having um this available uh uh yeah so this this um uh uh money available for that type of for that for truth for the um indigenous cultural training.

Um and then the and then just further on that, and then uh pardon me, and this uh training would also would also be available to to Mayor and Council and as well as um people on our advisory committees as well.

So um it's uh as part of our our work around truth and reconciliation is is becoming more of an ongoing budget item.

And um just to give you an idea, like we this year we didn't use up all the the money, so there's still money left over.

However, um the the proposed budget um we feel would be sufficient um in case we have more more interest over the years.

So if the this is just about training, can we rename this maybe for next year?

It doesn't have to be done now, but just so that it's truth and reconciliation training or awareness is fine, but just put in brackets training because is there a line item in our budget, Don, that deals with anything for um uh council to council um uh meetings because there is a cost associated uh with an interaction with First Nations.

And uh I I don't know if we have a budget item for that or that would be operational.

Under our operating budget, there would be funds in our legislative area, which is the the council allocated funding for such a C2C event.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Just a comment, I yeah, this doesn't seem to be like a local it seems to be um I don't know, I think you said maybe it's a provincial training, but um if there were some resources from the Songhis or Esquimalt nations or something that maybe they could refer us to just to kind of tie it more into our day-to-day lives and and operations, that would be good.

Um yeah, through Mara Tobias um this training um does help build that understanding that awareness as we work with our um with the nations and um as you know there's several projects like that are on our plate um that involve um some planning work like our coastal adaptation plan um perhaps work on our OCP so it's really important that um staff have that sort of that awareness and um and when we're working with our neighbors if I understood Councillor McKenzie correctly.

She wasn't criticizing the fact that it was being done.

She was just hoping that you would uh maybe source the uh instructors perhaps through song he's or squimalt if possible, or or at least do a joint attendance that way.

That way you can build the relationship plus get the information as well.

Great.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yes, absolutely.

Just speaking to that, um, you know, it's it's an idea, but if we have um, I think what we want is the most skilled ability uh and instructor.

Okay, so it's not really an issue of where, but how and how qualified and how we're going to be learning the best.

Thank you.

Uh Councilor Matson.

Yeah, I I I've taken uh a number of the modules through uh Island Health, and basically it just it it sort of outlines um where some of the you know the the feelings the indigenous people have in terms of how they've been treated and you know um what's happened over the years and it's not a matter of getting someone in to come in and train it it's all outlined in the modules and so for the most part I think the op the modules are probably the best place to start and somewhere down the line if you think you need somebody to come in fine but that's you know an expensive item compared to just doing it uh the training course so I certainly support uh funding for the training course thank you counselor matzon uh any other uh questions and if no other questions or comments has anybody got any challenges with what's before of that the only thing coming out of taxation as Don explained was number three, which was truth and reconciliation.

All good.

That was ongoing.

The rest was uh reserve and casino.

Next slide, please.

Next up, we're gonna talk about policing, and I'll turn that over to our CAO to talk about that, and then our fire chief will be up with fire protection and emergency response.

Uh nothing new on this report that council hasn't seen before.

Uh e com dispatch service is something that's been downloaded.

That cost will hit us in April of 2025, whether we like it or not, so that's required.

Uh the design of the new West Shore RCMP building is uh underway.

That process is uh we're meeting later this week about that.

Um the two strategic items are related to the municipal uh police support that we provide.

Uh, the city of Langford.

Uh it's typically done at a ratio of uh one support staff to three officers, and the additional RCMP members is one per 875 residents of V Royal, which is a uh unofficial agreement that we have amongst the West Shore communities.

There is an opportunity because we're partway through the fiscal year to offset a bit of the first year cost of the municipal employee, which is funded through taxation.

That would help drop the tax rate by a bit, maybe up to half a percent.

And the RCMP members are funded through taxation and reserve.

Uh I think we heard from Inspector Rose last night that it can be anywhere from uh six to twelve months to actually get an officer in place.

Um it's nice to have the taxation and utilize the reserves uh to meet our contracted strength for the RCMP members.

And if they are unable to fill the position for any reason uh the town will be reimbursed at the end of the the year for that position.

So how does that work?

I was under the understanding that they bill us for this for their their costs.

We do afterwards we don't transfer the money in advance to them.

