Committee of the Whole

Thank you, Sarah.

Uh call the special budget committee of the whole meeting uh to order for Thursday, February 15th, 2024.

Uh we have in the room, of course, Councilor Qualitic, uh, myself, Mary Tobias, Councilor Rogers, Councilor McKenzie, and online we have uh Councilor Brown and Councillor Matson.

Uh regrets for Councilor uh Lemon.

Uh and I will begin with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Quangwan speaking people known today as the Esquamalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

Um you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227 and when prompted, enter conference ID 112-143-580 pound.

Uh at the appropriate time on the agenda, I will then announce the last four digits of your phone number.

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you to use your speaker phone or not use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask you to unmute by pressing star six.

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

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

I don't think we have any uh minutes, but uh we can approve the agenda as such because Dawn I think has most of our agenda um already planned for us.

Uh so a summary from last night, capital projects and continue budget deliberations.

Any changes proposed for the agenda?

Seeing none, can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

Sure.

Moved by councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Brown.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Motion carries, and I guess that brings us to a public participation period.

I don't know.

Can staff participate in the public participation?

No, I don't think so.

Just to shake things up.

No, uh, Carl, anybody on the phone?

Not even Carl's there.

Okay.

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers so far.

Thank you, Carl.

Uh and that brings us down to reports.

Damon Christenson, over to you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council, and our online virtual counselors.

Welcome.

So, what I typically do at this point, let's see if we can make that a little bit bigger, Steve.

Um, what we normally do at this point is we review what we have done so far.

That is going to be really hard to read for most.

I have strayed from what I have done in the past in that we should consider this a little bit of a pro forma projection.

What I'm saying is that I have put typically we use this tracking sheet to only record those decisions of council and the financial effect on the budget as we go through and as you make those decisions.

Steve is hard at work putting the numbers on here, which is true for everything on this list except for one.

And that being the additional RCMP members.

But let me just take you through the top.

Can you make that up?

I'm having trouble.

I'm having trouble seeing it.

Okay.

So at the very top, you can see we can see that in 2024, you can you can see what our projected tax revenue is.

And we use that to compare what our projection is for 2024.

And you can see that the projection right now is at you know roughly 10%.

And that is the calculation after we've deducted the 1.8% that we're expecting from new construction, right?

So we start with that at the top, and we have a similar table at the bottom that takes into account all of the changes that we make along the way.

So let's just go through those really quickly.

The first one is to reduce the communications and engagement coordinator project by from basically one FTE to a half an FTE.

And so you can see that the effect of that is in 2024, it's a reduction of just over $27,000.

Okay, which which kind of makes sense.

Um that person wasn't starting in January 1, it was starting partway through the year, and so that's why in the following year the reduction is a larger number.

The uh additional policing municipal employee uh again, we simply took the first year and we deferred that to later in the year, and this is the value 36,000 is the value of that reduction.

Okay, let's skip the next line for just a moment.

We'll go to the full-time fire personnel.

What we've done there is we recognize that the project summary assumed a January 1 start for one individual and a middle of the year start or six months later, the start of the second fire person.

And uh what we've done here is we've said as the uh fire chief indicated, that realistically that first person wouldn't start until springtime, so I put that in as the as after the first quarter.

So basically in April 1st start.

And there's a very small reduction then that just basically takes one quarter of the position away from uh because they wouldn't start until April 1st.

So that is another 20 almost $27,000 reduction.

The community planner, what you see there is the component of that position for 2024 that was that had been put in as if it was funded from taxation.

And we recognize that it is eligible for funding from the growing communities Fund.

And so we've replaced taxation with the growing communities Fund for 2024, and then uh understood that council had approved it for one term only.

We at this point have removed uh the following years uh from taxation and not replace that at this point in time.

I see a couple of questions already, Damon Christenson.

I hope you're ready.

Uh let's go to Councillor McKenzie and then Councilor Rogers.

My question is actually probably for uh Chief Hearst.

Um I was trying to find it here, but I thought I recall seeing that with the the members that if the first member was delayed, the recruitment was delayed till the spring, that you would also recruit the second person sooner too, or would it remain later in the year?

No, so I anticipate we're in the middle of collective bargaining, so we won't be hiring anyone until that process is concluded.

If I'm a betting man, May, June, you know, so we'll advertise.

We'll it would probably be even a little later than April before we even get a chance to hire the first person.

Um, but if we're gonna hire it'll probably be both at the same time or a month apart, something along those lines.

Yeah, so I I don't know.

I think the budget assumes that they wouldn't be right now.

Is that correct?

Yeah, my apologies.

The budget, the budget was based on a January start and July start.

Um, obviously the January start isn't gonna happen.

Um, so there would be one in July, and there one could be one just before, or I could stagger them at July and September, which would save a bit of money.

All right, I think that's fine then.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

Uh so are we um just I'm a little confused.

So um we're showing a line item with that we're not gonna be hiring another police officer.

I was getting back to that.

That was the line that we skipped.

Uh I'll I'll go back to that when you're ready with uh all of the other questions.

I'm all leavers for that one.

Okay.

I've just got one question of possibilities.

Seeing how this engagement uh individual is uh or yet to be hired half time, but could that position, seeing how it will be mainly involved in our growing community and tightly involved with OCP and communication, could that be funded out of the growing community fund?

I'll I'll do my best to answer that.

I did actually just review the eligibility rules for use of the growing communities funds.

It it was very specific that it would be um for planning staff related to growth.

Uh not to say that we couldn't push that envelope a little bit.

I would be a little bit nervous about doing that because we would have to prove that they were dedicated, or we may be asked to prove, if audited, um, that that staff member was strictly or at least substantially dedicated to those activities related to uh um uh development and growth.

Yeah, I'd I'd kind of advocate that in a way, if possible, because I see Leanne being intimately involved with engagement, regardless of what it is, and we'll be intimately involved in both the bylaw engagement and the OCP engagement.

Um, so maybe this is a question for you, Leanne.

Would would uh would the halftime engagement person, I could see them fairly concentrated on OCP community growth related activity.

Um that is a good question, and I may have to defer to our corporate officer on that one.

Um the but I will just sort of speak to the quickly um as it relates to the community planner, because the community planner would be responsible would be helping the planning department's um involvement in community engagement associated with the OCP update.

So that person would be quite involved in the engagement piece because that is kind of their areas of act, would be their areas of ex expertise.

Thank you, sir.

I would envision that the communications person would be very broad based and covering all departments, and see that they would have a communications plan for the municipality as a whole and the departments setting out uh each year the regular work that happens and talking about that work for all the departments and then delving into specific projects.

So it may be some development services work, but it could also be uh work related to perhaps some work in engineering or parks or or different work happening, for example, helping with elections and promoting that piece.

So I don't see it's tied necessarily to that piece, and I also see it as an ongoing position.

Um, so to fund it from uh something that's not an ongoing source of money to the town could be also just a surprise egg that we find later.

So I would perhaps suggest that taxation is the place for that.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

Damon Christenson, over you.

Okay.

Working with the CAO today, I uh did some financial analysis on the financial impact of taxation.

Were we to change the projected uh addition for RCMP officers to one in 2024 starting in October, so October 1st, and then not another one until 2027.

So basically correlating with other information you received, I did the financial analysis on that.

And what we're seeing then is a reduction in total that the in your budget package N54 total was 1.933 million, is reduced to 1.1 million overall for the five years.

You can see that the impact for 2024 is a hundred and nineteen thousand dollar reduction.

So that's slightly better than one percent.

And you can see the future reduction.

There's no change in fiscal year two because there hadn't been planned an addition in that year, but in subsequent years there were additions that we have now removed from this financial calculation.

And you can see the reductions there in fiscal year in 2026 through 2028.

So I I put that in there for my own benefit too, to see well, okay, what does this do to the bottom line?

And you can see the the table at the bottom then takes the same revenue number that is required, the 12.142 million.

Um at the end of the day, after these reductions, what's left is 12.142 million, which when you compare it with the uh revenue number at the top is a 7.5 increase rather than the 10% increase in taxation.

Now, if we if we um you know don't don't do any RCMP increase in 2024, that would reduce just another 40,000 out of the budget.

So basically, what I'm telling you is that N54, then in fiscal year one has $40,000 to fund RCMP for basically the last quarter of the year.

