Committee of the Whole

So good evening, everyone.

I'm going to call the committee of the whole meeting to order.

And we recognize the Lakwangan speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This meeting is being held under the auspices of Ministerial Order M192 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

So there will be public participation this evening and question period for those who who wish to.

The instructions are on your screen for dialing in.

You can see the number there and the conference ID that you need to enter.

And at the appropriate time in the agenda, I will ask, announce the last four digits of your phone number and then give you the instructions on how to speak to us.

And we just need your name and address to start.

The chat feature is also open.

And again, we would like your name and address.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

Thank you.

And then we just need a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Second.

All in favor.

Staff that there's no callers on the line or on the chat feature.

You are correct, your worship.

There are no callers.

Okay, thank you.

And no one on the chat feature.

There are no chat comments this evening, Mayor Screech.

Okay.

Thanks very much.

And so I will turn it over to staff.

Thank you, Your Worship.

Damon Christenson, Director of Finance here.

Welcome to budget, day two.

I know that uh we're not quite halfway through, and I really appreciate council's patience and all of the hard work of staff as well that that takes us to this point in the budget cycle.

Just before we get started, and I don't have a presentation tonight, I just have just a few brief comments.

First, firstly, your worship, I just wanted to make sure that you uh knew that we have noted your question of yesterday, but we don't have a response prepared for you tonight.

Fortunately, we have another session scheduled for tomorrow night, and we plan to give you a little bit of a briefing on the breakdown that you were wanting for the 2.2% discussed.

Okay.

So we'll we'll look forward to that tomorrow and we'll make sure that we uh hopefully answer all of your your question about that then.

So tonight what we're gonna do is we're gonna kind of pick up where we left off on our non core items.

I just wanted to uh make sure that we're all going to uh be on the same page and we know where things uh where things are at.

We're going through the non core requests.

The non core listing is in your tab two of your budget binder.

And the project summaries that are referenced there by the project summary number are found in tab five in alphanumeric order.

What I'm going to do is I am going to share my screen.

And I encourage you, if if you wish, to uh look at what is on the screen because that will help you, I hope, um kind of um uh keep up with exactly what item is being discussed at the moment.

For example, you'll see the full-time firefighter staff increase, which will be the first item under discussion because we're starting with protective services.

We concluded with general government services yesterday.

And you'll see the reference number here, N85.

Um if on the screen also is the financial information pertaining to this project summary.

On the bottom section is the proposed uh costs, expenses on in each of the years of the five-year plan that this project summary proposes to spend money in, and also where the funding is coming from on the right side.

So I I know it's a lot of information and perhaps it's better seen on the screen to your left against the wall as opposed to the one on the back.

I've tried to make it as big as I can.

Um, but you know, so so if if uh that works for you, that's great.

Otherwise, this is exactly the same information that is in your booklet.

So with that being said, that's all the comments that I have.

If there are any other questions that you want us to to deal with before we get into non core or at least to make note of before we get started, I'm happy to take those now.

Okay, I think everyone's good.

So we'll just start right with um N085.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Um, so turn to tab two and we'll just go through the non-core requests in detail for protective services.

Uh this year, um, Protective Services has a total of six requests, four of which are grant funded, two are from taxation.

We'll go through each one in detail and more than happy to answer any questions.

I'll give a brief explanation of each one, kind of a reader's digest version.

And then if you've got any questions, please feel free to ask.

Starting out with uh N085, full-time firefighter staff increase.

This is a request for a full-time staff member for a September or October start date in 2021 for a total of $35,725.

The fire department hasn't realized any staffing increases since 2009 in a full-time capacity.

This particular FTE request was put off and deferred in uh 18 as well as 19 and 2020 for a myriad of reasons.

It's come to the point now where it's it's critical that I actually fill this position as part of not only succession planning for the fire department to supplement the emergency program, but also it ties in with our our volunteer staffing model, and that's down further in the uh in the requests.

Um the September start realizes um a bit of a savings for the year and then of course in 2022 we would realize the full funding and that's 102620 and that's wages benefits and all associated costs whether it be uniforms training whatnot for that particular staff member and they'd be on a four step process starting at the lowest wage at step four and working the way up over the course of four years I'll open it up to questions on that particular one and then I guess we can move on if if you like thanks counselor that man yeah, Paul.

Um I'm looking at the um the salary, it's it appears to be the same from year one to year five.

Is that plausible?

No, that's uh that's a good question.

Um inherently the steps are there's about a 10% separation increase in each year between their steps.

So they started I believe it's 70 percent of the first class rate.

Uh 80, 90, and 100 percent.

So those those numbers for year two, three, and four are incorrect.

Okay, and and for year one and two, they are correct.

Year one is correct, year two is correct.

Yeah, my apologies.

Yours three, four, and five aren't correct, and I'll get those numbers for you.

Thank you.

Councillor Matson.

Okay, Ryan, let's do it.

As our good friend Joe would say, Come on, man.

Um so why what's different?

Uh what didn't happen last year because this position, or the last few years because this position wasn't available.

And what happens if it stays, if it's pushed off for another two or three years until we have sufficient funds?

I think my challenge is now is I mean, obviously, the town in demographics building stock call volume since 2009 has changed significantly.

When I previous to my request, I had uh the building official and the bylaw officer were also working at City Hall, they were volunteer firefighters.

They were offsetting the full-time compliment, so they were working weekend shifts and they were backfilling for overtime when paid staff were off.

Those two individuals are no longer with the organization.

So that's left that's left a pretty significant gap in our daytime response and our daytime operations, in that Gary and Enzo used to respond.

One would work with Troy, and now those two positions are gone.

Keeping our commitment to our neighbors, um, both Langford and Colwood have had significant, or Callwood will have an increase this year and next year.

Langford, of course, there's a significant increase in their staffing.

And I think comparatively, uh, this will put us at seven staff members.

Uh Callwood would be at nine, and then Langford would be at 17.

And I think in a comparison wise, based on population and budgets, we're we're actually fulfilling our commitment.

Having seven staff members actually works perfectly for us from a staffing perspective, and I'll explain that in the other slide with the volunteer restructure in that each paid member uh would work one night shift per week to supervise the volunteer staff.

I have six paid staff.

I'm included in that rotation, so I would work a night shift as would Heath, Troy, Rob, or sorry, Heath, Troy, Jeff, Joe, and then the other full-time person.

So you'd have one full-time person working every night shift with supplementing with the three volunteers, and then those seven paid staff work uh essentially straight days, seven days a week.

So it's a shifting pattern where they their pattern starts at six in the morning and ends at six in the evening, but they're staggered throughout the day for different start dates based on the call volumes we have during the day.

So I mean, I've without I guess in essence, I mean, approving a full-time firefighter position for us, you get that full-time position immediately.

I'm not asking you to fund something in anticipation a year from now, two years from now, where you don't get that position.

Um, you know, I deferred it in 18 and 19.

Um, and I can't uh there were probably a myriad of reasons.

Um, there's either other staffing requests, police wanted uh staff member, there were other priorities, so I bumped that back.

And I've got to the point now where if I want to take the department to the next level, having that vacancy or not having enough staff, we're starting to fall short in some of our operations during the day.

So what happens if we delay it?

If I want if I want to maintain if I want to maintain a four-person response during the uh the day or the evening, I would I would fill I'd still fill that position, but it would be with overtime.

I'd I have to bring someone in and cover it with overtime or out of a different account.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to get a building, hire a building inspector who wants to be a volunteer fireman and take that do the same work that was done before?