We we pay quarterly we're invoiced quarterly and at the end of the year there's a reconciliation um which stephen uh knows intimately but uh they they will uh refund some of the money for for that money that's not spent but we they're billing us for the personnel that they have yeah i i uh so just to be clear as well for everybody the additional policing for our cmp officers so we've got seems a little bit uh so we got 159 167 and then in 226 it bumps up to 344 so i'm assuming we add another officer somewhere in the mix so that is two officers at that point yeah in in the five-year plan, we're looking at adding four members over the next five years.

Um, so that's uh one part way through twenty twenty four uh another in twenty twenty six another in twenty twenty seven and yet another in 2028.

Any questions?

I see uh let's go with uh counselor brown first, then counselor Matson.

Yeah, just to clarify, the uh yes, Inspector Rose was correct in saying that you know it could take a six months to a year to fill a position.

However, um occasionally members go off on paternity leave, and that's all calculated calculated in as well because the RCP does not backfill positions, any positions.

So any savings would be uh shared um uh amongst the uh West Shore municipalities according to the uh size of the population.

So there there is money.

When I was in charge of soup detachment, we got money back every year, and a lot of it's based on sick, you know, long-term sick, uh, paternity leaves, those kinds of things.

They don't have a body they can pull from somewhere else to to backfill.

So not only not having a trained uh person from Regina, it also includes people off on uh for various reasons.

Thanks.

Thanks, Councillor Brown, Councillor Metz, and then Councillor Roger.

Yeah, this is my same issue that I've had a number of over a number of years.

Just because the RCMP has arbitrarily come up with some 800 to one number doesn't mean we have to abide by it.

It's and you know, it's not like we're adding for every 800 people we're we're having an equal amount of crime or something equally as bizarre.

You know, because the RCMP has asked for it, I it doesn't necessarily mean we have to provide it.

It's seems fairly arbitrary in terms of the way they've established these numbers.

And you know just quickly looking at the cost of for our CP members, I don't know what's at a six percent increase in taxes just for that over the period of years.

And um I think we as a municipality need to sit down and have a serious look at you know whether or not other member municipalities of the West short agreed to this doesn't necessarily mean that we have to.

So, anyways, I'm gonna be voting against both of these strategic initiatives.

Um I think it's like the cost is too much, and I don't think it's necessary because it's uh just because the RCMP has asked for it doesn't mean we have to give it.

But I don't think there's been an agreement by the municipality that the 800 to 1 is is something we've agreed to.

Thank you, uh Councilor Mattson.

I think uh Scott, you probably get educated.

There's a verbal agreement now that it's gluing us together with.

I think there's a verbal agreement between the RCNB, View Royal, Langford, and uh Callwood that uh essentially established a level of service um that was agreed to previously based on those numbers.

So that that was agreed to by council at some point.

Get your distinction.

I don't think it was ever brought to council, mayor, for a vote on it.

I I I'm not I'm not sure, but that's where um I think I've I've got so that's where the agreement is.

It's non-verbal right now, um, but that's the level of service that has been discussed.

Counselor Brown.

Yeah, the the number just wasn't pulled out of the air.

It's based on numbers from right across Canada.

So I know that uh Todd and uh Steve have worked on it uh based on those numbers.

So it's it's kind of a general averaging, and uh the bigger the municipality actually, I think uh like places like Surrey, it's it's like one to one thousand.

So again, it's not just pulled out of the air, it's a number that's been around for for quite a long time, uh you know, right across Canada.

You know, that for places that have RCRP as their policing service.

Yes.

Councilor Rogers.

Um we had the uh the fortune of of going to uh the RCMP uh detachment uh for a presentation one evening, and uh I think they did a very good job in in showing the business case and and uh and again on um yesterday um um uh uh the we heard again that um the um contribution and level of service is 12 percent and what we're paying is 12 percent, and so we are investing the right amount of constables for the right amount of uh police time uh and resources that uh both in terms of file numbers and presence um and issues, whatever.

Um so uh I'm in support of of uh the ask here um just a point of clarification if i may the um was there i heard that um we could put this over um later so that we get a half a percent um uh for this fiscal year savings is uh is that did i hear that correctly yeah that's right um uh certainly we would be refunded uh for the the half a year absence uh or having the position run empty for half a year and and uh to that point um i if we've been that's been the standard procedure and process.

Um have we routinely received monies back uh in uh as revenue back how do you how do we account in an accounting process uh when we invest and and uh you know put the money forward what is it show that we got money back yeah maybe Steven do you want to uh stretch your legs and take the mic we we have the expert right here about expert but one thing I've noticed is it's not necessarily consistent one to one refund wise because they do consider actual costs.