Just a question, Damon Christenson, that's related.

Obviously, you move your projected forecast and the amount of expected tax increases ahead each year that you do them.

What's your margin of error have you found over the past couple of terms?

COVID was crazy and different, but how how on are you in your projections?

Um, because you know you're you're doing this year, you did it this year last year.

How how what what's your usual degree of variability there when it comes to what I can tell you, thank you, your worship, is that the final number that says revised total property tax revenue, right now it's $12,142.9941.

When I do the tax calculation, so that's the total revenue from property taxes.

When I do the tax calculation and share it amongst all the classes and using all of the multiples, and we talk about that when we bring the tax rate analysis back to you, that is the number that we use.

And we get to, I think last year's uh rounding error was $14 or $18 in revenue.

Now, do keep in mind that the process is such that this is the number over which council has all control.

Everything after that in calculating the taxes, much less in your control, such as assessments.

Now you do have control over the multiple, which was which we know the business class has a multiple, and council does have that control, but you don't have any control over assessments shifting from class six to class one and so on and so forth.

But we do the calculation, and I can promise you that this is the number that will be the budgeted and and the the number that drives that tax rate calculation.

The problem with comparing with a prior year in terms of a percentage is that while we can control what we want to collect this year, we can't control what property assessment appeals happened that affects last year's revenue.

And so more and and typically when people appeal their assessments, they're not asking to raise them, right?

So when we compare this year's tax revenue with last year's tax revenue, the number that's moving is last year's, and it's not going up, it's going down, creating a larger difference between the two years' tax revenue numbers.

And so that's where yes, there can be a discrepancy, but it's not because this year's number has moved.

That's the number that's used to calculate this year's, it's just the percentage between sometimes does slightly shift, and it's because last year's number went down.

And on that same kind of topic for a percentage last year, we agreed to, I think it was a 9.9, but after the adjustments it actually turned out to a 10.1.

How do we prevent that from happening again?

So that I think we're the only municipality that cropped up, although I think the problem occurred everywhere.

How do we kind of because now it has to be public?

As soon as we say it, uh it will be published whether we send out a media release or not.

Uh, people are very curious about what uh percentage increases are our plan.

So, how do we prevent that to happen again?

I realize it's not being real in that you're not reflecting those actual assessments coming back, but is there a way that we can do that?

So when we agree to a percentage, whatever that should be, that that is reflected uh in the actual we don't have a a top up or another uh percentage on it.

My answer to that would be the only way we can do that is to use numbers that don't change, and that's our budgeted numbers, whether or not they were realized.

Okay, so at some point, um, if if I may, is this this is this is the recap.

At some point or not, I would uh we will need to know what the decision will be on the RCMP members, whether that's in or out or different.

Is an October start.

Is this the right time to make that decision now?

Because we can't defer this to my meeting with uh Mayor Kobiyashi and then uh other stuff.

We can't defer that long.

Uh Damon Christenson needs an answer one way or another.

Uh I won't predict which way it'll go.

Um, but is somebody willing to put a motion on the table with an October start date?

Um that would reflect those taxes there.

So it'd adding one member with an October start date.

Damon Christenson?

Yeah, I'll make that motion.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Yeah.

Second.

Do you want to motivate Damon Christenson?

No, it uh well it's not ideal.

And of course, yeah, it you'll be paying for the full year the following year.

But uh no, I think it's a good compromise.

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, I I agree.

Yeah, it would have been nice to uh move it up sooner, but um um it gets a resolution and and um we can move on.

Councilor McKenzie.

So I believe that we can put it in the budget without actually approving or saying that we definitely want them to fill that position.

That's a nine-month lead time, so they'd need to that that that's why we put the October start.

So um so they can put in the requisition for it.

But the reality is even if it was put in today, it likely wouldn't be filled until that date.

So the flash to to bang time to fill that position could be up to a year.

So they need approval and they need budget approval in order to start the position.

But what I'm thinking is if if the crunch of the timelines is for our budgeting purposes rather than on the RCMP side of things, um, I think it's best for us to put it into the budget as something that we might we could revise after that meeting uh with the other municipalities.

I I don't foresee us coming to a resolution that quickly for an entirely new method of paying for the RCMP.

I don't think we could do it in six months, to be honest with you.

I think that'll take a lot of discussion.

Any other questions, comments?

Council Quote.

Ron, go ahead.

Um, just following up what Alison said, and and uh I just think that whatever we vote on, we're not gonna be able to change our minds later.

And we can't say we're going to start it in October now just for budget purposes and then change our minds later on after any sorts of discussions.

So whatever we do in terms of the vote has to stick with us for uh well it just becomes uh what we have to do forever.

Any other questions, uh counselor?

Thank you, and thanks to staff for such a comprehensive uh expediated updated report.

So, John, are you able to just take uh just just so I'm clear on the decision and the five-year plan going forward?

We're going to initiate uh the employment of a new officer in October.

And then can you walk me through the next years just so I'm fully clear and um and also just explain kind of the uh fluidity surrounding each budget year and how you know I mean certainly those of us that have been around know that this can change all the time too, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Certainly and yes to confirm uh the 2024 plan would be to um add an RCMP member in October.

And then, yes, the addition of another officer would be scheduled in the five-year plan for 2027.

But that would be something that as we approach 2027, council would have the opportunity to discuss that again and decide whether it's uh, you know, we you we could talk about it in 2026 to say whether or not it starts this position starts January 1st, 2027, or July 1st or October 1st, or not at all in 2027.

So it will be it will come at council again in the five year plan as we approach 2027.

Thank you, thanks for the uh hard work today.

Thank you.

And uh question for Scott.

When you had a discussion, and I'll go to you next, Counselor Mattson.

Uh, when you discussed this with counselor or uh Superintendent preston, did was he did you come to some sort of agreement that you know it that that would be amenable for him as as well as the start date for the next position that's budgeted now for 2027.

Yeah in speaking with Superintendent Preston um a month ago, uh I think he was anticipating um or maybe was under the expectation that council had uh agreed to fund this position last year.

Um that this was deferred.

So I I think he was expecting it to be a foregone conclusion that we would add a member.

Um but he I believe he's out of office right now.

And so we didn't have time between last night and and today to chat with him about the 2027 start.

Okay.

But uh Inspector Rose did mention the other evening that it's about a six to eight month lead time.

We need to let uh Green Timbers know in March um what our expected or or budgeted force will be.

So time time is of the essence here.

Thanks uh counselor matzon then counselor rodent yeah just for clarification could staff advise how this uh differs from what was in the original budget or original draft budget.

So uh project summary N fifty-four anticipated a start for an RC and the addition of a new RCMP member starting in January 2024, in January 2026, and in 2027, and in 2028.

So four RCMP member additions over the five-year plan.

Okay, and so where we are now is we have one to start this year, sometime in October, which is probably has the same impact as if we would started them at the beginning of the year, except we wouldn't have taken the funds out of taxes.

We would have just got a rebate that would have gone into our reserves.

And in 2026, you've just deferred that one to 2027.

Okay.

And what about the other two officers?

They're starting in 2028.

So we eliminated the one in 2026.

We kept the one in 2027.

And we eliminated the one in 2028.

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

We're not going to have any more people moving in.

Because I think that's what this is saying.

You know.

And I I think it's uh when you consider the rise in the nine mile and sorry, the uh Erskine Lane and uh lot nine, and uh what's going on in in uh north uh Theus in that area, sorry, uh Theus Lake, and on this road here, in 2026, we're gonna see a lot of bodies coming in and it's gonna be more than uh what we're projecting here so I would be um um and I I think those those developments are gonna also bring in uh their share of of taxes to augment and ensure that there's appropriate police services and protection so um we can have the numbers now but I guarantee you we're gonna have a really serious discussion in 26 Council Rogers Council College thanks uh I this is uh this is well done.

I'm prepared to support this moving forward, and I will uh uh place some accountability on all of us moving forward here.

This uh this is a very uh serious area of our budget for the next five years that will have significant impact on taxation for our constituents.

I agree with Councilor Rogers in a sense that we you know we should remain fluid uh for our decision making.

But but that being said, um we really need to work at ways to to get more lean.

And certainly advocating with the federal policing agency is not easy, but uh this is this is our responsibility moving forward to stick to the plan, so to speak.