That's funny.

You said we could talk about building inspectors and how difficult that is to find right now.

That's a challenge.

I don't necessarily have any questions.

Yeah.

Counselor Kowalovich.

I've had a pretty detailed look at both uh N85 and then how it correlates with this volunteer staffing restructure plan.

I feel comfortable with the proposal.

I don't know if we're at the discussion stage with colleagues yet, but if anyone has questions, we can take a turn.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes.

Thanks, Paul.

Uh I think it's um it's justified.

It's been 10 years uh since um we had uh a last increase and and particularly with the challenges of residation and bylaw and and building officer.

The um you know, and and I guess it just really helps to um ensure a composite for our department.

Uh there is an insurance policy to that.

Um I am wondering though, and I don't know if you're gonna be able to or or um others, but on our page fourteen, uh, which was the tax increment commote in increase components.

I'm not quite sure where that would fit.

I believe I believe and and perhaps uh our director flexible.

It's in the point eight.

Oh, okay.

Right.

It's in the point eight.

So is it the point eight, mayor, or is it the point?

Is it so is the fire personnel restructuring?

Is that is that it?

No, uh I think is the I don't I don't have that page right in front of me.

Um but I think it's in the non core request, right?

Oh, that's just the point eight is yeah.

Okay.

The point five is the assistant chiefs.

Right.

Okay.

Good.

All right.

Thanks for the clarification.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

I I'm also good with, I mean, you know, I think in the last three months we have approved, I mean, I had a guess I would say about 650 units.

Um, so I mean, you know, it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to be hiring one more firefighter.

It's not a bad deal compared compared to my neighbor's expenses.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So I mean, I'm I I share counselor Mattson's um apprehension about the having to fund it this year, but I I I certainly support the position.

So I'm seeing four nods of heads and a and a frown.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So then we'll move on to C059.

C059 is EOC equipment and supplies.

That's submitted by uh Troy Mullin, our emergency program officer.

That is a um a grant, provincial grant funded initiative.

And uh so that's too um that's to acquire uh supplies for the EOC team, which is uh commercial radio installations, some laptops, training, education, checklists, food, betting, and that's Troy's standard annual uh UBCM grant applications.

That's a 100% uh funded uh from grant.

Okay, I just wanted to point out that I am in support of that one.

Okay, so I'm sorry.

Moving down to ESS Equipment and Supplies, that's C046.

Right.

Again, that is another that is the emergency social services team or support services team, and that is um for betting and cots uh for the community, and that's part of an initiative that we're working with Colwood and Lankford on a mass evacuation and betting plans that's uh a 100 funded from grant uh from ubcm as well local government uh grants that uh troy has put the application in for and i understand he's been giving the thumbs up for that just a question yeah go ahead thanks um i i see that on on whatever this page 31 it shows the cost is uh 1500 but on uh c 46 that it says 2500 yeah by 25 000 so it's 15 i know there's uh 1500, which is the operational, but shouldn't we be still showing um the full amount?

25 000 and the on a portion under the grant column.

If I may answer that, uh your worship.

Um there are a few, uh just a very select few uh project summaries that have implications for both um operational budgets and capital budgets.

And this one and the one just prior has that as well, and that's why it has a C number instead of an N number.

So it's a split, but instead of giving you two pages to look at for the same thing, we put it all on one page, but then split the numbers between tab two and tab three, which is your capital budget.

So you will see this item again and the and the balance of of it on the capital budget sheet.

Thank you.

So then the next one is N054, which the next council can decide if they want to add an RCMP officer in 2023.

So then we're at N076, which is the community wildfire.

That again is a 100% UBCM funded grant.

That is for that is to update our FireSmart plan.

Our last plan was done in 2007 by Black Bowl Associates in conjunction with the CRD.

This will be uh another plan that just updates the O7 recognizing the development now on the Thetis boundary.

And that's uh 100% grant funded as well.

Okay, Councilor Mattson.

So is that do you hire a contractor to do that?

How's the 20,000 come into place?

That that is that's a contractor out of Vancouver Blackwell Associates or whoever when we put out the RFP.

That's who we had last time.

Um it's a pretty it's it's done by a registered forester, and they they do all kinds of assessments from fuel loading to setbacks, applying the fire smart principles, and then that guides our development in those regions.

So when a developer puts in an application, we refer them to that study, and then they have to build accordingly when they build up against the interface.

So okay, I think everyone's good with that.

So then we're on to N072.

Again, from my emergency program officer, another 100% grant funded through UBCM.

That is um N72.

And this is an update of the town's emergency response plan.

Um obviously to approve efficiencies in emergency management and then align our plan with new provincial standards.

So again, this is just an update to our existing plan, and that would be contracted out, and that's uh grant funded as well.

Seeing all nodding heads with that.

So N 069 is for next year, the energy audit for municipal buildings.

John?

Um, I see uh two numbers here 150 and 130.

Sorry, on on the chart.

Sorry, counselor, where are you?

Sorry, sorry.

Um when I see 15,000 on on this page 31, but on on the N or whatever it is, uh it shows 30.

Oh, for the energy audit?

Yeah, it's my understanding that that is split into two separate POS statements.

One is for the municipal hall, one is for the public safety building.

So there is a there is a second POS statement.

It's a and our director of probably correct I'm incorrect.

Is that correct, Don?

Uh uh very, very close.

Um, it is one uh project summary in 69, but it's split between two buckets.

We considered this last night when we were talking about general government services, because the other building that would be the subject of this audit would be town hall, so it's split between the cost centers of town hall and the public safety building at $15,000 each.

Okay.

Why would we?

I mean, not that we want to discuss this now because it next year, but I mean the fire hall is a relatively new building.

Why would we do an energy audit on an almost brand new building?

That's a really good question.

So I guess we can we can we can talk about that more that way before it comes to it.

Yeah, yeah.

I was gonna ask about this building.

I mean, when you think about $15,000, that's a lot.

Well, well in this new building, I can understand a little bit more, but yeah, so we can put solar panels on the roof.

But I mean, what would you do?

I mean, I guess that's for next year, but we're doing an audit on something, and I just can't see us spending 15,000 and coming up with solutions that are gonna ever save us fifteen thousand dollars.

No, I I don't disagree.

Okay, well, we'll save that debate for later on for next year.

I can hardly wait.

So next we have N075, the energy step code implementation.

That's for next year as well.

So next call is N086, which is the fire services volunteer staffing restructure.

Okay, so in E6, probably probably one of the most significant shifts in response logic for our fire department since its inception 75 years ago.

What we've essentially done is is we've been watching for the last you know three to five years the whole notion of volunteer retention, response, how we're able to respond in a timely manner, how we get people from home to the fire station, traffic patterns.

We've taken this all into consideration.

One of the challenges we we're having is volunteerism across the board is down.

Um challenges associated with residing in the town, basement suites.

Uh homes are expensive.

Um for instance, some of the homes just across some of the new homes across from the fire hall uh are in the 1.2 million dollar range.

So the main demographic for our station right now is in the is in the 19 to 32 range, very young, either early family or single.

So affordability is is tough for them.

What we needed to do is we I I've tried to figure out how do I provide effective cost effective fire protection and meet my BC building code requirements for a 10-minute response 90% of the time with volunteers coming from home, getting into the trucks and wearing the fire.

And it at nighttime it's impossible.

We can't achieve those numbers simply because there's opportunities where they can't get to the station in a timely fashion, or there's delays built into it.

During the day, we're meeting those was the targets 100% all the time.