That's what they bill us on.

And when they calculate the reconciliation in the subsequent year, um they consider actual costs.

We must pay that.

So they could incur costs in other areas that they download to us as well, right?

So hard to say exactly.

We just know it happens.

Sorry?

I say we just know it happened.

Yes, yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um there was a good example of that that happened this year with the um I think uh one of the compensations that they had won that we aren't a part of negotiating, of course, with the RCMP and what that's gonna look like in the end.

Uh anyhow, there was a compensation package that became approved at a higher level, and it involved retro, so it came as a bit of a surprise that we got a bill uh that we didn't kind of know what was coming.

So as much as I I don't think there's any checks in the mail from us from the RCMP, but we might have a reduced bill uh when they take uh consideration of of maybe um us uh an overpayment um or an overcommission, but it's it's something that we didn't budget for, but we didn't give them money for it yet, anyway.

I I just think you know I just want to make an observation here is that you we say taxation and and reserve.

Well, in actual fact, the taxpayers are putting up money into the reserve, right?

So even though we say we're taking it from reserve, it's it's all that was all funded by taxpayer contributions.

Thanks.

Councillor McKenzie, and then Councillor Quellitz, please.

Yes, I I definitely think there's been a case made for having more uh RCMP members.

However, four seems to me quite high over a very short period of time to increase two.

And I think it does rely on kind of estimations of future populations.

And if we do increase to four, it will necessitate that we then have a municipal employee to an additional municipal employee.

So I'm wondering if we can kind of take it more like year by year, say instead of committing to the four members, could we say you know one member this year, and we'll consider it each year?

Uh yes, through the chair.

Um, that that is how we do the five-year plan um each year.

So this would be analyzed and revisited uh each year going forward.

Unfortunately, with the growth that we're experiencing, and we see what we've already approved, we're gonna see those same numbers where they've been stagnant.

I think probably for pretty much decades or slower in in growth that were predictable.

But this gross spurt we've put on, just ask Langford, including their fire department, how much it's costing them to get to a level where they've got enough service for being safe.

Um, so it's it's a there's probably other things that we could uh do uh about it.

And I and I know to Councilor Matson's point there's uh there's kind of challenges with cop to pop but um but unless somebody comes up with a better model that's consistent you know I can see our point and try to protect taxpayers I can also see our point in providing them a level of service that we think they desire for safety um and I can also see Superintendent Preston's point for trying to run a police um station um with kind of three funding sources uh that are not always in a in agreement that have to be reminded to to plan on pulling new members on with new problems.

So I can see it kind of all the way around.

So help us out with some perspective.

Uh Counselor qualitch.

Yeah.

Well, certainly we're we're speaking to so many items here in an omnibus fashion, and we're hearing lots of comments.

I know so many municipalities right now are struggling with the e comm levy that has been struck uh sprung upon us.

Certainly we're no exception.

For a small municipality, uh something like 1.2 million sprung on us over four years would cause anybody to move forward with trepidation and adding new employees on top of police budgets, an impending police building being built.

Uh and in the past, we've seen superintendents and inspectors approach council and label uh the need for new employees as either critical uh or uh required.

And I do note that both uh the strategic uh items uh are not critical or required this year.

Uh there is an anticipation of a population growth hitting 15,000 by 2028.

We don't know uh if that will happen.

Uh I'm uh asking council to move cautiously with adding employees uh in any division or any department in the organization because of the massive tax increases that we shall pay.

We do not have an option to pay or not with econ, the levy.

We all have to experience this uh, and it's it's a big hit.

Um I'm certainly uh of the opinion that there's a different feel this year for the level of urgency of a new police officer than in years past.

And I know Councillor Rogers and Matson would probably agree.

Um, that the advocacy is not as strong.

And I think for me it's it's important just to weigh all those as we move forward.

Uh that's a great point.

And one thing that I I pressed Sergeant Preston on was we need to be talking from the same data sheet.

If if RCMP is using RCMP data for our protected growth, and we're using another formula, we're just not on the same page at all.

We're not agreeing on a data point.

And then when do we come to that data point?

As far as I'm concerned, the only point we have that we know our actual population is the census that uh occurs, you know, every four years that we budget everything on.

However, they're using BC stats frequently and using projected uh point.

And I don't think we should be pulling somebody on to a projected point because it's an uncertainty.

