Meeting Overview
The Committee of the Whole meeting focused heavily on financial planning, transportation infrastructure, and public safety priorities. Council approved amendments to the 2023-2027 Financial Plan, including allocating the $4.665 million Growing Communities Fund to reserve, and setting the 2023 municipal tax rates based on Scenario A (unchanged ratios). A key decision was approving a $30,000 grant-in-aid for the View Royal Reading Centre. Delegations provided updates on major regional projects: BC Transit's Island Highway Rapid Transit launch and MoTI's Highway 1 Bus on Shoulder project. Discussion on the draft Active Transportation Network Plan highlighted the need to balance cycling infrastructure against existing traffic congestion and pedestrian safety concerns.
Key Decisions
- Council approved a reduced grant amount of $30,000 for the View Royal Reading Centre, instead of the $38,000 requested.
- The verbal update provided by the West Shore RCMP Superintendent was formally received by the Committee.
- The monthly Building Department Report was received for information.
- Council recommended organizing a spring flower garden contest and a fall Halloween decorating contest.
- The action list update for the first quarter was received for information.
Transcript
2715 segmentsGood afternoon, viewer oil.
I'd like to call the meeting of the Committee the Whole to order for Tuesday, April 11th, 2023.
This committee of the whole meeting recognizes the Lukong speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation and their historic connections to these land that continue to this day.
This afternoon we'll hear from the public during the public participation portion of the agenda, and this evening we'll hear from the public during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.
For members of the audience, the council is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.
Just uh uh encouraging you to um to follow the utmost in decorum when other folks are speaking and allow them to have an open and impartial form.
For those participating by telephone, if you wish to provide comments, call 778-282-828-27.
And when prompted, enter conference ID 202-538-877-pound.
At that time in 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 not use your speech speaker phone to ensure sound quality, and then ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.
To begin, please indicate your name and address for the record, whether you're speaking uh by phone or present.
Uh, speakers will have five minutes each during the public participation period and two minutes to ask a question during question period.
Uh, this meeting will be recorded, and by participating in the this webcast, you are consenting to being recorded, and recording will be available on the town's website for future access.
Can I I think there's some discussion about the agenda before I start because somebody told me, and there's a late item on the blue sheet that councilor McKenzie will speak to that falls under your area, Counselor Lemon in Arts and Culture, for a spring uh and fall community building event.
But I know that you had uh potentially another amendment that you would like to do to the agenda.
Yeah, if I may.
Thank you, Mitch Bess.
Um, just a small amendment and then a slightly bigger amendment.
Um the per first is that in the uh petitions and delegations, Christine Jackman from the Reading Center will be joined at the podium during her presentation by Jim Powell, and they're going to um do double duty at the podium.
And the second is um uh I would like to add, with council's indulgence, that uh an opportunity for council to consider the request by the reading center at in tonight's meeting.
It's not on the agenda.
And I would like to see it discussed tonight rather than delayed to a future agenda.
Future meeting.
Thank you, Councillor Lemon.
And I would uh ask you to per to coordinate that motion at the right uh time, should it occur this evening.
So we were going to add some uh after the petitions and delegations, um, which normally just doesn't have an action on it.
Um we want to have a bit of a discussion about the funding for it.
Sarah, looking to you for some advice on where to add that in.
It can occur right after the petition and delegation is fine.
Thank you.
Perfect.
Was there anything else, Councilor Lemon?
Does any other member of the council wanted to amend the um agenda as we've discussed?
So we're including the blue sheets with Councilor McKenzie's, the correspondence on it, plus uh the addition of Mr.
Jim Powell for petitions and delegations, and an opportunity to discuss uh the grant and aid request as well.
Can I get a motion to approve that agenda?
Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Rogers.
All in favor, none opposed.
Motion carries.
And uh can I get a motion to adopt the minutes of the previous meeting, which is from March 14th, 2020.
Move adoption.
Second.
Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemon.
All in favor.
None opposed.
And now we are down to petitions and delegations.
So I'd like to invite uh Christian Jackman and Mr.
Jim Powell for a presentation.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, uh ladies and gentlemen of council.
My name is Jim Powell.
I live at 140 St.
Giles Street in View Royal.
I'm not a member of the View Royal Reading Center board, nor have they asked me to make a presentation to council.
However, I was the chairman of the View Royal Public Library, the View Royal Reading Center from 2001 to 2010.
And I thought a brief history of the library to the new members of council would be useful for your deliberations.
The View Royal Library opened in 1943 as a bookmobile operating out of the what is now the community center in the lower level where the fire hall used to be.
The town of View Royal was incorporated, as you know, in December 1988, some 45 years after the library.
The View Royal Public Library was incorporated in May 1989, so the following year, five months.
It was a public library of BC.
In 1995 or thereabouts, the town of View Royal invited the library and the RCMP to be equal participants in the building of a town hall called a multi-use facility.
To that end, View Royal Public Library applied for a BC21 grant of $287,400 to be applied to the town of View Royal for an equal share in the building.
There is some dispute, and we could not confirm whether that grant was ever made, but the building was built, so the money came from somewhere.
We were given a 10-year lease at effectively zero rent.
It was a $15,000 grant, $15,000 rent, plus we got $22,000 from the Public Library Service to operate the library.
In 2002, View Royal joined the Greater Victoria Public Library as part of the casino settlement with the other municipalities.
View Royal Public Library then lost their library services grant of $22,000, but eventually that was split with the Greater Victoria Library some years later.
The town covered the rent as before, plus, they gave a grant an aid of $7,000 from casino revenues to operate the library.
And View Royal Public Library continued as a public library while negotiating with the town and library service branch.
On the 8th of November 2007, the View Royal Public Library Board dissolved the public library and became the View Royal Reading Center with resources, their revenues and expenses as a public library, but it resolved the question of whether we could have two public libraries in View Royal.
In a month after that, the View Royal Reading Center received a notice from the town of View Royal to vacate the building.
After protracted negotiations with the CAO, it resulted in the town offering to pay rent and obtain space in the Admiral's Walk Shopping Center.
The library services grant still covered the book, and as before, the rent funding was from casino revenues.
In May of 2008, the View Royal Reading Center opened in Admiral's Walk.
It was good publicity for the town and for the reading center.
It was a convenient location, plenty of parking, and very handy for both Song Keys and his Claimont bands to use our resources.
We had over 15,000 volumes, free internet, TV, uh DVDs, and movies for for rent.
We had over 300 visits a month.
And that was uh sometimes over a thousand books and and other articles taken from the library.
And as an aside, the town had negotiated a reduced rent for Mrs.
Campbell, uh, which made it affordable for us to rent there with the town grant.
In March 2009, after becoming a reading center, the BC Liberals decided they didn't want reading centers and canceled all the grants for all the receiving all uh reading centers.
About that time is when I left the board, so I really shouldn't say any more about the operations of the board, but I know that Mrs.
Campbell died and the rent increase.
The town grant uh got changed from uh the casino revenues to uh town uh finances, and then the lot the reading center then had to apply for a grant and aid to cover those same expenses, which they did, but because of the increased rent, they had to move to the location up on uh Island Highway, which is really not a desirable location, but it was what we could afford.
I sometimes wonder whether we could reapply to the NDP government to see if the reading center grants could be reinstated, that would go a long way to helping the library.
And to those who say that the library is duplicating services, that's not quite true because the library doesn't have a branch in View Royal.
We can walk, we don't need to drive, we don't need to take the bus, we can go to our library by walking.
The other thing is that the libraries are complementary, they don't really compete with one an author like Beldackey or anybody else and they retain all the copies.
So that with some authors, we have 30 copies of the same of the same author's books.
So if you go and you find out that you like Baldacci, but you just read the new one from the Greater Victoria Library, you can come to our library and read the other 19 in his collection.
And besides, you don't have a one-year waiting list to get that book.
I hope this information will help you view the View Royal Reading volunteer run, 80-year-old asset to our community, at least until there's a Greater Victoria Public Library Branch in View Royal.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your service to the community.
Hello, I'm Christine Jackman.
I live at 755 Market Street in Victoria.
I don't actually live in View Royal, but I'm the manager of the library.
And I took over in 2015.
So there's a five year gap between Jim and me.
The manager before me was my mother, and some of you know her.
And so yeah, we moved up to Island Highway.
We had to reduce our uh books by about two thirds.
Uh, we've had to get rid of the DVDs that we had for loan.
We've had to get rid of the computers that we had for public internet because they were too old to be upgraded and we didn't have the budget to buy new ones.
So pretty much all of our problems are because we don't have the budget.
Last year we had 50 new members sign up.
We have 846 active members in the library who visit regularly.
Anybody who just happens to be walking by pops in and looks awkward location where we are, but it is kind of on the way to everything and fairly central, so it's convenient for the people, especially the people who live in that area.
Most people come on foot, some people drive.
Um I just wanted to let you know that we're we're still going strong, we're still seeing people come in, we're still uh loaning a lot of books out.
We we do cater to the people specifically.
If they ask us, I want to read this specific book, we go out and get it.
We try to curate our collection to the community.
So our nonfiction is very strongly local history.
We don't keep a lot of other nonfiction, we are more entertainment reading.
We do have a large children's section as well.
Um, and I don't know, is there are there any questions?
Thank you and uh thank you uh to Jim as well for the presentation.
It was enlightened and uh bit of history certainly um uh set into context quite a bit so I'll I'll turn to my colleagues in council if there's any questions for uh the Reading Center no questions yeah Councillor McKenzie um thank you for the presentation you both kind of answered the questions I had so um but I was wondering, are you to speak to the the the demographic of the people who come into the reading room?
We are very strongly seniors.
Also, our volunteers are mostly seniors too.
And we do get quite a few children.
There are at least three daycare centers very close by.
So we get a lot of people who come in with their children.
We get daycare people walking by all the time.
But I would say that our demographic is mostly seniors.
Great.
Thank you.
Thank you, Councillor Lemon and then Councillor Rogers, please.
Thank you.
Thanks, Christine and Jim.
Jim, you made you made a comment that, you know, urging us to help and and keep, you know, the community to to support the reading center until such time the GVP GVPL established sees fit to establish a branch here.
Would that be the overall greater wish of the reading center board and membership, do you think?
I I cannot speak for the board.
I I cannot speak for the board.
It certainly is my wish.
Uh I love the View Royal Reading Center.
I read over 50 books a year from there, plus additional ones from the Greater Victoria Public Library.
But I'd be lost without the Reading Center.
My wife is the same.
She reads as much or more than I do, although she reads nonfiction where I read fiction.
Okay.
If there was a branch of the Greater Victoria Public Library, we would probably use it as well.
And quite frankly, I'd use the reading center if it was still there.
But I know there's finances involved.
Uh and you, you know, it's difficult if you had a reading center in View Royal or a library in View Royal, would you really need a reading center?
I think the volunteers would miss it, and I would miss it.
But you have to be practical sometimes.
Okay, thanks.
Yeah.
Thanks.
Can you advise from sorry, and you may have re put it in your grant application, but uh what do you have in terms of membership fees and um what fundraising do you do?
We don't charge fees for membership, we charge fines and we have book sales to raise funds.
And this year we will be applying for a gaming grant.
Any other questions from counselors?
As uh I I have one of my own, and that is has there been any discussion formally with the Greater Victoria Public Library to look at um I I don't know what would be best, a cooperative model that would um potentially share resources between the reading center and the library.
I'm thinking off the top of my head, an ability to pick up your books from there potentially to get other resources to be able to kind of you know cross um support each other and uh because it cost you nothing to get a Victoria, Greater Victoria Public Library um uh card.
And then you know, a lot of the services that would be available, plus Greater Victoria Library could use some of the space if they were doing presentations or um looking at some of the benefits of their uh training that's online that's available.
Has anything had been pursued uh to uh work out kind of a relationship?
Uh yes, there has.
Uh when my mother was manager, she had several meetings with the Greater Victoria Public Library.
Uh the meetings took the tone of either us becoming a branch or becoming, as you said, cooperative with the library, and we were turned down, just flat turned down by the library.
Um, we also we did engage in interlibrary loans with the Greater Victoria Public Library, and that was shut down.
And I'm sorry, I don't know why.
I think it was a cost issue.
Um this was just slightly before I started working with them, so I don't know that part.
Thank you as well.
I mentioned that I've spoken with um Maureen Salwa, the the CEO of the Greater Victoria Public Library, and she's agreed to meet with me and Christine to discuss opportunities.
Thank you, Jim.
If I may, uh when we lost our our reading center grant from the library services branch, they also decreed that we would lose our interlibrary loan service and also the IT section that used to provide us with a a website so that we could advertise and and do loans online, things like that.
So they really cut us off at that point.
Thank you, Jim.
And thank you both for answering the questions and a good presentation history lesson for us.
Thank you.
Council Lemon, I'd look to you for a discussion about the motion, I think.
Okay, thank you.
Well, I'm I'm going to uh oh I need to get my agenda up, um make move that council need my glasses now.
Hold on.
Um here here we go.
Uh that we the council approve the requested $38,000 grant in aid for 2023 for the Vieuroyal Release Center.
Okay, and uh is there a seconder for that.
I will second for discussion.
Okay, and uh let's go to the mover first for um some motivation, Councilor Lemmon.
Okay, well, thank you.
Um we have an it's the 80th anniversary of perhaps the longest standing, maybe the fire department might be in, might be in the the same league, but the longest standing organizations in View Oil.
It's a it's a founding organization.
And I I you know I think it would be it would be I won't say irresponsible, but shameful for us to uh to not support it at this to and celebrate this longevity of of a volunteer run um um initiative.
And you know, it's the reading center is you know it's it's much more than books, it's much more than reading.
It's it's we don't have a senior center here.
We don't, you know, we have a we have a community hall, but it is limited in size of what it can accommodate and uh the the reading center is it's it's a social hub for many people in View Royal it's a you know you you pop into the reading center people know you they get to know you they get to know what you like in your books um and it's it's a it's a social um comfortable place to be and handy it's handy it's a handy place to get your books yeah thank you, Councillor Lemon.
And I'll go to the seconder uh for um motivation or discussion.
And then to you, Councillor Brown.
Okay.
Well, thank you, Mr.
Powell, for the uh the history.
And I'm probably one of the uh few that remembered back in the 60s when it was in the community hall and as a child going there on a regular basis.
I remember I remember it well.
So I I know it well.
I also know that um uh before we got the casino, the uh Greater Victoria Library, uh we were cheap and proud of it.
So it it required that we had to pay $400 per person for anybody that wanted to join the Greater Victoria Library.
You know that.
And we would get reimbursed by council, but back that was uh probably before uh we're around when we were only five, four thousand people.
Um then the um of course uh the casino came in, and at that time we were able, we were forced, not forced, but now we're required to be a regional member of it.
Um so the situation today is that we're faced with a 9.95% tax increase.
We all are.
Probably business is more.
Residential stratus will be more than that.
And um the the issue is that the um we've received the tax increase for uh Greater Victoria Um Library, and that was 40,000.
So they've asked that's a almost a half percent tax increase that they want, they need.
And uh and um it's um an issue where it's that's directly off taxpayers now.
What used to be on the casino is no more.
We pay the rec center, but we're finding that the the rec center is going up and up and up, and and counselor Kowalovich has just informed us that the infrastructure bills of the the or the uh restaurant rec, parks rec roofs and so forth, gonna be about five million.
You know, it's a huge chunk, and we also have a police station to build.
So with all that, with the casino, with those um uh issues, I have um I'm I'm sorry, but I have a real issue about duplication of service.
And with all due respect and and I appreciate the volunteers and what you've done over the years and and what you want to set out to do, because of that, I cannot support the grants and aid application at this time.
It's um just too much to uh to ask of the taxpayers, and um we're we're at a point, and I and I I hear you guys are struggling.
And uh it's a it's a mutual situation.
You know, I understand that.
Um so um unfortunately, I I feel it's time to really deal with a uh serious situation.
And uh, you know, the GVPL, the Wonder Fuke Rec Center, um there is easy access, it has all the features at all as all the amenities, it has the rec center and and it has a senior center.
So regrettably, I cannot support the motion.
Thank you, Councillor Rogers, Councilor Brown, please.
Yeah, I appreciate the uh the reading center.
Um my only concern is the the amount.
Uh we only have $40,000 left in our grants and aid, and we have one more request for funds.
And we typically keep $5,000 aside for something that comes up later in the year.
So I would propose if I could get a second or an amendment to to uh uh approve a grant of thirty thousand dollars if someone would second that.
I think that's uh a good one.
I just want to make sure folks have had a discussion to chime in, those that want to.
Counselor Brown, Councilor McKenzie.
Yes, thank you.
Um I uh do appreciate also the the value and the history that um you provided, but I do echo uh Councillor Rogers' comments, uh you know, with the increase in the G VPL fees, we really have to make sure we're getting the most value for our money in that service.
And we also have to compare the request for funding to the other requests that we received.
So this amount is just uh in my opinion, we're not um getting the most out of our our available limited uh funds.
And I think um also when reviewing the budget comments, there were a lot of comments about the reading room as well uh again questioning the the value uh for the cost so I would prefer to see a conversation that that happen with the GPPL see if yeah if if we could see if it could be a branch or um some of these suggestions that Mayor Tobias said and but yes uh right now I don't I can't approve the the request for the amount of um before I go to you Council Lemon I just wanted to make my own statement and I I I grew up reading out of a bookmobile in rural Nova Scotia and certainly appreciated the availability.
I don't think I would have got to read if it wasn't for the bookmobile, um, to be honest with you.
Um, I see that it serves, you know, really over a thousand people in View Royal.
And although we've doled out money for uh other things for grants and aid that are good for the community.
I don't see that many active members, uh, particularly amongst seniors being a real thing to do.
So I also um, you know, share, here's where I'm caught a bit.
I I share the concerns that Councillor McKenzie and Councillor Rogers do, and and Counselor Brown with the budget.
Um I support it for this year, and maybe I'm not I'm not the first mayor to say that, but we need to come up with a plan with uh the greater uh Victoria Public Library as well as you know diversifying uh our ass.
There are people out there waiting to give money away.
I know this because they try to offer it.
Um and I think we you need some help in in um in a process of discovery and and maybe some assistance around how we can uh leverage other people's money because that's always better to spend, right?
Uh instead of tax money.
Uh so I'm a big supporter of other people's money when it comes to ventures like this, and I can't help but think that there are other opportunities to diversify the commitment to it.
Um now there's a a number that's been thrown out for $30,000 to give us a starting spot.
Um I'm just wondering, Councillor Lemon, will that how long will that suffice for rent and whatnot?
Um thank you for asking.
I not very long, I suspect.
Christine, what is your rent?
$2,000 a month or three?
Two.
Okay.
So it'll cover our rent and maybe it would be a good starting.
Would would that be a starting place and and you could consider some grant applications elsewhere to to expand?
Okay.
So your worship, um would you want to vote on my motion and then we can go to the I think Councilor Brown's got one on the table, so if if you were to second that, Councilor Brown, could you like read?
The motion was to to approve a grant of thirty thousand dollars.
And if I get a second or we can vote on that.
I think we need to vote on the first one for 38 and then vote on his.
I'll make an amendment to your oh you made an amendment to it.
Okay.
Voted an amendment first and then come back to your seconds.
So the the motion is to fund the reading center.
Of course, it's a period of one year.
The grant would be reduced from 38 to $30,000 for this year.
But if uh folks in council could offer some opportunities uh and support for uh crafting some other applications for grants, that would be I'm sure appreciated.
Um so yeah, that is so moved by counselor brown and seconded by Councillor Lemon.
Are we good to call the question or do we want to discuss for Councilor Rogers?
I guess the um, you know, I you can see how far it goes.
Um there was a thought that um GPPL might um uh partner with um the reading center, and over my time as being um on the um commission for um GPPL and others, um it's uh it was, you know, we can have a go at it, but I really, really doubt any success in that regard.
Um the astonishing thing is that the provincial government finally gave um all the libraries um in the province uh some much needed cash since uh for you know almost what two or three decades they they neglected the formal libraries.
I hardly think um they've changed their position on reading centers.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Uh if there's no other questions uh or another comments, I'll call the question.
Those in favor of the motion on the table for a grant of 30,000 uh to the View Royal Community Um or to the View Royal Reading Center.
Uh all in favor.
All opposed.
And I see councilor uh McKenzie and Rogers are opposed for the record, so the motion carries um any other concern stuff oh i thought i turned it on that moves us to the public participation period is there anybody in the chamber that wishes to address council there's a lot of you here somebody's gonna want to say something.
Nothing.
Okay.
Uh Carl, on the phone, do we have anybody?
Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time.
Everybody's doing something else when it's council meeting.
Gotta get the memo out.
Uh I think that allows me to pass the chair over to Councillor Brown for Protective Services.
Yeah, welcome everyone to the um portion of this meeting, which is the Protective Services.
Um, I just want to say in my report that we were without a bio officer for a period of time, and now we have uh Bile Officer Cameron on staff, and I'm sure he's gonna be a great addition.
And we've put him to work for sure with several outstanding files.
Um also just a reminder that it's tsunami awareness week this week.
So uh people that have don't have kits, grab and go kits.
I would recommend they they get them for every family member.
And if you have one that's been sitting around for a few years, like mine, you have to go through it and check for your expiry dates on your on your food items.
Um moving right on.
I see uh uh Superintendent Preston's here, so I'll call you up, Superintendent, to give your police report.
Thank you, Counselor.
Mr.
Mayor, Council, thanks for having me.
Um so a number of things that I think um I discussed with uh staffers about first discussing uh strategic priorities for the year.
And I think if I was if I'm correct, they wanted to do it at uh the committee of the whole.
Is that correct, counselor?
Yeah.
Um, so every year we obviously sit down with each community.
The uh the West Shore detachment is made up of seven communities, as you're well aware, including the uh Songhees and Esquamble First Nations.
Um, and we try to establish the priorities that the community set for us.
And we try to establish priorities.
Uh and our fiscal year starts in April.
So it's April to April.
So this is my opportunity to hear from you to tell me what uh you're hearing from your constituents and you as a counsel um would like to see more or less of um in terms of uh law enforcement police services within your community.
Uh typically uh things as uh visibility, uh community policing, traffic, drug enforcement, uh, those are types of things that I hear back from um communities, and I have so far with a number of the other communities.
I have uh I think another five to go here, though.
So um yeah, I'll pause here and perhaps I could put it to uh Councillor Brown uh or Mr.
Mayor to uh to kind of set the conversation in motion as to what your priorities would uh what you'd like to see.
Any counselors want to ask or supply some information to Superintendent Preston or Tobias?
Yeah, thank you, Councilor Brown.
Um Superintendent Preston, you've done, I think, an outstanding job on that West Bern side stretch, particularly during the day.
Uh I note that um uh things have slowed down, including me going by uh cruiser a couple of times uh when I wasn't looking at my speedometer.
Um and so thank you for being responsive there.
I think we're we're finding niches in View Royal.
Um now the I'll call it the road less traveled, uh, meaning that uh some of the issues aren't so much during the day, but they're at night and usually involve alcoholic consumption.
And I know um that road is usually favored over the main highway all the way to the highlands if you're going that far, if you've had a couple of beers from downtown and that's where your next stop or home is.
So I I think I would support um consideration of probably some uh some roadside checks.
Um and that's something that uh perhaps the Highlands would uh would agree to as well.
I know I meet with the mayor later on next week, and I can discuss with him just to see if there's some consensus there.
Um, but uh we've had some close calls uh there with damage to public property, and certainly given the trajectory of some of those vehicles flying off around Eton or area concern.
If anybody had been around there, they would have uh not been in good shape.
And I'm sure some of the drivers even weren't uh ending up where they did.
So uh I I think right now I'm I'm very satisfied with the responsiveness and the visibility for the RCMP.
Certainly uh aware of it much more now, and and for me it's just some some some more consideration for that.
The other part would be visibility on on the trails when you get the uh the bike teams up and running.
Um I know that there uh is you know ongoing concern, particularly on the group, the goose and in our parks um with uh with with just having an extra visibility we realize that you cannot your presence isn't going to stop uh everything from going on but it's a reminder I think for folks that that uh view royal is covered by the RCMP and and uh and that they're on it so those those are the two points that there'll there'll probably be others right after this council meeting that come up but those are the two points that I see.
Councillor Rogers yeah hi there um so I I guess a number of things.
One is the um the whole issue of drug enforcement and uh particularly when we have those places operating in in our houses and on our streets, and we know of a couple with long-standing uh issues.
Um and I I think the the um uh if there's some way of being able to improve the coordination communication, uh who knows, maybe part of neighborhood watch is that every house has a doorbell camera on it.
And uh so that you know about that, you can then check what are the circumstances, and that you yeah, you had the ability to get the information rather than go on the news and say, anyone seen anything?
So it um it I think the the technology and availability is there, and it may be an additional pair of eyes of functionality that would improve uh law enforcement um yeah for for you folks.
Um the um the uh I'm also curious about the catch and release program uh offered by the Crown.
Um is that still an ongoing issue or th has the Crown substantially changed their realization that they need to keep the dangerous people off the street.
I think uh that's been voiced loud and clear by the Premier and uh by the Department of Justice.
I think we're yet to see um w how that how that looks and how that transitions into you know real time with a with uh these serious offenders that you're speaking of because uh there's nothing more frustrating than um working feverishly on uh on individuals that are committing the majority of crime or violent crime in the community just to see them return back to the community without treatment or deterrent.
So um I think we're too early in uh to to determine how this is going to unfold and and uh how this is going to look, but uh I can assure you from a law enforcement we welcome the the notion of you know that those select few that are causing the most uh the most issuing in our society and our communities.
Indeed.
One of the um uh uh you know ongoing issues that we're we're all facing is the um uh the the issue of constables having to stay long hours at the VGH to um uh provide watch and security and um and safety uh for both the the individuals who bring in and the the people around.
Um has the province again refresh my memory, has the province offered any um improvements to that by hiring security?
