Committee of the Whole

So we'll call the meeting to order and recognize the Lekwungen speaking people, known today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nation.

And obviously we are still thinking of them all at this difficult time.

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

This afternoon and the evening, the public will be able to speak to us via public participation.

And the number is on your screen that you dial 778-402-9227.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will announce the last four digits of your phone number.

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you to not use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

And public participation this afternoon will come up very quickly.

So if there's anything you wanted to phone in on the afternoon portion of the agenda, this would be the time to do so.

And to begin, if you can indicate your name and address for the record, please, and then you can give us the benefit of your views.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

So the only change to the agenda is that staff are recommending that in this evening portion that we move forward the land economic study right to be the very first thing on the agenda after dinner break, just because there'll be a consultant on hold.

Okay.

So we're going to move that forward.

And so with that, if I could just get a motion to approve the agenda.

I just if I can make a uh short amendment under um Protective Services 612, business arising from previous minutes, noisy vehicles.

Okay.

Well, no.

So that's yours, Councillor Lemmon.

Made note of that.

Yeah.

Yeah, but we're gonna get there pretty much right away.

So okay, so motion to approve the agenda as amended.

Second.

Okay.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

And then we have minutes from May the 11th and May the 10th.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

We have no petitions and delegations today, so this is public participation period.

Do we have any public on the line?

So I'm gonna hand the chair over to Councillor Lemon.

Thank you, your worship.

Um, I have no chair's report.

Um no, well, business arising from the previous minutes.

Um I understand that my colleague, Councillor Rogers, would like to speak to the issue of noisy vehicles, which arose last week.

Yes, um the uh you know, since we talked, um I was interested and certainly surprised and hopeful that since uh VicPD has undertaken its initiative uh to um work with the public and identifying noisy vehicles and then uh establishing a fine process where individuals could get a hundred and seven dollar fine uh for noisy vehicles and that whole initiative.

I was hoping that uh we could make another request of uh the RCMP and uh superintendent to see um and hopefully achieve the same.

Great.

Um I think it'd be better to ask him that when he's here personally.

If we can at least let him know that we're now interested, we've seen what Victoria has done.

I mean, Victoria, I understand, is just simply inviting people who are unsure whether their vehicles fit within the decibel to come to the Memorial Arena parking lot.

That's what I read, and they will be run through a test.

That was that was the that was the um uh get a acquaintance side of it.

Yeah, and now they've initiated the actual fines where you know if they believe and uh indeed the uh vehicle, whatever it is, does exceed um noise standards, then uh they will be issued a fine of 107 dollars.

My understanding as well.

Um so does what are we gonna do about that?

So I I I I I invite the chair um the liaison to uh contact and let um uh the inspector know, and we'd hope to have uh an update next meeting.

I'll pass that on.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, and uh that's pretty much it.

Uh we have no report from either the fire chief or um the RCMP superintendent because I understand both are in a canoe paddling with the Esquimalt Nation to a ceremony in memory of the 215 children um whose bodies were found in cabinets.

So um that's it for me.

I will pass this on.

Okay.

We're gonna be quick this afternoon.

So finance and admin, we're gonna go right to 6.23A, which is the draft asset replacement funding plan.

I'm sure gonna thank you, your worship.

Members of council, Stephen Vella here, Manager of Accounting of the Town of View Royal.

Can you hear me all right?

We can now, Steve.

Yeah, you're a bit quiet to begin with, but I think you're fine now.

All right.

So today we're discussing asset replacement funding, and with us are Ben Lubertz, engineering technologist at the town of View Royal in charge of development and asset management.

And Corey Savella, consultant with the organization Your City.

Corey will be presenting the draft funding plan in detail, but I'll just take a few minutes to provide a high-level overview of the staff report included in your agenda.

The purpose of this report is to present to council the draft asset replacement funding plan.

This plan looks at how much funding is required to replace infrastructure assets over a 30-year planning period.

And for today's discussion, it is important to be mindful of the context of the report and where we are in the planning journey.

The report and draft are meant to advise council of the overall health of the town's infrastructure assets based on data from the town's current asset registry.

We have forecast long-term asset health by applying an asset health score framework over the next 30 years while incorporating various risk replacement funding levels.

Corey will be discussing this framework with you.

This plan is also an important step toward long-term financial planning and sustainability, which is a goal of council's strategic plan.

And today is not meant to be a request for future funding.

No funding level decisions need to be made today.

We're simply discussing asset health and the scope of options available for funding asset renewal.

This is not an assessment or sorry, a final assessment of asset health.

The outcomes in Corey's presentation are based on the asset useful lives from the town's tangible capital asset policy.

These useful lives are used to calculate depreciation for accounting purposes and can create outcomes often found to be overly conservative and not community specific when it comes to asset management planning.

Once these condition assessments are in place, staff and council will be in a better position to incorporate that information and determine concrete reserve contribution levels.

Financial plan contributing to the goal of raising confidence in the fiscal health and financial sustainability of the municipality, part of council's 2019 to 2022 strategic plan.

You'll see to the left of the funding plan, engineering's asset condition assessments, which, as we said, are currently underway.

These assessments will further inform staff and council through the process of establishing final funding requirements.

And the funding plan is one of two strategic documents that will inform the town's long-term financial plan and sustainability review.

The second document being the asset replacement funding strategy as determined by the final funding plan.