Our average response time during the day is anywhere from from alarms ringing to arrival on doorstep between four and six minutes.

At night, it's significantly higher.

So two years ago, we talked to the volunteers about when we moved into the new building.

We we put two members in the building at night, and they were going to do the routine calls, the medical calls, all that, the nuisance type calls that wake up all the volunteers.

We set in motion a plan that said, okay, in 2021, what we want to do is increase that to four.

By having four, we can now have four people on a fire truck, they can run that fire truck and they can respond immediately to a fire call.

What we did is we looked at all the accounts that we're using right now to compensate the volunteers, and that's their service pay, grants to association, stipends, duty officer pay, their night shift premiums.

We combined all those accounts into one account and said to the volunteers, okay, listen, being on call for 30 nights and 30 days a month is obviously becoming too onerous for the staff and the volunteers.

What can we do to one lessen that burden and two still deliver a cost effective model?

And in talking with the membership, we came up with a plan that said, listen, if I offer you, if I give you four night shifts a month, where you come and you sleep in the building for four nights a month, that's your commitment now, not dissimilar to an auxiliary constable.

So, what I can do now is instead of you having to reside in View Royal, I can take a third of the department, a quarter of the department, a half of the department, and I can pick from anywhere in Greater Victoria.

And I can say, You're trained, you've got your 1001, you live in Oak Bay, good.

You can come be a firefighter in View Royal.

You give me four night shifts a month, and that's your commitment.

The volunteers will be required to drill every night, they're working night shifts.

They're working, they're actually working in the station cleaning, station routines, repairing equipment, and they're responding on calls.

Langford started a similar process about three years ago with great success, and about three months ago, they launched the I'll take you from anywhere program, and they were flooded with applications.

And in talking with Chief Aubrey at Langford, I believe they they took on 10 members from outside of the Langford area, not in View Royal or Callwood, they from all over Greater Victoria.

Of those 10 members, eight of them were on the trucks next the next week.

They were qualified, they were ready to go.

So having having the volunteers in the building for the four nights is really no different than them giving up four Thursday nights.

They're actually working two shifts in addition to that.

So this is actually a less commitment for them, and they're able to manage their lives better.

So we would have three volunteers in the building at night, and then one career member uh has offered to work one night shift a week, and that's not on overtime.

There's nothing attached to that, it's just the stipend to supervise, and that puts four people in the building.

That coupled with Langford's four to six in the building.

Callwood's just moved to a model where they've started with two people in the building.

We have an effective response of three engines immediately to fires in V Royal.

We would only then page out the volunteers for large fires in V Royal, second alarms in V Royal, or complex rescues.

And this gives people they can set a schedule, they can say, I'm working on this night, this night, and this night.

I have a life, I can live my life.

By combining the accounts, we're able to fund the program entirely.

I just need $14,000 to make this work.

The association gave up $10,000 of their grant this year, and they'll give up 20,000 next year.

So they'll reduce that.

The service pay program goes away.

So we're effectively paying people for the work they do.

They get a four hour compensation for 12 hours of work.

And we we've run this by the association, they're keen.

The station is set up for it.

We've been doing this now.

We did this from March to July, and we've been doing this now since December 20th to today with the COVID, having four people in the building and no one else.

And it's been very effective.

And we're finding out probably over 90% of the issues that we respond to can be handled by four people without calling in 30 people.

So what you're essentially ending up with is a full-time response 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 for an additional $14,000 to the volunteer pool.

The program itself costs $209,000.

I'm $14,000 short.

And that is a I believe I had written down here a point something increase in the um in the in the budget.

In my budget, point uh 0.15% increase to my operational budget to fund this.

Compared to our neighbors at four and a half million and hundreds and millions beside us, this is an incredibly effective and cost efficient model, and and the and the volunteers are on board with it okay thank you Paul Councillor Lemmon um totally on board with this Paul um just a question regarding the the volunteers themselves if they come from anywhere um do they only need to can they expect to only be volunteering in V Royal for four nights or do they need to be you know wherever they live and available on additional nights as well perhaps.

So what we did is is we concluded we can't have the entire department living outside the district.

So we would come up with a number, say eight members or ten members are allowed to live outside the district, and two thirds live in the district.

For instance, we have a member right now that lives in Shawan Lake, and he does as his commitment six night shifts a month.

Okay.

So he shows up, does his shifts, and that's his commitment.

That's great.

And that's working well.

All right.

Thank you.

Um on the revenue side of things, just did you have any like with the Songies contract, for example, with their new buildings?

Is there any offsetting revenue increases to help with any of these?

Or there will be there will be a slight increase because of the uh it was the apartment blocks on Craig Flower.

There are some townhouses and some commercial on the Esquamalt Nation.

Um I can't get into the other details, but we are going to be um into a contract with the city of Calwood for emergency management services, a three-year contract, and that's an additional $26,000 a year as revenue sale of service.

And for the first time since we've moved in all four apartments are occupied and paying rent and that's just shy of $40,000 a year.

So I'm managing to set off on set offset most most of that expense with with just the additional revenue from Call with the Songhees and the rental of the apartments.

But but this is on the tax roll though.

That's why I'm asking right yes so so your new revenue you have factored in already into these numbers?

I haven't I haven't done that the 14 000 no I haven't calculated what my what my increase in assessment is going to be from from song he's or a squamalt okay so i guess for dawn that might be an interesting because presumably those new buildings and song he should result in in an increase in revenue on the on the fire service side anyhow maybe we can leave that with staff to to look at but i'm i'm certainly uh supportive of of the of the 14 000 and and i think it's great to see some innovative ways to um to keep the fire hall running as a composite hall.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, this is a model, I think this from a from a longevity point of view, this is probably uh this is a seven to ten year run at that at this at this program where we're able to maintain a status quo for several years to come and not change the model.

Counselor Matson.

I agree, good job on so I won't anyways.

Thank you.

Accolades there.

Uh curiosity, whatever happened to the ambulance service.

They backed out.

They they decided to go in a different direction, which is unfortunate.

That would have been a significant revenue stream.

I would have been asking for probably four or five FDEs, Councillor.

Counselor Kowalovich.

Yeah, I just want to congratulate you on the visioning for this, and obviously, you put a lot of work into this plan, and it's very thoughtful and thorough, and um we're all hopeful that this model will be sustainable for years to come.

We know that there's challenges ahead.

But certainly this sets a great framework that uh hopefully will stay in place for as long as possible.

So thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Good.

Thank you, Paul.

So Nate, sorry.

I was just gonna so so maybe staff could just follow up on the because the the full-time firefighter staff increase in this is 50,000, so it's over a half a percent on taxation.

So if there is offsetting revenue, it would be um it would be good to know during the process.

Okay, okay.

Sorry, Paul, what were you gonna say?

No, I just uh I just wanted to see if there was anything I've got yeah, I've got N71 couple minutes is next year.

Uh N83 is um Ms.

So I don't think we'll worry about that.

Christensen's uh this is secondary suites on online renewal program.

I I have a question for that, unless Director Christensen's gonna speak to it.

So are we so we're okay, so yeah, so let's go.

So you're done, I think.

Paul.

So I can just make a comment.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um, Paul, you know, great way of uh establishing predictability, and I think um and congratulations should also be um extended to the association for their commitment and participation.

Absolutely.

It's it's a huge commitment on their part, and it's definitely recognized.

So I appreciate that.

I'll pass that on for sure.

Good.

Good.

Proto, thank you.

That's all I've got for you.