No, I mean they have security there, but unfortunately it's it's a statutory thing where it has to be a peace officer before um before a uh a doctor, not transition to a security person who the security person would would uh in then in turn tr uh transition to a doctor and and so until that's um changed or if it's ever changed uh I don't see our problem dramatically decreasing unless you know and I've been trying to champion and and try to be as loud as possible in terms of um having separate facilities uh so we don't have to take these individuals to an eMERGE where we wait you know uh two three four hours uh and not really for for our sake but I mean you know picture somebody in crisis that you're taking them in handcuffs and putting them there uh basically on show uh while you wait two three hours.
Um like I I don't think we should be treating people like that first of all um and I don't think it's an efficiency by any means to have three four or five police departments sitting down there with uh you know people that are in crisis waiting to get treatment and there's not enough services so we wait there long periods of time costing you the taxpayers in each municipality um substantial amount of uh funds so I mean there's a lot of work to be done I think again I can only voice this to our councils and hope that our our councils uh mayor and councils champion uh this with the province and try to come up with some solution.
I don't I don't have the solution.
I think there's a number of solutions that could be posed and could be tried um but it really has to come from I think our mayor and council.
If I if I may and I I I'm just suggesting that the um in in terms of a plan um maybe jointly led by the RCP and uh the mayors um with the the politicians to get some change going on um and improve that situation.
So it's kind of a uh I'm not leaving it all to to uh the RC and P but it's a it is a coordination and and maybe it's time for um Vihan and and um RCP and and the province you know, key people getting down and addressing it.
Yeah, it you know, I think it would be nice to dig deep across the province and try to come up with a a dollar figure.
And you know, I think that's typically unfortunately what motivates uh, you know, um political movement is when you see an actual dollar figure.
Um and I and I, you know, working in far reaching places throughout Western Canada here, this is not a significant issue.
Um or I haven't seen as a significant in a lot of the rurals rural or smaller spots.
You typically go to the hospital and they see you quite quickly in those spots.
It's uh I've never seen it as bad as you know here in the lower mainland, especially uh I mean I I hear of people in the lower mainland.
I haven't worked in the lower mainland, but I know they have similar issues as well.
Um you know on our average is two hours.
So every time we apprehend somebody, which is every day essentially, um, you know, we're waiting two hours at a hospital on average.
Uh so you add that up with every police force and and every community that that that's a lot of salary dollars, uh, especially when our police officers costing around $200,000 uh per individual right now.
Yeah.
Just a um rhetorical question.
I wonder what happens.
Where do officers take such individuals when the emergency room is closed in small communities?
Yeah, I mean, obviously we have to take them somewhere.
So we uh we take them to the nearest facility.
Interesting problem.
Yeah, thank you.
So you bet.
Any other comments or yeah, counselor lineman?
Yeah, sorry.
I'm sorry.
I didn't look over there, sorry.
Yeah, no, I sort of no wonder I was anyway.
Um I wanted I I wanted to address the very, very same same issue that my colleague addressed regarding um the time spent languishing in emergency rooms.
So as he was speaking, I've you know, I was thinking, what what what can we do?
Because I know the previous council, um I in fact I think the previous council and a few others um wrote the province, and that was when E B had, you know, was um premier EV was not premier and housing wasn't his priority.
He was running there and nothing happened then.
Um so perhaps it's it's it's a matter for um us to, you know, per perhaps for Mayor Tobias, um, when he goes to UBCM to meet with the uh the the minister responsible and uh maybe you know as a council we discussed you know uh a resolution and and uh you know kind of a a joint force of lower island um um local local politicians um making some noise and um seeing what we can do to get um some action but but todd um you you spoke about numbers now i don't know how we would get those kinds of numbers without you know, one of us working the phone for every detachment, but do you have any way of accessing through the RCMP?
Like the R even if we were just to do the RCMP alone, um, spend you know, you know, this many thousand hours um uh um cooling their heels in ERs.
I can check with our uh our uh headquarters in Green Timbers are off strategy and and some of the other uh departments, um including some of our strategists and our um yeah, there's a number of individuals that I think off the top of my head I can think of that we'd probably be able to put together something.
Yeah.
Um just yeah, rough rough numbers based on uh kind of a global accounting.
Okay.
And I can certainly do that.
Well perhaps we can we can think about what we can do in coordination with with others across the region and uh go from there.
So in terms of uh priorities, uh sorry, counselor, um maybe I can turn it back to you.
Okay.
I just want to kind of revisit the the priorities for the year.
Um if there's some other I I got a bit of a bias because I spent a lot of my policing career in community policing and school liaison.
And having the officers in the school, even if it's a part-time, I think it has a lot of value and and not even specifically having uh the same officers doing it all the time.
Uh if you if that work spread out for so the the students just don't think oh Constable so and so is the good guy everyone else aren't.
But the trust and the uh the value uh I I was in uh Nanaimo detachment for nine years and six years of that was in community policing.
And even today if I go to Danaimo, students that I taught how to ride bikes safely or cross the street safely still remember me.
And that really feels good.
And I think it it's a two-way street.
And also the uh I know the staff and the students always appreciated it when uh the constables went to the school zones and even if they're just sitting on the side of the road uh doing paperwork uh that sends a message out it gives you the visibility and uh teachers used to float our detachment up and say you know how happy they were to see the police car there uh if you know eight o'clock in the morning or eight to eight forty whenever they start school.
Um so that that kind of visibility the and and it's a long term you know those kids grew up and a lot of them become police officers.
I uh police officers in Victoria uh say we we remember you because you coached us as you when you were a police officer or you went to my school and I think um it it's it's it is it works both ways.
Okay.
Yeah uh I couldn't agree more and and to to that end obviously I think there's 20 oh god don't quote me 27 schools or whatever is in in the in the area here and so what we do is we've actually assigned schools to individual members not just our community policing but just to that very point where you know especially if they have a kid in that school it gives them an excuse to go to the schools your your child and just be around those children for 15 minutes in the morning around school or uh school hour um school zone times and park those those police cars there a slows down people and B exactly what you uh you're saying you need to build those those relationships.
So I know a school a skill school district sixty-two is extremely supportive of um having police in schools.
School district sixty one, I know there has been some issues, uh and we do have a couple schools that fall into that uh that area here.
I know Del Manic's been uh Chief Manic's been quite vocal about that and I certainly support Chief Manic on uh every step of the way when it comes to uh having our our membership in the schools there.
So uh yeah if I'm hearing you correctly here schools uh obviously community policing schools and visibility within those are are certainly priorities and and I share those uh priorities as well as some of the traffic um you know uh those are always concerns but it's nice to actually have specific areas and and I lead that and those those are uh moving targets through throughout the year.
So again I can't emphasize enough when you and your constituents when you hear of areas that are problematic, when you see those areas, please uh just send it directly to me.
Um, I'm not gonna be the one out there uh enforcing it, uh likely, but I will at least I'm aware of it, and then I send it down to traffic services as well as every morning.
We have watch briefings every evening we have watch briefings, and so we can address issues like Western Burnside Road and and these other ones.
Um is there any oh sorry, counselor, go ahead.
Yeah, go ahead, council counselor McKenzie.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
Um, I would say I I would like to see more visibility in in the general community, not just at the schools, um, particularly I think in the commercial.
So we have two main commercial areas in Vie Royal, actually, probably three.
Um, but I'm thinking, you know, Admiral's Walk, Eagle Creek, and those, to be honest, are are where I've seen some maybe not as great behaviors happening.
Um, and they are they do happen to be on the outskirts of the town, like on the borders.
So it it would just, yeah, in those areas, I would um I think it would be good to see um have a little bit more police presence or visit just visibility, I guess.
Yeah, those uh great points and and we hear that from the commercial.
We hear that from the liquor like the liquor store up at uh Eagle Crest there.
Eagle Crest, right?
Eagle, yeah.
Eagle View.
Um yeah they you know they had significant uh thefts from there and shoplifting and so that is one of the priorities like park your car like you know you need to do paperwork.
You know it's very clear we don't want to be doing paperwork back at the detachment if you can help it.
You park your car there, you park yourself in front of a school zone, you park yourself in front of Walmart superstore, um you know outside the fire hall and view road like in high visible areas and especially in the commercial areas where there's a lot of thefts um so I hear you so I will make sure that that again that is put in as uh a priority for in terms of the visibility this year.
Sorry Mary Tobias go ahead sorry just uh yeah just just one I I think to summarize and it doesn't have to be in our priority order I think it's um um around those commercial areas to create uh some more visibility I think around the school zones to and unfortunately it's mainly mums that are rushing to school to drop their own kids off that are um challenging to both uh crossing guards and to other people's children.
Um but uh the uh the other piece that I'm interested in like looking at your trends where you see a preventative action might be a emerging concern.
Um like I went into uh quality foods the other day and I was looking for a roast and they said we don't keep them in the meat department anymore because they're stolen too quickly.
So if you want to roast you got to go to the butcher and he'll cut you a roast for it.
And that's seems to be something that's occurred like within the past year and a half.
Um, so I'm just wondering your take on trends that you see happening that maybe you would like uh to inform us that that would help our priorities a bit.
Well, I don't know if you got the uh the annual report there if you've had time to digest it.
But I uh shoplifting was up a hundred percent.
I can't remember if that was across the whole board or if I was just in Langford, but I'm pretty sure it was across the whole board, it was up a hundred percent.
So um you have desperate uh desperate times right now.
You have a lot of people that are um unhoused and mental health and and all the challenges that uh society is facing right now.
And clearly um, you know, there has been a movement with some of these individuals that are unhoused and uh not receiving the services that they necessarily need, and and we've seen more and more moving out to the west shore.
Uh nobody's immune, everybody's seeing it.
Um, yeah, so that's that's one trend, and and so to that end, obviously, working with our um our partners at you know the grocery stores and the LPOs, and um again, strategic, you know, um placing our vehicles strategically and visible, you know, being visible, being visible, being visible.
But you know, you can't uh that that in itself, unfortunately, is not going to solve uh that, but I'm hearing what you're saying.
Uh, one of the other emerging trends, it's not here in in um in View Royal near as much.
Um, Callwood actually has seen more of it, and it's it's unique.
It's funny how you know we have this uh integrated detachment in certain areas.
It's like, well, you know, you have you know substantial issues up at the hospital, mental health, and casino, and a few other places here.
Um, right now in Callwood, we've got some youth issues.
Um, and so youth is uh is a substantial concern of mine, and probably probably the biggest concern I have right now is some of the youth violence.
And uh I don't know if you've seen some of the media that we put out, but it's it's alarming and you know, unfortunately, unchecked.
And if we don't curb that behavior as youth, um, they don't go anywhere, they just grow into adults um conducting themselves in a perhaps uh even a more destructive manner.
And so that's one of the ones that uh you know, we're really trying to come up with some strategies, how we can work together with the municipalities.
This isn't a a police only fix.
This is obviously uh working with you know parents and coming up with you know ideas.
View Royal had probably one of the best uh best things I've seen.
Um I unfortunately I think it's closed now, but it was the coffee shop um down by the doctor's office there and by the IGA or whatever that is.
Um, and that was a great initiative that you guys had running.
In fact, I've been championing and prouding that to all the other communities say we need to do we need to follow View Royal steps and perhaps collectively all coming up with some more of those types of facilities where we've got some of the youth that are yeah they could go this way or they could go this way they're on the kind of fork on the road.
Um and perhaps going home isn't their their best option because uh the role model that that perhaps they have or don't have and so you know those are the the types of things that when you talk about trying to get in front of the trends that's what we're that's what we need to do.
And so um I won't be shy in bringing those forward um throughout the year here and letting you know and hopefully we can strike some committees and work together.
And that's the the benefit of having seven communities in one is we can pool the resources together and so you don't put it on the backs of one community.
Um if you don't mind, I'm gonna switch uh gears.
Is that all right, uh counselor?
I'm just gonna uh give you some some overall statistics here and then perhaps some of the calls for service.
Um so we throughout uh this is for uh the last quarter here, or sorry, February.
Uh we had 19 interactions uh traffic in View Royal.
Eight uh we gave it eight tickets uh last month, and we also the rest of them the uh the eleven others were uh warnings and box threes, which is you have to get your vehicle fixed, you have to bring it back to the detachment and show us uh or to uh um a facility to get your your vehicle fixed.
Um proactive school zone patrols in View Royal Elementary is Eagle View Royal Um and three ALPR.
So we actually have uh a new uh on all our cars we're starting to move towards having automatic license plate readers which I know a lot of people thought we already had but we didn't it was all manual before and so now we put these devices on there and they just basically read license plates uh 360 around your vehicle or you can set it in different manners and then you'll be able to tell who's prohibited of course now that they don't have ball tags on anymore who's unregistered who's prohibited who's uh restricted who's uninsured and so it's amazing how many uh how many hits you get with this uh this new technology.
Um, some of the calls for service we've had in the last month um in uh in uh we had a fraudster call, uh or sorry, a fraudster that was caught by our crime reduction unit.
Uh they were using stolen credit cards from vehicles that were broken into, and uh suspect was tracked down by a crime reduction, executed a search warrant uh on the suspect's property, located all the credit cards, and that suspect uh was uh was serving a conditional sentence order at the time, so kind of to your point on the revolving door uh for similar convictions of fraud and theft and went back to jail based on the new charges.
Uh we had a mail on a CSO, another conditional sentence order.
Uh he was on house arrest at New Roads Recovery Center, and he just walked away from the uh facility, was reported to police, and uh he wasn't located despite the extensive patrol, so we forwarded a charge to uh crown for that individual.
Uh we had a curfew uh check on a female uh by a 24-hour curfew release order, and she was not home, so we forwarded a charge for her as well.
Police called for a woman yelling, screaming, protective services removed the female.
We had a disturbance at the VGH.
However, she had a head injury that needed tending, uh, so the police brought her back with the ambulance this time, and uh she was then cooperative when we were present uh at the hospital with her.
Uh we had a search for a missing female at Theodus Lake.
She was missing for three hours, friends split up on the trail uh to search for the woman's phone.
Um, and not being able to locate her friend, officers began foot patrols in the area.
View where a fire attendant and uh with their boat to assist.
And at 6 30, the individual was uh was located during the search.
Two youths, 14 and 15, uh ran into police and advised that they were being stalked by a cougar.
And uh the conservation officer actually confirmed at that time that there was a cougar sighting in the area, and so um it was kind of a good thing that uh we were able to resolve that issue without injury or um danger to any of the youth.
We had a uh uh a very, very unfortunate uh sudden death of a uh four-month uh infant uh in the last month.
We had a mental health uh complaint to the business in the View Royal reporting that their co-worker was uh suicidal and uh depressed, and uh we were able to um provide proper services without uh taking that individual into care.
Um again, we really have to make these uh and it and it's really difficult because you got to make these judgment calls um based on somebody's mental health.
We're not doctors, um, but you you just you can't have the the volume is astonishing of the amount of mental health associated to calls right now.
Um I know when I started and I'm sure when Council Brown started, uh it was a fraction.
Um and now it's it's it's incredible.
And I like I said, I encourage you to come on ride-alongs.
Uh that's open all year long if you want to see what I'm talking about.
Uh we really as a society, we really gotta something has to change here.
Um it it's not working, whatever whatever we're doing.
Um we had a uh a paranoid emotionally disturbed person male entering to a complainant's stranger's yard, began stating he was being followed.
Family of the uh emotionally disturbed uh person advised uh advised about this and then and what was happening, and the male was not fit again for apprehension.
Uh we did a check well-being.
We were able to get the supports for that individual.
Um called to advise a family member, took uh seven sleeping pills, and uh we attended on that one as well.
Um that one was taken to the hospital.
Uh, March 17th, we had three separate uh drive row drive well prohibited files uh in in um View Royal.
One of the uh three vehicles also had no insurance.
Um we had a male wielding a knife at the four meal uh four mile liquor store.
He was a homeless man who uh was under the influence of drugs.
We had theft from three vehicles, credit cards, a personal items stolen, SUI fraud investigation for one file where the credit card was used.
I can't help but think that the other guy on the first page might be uh related to that.
But um we had in a on Craig Flower an empty and empty trailer.
Police called for possible squatters living inside the empty trailer.
Um police were called and arrested two suspects for breaking into that same trailer.
Um we had a report of a male urinating in a public parking lot at uh Admiral's Road.
Spoke with the owner of the RV, uh parked at those locations, advised his nephew was the culprit and agreed to pack up and leave the area.
We had a report of a male walking into traffic causing vehicles to slam on the brakes near Elements Casino.
Officers determined that the male uh was a U.S.
national who failed to report entry into Canada, had no valid reason to be here.
He was arrested under the Immigration and refugee Protection act and transferred into CBSA uh custody.
We had a mischief at uh on Talcott Road.
Residents uh had had uh caught fire.
The small fire um there was evidence of uh arson and the investigation is still ongoing.
Kerfee check for prolific offender on island highway led to the officer seizing a stolen e-scooter parked outside the home.
Unable to connect that scooter item to the offender, but the scooter was recovered.
Uh female cyclist was struck by a vehicle on uh 275 Island Highway in View Royal.
The cyclist had abrasions on her arm, complaining of hip pain.
Driver was conducting a right turn and claiming they shoulder check but did not see the cyclist.
And on April 4th, uh this was uh last one here, April 4th.
Um, most of these are from February.
This one was an intentional fire that was set at VGH um by someone who um had some mental health challenges and no charges were resulting uh uh complex file, but uh no no charges will be ordered on that.
So those are just a random sampling of uh some of the files.
I try to give you a wide overview.
I try to get the analyst to not just get all the violent ones, but just kind of a wide range of uh files so you can hear what's going on in your community.
Um the first quarter.
So this is uh stats from the analyst here.
Uh you had a four percent increase of files, so that's 27 files from January to March compared to the last year.
So not a huge significant increase, it's 27 files.
Um nice to report that you had a 20 cent uh 26% decrease in violent crime uh from the last quarter, which was great.
Uh property crime, you had a 9% increase.
Again, those are you know, those those statistics can be skewed.
You you heard about the one prolific offender, two prolific offenders.
Um, they can do a lot of damage in terms of property crime in a very short order and skew stats quite quickly.
So hospital, you had a 20% increase at the hospital uh compared to uh last year at this time.
So we had 55 incidents in the first quarter of this year from January to March at the hospital.
You had a 117% increase uh at Elements Casino.
So that one's perhaps one to keep an eye on.
Um we'll see if that trend continues or what have you, but uh that's 21 files, uh, and an additional 21 files compared to last year.
So 39 files, and which is 21 more than last year at this time.
So one of the things I wanted to touch base, because we are getting complaints, is um about drug use, open drug use.
And so I'm not sure if uh all the council is uh is aware, but uh um in British Columbia is now it is uh legal to uh possess um certain most hard elicit drugs and use openly in public.
So although you can't uh you can't have open liquor still, but you can shoot uh heroin and uh cocaine and and all that, and the federal government is using this as a three-year pilot project.
Uh you're able to possess 2.5 grams of illicit hard drugs and use them in public spaces.
Um the notion, the spirit behind why the federal government did that is to decrease the stigmatation um behind um drug drug abuse and drug users so that they will seek help and they won't feel ashamed that uh they have an addiction or um an issue, and that they'll be more um uh readily willing to uh to seek help.
And so British Columbia is the only province that's uh that's trying this, and it's it's only been a couple months, and so it's too early to comment on which way this is going in terms of curbing or helping or or uh hindering.
So more to follow on that.
But just so you know, we are receiving complaints from uh you know constituents saying that they're seeing people using drugs and uh you know, unfortunately they're finding needles and what have you in areas, although it's not it's not legal to throw your needle.
Uh I think it's probably expected that that's going to happen uh given these current circumstances.
Um anyway, something to keep an eye on, and and certainly some feedback from you so that uh you know we can tell uh the province and and the federal government if this is working in your view or not working in in uh in your view.
So um, and then as far as uh I think in the annual report, I'll just quickly comment on the fact that uh you paid for 13% of the resources last year, and ironically, you used 13% of the resources last year.
So you you paid for 13% of the officers, and we responded to 13% of calls for service in your area.
That's going to fluctuate every year.
Uh that's some years you win, some years you lose, and that's just the part of uh being in a partnership with others.
Um scale, I think you you certainly win at the end of the year with uh being having a partnership as uh this.
One thing I would um, and I know that you guys are certainly ripe for, and I think the whole CRD is um for expansion and and for um um new buildings and new construction and uh you know a population increase, and with that, all the only thing I would ask is that you know you keep policing in the back of your mind that typically you're policing at a one to one to eight seventy five uh ratio and so if you approve a building for 875 just have that in the back of your head that that's a police officer um you know and that it has been that was accepted in the past it hasn't been ratified by this council and hopefully you know we can have some more conversations about that at a different date but I know Callwood has now ratified that as well just so that they don't we don't have to come back every year and say hey um you know this community is giving a police officer or you giving a police officer everybody's kind of a common across the board um Lankard's a higher uh they're one to seven fifty or that's what they were aiming towards we'll see if this council still stays with that but it does uh it certainly avoids friction between um your partners knowing that this is everybody's responsibility and if everybody pays their fair share if you will and you know what that fair share is in advance it's certainly easy to plan for for development as well and the same for municipal employees it's a three to one ratio is what we've been using for that um and I think I might have told this council before it's not a great uh formula to use in terms of there's better formulas if you were a standalone detachment but having partners in this there's only one real fair metric that unless somebody else can come up with a metric that everybody can agree on but we haven't found that yet and it'll also certainly be advantageous when we go into a new building.
Um, everybody knows what their fair share would look like, uh having some sort of metric that you can measure.
And so with that, I've talked a lot.
I will pause.
Any questions or comments?
No.
The uh val tags is interesting because when they took them away, of course, that you guys have scanners, which is great.
That's good to know because you know you used to see the expiry date, but I know people are driving out of province and then other countries have issues because they're getting pulled over in Washington State, for example, because the the patrol officer says expiry, you know, February twenty two twenty twenty three.
So I think ICBC recommending people just peel off all the old ones.
I know I've done that in my own vehicle.
Yeah, I didn't think of that, but that's a good point.
Yeah, just can I get a motion on the floor for to uh accept Superintendent Preston's report, please?
So moved.
Moved by uh Councilor Lemmon and seconded by Councillor Rogers.
All those in favor.
Thank you.
Thanks for your time.
And the next item is the building department report.
Is there gonna be a verbal?
Is that just no?
Okay, thanks, Leanne.
Uh can I get a motion to accept the building department report, please?
Moved by Councilor Rogers, second by Councillor McKenzie.
All those in favor?
Carried.
No new business.
Thank you, Councillor Brown.
Um I have very little to say.
Uh yeah.
Just one mention in my report, and that is of the uh forty-five million provincial windfall that libraries, public libraries received.
GVPL, Greater Victoria Public Library, is receiving, and it's called a one-time enhancement grant of $616,000.
Less than I would have thought.
So it'll have to be, you know, it's it's it's not it's not the kind of largesse that that um it might appear to be.
Uh it's to support uh library service enhancements, help address shifting to bands on service, uh collections, programs and spaces, and can enhance municipal local government dollars, but not replace it.
And uh tomorrow the uh the uh Wanapuca Um Arts Society is holding its its uh gala to it's kind of their coming out party, and uh I'll be there and certainly you people everyone here is invited and perhaps you'll be there too.
And uh that's it for me on McChair's report.
And we have a new business item from down the road.
Um, Councillor McKenzie, Spring and Fall Community Building Event.
Yes, thank you.
Um, so this is uh compared to the rest of the agenda, this is the lighthearted piece.
Um in recent weeks I've noticed the buds starting and flowers starting to bloom.
And um with the inspiration of the Chelsea Flower Show, I thought, why not have a View Royal competition similar to the uh light up View Royal for springtime, so as a community building event.
So similarly it would be for gardens, I was thinking, you know, a competition.
And um for later in the fall, I was also thinking a Halloween decoration competition.
Last year I also saw a number of really good Halloween comp um decorations.
So uh yeah, I just thought I would put that out there to see if if the council would be interested.
And then if so, I think we could probably replicate what we do for light up View Royal.
So yeah.
So do I need to move it and things like that?
Or sure.
If you for discussion, do you want to do you want to make a motion and see if there's any uptake?
Yep.
Okay.
So I will make a motion that we have uh both a spring and fall uh community competition for flowers and um Halloween decorations seconder council council counselor Brown seconded and uh motivator do you have any more to add or should I move on?
No no more to add.
Counselor Brown, do you want to speak to your seconding no it's a good idea.
It's just something light I'm sure it's not gonna cost a ton of money either just uh like photographs and that kind of thing so similar to view uh the light up view royal I think the cost would just be the prizes um that would be involved counselor rogers yes.
So um, you know, with the light up um um uh Council Lemon, you to you taken the initiative and coordinated that and and so on.
Um would that be this then something that that you would be coordinating?
I would be happy to, yes.
Okay.
All right.
So that's um, yeah, if if if you could do that, yeah, um I'm in support that uh then it'll help out.
Mayor Tabais.
Yeah, thanks for thanks for this, um uh Council McKenzie.
I think it's a great idea.
Um too bad we don't have something in the summer right now, because we got the spring covered off and the fall covered off with this and then the winter with the light up view royal.
We could have a deadline uh dead lawn or dandelion competition, I guess for for front lawns, but that's about it.
Staycation vacation.
We could have a staycation one.
Um, so what we're looking at, I guess, is just um kind of uh a mayor's credit card purchase of chocolates or something like that that we could coordinate for these two activities.
Plus, I think Damien did a good job coordinating some of the communication so we could uh wrangle some of his expertise to make it light on staff and just host some things.
So uh yeah, I'd be very much in favor of this.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Maybe we could even have little trophies or you know, some kind or plaque or something.
I know years ago, um, like counselor Rogers would remember this.
There was um a uh late spring event of the of an arts and gardens tour that was was pretty cool, but then you know, and people run out of steam or interest, but I I thought that was a really great idea so yeah yeah i'd look forward to seeing um how how you're going to um and i'll work with you um how how you're going to coordinate this before my daffodils die anyway um all those in favor of the motion to have these minutes passed thank you very much and that's it for me passing on to buy us uh I'm on.
Uh all four go a formal report, but I just want to thank staff again.
And I was in there as many of you were um looking at the engagement for the budget, and uh just like to thank staff for um putting it all together.
It's a lot of work um and a lot of options to um to to sort out.
So thank you very much for your efforts there.
So we can skip right now to staff reports, and I think we got an action list update for the first quarter.