Uh, and if we don't stick to the plan, those numbers you see down below that are moderately appealing, some of them will not be, and we'll we'll pose more of a challenge.

So uh I hope that makes sense.

Uh and it's a very tough decision tonight for me, and but I am prepared to support this uh because it's evidence based, uh, it's based on projected populations from reliable sources, uh, in concert with uh uh report done by the RCMP.

Thank you, Council Crawl.

Uh from uh my perspective, uh I I'd support this plan uh and even you know, with the fact that we're gonna revisit it, Councilor Rogers, next year anyway, uh, with with new data.

Um, but that coupled with an understanding that sets expectations with the RCMP, but this is the data set that we're going to use.

We've confirmed whatever Cop to pop that is, not setting a precedent on it, so that we can be comfortable, they can be comfortable with whatever methodology we we plan to go forward with.

Um they've got a significant security agency to oversee, and they need to be able to make a plan.

Um and I I will say this much for the RCMP and superintendent, it must be a very difficult job balancing three municipalities and running a police station.

So uh all I'm saying is that we need to be honest about our our our our ability or what we've planned and come up to an agreement with that, not have it as as fluid uh as it has been.

Not saying we can't be responsive on an annual basis but yeah that's my thought.

Yeah sorry just one other point.

Council Rogers.

Again um uh yeah the the wonderful presentation that we had the at the um um uh our CP station did exactly like what we had just heard in terms of comparing uh staffing to the different municipalities because he compared staff to the other we have CP stations to other municipalities and I think the bottom line was we were getting a bargain and let's not forget the bargain.

Thanks, Councilor Rogers.

So we've got a motion on the floor right now, and that's uh to go with what's on our screen as described by Damon Christenson.

So adding one police officer this October, uh further on down, it uh uh offers another one in twenty twenty eight but none next year.

Uh it was uh I I think uh put out by Councillor Brown and seconded by Councilor Qualitage.

I had seconded the motion, but I was only seconding the motion to hiring a police officer in uh this year in October.

That's the only motion I was supporting, nothing else in terms of the plan.

That that's what we could um do.

Then that's just for October.

So it was it was Councilor Rogers, not Councillor Qualitage.

So we got a mover and a seconder, all the those in favor.

Just for that one.

Just for that one.

That's all we're voting for for this year.

Uh all those in favor of the October start for the RSMP officer for this year's budget.

Any opposed?

And I see uh counselor Matson opposed.

Motion carries.

I just may I just ask for clarification.

So so my understanding then is that we will go with the original plan with the only year being changed is 2024 and we're gonna defer the start date for budget calculation purposes to October 1st.

Yeah that that was the first motion if we want to make another motion after that because we're worried about this budget.

Damon Christenson't worried about the future um so I think we need to make make another motion about um uh when we would add those and this is for this could change next year as well uh depending on um information coming back to uh spirit of negotiations but we've got um uh i think right now with with what you see there don't correct me if i'm wrong adding one in october adding another one in twenty twenty eight move staff's recommendation for the five year plan for law enforcement and uh do I have a seconder second seconded by counselor mattson um do you wish to motivate?

No, I think we've probably talked about this enough and I've made my points.

Second, or do you wish to motivate Yeah?

I think, you know this is far more, you know, given we've gotten rid of two two R Cm D officers office list, it uh it sits a lot better with me, and I don't I agree in terms of uh the way it looks for the next five years.

Thank you.

Uh any other comments, questions?

Okay.

Uh all of those in favor of the staff recommendation.

All of those opposed to the staff recommendation.

I note Councillor Roger is opposed.

Motion carries.

Damon Christenson, does that give you enough?

So we are going with the original plan with the only change being 2024.

No.

Oh, sorry.

We're going with the new plan.

Correct.

To be clear, that is the October start date for 2024, and then not another new police officer until 2027.

I think it was 2028 that you had said.

This calculation is based on a new officer in 2027.

What you see on the screen is 2027's chart.

Okay.

But that that is where we're going with your recommendation of what you have up there, Damon Christenson.

That was the emotion.

Okay.

Thank you.

Can I ask a question then?

Why the increase only appears in 2028 to the 365?

I do apologize.

This this particular spreadsheet can be a little bit confusing.

That is actually the the amount of the difference between plan A and plan B.

So it's actually a bigger reduction in 2028 because we will not be hiring that 2028 start police officer.

So the the reduction is bigger.

That's not cost numbers, that's reduction in cost.

Okay.

Carry on, Doc.

So tonight's program, we'll be talking about capital projects.

I very much appreciate uh the way that we went through it yesterday through non-core projects yesterday.

I I personally was very pleased that while we did take all evening to talk about non-cor non-core projects, I think we went uh I think it I think it was very helpful, and I do appreciate that it there is a lot of material and a lot of things to get through.

So we will follow the same pattern with capital projects as we did for non core projects.

We have our directors and um everybody here all on board to start talking about capital projects with you.

Uh you may want to start by uh navigating in your document in your booklet to page 57.

The section starts in page 57, and you'll be going through uh some of the pages through there as we go through.

But like like we did uh before, like we did uh yesterday, is we will bring them to you grouped by kind of functional service and theme.

I've lost my clicker.

We'll go uh functional division being general government protective services and so forth.

And the first one up is general government services.

And I just before we we we move on, I do encourage you to debate the budget and not necessarily the finer details of the project.

You need enough information to be able to make the decision about whether or not this is the right year to do that project, about whether or not the project should be on the budget at all, but not necessarily into the nitty gritty details, because you can you can know with assurance that staff is going to follow policies, procedures, purchasing policy, and where there is an interest of council, we bring things back to you.

We can't uh issue a contract according to the purchasing policy without council's authorization.

So for those large projects, this is not the only chance you get to to see the the information about that.

We do bring those back to you in greater detail according to our our policies and procedures.

So I do encourage you, let's focus on the numbers, let's focus on the bigger numbers and the ones that um perhaps have changed from the last time you saw them or the ones that are new.

Any questions about that before we go through?

All right, thank you.

So, first up, general government, we're gonna talk about the changes to projects relating to this building to this facility, and then I'll be back for information technology.

And our uh we've got our our director of corporate administration that uh is with the ergonomic workstation replacement project, and then the new one is with our director of engineering and parks with the town hall energy conservation measures.

Who's up first?

Well, there's not much to speak to about the first one.

Uh the only difference is uh a slight increase in the budget.

Um, we're now it was required last year, and this year it's really required.

We seem to be just getting busier and more full.

Um, and the number has um increased, both because I'd like to see if we can get more spaces uh created, but also there is a wiring issue that we have found in one of the cent.

Well, I don't know how many people at impacts, but we are we have some wiring issues that we need to address as well.

And so dealing with this project will address this as well.

Um, so that will help to solve that problem.

But uh, yes, this is a project we we do need to get to this year.

And with respect to the town hall energy conservation measures, uh, we actually started this project or this program last year with the installation of the heat pumps.

Um, I just checked our budget for uh the gas usage actually from last year, and there is uh quite a significant reduction.

So, um, what's the what we have done um certainly helps with the community climate action plan items of reducing JSGs, it's great to see.

So this uh next project, next program um actually doesn't start till 2025 with uh just a nominal um cost to install timer switches and Wi-Fi thermostats to further help uh with efficient energy usage.

Uh and then the the 2027 uh looking at perhaps looking at a uh hot water tank but uh done by a heat pump instead of a traditional hot water tank.

Uh 2028 is the bulk of the uh cost that you see there in front of you, which is a re-audit, but uh doesn't start until 2025.

That's right.

So um I'm uh fine with um the workstations.

Uh with respect to the conservation measures, you know, it's terrific that we got the heat pump.

Um why don't we do the timers and the uh Wi-Fi thermostat this year?

Uh through the chair, the reason why is because we want to further audit ourselves internally how well the um heating system is doing.

Um we want to give it a year to see um how it does because for example, uh, the heat pumps take a little bit longer to fire up to a good temperature when it's uh cold.

And also we want to take a look at performance in the summertime as well.

So we want to give it a year, and then after that, we'll be able to um put a little more uh put a little more thought into the timers.

Thank you.

Good.

Um hearing no comments or concerns.

I got the uh counselor Mattson, please.