That's all.

So the hazard risk vulnerability assessment is for 2022.

2022.

And so now we're on to N 083, which is the secondary suites online renewal.

Council Qualovich.

I just had a question, uh, whoever, I'm not sure who's gonna answer it, but probably Don.

Okay.

So I'm seeing it's a $5,000 ask, and I know we talked about this probably like the last couple of years.

Um, and I think it makes sense to do it eventually.

But I'm just wondering where does the hundred dollars go that each constituent pays for their secondary suite?

Um this is five thousand dollars to to do that.

I'm just wondering, does that just go in general revenue, the hundred dollars?

Uh yes, that would that would be in our licenses revenue, uh our uh licenses and permits revenue, yes.

Okay and how many sorry how many ballpark, how many secondary suites are in V Row that are paying that hundred dollar fee done?

Well, I can tell you that um our total budget for secondary suite revenue in twenty twenty one is forty one thousand eight hundred and we met um our revenue in 2020 was was just j barely under that.

So um you know that that kind of gives you an idea.

Maybe around four hundred ish.

Yeah, okay.

Go ahead.

Okay.

I had a question about this too.

It's yeah, I guess we to Don.

So are is for these types of initiatives that people can uh submit claims or register online.

Are we actually saving any time and energy for staff?

Yes, I can I can certainly attempt to answer that question.

Um the the part of the process that this um you know, that we're uh able to do with this is yes, people um, as I understand it, the plan is that we're going to have them be able to download a PDF form, fill it in, and turn it in.

But then, of course, after that, there is an approval process, which I'm sure Paul and his crew will know better than I do.

Where the efficiencies come in, and specifically, you will notice that this project budget has been reduced from 25,000 to 5,000, and that's because we're going to we plan to leverage the experience that we um had with our business license online renewal program and use that same system to do the same thing for secondary suites.

So it's a little bit more about giving people the ability to pay by credit card online, and yes, there are some uh time savings because when people use their credit card to pay online, those transactions are downloaded electronically into our financial system instead of having a person deal with them at the counter uh and and manually enter the the information in so so there is a you know the volume isn't isn't huge so I wouldn't say you know you can even say that there's a lot of money to take to the bank in savings and and uh it m I I think the way that I think of it is that um it is an increase in productivity because now people aren't uh spending their time doing busy work we're downloading the transactions electronically and then they can get on with uh perhaps more important or useful um tra um you know activities.

Thank you.

Counselor Rogers yeah thanks it makes sense and it's nice to see that the costs reduce from 25 to 5,000.

You know the um when we had secondary suites we were thinking that uh uh it would be user pay and and the fees would uh cover the cost related to secondary suites but I think we're the the 40,000 whatever there's also the cost of the ongoing inspections so I imagine that that um is is another cost factor that um uh that we're we're trying to compensate for um so yeah I'm fine with this you're suggesting we should increase the costs I wonder we we could increase the secondary suite fee, and um it would offset tax increase.

Probably wouldn't go over too well, though.

But think of this so okay.

So I think everyone's good with that.

So wildfire fuel management plan is not until 2023, and then protective services housing feasibility study is not until 2022.

And then um, Kim, sorry.

Should we be talking about that that study in 2022?

I just heard the fire chief say that you know the volunteer firefighters can come from whatever in Greater Victoria.

Uh so is housing really a significant issue for volunteer firefighters in our community.

Plus, we have three suites at the new Right, Erskin Lane.

Well, we haven't decided what we're gonna do with those, but potentially.

Yeah, potentially.

Yeah.

But I'm presuming that, yeah.

So, Paul, did you want to speak to this?

Uh this N61.

Are you prepared to speak to that?

Or I'm not prepared, but I can I can echo the CAO's sort of observation on the potential savings there.

We have four apartments at the station.

We have potential uh at possibly another development, and we're opening up the opportunity for people to volunteer who live outside of the district.

This initiative might might solve that problem and save some money.

I so we'll have a year to figure out if it got yeah.

Yeah, I I think I think given the year, see how this looks with my retention and and my attraction over the next year.

And we can have this discussion next year.

We could have at Erskine Lane, right?

And decide how and if we're going to deal with that.

Yeah.

So okay.

Great.

So we'll leave this one then for next year discussion.

So that's it for protective services.

Thank you.

So thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

You might be able to get home in time for the Connects game.

Is that it for today?

This is the game.

Yeah.

So moving on to transportation services, we've got the first two items are 2022, the active transportation plan and the urban forest strategy.

So the question was you're I'm hoping that we'd be able to move the active transportation plan to 5,000 into this year.

Why?

It's DCCs.

And um you know it it is important.

This is all about um you know the how residents move around and identifying the efficiencies and and I think it's um you know I know that we would we're looking at completing the OCP prior to, but I I think um there's a lot of uh good work that can occur with uh the five thousand five thousand dollars, the start of it, and um we can do the two concurrently.

So, staff, are you able to comment on that on workloads and timing and what impacts that might have?

Thank you, your worship.

My concern wouldn't be um I can't speak to the workload point of view because it basically would be out by a consultant.

So I think workload would be fine.

My bigger issue would be that I I really think that the philosophies that'll be developed with significant public uh input on the OCP would really help to um provide vital information to an active transportation plan that otherwise we'd basically repeat the processes, the the information gathering we'd have to do um for an active transportation plan that didn't have an OCP that was completed would be significantly different than one that had an OCP that was already flavored with um philosophies behind active transportation assuming that our OCP would show that and I'm sure it would we wouldn't have to spend as much time with public engagement which obviously would save us some significant dollars in the active transportation plan and would also provide us with a little more accuracy with regards to results.

So it's not that we couldn't do it concurrently I'd just be nervous about whether we get accurate results and whether we get value for the dollar spent.

Okay, thank you, John.

Thanks.

Councillor Matson this is just a question more generally to us.

Like one of the complaints I've heard from our advisory committees is we don't give them anything to do.

And I've noticed that through here there's all sorts of studies.

And I'm just wondering how we can actually, if it's possible for us to use our advisory committees, ask them if they're interested in actually doing some work.

I know a number of them spend a lot of time sort of reviewing and researching things, and um maybe they could actually be of some assistance to us.

Well, I'm I'm sure they could be, but whether or not they have the qualifications to develop a plan like this, I think is possibly another thing.

But I'm sure they would be part of developing the plan.

But I think the bigger question right now is whether there's support to move this up a year, or as staff is saying, which I understand what staff is saying, leave it so that it it sort of comes out of the OCP.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, thanks.

Um, you know, one of the things that uh I remember the last time with the 2011 OCP, um, we held that off so that we could create a um, and one of the first things we we had as as the um as the cornerstone was a transportation master plan.

We got that done, and then we did the OCP.

Um, and so there was, you know, that that was if you like the the foundation for for the OCP.

And and um, but I think you know, the these the the major benefits that uh staff have pointed out are um you know reduction of pollution GHCs and all those really important things that um uh that will do you know that kind of coincides with um uh the climate action plan so it's um you know if we're if we're gonna be putting a grant forward for the climate action um and I would suggest that this is um more a a link to that um and a follow through for uh and giving uh strength and information to the OCP but you could also argue then that we should see the climate action plan before we develop the act of transportation plan well concurrently yeah.

So I I'm fine with with leaving it as it is.

I'm seeing general nodding around the table.

That's right.

Okay.

Come on, you guys.

Let's put it to a vote.

Well, we've got four.

So on that urban forestry strategy for 2022.