I'm gonna appreciate it.
Thank you, Mayor Tobias.
Um I don't have a presentation for you.
The report is for information, it's intended to describe the status of the various resolutions of council.
Second.
Uh I don't think there's any discussion, so I don't think I have a question.
Oh, you've got a question.
Um yeah, Kim.
Okay.
Perhaps you can or or uh the director of engineering can answer.
Uh the the um January um uh request for an audit on Burnside um a safety audit.
Has that been done?
Will that take place?
Has it taken place?
Thank you.
Yeah, thank you for the question, Council Lemon.
We did uh engage ICBC regarding that issue, and um right now as we speak, you'll you'll notice there's some spray paint marks.
That's where we're gonna put in some signage, advanced signage for speed and for the curve, as well as uh reflectors.
Uh, in terms of the actual audit, uh, we did it uh reach out to ICBC as part of their program.
And um, given that they've looked at uh their five-year period, which is 2017 to 2021, there actually wasn't a lot of incidents at that time.
So a traffic safety review wasn't warranted for this.
But that said, we did mention to them that there were two recent that uh we wouldn't mind taking a look at to see what can be done.
And um as a result of that discussions, uh that is what we're gonna be doing out there.
This reflector, more reflective um visual cues as well as advanced warning signage.
Thank you.
That's great.
And just uh a question, Kim.
If uh I'd invite um counselors to review the list uh for the next council of the whole, and if there's questions that arise about why wasn't that thing on it that I thought was, or that um do we really need that still on there?
Uh just to to help staff out and to to say that might have been previous council's action item list, but is there are we good to move on from that?
Um so thank you, Kim, for that report.
That's uh great.
Anything else to to add to that?
Thank you.
All we need is the vote then.
We're good to go.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
None opposed.
Motion carries, and now I think we're down to Don's good work at budget variants and projects update.
Council, it may look like I'm moving in for the afternoon.
Indeed.
We do have several items on your agenda that I have put forward.
The uh budget project, uh the budget variants and projects update is just the regular monthly update.
Uh nothing new there of note, other than of course the receipt of the 4.665 million dollars, um, which of course was not in the budget, um, but it would be will be it uh as soon as we get to the next uh the next item or one of the next items nice seconded by councillor lemon is there any discussion counselor just uh because it's my first time around so uh can we still make minor tweaks that to the budget itself uh for the 2023 to 2027 financial plan yes we're not quite there yet yeah uh what's reflected in the current uh budget that you that I have that is the official budget right now is last year's financial plan unless until it gets replaced with this year this five year plan.
Any other further questions?
Call the question, I think is in order.
Move receipts.
All in favor?
Any opposed?
Not opposed.
Motion carries.
Next one.
I believe next up you have the citizen budget online engagement results.
And I'll just I won't you know go through everything of course.
I do hope that council took the time to both look at the citizen budget online tool as well as attached to this report are all of the verbatim comments as the good, bad and the ugly, everything.
It's it's all there for your review.
So the citizen budget engagement was launched on March 13 and it was held open until April 2, so basically a two year, two week period.
It provided not only an opportunity for people to comment and to look at what would change if they would, you know, what how it would affect their property taxes if they change certain components of the budget.
There's information on all of the services, as well as links to the other budget tools that we have, being the financial plan insights on our website and the full budget document that was available to them in all of its detail through links on that engagement tool.
So we did receive 57 participants this year, which compared favorably to last year.
Last year we only had 31, which was a bit of a drop, I think.
I'm hoping just an anomaly.
I'm hoping that it continues to go up.
But uh, you know, of the 57 participants, 10 per just about 11% of them actually completed um the the whole survey.
So so that's something to keep in mind.
And and you know, while these might not seem like astounding numbers, they certainly do compare favorably when you consider that we used to have public open houses that would we were happy if we got five or six people out to those.
Financial plans are are not often a big draw, not in just this community, but many of the ones I've worked with previously.
So I I think what is um important to realize is that generally speaking, um the the respondents, the participants did uh generally support the direction of our financial plan that we have proposed, and that they indicated that View Roll provides either very good or fairly good value.
That's 84% of the respondents that indicated either very good or fairly good value for their tax dollars, and that's an important measure.
However, I do need to remind council that the tool is not a statistically significant survey.
People know self-selected.
There's it is not a blind study, or you know, so do do keep that in mind while it it may indicate a flavor of of some interest out there and maybe generate some ideas and discussions.
It should not be considered as representative of all of you royal uh constituents.
So that I just offer for council's consideration.
That's my report.
Thank you.
Uh discussion, Council Brent.
So it sounds like a lot of people, well, no, a lot of the people that filled it in, they didn't necessarily fill in all the questions.
So they probably had areas of specific concerns or interest to them, and they filled those in and not the rest.
In entirely possible, and I would say likely.
Yeah, thank you.
Yeah, I was uh I went through the um engagement and actually filled it out.
Um I thought the questions were constructed quite well, and I thought it broke it down quite logically.
Um but I think you know, my comment's gonna suffice to say on the number of engagements that we do.
And it's not just a strategy, it's um using our social media to remind and drive people back to that as well as reaching out to uh community associations and get people in those areas, like View Royal has certain areas that are covered off by Facebook groups or View Royal as a whole.
And I think it's up to us to drive people to these surveys as much as possible, not staff and council.
Um, because I think your your rate of return as we look more towards engagement, it's like how do we get people there, right?
That's the big thing.
Once they're on the web page then they can they can you know fill out the surveys or whatever it is that we're we're we would like input on.
But it's just getting them there and getting them alerted because there's a lot of noise out there of people's uh inboxes being full with stuff.
But I think a common way to do that would be a way to drive more.
But thanks for this very much.
I thought it was very helpful.
I don't think there was anything that I didn't expect to come out of the uh results.
Um I think overall it's it's kind of an okay endorsement for those who did participate that we made some uh decisions that were in line with expectations um and there was no surprises there and there's polarization on either end of that uh to be sure.
Uh so all in favor of uh receiving uh any post?
Not a post.
Um I think you're up here for the next one as well, Don.
Twenty twenty three to twenty twenty-seven financial plan approval.
So council is aware, of course, that we have been working on the budget now for several months, and council especially spent uh significant amount of time in February reviewing all of the details of the financial plan.
The results of those discussions you will see attached as schedule A and Schedule B to the report, noting all of the changes in great detail to the financial plan.
After the public of the proposed financial plan, and by publication I mean launching the citizen budget online tool and all of the documents and the financial plan insights, council considered the parking lot items.
And out of the discussion of the parking lot items came a reduction of the public safety building landscaping item, a reduction of $20,000.
So you will see we've added that to Schedule A, sorry, on Schedule B, noted it in red at the bottom of Schedule B as a reduction in $20,000 as that was funded from casino revenue.
Staff are recommending consideration of at least two other items, one being that of building inspection.
As you can appreciate, pinning a budget down at a particular point in time is a little bit difficult, difficult, is is challenging when information doesn't all come to you in completely all at the same time.
And when we looked at what we allowed for building inspection, considering the vacancy that was in the building inspection department at the time, and we we learned more as we went further along in the in the financial planning process.
What we're recommending now is that we add $40,000 to the budget for building inspection to make sure that we have we are able to provide the full building inspection service.
This will require a contractor help.
And because it is just a temporary measure, we believe that it would be fine to fund that from casino revenue so it would have no impact to taxation.
So that is one uh recommendation that uh we would appreciate council's endorsement at this time, or you know, if if there is an alternative that council has in mind, it's certainly willing to give you advice on that as well.
Additionally, you are aware that we received the $4.665 million in Growing Communities Fund.
What we were looking for today is authorization, in other words, inclusion in the financial plan by law that I will be bringing back to you to transfer that to the reserve.
That I believe we've got first three readings to create the reserve as required by the province for that fund.
As far as use of that fund, we're saying we have a five-year horizon to spend that money in.
I'm thinking that the advice that I could give is let's take our time, consider all of the options, consider staff's professional recommendation, consider all of the things that we could do and the priorities that council has for that money.
And let's make a plan this year.
If there isn't anything urgent, we certainly can include all of the uses in the next budget cycle.
If there is something urgent, we could amend the budget later on this year.
If there are others, um, now would be the time to make those um recommendations, and if council endorses them, they would then be included in the financial plan bylaw that is returned to you next.
Um, we would return the f the bylaw for first, second, and third reading on April 18 and adopt it on May 2nd.
Thank you, Don.
Now that's Sage Lee advice.
I think um the building inspector change casino revenue.
I mean, with the amount of holes we've got on the ground right now, um having a building inspector, especially some of the other challenged province properties that we've got right now.
We need there's no question we need a building inspector, and they're just they're not falling out of trees.
Um so I appreciate your efforts in both trying to hire and secure.
Couldn't agree more with uh taking our time and getting it right for the 4.66 million.
Um I think uh you know there's there's some debate uh we've got to do, and just to be clear and remind myself and council, there are some parameters around the spending of that 4.66.
And what was clear to me in reading it was if what you're proposing is covered in any way by any other type of grant, this is not to be used for that.
If you're just waiting for that grant, then you wait for that grant, don't use this money for that kind of thing.
So just keep in mind when we're um bringing that down to priorities.
Let's go to Councilor Brown and then Councilor Rogers.
Yeah, I'd like to make a motion that we add the forty thousand dollars for the building inspection department and then I'll speak to it after I if I get a seconder.
I'm not so sure if you have to move that uh right now or or we would we want to we'd we'd want to okay and uh second to go ahead councillor Brandon Yeah I realize the need for uh a level three building inspector so you you need to have the mentor and I think we have a great mentor in place so it makes total sense.
Counselor Lemon, did you want to add?
Uh no, uh it it's if it's if it's coming out of casino and there's lots of room in casino and it's not gonna affect taxation and it's a necessity.
So I'm comfortable with it.
Thank you, Councilor Rogers.
Actually, yeah, we're no I'm gonna be speaking about the 4.6 million, so we can deal with this one on the floor at the motion first.
So all in favor of the uh amount of expenditure for casino revenue, I think $40,000 for a building inspector.
There's a motion on the table.
Uh any opposed, then oppose that carries.
And I think you wanted to start a discussion.
We want a motion on the table about the 4.6 million.
What and did you have in your mind about?
Because there was several actions for the growing community fund.
First, we need to yes, uh, if you will, uh, Mayor Tobias.
Really, really all we're looking for at this point in time is authorization to include the transfer to reserve for the 4.665 million dollars.
We can defer any future decision about the uses of those funds to future financial plans or future discussions later on in the year, certainly.
And and if I may, um, you know, reiterate what you were saying about the conditions of the grant.
Um, there are several conditions of the grant, and staff are working on a report that gives council the fulsome discussion on what those mean.
There is um more detailed information available on the ministry's website.
We've also been in touch with the ministry.
We want to get this right.
Certainly, what you what you referred to we call the concept of incrementality, which means it must be incremental to our budget so so we want to delve into that at a uh in a report in a at a future date good thank you uh Don Councillor Roger yeah um certainly looking forward to that and what the definitions are I guess um again I'll reiterate the uh the whole concern about uh if it's anything to do with grants grants are real and they are artificial so if we have unilaterally decided that something was never going to happen and we made it dependent upon a grant uh and therefore it wouldn't, that means it would this uh item would never be uh allocated or be um uh have the achievements of this 4.6 million.
I would be taking great exception to that so um let's see how that unfolds, whether these artificial requirements set by council um are real or not.
And I'll I'll give you, I guess, one one example, you know.
Well, we had um the Island Highway Project grant, grant, grant.
We're never gonna get the grant.
It's just unbelievably unlikely uh for the cost that we're we're putting in for and and uh and and so on and so forth.
So it's um you know that means that you know we could because we would be suggesting we're putting it into a grant, we couldn't even use this 4.6 million even for a portion of.
So that's just one of those possible barriers that this uh the provincial requirements may land us in.
Yeah, I think my understanding of it is if you've applied for a grant and have not been successful, then it would make it eligible for this one.
If you were had a project that you're gonna apply for a grant, but never applied for the grant, don't use this money until you exhaust the grant option first.
That that that's where the the caveat was.
Um interestingly, on the points of grant and speaking with the mayor of Callwood, they have hired somebody that's all they do is write grants for the town, and I think they've secured forty-five million dollars in grants for this year.
Counselor McKenzie.
Just saying.
So it goes on how you write them as well.
I think uh the idea was being floated around to whether this having this uh fund reserve fund with the 4.6 million, um could that then uh our other reserve fund could we remove the money that we put into there since we have this new reserve?
Is that an option?
So if I may, that is one of the things that could be addressed in a future staff report.
I'm I'm probably better to defer discussion on that till we've completed our fulsome analysis.
And and uh thank you for the question, and we'll make sure that we answer that in the staff report.
And sorry, and so will that staff report be in in before we finalize this budget?
Is that or is that like down the road?
We don't need for decisions to be made on the uses of this fund uh for this current financial plan bylaw.
It can be included in the next iteration of the five-year plan, or if there's something that we must do this year and we want to use that money for and it's eligible, we can certainly amend the budget at a later date.
Okay, thank you.
Councilor Brown.
I'd like to make a motion we put the 4.6 million into our reserve uh create a bylaw for to put to put the money into the reserve fund a second sorry but i thought we did that last council um when that was presented you we do we have a staff report on that at council what what we did at the last council meet uh through through the mayor um is we created the reserve fund that would accept this money the financial plan needs to authorize the transfer to that fund.
It's a two-stepper.
Second so uh so we got uh the motion, uh second or I'll call the question.
All in favor.
Any opposed?
None opposed.
So we can we now have an account and we can deposit the money into it.
Councilor Brown.
Sorry, no, this may be not the right time, but uh we had a municipal employee for the RCMP that was in our budget.
We moved basically moved everything up one year, basically.
So that municipal employee um the funding wouldn't be there until next year for half a year.
So um what I would I know they asked for five thousand dollars to do the hiring.
And and I don't know if I get a second or if I make a motion or not, but to add five thousand dollars to the to this year's budget to do the hiring so that employee could start on January 1st.
Of course, we'd have to increase the next year's budget too for like full year for the municipal employee.
I'm just concerned because we're not we're not really fulfilling the 3.3 to 1 ratio.
Um it made sense to move it.
And take it takes time to hire that person as well.
So uh with the security clearances and everything needed, uh and uh the five thousand dollars is not a huge increase through 2023, although it would, I think it was was it 40?
I think it was 40,000 and and to make it 80,000 for the next year.
So that person could potentially start in January 1st, if they advertise and hired somebody rather than waiting all the way to next July, that seems like a long, long wait.
I think it was 40 to start that person July the first, uh, but but but a still with five thousand dollars to do the the Langford to do the hiring because it's gonna be a Langford employee, I understand.
If I understand you correctly, uh Counselor Brown, uh and through the chair, um you're asking to do two things.
One is bring five thousand of the of that proposal to 2023 to initiate the hiring and then increase the um budget for 2024 so that it's a full year's salary as opposed to a half a year.
Yeah, that's correct.
Uh well when we went through this, I know it made a lot of sense to push things up, and I'm aware of the time it takes to to do the hiring and a security clearance.
And to me, it just seems like we're in April now and they're gonna wait over a year to get that municipal employee in place.
So um would it be time to make a motion to to to add that, or is there is it is it not the time and place?
Uh I think first we let's lay the land out.
I mean you're well briefed on it right now.
Um and I think Councillor Brown, where you're going is there was a request for an additional admin support staff for the RCMP, and they wanted initially for it to start this summer or fall, I think.
Yeah, it was to start July of of this year.
And we as a council pushed it one year out to next July.
But what you're suggesting is that um that position is needed more now and it would uh perhaps be a bridge if we had them start in January by July.
That would be a bit more than five thousand dollars, would it not?
Well it would be five thousand dollars because we we we had it in their budget to do the hiring process, five thousand, but forty it'd be adding forty thousand to the twenty twenty-four budget.
Because if we only had forty in there, and it would be jump up to eighty.
But then we wouldn't have to put the five in twenty twenty-four because we've done it in twenty twenty-three.
Yeah, um, it's kind of splitting hairs.
But uh it yeah, to me, to to go all the way to July of next year, that's that's you know, fourteen or fifteen months away.
And I'm uh and I you know um I know they need the help.
Thoughts and discussion.
Counselor I would second the motion I'll turn to you uh and you you've already motivated a little bit but what would the impact be for uh for the town if we didn't support this and I know you said it, but what's the impact rate now of not having that admin?
Well, I'm I'm aware uh the need that and they're they're already increasing their uniform staff.
So um I guess one concern is that we're not meeting that three to one ratio, which isn't the end of the world.
However, I know they need the help, and it's we're in April now and to wait to July of 2024, and again, it takes time to do the hiring and the security clearance.
And I think it would be um it's kind of a split between what they asked for.
They're uh they're getting it six months later, but they're not getting a whole year later.
Uh Don, I'll turn to you.
What would that do to affect what you've diligently put together so far for a budget?
Thank you, Chair.
I am looking at the uh N053, which is the policing municipal employee.
We have budgeted $50,000, which does include the 5,000 for 2024, fiscal year two in the financial plan and zero in fiscal year one.
This uh project is 100% funded by taxation.
So certainly, if you are to change this number and affect anything for 2023, now would be the time to do it.
I might just add that uh while the request from the uh RCMP is based on a three to one ratio, it is based on our authorized strength of thirteen point three five, which historically has not always been fulfilled.
I can't quote you off the top of my head the number of FTTs, FTEs by which it has not been fulfilled.
I'm just making an observation that while the authorized strength is 13.35, we have, I don't, I am not aware that we have fully reached that 13.35 yet.
Our CAO may be able to provide you with further enlightenment than I can.
Councilor Brown.
Yeah, and I believe Superintendent Preston basically indicated that we were were close to that or at it anyway.
And I realize that can fluctuate definitely when people go on maternity leave or long term sick um typically money gets returned to the municipalities if they haven't used the full FTs.
Kim I was just going to ask you to provide some words of wisdom.
So based on the track record for the RCMP, we probably don't need to make an amendment to the current year's budget to allow for that 5,000 because it's very likely that the RCMP budget will be underspent on the basis of them not meeting their authorized strength.
$5,000 is a relatively small amount compared to the impact of not having authorized strength for the entire year.
What council does need to do if they agree with with with counselor Brown is pass a resolution to amend the 2024 budget to fully fund an employee from January 1 to December 31st and that estimate is uh somewhere in the $80,000 range which represents uh not not quite a one percent increase in the um tax rate however council is already committed to have that council I think I'm hesitant to uh reverse a a decision that we made during the budget discussions where we had the full council here without a a more pressing need for it.
Um yeah, I think I I I don't really I know uh they would like to have it, of course, but I I just don't see based on what um the CAO said, I don't think we need to go back on what we agreed already.
Thank you, uh Councillor Lemon and Councillor What.
Um Don, can you refresh us on what the 2024 bottom line tax increase was going to look like as per, you know, what what was before us without us having much in the way of of um discussion.
Uh through the chair on attached to the 2023 to 2027 financial plan approval report is Schedule A, and there is a column in there labeled 2024 that the revised increase for 2024, the impact of taxation.
I think that's what you're asking for 2024 is 9.59.
Does that answer your question, Counselor Lemmon?
It does.
And so what this possibility would do would be put it over 10%.
I I would agree that's a the very close, yes.
Okay.
And and I'll just note I'm supportive of the need, but we went and and carefully cut even staff recommendations of stuff we need here at Pew Royal.
So while I am empathetic to, you know, um being fully staffed uh for the RCMP and have a a full thing there.
I think we went out with uh trying to keep this under 10%, and we're not gonna do that if we if we do it.
Um there may be efficiencies later on, but I think that um we've we've agreed to that with two members that unfortunately aren't with us this evening and uh and I think that's the expectation we came away with.
So I I mean in spirit I support it you know and if they were willing to work for free I'd support that too but not at putting our tax rate I think at over 10%.
Council Rogers.
Yeah.
So um you know it it's kind of like a black and white situation.
You know we keep it at at the uh the 40 but there's uh there's all sorts of grades.
You could start it up, uh, you know, there may be consideration, and once we have a um of all council here, we may decide to start it in February.
So that would be another 20 000.
To say that you know we're fixed uh for the 2024 budget is a little premature.
There are other things that are kind of coming on.
Oh my goodness, staff are, you know, we got reports that are suggesting that we need a transportation, active transportation coordinator.
That might be cost a little more.
So there's all sorts of uh proposals of FTEs um and um um and who knows what um you know what assistance that 4.6 million dollars will do for us in terms of no longer having or you know two reserves and so on so um yeah, we're not fixed.
And I think that um when council comes back, we have another look and see if we can't move it up, you know, to a certain degree.
That'll keep us under that dreaded 10%.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Could you remind me?
Um Councilor Brown, did you have that in motion?
Well, perhaps I could amend my own motion to uh make it through uh the funding to go.
Okay, we can forget about this year, but we could uh amend my motion so that the uh the hiring for the person and potentially could be starting on April 1st.
So that wouldn't be as big a hit uh rather than July the first, and then we'd have to include the the 5,000 or whatever it costs to do the hiring process.
So nothing in 2023 but to start that position on on April 1st as opposed to July the first.
And I was taking that as placeholder so that we've got it and we got the motion, we've got that consideration, and when we start and staff being aware of this when they start their early discussions in November um maybe uh uh counselor brown you can add that to your counselor wish list of in initiatives um so that we can still remember that and reflect upon it uh early in the tax consideration year right and and and just for information the RCMP's fiscal year is April first so it kind of ties in I think there may be some support for that.
So is there any other comments?
Do we want to call the question that the um current budget has that start in July?
Councilor Brown has uh moved that we start that in April of 2024.
Um and that would be a couple of months salary for a support person.
Other than that, that would not affect budget for this year.
It would affect it when we uh bring considerations for next year.
So if there's no further comments, I'll call the question.
All in favor.
And Councilor Lemon, you're opposed.
Okay.
Uh Council Lemon was opposed.
So that adds some clarity, Don, that you weren't anticipating, but got it anyway.
Perfectly fine.
Thank you so much.
All right.
And go ahead with your tax rate option.
Well, I see that I'm a little bit concerned about our time.
I want to uh this I I consider the main event.
As it this does require a little bit of in-depth um thought and careful understanding.
I do include in this presentation a little bit of a I want to call it uh tax rates 101 for those of you who may not have been involved in a tax rate setting in a municipal um process before.
I want to remind council that when we say tax rates here, what we're talking about is the municipal view royal tax rates, not capital regional district, not capital regional district hospital, and not school taxes.
And those are some of the big ticket items, not BC Transit, right?
So we're just talking about municipal taxes.
I think we're going.
Are you do are you advancing?
Clerk, we got it.
I'm I think I've got it now.
All right.
Okay, so what we're gonna do is as I'm gonna give you a very brief uh property taxes 101.
We're gonna talk a little bit about the components of the process, and we're gonna talk about assessments and and the context that we see those assessments in.
We're gonna talk about the regional um, you know, what's happening across the region with tax rates.
Of course, I'm only gonna be able to look at 2022, but still that does give a flavor of of uh you know how we compare with our our neighbors uh in tax rates.
We're gonna look at some of the scenarios that we prepared for discussion.
It is a little bit of a a la carte menu sometimes.
You can pick and choose.
And then it will be, of course, your turn to ask questions and importantly provide direction to staff because after today, we need to bring a tax rates bylaw back to you for approval prior to the May 15 legislative deadline.
So setting municipal tax rates is a little bit like trying to do one of these sliding tile puzzles, if you will.
A 2D version of the Rubik's Cube.
You can think of it.
Some of the tiles are stuck in one place or difficult to shift, or when you move one, it affects all of the other ones and it but most importantly, they are restricted by the boundary, right?
We have those edges that uh on on the sides that we can't get past.
Property assessments are determined by BC assessment.
They are independent, they fall under the assessment authority and other acts.
They are governed by a board of directors and are accountable to the province.
It is important to understand that View Royal and View Royals Council has virtually no influence over property assessment values.
It actually is a good thing for property owners since the property taxes that are based on these assessments comprise a significant part of View Royal's revenue each year.
So you wouldn't have the fox watching the hen house.
So we are glad to have BC assessment assigning those assessed values impartially.
Properties are assigned a property class, and we're going to be seeing those.
Class one is residential, class six is business, and those are the two significant classes in View Royal.
And those are based on the property's type or use.
Municipal zoning does not necessarily determine the property class, although it may be a factor in some cases.
Setting purposes, there can only be one residential tax rate.
So you're going to see that a little bit later on.
Assessed values are set as of July 1, the prior year.
And I know this has been a bit of a tumultuous year.
So you may have talked to constituents who said, I got my assessments notice in January.
There is no way my property is worth that.
But if they think back to the world on July 1st, they might better understand a little bit about why that difference may occur.
Assessments each year include the changes that result from factors relating to the property.
I'm talking about new construction, demolition of existing improvements, reclassification of properties based on the status when it is you know when it is evaluated.
Perhaps it will received a rezoning.
Perhaps vacant land was classed that was classed as class six becomes class one due to a rezoning, or it becomes tax exempt if there was a permissive tax exemption or that sort of thing.
These are non-market changes because the change in assessments are driven by some factor other than supply and demand.
So we talked a little bit about non-market changes on our estimates in February during the budget setting process.
Today, what we're looking at really and what we're discussing and what I'm presenting to you are the effects of our scenarios before the non-market changes have affected, uh you know, have been included in the assessments.
So we differentiate between market assessment changes, and that's what we're going to be talking about today, and and so the impacts that I'm going to show you are before we add in those non market changes.
So these are this is really the taxpayers who paid taxes in 2022.
Those are the people that those are the property owners that we're talking about.
Some things have changed since we talked about assessments in February, and that's because BC assessment provided the completed role in January, and that's the on which we we provided uh the analysis of what the impact of uh the budget when we were talking about it then.
Um that was based on the completed assessment role, and now we have the revised assessment road.
It's another cycle in BC assessments process.
So some of the numbers are different, some of the numbers have changed.
Additionally, we have this is a little bit of an unusual year.
I haven't necessarily had this happen before.
We experienced supplementary assessments that affected our 2022 revenue.