This funding strategy is within the scope of the next phase of this project.

So just a few highlights to share with you at this point.

Currently, the town is positioned with a high asset health score.

This is a result of having relatively young infrastructure, effective operations and maintenance programs, and an up-to-date reserves and surplus policy.

Council has determined, sorry, demonstrated through its budgeting process a commitment to maintaining appropriate reserve levels and in turn asset health while balancing sustainable increases to property taxes.

Prior to finalizing the funding plan, we will have methodology in place, including asset condition assessments that will allow staff and council to identify a thoughtful, sustainable funding target that will support achieving long term fiscal health.

So at this time, I'd like to introduce Corey Savell from your city, who will be sharing his presentation with us.

Corey has worked alongside numerous local governments in BC to develop asset management and long-term financial strategies.

It was through his experience with various clients that Corey discovered a set of common challenges facing small and medium-sized local governments.

Confronting these problems firsthand, together with some friendly encouragement from clients, led Corey to think about new ways of solve solving these challenges.

While working alongside his client advisory board, the asset health score framework emerged.

It is a proven process that is now being used to help local governments bridge their asset funding gap faster.

Corey is currently the CEO at your city, and we're excited to have him here today to talk with us about asset management.

And with that, I will send it over to Corey.

Awesome.

Thanks so much, Stephen.

I'll pull up my presentation here.

Can everyone hear me okay?

We can, thank you.

Awesome.

I'm just gonna put my screen up.

Can you guys see the presentation okay?

Yep.

Awesome.

So yeah, thank you so much for the kind introduction, Stephen, and appreciate the opportunity to be here in front of uh you today.

Uh this is a subject near and dear to my heart.

And uh yeah, just want to say thank you so much to staff and everyone supporting this project, uh, working so hard alongside it.

Really, you can see the care staff has for the municipality and appreciate all the help and support through the project.

So overall today we're gonna kind of go through three phases.

So we're gonna do the introduction first, we'll kind of talk high level, then we'll talk about the asset replacement funding plan, and then we'll we'll tie everything together.

Um, so before we jump into things, I just want to kind of zoom out and give you guys some context nationally uh in general, what's going on.

And I'm gonna just move my a little so I can see you guys.

Uh so overall, kind of what happened with asset management.

Generally, communities have been really good at planning for operation and maintenance.

Those are expenses that come every year, they're cash expenses.

But one thing communities across Canada, in fact, across the world haven't done the best job at is financially planning for the replacement of its hard assets.

And kind of the reasons behind that is a lot of these assets are under the ground, they have long-lived lifespans, 80, 100 years sometimes.

So it was never really a challenge for local governments to start thinking about that.

Then, kind of at a national level, they started identifying saying, hey, these assets in Canada and across the world are beginning to age, and we need to start bringing some awareness to asset management and the importance of planning today financially for the eventual replacement of these assets.

From that organizations, FCM, Asset Management BC, you know, uh Canadian Network of Asset Managers, all this kind of grew.

Funding programs emerged to help local governments uh begin to think about this, and conversations like the one we'll have today are happening across uh the country.

And so I guess just kind of bring this up to give you some context of how we got here uh today, and also to let you know that you're not alone.

Every single other local government will be having similar conversations over the next coming years, and it's a complete honor to be here talking with you guys today.

Um, so next slide here.

So I can give it a sec.

Uh so before we jump into, I want to zoom out and give you guys a sense of why is asset management important.

Well, there's many reasons.

Uh, these are kind of three that I think are fairly important for local governments to consider.

So, number one, it supports the municipal services in a socially, environmentally and economically responsible way.

Number two, it helps prevent the need for one large off tax increases uh in the future.

So it helps propose sustainable tax increases, and it's requirement of most grant funding applications.

So you'll see as you go after different grants, they'll say, Do you have an asset management plan?

Are you funding the replacement of your assets, etc.?

So it's becoming a requirement uh for getting grant funding.

Um, so that's kind of zoomed out context.

Now I'd like to zoom into V Royal.

So V Roll is no different than all the other communities in Canada who are dealing with the same challenges, the aging infrastructure and not putting enough funding aside for the eventual replacement.

Uh, as I mentioned, that's bringing uh to light asset management and why we're here today.

In terms of the town of View Royal, as Stephen mentioned, you guys are in a fairly good position, I would say, compared to a lot of other local governments.

You're a um newer community with newer assets, uh, number one, and you don't own, say, water assets and these sort of things, which other communities do as well.

So I think you guys are in a very unique opportunity to set yourself up for future success by thinking about this today.

I think a lot of other local governments in Canada, the older ones in particular, uh, wish they could be in the position of UROYOL.

And I think it's you know, with prudent planning today, you can ensure your community set up for long-term financial sustainability.

Um, as Steven mentioned, uh just wanted to quickly uh give some local context.

As part of your 2019 to 2022 strategic plan, uh council identified financial sustainability and service excellence as one of its top uh strategic priorities.

In particular, uh, what I read there, which was quite interesting, is the town identified that the citizens want number one, good value for tax dollars, number two, um uh funding for continuation of current levels of service through taxation and funding of future large projects by putting funds aside annually.

So this was really interesting and great to hear because I think it directly aligns with the asset management kind of mindset and philosophy.

And it was through this, as Steven mentioned, that the town decided how are we going to actually you know meet these objectives.