Yeah, since this is energy conservation, are we gonna be saving any money by making this change?

Uh through the chair.

Uh through the chair, it certainly can be quantified.

Um to give you an example, the uh heat pumps reduce the gas costs.

Obviously, it does increase a little bit of the hydro costs.

Uh the benefit you get there though, is that um is the environmental aspect, which is the GHG's reduction.

As for the next sets, um the timer switches in the Wi Fi thermostats, that will uh provide um more efficient usage of the energy.

Um if you're to ask me if it's going to be a significant amount in the big scheme of things, uh probably less so than the heat pumps.

And the um the water tank is something that we would assess because we still have like 10 years left on it.

So uh what we'll be doing in 2027 would be bringing this forward for council to make a decision as to whether or not there's a business case for it.

Yeah, I guess that's part of what I'm asking for is like when we get uh something that's energy conservation, there's supposed to be uh some sort of savings to do that.

And so if you could you know advise us what sort of offset there will be, you know, towards the cost and you know, number of years to recover.

This is a $20,000 item, so it's really not that important, but some of the bigger items, um, it would be good to know how long before we actually recoup our our investment because I'm assuming that's uh one of the reasons we're doing this staff can certainly do that thank you any other comments questions I think we're good done thank you very much information technology you know this is an area that is of direct interest to me the three projects that you see labeled as strategic priorities uh and are colored gray are because you have seen these before.

In fact, you pretty much have seen these every year for the last several years.

For that some of you, some of those of you will very much recognize these these.

These are our meat and potatoes of of uh IT.

At least the first two are.

The last one is one, of course, that we'll see our uh basically our all of our files moved to the cloud system.

And we've been on a little bit of a holding pattern of that one as we waited for Microsoft 365 to kind of catch up with where we needed them to be.

And we know that they are there now, and and this project is deep into the discovery uh phase and it will be progressing.

The uh the other two IT projects, the infrastructure hardware, and then the workstation evergreening, uh, those budgets have not changed from what we typically present to you every year, with the exception of in 2024, there's a few, uh there's a carryover of $15,000 for the first one, the IT infrastructure hardware, and then about a $9,000 carry forward uh for the IT workstation evergreening.

And of course, that was money that was not spent last year and it is uh being brought forward.

Often that happens when we order things at the end of the year and then we don't receive them until January, forcing us to have a carry forward.

So do very much appreciate council's support in making sure that our technology infrastructure is robust and secure.

We spend about $80,000 on average between those two projects, the hardware replacements and the workstation evergreening, and we're very much uh depending on those funds to make sure that we have the tools to be able for to allow our staff to do their jobs.

So very much appreciate that.

The new item on this list is financial software replacement.

And I've put that in as a placeholder.

That is in the future.

The red flag for me about what caused me to think this was an important thing to bring onto council's radar is that our software, our current software is aging.

It is SQL Server based, it's on prem, it doesn't, it does, it is not using modern technology, and uh it is it is causing us to make sure that we have uh security um protocols and and um infrastructure in place outside of the financial software system itself because it's out of date.

It's it's simply out of date.

It works well, it's reliable, um, but support it is is um seeming to get more and more difficult as I believe the software provider are are kind of moving on to more modern things.

I I'm sure you I'm sure you've seen this before.

Uh I mean, this this uh financial system has been around for more than 30 years.

It basically my whole career has been, I've been aware of the particular software that we've been using here.

And and that's a long time in in uh software terms.

So I just wanted counsel to know that at some point in time, and it may be 2026 to 28, and it may be later.

I don't think it'll be sooner.

I think we can I think we can get by until then.

Uh I've been through several of these changeovers before.

They are never fun, they're never pretty, they affect everybody, and everybody hates me.

But that's okay.

Um, because sometimes it just has to get done.

So uh very much this is just a heads up.

It is funded from casino revenue, no impact to taxation.

And of course, uh, I cannot promise that the the $225,000 slated for this is the right amount.

Thanks, Damon Christenson.

We would know that as we did got into our discovery phase.

Council Mackenzie.

So in the booklet, uh the first one and the fourth one do you say that they have an operational element that would come from taxation?

And both of them are fairly well, relatively big.

Um for the financial software replacement in year five, it was 40,000.

And for the last one there, the records information management system, it's actually 86,000 um from taxation over the five years.

So yeah, so I had a uh well, I guess I'll ask what is the 40,000 in um the financial software replacement it is just a guess at this point currently we are paying in excess of $30,000 a year for our current software and that's just support and maintenance software once you buy it is never free right it it's ongoing costs for the records information management system that is a licensing cost that is annual we we really we don't own software anymore we basically lease it for all intents and purposes the upfront costs are always those costs that take it takes to configure the software for our purposes.

That's what you're paying for up front.

And everything after that is the uh you're paying the software vendor to keep it up to date, to keep it secure, to keep uh the development uh going for uh changes in legislation and so on.

Okay, thank you.

I think I'm uh I'm comfortable with the the first one then but um yeah I would uh like to discuss the records information management system if that's okay share my comments um yeah I think uh this is listed as strategic and at 86,000 in taxation it's a relatively uh big impact and I feel uh, given my experience in the province where we still use LAN uh for our uh information management and we receive a lot of FOIs, I I think um it would be feasible for us to continue with the current system.

Councilor Rogers.

Thank you, Councillor Mackenzie.

Yeah, thanks.

It's really interesting how much um you know it it we we call these capital projects, but you know, when you look at the evergreening, that's continuous year after year after year.

And um I think um we have to change our focus.

I think this is taxation.

We're uh we're relying on the casino um for operational needs.

What would any other municipality do?

And um uh so I I think as we talk about that uh percentage of moving um West Shore Wreck to taxation, I think we should do the same thing with our operational system is what we're you know, just hanging in on as a project that goes year after year after year, green, evergreening taxation.

That's what people should be paying for in this building.

So it's um I I I think that we've got to take a shift on that um in the long term.

And and thank you for the uh putting a placeholder.

I agree with placeholders.

We need them, we need more of them.

Thank you.

So, Councilor Rogers, were you suggesting that something in this slide change you're just thinking in the future that we um look at ongoing repetitive costs, not for this budget, but for future budgets that we uh look at opportunities for uh operationalizing those costs instead of capital.

Is that what I heard?

Yeah, that's right, and reducing our our ex our uh dependency on on the taxation we're just we're just as much of an addict on this stuff as as we are with uh the uh the West Shore and and uh it's it's a false economy that this is one of the responsibilities of taxpayers to maintain this whole thank you counselor rogers any other comments online seeing no other comments on uh counselor mattson yeah sorry just in terms of counselor rogers comments I mean all of this money is the taxpayers' money.

So whether it comes out of directly taxes or the casino revenue isn't the town, isn't councils to play with, it's taxpayer money.

So it's I I I don't I know I'm not sure what you're what what you're getting at.

And I certainly don't support putting these things on taxes now or in the future.

Well when the casino burns down, you'll have to.

Yeah, and in uh trying to avoid a tete a tete, is there a opportunity here?

I know counselor McKenzie, you had question about the the last item, was it uh the records information management system?

So I'm getting a sense that we're perhaps okay for this year uh for the top three.

Can I get a motion to sir?

I'm uh happy to speak to the last one when you'd like me to.

Yeah, let's hold that.

And uh uh my intent is we'll um see if there's an um a somebody willing to put the motion to uh for the top three and leave the records information management uh system separate.

Uh now I've got all kinds of Damon Christenson, please.

Yeah, I'll make that motion to accept the first three items on this list.

And I'll second.

Okay, we don't need a motion to accept.

We we will just accept them for the the last one then.

Uh Councillor McKenzie, you had uh a challenge with that one.

Yeah, I'd like to move that we defer that decision to next year.

Okay, I I'll go to uh staff for response first.

Uh thank you.

We hope with our move to the cloud to be able to, well, it will allow us optical character recognition.

We currently spend on average, um, I would say there's three hours a day spent looking for documents.

This will be so much better than the system we have right now.

It's quite ridiculous what we do trying to find things.

I was, for example, the history or background on the road naming thing takes quite a while.

There was a request recently to find information about property north of Highlands and the letters patent.

It's not easy to find things in the current system.

It's a hot mess.

And so this is that it shouldn't be labeled strategic.