So some of the attachments to the report, you will see that your 9.97% you sent me away in February to calculate for for the financial plan is now more like 10.1%, and that's because when we compare it to 2022, one of one of the things going to happen to make that percentage increase.
Either we've raised our revenue requirement, which we haven't done, or the base year got smaller.
And that's what happened in this case.
2022 revenue decreased as a result of a couple of supplementary assessments.
By and large, all of the properties that were not affected by the supplementary assessments have the exactly the same effect as we talked in February, unless they were some that were caught up in a in a different in a different change on the revised rule.
So property assessments comprise one of these tiles that View Royal Council doesn't really have a lot of options about changing.
You're going to hear references today to the average or representative property.
And it's really important to understand that this measure helps us figure out the impact of tax rating, tax rate setting on any given property class or individual property, but it is not perfect, and you're going to see that in a few minutes.
It's generally more useful, most useful for classes that have a large number of properties.
And in View royal, really, that's only the residential class.
You're going to hear tax burden.
Let's understand that concept.
What is that?
When we talk about tax burden, we're really talking about the relative amount or percentage of total taxes, total revenue, that is levied against a particular property class.
So for example, if the residential class burden is 70%, what we mean by that is that 70% of the total municipal tax revenue is coming from the properties in the residential class.
So it relates to the proportionate share each class will contribute towards the total tax revenue for the municipality.
In 2022, nearly 72% of the municipal tax revenue came from the residential class, and 27% came from the business class.
The tax burden shifts with changes in assessments and in changes to the tax ratios.
We're going to talk about tax ratios in a second.
In 2023, there isn't that much of a shift in assessments between the business and residential class.
In fact, if we didn't change the tax ratios at all, it would only result in about a 0.06% shift away from other classes, primarily the business class, to the residential class.
So while not all classes increased their assessments by the same percentage, the two most significant classes being residential and business had a similar experience in percent increase in assessments.
Tax revenue requirement.
We just talked about that.
How much money does our financial plan need to be raised through taxation?
This is the amount that is determined through the financial planning process.
And we talked then about an overall tax increase.
That was that 9.97% affected to the market component of our tax of our assessments.
So the legislation requires us to determine this amount prior to having this conversation about tax rates.
We need to understand how much we need to raise through taxation before we talk about what the tax rates should be.
So at this point in time, we're going to assume that we are not going to change the financial plan to increase more or less taxation than is in that plan right now.
Legislation actually requires for the financial plan by law to be adopted prior to adoption of the tax rates by law.
So council determines this little component of our puzzle through the financial planning process, but we're going to assume at this point in time that that's not going to change.
Tax ratios.
You're going to hear this term interchangeable with multiples.
Okay.
So legislation requires BC assessment to classify, of course, the properties as we talked about according to type or use.
And we can set the municipality can set different rates for different property classes.
The relationship between the rates is what is meant by tax ratios or tax rate multiples.
So the residential property class is the base.
Residential property class has a multiple of one.
It is the one in the ratio factor.
All other rates are expressed as a multiple of the residential rate.
This is meaningful.
You can bet that commercial businesses out there are looking at the region's business class multiple to understand what their tax scenario is going to be.
Okay.
Tax ratios are the tool available to council to achieve certain objectives by adjusting the multiples accordingly.
If all other multiples in the surrounding area has a business class multiple of three and a half, and council wanted to attract more business to the municipality, you would think about reducing the business cost multiple because if everything else is equal, businesses are going to be more interested in the municipality with the lower tax multiple.
However, just like in our little puzzle analogy, any change to one multiple is going to affect the amount of taxes collected from the other property classes.
A reduction in one class multiple will shift the amount of taxes away from that class to all the other classes.
Since the total amount of the revenue needed isn't changing, that's like the size of the puzzle.
It's just a matter of which class is going to pay more or less.
That's the effect of the multiples.
So what we've seen is that property assessments are provided by BC assessment independent from View Royal.
The average or representative property is really just math that calculates the average on those assessments and using the counts within each of those classes.
The tax burden is going to change when the assessed values change between the classes or when tax rates or multiples change.
So we do have some influence over that.
Council determines, of course, how much revenue is required to be raised through taxes, but of course, that decision is pretty much already done.
So at this point in time, that's not going to be something that we we are going to be changing or can easily be changed.
However, today's discussion really is going to be about the tax ratios.
It's more about the who pays as opposed to the total amount.
This is the one piece that council at this point has choices about.
Just a bit of a help in breaking down.
So when we talk about recreation class, are we talking about um like Fort Victoria?
Is that considered like an RV park that would be a recreation class and just noting we we're at six percent highlands is at 7.1 and for uh the normal business class that covers just what everything else like a thrifty foods or a quality foods or anything else that we've got going and then of course the residences depending on strata or or freehold and whatnot yeah exactly and we're we're gonna delve into that even more absolutely all good?
So you got clash six, and um that's four point three right now, right?
What's sorry, what is um uh class five right now.
Class five is that three point nine six two.
That's what it was in twenty twenty-two.
Okay, thanks.
I do have more of these numbers coming up.
Yeah, okay, great.
Okay.
Thanks.
Carry on?
All right.
So let's look at our residential class properties.
We we're talking to talk a little bit about the average residential property, which as stated before really isn't a perfect tool, but it does have some bearing most, you know, more in the residential class than in some of the other classes.
I do draw your attention to the column labeled there 2023 count.
Keep in mind that that represents the occurrence of a residential property, not the number of individual household units, that counts as one.
Whereas each individual strata property, each individual strata is counted as one.
So it just that it just depends on the the underlying nature of the residential property.
So the sing the average single family residential property value increased from just over a million in 2022 to nearly 1.147 million in 2023.
It's an increase of 11%.
That increase, by the way, in 2022 was a 28% increase.
So while 11% is, I would consider fairly significant, it's still not as much as we saw last year.
The average residential strata property increased by 18%.
It was 17% in 2022, was the increase from 2021.
And that increased from 583 to 685,000.
Overall, the average residential class assessment value increased by 12%.
And because we can only have one rate for residential class, we will be using that 12% to measure or evaluate or predict how a change in tax rates will affect all other residential properties.
Okay.
John, I do have a bit of a question.
Um we tax an apartment building, we're just really taxing the building and the land.
There is there a business tax associated with it.
It's just simply the building's value plus the land's value and whatever percent, or is there a business is that considered a business as well?
The class assignment to properties is determined by BC assessment, and they do base it on actual use.
So while certainly a single property may have, you know, if you're thinking about uh a building where there's you know four stories of residential and two stories of commercial, that would be a good example of a split assessment where a portion of it is is allocated residential and a portion is is business.
So it is based on actual use, and BC assessment makes that determination.
If there's nothing going on there but residential, then absolutely land and improvements would be 100% residential.
And it's just my observation that we uh previous council has approved a number of very large apartment complexes that we're really just getting building and land value back for.
Is have we advanced any thought on um cost of servicing for a property over time?
Uh, meaning that the cost of policing, sewer um is that wrapped up in anything that you've been ever exposed to.
Short answer no.
I am not aware of in-depth studies that we have uh done here.
I stand to be corrected, um, you know, that says, you know, a certain building of a certain size.
Uh I think that's in part what your DCC bylaw does.
Is it it's it looks at future growth and if and evaluates what additional infrastructure is going to be required in order to service that density.
Um, but but that's not very n necessarily granular to a specific development, I I would argue.
Thanks, Todd.
Just a question.
Okay.
So the chart that you see in front of you is I I think quite interesting.
Uh don't accuse me of having a misleading chart.
This is not all of the property assessments in the residential class, because if I did that, what you would see is a tail going off to the right side of the chart a lot further.
So, what I'm what I'm saying is this chart represents the count, so it's a histogram based on the number of properties with values from between zero and 2.2 million, whereas our highest residential property is actually 63 and a half million.
So you can imagine if you take two 2.2 million and extend this chart over to 63 million, it's a lot.
But the point of this slide is that you can see the, I think it's a little bit faint in your view there, but there's a gray line in the middle showing you the average residential assessment at just over 1.46 million.
But 58% of the taxable properties are assessed below that.
So that's why I always want to make sure that we take that average number in context, saying that the average doesn't mean there's an equal number of properties over and under.
There are 58% of taxable properties that are less than that average assessment, and 42% are above.
The median assessment is 984,000.
Okay.
We see this even more exaggerated in the business class.
So of the 123 folios in the business class, 46 of them are actually exempt.
They are CRD properties, they are parkland.
So they're exempt from taxes altogether.
There are 77 properties, so the class just got a lot smaller, right?
77 properties that actually have taxable assessments, and this chart shows the first bit of a chart where the X axis would need to go to 82 million to show all of the taxable property values.
Of the 77 properties with taxable assessments, 37 of them or 48% have assessed values under 1 million.
So almost half of our commercial properties out there have an assessed value of under a million.
And the remaining properties, remaining 40 properties range between 1 and 82 million.
So the average value is 2.8, but really that is a very meaningless number.
It doesn't mean anything.
What might be a little bit more indicative would be the 11% change, because that's kind of the measure that we can use the 11% change in the average, and that says that overall the class average has changed by 11%.
Perhaps that might be some measure that against which we can see what our property tax scenarios look like.
For class 5 and class 8, we don't calculate an average.
Why?
Because there are two properties in class 5, and there are two properties in class 8.
I would argue an average mathematically exists, but that's it.
We'll be looking at that a little bit later.
Very quickly, the regional context, what you see in this chart, and it is attached to your report because I know that the numbers are impossible to read on the screens there.
This is the class six context regionally.
In this small orange bars, we're seeing each municipality and over five years what the tax multiple for the business class has been for them.
What we see is that the median for the five year time period for all CRD municipalities is right around 3.53.
So I think that's an important to keep in mind.
So it's just roughly about three and a half times the residential rate.
The provincial multiple that is applied to rural areas and certain other property taxes is 2.45, shown in the faint blue line.
View Royal's class multiple has been fairly steady, around 3.6.
It did go up to 4.3 in 2022.
So that you see in the dark blue bar on the on the right side.
And in the bottom right corner shows that View Royal is just above middle of the pack with its CRD municipal neighbors for 2022 business class multiples.
So you see the the yellow bars on the side there, View Royal is kind of smack dab in the middle or just a barely above the middle of that ranking.
Similar scenario for similar portrayal of the recreation or class 8 multiple because this has been a conversation with council over the last several years.
Council has directed that the recreation class multiple be increased incrementally little bit by little bit every year, and you can see that you know the view royal the top right section of that chart, you can see that incrementing up from basically 4.11 in 2018 up to six in the CRD is 2022.45, so just about two and a half times the residential rate.
But we are not aiming to be middle of the pack on this ranking.
We are aiming, we have in the past, I should say, aimed to be near the ceiling.
Uh last year, Highlands was at the six mark when six ratio when we were at 5.1, we increased it to six, and Highlands increased it to 7.1.
So we are second on that list.
Aside from the RV pack, what other properties might fall into this category?
If you had Schedule Six in front of you, it lists all of our recreation class eight properties.
The only other one is on Creed Road that is a golf course.
The other way we uh look at property taxes is uh across the region is per capita.
This is a little bit interesting because it takes our population and factors in uh you know what the property taxes are for each uh municipality based on their population.
Do keep in mind that this does not include water sewer garbage charges.
It does include property taxes and parcel taxes for municipalities that have parcel taxes.
So so the water sewer and garbage is done differently in different municipalities, so that's why we've excluded that here.
The median amount of property taxes per capita over the last five years for the region is $696 per capita.
In 2022, the taxes per capita in View Royal was $597.
So that ranks View Royal fourth from lowest in 2022.
Okay, another brief pause.
Anything I need to go over there?
I'm I know that we have dinner coming at 6 o'clock.
What we're going to get into next is the scenarios and what each means.
I'm wondering, Chair, if you wish for us to proceed and shorten your dinner time, or would you like to pause and resume after dinner?
Let's carry on.
I think we could go until six and five.
Yeah, even ten after.
Yeah.
Okay.
I don't have many more slides.
That's okay.
Okay.
The scenarios.
So this is we're gonna we're gonna start getting into the meat of it now.
In order to see what the effect of any change is, we change one thing at a time.
Okay?
And that's what these scenarios do.
That doesn't mean you can only do these scenarios and no other.
And it also doesn't mean that in some cases we can't do a little bit of this one and a little bit of that one.
Some of these are not compatible with each other, some of them are.
Okay?
So just keep that in mind.
I I could run scenarios every day, all day, but only one of them is the right one for you, I'm sure.
We're going to start with scenario A.
And this is this is one in fact, all of these are the base scenarios that we have presented in prior years.
So these, you know, for those of you who are returning council members, will be very familiar with these.
Scenario A basically says do nothing.
We set the multiples last year.
We now have a different number being a different amount of dollars that we need to collect in revenue, but we're just going to let the assessment values dictate who pays.
So if residential assessments increase by a little bit and uh business class assessments increased by some as well, you know, a similar percentage, but other class, other class values, assessment values have decreased or increased.
What doesn't what doesn't matter?
It'll be what it is.
We're going to keep our multiples the same and let the chips fall where they may.
Okay, so that's what that one is.
As it turns out, we are we would have to decrease the tax rate itself by one and a half percent to achieve our revenue target in the financial plan.
We have to decrease the rate because, as it turns out, the assessments increased more than is required for the amount of money we need.
Clear?
Good.
The next scenario kind of does the opposite.
Instead of saying, let's let the assessments determine who pays, we are going to say, no, what we really want is for each class to pay proportionately the same amount as they did last year.
So we talked about the tax burden and how the residential class paid for 72% of the total tax bill, the total tax revenue for View Royal.
What we want to say is we don't care what the assessments did in the residential or any other class, we want those proportions to stay the same between the classes.
So residential is going to pay 72%, business class is going to pay 27%, and the other classes are going to pay the percentage of the total revenue that they did last year, regardless of what happened to their assessments.
Okay, so that's what that scenario does.
Scenario C and D are very similar, they just affect different classes.
Scenario C kind of follows along what council has been interested in before, and that is let's purposefully decrease the tax ratio for light industry and business class.
And and you might argue, you know, this might increase the competitiveness of View Royal against its surrounding municipalities at attracting or retaining the commercial sector.
So this is about attracting and retaining the commercial sector.
And by doing this, you will see later that it does shift some of the burden to primarily the residential class.
However, keep in mind that when you attract new business to your municipality and increase that assessment class, every dollar of assessment in the in class six, the business assessment is worth, you know, three and a half or four times a dollar in residential value.
So if you grow the class six commercial sector, at some point in time, the the other classes do benefit as well, but down the road.
Okay.
Scenario D looks at increasing class eight ratio.
In this case, I have just guessed from six to seven, it could be 6.1, 6.5, 6.8.
It could leave it at 6, you know, or or or some other number.
But because council was interested, has been interested in this in the past, and we have been incrementing it up every year.
I I needed to show you the impact this year of what that would be to increase the class 8 ratio.
Keep in mind, I I do caution you for both class 5 and class 8 that any change, especially for class 8, impacts class 8 significantly.
There's only two properties.
And really, one property is the significant property.
The other one is a much lower assessment value.
So you're really targeting one property.
And let's say the scenario that we're we're talking about increases the tax amount that they pay by, let's say $10,000.
That $10,000 that we're going to get more from that class eight gets spread amongst the $10 million dollars that we get from all of the other classes.
Who do you think is going to feel it the most?
It's going to be that class eight, and the rest of them are not going to notice all that much.
Which is why my advice would be that if you are to increment this, we do it in small increments.
Now I can give you a slide with less numbers.
If you want to see the numbers that correspond to this slide, you can look at schedule five because this is really just a graphical representative representation of schedule five.
And what it says is that it's it's really just basically, you know, this is this is a sum zero game.
If you change one thing, you're gonna be affecting the rest in some way or another, right?
If we look at the total residential, on schedule five, you can see that between scenario B and scenario D, the increase on uh on a $100,000 uh one hundred thousand dollars worth of assessment that in 2023 is a hundred and twelve dollars, $112,000, so that's a 12% increase.
Scenario B and Dre they're the same, $20 per 100 increase.
So between B and D, the residential class doesn't care which you choose because the impact is the same.
Scenario A is a $21 per $100,000 increase.
So it's not bad, it's just not as good as B or D.
Scenario C is a $25 per $100,000 increase.
And that's why scenario C is not the popular scenario for the residential class.
And it does make sense because remember, scenario C was the one where we were reducing the multiple to the business class.
So if the business class pays less, who's gonna pay more?
It's gonna be the residential class.
So that's what's happening there.
When we look at the business class, the rate per $100,000 for scenario C, so that's the one that they're going to prefer, is $25 per $100,000.
That is quite a bit less than either scenario A or D.
Scenario A, it's $74 or almost three times as much in scenario A and $72 in scenario D.
So you can see that adjusting the multiples affects the smaller, the smaller the class, the greater the impact when you start messing with the multiples.
And it's a lesser of an impact to the class that has the most assessment, the residential class.
So it does, it is a greater benefit to the business class to reduce the multiple.
And yes, the residential class picks up the tab, but the impact is less because they are a bigger class and more assessments to spread that bump over.
Right?
And in scenario B for the business class, it's an eighty-six dollar per hundred.
So they scenario B isn't would not be the one your your commercial sector would be asking for.
You asked about multiples earlier.
This slide shows the multiples in red that are different from the prior year.
So the top row across the top 22 2022 multiple for light industry was that 3.9.
It was 4.3 for business and six for recreation.
Scenario A keeps those multiples the same and says let the assessments shift the burden wherever it needs to go.
Scenario B says no, we're going to change the multiples so that we achieve the same proportion of dollars from each class.
And so you can see that the multiples are making that change, and they do actually increase the business multiple and the light industry multiple.
And it would reduce the recreation multiple because there was an increase of assessments there.
Scenario C arbitrarily says we're going to manipulate directly the multiple for business and light industry and change it to 3.7 and 4.0.
There could be some other number that counsel may prefer.
Those are the numbers that I picked.
But you can, you know, you can kind of judge whether that would be more or less, depending on if the number is bigger or smaller.
And then scenario D says we're going to take the leave all of the other multiples the same and increase the recreation multiple to seven.
So what does that mean for the oh I I'm I see a question chair.
So Don on that last um scenario, if we increase the recreation to seven.
So how would that affect residential?
How that affects residential is I'm gonna say not all that much.
So if I go to to schedule five, schedule so the the basically the residential class is indifferent between B, scenario B and D being twenty dollars per hundred thousand of assessment.
It's the same for scenario B and for scenario D.
And that's because the the there's the you know that that impact it is spread, um it doesn't really benefit the residential class enough.
It's spread over such a large class.
Okay.
If I may, and and I know and tell me if I'm holding things up here, but I think you probably alarmed us all at the very beginning when you said So we're gonna have to actually go to over 10%, which is not what we want.
So I guess my question is ultimately if we increase recreation to the seven level, is there it is it possible for us to keep the residential down below 10%?
So when I mentioned the 10%, that was the bottom line difference in total tax revenue from 2022 to 2023, not specifically for any class.
So if I get through the next couple of slides, I'm hoping, I'm hoping that your question is is answered.
Was there another question?
Nope.
Okay.
Oh, Don's got a question now.
So if we go with the the green fees are going to go up with Highland Pacific, basically.
Well, I certainly can't predict that.
No, I don't.
Okay.
So BC Assessment actually provides this lovely little graphic that will help us understand how to determine what's going to happen to me in my property, depending on whether or not my assessment went up more than the average.
And here's where the average kind of comes comes into play.
So if the so the residential class average assessment increased 12%, we saw that earlier.
So if my property's assessment changed from 2022 more than that 12%, if my change was greater than 12%, then I can expect to pay more than the scenario is predicting.
And vice versa, if it's less, then I can expect the impact to be less.
I have an actual math to show you this.
I'll walk it through.
I know it's numbers.
So if the average property, and and actually, if you were to look at schedule six, this plays out in the numbers on schedule six on the first couple of rows there on schedule six, where we where we get these numbers from.
If the average property assessment increased 12%, but the single family residential increase, so if if your home increased only 11% and not 12%, that's a difference of 1%.
And scenario, if scenario A predicts for the average property a 10% increase, paying 200,000, not 200,000, 200, then you can actually reduce that 10% by the 1% that uh is that the average property, the the single family residential increase was less than the average overall, and the increase then would be $189, not 200.
And for the strata residential assessment, the increase to strata residential was 18%.
And so that's a 6% increase over and above the prediction of the 12% average overall for the residential class.
Scenario A predicts for the average residential property a 10% increase, where the strata residential is estimated increase would be 16% or 10 plus 6%.
Now I know that $183 is not 16% compared to the 10% on 200, but that's because the average assessment for a strata property is much less than the average for the residential class.
When you look at schedule six, and of course, I'm I can't I can't show you schedule six on the screen because it is it would just be too much numbers in too small the space, you wouldn't be able to read it.
But I'm hoping that you can pull it up on your device or that you have a printout.
Because we can see there, you can go through and you can actually see this playing out.
What we have done, what we provide in Schedule 6 is real concrete examples of what will happen to those, these are actual numbers for what would happen in each of the scenarios A, B, C, and D.
And you can you can look at you know the impact of changing the recreation class multiple to seven, for example, for 127 Burnett Road, would translate to a $49,600 increase for that would be significant.
Now, one of the reasons why that uh is is greater than what we've seen in some past years is because if you look at the assessment for that property, the 20 the assessment increase was 40 percent.
So this is exactly exacerbated in a year when the I can't tell you why the assessment increase, that's BC assessment's job.
I I I don't know.
I don't know why that's happening.
I might argue that this may not be the year to take a drastic measure to increase the recreation class multiple.
Maybe you want to increase it something, but even if we um if we scenario A, where none of the multiples change, the increase to that property is 31,000.
Okay, I just leave that for your for your thought.
You can see that in so what we try to do in both the residential class section of that schedule and the business class, class six section of that schedule, is we we take the best and the worst.
So we run the scenarios and we say, so what what you will see on here, now I can't do the best and the worst of each scenarios because there's some of those are in conflict and I I can't give you all of the properties, but um certainly you know you will you will find Eagle Creek on this list.
Okay, with a 5% increase in assessment.
Scenario A predicts a 3% increase in in taxation.
Scenario A.
That would be a decrease in taxation if we were to choose scenario C and actually reduce the multiple.
Okay.
For the residential class, I'm gonna pick the one that had a reduction in assessment, 16% 1950 West Park Lane.
That was likely, I'm gonna guess, due to um potentially a subdivision.
Um so the assessments decrease 16%.
They will under scenario A be paying 18% less, and under scenario C 16% less.
So they get a reduction.
I don't know why.
I can't tell you why.
That will be a nearly $15,000 increase in taxes, or it's 85%.
But by and large, you know, when we look at a property that is closer to our 12%, there's one that had a 15% increase in assessment.
They're going to see a nearly 13% increase under scenario A.
But by and large, I think if people, you know, people understand that when their assessments go up, they're going to be paying more.
In this case, the percentage increase is going to be relative to the assessment increase.
So do you have your magic spreadsheet around so that we could try out different numbers?
Sorry, typically what has happened in the past is if council wishes for me during the dinner break to run a couple of other scenarios, I would I do my best to do that on the fly with a proviso that you understand if I have to confess later on that I find an error.
It worked last last year um and and certainly I would be happy to do that for council.
So I've got one for you.
All right so um uh five would go from uh 3.96 to 3.1 oh sorry three point sorry three point um no five should go yeah 3.9 so let's take five to three point nine six to four point one eight to six point one what would that do so I would yeah your your scenario is going to be yeah it it's gonna be a little bit of a little bit of scenario C and just a little bit of scenario D and you know certainly a combination of you know C and D.
All right.
Yeah let's see what happens.
Yeah uh certainly I can do that.
I I don't know that it's going to significantly affect the residential experience.
Um be but but certainly I'm I'm I'm happy to run those numbers if that's council's wish.
Yeah I think what I'd like to do is recess for um dinner because it's here and it's warm and we're 15 minutes over for that.
But I'd like um council's input on when we should return.
So folks potentially watching from home could queue back in.
Do we want half hour for uh dinner?
Is that reasonable?
Quarter to quarter to uh seven.
Is that good?
Uh so can I get a motion to adjourn, please?
Second.
Uh none opposed.
Uh so we'll adjourn now from uh this time until zero eighteen forty-five.
Thank you and uh welcome back, folks.
We're just um calling the meeting back to order after a um supper break, and we were at um tax rate options, which is item six three three um E1.
And we just heard most of a report from our director of finance, and she had some questions.
Uh we was there more of a report.
We're at the choices.
We had gone through the majority of it, and we're down to options.
Go ahead, Doc.
Thank you very much, Mayor Tobias.
So um I quickly threw up the scenario in in the shortest amount of time possible.
And uh Ivan is going to uh have that up have it up there in a moment.
I've also distributed a couple of sheets that replace your schedule five and schedule six so that we can see the effect of the suggested scenario.
So what the scenario as I understood it proposed, and I've you see on your on on the screen in council chambers here and for the viewing public at home, um scenario E, a new scenario.
Oh thanks.
And uh so what we've chosen to manipulate is the ratios or the multiples for class five light industry, class six business, and class eight recreation.
And the suggestion that was that we look and see what happens to all the other classes when we change those ratios to 3.1 for the light industry, which in 2022 was 3.9, so that's a reduction.
4.1 for the business class, which in 2022 was 4.3, so that is a slight reduction.
And a and a increase, a slight increase to recreation from six to six point one.
Did I get it right?
No.
Oh, I didn't.
No, I think it was my mistake because um on the light industry number five, the first column, um, I actually should have said 3.9, not 3.1.
Okay, so in in other words, it's okay.
Yeah, I heard 3.1.
I know.
My apologies.
Yeah, so uh that's the way it goes.
Okay.
So I think that that is I think that what we can do in that case is is take the results that you see in schedule five and six as being approximate.
Because, you know, while that will significantly make a difference to light industry, I think we could use as a proxy schedule A, uh, sorry, scenario A for that, because scenario A 3.9, pretty close to what it was in 2022.
Right?
Okay.
So you're suggesting a very small decrease for light industry from 3.962 to 3.9.
So essentially scenario A or very close to that.
Yeah.
Right?