Now, I mean, given our finances, is that something we're actually gonna want to do next year?

No.

I think it's a I think it's what a surprise, Ryan.

Um what is it?

It's casino.

But but again, given our our you know, the casino's dicey.

I know.

I mean, do do we want to just maybe bump that at least one more year down the road?

And yeah.

So okay.

So staff seeing general nodding, I think on that.

Yeah, somebody said like the urban forestry strategy.

I mean, if we're spending $10,000 a year to do boulevard trees, I mean, what more is the urban forestry strategy going to tell us?

I'm sorry, a lot of these things I just sound really nice, but what how much benefit are they to the community?

Well, I mean, I don't disagree, but I do think the forest strategy is actually probably a pretty important one.

And the, you know, when you think the amount of the tree cover that disappears in the CRD every five years is is pretty amazing.

So definite strategies of how we renew that.

However, the federal government is is planting something like 25 billion trees.

So we're hoping maybe we can we can cash in on those and we won't need to do it.

But at any rate, if we if we if we bump it to 2023, those discussions can happen then.

And and this could perhaps be a line item within the climate action.

Yes, I suspect it would something would fall out.

Yeah.

And we have time to have a look at what Sands has done.

So we're um we're we're moving the N 074 then to 2023, just as a placeholder.

And then the Storm Arm Road traffic calming, I suppose, was in here be because we had suggested we wanted to look at it again this year.

Your worship, I felt compelled because it was council initiative.

You would notice in the uh project summary that it says specifically in there, I believe um staff would recommend no additional traffic calming measures be installed.

So we could save 8,000 in casino funds by not installing that traffic circle or traffic humping.

I think at the end of the day, my issue always is that the existing traffic hump is you know closer than 100 meters to the traffic light.

So I I just don't know how fast you can get the you know, and I get that if you're standing there, they are going faster, so they're accelerating.

But we we put up the the speed reader uh traffic counter and and it didn't show excessive speeds.

And yeah, there was a handful of people that raced to the light to get through it before it turned red.

But again, this this would be not supported by staff, but by all means, if council wanted it installed, we could install it.

Okay, thank you.

Since the interchange has opened, I don't think we've had at least I certainly haven't had any any complaints.

I mean, I think the interchange has to some degree helped with the issues.

Well, COVID didn't hurt either.

Well COVID didn't hurt.

So so what is council's um choice here, Dave?

Do we want to go ahead and spend eight thousand dollars of casino revenue?

No.

Okay, so I've got one no, two no's.

The no from me.

Yeah, yeah, I'm wishy washy because this was actually my my um my ask on behalf of the residents of Stormont, but I will talk to them.

Okay, I I had a lot of complaints earlier, but I'm not sure.

Yeah, it hasn't it hasn't been any recent stuff.

Yeah, just there's a lot of mitigating factors that are happening lately that are uh making it, you know, clearly it's not an issue as as much as it was before.

And I think we can articulate that once COVID, you know, settles down and if things start to ramp up again, we'll uh we'll consider it again.

It's it's clearly being addressed by us as a council.

We take it seriously, but we also have to remain fluid and say, okay, it's not a problem right now.

And they haven't they haven't come back lately.

So you know, we have responsibility to be basically responsible too.

So um yeah, I I can't support it right now.

Thank you.

That's true.

Okay, so we're gonna remove that, John.

Thank you, your ship page.

Good luck.

So yeah, so N zero four zero is twenty twenty four, so we don't need to discuss that.

No.

N zero one six.

I'm I'm confused on this one because I thought we'd completed the funding for this.

It w the funding had been split over two years, your worship.

Hello, Lindsay Chase, Director of Development Services.

Okay.

Hello.

So this part this project is very close to concluding, and council will uh we'll we'll see some results shortly.

So it's already it's done.

We did last year we agreed to fund this over the two years.

Okay.

That is correct.

Um so why is it in year four?

So why is it in here?

Is this 210?

Well, because we we already approved it last year to to spread it over two years.

It's the commercial precinct plans.

So we have initiated it.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, no, as as Lindsay said, I think I think she actually has a a draft report.

Um, and and it's close to coming forward.

Because then I'm confused.

So we need the 55,000 for this year, but the report's already finished.

Yeah, well, we're already into this year.

I mean, I don't think the report is actually finished, but when we approved it, we approved 55,000 for last year and 55,000 for this year.

Correct.

Just read the funding over two years.

So do we actually have a contract for 110,000?

We've already signed it.

Yeah.

Yes.

I think we can save the articles in.

No, it it's done.

Yeah.

So yeah, if we got a contract, we got a contract.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we're seeing nodding of heads for N 016.

So N084 is the climate action plan.

Which is grant dependent, right?

That's the way we've got it at the moment.

Yes, FCM.

Yeah.

I guess the question will be hopefully FCM will fund it.

Gas tax grants reduced to us as well.

Right.

So will staff come back to us?

Wait, what is the consequence of leaving this in now as it is?

If we don't get the grant, staff would come back and ask if we wanted to fund it an alternative way.

Yeah.

Anybody?

I think you muted, Lindsay.

Oh, that's very strange.

Um, this is one of your significant your significant strategic plan items, which is why it's in this year's budget.

Okay, let's move it out.

So if we aren't successful in the grant, then it what do you are you proposing that it would just automatically then switch to gas tax funding?

If council would like to um make the decision once we hear whether or not we are successful on the grant, I'm I can certainly bring this back to you at that time.

Okay, I think I think there's a level of of comfort with that.

Yeah, so and and gas tax uh is a good approach.

Yeah.

Okay.

So we're gonna leave that in and and you can keep us posted.

So I'm sure Councillor Matson would like to bump the next one up probably to this year.

Yeah I think so.

The community engagement strategy run.

That was a yes.

Look there's always plans.

I mean, can any of these things be done in house?

I mean, this is insane.

Well, I I don't disagree that at this point in time we don't need to worry about doing a community engagement strategy, but it's two years out.

Yeah.

You can't engage now.

Corporate energy and emissions 2024.

So let's just leave it where it is.

It's the next council.

So let's go to N012, which is the development of road ends design, which I think we had bumped from last year when we were trying to make some savings with COVID.

And we've bumped it's now in next.

Oh, right.

Yeah, it's 2022.

Yeah.

So the X three are all tentatively in for 2022.

Yeah.

You were sure.

Correct.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

So um, you know, I understand um, you know, the total amount of of uh parts science wayfinding, but you know, I'm just looking for a quick hit.

You know, we we still we had identified a um a pilot for for view all and portage, you know, pilot signage, which should only be five or ten thousand dollars.

You know, and so let's get the pilot and find out what these the park signage would look like and and uh and test that out with the community.

I I thought we had approved that for last year, the the idea of a test sign.

A design.

Mm-hmm.

We guessed that it go to design.

That's something was already made up, wasn't it?

Kim?

Seems to me COVID changed a lot of things, and this is one of them.

Was that?

I believe yes.

Okay, so what what response do you have to to Councilor Rogers for allowing a small amount to design and implement one or two test signs?

Yeah.

If if that is a council priority, we can certainly make that happen.

Okay.

Even if we allocate 5,000.

I I would say considering the amount of people that are now, you know, unable to leave the country, there's more walking, there's more people engaged in their community.

I think it's very appropriate.

Because they're so big they could wander for days and not find their way out.

So I mean, I have no idea of what's a reasonable amount to do a couple of test signs, but if we were to allocate ten thousand dollars, Lindsay, would would that be plenty?