I guess as I'm reading it, it should be, man, do we need this?

Because also our paper system is now legacy, and that is no longer being supported by that software company.

It's been stopped.

So we really do need something different.

And it's been on the books, the project's already begun, and we're in the discovery phase with a consultant that the project had started last year.

So we had waited long, uh quite a while.

We were going to look at a software system, but what we had wanted to do and had waited when we moved to Microsoft Office 365.

We knew that there would be tools.

They weren't great to begin with, and we had talked about this over the last few years with council at budget meetings about holding on, and we did, and it had to do with record disposition.

And finally, that piece is now moving up the chain as to the attention that they've given it.

Um and uh we were pleased with that.

And so we're able to now move forward with that.

So thank you, sir.

Council Rogers.

We have two choices.

Um we either do this or uh hire another staff person.

Okay.

So um I think it's quite clear.

Um I think staff have uh um also informed us that we're getting a lot of FOIs, and FOIs also take a heck of a lot of um uh data search in our systems.

This is an efficiency request, and I think we're uh um we should be heartily in endorsing this.

Just for clarification, was there a secondary to the motion that we're already debating on the we're just exploring uh the comments that council makenzie said so council mackenzie if you could phrase that in a motion and let's look for a seconder um okay uh so i move that the project c0 zero four be deferred to 2025 okay uh do you wish to motivate?

Yes uh uh let's get a seconder first if there's a seconder.

Is there a seconder for counselor McKenzie's motion to defer um the records information management system?

There's not.

So I think um I think I I understand you're concerned about it, but I think in the process it probably doesn't have council's support to defer.

Um staff's recommendation or well, actually no, we don't need it.

We don't have to move.

Yeah, we've we've explored uh concerns and we can move to the next one.

Next up is protective services.

We've got some policing capital and uh fire service then will be next.

What we do for policing capital, and and uh with the CAO's permission, I'll just tell you what I know about that, and that is that uh every year, and this is on page 60, if you wish, uh C010, and that is the basically Langford gives us their policing budget, multiplies it by our share, which is uh 15.24 percent according to the sheet that I just got today.

And what I would uh like to do is to modify uh C1 uh C010 because it was based on the only information I had when I put the budget together, which was outdated information.

I now have received new information that says this amount in fiscal year one in 2024 will be $25,000.

And they haven't given us a budget for any of the following four years.

And I think that's related to the construction of the new building.

This, of course, is uh for only uh you know, not uh capital product capital related to the building itself, but more to or less to the building and more to things like security fencing and slats around newly acquired properties and new furniture are the bigger ticket items on the list that I just got today.

Sorry for not being able to uh incorporate that it in your budget package.

But with your permission, what I would do is then when we bring this uh when I redo reproduce this uh budget package this project summary would say $25,000 in fiscal year one it's funded from the police capital reserve no impacted taxation and uh that's it with your permission thank you questions comments and this is already coming from a reserve dedicated to this correct absolutely see nothing over to the fire chief good evening, mayor, members of council.

Uh under vehicles, we have two.

The um the first one, fire service vehicle replacement replacement of a 1991 brush truck.

This was in the fleet replacement plan for 2025.

However, in 2023, we had a catastrophic failure of the pump.

Uh, it was fixed, the pump was replaced and it failed again.

Um, it's a 1991 truck that uh unfortunately we're just dumping good money into bad now at this point, and it's it's not worth uh fixing anymore.

This would be for a used vehicle.

We have a line on a vehicle, several vehicles actually, right now, uh, from a dealer down in the states, and the prices are varying anywhere from about 100 to 250,000 for the vehicle.

So we we should be able to come in.

We will well, we will come in under budget on this, and that's delivered um and then view royalized.

The second uh fire service vehicle replacement of the 1992 uh superior E1.

That one's been on the books since uh 2020.

We ordered that vehicle in October 2022 with an anticipated delivery date or a promised delivery date of January 2024.

It is now February, and I don't have a truck.

We received notification in December that because of supply chain issues, labor issues, and every other issue under the sun, I can expect the delivery in mid to late 2025.

So we've deferred this uh payment to 2025.

The truck is still being built, but it won't be delivered until 2025.

Any questions on the two vehicles?

When was the initial requisition for that truck that we budgeted for it?

Was it the year before last?

It was 20, I want to say 2021.

I think it was in the financial plan, and then it was ordered in 2022.

We anticipated paying for it in 2023.

It got moved, and now we're up to 2025 for the for the delivery and payment.

So was that coming from reserve Damon Christenson initially, or is it now reserved?

Have we reserved those funds and kind of carried them over?

Is that casino revenue?

That's casino revenue.

It was a decision made several years ago by the by the previous council, I believe, to fund it through Casino.

Uh Councilor Rogers.

Thank you.

Yeah, Jack, uh Paul, there's been uh big even though there's been these delays, we're not having to pay extra um for the for the vehicle.

We've we've made over the the uh the the manufacturer in in the covet climate, the manufacturers wouldn't put in any late clauses, so we couldn't penalize them because they were losing their shirts.

They've guaranteed that the 2022 price stands, there will be no increase in the price for the vehicle.

And just uh just a footnote for the um the brush truck, just for Counselor Mattson's benefit, um, this one used vehicle will be replacing two existing large apparatus.

So we'll be scaling back our fleet with the purchase of this um used vehicle out of the states.

Excellent.

I and this is a a note of criticism, Chief.

I noticed that all of the rest of the staff members have wonderful graphics for those of us that are more visually uh inclined.

However, your reports seem to lack those same graphics that would benefit council.

So uh so take that away, please.

Counselor Matson, did you have a point?

Yeah, just uh a clarification.

So I was gonna ask the question about how this fits in with the uh the sit uh machinery purchases by the three municipalities that so we won't be duplicating things, but since we've already ordered this and it's basically a done deal.

My other question is like the 1.4 coming from the casino revenue, um, is that like for just coming from all casino revenue in 2025?

Or we've been uh are we gonna be paying for this over a number of years from casinos.

I mean, that would sort of deplete our whole casino revenue for 2025, unless we've been taking money out of casino revenue and putting in a pot someplace.

I'm just not sure how that works.

I think Damon Christenson has a plan.

Hang on a second.

Certainly, if you uh were to look on page 45 in your book, you'll see at the top of that page in schedule four is all of our accounting for what happens to casino revenue.

You see it coming in, you see the red numbers showing it coming out, and you will see capital projects in 2024 totaling 2.8 million dollars, which includes one point uh sorry, I'm looking at 2025, uh 2.9 million dollars, of which 1.4 is the vehicle purchase you see in front of you now.

Any follow-up questions or any questions for any of the counselors?

Seeing no other questions, I think we can move along, Doug.

Great, thank you, Mayor.

Um, under fire services equipment, uh, five five items uh funded out of the equipment machinery reserve and casino revenue, um, a decontamination unit for uh personal turnout gear, the firefighter hose replacement um 2024.

This was this hose was ordered.

You approved this last year.

It was ordered in um April of 2023, and we expect to see delivery in um May of 2024.

So I had to carry this over.

Again, this is a worldwide supply chain issue.

The uh battery and SCBA replayments is 2028.

That's just part of an equipment replacement.

The community forest protection equipment, you heard our petition and delegation.

C 171.

This is part of a larger initiative.

As I mentioned last evening, uh, we received approval from the province for several grant funded initiatives.

One was a fire smart coordinator, the other was the update of the uh community wildfire protection plan.

And as part of the uh fire smart coordinator's duties, uh, he will be, he or she will be um doing assessments of Northview Royal, our interface areas near Riverside, Chilco, anywhere where the forest meets the houses.

As part of that initiative, uh, we anticipated uh equipment purchases as part of the education component and the protection component for the north.

Um the money for that, we had previously approved um a budget line item of $25,000 a year for fuel mitigation and reduction in uh the interface area.

It's money that we we didn't use.

So what I've done is reallocated the $25,000 to equipment, which I figure is a far better use of the money than attempting to um mitigate fuel.

There are significant grants available in the province for fuel mitigation that I can work with our parks department on and our neighborhoods.

So I figured the uh the money was better spent just transferring it over to um the equipment uh purchase.

The last item is a discretionary expense, a drone.