So that's what so on schedule five and schedule six, we'll be looking at scenario A for those numbers.
For class six, to go from 4.3 in the business class to 4.1 is a slight decrease.
It's it's you know, but that certainly is our second biggest class, is the business class, so there might be the greater impact there, and for recreation to go from six to six point one certainly will affect.
Um, as we saw earlier, that the recreation class had a that one property had a very significant increase, and we can see what happens to that.
So, what I handed out for you, schedule five, if you look at the rightmost column, I think I might point out that in this case, and and this does assume that the light industry class goes to 3.1, so the effect will be a little bit different from this, but probably not significantly.
The rate per hundred thousand for the residential class would go to twenty-four dollars, and in scenario A, that is the you know, kind of baseline scenario, it was twenty-one.
So that's a three dollar per hundred thousand dollar increase, more or less.
Um so we're we're going to kind of ignore the light industry, you know, class at this point because we know that that wasn't what you intended, and my apologies for that.
Yeah.
So we can see then that the business class, which in our base scenario would see $74 per 100,000 coming from the business class, it's.
It's almost halved to $42 in scenario E.
So that that does actually affect the business class somewhat.
You know, it it does feel a little bit like a halfway measure between all of our scenarios.
Class B saw an $86 per $100,000 for the business class.
And in the recreation class eight, you can see a increase of $335 per $100,000.
But really for that one, what we should be looking at is schedule six.
So if you look at schedule six, you'll see a new column on the right side of that.
That's the really big sheet.
You can see scenario E there.
And you can see what the impact is to the residential class.
So for a single family residence, the that you know is the average amount that increased 11%, that in scenario A would have a 9% tax increase of $189, it would see that go to $218 or 10.6%.
And for the strata property that whose assessed value increased 18%, and in scenario A would pay about 16% more of or $183, they're gonna go up to $200 in this scenario E.
You're following?
Yeah.
And so on and so forth down the residential class, how that affected the business class was if we go to which one should we pick?
Let's get pick uh one Adams Place that had a 9% assessment value increase.
In scenario A had a 7% increase in taxation, and that would be reduced, so that would be less in scenario E at 3.700 versus 78.
So it does benefit the business class for certain.
And this kind of goes along with what what I've been saying.
And the principle is that the smaller classes are greatly impacted when we reduce or increase the multiples.
When we start messing with the multiples for the the classes that have the lesser assessment, the impact is felt by them either way, up or down and less so by the residential class.
But it does affect the residential class because the it's a sum zero game.
Something's going to shift.
And you can see that in class eight the impact to a 40% increase in assessment actually results in about 42% increase in taxes under scenario E, whereas it was a 38% increase in scenario A.
Thoughts or questions, folks?
The objective at the end of this, because Don needs to set this in stone in a bylaw, is to come up with either hold the same or make an adjustment that we can all agree on.
And I'm just going to suggest my own personal views on this is that I don't think we're broken right now by the distribution of this.
And people are experiencing an extraordinary tough time with assessments across the board.
Some of them have gone up considerably.
So just to factor in in our deliberations that it's okay to keep things the same this year and uh potentially track on something next year as well.
Um, but everything's going to have a consequence.
Counselor McKenzie.
Yes.
Um so I think my general thoughts on this, and I haven't chosen a specific scenario, but um I would like to choose one that is favorable to residents for the reasons um Mayor Tobias mentioned, and also to businesses, because we really want to attract uh new business to View Royal to keep up with the number of growing population that we have, we need services.
So um, in my mind, class eight uh would be where I would uh uh think about an increase uh due to the fact that they can more easily recoup the increase uh through user fee.
And uh we have to remember that one of the largest um out of the two there, the the larger one does have a number of uh residents uh there so it could be dispersed among amongst them and probably not impact an individual so significantly.
Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.
Any other comments?
Councillor Brown.
Yeah, I like um scenario A would be my preference.
Uh and I also like um john's uh suggestion.
So that would be my second choice, would be the E the hybrid one.
I'm gonna go to Councillor Madsen joining us online.
Yes, thank you sorry for being late uh travel issues etc but uh yeah no uh scenario a uh i is where i would uh is what i support okay counselor rogers please yeah scenario scenario a with a business uh going to uh four point uh what is it four point one so i i think the point with uh with businesses as um uh already mentioned is uh uh they're um also really uh struggling with inflation, perhaps more so because it's not only inflation, it's um um i there are many other factors involved.
They've got um um uh continual wage increases, even staff shortages.
Um so uh the more that we can help our local businesses uh um even in in the smallest uh amount uh start bringing that down from the high of 4.3, bring it down to 4.1 is a symbolic uh uh way, I suppose, but it um does signal to our businesses that um we recognize where they're coming from.
And I think when you look at the last uh column per capita, you know, us being the third from the bottom, we've got room to move up.
Thank you, Councillor Rogers.
Other comments?
Councilor Clemon.
Um, I excuse me, I I agree.
Um scenario A.
Um I think is is um it's well we're holding our own, we're holding the line.
Um, as you said, it's not broke.
And I think you know it uh certainly being most sympathetic to residents and and businesses is um during particularly trying trying times is um paramount to keep and take in consideration.
Other thoughts?
I think the the general consensus here is I'm hearing some sort of modification to scenario A.
Um that's more favorable for businesses, just testing the waters with colleagues here.
Um 4.1 for businesses that would change from uh the current 4.3, and that would be the only change as a modification of scenario A.
And I'll look to you, Councilor Rogers, if that was in your mind.
Um I I maybe um we can get some direction from staff if um would you be able to show us what that looks like and um for our consideration by the time it comes to council?
Um councillor Mattson has his hand up as well.
So that was a question.
Well, I'm sorry, we if you like scenario A changes a fair amount if you drop it to 4.1, because it's going to basically have to go somewhere and go on to residential.
So I I don't support uh scenario A with a 4.1.
I support it as it is.
Otherwise, we're going to increase the residential.
Thank you, Counselor Matson.
Do we want staff to go away?
I think we should probably call a question on scenario A, is where we're heading for right now.
So I can I get a a motion right now or an alternative session.
I'll move the current scenario A.
Second.
So moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by counselor Lemon.
Any other further discussion on scenario A and Councilor Matson would you like to motivate on that uh just as I said before any if we change the business rate it then has to go to the residential rate.
So I don't support it for that reason.
So I that's why I support keeping it as it is scenario A.
Thank you Counselor Matson Councilor Lemon.
Thank you Counselor Roger.
Yes, thank you so um there are the two graphs.
There is the the the graph that shows is business class six, uh we're we're in the middle, and it shows us in the per capita, the last page, you know, which shows us at the bottom.
And I I think um, you know, it's the businesses that we need to motivate to to come into the interview wall and and uh help continue to take that significant portion of tax load um uh you know off the residents.
When you look at this, you know, we're going to lose uh keep uh light industry five as is.
Um we've already got the recreational uh pretty high.
The mini it's a minimal impact to the residents is by appreciating and respecting our businesses and making sure that they stay and not move.
Uh I think of it the example of uh you know how much we how hard we work to keep Kenya entire in in our community.
So that's my rationale.
Thank you, Councillor Rogers.
Other questions, Councilor McKinsey?
Um so Don, would it be possible to offset the um a reduction for a business with the recreation one, or does it necessarily fall onto residence?
Through the chair, simply by virtue of the sheer volume of residential assessments versus the relatively small uh asset you know, as a total class in the recreation assessments, it's going to primarily be picked uh, you know, the the effect is that the residential assessment will will pick it up so um I think we should call the question maybe on scenario A and I think it's um when you've got too many variables going around like such a dramatic increase in property assessments and then we're creating another variable by injecting um a different balance on how we're distributing our taxes.
It's never been my experience that when you've got two unknowns that you come up with something positive.
Meaning that maybe it's okay if we don't change um you know the the ratio uh for uh the rates for this year.
We allow BC assessment to be the bad guy, which uh I don't think anybody is cheering over the assessments considering their taxes that they've got to pay, and give us some time to consider uh with their strategic planning what we'd like to do uh for for businesses.
So uh we've got a motion on the table now for scenario A.
Uh, so I'd like to call a question.
Uh, all those in favor of scenario A.
Um, and all those opposed to scenario A.
And I see one, and that's councillor Rogers.
So scenario A passes for the 2023 tax rate options.
And I think, Don, that gives you the ammunition that you need to go away and to come back with a bylaw for our next meeting so we can implement the taxed rates.
Thank you very much.
Cheers, Don.
And uh Kim, I think it's over to you for an update, sir.
Thank you, Mayor Tobias.
The uh CA report is for information.
Um if you have questions, the team is here to respond to anything you might ask.
Otherwise, a a motion to receive the report would be in order.
So in favor?
Did I just make a comment?
Uh yes, now that it's on the table.
Yeah.
Uh thank you very much.
I really appreciate the the aerial photo of the Helmaken um pump station there.
Uh it really is quite an achievement and congratulations to staff.
A very long uh time coming, but uh huge accomplishment.
Well done.
Thank you for that.
I'll pass that on.
Thank you.
Well uh councillor Lemon.
Yeah, and I just want to um acknowledge the extraordinary speed which the the uh porta potties graffiti and tagging was kept covered up.
That's like 24 hour turn out turnaround or or less.
So thank you.
No other comments, so called the questions on receiving the CAO staff report for information.
All in favor?
Looking at you two, Councillor Ratson.
None opposed.
Um thank you very much, Kim.
And I think that uh brings us down to Parkerson Rack.
Oh, I think that brings us down to correspondence number seven in the agenda.
Moving eight and uh moving receipts of all correspondence.
Second.
Counselor Brown, all in favor.
None opposed.
Um, so we have pulled everything in for correspondence.
And we had a closed meeting resolution, but that was just a motion to recess, right?
So we're okay to keep going now.
And we've already reconvened.
So we've got two petitions and delegations.
One is from BC Transit, who joins us tonight to talk about the island highway rapid transit.
Thank you for having us.
My name is Lindsay Byers.
I am the senior manager of Government Relations for Victoria.
I am joined by my colleagues, James Wadsworth here, and Alivi Megan Beer, and uh they are with scheduling and planning, and we are going to give you a quick presentation on the Rapid Bus West Shore Line infrastructure.
And so we will go ahead and get started.
So quickly, the objective is to provide an update on the implementation and planning activities to advance Rapid Bus the implementation strategy.
We'll give you a quick regional context, Rapid Bus update, transit service planning, transit infrastructure, and the next steps for the project.
So I will hand it over to Levi now.
Excellent.
Thanks, Lindsay, and thanks to Council for having us here today.
Before I dive into speaking about Rapid Bus, I just want to provide a brief overview and some context.
So, as we all know, the Victoria region is growing very rapidly and as anticipated to continue its uh dramatic increase in population in the coming years.
Um, between 2019 and 2028, we're anticipating an 11% increase in population for the whole region, with approximately double that happening within the in the West Shore area at about a 22% increase.
So, obviously, that's going to create a lot of pressure on our constrained road networks, uh, particularly between the West Shore and downtown, and that creates a really strong business case for us to continue investing in in transit, uh, rapid transit in particular between the West Shore and downtown area.
Next slide.
From a strategic planning perspective, we originally defined what Rapid Bus was and how we envisioned it within the Victoria region in the 2011 Transit Future Plan.
So that plan really envisioned what the network could look like in 25 years, and it set the baseline and foundation that we've built upon since then while we've been looking at rolling Rapid Bus out across the region.
Next slide.
So what is Rapid Bus?
BC Transit defines Rapid Bus as being a service that's connected, frequent, fast, and reliable.
It's usually provided on corridors connecting sort of key urban centers that exhibit higher density and mixed use areas.
In terms of what Rapid Bus looks like, usually it's operated on high capacity vehicles.
It's usually a separately branded service.
It usually has corridor treatments like bus lanes, Q jumpers, transit signal priority to allow it to travel faster than mixed traffic.
Usually has improved station amenities, limited stops, and high service frequency as well.
Next slide.
Lindsay kind of alluded to this earlier, but since the 2011 transit future plan, we've since completed the rapid bus implementation strategy in 2021.
And this strategy really breaks out the rollout of Rapid Bus across the region into three separate phases, with the first phase being the West Shore Rapid Bus Line, phase two being the McKenzie and Peninsula Rapid Bus lines, and then phase three, including a number of different potential rapid bus candidate corridors moving into the future as we continue to assess rapid bus within the region in the coming years.
Next slide.
We have some really exciting news to share today.
The phase one West Shore Rapid Bus Line did launch yesterday on April 10th.
As part of that launch, we introduced the new Route 95 Langford downtown, Blink Rapid Bus Line, which replaced the existing Route 50.
The new Route 95 operates along the same route for the time being, but with additional service levels and fewer bus stops.
So now we're seeing about seven to eight minutes peak frequency on weekdays with a minimum of 15 minute service most of the rest of the time, other than very early in the morning and very late at night.
Next slide.
So this map shows the routing of the new Route 95 and also the station locations.
So this represents about 30% fewer stops than we served on the original Route 50.
Really, the goal for that for that change was to ensure that the bus is spending more time on the road traveling and less time pulled over stopped at bus stops.
Next slide.
So you'll notice that everything is painted in orange.
So orange and blink go together.
You'll see the bus stop poll and signs showing the orange visualization.
And on a number of stations across the corridor, we've booked out advertising panels in the in the bus shelters themselves to provide additional information about rapid bus and further branding information.
Next slide.
There is different than the green that we would have on all the other bus stops with within the system.
So it's visually distinct.
And when you arrive at a rapid bus station, you can really visually indicate that yes, this is being served by a rapid bus.
Uh additionally, we've got the round blank sign uh with a QR code so people can scan it and learn more about the service.
So that was a quick high-level overview of rapid bus within the region and what we've uh been up to over the last little while.
Uh so we'll turn it over to James Wadsworth now to speak to some of the infrastructure elements.
Hello.
Thank you for having us here tonight.
Uh I just threw in a few images to start that show some of the successes we've had over the last few years of implementing rapid bus stations and bus lanes uh with the city of Victoria on Douglas Street, as well as the Ministry of Transportation on Highway One.
They've been a great success.
And combined all together, these are saving 20 minutes a day for transit riders going along the corridor, which is a great improvement.
Getting home 20 minutes early or getting to work 20 minutes early is really making transit a more viable choice.
When you're out on the island highway and you're looking around, you you're often seeing people lining up in the morning to get on the bus.
And so part of what we want to do is make that a better experience than it is today.
When we work with communities, we have an infrastructure development uh planning process uh that we go through.
So we we take things out of the the transit future strategy, which which Levi just talked about those, and work with local governments to turn those into real projects that deliver real results for people.
So often when we start those uh that planning, we start doing uh a study where we work with local government staff, we come up with a concept, uh, we bring those concepts uh to to look uh to councils because they're the approving authority for for local governments.
Uh we quite often will obtain approval and principle.
And if we feel there's a project to move forward, then we go to the transit commission, which has regional governance for transit, but they're also the funders for transit, and we present those opportunities to the commission, and and quite often they'll they'll approve the the funding for these objects, and then we'll move forward and keep on on planning with local governments.
And so once we've done that, we're we're working with the the province and the federal government to secure uh funding grants.
And then if we're successful, then we're back to do uh to work with the communities to deliver those projects.
Sometimes we'll will deliver uh those construction projects, and sometimes it will be the local government that do that.
So that's the process that we go through, and it's not a fast process, it takes three to to seven years to do those because we need to be thoughtful, come up with plans that that work from for communities for for all angles.
Um the projects that we have moving forward here that some of you are probably familiar with is on the island highway.
We have a transit priority uh project that we've been working with View Royal and Collwood for several years on.
I'll get in a bit to the details of that, but it's uh we're right now we've made a funding application for $14.9 million uh for this project that will be funded by the Victoria Transit Commission, the local government share.
And we're we're just waiting to hear back if we're successful.
And if we are, we can move forward to the next phase, which would be constructing these, and that would likely occur in 2024 with the goal to have them in service in 2025.
And and these improvements on the island highway will actually uh improve transit travel times by 20%, uh, which again is is more travel time savings for getting people to and from work.
A little bit about the projects.
This is just an overview.
It includes a bus lane and View Royal in both directions between Highway One and the six-mile intersection.
With transit priority, also includes bike lanes and some modest landscaping improvements, and also a new intersection at Atkins Road for people to get back and forth across the street to safely move between the bus stops.
We're also this project also goes into Collwood where we have Q jump lanes at the Whale Road intersection and a bus lane that's being delivered in front of the Collwood Corner properties by the developer.
So at no cost to local government.
We've finished the technical study now, and we're we have some estimates of what it would cost and what the concepts are.
And so uh we're working with local government staff on how we might implement those.
Uh one of the things with these locations is quite often there's a third-party advertiser at them.
So I think we're we're gonna work with staff to explore the opportunity of how can we keep that partnership going and offset the costs of the transit investment with a third party.
And so we're still having those discussions, I think, before we come to council with a full plan.
But just so you're aware in View Royal, there's six bus stops or stations that are being planned, uh set at Helmakin, uh, Atkins, um, and at Wilfret.
Um the other thing we're doing is we're we're still doing planning work in downtown Victoria with the um with the city of Victoria, uh looking at how we can invest in the transit stops along there and add bus lanes to the street and how other modes uh work in that location.
So we're still uh going through that work as a separate a separate project.
Um and where are these?
This is the the process slide of where we are with the rapid bus stations.
Those are still not a project that uh we have approval from local government, the transit commission, or federal grant funding.
So we're still working through our concepts.
Uh the next step there would be to secure local government approval, and they'll go back to the commission uh for local local government funding with the island highway.
We've gone through all those steps already, and we have a tender-ready design.
We're just waiting to hear uh from uh on our grant application uh so we can see how uh and when we would move forward with you on that so that is our presentation good and thank you uh for your presentation i know counselors have got a few questions so if you'd entertain a few of those that would make it um make my counselors happy I think so let's go with uh counselor lemon brown rogers and then McKenzie please hi and thank you thank you for your presentation um and congratulations on number 95.
Um my first question is, will there be more number 95s on that route?
Obviously it's a different number, but or maybe not.
Yeah, for sure.
So through the chair, great question.
Uh the the previous Route 50 and now the Route 95 is one of the highest ridership routes within the system.
And we've seen ridership growing on that route over time.
And I think in particular with branding this as a new rapid bus service uh and the ongoing development in the West Shore, we're going to see that demand for the service continue to grow into the future.
So we're going to need to add more service just to keep up with ridership growth in the coming years for sure.
So so you'll have buses going every five to eight minutes along that route?
So as of right now, we're operating in peak periods about every seven to eight minutes.
Uh and so yeah, it we could potentially be seeing uh peak service uh happening even more frequently in the coming years for sure okay terrific and just one more question um on over on the six mile stretch of the island highway are is there uh going to be the loss of a um vehicle lane on each side to accommodate a bus lane and and the bike lanes no we're maintaining all travel lanes and and adding to that through a bit of a wider right of way okay wow okay thank you very much.
So the uh light at the Atkins, I assume that's the where Atkins enters the island highway.
Not Atkins we're at six mile.
You mean down?
Yeah.
And so is that light?
I mean it's it's already heavily trafficked and and gets jammed up there.
So when the buses come out, will it be like activated?
The light will be activated, so it won't always keep switching over to red and stopping more traffic, or or do you even know that so for the intersection of six mile and the other existing signalized um intersection where I call it you know going on to the the highway or or underneath the highway.
Um I believe the plan is that if the bus is stopped at the intersection and there's a red light, uh there are sensors in that will be in the ground and it will only trigger it than otherwise traffic.
Yeah, perfect.
Thank you.
Counselor McKenzie, please.
Counselor Rogers then.
Yeah, lots of questions.
Um actually I I was the one that asked you if I was to come, and my specific question was the um Atkins uh mobility hub.
Because you know, we've we've seen the 2016 uh uh technical study um uh to view all and it showed a parking ride of about I don't know 200 cars, and I know that you're planning to have uh three parking rides uh to deal with anticipated 600 car.
And um, so I'm assuming that view all parking ride would be uh about 200 cars.
And I I noticed on page 12, um, you actually show a portion of that uh parking ride, if I'm not mistaken.
Um, so you know, it rather than just having this little bit on the island highway, I wonder if we get um of you know uh a view out, if you could send us a copy of what this whole thing looks like with the anticipated park and ride, how many stalls, and um, you know, are you do you have that?
Uh so the projects that I showed you today, the the island highway transit priority project and the rapid bus station projects.
Sorry, can you speak up?
Okay, sorry.
Um, so the projects that I showed you today, the uh transit priority project on the island highway and the rapid bus station project that we're working on.
Those are ones that uh BC Transit as a crown corporation are are are leading.
There are other projects um that include the bus lanes on Highway One and the Six Mile Mobility Hub, which would be led by the Ministry of Transportation, and they might be better to answer some of those questions around those.
Right.
Yeah, I know.
Um maybe they do and maybe they don't.
So um, but who who's on the drawings here on page 12?
I'd have to look at the drawings, those are probably yeah, it's uh it's on your display there that you uh showed us okay go um sorry one more slide go the other direction sorry yes yeah okay though the the drawing that I've shown you is just of the bus lane and any park and ride that is shown there is is existing park and ride there's no new drawings there that I sorry would you say it again is what the it's just an existing air photo of the existing site.
I don't believe there's a drawing of a park and ride on the so you know, and with the information that I've been reading um as I've been going along, um it does speak of the um yeah, there we are.
So it you know it does speak of um a a uh parking ride going in it uh and you I'm still not clear how many um stalls you plan to have, who your ridership of the Council Rogers, let's stop there.
This is not the right people to ask those questions with.
This is not their project, right?
If you've got questions, we'll bring them up to Modi.
But this is not the right audience to ask those questions because they obviously don't know.
So let's let's uh defer any questions of parking ride to Modi as they've requested.
I'm I'm just not liking the tone they don't have the answers.
So let's let's delay that one for the next one.
So you've got questions that don't involve a park and ride.
Mm-hmm.
Okay.
So I guess these are I'll I'll wait and we'll see what the uh next uh section has.
Um I I do appreciate yes let um I guess my my question here is and hopefully I'm not dealing with Ministry of Highways my concern is um the um you know the the the the rapid transit and and how you're going to handle the uh traffic uh on Goldstream because it seems pretty congested in there.
And I don't know if are you going to be putting rapid uh lanes on Goldstream as well.
So we've we've looked at what is possible on on Goldstream, and it's the right of way is just not available for separate bus lanes and maintaining all the other general purpose traffic movements.
Uh, if we were to make any investments to speed or move buses along uh better on Goldstream, it would be what we call transit signal priority, where it's just the bus talking to the light and getting a green.
Yeah, it's pretty tight, isn't it?
So it's it's the opportunities are very limited.
We'll see.
Thank you.
Council McKenzie.
Hi, um, thank you for your presentation.
I just was wondering, and if this is not uh in your remit, just let me know, but whether there'll be any additional uh bus routes connecting to that main route for people who don't live close to uh the rapid line.
So people who can't walk there, will there be additional bus routes to take them to the McKenzie or Helmkin, for example?
Yeah, great question.
So through the chair, uh we recently completed in 2022 the West Shore Local Area Transit Plan.
And we also have a number of other local area transit plans, including the uh Burnside Tillicom uh local area transit plan that really provide uh priorities for investment in the local transit network to connect into the the rapid bus services that you're speaking to.
Uh one of the key priorities we have for the near future as well is restructuring the West Shore transit network really to better align with the density we've been seeing occurring within the West Shore and to connect in better with Rapid Bus.
So 100% we have plans to to make some significant improvements to the the local network both within the West Shore and and the view rural area to connect into Rapid Bus in the future.
Great thank you.
Thank you Council McKenzie.
I'm gonna um go to Councillor Matson right now.
Counselor Matson online.
Excuse me thank you thank you for your presentation.
I sort of have three questions one of them do you know I think you mentioned there'll be a 20% increase in ridership.
I'm just wondering about numbers that you anticipate.
And along with that, any you know estimates in terms of you know what impact you'll have on traffic or you know, getting people out of cars and into the buses.
And Spree, how are we doing with the great retirement that seems to have hit everybody?
Are you gonna have enough drivers for all of this?
And those are my three questions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Manson.
Through the chair, some some great questions, not necessarily the easiest ones to answer.
Uh so I don't have an exact projection on the increase in ridership along the corridor.
Um we know that uh there's an anticipated uh 11% more people within the region between 2019 and 2028, 22% increase within the West Shore.
Um, so we're anticipating a quite a bit of additional ridership growth uh in particular on the new Route 95 in the coming years.
Don't have an exact number for you right now, unfortunately.
Um the second question.
Can you reiterate your your second question and third question now?
Yeah, just the impact on traffic be are gonna be fewer cars.
I'm assuming no, but yeah, so that's a great question.
I think that this really speaks to the importance of investing in in rapid transit because our current right-aways are are pretty constrained, right?
And so the only effective way to move more people on a constrained right-of-way is to more move more people within within that existing right-of-away.
And with our double-decker buses, we can move way more people within the constrained road space.
So for every additional person we move to sticking transit versus driving a car, we're we're utilizing that limited road space in a much more efficient way.
So that's really the impetus behind Rapid Bus and how we're making our changes to really create transit as being a more enjoyable experience and a choice that uh we hope our uh commuters will will want to make and not just take because they feel they need to.
And I think uh just a little last question.
My my last question was just about uh in terms of we we have difficulty in sort of getting enough drivers for for all the new buses.
Yeah, so great question.
We like all the other industries uh through COVID and and emerging from COVID, uh we have had some challenges from an operator perspective, get enough drivers to to operate a routes.
Um we have had some some success in the last several months.
So that's allowed us to do this new rapid bus launch, which is exciting.
And we do continue to the trajectory seems to be positive.
So um we're just gonna continue to to work with our people and culture team and and uh work to hire more operators so we can continue investing in transit moving forward into the future.
Okay, thank you very much.
Appreciate your answers.
Thank you.
I've got a couple of questions before I pass you back over for uh seconds for Councillor Rogers, but um uh one is I've noticed I was looking at the stats for View Royal, and our ridership, of course, took a hit during COVID, and it doesn't seem like we've really recovered.