And the town identified two projects: one, the asset replacement funding plan, which we're talking today, and the asset replacement financial strategy.

So that's how we got here today.

Uh, before we jump into the project, I just wanted to quickly share a few challenges that I've seen working with other communities as it relates to asset management plans and this sort of thing.

The only reason I bring it up, I think it gives you some context for today's conversation and just something to keep in mind as you guys move through this journey.

Number one challenge I see is the unrealistic budgets.

So I see with a lot of plans, uh, people come in with funding targets that are really daunting in a lot of ways, and we can talk a little bit about why that happens, but that's one.

Uh, the other one, the asset management plan remains unfunded.

So a lot of asset management plans will move forward, but then there is no financial strategy to say how do we actually meet that target?

And so these asset management plans are more like expense focused rather than how do we actually get the revenues to do that.

The other challenge that I found is that a lot of small medium-sized local governments uh don't have uh the capital sometimes to do sophisticated analysis to understand the trade-offs between risk, level service, and cost, and it got really expensive for them.

So, doing that type of analysis was really important, but very expensive.

And the last one uh challenge is understanding what is the impact decisions council and staff make today have on the future of the assets.

So, those are kind of three challenges just to be aware of.

And the thing that I'm super excited to present today is we've been able to eliminate a lot of those challenges through this kind of approach that we're taking, which we call the asset health score framework.

It's really a two-phase approach.

So phase number one is the asset replacement funding plan.

This plan is really focused on helping communities identify what the asset replacement budget would be based on their desired future risk and level service levels.

So that's really the focus of phase one.

Phase two is the financial strategy.

That's where you actually develop the financial strategy to say, how do we work from our current budgets out to the budget that we've identified in the funding plan?

One thing to keep in mind, the framework is a circle.

So there's a continual improvement process.

It's always improving over time.

And as Steven mentioned, as you get better data and better information, you can feed it in and update the results.

Today we're going to be focusing on phase one, which is the asset funding plan.

We're going to talk about the four steps.

So compiling asset data, we're going to talk a little bit about risk and level service.

We're going to talk about your funding demand, and we're going to talk about some of the average forecast replacement budgets based on a few scenarios that were developed alongside staff.

So before we jump into the specifics of each of that steps of the framework, I just wanted to kind of lay out a couple high-level assumptions.

So number one, this plan only counts like for like replacement.

It doesn't consider, you know, wider roads, bigger pipes, all regulatory changes, you know, 4321, things that have other financial impacts on the community.

Those are not considered in this plan.

This is purely like for like replacement.

The other thing is this is done in constant dollar analysis.

Um, so uh doesn't take into account inflation.

And there's a lot of reasons why this is done.

We won't go into those today, but just something to keep in mind.

And the assets that were included in the study are all major assets owned by the town of E Royal, sewer systems, transportation, parks, buildings, drainage, et cetera.

So those are some assumptions.

We'll get those off the table.

And what I will do is I'll jump into each of these sections.

I'll go through the sections, I'll pause very briefly.

If there's any clarifying questions, everything builds on top of each other here.

So if we don't understand one section, it'll make the next one a little more difficult.

Um, and we'll just be cognizant of time as we flow through it.

So, step number one, compiling the asset data.

So, what does that even mean?

Well, at the end of the day, uh, Town of View Royal has asset registered inventory, which we use and integrate it into the model to develop some of the results.

And what is asset data?

Well, in essence, it's just a line of all your different assets that you own, has different attributes such as cost and estimated life, et cetera, et cetera.

As Steven mentioned, kind of this first round of this plan is using what we call the TCA useful life or industry best practice lifes.

These lifes are often known to be conservative, not community specific, etc.

And that's one thing that the community that the town will want to think about is getting more clarity on those estimated lifespans because that directly impacts the outputs of the plan.

And we'll talk about how we consider that and how the town involves its plan, it takes into consideration that.

So that's the asset data.

I don't want to talk too much on this, um, but I'll pause there very briefly to see if anyone has any questions about the asset inventory, what it means, and why it's important.

Everybody good?

Counselor Mattson, do you have any questions?

No, carry out secret.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Hello.

So next, what we'll talk about is sorry.

Hello.

I just wanted to be told when we were changing pages or what page we're on and when we change because I can't see what's happening because of the delays.

Right.

So I think we're on page 11.

Is that right?

We're on page 11, correct.

Presentation, yeah.

Awesome.

Thanks so much.

I'll let you know when I'm flipping slides just so you can kind of cue in uh as well.

So step number two, the framework, I really what I want to talk about is the funding demand.

So why is the funding demand important?

Well, at the end of the day, funding demand is just an estimation of when assets pass their estimated life.

It might look like some sort of fancy capital plan.

It's not that at all.

All it is is a general understanding of when assets pass their estimated life.

And the only thing that we're really using this for is understanding what's the what's the wave of expenditures?

Is there a wave of expenditure short term, you know, within the first five years?

Is there a wave medium term or is there a wave long term?

And all that does is gives you insights into kind of the urgency of when these capital expenditures might be coming down the line.

So those purely kind of what we're looking for.

Um, and so what I'll do is I'll share this with you.

So this does not account for assets that are already past its life.

This is just a general understanding of when assets pass their estimated life.