Sarah, go ahead.

Counselor Brown was seeking your attention.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Um, yeah, the you got to remember too that we're only paying 70%.

The uh feds are picking up 30%.

If we were ever to go to a municipal police force or join another existing police force, we'd be paying 100%.

So we've got to keep that in mind.

Even when we get to 15,000, we're only paying 90%.

So that that's a considerable saving and and and should be considered thank you counselor rods yeah um i i i have to uh um relate to uh a couple of points again that we heard in in the presentation at um at uh the police station and that's the um the aspects and and i think it's an important point um which is uh serious crimes insurance or murder insurance you know that uh when those big ticket items come along the the um you know that the point that um the RCMP are investigating a an insurance policy that would help um you know buffer that impact uh when a serious crime occurs and and uh we've got a great many of investigating officers that would easily you know reach a million bucks which would be on the municipality so that's one that's uh one point and I guess if um if maybe it's also uh a point that we need to work harder in collaborating with our um other municipalities uh regionally that the hospitals start taking on their responsibilities of um um uh taking custody of those individuals and not uh be uh babysat uh by the uh um the police forces so that that's another thing that uh we're we're picking up that cost and I think that's something that we should be lobbying to to change.

I think we'll lose that lobby.

I I dis I agree on how unfair it is that we have we have to service the hospital same as the fire.

Yeah, I see them.

The one point I will make here is that the point that we are lobbying and can do some advocacy.

Currently, the e com is a separate private company, right?

And uh and I think uh Don and and um and Damien know this as well is that that normally is funded or we're taxed on our landlines, right?

Um, and and that is supposed to go to e comm, supposed to go to 911.

Um we've been advocating as part of the CRD, and I I would recommend that we consider a bit of advocacy here, has nothing to do with the budget, but we'd never touch it otherwise.

Um, that uh there there's a push to uh put the same levy on cell phones, and that that goes directly because that money is just going into provincial government coppers and they're not paying for this, right?

It's downloaded to the users of the municipalities to actually do it, they're not offsetting that for municipalities.

So there is a resolution before UBCM right now, but I say we do double down our concentrated effort for advocacy because I think it's the right thing to do.

If we could um consider that, we'll we'll raise that in another um uh um council meeting.

Councilor Matson.

Yeah, given the um importance of of these decisions, and especially in terms of the taxpayers and the fact that you know that there's not a sort of a huge need for this, or it's not strategic, it's not even required at this point in time.

I would just like to see us have a dollar, you know, for this year have a vote in terms of each of these issues, whether we're adding, you know, uh an additional municipal employee this year and additional RCP officer this year.

Uh, I'd like to see us have a just a vote on each of it because I think it's it's good for our taxpayers to know that uh you know how we feel about this and what the you know, because it's gonna be an impact on their taxes this year and for years to come.

Yeah, I'll I'll go to Scott with you on that one because it's kind of ambiguous for council uh for the budget for this year.

I know we're trying to project a few years here, but I don't know when this municipal employees required.

I know there's a formula associated with it.

I know what this says.

I know we've already had a discussion with uh Inspector Rose that was uh about adding a single RCMP member but he didn't mention is there a way to break this out so we look at this year for this budget for the implications because right now this is for the next four years.

And I don't think you're gonna get that of this council.

You're you're gonna get you're gonna get uh probably is that um you know uh a a municipal employee in the year that it's potentially required but that'll be a decision for the budget year that year um I've got a lot of papers in front of me right now um and to do the calculations on the fly I've got Steven here as well but do you need a minute and then we can move on to the next slide and then come back to this one is that possible yeah that would be great yeah yeah so I don't do that let me go back to my desk so so I think what we're looking at and correct me if I'm wrong council it is that we're looking for just this year, because I don't think we'll be able to do the policing with the impact it has on our budget, uh, because each one of those members is more than a percent a year uh for for tax increases.

So uh if we could look at what we're looking at for this year, and to be honest with you, regardless of how I don't think I could vent this council to come up with a four-year plan for what we've got in here and and walk away with approval.

Yeah.

Um, the figures I do have in front of me, if this helps council, is we're looking at uh $77,000 uh for the municipal employee for the full year.

So we could we could half that, but we do have to pay City of Langford about $5,000 for the recruitment portion.

So let's say around forty-four thousand dollars.

And for the RCMP officer, um we've got $159,000 scheduled for this year, and you could cut that in half at least.

But it's it's really going to depend on when they could start.