Are you just wondering if that's a trend that you're seeing a full recovery other places, or is it still lagging behind kind of pre-COVID ridership?
Yeah, so uh we're seeing about a 90% return of ridership uh pre-COVID uh across our PC transit systems, and Victoria is falling very close to that average right now as well.
So it has been great to see the significant recovery in the last couple of years.
We were down to in some cases 40 to 50 percent at certain times uh through through the COVID pandemic, and uh we have been seeing over the last couple months that those numbers continue to trickle upwards.
Good.
So we're anticipating that trend to continue into the future.
Thanks.
And it's good good to see it starting to recover.
My uh next and last question was just on key performance indicators.
Like uh, how are you judging your success with this?
And I know um there's speed, but I also was a um was a public transit rider getting downtown before I got to work remotely.
And even though it was advertised that it was every six minutes that I could hop on, I was at least a half an hour before I could.
There was a bus every six minutes, but they were all full when they went by View Royal.
So I I guess my question is like, uh, are is that something you're monitoring as well?
Because we're in a lovely place in View Royal that we're kind of in between everywhere, which means that everything is normally full when we try to get on it.
So just wondering your thoughts on that.
Yeah, that's a great question.
Uh one of our other strategic planning documents we we completed within the last several years and we revisit on an annual basis is our new 10 year vision document for the Victoria Regional Transit System.
In that document, we have a series of key performance indicators that we use to assess how the transit system is functioning, and also set establishing our goals for the system and how we're moving towards it on an annual basis.
So that includes targets around transit mode share, service reliability, access to transit, both from for all transit and also frequent transit, and then also customer satisfaction.
So we're tracking a number of these indicators that help us better understand how the system's doing every year.
But on a service change by service change basis, we are looking at how ridership patterns are changing with the system and making minute adjustments both to like how much time each trip has, so it's it's gonna remain on schedule, and also shifting some trips around as required to help mitigate things like passenger pass-ups or passenger crowding.
Um, so we have opportunities to invest additional resources, but we also on a regular basis look at how we can shift some things around to help improve the experience for passengers out on the road, and that definitely includes uh uh URL residents as well.
Thank you.
Thank you for your answer.
Uh Councilor Rogers, please.
Yes, uh we've just been undergoing a uh active transportation plan, and one of the key um uh reports that we had great pleasure in reading was the um local area plan for uh Esquamo, View Royal, Sainage, and the two First Nations.
Really excited to hear about the number 40 bus, which is um going to be at McKenzie and and seems like a a fabulous opportunity for uh the billing to uh link up with the 40 and and um really assist um you know our five communities.
Any idea when number 40 is going to be able to uh coincide and complement this uh rapid bus?
Yeah, so through the chair, it's a great question.
Every year uh we work with the commission to establish uh expansion resources on a three-year cycle, and as part of that process, we take all of our expansion priorities and we rank them in something we call the transit expansion prioritization process.
Um, so because these the amount of resources we have available on any given year changes depending on what the province endorses.
I can't give you an exact timeline.
What I can say is that the Route 40 is definitely in the in the top echelon of of expansion parties uh within the system.
So it's definitely ranking very well.
So I can't give you an exact timeline, but it it's it's definitely gonna be one of the top priorities moving into the future.
Good.
Next year would be nice too.
Okay, so my next uh my next question again, I have to come back to this light, and I know that you know it's nothing to do with you in terms of the implementation or so forth.
That's our next presenter.
But um, you know, having a traffic light between the six mile and uh the theatres interchange, and it's already incredibly congested and and challenging to uh to get traffic through there.
Um, do you think um, and I guess it's you know could have worst case neighbors are backing up across the uh Parsley Street Bridge.
Um, do you think that's going to have a detrimental effect on both on uh the Blink Rapid Bus as well as the abilities for say the number 53 that has to go from Atkins from Theatus Lake and down and the congestion that might occur on on six mile road?
Any any thoughts, any traffic studies or analysis that projects on on these routes and and impacts?
Uh just to the chair, um about a year ago, staff presented um a report to council regarding the traffic signals along Island Highway with respect to the crosswalk.
And um that is still in play, and also uh staff as in ourselves will be presenting another report to council regarding our recommendation.
Yeah, um is that going to include the traffic analysis with respect to this light and the impacts on traffic and buses and so forth?
So it would probably piggyback on the previous analysis where the traffic signals are going to be timed so that the disruption is minimal.
I don't, yeah.
Yeah.
It's six miles has already been a a real issue.
So I guess we'll have to see that.
But you know, it seems to me that that's one, that's few oils issue, but I think would also have an impact on on the um really enthusiastic uh delivery times of this rapid bus if uh you're gonna be sitting in traffic.
And that's that's a transit question.
You know, when when we plan infrastructure such as signals, we have to take advice from the local government staff as well, because they understand things outside of the transit purview that are not our responsibility.
But when I think of uh transit's interest in there, uh today we have two bus stops all right there on the corridor, and they're set up in a way that really encourages people to run across the the road and not go down to the intersection to to cross it.
So uh we're looking at from a safety perspective where if we're investing in rapid bus stations, we'd we'd like there to be a safe uh way for people to cross the road.
Right.
So um, you know, why wouldn't you put in a pedestrian overpass as opposed to a traffic light that then would not impact the uh your delivery of uh speeds of buses?
You know, the pedestrians would still safely cross over.
It's a good question.
I don't know as a fact about that.
Um costs might be associated with that, I would assume.
Yeah.
I I think that's what uh Mac Alhaney, who was the consultant, recommended to the the parties.
I would really enjoy and appreciate if um both staff and transit would be able to provide counsel with some, you know, really, you know, when we have a development proposal, they bring a traffic study.
So uh and this this really, you know, when I was in that area and and uh the concerns of residents uh about having another traffic light to contend with, especially the thousand homes that live on Choco, um, it it is something that um I hope that we're really gonna be forthcoming on and and all the information will be on the table.
And maybe when that comes around, Councilor Rogers will deal with it then.
Um the other issue is crossing six lanes of traffic.
I think right there, uh, whether you're walking uh or not, is is probably not the safest thing either.
But we'll deal with that another day.
I share with you your enthusiasm for a project.
Well done, and I'm really looking forward to seeing its effect on getting folks out of the cars and into a bus.
And I know it was a lot of hard work to get here.
So on behalf of council, thanks for coming out and spending the time and briefing us tonight.
It was uh well reserved, uh well deserved, and your congratulations on uh uh a good launch.
I know that uh you ran your first one yesterday, wasn't it?
Thank you.
We appreciate council and staff's support in advancing these projects.
Thank you very much.
And if there's no further questions, I think we're can move down to um the next item, which was the Highway One Bus on Shoulder project.
Probably very linked to what we just heard, but always to improve it.
Thanks for having us at the meeting today.
I'm looking forward to the questions that you'll have for us.
Um, so my name is Mike Pearson.
I'm the director for Vancouver Island District with the Ministry of Transportation.
Uh look after Vancouver Island.
Um, and with me tonight I have Tim Stevens.
Uh he is a consultant working for us on the bus on the Highway One Bus on Shoulder project.
Um, tonight we wanted to provide you a bit of an over overview of the work that we're currently undertaking in design.
And I'll have Tim sort of walk through the slides and give a bit of a presentation, and then I guess we'll take questions at the end.
Okay, well, thanks, Mike.
Good evening, Mr.
Mayor and Counselors.
Um, so I'll just run through this and then yes, as Mike said, we can answer questions at the end.
So what we want to go through is a little bit of background to the project here.
Uh with um the scope of what we're doing, the schedule, when when we hope to do it, where we are now, the current status, some of the impacts on on the town of Uroyal infrastructure, although most of it it's almost all on the highway but there are some peripheral impacts and uh we'd like to uh hear about what your concerns are so we can take them into consideration and then we'll we can talk about next steps.
Uh so the the background the South Island South Island Rapid Trans or South Island Transportation uh strategy included as as an important project the the um uh the bus on bus on rapid bus line from downtown Victoria to west shore which is similar to the previous uh sub uh this submission um you can I don't know if it works anyway whoops no it doesn't um excuse me so the the blue line is it's constructed from uh downtown out to Tillicum and then the McKenzie interchange included uh high a bus on shoulder infrastructure uh so there's a piece in between which is called the Burnside Bridges and that work is underway in design and functional design and then there's the part that we're uh the subject of this presentation, which is really to go from McKenzie interchange out to the Callwood interchange and and to the to the light where uh Old Island Highway is.
Um, and then the future parts are uh Old Island Highway and and uh some work on on um Goldstream eventually.
Next slide.
So the project area is entirely within the ministry's right-of-in fact.
For this project, we don't anticipate any uh property acquisition whatsoever.
Um generally working from sort of uh Victoria side east side to west or um the outbound traffic.
There we're anticipating some minor changes at the McKenzie on ramp so the buses can get across when they come off the uh interchange, they can get across to the outside lane.
And then between uh McKenzie and Helmkin, the widening would be to the outside because there is no the the median is just a barrier, so the only way we can go is to the outside.
Um and then up, then it will go up the ramps of the uh Helmkin ramps, down the other side, and then uh between Helmkin and the Collwood interchange, we're going to widen into the middle.
So we don't have to widen the outside and make uh, you know, there's a lot of work to try to widen the highway that way, and the median is unused, and then around the ramp uh to connect into the signal with Olin and Highway, and it's basically the same going inbound.
So the project cross section, this is between uh McKenzie and Helmkin, the widenings to the outside, and you can see that there's work on the left side of the drawing.
There's some rock cut that we have to do there.
And the the lane will be a four meter wide lane for the buses.
And then from Helmkin to Calwood, it's on the inside, as you can see here, and we hold the outside of the pavement.
The only reason you see the dotted line on the outside is we may have to re rebuild some of the shoulders to be stronger to hold the buses.
So our current project status, we've done our preliminary design that was finished uh uh last year.
We started a functional design in September, and we expect to be done in uh May, the end of May.
Uh, we've done some geotechnical investigations.
I think we've got almost all of it done.
We may have to do a little bit on the Galloping Goose Trail Bridge, which I'll talk to you about in a moment, and then the detailed design will get underway in June.
And the detailed design will take about a year to get done, maybe a little bit more.
Uh, and then at that point, we'd be ready for construction if if when we get funding for it.
Um so now some of the specific impacts that uh maybe of interest to Brew Royal.
The first is the where Burnside Road comes onto the Callwood Interchange Ramp.
Um and you know, we recognize that that's a a bit of a difficult entry onto the onto the ramp.
So we're looking at different ways to make it more into let's call it a yield size type of entry.
Um it's not quite that simple because you got the bus lane in the way as well.
Uh so we're looking at about three or four different options to do that, and when we get them sorted out, we'll bring them back to staff and uh and to council if necessary, and and and present on those.
But we recognize it's a I don't we don't we're not convinced it's a safety issue, but it's uncomfortable for drivers.
Um the second just two slides on on this potential impacts at Helmkin.
The first is rather simple.
Basically, we have to upgrade the bus stops.
Um and so that's really what this slide shows is there's some upgrades to the bus stops on both sides to accommodate the rapid bus.
The second slide really um recognizes that the on ramp here is a fairly high speed on ramp, and there's a pedestrian crossing for people wanting to get to the Galloping Goose Trail or to the hospital, which I think is more of an attractor.
And so we're looking at ways to modify this to get traffic controlled better, slow down, make it safer for the pedestrians.
We've got a bunch of different options.
We haven't settled on any of them yet.
But suffice it to say that you know we want to make this a bit tighter.
At Helmkin, really, there will be no changes other than putting in uh the new bus shelters and and and paving more of the islands to accommodate that.
The the radiuses on the uh entrances and exit are are much tighter than they are on the north side, and the traffic volumes are much lower, so there's not really a safety issue there.
Um and now the Galloping Goose Trail Bridge.
So right now, the off-ramp from Callwood uh the that bridge is three lanes wide.
The third lane is used for the Gallop Goose Trail.
Now that third lane in the future will be used for the rapid bus system.
So now we have to find uh a way to get the Galloping Goose Trail over uh Craig Lower Creek.
So the proposal is to build a new bridge there, and there's only really one place we could put it because there's water means and all kinds of other things in there.
So this is the proposal to put it in this location.
It will be elevated to make sure that it matches the other bridges and the and the any flood flow can go underneath it, things like that.
And the style of the bridge is single span, it will clear span the creek.
So we won't be doing any work in the creek other than putting some rip wrap on, but I think it's six meters wide.
Very close to it.
It it pretty well matches the bridge that we put in at um uh McKenzie.
And that's the proposal, that's the presentation.
So any questions from the town, we'd be happy to take them.
Thank you.
Thank you for your presentation.
Good to see you again, Mike.
Um, one of the concerns I have is if you can go back to the uh North Helmkin interchange, it's not so much the safety uh for the folks on the uh going across that that's a concern.
Um, but getting from the northbound bus station across the on ramp to the highway from Helmkin, that's the heading to the hospital.
That is not controlled by a light.
And there's only uh one way people drive to get on the on-ramp and the highway, and there's on very fast.
And they don't often see somebody walking across that crosswalk.
There's not a light above it at night that really shines down and defines it as such.
So uh in your plans, if anything could be done to also improve safety as you exit that northbound, because you're finding lots more folks on that going to Eagle Creek or the hospital, both workers and and uh and shoppers.
And if you could take a look at that when you're doing things, I don't think it would be expensive to look at safety considerations there, if you would.
Um, any other questions from council?
Um council road hi thanks thanks very much um you've made my day um i'm i'm really pleased to see that you've um uh doing the widening from McKenzie uh to helm and it looks like you're gonna have both lanes bus lanes dedicated bus lanes on both sides yes that's including the Portage Park side right portage linear park you know by the by the water yeah yeah inbound and outbound yes yeah perfect well done um and really pleased to hear about the uh the the raw cut so that it makes it really easy to go from McKenzie uh up to the um um uh McKenzie Helmican overpass.
Um the mayor is quite right.
You know, I'm I'm really thrilled that you've identified this issue.
Um the community has been complaining about this, really worried about the safety aspects, and and uh same with what uh uh the mayor is saying on the other side.
These are little points that we missed in the active transportation plan, but I'm sure glad you guys caught it.
Um the the bus stops that you're putting on here, remarkable, well done, nice big size, you know, to accommodate the anticipated users.
I'm wondering why you haven't thought of increasing the park and ride on Helmican.
There is space for another 2030 cars.
Um basically it's not this in the scope of our work.
So it would be helpful, wouldn't it?
You know, it if if we are anticipating such dramatic uh increase in ridership, um, I would hope that you may want to think about uh that and and um you know help uh transit along and and work with them on increasing the uh the parking ride capacity I can maybe ask that a little bit um yeah that that parking ride there it's as I'm sure you're all aware it's it's difficult to manage.
Uh not only is there parking riders there, there's also employee parking and all kinds of other stuff happening there.
So um you can be creative on that.
Sorry?
You can get creative on that.
So certainly there's more space to build it bigger but I think there's discussions that need to be had about how best to operate it um whenever with all these parking rights because certainly within the Ministry of Transportation we don't have uh a bylaw or any sort of enforcement like that.
So um having that space there is is helpful for transit users but it's not always used the same way it's intended.
But certainly open to the conversation.
Indeed indeed if you know if you have people coming down from the Malahat and they get there maybe earlier than the hospital worker then looks like they'll win.
Yes.
Anyway so that's that's a thought.
If I can go to the next point um you know the Galloping Goose Trail Bridge one of the things coming out of the active transportation plan is a real concern about pedestrian safety on the Galloping Goose.
And as you may know, that um the CRD is widening the goose to include a pedestrian lane, so the total are six meters.
And so um in anticipation of um you know can continued growth on the galloping goose, and it's really a uh leaps and bounds, please put in a third lane.
So you've got the two conventional bi directional cycling, which creates a conflict on uh for pedestrians on a bridge.
They got nowhere to go, they can't go to the dirt, and they're not gonna go into the water.
So um let's widen the bridges and and really help out the pedestrians.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Council Rogers.
Councillor Lennon.
Quick question.
Uh well, I hope it's quick.
Um it's in um um working on this project, will you be enhancing the sound barriers along the portage inlet side?
Because there are there are, as you probably know, there's neighborhoods right back there and and it's noisy.
Sure.
That's Mike's favorite question, actually.
We we haven't decided if we're going to enhance any of the the noise uh noise barrier at this time.
We have uh a consultant on board who's doing noise study, and we've got some initial results that indicate that the uh the noise generated by the boss on shoulder is minimal.
Uh but you know, we haven't made any decisions at all about what we're uh gonna do or not do with respect to noise abatement.
Thank you, folks.
We'll keep it in your pocket.
If there's uh no further questions, last one, Councillor Rogers.
The mayor promised me that you would be talking about uh the whole issue of the uh new proposed traffic light at um the six mile U hub.
You know, we didn't want to talk transit because that's not their problem.
But I'm assuming that you're the ones that are gonna be doing the widening and putting in the um mobility hub and and the traffic and and all that work there.
Is that correct?
That's not in the scope of this project.
We stopped right at the traffic light at you know where old island highway makes the right turn onto the uh towards here.
Um that's where our project stops.
Mike and speak on that.
Okay, so who's doing it?
I think Mike could probably help you.
Yeah, so so um the ministry also within the South Island Transportation Strategy, you'll probably notice in if if you've you know take uh read through it, um we have identified six mile as a potential mobility hub location.
So what does that really mean?
Um we're not certain currently we're we're about to undertake some initial planning work on that.
So questions are you asked questions earlier around how many stalls, what does that look like?
What is it?
We don't know yet.
Um, we're just actually literally getting started on that work.
But looking at the footprint, the fact that it has both the ENN trail, the galloping goose, close proximity to the highway.
Certainly it's a centralized location where now and of course with that tie in with transit and the rapid bus line, it's certainly that centralized location, which makes sense to have that integration of transportation choices.
Um, but we don't know what that looks like yet.
So we're about to undertake that sort of first step of planning work.
Um whether it's a signal or not, the signal is outside of our our sort of mobility hub scope, but it we know it's right adjacent to it.
So it's more to do with the implementation of the rapid bus line and the safety of pedestrians crossing the highway.
But um, we're as I say, just starting on that that work for that site.
So I'm I'm not gonna allow you to follow-up, I'm gonna make a comment, Councilor Rogers.
Um one of the things that work well, and uh I think Mike, you and I discussed this with Handy Dart, is they got um some really good engagement specialists in early to not only work with staff and and and council but also uh work with uh citizens because they've uh they can come up with some really good ideas too.
So before you get too far down on that track, I would I would really love your thoughts on whether you'd engage uh or you'd enlist some engagement specialists on that.
Yeah no absolutely um this is this is for me anyways and 17 years with ministry this is sort of a new new concept for us.
So certainly um we'll come up with some ideas and we want to, and I actually would like to engage with your staff first, um, as well as as it's likely as we'll have to go to the public at some point.
We'll want to have a good sense of what we're even talking about before we get there.
But um, first start at a technical level, what happened, what do we really need and what are we trying to accomplish, and then start to get into those really creative ideas because I think there is that opportunity when we're integrating, you know, potentially residential, commercial, all kinds of things that are potential.
Um, we need we need we need the experts in those things.
That's and that's certainly outside of transportation.
So thanks, Mike.
And uh I just a couple of notes on parks and rides.
I I live beside one in Ottawa, and it never had a car in it in five years.
Um, but the kids used it as a skate park, and it worked exceptionally well for that.
Um, the the other um one was I think on the mainland where they built a park and ride, and there was a few cars in it, and then they actually started charging them for it, and then there was no cars in it.
So uh land right now, particularly on that juncture, is really precious.
Uh and there's been kind of a propensity, we'll just pave it like a parking lot.
If there's any way we could go vertical and mix some other amenities in that to save some uh valuable space as well as concentrate it and start it as a pilot and kind of work our way, how much ridership is this gonna take on?
Because um some of my friends that live on the Malahat say, well, if I've got to come across the Malahat and I want to take the bus and I've got a park and it's taking me still longer to get downtown than it would have if I kept on driving, then I'm not gonna stop.
Right?
So where where where that point is with the two projects that all of a sudden it is faster considerably to go downtown on the bus, then I think you're going to see some real behavior change.
But thanks for your presentation.
Council Rogers, do you have a still have a question?
Yeah, thanks.
Um again, um, so I'm not sure who the author is of that diagram that we saw on page 12.
But uh it if it's um way before you, then somebody's got it, and I'd love to see the details.
Um the mayor's absolutely right.
You know, Handy Dart did a fabulous uh PR job in bringing everybody on board.
It was it was uh for a bunch of for community that was opposed, they they were sold and they they bought in.
The so that's really an issue because obviously all the people that live on Atkins and Six Mile are scared to death of what this traffic light is gonna do to the congestion, and you know that's gonna have a real bad impact on both directions of the uh Trans Canada as well.
Thank you.
Thanks.
I don't see any further questions and thanks again, uh Mike and uh Tim for coming out tonight and uh sharing this project with us.
Much appreciated.
Thank you.
And I think this brings us to a public participation period.
So is there anybody in the chambers who would like to address council this evening?
Not a person.
How about online?
Carl, we got anybody online?
Mayor Tobias, we have no callers.
I think there's hockey pre um pre-Stanley Cup playoffs, and that's what they're all watching tonight.
Okay, uh, we're off the hook.
I think we've got uh down in parks and recreation, and sir, I don't think we've got anything under that at all.
Uh and then it would be over to you, Councillor McKenzie uh for environment.
Yes, thank you.
Um I don't have much in terms of a chair's report, but I would like to take the opportunity to uh thank staff and as well as the View Royal Climate Coalition uh for their contribution to the most recent newsletter, the spring-summer newsletter.
Um, if you've read it, you'll see that there's a number of articles in there about how we can reduce our impact on climate.
So if you haven't already read it, I suggest you do.
And uh yeah, so thank you.
Um and looking here, I don't see any other items or reports.
So uh that will conclude the environment committee, and I will uh hand it back, or should I just hand it over to Councillor Oh Mattson?
Yes.
Councillor Matson for the Planning Development Engagement Committee.
And I will pass it on to uh Mayor Tobias.
Okay, just in case we have a break and connection.
It comes all the way back to me.
Okay.
Uh I I don't I didn't see your chair'm just gonna go right down to staff reports if that's okay with you, Councilor Matson.
Uh and I think we've got number seven Erskine Lane staff.
Thank you, Chair.
This is um uh development permit 202302 for 7 Erskine Lane.
This is a development permit renewal for a previously approved department building, uh which includes some variances that we'll go into later.
So the uh the site was was for uh over 50 years a boat yard and an aperture for nine years before that.
Uh it would rezon to RM3 in accordance with the official community plan uh for mixed residential use in 2020 and a number of covenants were registered to secure road dedication some road improvements and community amenity contributions.
So in January 2023 okay so development permit was approved uh two years ago it expires in May uh so in January they actually um were able to complete uh resolve all the contaminated site issues with a certificate of compliance uh so the point now we were where they now need to renew that that uh previously approved building uh the building is um 71 units and has a number of has includes three three-bedroom units, two uh 52 bedroom units and one uh four uh four one bedrooms with dens and fourteen one bedroom units.
Uh it's uh the property is kind of sited on kind of a hilly type structure.
And uh and despite you know often when you put in underground parking, it it creates a uh it creates uh removal of the trees.
In this site, the site was previously cleared, uh, but they have made all attempts to preserve kind of the uh kind of a rocky hilltop that's on the uh that's on the uh south end of the site.
And the uh the uh the the parking would be kind of cut into the slope below that.
Uh the main change from the originally approved building is is only to some uh some surface material surface cladding and that to change um kind of a ceramic coated uh siding to to a hardy panel which is a cemetitious siding and this is the originally approved material board and this is the uh variation so on the left hand side is what's called uh seroclad type type uh uh type cladding and they would still use that on more kind of the accent features, but um but the areas that were uh panel there would be switched to uh hardy panel, which is the uh we see in the red bubble there with the with the window.
Um this diagram shows kind of the main elevation changes that you can see from Erskine Lane and uh and also from the main east elevation, which is kind of the uh the main entry to the site.
Um the the shape of the building is is the same as it was before, um and otherwise looks exactly the same.
And some counselor members may remember some changes I made to building to actually add more windows to the to the site to sort of break up uh blank walls.
Uh so the main considerations are are how the development proposal compliance complies with the development permit area guidelines, how it complies with the zoning, and um and what they need to do to meet servicing requirements.
In general, the the proposal complies with the intensive mixed use development permit area that applies to the site.
The building is not a small building, but they step it up with the slope.
call for uh in terms of zoning it in uh it most it complies with the zone except with a number of items that relate to uh building height setbacks projections retaining wall height so the way building height is measured is measured from the average grade so when you're when you are a uh a building on a slope um the the average run the building it gets gets is uh is kind of lowered so in this case um it is a you know five kind of six story building at one point but that's because it's on a hill it's actually kind of two kind of four story sections put together so it steps up the hill from from Erskine Lane.
And that's and because because the low end of the building is lower, it lows as the average average grade and hence the uh building height uh is requested but essentially it's it's uh four stories of building over top of uh underground parking uh number of other setback variances are requested and these mostly have to do with a rectangular building on a site that's not rectangular so there's a number of projections uh the front line setback um uh there's uh there's some posts that go go down at the front entrance and the rear line lot line because there's kind of a it's a bit of an angle um there's a uh there's a bit of a wall extrusion that requires a very small variance so we're talking variances of 0.7 meters and 0.5 meters.
They're fairly minor uh building projections again because the uh the the uh the zoning by wall requires um projections to be a certain width.
Uh usually it's you know to with permit smaller balconies.
In this case, it's to allow uh a roof overhang and uh some balcony projections at the rear of the building.
Those are locations where there's no you know uh no residences adjacent to those locations.
And again, the variances are not not significant in terms of the extent.
Uh variance is requested with the height of a retaining wall, and that has to do with um again the building being built into a slope.
Uh the the the driveway into the underground parking uh is parallel to the slope and kind of um so this retaining wall that you sort of see here is um um is uh requires a variance.
So I'm just gonna try to use my mouse here.
And that's so this kind of a it's a wall there.
So it will be uh screened with vegetation and there's kind of a safety railing on top.