So one thing you'll notice is you're below the average annual funding level for the first say 15 years, and then there's a wave of expenditures, you know, 15 years and between 15 and 20 years and 25 and 30 years.

So all that tells you is there is a wave of expenditures coming, and it's good to be sitting here today with your eyes on this wave because if we properly plan for this wave today, um we'll be able to financially manage that, no problem.

Now, if it was a different scenario, if that wave was say within the five-year horizon, there might be a different kind of um you know uh urgency to it.

So I think that's one thing.

It also highlights that VRL is a very young community, um, and that's why you can see this wave of expenditures here.

A lot of communities, that wave is in the shorter term.

So that's just one thing to note, and probably nothing deeper than that to look into.

I would also say that the average annual funding amount when you actually average it is probably trending upwards, and so that's just something to be cognizant of as well.

Um, I'll pause right here to see if there's any questions on this, and then we'll jump to the next section.

Yep, counselor Rogers.

Yeah, so the cool I guess the question would um, you know, when you you see the bump between uh 15, 20 years and 25, 30 years.

Um, View Royal, we were incorporated in 1988, so you would have thought that the 15 year, 15, 20 year event has already come and gone, for example, with uh well, some some level of sewage and and roads.

And does our master plans like drainage and transportation master plans take into account uh the asset replacement issues?

Yeah, through through your worship.

Uh great question.

Um typically, master plans sometimes do focus on replacement, a lot of times they focus on capacity-related issues.

I have not specifically dived deep into that master plan, so I might pass that on to staff, might have more insights and can provide a little more context there.

Okay, so and and I guess the the question maybe to you or the staff.

Do our master plans um help in identifying uh the any kind of replacement strategy over the years.

So I'll speak to this.

It's Ben Libertz here, um, engineering tech.

Uh so as Corey stated, uh the master plans do typically talk about um the capacity of utilities uh and the use of utilities in future planning, not necessarily for replacement.

And so that's actually the purpose of asset management plans to speak specifically towards the replacement costs and forecasting of uh the maintenance and replacement of assets.

Okay.

Right.

Capacity not replacing.

In principle, yes.

Thank you.

Okay, great question.

Great question.

Um, any other questions, or should I move on to the next slide?

The next ones are more interesting, I promise.

No, I think you can move on.

Thanks.

Good question.

Thanks for asking.

Um, so the next one we're gonna talk about is risk and level service.

So uh this one's a very important one.

Um, why is risk and level service important?

Well, risk and level service is really that kind of trade-off between investment level and risk and level service.

It helps inform what your replacement budget might be based on your desired future state related to risk and level service.

It helps you prioritize your asset replacement budget across categories.

So it really becomes an important tool uh to understand.

Now there's different levels of risk and level service.

There's technical, non-technical, you can get very complicated.

Today we are keeping it high level, non-technical, and more qualitative in that lens.

So we'll talk about risk and level service SNPs.

So the way I like to think about risk and level service at a high level is it's really can be measured using three what I call vital signs or asset vital signs.

And the way I think about these vital signs is just like the vital signs in your body.

So just like you can measure your heart rate, your blood pressure, your cholesterol, they give you insights into the health of your body.

Well, you have essentially similar vital signs to your assets, and these are the ones that we'll use to measure that.

So I'll start first at the bottom left, the at past life assets.

So what is this?

This is one of your vital signs, and it measures the percentage of your assets past its estimated life.

So, for example, say you owned $10 in assets and $2 of them are past its estimated life.

20% of the assets are past their life.

Now, on the consumption side, what is that?

It's a measure of how far into the asset lifespan are you.

So say you own an asset, a car.

Maybe the car lasts 20 years and you've owned it for 10 years.

It's currently 50% consumed, or about halfway into its life.

And the reason you need to consider both these together is you could have maybe none of the assets past their life, but it could almost be fully consumed, which will give you insights into the overall health.

And that's where the asset health score comes in.

It really considers the percentage of assets past their life and the amount that the assets consumed.

You combine those together to get your asset health score.

These vital signs provide you direct insights into risk and level of service, and we'll explore how that correlation is made next.

So, one thing I just want to kind of bring up here at this point is this is kind of like a mindset shift or a philosophy shift in things.

And what I'm trying to encourage communities to do is to move away from kind of like the principle of keep taxes low to say, let's keep our assets healthy while considering affordability.

And I trust me, I understand the need to make sure taxes are affordable.

It drives so much in the community and it's so important.

But just maybe something to consider is a little bit of a mindset shift from let's keep taxes low to let's keep assets healthy while considering affordability.

No one wants to live in a community with assets that are falling apart, it drops the values of their house, their lifestyle, and all that sort of thing.

So just a quick side.

So in order to understand this concept of risk and level service, I want you guys to imagine a bucket of water.

And I want you to imagine that we're filling this bucket of water with water and there's a hole in the bottom.

And essentially the rate that you're filling the bucket of water, you can think about that as the rate you're investing.

And the rate that the water is leaving the bucket, you could think about that's the rate of the assets deteriorating.

And you can imagine if you're not filling the bucket enough with enough water or at a high enough rate, eventually the bucket's gonna be empty.

So what we need to decide, or you guys need to decide as a community is what is that right rate of investment to keep that water level at the level that you want.

Now, to bring this analogy further, if the bucket of water gets empty, say it's right at the bottom, um, what does that mean?