And of course, we're we're probably being invoiced for that increase.

I I believe we committed to that increase last year.

So I would have to check and see where we're at with the cost.

That was for the municipal democracy.

That's for the the extra officer.

I don't think we committed to the or this is another extra officer, actually.

We we did one for last year as well, did we not?

Yeah.

Okay.

So this last year we did one, and this year is another one in front of us.

So what you're proposing is is start it halfway through.

Yeah.

See you, Councilor Brassett.

Uh okay, councilor Ratson.

I just wanted to remind colleagues that even though it's half this year, it's full dollars next year forever.

So you know, I'm I always have a problem with saying, Oh, we only need need it for half a year and it's for half the taxes, but the reality is it carries on forever at a at 159 and 75 or 79, whatever that was.

So when we vote, remind remember that.

Appreciate it.

Council Rogers.

Yeah, um, I I recall in the last community survey um that the two most important things uh for the public uh well, round it together, police fire protective services.

That was the the the most critical delivery um on people's minds.

Um and uh we heard last night that uh even though tonight this year um 10, 11 percent, next year is seven percent.

So um, you know, I guess think what we have to do is get through the double digit this year.

And then, you know, it hopefully life gets a little easier for the next.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council Rogers, Council Quowic.

And that, you know, certainly a good point.

Uh the good news though, with that comment is, and you mentioned a couple key words there, is one of them was critical.

Critical's not up there this year.

And if next year we're at seven, uh that officer is in the budget next year as well already.

So uh just a thought.

Uh am I correct?

You know, in theory, if we were to keep that.

Just a thought.

Okay, so I think what we're looking at has been modified somewhat.

So let's do this line by line.

I don't think we can get out of the e comm thing at all, even if we wanted to, it's just the way it is.

Uh the West Shore RCMP building in the spa uh expansion has already been approved by council.

Unless somebody wants to revisit that, that that was for the design validation.

Um and uh additional policing for municipal employees.

Um I I don't think that was on my radar for this this year.

Is it uh a net new ad for this year or is that for another year between 24 and 28 uh uh sorry i'm on the wrong page here um we're looking at uh net new employee for this year um it would be in fiscal year four where we would add another support staff okay so it would be for this year, that's their ask.

And the RCMP officer is cor Corporal Rose uh presented that they would, if approved, they would put it in.

Uh, but could we also determine is it reasonable to say put it in?

Uh, but we're only gonna budget for financing for half the year.

Yeah, that's we're not anticipating you the guy starting tomorrow or the girl starting tomorrow.

Yeah, and and the person definitely didn't start in January.

So yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

So the I think the two contentious issues are uh the two bottom ones.

Let's do those line by line, and that's uh municipal employees.

And correct me, Don, did we add one last year for a municipal employee?

It's that that part during budget time that just leaves your brain.

I understand does mine too.

But I thought I thought like it would have had to have been last year because yeah, that that was for this year.

So is this something that we've already considered?

You'll note on page 162, there's a letter from Superintendent Preston stating that as of December 2022, we had 13.35 uh police officers and current support staff of three.

So as of uh a year and a bit ago, uh we would require 4.45 support staff members, rounded down to four.

But as I wasn't here last year, I don't know if so uh uh Sarah uh did remind me, yes, this was an ask, I believe, on last year's budget that was deferred to 2020.

So you were asked to add uh a municipal employee last year, and you said we'll do it next year.

I believe that's correct.

So and thank you for that for that reminder.

So doing it for next year, can we still get away with half the year?

44,000.

Yeah, we we've we've got control over the municipal employee.

Um and and when we instruct Langford uh to hire them and uh yeah, we have control over that.

Yeah.

I'm gonna see if I can move us along and make a motion.

Uh I move that we um provide for this year's budget only, a municipal employee in an RCMP member at half, uh starting halfway through the year.

Second.

Seconded.

Um and the reason why I say this is that we've deferred the municipal employee uh to this year.

Um as uh Counselor Qualowich said that you know, as we increase taxes to a rate to pay for this, yes, we're gonna be paying it forever, Councilor Mattson, to your point, but it's not going to be that jump of three officers or four officers that were behind.

Uh and and so uh unless we want to redo the contract and everything, that's an entirely different conversation than what we're having right now.

We've already signed on, verbally or otherwise, to 850.

If there's a will of council to go back and change that formula, I'd entertain that.

But right now we are only living with the what we have right now.