Uh the variance is to increase it from two meters to um actually uh three, I should say 3.4 meters.
The uh the final variance is are for servicing and that has to do with uh in terms of uh frontage um frontage requirements.
Uh in this type of for this type of building you usually have sidewalk and then some pocket parking.
In this case, as part of the rezoning, they were they kind of relocated some of the uh the parking into a parking island at the end of the cul-de-sac.
This uh this proposal wouldn't basically enlarge the cul-de-sac and create this parking island in the middle.
And that's kind of something that's you know that different from what the bylaw requires.
So a variance is required for that.
The other variance is for a potential bike lane on the front edge of the property.
Uh at this point, a design has not been finalized.
Uh there will be kind of a bike lane that goes from the site up to uh Watkins Way.
Um the question would be whether it's really needed along the front edge of this site because it's to the left of the parking island where the uh galloping goose kind of comes in.
So there may or may not be a need for that for uh a kind of a um a dedicated bike lane, but uh this would allow for that possibility.
So in general, the uh the building is the same as what was previously approved.
Uh there's a minor change to uh some of the surface material, uh climbing material, but uh overall the variances are the same as before.
It is they're fairly minor, and there's kind of a site uh constraints that kind of create the need for those uh those variances.
So the recommendation is to receive the reports.
Uh if there's any questions from the committee, the uh the applicant is uh is available to help answer questions.
Thank you.
Uh so this is something that had submitted a uh a permit for that that lapsed, is that correct?
It expires in May, so they need to renew it.
So is there a reason expired?
Yes, so development permits are only valid for two years.
So that that clock has run out and because of if they've been dealing with some site contamination issues, that took the uh it was not finished until January.
So and is this going to be apartments or condos or what's the intent of it?
Uh my understanding is to be condominiums so they will be sold.
And um this is a yeah what there's yeah, but uh that but that may or may not be the case, I don't know.
So we we don't know what it's designed for?
It's a multifamily building uh and we don't regulate the tenure of it, but uh that may or may not change.
But what we're applying approved considering tonight is what's being built.
It's a department building, whether it's rental or owned.
Yes.
And um so is there a plan to connect this by sidewalk on Erskine as well?
Um through the chair, yes.
So there would be a sidewalk on the front of the property, and this will connect to the next property at um at 9 Erskine.
And uh accompanying traffic study was that submitted as part of an overall?
Uh yes.
So this was this actually this application predated a lot of the other uh the other application next door.
Um and the all every every rezoning that was made, we the traffic study was done that kind of um considered all the developments on the street.
Okay.
Counselors, questions?
Uh Councilor Lemlin, Councilor Brent.
Thank you, Jeff.
Um seems to me this particular property's been on the books for quite some time, long before number nine was, you know, a twinkle in anybody's eye.
Um and I recall seeing it listed, the land itself listed recently.
Um and so I'm wondering if the applicant is the same proponent of the original plan.
Uh I think the uh I believe the agent can probably uh answer that question a bit better than I are correct, it was uh listed for a while, and uh it is it has been sold.
Um it is the original applicant making this part of the arrangement with the selling of the property was that they had a development permit in place that they could carry forward with.
So our understanding is that the owners that will the future owners um want this development permit in place so that they can complete the project.
Okay, thank you.
So so what we saw a couple a few years ago is what we will see rise.
Yeah, the the major reason that nothing has happened is because it's taken so long to deal with the soils contamination.
The soils contamination was finished, I I believe about nine, ten months ago.
But they couldn't, they didn't, it took that long, it took 10 months for the provincial government to get the certificate to the owner.
In the meantime, um, you know, prices went up.
We were asked to take another look, you know, are there any savings without seriously harming the project?
They really like the project.
They like the the they like the approach, the mass thing, everything that we did to get it to that point.
But in the meantime, prices went up, material prices went up, and the market seems to be it might be softening a little bit.
So they're saying, what can we do to this that um will allow us to move forward and and and maybe take some of that bite out while we while we were just waiting for for that certificate to come.
So that's really the reason.
It's mostly a material change on some of the, you know, we decided not to go back and reduce the unit sizes or anything like that.
And that was their choice.
We threw out all of those things for them to consider if they had to go uh in and and they decided no, the three-bedroom homes were important to to council, so let's keep those in.
Let's let's not do something that's gonna take us another year away from making an application and rethink everything but what are some of the moves we can make and that's why we came up with those that we presented in this thank you are you the architect or yes I'm sorry Kevin Klippenstein with VDA architecture okay thank you very much and counselor the trail that goes to the employee parking that's on the uh water right away is that uh in between seven and nine or uh or is it at the end of number nine end of number nine?
It's not immediately at number seven.
I thought it was part way through number nine, is it not?
Yeah.
That trail.
In fact, it's quite a ways up there, I believe.
Councilman Kenzie.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Hi, I'm I'm not sure whether it's a staff question or maybe a question for you, but um I read in the report that the design is to step two of the um energy well building step code.
And knowing that there's been change provincially that they're looking to increase that and hopefully in the future view royal will as well.
I wonder if there is any impact on this development and or maybe consideration for um increasing the the level in the step code for this build.
Um step two is already beyond the basic code, and it's beyond what View royal has requested in their bylaws.
So I don't believe that there's any intent to go up to step three.
Step step two isn't increasing.
I believe what's happening is the province is looking at changing the code in the next edition, or or they could do an amendment partway through that will require a certain level of the step code.
And that's my understanding of the step code is that they will, as the codes get issued, they are going to take out like right now.
You don't need to do step code at all.
You could do effectively, you could call it step zero.
My hunch is that they will require probably step two when the next building code gets issued.
That's my hunch, but I don't really know.
I have nothing to base that on other than what they've told us is their intent, right?
So thank you.
I think does staff have anything to add to that?
Yeah, um, thank you through the chair.
So our um at starting the January 1st of this year, uh our building bylaw has been amended.
So all new, yeah, so all new buildings must meet step code two.
Okay, and that is at DP or BP.
Uh at building permit.
At building permit.
So this still has to go through nine months of drawing.
So the it even if you were if that was just being tabled right now, it would it would have to meet that.
So it will be step two.
So we will meet, and if you royal introduces step three, we will have to comply at the time of a building permit application.
Thank you.
Thanks, Counselor McKenzie, and just a point, we've we're getting complaints, um a lot of them for the noise from the highway.
And you're gonna be with an earshot of that.
Um I don't know, staff, what mitigations we can do, whether it's um windows, uh, but they're complaining whether they're inside or outside right now, because the with the increase of population on the western shore, there's increase of traffic, there's an increase of noise.
We're building closer to the highway.
It's a perfect recipe for moving people in that aren't gonna be happy with the noise level.
So anything you can do, I'm not prescribing anything here to mitigate that, so we don't have angry residents here in two years demanding that we put up a six-foot fence, hoping that will solve the problem on the third floor of the building for highway noise.
So anything you can do to mitigate that, I'd much appreciate it.
Councillor Roger.
Yeah, thanks.
So indeed, um step code um two is is something that we've got on the books now.
And um goodness, who knows what we'll do tomorrow.
So I'm just kidding.
Um, but um I I'm I'm okay with the the um the application carrying on.
Um I do like and I appreciate staff um going the extra mile and and pointing out the um the potential bike lane uh because the current um access from Erskine Lane to Galloping Goose is really problematic, both in terms of the slope, uh the sight lines, um, and so forth.
So it it seems logical that um it should be moved and and uh thank you for anticipating you know the benefit.
Um I'm sure you're gonna have lots of cyclists in this building and and they'll want to have safe egress on on and off the galloping goose.
So I I applaud you all for considering that for the cyclists.
It's gonna be particularly uh challenging, and I'm really pleased that we've got a bike lane for all those residents um to be able to get up the hill.
That was a long fought battle.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Councillor rogers.
Uh Councilor Lemon, did you have a second no i'm i'm going to uh move staff's recommendation received the report and seconded by councillor brown to call the question all in favor counselor madsen's got a comment yeah no the other the other part was just uh question but just my my comment is i i've never liked this proposal from day one and i think i voted against it constantly uh throughout the process however council chose to approve it and so i don't think there's anything we can do it uh do now to sort of address just the issues i did have at uh throughout the zoning and through the tp process.
So yeah, I I'll support the motion to uh receive the report.
Thank you, Councillor Mattson.
Uh all in favor of receiving a report.
Any opposed?
None opposed.
Motion carries.
Thank you.
Next on the agenda is the amendment to CD1 zone comprehensive development.
And can I pause here just for staff?
Um, Jeff, some of the comments you made that there was no differentiation between apartments and co-ops.
I'd like to see what we can do, or uh apartments and uh and condos, I'd like to see what we can do to tease that apart.
And here's why.
Um, is that if anybody's been watching the news, the mayor and council and staff are going to be responsible increasingly to the provincial government's oversight into our zoning.
That's coming.
Um and I need to know what we're building.
As a matter of fact, right now, I don't know how many apartment build apartment units we've approved that are under construction right now, or condos, or if they've changed.
So if we're gonna do an adequate assessment of our housing, I need to know what's a condo and what's an apartment.
And the difference is this: when we're doing taxes uh taxes up, uh and I'm getting taxed, or we're getting taxes from a building plus land, that's a whole lot different than a condo um times 50 on a hunk of land to distribute that amongst residents for tax income.
So uh that those are some of the things I'd like to know.
Like before we have our next meeting, I'd love to say, and I've asked for this before, I'm gonna demand it now.
Well, what do we got in flight?
Like, what's being built right now?
What's been approved?
What's groundbroken, so that we can, when a proposal comes up to us, we can say, is that a priority right now?
Is that affordable housing?
Is that market price?
Is that a condo?
Can somebody own that?
Um, just to help us out along, uh, because I'm sure that you know the previous council would like to be reminded too of the sum of the everything that we've got helps guide us when we make new decisions.
Does that help?
Thank you, Jeff.
Uh Counselor Matson.
Yeah, I I I guess I just wanted to point out that is something we had previously requested.
Um, just a simple report to be put on to uh all committee, the whole meetings as reminders of where we are and where we're going with some of these projects.
Yeah, and it's okay if it's status, and I'm I'm looking for very little staff work.
Picture the site that's recent, uh, how many units were were there?
What type of it was?
Where are we on the bar graph of completion to end state?
And just a whiz through our major ones.
I'm not talking about a home rent out here.
Kim.
I'm just talking about the major holes in the crowd that we've got.
Um your comment earlier about taxes on the building versus no taxes on land.
I'm not sure where that comes from.
In circumstances where it's a condo, the common property is taxed in the name of the strata.
And in terms of condos, the individual units are taxed on the basis of the owners of those units.
So in a condo situation, land and improvements are all taxed.
The same applies in in apartments.
The building and land is all taxed in the name of the owner.
And how uh in the in the name of the owner, is that individual?
Counselor Matson.
Oh, he was there for a second.
So is that uh the the taxes per unit for a condo not a thing, Kim?
Well the taxes are are um charged to each individual owner in condo situations, and for apartment blocks the taxes are done in the name of the owner of the apartment complex.
But in all cases, land and improvements are taxed.
No, I wasn't alluding that one would be um one would be they would be equivalent.
I was saying that they'd probably be different.
Counselor Matson.
Uh I guess that was my question.
I just wanted to know if you had this building, whether it was uh condos or apartments, would there be a significant difference in the assessment?
And that is at the heart of my when you're factor both things together, Kim, if something was the same building, a condo right beside it, it was apartments.
What is the difference in tax rates that we would get from the town normally?
Both situations involve market value assessments.
So the driver in terms of valuation is market value.
And the driver in terms of tax rates is is the tax rates that you set.
So there's very little difference of the same principles applied to both situations.
Okay, I'll make it real clear.
Market's the same, the the the identical buildings, same number of units in it.
They've got both got 50 units in it.
And you're taxing an apartment building or a condo.
And I'm talking about the total taxes that you're getting back.
Market being the same for both of them.
I suspect that the market is not the same for both of them.
The um basis of valuation for market of a um apartment would likely be more uh a present value of future cash flow.
A condominium is sales and comparable sales.
So the methodology in establishing market value will be somewhat different.
Thanks, Kim.
And I think we've gone through the developers.
I think we're at CD1 zone comprehensive development.
Uh Sterling Scorpio Community Planner.
Uh, I don't have a presentation tonight.
I do have a report that uh the committee should have uh been able to review.
Um there are two recommendations for the committee.
Um the first is to uh recommend to council, so the committee recommend to council that staff uh finalize zoning bylaw uh amendment uh sorry, zoning bylaw number 900 2014, amendment bylaw number 1117 for first, second, and third reading.
And then the second uh is to wait the public hearing requirement uh in accordance with the local government act, uh, section 464 uh subsection two uh as the proposed zoning bylaw amendment is consistent with the official community plan.
The uh amendment in question is a uh a technical change to the existing CD1 zone, changing uh the listed use, uh which is listed as light manufacturing medical clinic, and instead listing it as two separate uses, light manufacturing and then uh medical clinic below, uh and review of the bylaw staff noticed that there was uh this this listing uh which appears to be error uh looking back through the uh the previous uh draft for what is what we have now is the uh the zoning bylaw for uh number nine nine hundred in twenty fourteen uh appears to have been adopted um with with uh this this error.
Uh there is no definition of of medical or sorry light manufacturing medical clinic there is it's uh a definition for each of those uses uh uh listed uh separately uh council then yeah um sterling is it is uh the cd one specific to the three pro um three properties identified on the in your report and nowhere else.
Through the chair, correct.
That is correct.
Uh the three affected properties uh that are listed as cd one is limited to 1511 admirals road, 100 alder smith Place, and 1495 Admirals Road.
Okay.
That's it.
That's correct.
Good, thank you.
So it was light manufacturing medical clinic.
So that's a drug lab?
What is that?
To to the chair, it it is unclear what was uh intended with that.
That is why staff in the review of the uh the draft bylaw um suspect that it was either a uh combination of potentially copy paste error or uh deletion error.
Um this can happen when you're working with Word document files.
Um it's uh it's been there since the adoption of the bylaw and was just happened to be noticed good thank you starling good catch uh any other comment all in favor of the amendment not opposed motion carries thanks and i think did we move first to third that's what i'm just uh checking now i think we but i'm sorry, I guess that's council, so my mistake.
Yeah, we just we just received.
Um so now it's uh finalized zoning bylaw and amendment for first, second, and third reading.
And then uh waiving the public hearing because it was a typo.
So that that's forthcoming, correct?
Yeah, that's what's coming next.
Uh with that.
Okay.
Uh I think that's everything else down here, and just over to you, Councilor Rogers for transportation and public works.
Yes, thanks.
Uh I'll just uh as a chair's report, I I just want to point out that um um I see that both the Squamalt and Sanach are uh looking to lower their speed limits in neighborhoods from fifty to thirty kilometers.
I note that that was also in the Active Transportation's uh conditions report and PRIAC is recommending that and coming to uh to council next week, I think.
So uh really pleased to see there's coordination in that regard.
Um I guess also a comment with respect to the provinces um uh announcement of um uh housing proposals of um uh converting large lots to four units and um it it dawned on me that this was going to have a very interesting and and quite a significant impact on uh the town's infrastructure particularly um with um roads and and sidewalks we uh if they if the uh harbors any uh indication um the number of um vehicles, people going to school, um so forth, um our sidewalk master plan, which was scheduled for 10 years out, probably gonna be five years out if this uh takes hold and and we have to contend with it.
So it's a really a good thing that we do have this um uh active transportation plan and and uh planning to get a detailed sidewalks uh um uh initiative underway.
And with that, I will uh turn it over to staff for the Active Transportation Network presentation.
Thank you, Chair.
Um I'm the young, Director of Engineering.
I'll just do a brief introduction before I pass it on to my colleague uh Tim Shaw from Watt Consulting.
So um we're here to present or do a presentation on our draft active transportation network plan.
Our consultant will present the findings and question period after.
Just a few things I wanted to emphasize, something for the committee to think about when this presentation is being presented to you.
Active transportation network plans are aspirational in nature.
They identify barriers, show needs.
Look at the long term.
Active transformation plans do not try to pin down one particular solution.
It provides a toolbox, it provides options for us to consider.
Should there be a change in needs or a change in uh or a pivot in our in our neighbors and what they wish to do?
The active transportation network plan allows us to pivot along with it.
And lastly, active transportation network plans are living documents.
They're meant to be updated and change depending on the needs of the community and the neighboring communities.
In order for us to meaningfully respond, uh, we will be doing that for next week's council for your consideration.
Um, at this time, though, uh I'll have I'll pass the the reins on to Mr.
Shaw here, and um any questions, high-level questions with respect to the active transportation.
So without further ado, Tim.
Certainly we're here to help you.
So this should be forward, goes back.
Yeah.
Good evening.
Thank you, Ivan, for the introduction, and good evening, Mayor and Council.
Good to see everyone.
I'm very pleased to be here this evening to uh present a fairly high-level overview of the Active Transportation Uh Network Plan, which I uh we've uh had the pleasure of putting together for the town, and look forward to providing a fairly high-level uh overview of uh of the plan this evening.
So I'll take about 15 minutes or so to go over the plan, and then as Mr.
Leong mentioned, uh we can discuss uh some of the details in the QA.
So as far as the agenda goes, uh we've got start off with just high-level project overview, uh touch on the engagement feedback uh in the plan, uh, the plan framework, uh, the ultimate networks and what those are all about, uh, and then the short-term priority projects, programs and policies, and then uh QA.
So, as far as the project overview, really at a high level, this is the town's first comprehensive document that provides a 10-year roadmap outlining the short-term infrastructure improvements, uh, the policies and programs needed to prioritize active transportation in in V Royal.
Key objective all along, right from the start of this plan is to identify gaps in the network and the priorities needed to address those gaps.
As you can see in the timeline at the bottom of the slide there, it was a year-long process.
A lot of engagement.
I mean, starting off with the first phase in March of 2022, we did a detailed baseline conditions report looking at the barriers, all the different barriers in the active transportation network, and some of the different different challenges and different opportunities that could be explored through the planning process.
Then we validate validated that and sort of substantiated it with uh with the public engagement process in phase two.
Uh that was last spring summer, where we went to the public uh through an online survey, an ideas fair, and then also key stakeholder interviews to get uh again a better sense of what those barriers are in the network uh to help sort of corroborate what we found in our baseline conditions review.
And then third phase, so June to December, a lot of the technical work was done, network analyses, uh coming off the preliminary opportunities and recommendations, bring that back to the community uh through this the second online survey and also uh bike shops that we did as well to sort of get sort of test those and get feedback from the public on whether we're going in the right direction.
And then phase four and five that's sort of the the first half of our first quarter of 2023.
We've drafted the plan uh and the implementation uh strategy, and then we had our open house last week, where we presented it, and then here we are uh in uh tonight in front of council.
So those are the five phases of this year-long process.
So as far as the engagement that we've done this project, and I should also note we have two detailed what we heard engagement summaries that are available online.
We also summarized the engagement process and the draft plan.
So at a very high level on this slide, what you see here is engagement by the numbers.
We've had over 700 survey responses between the first between the first and the second survey.
And then, of course, last week we had the open house where we had roughly 50 to 60 participants.
Some people forgot to sign in.
So it's uh it is an estimate.
Um, so what came from the first round of engagement, uh just some key themes you see there on the on the slide, in terms of what the public uh uh identified as desired improvements, filling in gaps in the network uh is critical, more separation from motor vehicle traffic, that's more separation for pedestrian and cycling facilities from motor vehicle traffic, uh, greater protection for uh uh pedestrians with a focus on all ages and abilities, and safer routes to school uh for children.
Uh this slide here is just showing a uh the photo from from the open house that was held eight eight days ago, uh April 3rd.
Um hard to summarize all the feedback.
Feedback is quite varied uh from that evening, but uh some of the repeating themes that we saw, and we have what we should uh have up on the slide here, in terms of what we heard, uh concern with multi-use pathways due to user conflicts between people rolling, biking, walking, et cetera.
Future infrastructure improvements should protect tree canopy where possible.
I guess the idea is just recognizing that you know urban forestation, urban trees can help mitigate climate impacts.
Slip lanes and channelized right turns should be removed, which is very much in line with best practices.
They're horrible for pedestrians and cyclists, and they should be removed everywhere, but they are quite costly to do.
So we kind of have to uh sort of small steps in that regard, and we have direction on that in the plan.
And then uh need to slow down vehicles in general, just to overall improve uh safety and comfort for people walking, cycling, and rolling.
So, again, those are just some of the key theme, key themes that came out of that open house uh last week.
So, as far as the plan framework goes, we came up with a vision, uh, a vision statement that's on the slide here.
And I just want to be very clear the plan we've developed is not a 25-year plan, it's a 10-year plan because we believe that uh things in the transportation world, especially, things change overnight.
So it's a 10-year vision.
So the idea is that this is a 10-year plan to identify the critical improvements that are needed, uh, and the plan should be revisited every five years to sort of check uh and monitor where things are at and sort of revisit some of the priorities.
So the vision statement here, I'm not gonna read it, it's a bit of a mouthful, but essentially what the vision statement is getting at is that um uh the future active transportation network uh in View Oil uh it really is one that connects neighborhoods, so it's connecting residents to all the key destinations that schools, uh employment destinations, natural environments, parks, green spaces, trails, and also the neighboring communities as they build their active transportation networks.
Once View Royal achieves that sort of complete and connected network, that's really when you're gonna start to move the needle on active transportation.
You're gonna start to see more people walking, cycling, rolling, and that's gonna help reduce emissions, boost the local economy, and enhance overall resilience.
So that's all more or less captured in this vision statement.
Um, but it's obviously intended to be aspirational in nature.
We came up with four objectives.
We really wanted them to be as measurable uh as possible, uh quantitative, so you can really track how well uh the the town is sort of meeting its vision and how well it's doing in terms of its overall network.
The first one here is the culture of active transportation.
So four objectives.
What you see below that is a number of targets that the town could could follow and monitor.
So just a couple examples, achieving the mode share target of 25% of all trips to work and school by an active mode, and achieving the climate target of a 36% reduction in emissions below 2007 levels.
Objective two, all ages and abilities facilities, a number of different targets there, one being you know a physically protected uh cycling facility that's built on one, at least one east-west corridor and one north-south corridor.
And we've also we have one on you know, all upgrades to the major intersections should be designed to be universally accessible in line with the BC Active Transportation Design Guide.
So regional trails.
Objective three here local and community connections.
We know we all know how important the regional trails are in View Royal and connections to them.
So the regional trails are accessible by all ages and abilities facilities, as an example of the target.
And then objective number four, regional connections.
This one's really important as well.
All regional trail crossings are designed to the same standard, which of course is going to require coordination with the CRD, which we outline in our plan.
And all active transportation connections to neighboring jurisdictions must be coordinated and conform to all ages and ability standards.
That one's critical too, because we know View Royal is surrounded by Culwood and Esquimalt and Sanach, all of all of which are building their network.
So there's a really good opportunity for coordination in this regard.
So the ultimate networks.
Just want to be really clear about this because I think there's some confusion about what the intent is of the ultimate networks.
The ultimate networks are beyond the 10-year planning horizon of this plan.
We've included them in line with what Mr.
Mr.
Leung said about sort of the plan being aspirational.
So what we so the ultimate networks are really meant to provide that sort of long term vision for how the network, both the pedestrian network and selecting network, can be more complete and connected to make it really easy for people to get around.
How we came up with the ultimate networks, the baseline conditions analysis.
So we dove into the data, did the analysis to understand again those barriers and where the gaps are.
We went through a public engagement process and we did a transportation needs assessment, which is a detailed GIS analysis, essentially looking at a number of criteria to identify where there's highest need for a pedestrian and cycling facility.
And how we did that, in terms of the criteria, which you can see on the slide there, the pedestrian network, we looked at things like roads with high traffic, speeds and volumes, connections to schools, sidewalks in or near future areas slated for growth, sidewalks in proximity to lower income areas, because there's an equity aspect to this plan.
Connections to bus stops, connections to parks, connections to trails.
And we use the same criteria essentially for the cycling network or the cycling needs assessment, except for that we also included Strava data, which provides some indication of where cycling activity is in the network.
So we want to want to be very clear about that, that.
That the needs assessment was a data-driven GIS analysis to figure out where those needs are, and then backed by public engagement results.
So what you see here is the ultimate pedestrian network just at a very high level.
It's the darker green lines, apologies might be hard to see, but essentially the thicker dark green lines are the what we're calling pedestrian facility upgrades.
So what this refers to is essentially the town cannot build a sidewalk in every road.
A, that's cost prohibitive prohibitive, and B, it's not even necessary based on our uh uh uh our judgment.
So what we're saying here is that the roads we've identified for that for a pedestrian facility upgrade are ones that can be built to a higher standard.
Uh all ages and abilities.
So if that's a for example, a non-separated sidewalk that's right that's next to a major road, uh, so uh picture you know parts of Island Highway, um, that could be upgraded to a separated sidewalk.
So there's more of a buffer between the motor vehicle travel lane and the pedestrian facility.
Uh and the same goes with multi-use pathways, so on and so forth.
So I just want to be really clear about that.
It's upgrading what you have to a higher standard to make it easier for people to walk around.
Uh what this what this also shows is the pedestrian cyclist overpasses.
Uh uh those sort of yellow, yellow uh dots uh might be hard to see.
Those are also meant to be aspirational.
This came from public feedback, it came from our own analysis about where those overpasses could be to help address the divide of the Trans Canada Highway, which divides the North View Royal and South View Royal.
That came across loud and clear in the public engagement process.
So we are aware that these those are large scale infrastructure projects that might take years to realize, but we wanted to show them on the map again as part of an aspirational sort of future network.
Um cycling network, uh, same story.
Uh here though we're showing again all the different connections that are needed uh throughout the community.
I think the clue the big take home for this one is that we've also identified those connections that are needed to the neighboring jurisdictions, right?
So Calwood to the to the south and Sanish to the north, Esquimalt uh uh to the to the east, uh, filling in those connections to make sure there's sort of good connectivity between those communities.
So as far as the short-term priority projects, um so what we came across what we came up with based on the uh baseline conditions analysis, the public engagement, the transportation needs and assessment that I just just described, we came up with, and working very closely with staff, three critical corridor projects that we believe can that are are needed in the community as a first step to start to actually build the active transportation network to an all-ages and ability standard.