Well, there's a high risk that that water is gonna, that bucket's gonna run out of water, just like there's a high risk that your assets could fail.

And the other thing it correlates is the level of service.

If the bucket of water is low, there's gonna be a low level of service being provided.

Now, the opposite's also true.

If that bucket of water is right to the top, it's right filled up, you're filling it up.

There's a low risk that that bucket's gonna be empty.

In other words, there's a low risk at asset failure, and you'll be providing a high level of service.

Think about each of your assets and how full or empty you might want that bucket.

So think about these asset buckets.

And the fuller the bucket, the more you need to invest in the assets, the less uh full, the less you need to invest.

And that's really the trade-off that we'll explore.

Now, just to double click on this concept a little bit and just kind of give you a little more clarity is in essence when that bucket's full, you're going to have a higher asset health score.

Also, less of your assets are going to be past its life, and also less of it's going to be consumed.

What does this mean?

Lower risk of failure, higher level service.

The opposite's also true.

If that bunket's empty, it means more of your assets are past their life.

There's a higher amount consumed, which means there's a higher risk of failure and a lower level of service.

So we'll do a quick example and an analogy, and then we'll have a quick discussion.

So, as an example, pretend your transportation system has a health score of 82, 10% of the assets are past their life and it's 50% consumed.

And if you compare that to PARCS, which has a health score of 58, 30% of assets pass its life and 50% consumed.

Now, when you're comparing them, you might say, hey, well, it's the same consumption ratio, but you can see the parks, 30% of the assets are past their life compared to 10.

What does that mean?

Parks assets are going to have a higher risk of failure and a lower level of service.

So this is the correlation that we'll explore further.

And one last analogy here to kind of bring home the point.

You could imagine it like two cars.

So you got a Toyota Corolla on the left, it's a 1980, a solid car, reliable, you know, awesome car.

You also have a brand new Honda on the right.

So if you were to take the you know title on the left hand from View Royal and you're to drive it to Tofino, well, guess what?

Probably some of the assets on that car are past its estimated life.

It has a high consumption ratio.

It looks like it's getting near to the end of its life, uh, even though it's super reliable to Toyota.

It's pretty old.

But driving from V Royal to Tofino, there's a higher risk of you breaking down, and there's a lower level of service.

You're not going to have both stereo system, air conditioning, sunroof, etc.

Now on the right-hand side, you get a brand new Honda.

You drive from V Royal to Tofino.

Well, guess what?

Less of the assets are past his life.

It's brand new.

There's none of it.

It's zero percent consumed because it's brand new.

Well, guess what?

Driving from V Royal to Fino, uh, you'd have a lower risk of breaking down and you'd be on much higher level of service.

You're in a new car, you got a next stereo system, sunroof, probably AC.

Um, so this is kind of the analogy that I want you to keep in your mind as we explore uh the next uh results.

So I will just pause there very briefly just to talk about this concept at a high level to see if you guys have any questions, and then we'll jump specifically into the town of V Royal's asset health court, past life ratio and consumption ratio as it stands today.

Okay, thank you.

I'm sure Councillor Mattson's wondering how you got a picture of his car on the left, which which incidentally you'll think is perfectly adequate.

But downhill.

Counselor Rogers.

You know, I when I'm uh thinking hearing this, um uh I'm thinking of the the uh antiquated fire hole that we once had and the whole uh challenge we had of asset replacement, and um you know that was a very good example where um it was a really old building with lots of problems, and so we we faced that one, but um I I get the picture.

I guess I guess one one question I'd have, and maybe now's not the time, you can roll it in at some point, but obviously for really major projects, it is unlikely that the town would be funding those completely from reserve funds that we would be applying for grants to higher levels of governments, etc.

And the one that springs to mind in the region is Oak Bay, right?

Who's in catastrophic infrastructure failure with their storm drains in the uplands and and throughout the town, and there's just simply no way they could ever manage to do all the work and put it on the backs of the property taxpayers in Oak Bay.

So I'm curious how you you factor that in.

And even with us for major road works down the future, we would presumably be applying for grants.

So at some point I'd just like to get a feeling for what your thoughts on that.

Yeah, thanks uh through your worship.

Uh appreciate the question.

It's uh it's an intelligent one.

And so I think in terms of the funding of asset replacement, that's kind of a whole other can of worms.

That's phase two where we'll get into the financial strategy, which is answering the questions what you brought up.

How do you fund it?

Is it through taxation or rates or reserves, or is it through grants, or is it through debt?

And all these questions that come up.

So that's really phase two.

And I'm glad you brought it up because it's the key part of the equation to begin thinking about.

And I think I'll plant some seeds today for you guys on that front.

For today, really focusing on that funding target.

So it's not answering how are you going to get to that funding target, it's what is that right funding target based on the future desired state of your community.

It's like today we're thinking about say we want to get in shape.

So I kind of like to think about it.

We're like, we want to have six pack abs and biceps or whatever it is, but we're not talking about how we're gonna get there.

That's where the financial strategy is.

So we'll be yeah, we'll be talking about that in the future.

And I'm glad you brought it up.

Okay, go ahead, I think.

Awesome.

Uh so let's jump into town of ERAW.

So where do we stand today?

So today, the town of E Oil Royal owns uh about 139 million dollars in assets uh based on the inventory today, which I think is a very fun fact to have.