I've had some conversations uh with counselor Rogers on this council initiative, and I believe uh John, we've concluded that we can defer this one.

Um uh the staff have um got uh it well on hand.

Um Yeah, um uh folks, um after discussing this with Chief Hearst, I'm withdrawing this.

So to be clear, you put in a request for a counselor, a council initiative for a drone, but it's already captured with Chief Sir.

So you're you're withdrawing yours.

It was uh like a placeholder until we uh were able to determine that uh the issue is adequately uh addressed by uh by the fire department.

So I'm removing it.

Excellent.

Uh and uh is that the total cost of ownership for the drone?

Is that you've already got people trained, or would that include training as well for the drone?

There's no no training involved in that.

So the challenge is this is a commercial grade drone which requires licensing training flight plans.

That's on top of the actual purchase.

We we do not have the staff capability, and I'm I'm not prepared to watch a $30 to $50,000 drone crash into the lake at this point.

Okay.

For starters.

For starters.

Okay.

Questions?

Questions?

Comments?

I'm happy with the set.

No comments?

Okay.

So just to be clear for staff, I I think we're the final item is being removed.

That's correct.

Council Roger.

Actually, just one other point.

Um, I'm really pleased with the uh the quick response um for North Viewell and uh having just heard from a petitions at council meeting and and being able to have a a response and uh that will immediately give them confidence that we're acting in their best interest.

I think it's fantastic.

Thank you.

Thank you, counselor.

Um next up, fire service building uh fire training ground improvements.

This was an initiative that was uh put forward for 23 and 24, $50,000 each year.

So this was approved in 23.

We've uh finished the first 50,000.

We'll have the training ground completed this year.

And the last one, uh, this is uh one of my favorites.

This was my helicopter, public safety landscaping.

Um, we had a contractor committed.

It was going to be completed in November, December, and it didn't get completed, so I had to carry it over.

So I'm I'm told in Q1 or Q2 it'll be uh it'll be completed.

So this is a carryover from an approved item last year.

Comments, questions from council.

It says discretionary, but it's already spent.

Is that what I hear?

Because the work's already contracted for the question.

We have uh quotes and a commitment from the contractor, and we had a promise to that the work would get done before the end of the year.

And um respecting our director of finance's uh position on invoicing and um not cooking the books.

We're carrying that money over because the work was not completed or started in 23.

Any other questions?

No.

Uh right.

Next, please.

Thank you all.

Thank you, Chair.

I have one or two things to say.

I've got a few things to say, Ivan, but please go ahead.

Yeah.

Uh so I'll start with uh you'll be hearing from me from Transportation Parks Environment and Environmental.

So I got a few uh we got a few projects here and happy to work with you on this.

Um we'll first start off with transportation and because of the amount of projects, I've kind of broken it down to the ones that are in progress, committed, and then there's some sections on the major roads, minor roads, and and miscellaneous.

Uh for the first bits, uh, these are all projects that are in progress.

Um, thanks to council in January for or for pre-approving um some of these projects, they're currently in progress.

So um I personally thank you because it allows us to spend more time on um our uh 2024 budget once it gets approved for others.

So um the bottom four you see are have been pre-approved and are in progress and six mile road improvements roundabout that has been committed from last year.

Um progress seems to be going quite well on that they've just started laying curbs so service works are are on its way so the next section is uh major roads for specifically the island highway because we have a few projects there um i'll first go over the new item which is the uh Prince Robert Drive realignment this is development driven uh as part of the 339345 development uh they'll be doing some finish improvements there uh local government act basically states that they only are required to do to the center, and this project would extend it because it would make a smoother transition for uh uh pedestrians, um cyclists, vehicles, transit.

Um, but more importantly, uh this project is required.

A reason why I put it required is because um a portion of Prince Robert Drive is actually encroaching a bit in property.

So once the development develops, we do need to shift the road.

So uh a good portion of this project is to provide the monies available to shift Prince Robert Drive away so that um amenities such as sidewalks and that can be installed.

Uh the budget timing is 2025, but again, depending on when the project comes in, it could be 2026.

Uh for the other projects, they have been in in the budget before.

Some of them have had increased budgets because of uh construction inflation.

Um, one item I do want to bring to your attention is the first one, CD012 Helmkin Road Du Beaumont.

This has been in our project for quite some time.

And as part of the exercise with the active transportation network plan, this hasn't exactly been identified as a priority.

So we've changed the timing to that to 2028.

And the reason why I still says required there is because I didn't want to assume that the priority has changed by council.

So if council agrees to um pushing this project to 2028, then that would likely be uh graded down to strategic or a little lower.

Um my recommendation as well.

Council also has the option to delete this as well.

Um let's start with that.

Any questions.

Are we just referring to the homic and beaumont?

Uh we can start with that, yes.

Yeah.

Um yeah, thank you, thank you.

The only um uh question I would have though is um uh I think that for me the jury's still out on what Eltham Road uh development, the 20 townhouses will do to uh traffic flows for uh the seniors complex and and the townhouses.

And uh, we may be seeing mu much more use uh of for them, or at least uh the seniors, to be going in and out of of their egress with through their gate.

That may have complications and and challenges with the daycare, but um you know they may at the future time start expecting to have a left in there.

Yeah, timing is impeccable for that.

Perhaps uh pushing this to 2028 will allow um staff to monitor and see traffic patterns at that time when those two developments come into place.

Thank you.

Councillor Matsonblue.

And just that since it's 2028, I don't think we need to spend a lot of time on it.

I'm sure we'll be looking at it again in the next uh couple of years.

If we're all here.

Council McKinsey.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

Would you mind just going to your previous uh one?

I just didn't have a chance to uh look up my notes for the what the final two items were.

I can provide a background too if if you wish.

Oh that's okay.

It's just uh trying to flip it.

Okay, I'm good.

Thank you.

Council Rodz.

Yeah, can we go back one, please?

Uh again, um you know, when I'm looking at the roundabout, one of my frustrations, I'm glad that we got an ICBC grant.

But I think uh we probably dropped the ball by not putting um uh uh more gears to the um administrative highways and transit because I I do see that this six mile um energy uh roundabout is going to be of significant benefit and we paid the bill for them.

Um and so that I'm I'm annoyed that we didn't um uh you know expect funding from them.

Um and so on that point uh the bus shelters um I see that it's 135 casino revenue.

I really hope that we're gonna be able to get some grant funding from transit for uh shelter step benefit their customers.

Uh yes, the chair council recall last year that um the civil work, so the the curb and the bus pad that's made out of the concrete typically is done uh under the um the town's funding.

Uh and then when it comes to the shelter, uh we work with BC Transit quite heavily to make sure that we get those shelters free.

Uh we got about one or two a year, and um and uh Ben Luburts on our on our end is uh is quite uh involved with BC Transit on that.

Okay.

That that's great.

Um, and I know we're not going to get a bus shelter on um Atkins Road because it's uh that we don't have to have the size and width and so forth.

So I'm I'm looking forward to some creative um, shall we say custom made shelters to assist the uh the budget that we're talking about right now, for you know future bus shelters that um we don't forget that.

Okay.

Uh counselor Mattson.

Yeah, and this is probably more for Damon Christenson's benefit, but I think I agreed with one of his earlier comments that the three million dollars would we all gone a long way to put in uh sidewalks on Atkins Road instead of a roundabout, we don't need it.

Yeah, yeah.

Uh Council McKenzie.

So the can I just check the operational on the six mile road improvements?

Is that just like staff maintenance or uh yeah, what what is that?

Uh yes, that'd be the maintenance of the roundabout itself.

Six mile road is uh owned and maintained by the Ministry of Transportation Infrastructure.

However, um they don't particularly uh have roundabouts on their highways.

So um at the time the agreement of the roundabout that the town would be uh maintaining it, most likely the curves, the sidewalks, the landscaping, and the landscaping within the roundabout.

I don't think there's any other we're going back, folks.

We need to be going forward.

So if it's really uh relevant, then then absolutely we'll entertain.

But we're now on the right slide.

Councilor Rogers.

Thank you.

Prince Robert Drive, when I look at the diagram, it seems to be dealing with the proposed development.

But one of the issues of Prince Robert and in that intersection is sight lines from Prince Robert looking, I don't know, towards Calward.