So if there's a willingness to to bring that up to council to to redo, I'm open to absolutely anything.

But I think we've got to look at what's on the table and what's going to uh with our population growth, especially that it is, but I haven't heard back as yet uh from staff on what we're using for statistics and when they are they speculative or are they actual and are they from the same subject?

I can speak to that your worship uh the census is the ideal um population statistic to use once every five years in between that uh bc stats is a somewhat reliable number our cmp are using their own generated population statistics neither bc stats nor the census they have e division calculating that so an analyst in green timbers is likely generating those numbers they're close.

Um council will recall the uh conversation we had in the CIO council meeting where I did my own analysis.

We're we're in the same ballpark, but um it would be nice to agree on a set of statistics.

I think it would be good if we're gonna use BC stats that that we just let them know that View you can use whatever you wanna use, but Vue Royal doesn't have access to your RCMP machine.

And we're gonna use BC stats because it's available and transparent and open uh for us.

Councilor McKenzie.

Yes, I do think there would probably be an appetite from uh Langford and Callwood, especially Langford given that it was the whole uh new council there to review this um ratio.

And then and for that reason, I I would probably uh want to wait on approving any new staff or new uh police officers.

And I was also quite um convinced by Councillor Colewich's uh points about the the fact that it is only listed as strategic at the moment.

Thank you, Councillor Mattson and Councillor Brown.

Uh or you might be scratching your head, Councillor Brown, I wasn't sure, but Councillor Matson.

Yeah, no, I'd agree with uh both Allison and Damien in terms of the points they've made.

Uh it isn't critical or urgent this year.

Um although we and we have a big tax increase this year.

If we put off any decision until next year, uh we'd certainly be in a bitter financial position to add those additional resources should we choose to do so.

So I will be voting against the motion the mayor made to approve halftime for each of these positions this year um you know we we we received the letter we um uh did uh uh 2022 we uh skipped that year um I think we're we should be committed to um applying the support staff and I don't think we can argue with the numbers and and the resources that um the uh the um West shore uh has presented to us and I think we should uh be playing fair ball with our other two partners they're coming up with uh their number of officers and and um I know I don't think we should be calling on their offices to fight our battles when it comes time to protecting the public thank you councilor Rogers Council collar what a great discussion uh certainly uh you know if we're going to compare ourselves to other you know municipalities it's fair to say that the development uh and growth of those municipalities are more robust uh more economic prosperity in the future for for those particular areas uh which means more taxation and more income uh we don't have the liberty of that uh we're we're moving conservatively some of us uh tonight so far, and we all are very you know thoughtful, moving conservatively through this, um, planning for the future, um, taking into consideration um statistics that some of them are generated by an organization that wants something, some of them are generated uh evidence-based uh across Canada.

So, you know, as elected officials, certainly we we have recommendations from staff, whether it be critical, required, or strategic.

It's a very hard decision.

Uh, we all want our communities to be safe.

There have been uh no extraordinarily strong cases made for these particular improvements this year.

Uh, we have been carrying our load with increasing police officers uh and staff uh consistently over the past few years.

I'm certainly surprised to hear we didn't add a municipal employee last year.

That may be my only uh area tonight where I would potentially reconsider.

Uh but again it's still listed as strategic.

The other thing that's interesting I find is that uh with and police officers certainly it's a unique law enforcement public safety.

We don't expect to know everything about everything they do all the time.

Uh but when it comes to municipal employees, and as we've addressed tonight, though those are kind of ours.

And so kind of knowing the workload and you know why an office or why a civilian employee would be needed.

I mean, I'm looking at a letter from 2022 here that's kind of somewhat boilerplate saying, you know, we need another employee, uh, which is fine.

And in all fairness, we didn't ask, but they didn't come here.

So um yeah, that's that's my um addition to the to that motion.

So you wish up I'm wondering if uh it seems a little predictable that it could be a 3-3.

Should we hold and and see what uh counselor Lemon has to say?

Uh that's possible.

We could defer it, but I think we need or or let's just vote on this motion and then a subsequent motion could come up that um you know we we don't fund it.

I or or there's there's uh another possible compos uh um combination uh between the two.

Um so I let me do this.

Let's withdraw the motion, and uh I'll withdraw the motion and we'll do this line by line.

Uh so the policing, this was deferred from last year for the municipal employee that does carry a load.

Um so would there be somebody willing to put forward a motion just on the employee?