Um, council, you're essentially on the board of directors of a company that's there for the greater good of the community called the local government, and you guys are responsible for stewarding 139 million dollars in assets, um, and same with staff, you know.

So I think it's a number to be proud of, and it's a number to bring some awareness to because I don't think people fully sometimes can comprehend how expensive ass arts are to replace.

So, more of a fun fact and just something to keep in mind.

This is something that the town will have to steward over the next say 10, 20, 30, 40 years.

Um, let's jump into where your health score or your vital signs sit today.

So, as mentioned, as Steven mentioned, I'd say you guys sit in a very healthy position.

Your asset health score is around 96 percent, approximately 4% of your asset portfolio overall is past its life, and you're about 33% consumed, meaning you're about one third into the average lifespan.

So, where I look at this today, I'd say you're a young community.

I'd say when I compare you to other communities, you're in a better position.

I'd say most other local governments are around 10 to 15, some 20% past their life.

The consumption ratio is around 50 to 75, and the health score is closer to 70.

So that's where I think you guys are presented with a super unique opportunity to plan today for the future.

So you don't get put in that weird position of having to say raise taxes one off or large increases.

I think you're in a really unique and awesome position today.

So it's a unique opportunity.

So I'll just pause here because I think it's important to just chat about this, and then we'll move on to the next slide.

Any questions about your current state, what it means, and any questions I can answer.

No, I don't think so.

I think we're all good.

Thanks.

Beautiful.

We know where we stand today.

So 96% health score today.

I think everyone can look around the community, get a pretty good sense of like what does that feel like.

But the real question is where do you guys want to go into the future?

You know, do you want the health score to go up?

Do you want it to go down?

Do you want it to stay the same?

And what does that really mean?

So that's what we're going to explore next.

As Steven mentioned, no decisions need to be made on this today.

This is just planting some seeds, some food for thought, and some things to consider as you're thinking about budgeting and having conversations within your organization.

So next, uh, this is the most interesting part in my opinion.

We're going to talk through different asset replacement budgets, and we're going to show you the impact these decisions have on your future vital side.

So on your future health score, past life and consumption ratio.

So it's a cool part where we can put on binoculars and look into the future and say, if we do this, this is what it could mean for our community.

Why is this important?

Is because it's today, as council, as staff, you can begin to make good, sound financial decisions and begin to understand what that means for future residents.

So let's jump into this.

So before we jump into the specifics of the scenarios, I just want to highlight this concept.

In general, as the asset vital signs improve, so health score goes up, past life goes down, consumption goes down, you'll be investing more into assets.

And the also opposites true.

As you invest less into assets, your vital signs will drop, your health score will drop, etc.

And the cool thing is there's no right or wrong answer.

It's really up to staff and council to determine what is that desired future state and what is that budget that's going to get us there.

So uh don't feel any pressure in any way.

There's there's nothing to be worried about there.

So, what we what did we do?

We came up with some scenarios with staff through uh workshop scenarios, and these are the scenarios that we went through.

So, scenario one, we'll look at the impact on your asset vital signs if you were to just continue in perpetuity with your current average annual contribution to your reserve.

So, nothing changed, taxes weren't increased, you just what you're contributing to your reserve for asset replacement would continue in carpeting.

Scenario two, we looked at what would be the budget to keep that health score the same.

So it's 96 today.

What would it cost to keep it similar?

And uh scenario three, we looked at dropping that else score, in other words, taking on more risk and reducing level service to see how that budget might change, how the funding gap might change, etc.

And then scenario four, we dropped it even further to show you how that budget will change with health score.

In scenario three, we allowed about 15% of your assets to go past their estimated life, and in scenario four, we allowed about 25% of the assets to go past their life.

So, this is what we'll explain uh next.

So, scenario one, status quo, this is what you're currently doing.

And what we did before we jump into this, we looked at a 30-year planning horizon.

And why did we do that?

We looked at when assets were coming up, the estimated life, etc.

And it 30 years is that time where it's farther than you're planning today, but not too far in the future where it just seems too far.

So that just keep that in mind.

We're looking at a 30-year horizon.

So currently, the town of E Royal, if you take the average annual contribution as per your five-year financial strategy, you're contributing around 456,800.

So that's not in one particular year.

That's averaged over five years.

So the assumption in the scenario is a town of E Royal continued in perpetuity, investing about $500,000 a year into asset replacement.

So this is the impact on the health score of doing that in 30 years.

So today you're sitting at a 96% health score, 4% past its life, 33% consumed.

Put on your binoculars 30 years into the future, the health score would drop to 37%, 35% of the assets are past their life, and 90% of the uh asset would be consumed.

What would that mean?

Well, at the at a high level, more assets would be at risk of failure.

You'd be providing a lower level service uh then today.

So that gives you a snapshot into the future.

So that's scenario one.

Um, what would be the funding gap in the scenario?

Well, the current budget is 456, the forecasted budget is 456, so there's no gap between those two.

Um so that's scenario one.

We know what the budget, we know the impact of that budget, and next we'll explore scenario two together.

So scenario two uh is related to keeping the asset health score around the same, or in other words, keeping the community feeling the same, you know, a similar level of risk of failure, similar level service.

You look around today, things will look similar 30 years into the future.

So the question is: what is that budget?