So the first one, yeah, we see on the screen here is Averalls Road from Island Highway to Hallowell Road.
Again, at a very high level, what you see here is uh essentially sidewalk on the on the on the east side, sidewalk on the west side, and then removing a southbound travel lane and putting in a either bidirectional protected bike facility or a multi-use pathway.
The plan is not overly prescriptive on what the facility type should be.
That's not the intent of an AT plan.
The intent is to identify the need for an improvement, and then detailed design could get into some of those specifics in terms of what's the right facility type.
Just want to be clear about that.
So we presented that to the community in the second online survey, and what we found, we heard is most respondents were supportive of this proposed of these proposed improvements along Abril's.
45% strongly support, 27% support.
Bike shop participants also identified Amarill's Road as one of the most unsafe in the in the overall network in the town.
And then we also heard loud and clear in the survey that there, while there's support for these improvements, there's also concerns about the removal of southbound traveling and what that can do to the traffic, traffic operations, the road network.
So, of course, there's trade-offs.
There's always trade-offs in transportation, and that's something that the town's gonna have to work through with the ministry and neighboring jurisdictions if this project gets gets pursued.
And the price tag for that is 3.7 million in terms of a class B cost estimate.
Um Island Highway, ENN rail trail to Admirals Road, just in short, uh also presented to the community in the second online survey to gauge level of support and preferences.
Over 80% uh were supportive.
Um bike shop participants also supportive of it because of the connectivity to the ENN rail trail and also to Shoreline Community Middle School.
And the cost estimate again for this is 300 and 335,000 approximately.
Last one here, critical corridor projects.
The third one is the Helmakin Interchange, which we heard about earlier, earlier tonight.
This one really came up in the public engagement process again as sort of the main divide or one way that's dividing the community in terms of north and south.
In the online survey, we heard support for this particular uh these improvements, which essentially is showing might be hard to see, but removing the southbound travel lane, replacing that with uh bi-directional protected bike lane or a multi-use pathway to really make it easy to get for people to get all the way to Watkis, or you know, to whether it's Eagle Creek or uh the hospital, uh, making sure there's there's a safe facility there.
Um as I mentioned in the first round of engagement, uh the interchange was identified as a major gap in the network.
Uh and similar to Admiral's Road, there were concerns expressed to us in the survey about how putting in a facility on the interchange, which by the way is going to require a lot of coordination with MOTI, so we're not uh we're not oblivious to that.
Uh, concerns that removing that travel lane could also impact traffic operations in the road network.
Uh, this so last few slides here.
So, this is showing uh the other 10 short-term priority projects, infrastructure projects that we came up with.
The point of this map is just to show you that again, through our careful transportation needs analysis and engagement, we've we've been able to identify projects that sort of serve different areas or pockets of U oil.
We want to make sure there was good sort of geographic distribution and equity in that regard.
This slide here is just showing all of the all the projects.
Of course, the plan has a lot more detail for each one, but you can see in total for these 10 projects, it's over three kilometers of pedestrian and cycling facilities in total, intended for different user groups.
People who are walking, people on wheelchairs and have other mobility devices, and also people who are cycling.
So trying to make sure we're we're hitting the balance for different different active transportation users.
This slide here is just showing the 10 or the 13 short-term priority projects, those three critical corridor ones I mentioned, and then the 10 additional ones for a price tag of about 11 million dollars.
This is a class D cost estimate, so there's a fairly big uh contingency.
Um so just it's approximate.
Uh and then just lastly, the you know, any active transportation plan uh is incomplete without mentioning uh programs, programs and policies.
The infrastructure is critical, but you also need the education and the culture part to help to help get people uh thinking about um how they can better interact with the network, uh how they can uh better get around the network, uh the you know, uh uh education and and and training for children who might feel uncomfortable, for example, going on their bike.
So there's a whole whole range of programs and policies we've included in the plan for consideration uh for the town uh that can that can start to uh change the culture of active transportation and uh and help support those infrastructure recommendations that we've come up with.
Uh so I will leave it at that.
Thank you very much for your attention and uh happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
No, it was uh it was a really good study, and I went through it a couple of times, and I'm sure it'll change again with some Ivan taking in some comments.
So here's the struggle a young nerdy mayor that has an electric bike has is um we're already stressed out for traffic now, right?
From our transportation perspective, and that's only growing.
Every, you know, whether it's Callwood or West or Soup that's growing, everybody has to come through a view Royal.
And everything I'm reading for stats is about 5% of people commute by bike to work.
Right.
That could go up to 10%, but I guarantee in the second week in January, wasn't nobody going to work on their bike.
My point is this is that if we're trying to encourage people to get to the highway, to get out of View Royal and get on the highway and go wherever you're going, um, or if they're coming from the base in a squamalt to make it uh either keep on going straight and get to the highway or do old island.
Um you know, I'm supportive of promoting biking, but I can't support spending that amount of money for making a lot of people mad for making a decision that affects transportation, right?
In general, and that will slow us down.
So my my concern with this is that we're kind of prioritizing biking, but we just had, you know, we we've also got mass transit improvements there, thankfully.
Um, but it's that balance between spending a lot of money uh on on connectors that aren't it would be pretty hard for me to defend getting up in front of a mixed group of commuters to say that this was a good expenditure or we're building it for the future.
So those are my only concerns, and I would love to see before the final is done is show me what things have to do with safety first.
Like, where are the places that are truly unsafe and not just for a uh a cyclist properties?
Like we've talked about that intersection here on the corner of uh uh by Helmkin across Old Island.
Uh for for folks going across there, they're they're not feeling safe.
Uh the Helmkin Watkiss Chancellor uh one is pretty unsafe with uh pedestrian light coming on the same time that the advanced turn green has stopped, but it's still green, so people are just turning left and interrupting walks of traffic.
So if you could provide me with anything, and this is personal talking, provide me with priorities on safety first.
Like these these patterns need to change.
Like if I've only got a limited amount of money, number one, what could I invest in to make things safe, safe first, and then the nice to haves kind of after?
Does that make sense?
Mayor Tobias, I think it does.
We can certainly provide a list.
What it may suggest is that um we attach a a uh like a preface staff report on top of the on the of the actual translation network plan because doing so um preserves the integrity of the static report.
But um certain council at the end of the day are the ones that helps guide us as to what our priorities are.
So uh certainly we could probably work on that.
Um just one one anecdote on uh usage of our transportation facilities.
I like to I like to picture it as kind of a bell curve.
So our existing facilities are meant or the the people that are comfortable riding in on the traditional bike lanes that we've seen around are probably the 16.67% on one side of the bell curve.
And active transportation is trying to expand that to the middle 66.67%.
And the way to do that is to introduce these infrastructure that are uh more than just what we see today.
Um a lot of it has to do with safety.
Uh certainly there are items such as separation of sidewalks that does provide um quite quite a significant safety improvement.
We've heard that all the a lot a lot of times um from Walcon and I think um from the CNIB as well at the um at the open house.
So those are they could be quick wins, and we can certainly identify some um some some of the similar lines.
Oh, sorry, sorry for that.
I interrupted you as chair.
That was because I'm used to doing it all the time, Councillor Rogers.
You have the butter excellent points, and and thank you for raising them.
Yeah, I see lots of stuff for bikes, I see lots of stuff for vehicles.
Safety's you know, number one.
Uh Councilor Brown.
I don't I don't see that much for pedestrians.
And I see here the connections to Saanich, to Squimalt, to Callwood, but not to Langford.
Uh Atkins Road has great bike packs.
You can go down the the E and N to Galloping Goose.
Uh it's great, nice trail, beautiful trail linked up.
Uh heavily trafficked road, sidewalks or boulevards are this wide, and a lot of people actually do walk to work even in the winter from there.
That'll work at the thrifties, for example, in Callwood.
They make the trail up walk, and it's totally unsafe.
People are cutting through people's private driveways to access the galloping goose off Atkins Road.
And people from Chilco, and I live in Atkins Road, we we feel left out in a lot of the stuff that goes on.
We almost feel like we're, I don't know, uh uh East Langford.
We're left out.
And uh I like to see more stuff.
It's fine to see the bike stuff, but a lot of the bike stuff's already there.
I like to see way more stuff about pedestrians.
I walk a lot, and that that road is dangerous.
Uh you got a farm down the road where I've seen grandparents taking their grandkids to see the horse and the two cows at the at the end, and this there's no sidewalk there.
There's a sidewalk further down the road.
And going up the hill to Langford when you with the galloping goose crosses, um, there's a concrete barrier there, and it's unsafe so i'd like to see way more um for pedestrian access and and our left out area of town I think thanks to councillor brown council emman yeah um thank you Mr Shaw um I first of all I think it's wonderful that so many people engaged in this and that it's um so so important to so many and most of us were at the open house last week and and it was humming so clearly there's a lot of interest um and and it matters to a lot of people um so you know some of the some of the things I heard might have been just you know kind of specifics but I but I did hear um real concerns about the stretch for example um Hallowell to uh the the Admirals the Admiral stretch from Hallowell to the island highway um of the double laning of the bike lanes and uh the loss the loss of you know kind of a vital corridor so you know you know I I don't want to go all hail to the automobile but it there's it it is a vital route for a huge um huge you're huge part of the em the employed population.
Uh so I I don't think that's something t taking a a lane away and cutting off that that corner um for you know t turning turning off the Ovid Highway is something we can really do lightly.
I think that that really needs a real consideration.
You know, and and uh a few a few years ago there was a V Royal resident that this didn't happen in View Royal.
It happened just down the road on on Craigflower but there's Beauroyal resident, mom of five, who was killed riding her bike on a you know on a narrow side of road bike lane, um called a bike lane, um at night, you know, it was probably raining, somebody made a turn and and she was gone, and five kids lost their mom.
Um so you know it's it's not to be minimized the importance of of um adequate adequate um bicycle um laneways.
Um I think I think we you know we need to do it in in areas that we see that people are going to be using it automatically.
Um for example, going up.
I I was surprised that there wasn't something more um thoughtful or just something at all actually, um, going going up um Island Highway to towards Four Mile Hill, coming up from Admirals.
I I would have thought that that would have been a path that cyclists coming from Esquimalt and coming from you know coming around from from Sanich might be taking.
So that that just struck me.
And uh just a just an aside when when we're thinking about you know a double lane uh uh bicycle corridor um you know there's there was a learning curve involved and there still is for a lot of us you'd downtown Victoria when suddenly you know everything you knew was no more and you know you'd you you'd get out of your car and have no idea that there was a chance that you were gonna get hit by a bike.
And my my husband who is who is you know he's got a handicap, he he very nearly did because suddenly, you know, life had changed.
And so um and and I too I felt you know in peril once or twice.
So there's there's a I don't know what you do about that, you know, I don't know what kind of education process, but I think those are all things that need to be considered.
So you know I an active transportation strategy shouldn't be so active that people get wiped out.
Um anyway those are just my my off the top of my head thoughts.
So for now thank you.
Uh Council Matchnell we hear you I'm just going to go to Councillor McKenzie first.
We see her.
Thank you.
Um so I have a couple questions.
I guess uh my first one was I I did hear a lot uh from the people who attended the open house about the concerns with the multi use paths.
Um and I'm curious whether you know of you know best practices in terms of um kind of to uh counselor lemon's point the education around you know making it safer for pedestrians um such as maybe like signage maybe speed limits I know back in Ottawa there was a dangerous stretch and they actually implemented a bike speed limit there.
So yeah I was just wondering if you could speak to any best practices that you're aware of to help with that through the chair.
Yeah, thanks, Councillor McKenzie, for that question.
So I think first off, with multi-use pathways, I think there's also um uh people often point to the Gallup and Goose and the ENN Rail Trail as examples of where there's a lot of user conflicts.
Those are regional trails that have been around for a while, especially Galloping Goose, where they have significant volumes of users, to the point now where it's so successful that they have to actually widen the trail, which is great to help minimize those conflicts.
So providing uh more safety for cyclists, but they of course also provide space for pedestrians.
Where there aren't initially as many conflicts, because you need to have a certain number of uh users to uh hit the certain critical threshold until you start to see those conflicts, which you see on the regional trails.
But typically you wouldn't see that right away when you put in multi-use pathways, uh roadside multi multi use pathways.
So I think there's a little bit of concern coming from the regional trails, which I think are not always analogous.
To answer your question, uh in terms of best practices, the BC Active Transportation Design Guide has uh different um uh has guidance with respect to signage, pavement markings, uh, so actual physical things you can do to alert both pedestrians and people cycling and also rolling that it is truly a shared pathway and you have to watch for other users.
Doesn't always address the e-bike problem because e-bike users tend to go quite fast, uh, but that's more of a regulatory issue in terms of you know minimizing speeds or or setting a speed limit so they can't travel you know 40 kilometers an hour for example.
But there's also education as well.
So it's when that's the whole part of you know with the sort of the supporting supportive policies and programs section of the plan you just put it if you put in infrastructure and and don't tell a story about it or don't educate residents about it, you're gonna have problems, whether it's a protected bike lane in uh in a in a new city or a multi-use pathway.
You need to inform people about how it works, um, uh, how yielding works, uh, just essentially the rules of the road uh to help make it uh help people understand uh that uh it's it's truly a shared pathway to minimize those conflicts.
So I hope that answers your question.
Yes, thank you.
Um and then my other question was I've always been curious why the um suggested Maltese path for Old Island Highway along here is on the opposite side, it's on the school side.
Um other than that there's already a more separated sidewalk there.
I was just wondering what the reasoning is since a lot of the amenities such as uh Canadian Tire and all that is on the other side of the road.
Through the chair, thanks for the thanks for the question.
That was uh based on I can I can respond first then Mr.
Lung if you want to add anything but that was based on really what was driving that is just uh the the connection to to the school uh principally so just you know the whole I mentioned earlier uh the need for safe routes to school making it safer for children to get to and from school uh it's also easy access to the ENN rail trail on that side on the on the north side so uh it it also it would uh with with Admirals Road that recommendation it would still allow for a connection so if the Admirals Road uh facilities were to go in on the on the uh west side it would if you're if you have the if you have the facilities on the north side on island highway uh the way it'd be designed this would all happen in detail design it's way beyond the scope of an AT plan, but you would still be able to have that connection.
So people can come down island highway on the north side and then cross at the intersection to then be on the west side of Admiral's road to get down to Canadian Tire, uh Admiral's walk, etc.
So um that that was part of part of the reasoning uh for that.
Other destinations.
Um but I do want to stress again that uh through the detailed design process things can change in terms of you know where does it make more sense to actually put the facility there's there's there's technical engineering considerations at the intersections for tie-ins and transitions.
So but I hope that answers your question for now.
Yes uh it does and it kind of addresses or speaks to one of my uh kind of concerns is that with the these proposed new paths it's basically committing us to also changing our intersections because for that path to connect to the um admiral's one we would definitely have to change that so I guess I don't know at what point we would consider the cost of that as well if it would be simultaneous would it yeah uh yeah intersections are high conflict points I would say that's intersections oftentimes do take priority uh it really depends on intersection it depends on your road and it depends on the data that you're that you're basing it off of um for example there is a uh should the budget be approved this year um that admirals craig flower and Howie uh intersection would be would be looked at.
Um it would also be looked at in terms of what we could do in the future to address active transportation on this uh uh at that intersection as well.
Um and then with respect to going down on the island highway as well.
Uh I don't want to get too much in the details here, but uh you'll notice that in that concept that we did not say we're going to delete the existing sidewalk on the other side or we're going to delete the existing bike lanes on the road.
And what that means is that we're giving um riders choices.
And ultimately that's a good way to um obviously there's gonna be people in e-bikes that don't want to use them, also use paths so they have other choices as an example.
Um people using the going to the amenities at Canadian tire, there's a sidewalk there already.
But that said, um, these are detailed design items that staff would take to council uh for consideration.
Great, thank you.
Councilor Mattson, do you have uh some points?
Jeez, I feel forgotten out here.
Yes, no, I do have some points.
Um, one of the things like V Roll has had a stated policy for decades now that the priority for transportation is pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit, and then the automobile.
So I I have a little bit of angst when I hear people worrying so much about the automobile when it's sort of at the end of our priority list.
We already had lots of discussions tonight about how we're going to improve the bus routes, etc.
And you know, unless we give people in the automobile some uh a disincentive to continue driving, they're they're gonna continue driving.
So I in in in our future discussions, I just hope you remember that uh we we do have sort of a priority list and and this a lot of the things I heard today, other than as Councillor Brown had mentioned, uh the long needed road on or a sidewalk along Atkins.
Um their recommendations in terms of this document certainly support Bureau's stated priorities in terms of transportation issues.
Okay.
Um my thoughts.
Um I certainly would uh I'm looking forward to hearing from the public um uh from the open house there that we had on April 3rd.
Um I I think one of the concerns uh stayed to me was again, concepts, no pros and cons.
So when when the three illustrations of the um Admiral's Island Highway and McKenzie Overpass concept, no pros and cons.
So how in the world would somebody reading a survey, looking at this, trying to make sense head or tails, trying to think what might be issues, safety issues and so forth, and saying, oh well, I'll just go with the flow and vote for it.
Um so it it that's one of the things that really concerns me is that we uh getting boots on the ground, walking along um, for example, the island highway, uh, where the multi-use path and maybe bi-directional um circumstances, and it's alongside the school, which is next to the bus stop, which is where the overpass is, and the hope that it's going to connect to the island uh E and N is more than $350,000 because we haven't even estimated the remarkable challenges once we get around the corner, having taken out all the trees, widened to six meters, and then you know, we're going to get to Admirals where there's there's no width.
So it it is uh concept, and and I understand aspirational concept being the same thing, but it's um uh you know, that really does worry me when we get down to practical things.
We got a short list, we got a you know, um Class D estimates, which I gather are plus or minus 50 percent.
And um, so there's plus or minus 11 million, plus or minus 50 percent.
And we still have to do a detailed design drawing on top of that.
I don't know if that's a part of the uh two million.
And I guess when we're talking about the highways, Ministry of Highways, Helmick and Overpass, what Santa has said is that they'll work with highways with their propose ideas, and they'll certainly support active transportation and safety and pedestrians and cycling on uh overpasses, underpasses, and so forth, but they're not gonna pay for it.
So, you know, this is what concerns me is that we got a two uh we've put this two million dollar price tag suggesting this is something that view our residents will do as an immediate fix over the issues that we've just heard about pedestrian safety, sidewalks, intersections.
We haven't even heard in this group here in this presentation, we haven't talked about the five and five major and six minor intersection details.
Goodness gracious, what are the costs of that?
So, you know, it's these the the price tags and and and all this is is of considerable concern.
I'll bet staff's got a comment.
Thank you, Chair.
Um with respect to the ministry, uh, you know, we acknowledge that is the ministry's property.
Um we also acknowledge we've been uh we've been engaging them about this ease infrastructure.
Um also given that view of royal is bisected by a highway, um, we felt it was important to at least include the conversation in the document.
Uh, whether we pay for it or whether we wait for grant funding, that's ultimately up to council as part of future budget deliberations.
Um again, the same thing with respect to multi-use paths, uh uh closing down lanes on Helmkin.
Um, these were items that we that was assessed as a quick desktop study to determine whether or not it was feasible.
And if there was a hint of it being feasible, then that would be carried over in the detailed design.
So these these are just the items that you know we we didn't just put it in there for the sake of putting it in there.
There is um obviously some technical knowledge and technical analysis put in there before we wanted to recommend that because ultimately, uh, with respect to pros and cons, we are about we are going with the recommendations of the experts in the field.
Um and that does require that kind of desktop analysis.
Yeah.
Good to hear.
Um, you know, and certainly in and taking the time to spend the six days reviewing this document, I also read all the other transportation plans from Sanitz, Calwood, Esquimol, and um, and it was important to compare that, because you know, their key points were working on sidewalks, bike lanes, on bus routes.
And you know, the really unfortunate thing that I didn't see in this report was transit.
And you know, we had the presentation tonight, how you know we've got this remarkable um rapid transit link going on, and that'll, you know, and and how we're going to tie into that.
And I mean, again, in the conditions report, thank you so much for for referring to the 2021 uh transit uh local plan, but we didn't take the key essence of you know putting bus stops on admirals for the number 40.
So, you know, it's it uh the the worry I have is that we didn't, as as Council Mattin said, you know, we didn't take care of the uh the major networks that wanted being you know transit, walking, cycling, transit, on its trails, even we talked about regional trails.
There is no discussion about you know the local municipal trails and the trails that we have along the I the TCH that connects McLellan Trail.
These are vital municipal connections, even the trails within our municipal parks.
How about an assessment of what trails are inferior, that are tripping hazards and so forth, that we should be doing that a kind of assessment, you know, and and looking at that.
And I really have a problem that if we've got in the um conditions report, clear information that there's conflict after conflict on our regional trails, the ENN, the Galloping Gadoos, pedestrians are sidelined all the time, speeding.
I do bike counts all the time.
I see it happening, and I see how cyclists ignore the butt stop signs.
So these are all real significant issues that are presenting a safety concern to pedestrians.
And if they're not filled, they don't feel they're part of the solution, then they're going to be part of the problem.
And I could go on.
So, you know, um, no, I do I do have to say one more thing.
I have a real concern about the ultimate pedestrian, the ultimate cycling.
Again, other municipalities have done their homework and they've done what they've done is they've done short-term, medium-term, long term, and have identified the specific areas through a critical analysis of of which sidewalks and which uh bike lanes should be first priority.
We've just got an ultimate.
And when I look at it and I see both ends of Atkins Road being on the ultimate, you know, that doesn't make sense.
So it's uh um, and I do have a little bit of concern that the only ultimate sidewalk was Jedberg, no mention of Atkins or Watkiss Way or Rudyard, which is also for school kids.
So I'm really hoping that um uh we've we can get back and kind of look at more the pedestrian side of things rather than the cycling solutions.
And I look forward to seeing a better plan.
Thank you.
Any other comments?
Yeah I I just feel like we came across this bunch of nitpickers and and and um I think there's a lot of good thought and and engagement that went into this so I thank you for that.
Obviously it's not not not perfect but it probably closely matches the brief you were sent with.
And I'm prepared to um to move staff's recommendation move move received i just have a quick question um so will there be modifications made to the oh sorry matt um counselor matsen um yeah will there be modifications to the draft plan based on the feedback from the open house through the chair uh thanks counselor for the question um uh the plan is to review the feedback uh with staff look at uh some of the key themes uh from the open house uh and see uh if there's any sort of recurring or substantive concerns uh that we will look at together and then uh uh decide if we're gonna make changes, actual amendments to some of the recommendations.
But at a high level, at this point, we're not intending to make large changes to the plan because we've uh engaged the community throughout the process.
And the whole point of the second online survey that we did in the fall was to present those preliminary recommendations to the community.
Uh so uh there might be some minor tweaks, uh, but that's gonna be a conversation that we have with staff to figure out how we proceed with that.
Right.
And and so for some reason I had it in my head that this was coming back next at for council, but that can't be the timing.
So we'll take a look again, but at the end of the day, that the goal was to bring it to council next week with a preface document put uh on the front side.
And the idea is because a lot of the comments that I've heard today and in the comments we received in the last week are very, very much detailed design based.
So the point of the exercise is to put a document in front of the active transportation network plan that says these are the things that um that council has mentioned that we should look at at the detail design.
Um in that way the comments that we receive from yourselves today as well as through the last week through the exercise, um, they're considered for future projects.
Okay, thank you.
Okay, my turn.
So um I hear at the end of reading the staff's report, we've got an extension to May 31st.
And if I understand things correctly from staff, in order to get our money from the province, we have to adopt a plan.
Is that correct?
Uh looking at the doc at the actual agreement is to have a final active transportation network plan.
So that would typically mean that there's an agreement in principle from council.
And that can be achieved by the idea of having a document in front of the active transportation network plan that would inform us on how to move forward when we go into the detailed design.
So I'm I'm worried about um I'm still not clear about the the deadline.
You know, the May 31st deadline, is that is that it we've got to adopt a plan that we don't like?
Uh like.
Like I said before, a final active transportation network plan needs to be submitted to them to get the grant.
Boy, we got a problem.
Okay.
That's that's gonna take some discussion.
You know, uh can staff give us information about uh okay yeah just second Ron.
How much of this um uh are we getting uh what what's the grant value?
I don't know as a fact then do you know it's 50% over yeah it was 50% of the total cost of the consultant which was is between 50 to 70 thousand dollars around there.
I think it's max 50,000.
Okay.
Anyway I've if I hear that we're just going to get minor tweaks and and well yeah we'll have to see.
Okay Ron, what would you like?
Well I just wanted to point out to express my appreciation to those who uh did the report and to acknowledge that uh not all of counsel is negative on this report and uh i think it has a lot of good things there's certainly things we can tweak and as staff pointed out it's a a living document that can be modified and I just think some of the negative comments I heard this evening were uh totally unwarranted great Ron we'll have a talk you haven't read it okay we have a motion to receive that's not worth a comment John so motion to receive all those in favor now who's the seconder you second okay great all the we've got a mover and a seconder all those in favor against carried yes we also have correspondence um uh from the view well climate coalition they've given some feedback on the octave transportation plan i hope you've read it and um can we get a motion to receive that i'll i'll move that seconder we've already moved receipt for that so we can do it again.
That was another one.
I thought it was another one.
No, it was the same one.
We can move move.
I'd like to do it twice.
Okay.
All in his favorite against carried and now i'll hand it back to the chair.
Mayor twice thank you, Council.
Uh so I think we've we could do it three times to uh move receipt to correspondence on the blue sheet, but I think twice as sufficient.
Um question period.
Is there anybody here that would like to ask a question of counsel?
Nobody here, Carl?
Anyone on the phone that would like to ask a question of counsel?
Mayor Tobias, we've had no calls or callers this evening.
Slow night.
What do you attribute it to, Carl?
You may be right about the hockey game.
Uh it might be uh people were gardening all day and are tired.
Okay.
Well, I thought it was because it's 1:30.
Travel safely, Counselor Matson.
All in favor.
Can I get a motion to terminate, please?
Thank you very much.