I think I I think that it really depends on what kinds of materials we end up using um for for the signs.

So um if if you if you give us if you give us funding, we will make we will make it work.

Okay.

So why why don't we then uh do 10 for this year and 30 for next year?

Um and that gives you something to start with.

Councillor Lemmon?

Um could that 10 include a a professional graphic designer?

I'm sure it would.

I don't I don't know.

That's good.

That's good.

I just don't want it to be something staff has to do off the side of the case.

Yeah, no, no, I no, I'm sure it would be.

Why don't we ask Linda Carswell to her something?

Yeah, well anyhow, why don't we not design the sign right now but leave the money in the budget for the sign?

I'm sure staff following me.

Okay.

So then we're going.

We don't need to deal with any of those because they're so far out.

Um so we have the OCP review, which is already in the budget.

E worship.

Yeah.

Sorry, uh, if I may, on the petition connectivity master plan.

Yeah.

And 15.

You know, can we move that up to this budget year?

No.

I I would rather not.

I I I really don't, you know, I I'm not big on it's gas tax.

Yeah, I know, but gas tax is still funding that, you know, understanding.

John's under rule here.

Well, yeah, because it, you know, it is something that uh as uh staff have pointed out.

Uh we're just doing ad hoc uh planning for, and I'm uh not so much concerned about the trails, but certainly um you know the sidewalks having a five-year plan, sidewalk master plan, you know, I I think is is really important.

So this is uh you know, good planning strategies that uh should be invested in.

It doesn't seem your worship.

Well, sidewalks.

It does.

Oh, it does up at the top there, yeah.

John Rosenberg, would you like to speak to that?

Lindsay.

Yeah, both Lindsay and I have been working on this, uh, your worship, and um what we've come up with was we are going to work on this project, but we're gonna do it if you're ready for this, in-house with our GIS technician.

Um, we're gonna use our staff and the advisory committees to uh determine all all the linkages that they think are missing or all the linkages that they would like to see improved, put them all together, put them on a map, and we'll use that as a basis for an RFP that will actually go out that uh help us to determine a matrix that we'll use a professional for and also create a design uh in the following year uh based on that information that we collect this year.

We'll probably put something on the website as well with regards to the ability for people to uh uh have any uh comments they want as well and submit them by a certain date and then put all that information together, run that uh through a GIS map and then uh send that plan out and uh get a matrix together to try to determine and hopefully by then we can do public engagement as well.

So you're saying that it's already in your work plan to start that this year but you don't need funding until next year.

That's correct because we're doing it in-house with uh existing staff so the work is starting okay okay thank you that's great thank you John okay so OCP review obviously is is uh that's in the budget.

Well, I have a question on that one though.

Okay.

So in the survey they've asked council to fill out one of the questions was do we want a full-blown review or or or tweaks to the existing plan.

So depending on what we select, I'm assuming the cost will vary.

That is correct, yes.

And so I guess that's I'm wondering that is 120 reasonable if we decide that we don't have a bad plan and we only need tweaks.

Well, I mean, then we'll we won't spend it all.

So that'll be a good thing.

We won't have to spend anything.

So where's the 120 coming from?

Casino revenue again.

Yeah.

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Steph question.

Um, you know, we're still gonna have a hangover on the uh the COVID um restrictions of gatherings and so forth, I'm sure.

Um do you see uh that being an adverse impact and a difficulty in getting the public consultation that we were so successful with uh in 2011?

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

That's actually a question that I've been asking my colleagues in other municipalities.

Um and there are um at least two other municipalities, three actually municipalities that are undertaking OCP reviews right now, and all of them have indicated that online engagement has actually resulted in broader public participation in their OCP reviews than they've previously had um because it allows people to participate um at a time and location that's convenient for them.

Um and I think that that's that's one of the the democratizing aspects of of um shifting to to more virtual engagement good thank you i didn't realize that okay good news so we're gonna leave that placemaker in there for now and then yeah okay thank you thank you so the the next one n080 that was my thing and and i agree with staff that we should um put it a year so we can just take that out so we're gonna i sorry you've suggested that we just scratch 10 from it?

Yeah, scratch 2021 and we'll see what's happening.

Do you want to make 2022 20,000?

No.

No, no.

Your your worship, if if i may interrupt, it's Don Christianson here.

Uh for the for the first time um uh uh we have a project that is proposed to be funded from the money that is given cash in lieu of, and John can describe this uh you know how how we get how we earn this money, but we actually have a reserve that we have been contributing when people pay for cash in lieu of of planting a tree if they can't plant a tree uh for a tree permit.

So the the the idea that we had was that this program would be funded from that reserve.

This is N80 that you're saying?

Correct.

But I thought staff were also suggesting that it um staff are recommending delaying the program until 2022 when COVID 19 is being addressed.

So that's what I was picking up on and just taking it out for 2021.

Certainly, I just wanted you to be aware that this is a draw from the from a new source of funding that we have not used before.

Tree replacement reserve account.

So that's when when people can't plant replacement trees on their property?

I believe so.

That's correct.

No, well that's good to know.

Well, hopefully during this year, then maybe we can we can build up that fund.

Yeah, and the other thing we can do, your worship, uh, is look at uh putting together the policy and program this year, and again, then we can do that in-house.

Right.

Okay.

Um to staff, how how much do um what what is the fee for um non-planting a tree?

Uh the bylaw states that it's at the director's discretion between 100 and 150, and I've never picked a hundred.

Okay, good.

Thanks, and um when we come back, and and we are planning to come back with a uh uh amendment to the tree protection bylaw, that number will be significantly higher on a suggestion to staff to council because at 150 it's very difficult to plant a tree, water it, and maintain it for several years so it gets going.

So it's likely to be in the five to seven hundred dollar range.

Uh if council agrees with that amendment uh moving forward.

So that'll really entice people to plant them on their property where they take care of them as opposed to just giving us the 150.

We're certainly have too many instances where they they realize that by the time they buy the tree, put all the effort into planting it and then maintaining it for three years, they'd rather just give us the money.

How are those trees doing that border of View Royal Park?

That border view royal park on the McClennan Trail?

No, no, the uh there were some to protect a resident from the case.

Oh, they're all dead because of the residents.

Oh, they did not do well.

Um, and we're not sure if it's because of the soil condition, which was our original concern about planting them on our property, or whether she just did not take care of them herself.

We're we're not sure about uh she has not been um forthright with regards to communication, she was very disappointed in the outcome and reluctantly uh chose to plant them on her property.

But I'm not sure certain why they did not uh do well there.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

So uh how many trees does uh 10,000 buy plant?

Well, it certainly depends on the size of the tree and the location of the tree and the type of the tree.

So that that's hard to say.

The the trees that we we were planting in V Row Park were costing us uh around a thousand dollars, and then we had to plant them.

So they were about twenty five hundred, and then maintenance on top of that would probably put them in around thirty five hundred dollars a piece.

Uh the typical tree that somebody would plant uh in their yard, which would be a 50 mil caliber, 35 mil caliper, about five or six feet tall.

Um, by the time you do all of that work, you're probably in the three to four, maybe five hundred dollar range.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, so we're gonna leave that again.

I want to say how great it is to see the the number of spots around the town that staff have been finding on public property to put trees.

Um, and and that is great to see.

So we're bumping that then to 2022.

Um so next we have M064, which is the Helmican Centennial Park Master Plan.

So is there questions on that?

I wonder if we could uh move that to next year.

Yeah, that's important moving it to next year as well.

No.

Okay, if not further.