And a lot of times this scenario is I would say unrealistic for a lot of communities.

Um, and so just kind of take that caveat as we go through it.

But it does give you a sense of like how do we keep things generally the same.

So in this scenario, like I said, we our target was to keep the health score the same, and the budget that came out was around $1.89 million dollars uh per year into asset replacement.

So what does that mean for your health score?

Well, today you're at 96, future at 97, past life today is 4%, future 0 or percent past our life, consumption is 33 today, future's 56.

And you might be asking why is 0% of the assets past their life?

Well, it has to counterbalance the increase in consumption.

So it went from 33 to 55.

So we need to like counterbalance that.

Um, so we counterbalance that by reducing the number of assets past its life.

So that uh gives you a little bit of understanding there.

And what is the funding gap in that scenario?

The funding gap is really 456 today, 1.89 in the forecasted.

It's a funding gap of 1.43 uh million dollars.

Now, uh let's talk about scenario three.

So, scenario three, we said, okay, if we don't want to keep the health score the same, what are our other options?

So we worked with staff in workshops to figure out what would be that scenario we could bring forward.

And so in this scenario, we allowed 15% of the town of View Royal's assets to go past their estimated life.

And through that, basically it came out to a 1.25 million dollar budget.

So, what does this budget mean for your future?

Well, your health score is going to move from a 96 to a 79, 4% of your assets are past their life today, 13 will be uh past their life in the future, again, at the end of 30 years, and your consumption ratio will move from 33 to 69.

What does that mean?

Well, at the end of the day, you're at a higher risk of failure, lower level of service.

You know, realistically speaking, tangibly, what does it mean?

Roads might not be in as good condition today.

Maybe you might hit a couple more potholes, etc.

etc.

But you'd still be in a fairly healthy position.

Um let's look at the funding gap.

So you're at 456 today, 1.25 in the future.

That's a funding gap of around 800 or 794,414 in funding gap annually.

So that's that scenario.

In scenario four, we said, okay, can we drop the health score further?

And what would that actually mean?

So in this scenario, we allowed uh we had a target of a 55% health score, which means we allow about 25% of the assets to go past their life, so about a quarter of them.

And the budget that came out there was 726,800 uh annually in asset replacement.

What does that mean for your health score?

Well, today is 96, the future at the end of 30 years would be 55.

The number of assets past its life in the future would be about 25% as we had a target, and the consumption ratio would move from 33 to 81.

Again, what does this mean?

Assets would be at a higher risk of failure and a lower level service than say scenario three and scenario two.

Uh, you know, just to that roads example, you your roads might have more potholes now than say in scenario three.

And let's next look at the funding gap.

So overall, you're currently at 456, the forecast of budget's at 726, and the funding gaps at 270,000.

So I'll quickly summarize this up and then we can have a healthy discussion around some of this.

So, as we learned, um, you have different impacts, different funding levels can have different impacts on your health score and your vital signs.

In general, if you invest more into asset replacement, the health score goes up, you have a lower risk of failure and a higher level of service.

As you invest less into asset replacement, the uh risk of failure goes up, and the lower level of service.

Again, there's no right or wrong answer.

It's really thinking about what is that desired future state and what budget is financially realistic for our community.

And so we've modeled these scenarios.

You guys can just consider these and it'll help inform some of those decisions.

So you can see all the way from scenario one, status quo, all the way to the right where we allowed your health score drop to 55.

Um these are a couple scenarios to consider.

We also learned that you can see how the budget can range.

It can range from 456,800, which is today, all the way up to 1.89 million per year into asset replacement.

And it can be less if you want to let your health score drop, or it can be more if you want to improve it.

We also learned that your funding gap can change.

So as you're spending less, the funding gap will go down.

Scenario one, we keep things the same at zero.

Uh, scenario two has the largest funding gap.

Why?

Because we're setting the highest budget, but we're also setting the highest standard for our assets.

Um, hopefully, this kind of gives you some light into understanding how you know investment can translate into health score, can translate into risk and level of service.

So I will tie it up here and then we'll open it to questions.

So overall, I would say town of URL has done an amazing job at planning for OM and has done a great job at capital planning.

You got master plans, you actually have a reserve set up.

That's amazing.

I don't know too many communities that even had that.

So you guys had this on your foresights for a while, which I deeply appreciate.

Um, you guys have been doing a great job at basically putting money into reserves, like you actually have that set up, uh, as I said.

Um, but there's really an opportunity, as I mentioned, you guys are a young community with a wave of expenditures coming in the future, but I know that if you plan today, it'll help set your community up for future success.

It'll help ensure rates can stay uh sustainable and stable.

And I think that's really the unique opportunity.

So, my ask of you guys today is to just take into this information, let it sink in, um, plant some seeds in your mind, and think about what do you guys want that future desired state?

Do you want the health of the assets to be about the same?

Is it okay to drop the level service and risk a bit?

And what does that truly mean for our community, for our citizens and the infrastructure that serves them?

After you guys have kind of decided what that future state is, uh, you can begin to start thinking about integrating this into a long-term financial strategy, as uh Steven alluded to.

Uh, and as the worship there mentioned, uh, you can start understanding what does this mean for taxation?

What does it mean for reserves?

How much is funded through grants, et cetera?

And the last thing I'll leave here before we jump to questions is some next steps for consideration.

Asset management is a journey.