Yes, that'll be under the developer's coin as well as part of the intersection upgrades, the signalized intersection.

That's a yes.

Yes.

Thank you.

And this slide, we were all the way through it, I think, and then we went back uh on request.

Is there any comments about this slide?

Um so I I guess I'm I'm concerned about um uh the four mile trestle to shoreline and I've you know got a notice of motion in to uh you know discuss the active transportation plan and and uh those implications for now I know this is until 2025, so perhaps we can deal with that.

You know, this is far enough in the future we can prep that and take care of that then.

Okay, thank you.

Uh again, the if I may, Heart Road to Wilford, and this is all part of the rapid bus uh corridor.

Uh that is correct.

It is uh south of the Parsons Bridge, meaning there's uh for one thing, there's not any work happening right now as part of BC Transit's phase one.

I understand that uh BC Transit will be going through phase two, maybe in the future, but there we have no information on that just yet.

Um sorry.

Are we um then going to be capitalizing on road works that uh BC Transit will be doing uh on that stretch?

Or is it you know, can we coordinate our our expenses for that win-win?

Yeah, it depends on the design, I would say.

Um there was a substantial amount of uh bus lanes expanded as part of um the the design you see now from uh the highway to six mile road.

Uh it is unknown as to whether or not uh or what the design involves there, whether it is still gonna remain as Q jumper, if it's gonna be expanded bus lanes.

But certainly when um when BC Transit comes up with the design, we'll we'll we'll make sure that that is uh discussed.

And I see that we're getting a grant up to 75%.

But thank you.

So that's good.

Thank you.

Council Quotos.

Yeah, I mean it's easy decision.

C66, High Road to Wilford, and you know, obviously needs some safety improvements there.

I I can't help but notice that the Ford dealership has uh moved on in their lives.

And I'm wondering uh if there's any prospects there and if we could capitalize on DCCs and some um community amenities like sidewalks there in the future, or uh is the grant time sensitive.

Yeah, so last year um council directed staff to apply for an active transportation grant, which can pay for up to 70% of the cost.

So 70% of $450,000.

Now I should preface that this cost $450 is an increase from last year's budget because we just got a class like A slash B estimates fairly, it's fairly um fairly close to what you expect, and costs have gone up.

So uh by this with a 70% grant, it would it would bring towns contribution back to last year's amount.

Um that is in the house in house right now.

I just checked today to see where it's at.

Uh it's still under review right now.

Um, the idea for this, uh just kind of commenting on on what um Councilman McKenzie asked with respect to, you know, is the project going to be um green lit only when funding is versus you know funding is a good uh it would it would help save money for this project.

Uh the plan is to commit 450,000 in casino revenue and then have it buffered by the grant.

Any other questions, comments?

Thanks, thanks.

And just answering uh Counselor Kowalovich about I I've also noticed the dealership leave and I was also postulating as to whether or not there was any frontage opportunities, but then they came back and I'm like, okay, well, keep it in there.

So I think they've relocated now to uh what's the Royal Bay?

Yeah.

Okay, so this slide is the major roads for the remaining major roads that we have Hellinken Road, Admiral's Road, and Six Mile Road.

Um, here we have one new item, which is the Admiral's Road Act for Transportation Improvements.

So this is a council initi a council initiative brought forward to us in November, I believe.

Um, so this is scheduled for 26, 2027, because there's going to be a lot of engagement required for this.

Uh there'll be engagement with the Esquimalt First Nation, the Songies First Nation, the Township of the Squimalt, District of Saanich, um, the businesses across the street.

So there is there's, and that's just uh from a municipal and and and neighbors perspective.

The uh road is also owned by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

So there is going to be a lot of engagement required, and probably there's gonna be a lot of sway in terms of what the design is going to be.

So this project summary has been fairly broad in the sense that it it could include protective bike lanes.

That's a very wide range of uh of a palette you can you can ask for there.

Um basically, what's uh if should this project get approved, um staff would do some work uh to bring forward concepts to council first before we start the engagement in 2026.

And the reason why is because we um for the active transportation network plan, it does uh state that uh council has the ability to look at options, and we feel that it's important that uh that council has that ability for this corridor.

Um six-mile road improvements.

So this is again um this C01A is a program.

Uh the roundabout is being built now, but for 2024, 2025, we're also looking at a streetlighting study.

Uh now, the reason why that that budget has been increased to 240,000 is because uh the study is one thing, but implementing it right after seems reasonable.

So we've added that in there.

Um, the costs could decrease because after speaking with the ministry, uh, their standards are a little different than the town standards, and so they will have a little bit of influence as to how many streetlights are there.

So the cost could actually be lower, just given the amount of lights that they would that would allow within their highway.

Um curb and sidewalk replacement.

So Helmkin, uh Eagle Creek to Burnside.

That is uh again a development driven project.

We'd like to tie that project in with the Aspire project.

It just makes sense to get it all done all at once.

And uh once they once they are ready to do financial improvements, we'll bring forward options for you in terms of how that gets done.

Schedule for 2024 right now.

It could get done late 2024.

Likely it'll be 2024, carry over to 2025.

And then finally, the intersection improvements, Helmkin Road at Waukiss Way.

Uh, it's currently under design.

It's taken longer because of the VC Transit Bus and Shoulders program.

So we've had to do a little bit of coordination on them with them.

Again, should this project uh carry on?

Staff are ready to provide options to council for them to deliberate.

Again, fairly similar to the Admiral's Road.

There's several options that can be done.

And we feel it's important that council have a have a first look before we engage further.

So that's it for this slide.

Happy to take questions.

And for that uh intersections, we've got right now the aspire development.

And how many uh units or or car spots in Aspire?

Um, I think that's Aspire.

Am I saying that right?

On uh Helmkin and uh Gorge Road west east.

Do we know how many units are in there or how many cars that are coming out?

It doesn't have to be exact.

I I think it was quite a few.

We've got another um development that uh that is I I think undergoing um assessment now on the corner of Hamden do I want to say Hamden and Helmkin and then uh Chancellor where the old um Helmkin market was potential going in there.

Um so this is just a study, right and I'm I I'm in a hurry to see this done because to be honest with you, I don't walk from my place to Eagle Creek because I've had two of my neighbors hit by cars because it's uh a left-hand turn green, and then it's a solid green, and the cars don't stop going left.

And and so now you've got we've added a whole lot of people on that intersection, both in uh in Herkskin Lane, plus now Helmkin, Eagle Creek's already there.

Um and I just want to make sure we do it right, whatever that looks like.

Uh leave that up to your hands.

But I know it's dangerous.

We've had uh, as I think I disclosed to counsel and staff before, we had a fella that that uh uh lived on Eton Street, uh struck and is still in hospital, I think, uh coming out of it.

So um it's a dangerous spot.

I'd like to see us provide as much safety as we can.

But is the timing right, Ivan?

I guess that's my question.

Uh yes.

So if you turn to page 125, it basically says 2024 would be finishing design and 2025 would be construction.

The number you see in construction is is in line with the cost estimate provided uh during the actual transportation network plan.

It does provide that number in there.

And yes, the idea is to have it in close to when the aspire development is completed because uh part of their traffic impact assessment basically said that uh some works need to be done at the intersection.

And so instead of doing things piecemeal, uh the town is uh going to accept a cash and loo from the developer so that we can do it all as once as part of this project.

And so that's why you'll notice in the terms of the funding stream, it says developer on there, because a part of it will also be developer contributed.

Yes.

Thank you very much, uh Council McKenzie.

Similarly I wanted to talk about the timing of the Admiral's road um improvements.

Uh given that you've staff have said that it will it's quite a complex engagement.

I was wondering if maybe we should be starting that engagement sooner because uh similar to Mayor Tobias, I think it's it's a safety issue along that that stretch for Cyclist.

So I would like to see implementation sooner rather than than later.

Um so yeah, I thought maybe we could push it up by a year.

And I can certainly speak to that.

Um so the 2026 for design would be basically doing the design after we we know what all the parameters are.

So going getting a consultant to and we give them basic concept that says this is what we're gonna do.

The point in time between now and the this is what we're gonna do is going to take quite a bit of time.

So that's uh this is one of you we're gonna do to now to then is uh we're gonna engage with them informally.

It's probably not gonna be it is we're gonna do the best we can to administratively meet up with First Nations first.