And that could be that they go with what they said, they've but they do it for half of the year.

But this is something that we had kind of committed to last year and deferred to this year.

Be somebody willing to raise a motion for that, Councillor Qualage.

You know what?

I'll make a motion to support the additional policing uh municipal employee based specifically on the ratio of officer to support staff, which we're not fulfilling.

Do we have a seconder?

Second to move it along.

Seconded for Counselor Rogers.

I'm looking at a document that uh that shows a ratio of support staff to uh police officers.

I happen to have intimate and expert knowledge in law enforcement, and I know that the uh civilian staff uh are doing more, uh more sophisticated duties.

There's more disclosure requirements, uh there's more onus put on civilian staff and law enforcement expectations from the public.

And for that reason I'll uh support this.

Seconder.

I um yeah, uh again, it's um we've been asked for to do this.

General discussion, comments, councilman.

Uh we should have done last year.

Let's get it done.

Thank you.

Yeah, just I just wanted clarification in terms of the that ratio, is that a ratio to employees or RCMP officers we actually have working, or is that to the RCP officers that are supposedly on the books?

So there's a difference between the two.

Uh well, it's officers on the books that we're we don't have enough support staff for right now.

Okay.

Okay, just because the officers are on the books, we don't have a full compliment.

That that's for the compliment that View Royal is paying for right now and I think it's 13 point something i i know but we get money back every year because they can't fill the full compliment call the question uh just any other comments i think that was the only one left council mackenzie so the agreement that's referred uh to on page 162 by um uh officer preston.

Um that's that's not a that's the verbal one that you're referring to, or is that 162?

Yeah.

No, the the uh formula for I think municipal employees to RCMP officers is a standard.

They the verbal agreement was the referred to as the pop to cop ratio of one to eight seventy-five, I think.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I actually, even though it's that's here, I don't actually recall us approving it last year.

I just remember us deferring it to um 2024.

So um yeah, I just wanted to.

Yeah, that's right.

We didn't approve it.

We just deferred it and here we are.

Yeah.

So uh Council Quotes.

Yeah, I was just gonna note, I mean, even even with the increase, we were still below, we would still be below their desired uh police officer to civilian staff ratio.

Even even if this is approved right now, we would still be point five below.

So I will call a question at this point.

And um, so this is for additional policing municipal employee one only for this year.

Um and uh the cost for that, I think was fifty seven.

Was that on the books for just this year?

Sorry, microphone.

Um half of the 77,000 uh plus five thousand for recruitment costs.

About 0.25 of our percentage point there on a book.

37,500.

Okay.

Um that that would be the total.

So that would start them halfway through the year, I guess that was that was yeah, that that would be for a July 1 start.

Okay.

So a July one start at 37,000.

All those in favor of approving that.

Um so we've got four four, so councilor Brown uh and those opposed.

Uh see Councillor Mattson and Councillor McKenzie opposed.

So that motion carries.

Um so additional RCMP members.

Uh correct us, Don, did this come to us last year and we deferred to this year for the additional RCMP officer.

I know I'm I'm taxing you.

Sorry.

I'm not sure that I can say definitively without double checking my records and and indeed reviewing the minutes.

Um I don't know that our corporate officer found anything.

My understanding that was that this was requested.

I seem to recall um Sergeant Preston, if I'm saying it right, I believe he came and spoke to council at one point in time.

My understanding was that it was requested last year but deferred.

And that there my recollection is that council committed to adding an RCMP member this year starting early in the year.

So um could we um um postpone this to for gone to get more information and for Councilor Lemon to come back and and uh um uh I think that that would probably be a good idea.

I don't want to uh you know push staff.

So let's uh defer the uh this item till tomorrow till we get a little bit more information.

But um uh we've deferred this, I believe, if my memory serves me, from last year's budget to this year.

Um but if we can just pull that over till till tomorrow and that'll allow uh a more active does anybody have any questions of staff before we do that?

So as they're doing their investigation just on this one item, we won't be able to solve the whole pop to cop, Councilor McKenzie right now.

Uh and I think that would be months in the works, even if those those councils would agree to it.

Counselor McKenzie.

I I don't know why we just don't vote on it.

Um I don't we're not sure that Jerry will be in at the next meeting.

It's just easier to have a vote than if it fails, uh bring it up later in the budget cycle.

Okay.

Uh good enough.

Councilor McKenzie.