You're not gonna argue strenuously about that one.

So we're suggesting that the Halmakan Centennial plan be moved to next year, which will disappoint some pickleball enthusiasts.

But I tend to agree it makes sense.

They got West Shore.

It'd be easier just to build the pickle bar than do the study.

Yeah, they'd probably pay for the pickleball course.

Some of these studies sorry, but how can we pause that little park?

How can you spend 50 grand on a study?

Like, where do these numbers come up with?

We hired some consultant at an outrageous amount to talk to the community.

I mean, 50 grand for it for that's outrageous.

You could probably build half a dozen pickleball courts.

No, probably not.

But anyhow, we'll have that discussion next year.

So then if we're bumping that one, we should probably be bumping the little road one to 2023, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

So staff, do you catch that that we'll bump the the little road to 2023?

Yes, your worship.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so the West Shore Escape, that's N079, that's pretty straightforward and it's contingent on all the other funding being in place, which doesn't look too likely.

We've already approved that, didn't we?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So then okay, so that's non-core 2.1.

So we're just gonna carry on into 2.2, Don?

Well, 2.2 is the mate to 2.1 that just describes the funding.

So that would conclude our non-core discussion, and we could carry on with capital if you wish.

Oh, I didn't plan for capital.

Time to go.

What did we do with West Shore Parks?

That's all contingent on them giving other funding.

So we don't actually have to pay for it till the other funding.

So then they're ways off right now.

So what time do we want to go to tonight?

Do people feel not?

Yeah, I'm not asking you like for for you to say 7 15 counselor matts nine again 8 30 yeah so shall we shoot for sort of between 8 30 and 9 depending on where we're at okay so which which tab do you want us to go to Doug?

We would go to tab three.

So I do feel like we I mean obviously there's still a lot of discussions and questions around the tax increase and what we're gonna do and how we're gonna deal with it.

Um we haven't dropped a nickel no but we'll wait to get the answers to your questions or to my questions, I guess and and the fire service services revenue, and then obviously we're gonna have to have a a hard conversation about that.

Tomorrow.

Yeah, I suppose.

But we'll we'll start on capital.

Yes, that's great.

Thank you.

Is Paul still around for the protective services?

That portion?

So so sorry, we were doing tab three.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

You'll show up and just well, we can always skip Paul's, I suppose, right?

For tonight.

Call them back.

Yeah, okay, so we'll just start right at the top again at C 101.

Not that that's happening until 2023.

Okay, so then C038.

Does anyone have any questions, comments on that?

So you worship, I wonder when we are scheduled to get new iPads ourselves.

If if I may.

Yeah, go ahead.

So uh the replacement of council's iPads would be in uh C40, the uh IT workstation evergreening.

That project perhaps is a little bit um misnamed.

I've just inherited the name that was like that when I got here, I guess I could say.

Um but yes, every year we um we very carefully monitor all of our uh not only workstations but all of our peripherals and and council iPads would be uh some of the devices that we would schedule for replacement in due time.

Um it occurs to me that likely a an opportune time to replace council's iPads would be very shortly after, or is uh just uh in coordination with uh an election.

Can I take mine home?

I think we have a policy uh uh about that.

I I I'd have to refresh myself on the details, but certainly the disposal of used devices for something like that, I think is something that we should consider.

The CRD, they we all we get one at the beginning of our term and it's expected to last the four years.

And at the end of the four years, we have the option of turning it in or giving them $20 for it.

Right.

For what that's worth.

$20.

Yeah, I'm one that's a four-year-old iPad, right?

It's worth nothing.

Are you able to be are you guys able to do anything like print off of these?

No.

No.

No, no.

See, you know, so I always have to go to my other email when I'm really in or my other and you can't email it.

Well, you can get a Bluetooth printer, but I think somehow we're getting a little bit off topic.

But it's not a good one.

Okay, well.

At least I know when.

I'm only going to talk about options during C40 when it comes up.

Okay.

So C038.

Um does anyone have any questions on that?

I do.

Funding from casino revenue.

So my my question is what have we done in subsequent years or previous years?

Uh I can answer that, your worship, if if I know it looks like um you know it's just uh a random amount that's put in every year, but it but in reality, we look at the uh life expectancy, not the life expectancy, the warranty expiry of our servers.

And we um have a contract with a managed service provider for uh IT hardware that says they will not support especially servers, but also workstations that are beyond a warranty period, and that's that's for good reason.

Um you know, so we cannot have servers going down and and for us to be without without service on our on our computer network.

So this is a planned uh scheduled replacement of uh servers as they their warranty expires.

And and there isn't any in 2025 because there isn't a a server that is coming up for for a replacement in 2025.

We uh you know the IT strategic plan will always look at what we can do to uh reduce our network infrastructure such that perhaps at some point in time we have fewer servers.

That's always been a goal of the last strategic plan, um having you know, kind of freeing us a little bit from this constant um you know replacement of hardware.

But we're we're just not quite there yet.

Okay, thank you.

Council Allen.

So Don, would you actually say it's critical and not be more than strategic?

Perhaps uh should have put it in the at least required category, in that um if we don't do this, uh we uh definitely would be accepting a higher level of risk.

Thank you.

Okay, so I'm seeing general noddings on on that.

So moving on to C040.

This is our this includes council upgrades for iPads and I guess yeah, it's general workstations and but for 2022, I guess is what Don was saying, right?

That would be correct, yes.

Okay.

So if that if that's the case, I'm I'm not I don't need to spend any time on it.

The only thing I was gonna say was uh I would I would ask staff and council to consider you know being allotted a certain amount of money for their desired electronic device as opposed to just be given an iPad.

I mean there's a lot of us who I think you know I agree with council, I prefer a laptop.

Um I really would.

And certainly I can look at the agenda while I'm here on an iP on a laptop as opposed to an iPad.

Um, if that's something that IT can set up or it can be downloaded.

Uh I know it can be looked at on the internet, so certainly it can be looked at on a laptop.

I don't know how the in-camera stuff would work for sharing that data, but I'm sure it could be done.

Uh, considering the cost of a new iPad, which I know how expensive they are, uh, certainly a laptop wouldn't be another question for comparable pricing.

Just a just a thought for going forward.

I mean, it's all about you know making making people as comfortable as they can in the workplace, whether it be for staff or for council, right?

I'm looking forward to my $20 iPad.

Well, yeah, I mean, I suspect that I mean the the app and how staff loads agendas in and all those things to the app would be important.

But at any rate, I mean that can be discussed.

Don, on that 40,000, given that we're we're trying to be careful with casino revenue, what would be the implications if we said for this year that we're just going to put 20,000 in as opposed to 40?

Your worship, I would suggest that if you uh had a year that you were going to do that in this year would not be it.

We did defer some replacements last year because we had um mostly from a work point of view we had the uh you know council webcasting project to be working on we worked on that um as as well.

We had a transition with our managed service provider.

So, you know, the thing is about uh funding something from casino revenue, if we don't spend it, we don't draw it from the re from the reserve so so there is that.

I realize it's not money that could be allocated in the same year in the budget.

Um so so I would suggest that given enough advance um notice we could plan to try to reduce that.

But I do know I've already been in discussions with our managed service provider and and with our IT coordinator, and we kind of have plans for the full 40,000 this year, to my to my best best of my knowledge.

It's already spent.

It's not spent, but we have plans.

But but you think that possibly we didn't spend the full 40,000 last year.

Oh, I don't have that number off the top of my head, but um I I I believe we did not, and certainly of course that but money would not I can actually look it up here.