Well, Council first, then First Nations second.

And then after that, we could probably get a better idea.

Um if we were to put in a budget for now, we certainly can, but uh, because we don't know the scope very well, it's very difficult to establish um a cost estimate for that work beforehand.

The other thing, too, is that um staff workload is is pretty busy right now.

You'll notice that there's not a lot, not a lot of new stickers here.

And the reason why is because uh we need to do some catching up.

And so when this initiative came in, even though uh Admirals Road is considered a priority in the active transportation network plan, um, looking at staff workload and the fact that we have a lot of other design projects in the queue right now, we've put it uh into 2026-2027.

However, uh, should council wish to boost this earlier, then I would expect that something else and an earlier date would need to be pushed later.

I I I think it's important that we move at staff's recommendations for capacity.

Either that or we were prioritize things.

The reality is I think our our relationship is um is growing.

We've had one First Nation have an election uh recently uh Scott's new on board it's been his uh a priority his and the and the fire chief to get over to both the First Nations to start um uh discussions uh kind of anew uh so I think in in in all honesty, that will probably take us a year to get to there.

Um and and Ivan, one thing that I would encourage is uh when we do do the engagement uh and consultation, more than engagement with the First Nations, we don't bring a plan.

We we we allow them to um start the plan with us and and just spend some time on on those good relationships.

So that will take some time, Councillor McKenzie, regardless of what we do.

And the other thing is I'm uh I'm aware that we don't own the other side of the the um the the road there for admirals.

Uh and that that's something that uh we've got to work with them about.

I mean, it might be important for us to have a cycling path, but it might not be important for them.

So that's something we'll have to consider as well as we go along.

Um it it's their land, their call, and it's Moti's road, I think, isn't it?

Okay, so it's more complex than the two First Nations, the province, uh us the squamoult and kind of Sandich too.

Uh so it couldn't get any more complex for an intersection.

Anyone else, Councillor Rogers and Councillor McKinsey?

Yeah, point taken.

I'd love to see it move uh quicker, but I uh I think Moat Ministry Highways is really focused on the rapid bus corridors, the shoulders and theirs that they have staff uh staffing issues and they have their priorities, and they will probably want to do this after or you know, get much of that um uh rapid bus corridor uh done because they're gonna be working that, I guess, until about 2027, as far as I understand.

So that's going to take an inordinate amount of their focus.

Uh, I think at the same time we have uh BC Transit that's willing to uh work on the number 40 bus.

So uh that timing has to coordinate with them and making sure we get the best stops uh we need in our community for both ourselves and and First Nations.

So I I I agree with the urgence, I agree with the urgency, but I also see getting it right uh is also critically important.

So I appreciate um what staff is saying.

If I can digress uh to other minds, I thought you were digressing.

So um just to confirm, six-mile road improvements will include a crosswalk for Damien.

Uh through the chair, we're looking at an uh a warrant for that first.

Uh because there are sight line um challenges there, and also um staff have been engaging with uh some stakeholders at the transit as toes this work in their favor, and they said yes, in the sense that uh there are bus stops that uh and people need to cross.

So we're looking at all options as to asking the the principal question of is the bus stop in that location um reasonable and are there better places to put it?

So I'm not gonna get into too much detail on that, but we're we're looking at the warrant first because of the the site line constraints and having uh a crosswalk on the high point um does make me think a little bit about it.

I know.

Uh I saw it on there and and I I understand the the the challenges.

With respect to Helmkin and Watkins way, um your worship there's there seems to be some development interest on that corner.

Uh do we are we um thinking of capitalizing on uh developer improvements at that intersection um so that we don't have to put it all on casino uh yeah that is correct uh councillor rogers the staff will be providing options uh as soon as um we provide the concepts to to council council McKenzie sorry just one uh last comment about the Admiral's Road improvements i i'm totally fine with uh uh staff's response um and what I think I heard was that there would be informal conversations with um songgies uh uh starting sooner rather than later.

And and that kind of response to one of my concerns were thoughts is that they are currently developing those two fairly big units.

And I think now is the opportunity to speak to them about you know potential entries and exits from those buildings and how it would feed into the uh cycling or path.

Uh yeah, through the chair staff will be relying a lot on the leadership of council on this project.

It's uh it's one of those doozies, let's put it that way.

Uh and I do recall as part of the actual transitation network plan um deliberations, Councilor McKenzie, you did raise that point about uh engaging.

So that is an important part of this project.

Thank you.

And Damon Christensonald Trump Your Worship, at the end of the day yesterday, you asked me to help councils stay on track.

And I appreciate that opportunity.

I'm reminding you it is eight o'clock.

We have a bit to get through.

If if we were to confine our questions to the existence of the project and the timing of the project, perhaps really uh issues related to the budget and all of the other stuff is going to happen in the future.

Thank you.

I think everybody heard you, Damon Christenson, to stay out of the weeds while taking it.

Um and yeah, you're on the next slide already.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

So this section is uh on sidewalks and the street lights.

Uh so I have a note here about Atkins Road and Jebberg Road, they've been in design last year.

Um, they'll require a bit of a carryover given the spatial constraints of those particular sections.

So we've actually had to um uh hire a uh a BC land survey to figure out where the property lines are to make sure our designs make sense.

Um, especially for Atkins Road, uh we do have one or two designs that we'll bring forward the council likely this year.

Uh curb and sidewalks, Burnside Road to Helmkin to Sanich border.

This is a this has been in the budget for a few years, and this is for the design of um curb gutter and sidewalks uh along that corridor.

Uh we would expect that um we would also be presenting concepts to uh council at that time because in the past there have been uh issues with uh conflicts of trees in Gary Oak Meadows.

So we want to make sure that we have uh that staff has a a better picture of what's important to the council before we move forward to a detailed detailed design.

And are you reaching out to Sanit with that as well?

Because you're you're kind of touching there.

And then the last conversation I had with the mayor of Sanich was that uh I as a will of council at the time for a consistent speed limit across West Burnside to Helmkin Wilkinson.

And uh he they've already started that process so he's open to definitely um to to that concept.

So uh so as I my my question is is as long as you're liaising with Sanich as well then that's yeah they've just they've updated their active transition that we're planning to so they have uh informate new information for us.

Um St.

Giles street lighting improvements.

So this was actually pre-approved by council.

And then I found out the next day that uh the the con the engineer uh designer said that there's some hydro issues.

So um as a result it does require additional funds to do the east light.

So the west light has already been finished but in order to do the east light um requires uh what you see uh in that budget amount there um so we do actually need another approval of this um to to finish that off but uh aside from that um happy to take any questions uh if you're happy with this we can move on yeah i'll go to uh counselor brown and uh see where it goes from there council brown yeah, thank you, Ivan.

Now just reading the different projects uh i i wish they could be prioritized because it looks to me, and i could be reading it wrong, but it doesn't appear Atkins Road sidewalk has a very high priority.

You know, I compare it to walkins Way, it looks like that's being pushed a lot harder.

Uh even though they've got boulevards on that section there that are six and eight foot wide, and Atkins Road has boulevards of six six to eight inches wide in some squats.

So um if it's tri strictly dependent on grants, uh I'm not happy about that.

There why aren't we putting some money aside from casino revenue or from a taxation?

Because you know, that road is uh it's a high traffic road, maybe uh maybe not quite as high a road as what as Watkins, but you gotta look at Watkins.

The the I'm we're gonna go there, I know, but the the comments there, Science isn't even interested.

They're not they're looking at twenty twenty six or twenty seven to do their section.

So I don't understand why this seems to be a very low profile item.

The rest of the items I have no problem with.

I think uh it's not Ivan's fault that it's uh prioritized the way it is it's probably our fault counselor brown so if it's the will of council to up that priority then we can make that when we get done uh um looking at all this and answering the questions so if you wanted to pull that as a motion after we approve uh or or or whatever we do with this slide then we can ask for that priority to change as well.

Can can I make the motion then that we in addition to casino revenue and grant we also add and we may or may not need to, but uh but taxation and reserve as well.

So do we have you know four different options for possible funding?

I'd be more comfortable leaving staff to um come up with the actual funding for things, uh Counselor Brown.

I would, however, um, you know, uh encourage us to uh to take a vote on the priority of that project and and let's leave it to staff.