Yeah, if it's available, if they've already discussed it, it would might be useful to know what the other councils have um said if they've reviewed this and and also agreed to increase it or not.

But those would be their own increases.

Right.

That wouldn't be our increases.

No, but just to see um kind of their sentiment towards the increases and that ratio.

I wouldn't want to hold off a decision based on the no, no, just if it's as another part, ongoing.

Um yeah, I think staff, you know, we we could revisit that and uh council the whole, I think be more appropriate.

And not to have the RCMP here, but maybe if we'd have some of the the history behind it.

And uh at that point, it's hard to get three councils together, but we can certainly have our staff reach out uh and and ask.

I know there was some move to to revisit that, as there is with every new council, um, because they just it's not what not that they don't like the RCMP, they just don't want to pay money uh for the RCP.

Um so Ron is suggesting we vote on this one now.

So we've got two choices to vote.

I'm looking for somebody to raise a motion.

We could look vote against it, that we're not going to do it this year.

We could do some cut or we could vote for it, or we could do some percentage of starting it.

Council McKenzie.

I'll raise a motion that we uh do not uh have an additional RCMP member this year.

Okay, do we have a seconder?

Well, I'll second for discussion.

Mike, does that mean if we if it's a 3 3 that it's approved?

Or we still have to vote again?

I mean, we should just vote, have a motion to vote that we add the member because then we can tell could if it's we vote yes to not have the member, does that mean that we support having a member?

We'd have to do another we'd have to do another motion, but we're halfway there, Ron.

Okay.

So we could discuss it and take longer.

So motion on the floor.

We got a seconder.

Second.

You're seconded.

No, uh Ron seconded.

Okay.

So all those in favor, unless there's other discussion, all those in favor of not approving it this year.

All those in favor of not approving it for this year.

So we've got three.

Uh and then uh thank you.

So uh um Councillor Brown, uh myself and Councilor Rogers were opposed.

It has tied for three three.

So let's defer this for Councilor Lemon.

I don't see a way ahead.

So it did not pass.

Um and I think we wouldn't get there unless somebody wants to raise another motion of half of the year.

I move we move on.

Move on.

Okay.

So so really it's not approved right now.

That's where we're uh it it could be approved through the vote that was just taken.

Uh it's a 3-3 vote.

So Councilor McKenzie's motion was defeated.

Right.

The motion was not to hire.

Right.

Okay, let's let's do it properly then, just to so to do it in a way that everybody understands.

So uh Councillor Rogers, I assume, is going to move that we do uh add the RCMP as a budget states.

Counselor Brown's gonna second it, and so all those in favor of adding the additional RCMP member point of order.

You know, there's been a motion on the floor.

It was seconded, it was voted on.

We don't need another motion.

It's clear what the direction is.

John, there that's not the case.

The mayor said specifically that we that if that motion was defeated, that we'd be having another motion.

Why bother?

You know, it's uh then we'd still be in in limbo.

We're we're halfway there.

We could argue about longer than the vote takes, guys.

Come on.

Uh so please.

That we we've got uh a mover and a seconder.

So all those I'm not seconding it.

You're not gonna second it.

So sorry, Jasper stupid.

I'll second it and then vote against it.

There we go.

Uh so uh that's back on track.

Um so all those in favor of adding an additional RCMP member for this year, raise your hand.

All those opposed.

And I note that councillor Quellitz, Councilman McKenzie, and Councillor Mattson were opposed to it.

And because we're tied, that motion now passes that everybody can understand.

A tie vote fails.

Sorry, yeah.

A tie vote fails.

So we didn't approve it.

Okay, both both of those then have failed.

So no member fails, having a member fails.

It's just not approved.

So now we can move on.

Well, it's it's obviously we'll bring it back for No, of course we won't.

Uh your worship, I would just suggest um, you know, you can uh have this reconsidered at a later date once we have a full council uh with an odd number.

Yeah, and more information available.

Absolutely.

Next.

Thank you for the introduction, Don.

Good evening, Mayor, members of council.

Um five items in front of you this evening.

I'll start with the uh the first, the FireSMART program.

I'm pleased to advise council that this afternoon we received approval from the province for the full uh 112,775 grant application.

So um good work on behalf of uh Troy, Jeff, and Dominique in IT or in GIS, sorry.

Uh that grant was approved.

And that is for a FireSmart coordinator for a uh temporary position, one year provincially funded position to uh start mapping out our FireSmart and fire protection requirements for the town of Uroil in our interface areas.