Um indeed we spent 39,975.

And that's on your MasterCard, eh?

Well, you can't get much closer than that.

So we do try.

So where everyone's good with leaving that there?

Okay.

So the next one is 2023.

Yeah.

And then the next one is the town hall lunchroom renovation, which was deferred from last year.

Question.

John.

You know, if we've got COVID, how in the world are you going to put 20 in a in the uh a lunchroom when uh Dr.

Henry would have an a uh a conniption.

Well, I mean at the moment that a lot of staff are using the committee room for their lunch because there's just not enough room.

Well I know, but it's it it is a uh a a COVID issue where I would certainly hope that 20 people or even 10 people aren't.

Yeah, no, I don't think they're suggesting that 20 people are gonna converge and eat at the same time.

They're just making the the observation that it it is a lunchroom for 20 employees.

Uh-huh.

Um and so there are times when there's part, it's also kind of a go-through, right?

As well as being a lunchroom, everybody walks through there.

So there's there's times when there's a lot of people.

Thank you, or show.

Staff, did you want to talk to this again?

April.

Uh yeah, uh the plan would be actually for six people to eat lunch in there.

But you're right, even during the uh COVID, it's not gonna happen.

But one of the the if you want to play a little Pollyanna here, one of the nice things is because people aren't eating lunch in there right now, it's gonna be a lot less disruptive to do it now.

The plan would be to start it later in the year and have it finished, and then hopefully by 2022, when it's actually done and completed, staff will be allowed to use it again as a lunchroom, and it won't be as disruptive as it would be if staff were trying to use it as an active lunchroom now.

And um it does prevent people like right now, they are using the meeting room beside your uh your office.

So it does make sense to do it this year if we can.

Counselor Manson.

Um, and it was deferred from last year.

You know, what seems to make more sense to me is we uh adjust those meeting rooms so that they could be individual lunchrooms because that you can get more people in there.

I mean, use the existing room just to to make your lunch, pull your stuff out of the fridge, and because you're we're not going to get a whole lot by doing that, by spending 50,000 on that room.

Whereas doing something to accommodate in the two meeting rooms seems to make a lot more sense to me.

Your worship, I can speak to that.

The the issue with that was we we did actually look at converting one of the meeting rooms to a uh a lunchroom, um, but it just doesn't work with regards to electrical servicing, plumbing, um, and various other issues because um, you know, I I don't think it makes it a lunchroom if you put a desk in there and say eat here.

Um you still need a microwave, you need, you know, a place to wash your dishes and all of those things.

And um if it's set up as a lunchroom, then it can't be used as a meeting room.

So we already are challenged when we're doing day-to-day business with the meeting rooms that we do have.

So I wouldn't want to um create a a lunch area where somebody could eat and take away a meeting room.

Um I don't see how that and we'd spend a lot more than a fifty thousand if we tried to convert one of the meeting rooms to an actual lunchroom.

Because we did look at that because of that pass-through thing, making that a meeting room and making the uh other meeting room a lunch room because it was bigger.

But just I wasn't suggesting that we turn the meeting rooms into lunch rooms.

Just use the meeting rooms.

You know, 'cause you have a big table, people could sit around the table and have lunch the same way we we do and just keep the lunch room for preparing the food that's going to be taken into the meeting room.

That could work if you want the part of the issue part of the issue would be that um our lunches are staggered, and I believe we start from 11 30 and go to 2 30.

So again, that would mean that you you wouldn't be able to have meetings in there 'cause you'd be worried about somebody coming in and wanting to have their lunch, or people would plan to have their lunch and then the meeting room would be occupied.

So we we don't send everybody home at noon and come back at one.

We do stagger our lunches throughout the day.

So it would make trying to book a meeting room or hoping to have lunch in a meeting room and then find out, oh, I can't.

And at some point you'd just be frustrated and go back to what you were doing, which was eating at your desk.

Counselor Kwalwich.

Thanks.

I do uh actually I do support this uh proposal.

I think that if we create a space where employees um would like to stay here and have their lunch, um, they'll be more prone to uh not leaving the building to go get food.

Um they'll uh be more refreshed.

Hopefully, they'll uh continue to work as diligently as they always do.

Um they'll feel more comfortable in the building, uh potentially we'll create more uh teamwork scenarios as COVID numbers decrease.

Um so I do support it.

My one ask would be: I would assume that this project would not be completed by the end of 2021.

Would there be any way to split this 25-25 for 2021 and 2022, Director Christensen?

Or Rosenberg, I guess, for this one, but with some input from everybody.

Yeah, I I I think that is possible.

I mean, I I think Director Christensen's talked about the fact that the casino fund just has funds in it, and when we use them, it comes out.

When we don't use them, it stays in.

So if I was to start building it in November and finish building it in February, it'd just be a matter of two months when the 50,000 would come out or stay in.

So you're not actually seeing any real savings or any kind of and and I don't believe the current plan has a casino funds going to zero.

So although that does make sense when you shift for an entire year because your priorities might change, um trying to straddle a year with a project because we couldn't do part and then let it sit and then do the other part.

So I I don't i it could be done, but I just don't see an advantage to doing it that way.

Okay.

I'm definitely, I mean, I'm very mindful of every dollar this year, as is everybody, and I'm just looking for any way to potentially, you know, mitigate anything to do with this budget.

But um that's all I've got on that.

Okay, thank you.

Do you have anything on it?

Yeah.

Um I I struggled with it last year and I'm struggling with it this year.

I don't I don't think this is the year to do this.

And um like my colleague down the way, if I you know, if people are eating in boardrooms now, committee rooms.

Um I I I don't know.

I I don't know I don't really see the hardship in that.

Um so no, I I'm I'm for this year I can't support it.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah, the question is um uh the existing first aid room would be relocated in the basement in the archives area.

So you know my recollection the archives area is pretty darn small and and uh uh already quite cramped with with desks and stuff.

How do you how do you envision that would happen?

I'm pretty sure we went through this last year when we originally approved this project, but um Director Rosenberg?

I can be succinct, there's a bathroom down there that not too many people use, and we have plenty of bathrooms in the engineering department, so we're gonna convert that bathroom to the first aid station.

It has water already, so it works well for first aid station.

I'm just gonna add my two cents worth.

I mean, when you look at that lunchroom for the number of staff in this place, it's pathetic.

I mean, it really is.

I mean, it how this building ever got built with that tiny a kitchen is absolutely amazing.

I mean, old Frank probably should be seriously questioned about why, you know, it just makes no sense given the amount of staff to me.

So I I have no problem with supporting it.

And if you know, the there's just not enough room in there.

I mean, with COVID right now, if one staff member is trying to heat something up in the microwave and another one's trying to get something out of the fridge, they they can't get they can't do it.

I mean, and and we're and keep the social distancing rules.

I mean it's it's just a tiny cramped space so I I have no problem with supporting it at all so we have do have some dissension on this so councillor Kualowicz and I are supportive counselor lemon is not on my right not this year okay so you do have three that are okay with it so we're gonna leave it in the budget for this year thank you so moving on we're skipping projective services yeah shall we shall we skip without Paul here, Sarah or Kim.

Yes, I advised Paul that we would try to start with all the others and then start with his tomorrow.

Yeah, just push it all back a year.

Or should we just tell him it was too bad he wasn't here?

We said no to all of them.

I'm sure you appreciate that.

Okay, so we're gonna skip right down then to C066.

But that's not until 2023.

Your worship?

Go ahead.