It's taken communities many years to kind of you know get into these positions, and it'll take many years to get out.

And it's about getting better every year, continually over time.

So next steps to consider would be doing some asset condition assessments, as Steve alluded to in terms of engineering.

That will help calibrate the model.

That'll give you a little more confidence in some of those funding targets.

Number two would be integrating that into a financial strategy, as the worship mentioned, to help understand what does that means for our finances.

And the third one would be developing a policy so that you can kind of capture some of your guys' thoughts and perspectives on financial planning.

So future council and staff can't uh change the direction of the organization as easy.

Um reporting templates, you guys can see and measure progress over time.

And lastly, improving the data.

The better the data you have, the more accurate the results can be.

So I'll pause there.

Uh and I would like to open it for questions.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Kowalowich.

Uh thank you, your worship.

And Corey, thank you very much.

This is such an important topic that uh that staff has brought to us that we have uh and you know, you kind of nailed it.

This type of public administration is something that most you know residents um you know, they don't think about on a daily basis.

And it's it's staff's job, it's our job to look at this long-term visioning.

I I personally learned a ton from from watching and listening to that.

Uh I have a couple questions and some observations.

First of all, is it fair to say that the youthfulness of the town of Uroyal currently contributes to our high score?

Uh, and what I mean by that is that uh since our infrastructure is uh fairly new, a lot of it, as you mentioned, uh, is that is that helping our score?

Or did it help our score?

Yeah, great question.

Uh through your worship.

Um, yeah, exactly.

So in essence, because of your usefulness, uh, less assets are past their life, it's less into its estimated lifespan, which directly correlates to your higher health score, and probably the fact that you guys are providing a great level service and have a low risk of asset failure, you know, when compared to say other older uh local governments.

So you nailed it uh 100%, and thank you for your uh warm words.

Okay.

That's uh I guess there's positives and uh less than desirable pieces of that.

Um, next question.

That's okay because uh it is what it is.

Uh obviously the optimal health score is 100%.

We we know that.

That's that's easy.

Um now, from your experience and and your education on on these topics and presentations.

What is the average health score, Corey, that you're seeing when you do these environmental scans?

Yeah, through your worship.

Uh, great question.

Uh, what is that ideal spot?

And it's it's uh interesting one to explore, and I'll just give you some thoughts to consider.

Um, so where you're at today, um, you know, we're using uh industry best practice service life.

So, what are those?

Those are kind of generic, often conservative uh lifespans uh that are not community specific, and that's what was built.

So, not to like give any unvalidation to it, it's just when you're using those kind of lifespans, you might allow more of your assets to go past their life than say when you're using more lifespans that you're more confident in.

And I'll give you a quick example.

I don't know if you guys are familiar with like construction cost estimates.

So when you're doing a class D cost estimate, you don't know too much about a site.

You know, maybe you're putting a building down the street, you don't have any geotech, or you don't even know the size of the site, etc.

So you add a 50% contingency to the cost estimate because you don't know much about it.

Uh, likewise, as you move towards a class A cost estimate, you got more information, you got geotechnical analysis, you've got surveys, etc.

And you add a five percent contingency to that cost estimate.

So I'd say today, where the town of U Rural is and every mostly other local governments in BC, is you're using you're at that class D cost estimate stage where there's a lot of uncertainty around the average lifespan and what does that mean that means today I would probably be more confident with you guys allowing more assets to go past its estimated life than if you had ultimate confidence so today maybe you're comfortable with 10% or 15% of your assets going past their life why because there's some uncertainty in the lifespans now with that said as you get more confidence in the lifespans you might allow less assets to pass their life if you know the lifespan of every single asset is five years eight years ten years seventy two I wouldn't allow 15% of the assets to go past their life so I guess it's a journey and as you get better information you would drop that amount so what is the optimal health score that's a great question to explore I would encourage you to look at other communities like I said the average one right now what I've seen in other communities is between 10 to 15% of the assets past their life kind of 60 to 80 percent consumed and the health score is around 70 those communities are operating and they're fine and they provide a great service the question is what will they look like in 10 years 15 and 20 so hopefully that gives some context uh to your question good counselor madsen did you want to take a stab at your question um so so two questions one of them is it looks as if uh we're currently put away about a hundred or we budget 157 000 for asset renewal and we're we're healthy but does that mean that when would we under scenario two?

It looks as if we need to add another 1.4 million dollars to budget to be able to keep that same ratio in terms of that health uh factor the same.

Does that mean like next year we have to increase our taxes by 1.4 million dollars to be able to get that average?

How does that work?

Yeah, great question.

Um, through your worship.

Um it's where that financial strategy piece come in.

So I always say uh communities take many years to get into these positions, it's gonna take them many years to get out, and it's ultimately up to staff and council to understand how fast do you want to bridge your funding gap?

Is it in five years?

Is it in 10 years?

Is it over 15?

Is it over 20?

And it's really through analyzing you know your desired future state, where do you want that ultimate health score to be?

And what is that impact on rates, taxation, assumptions on grant, how much debt you're gonna use, etc.

So I would say I've never seen a community get out of it in one year, and I would never recommend that honestly.

It's it's a plan that you set and you move to over time, and it's not this crazy thing, the power of compounding.

I know everyone probably has investments and these sort of things.

You just little differences today I've learned make huge impacts in the future.

So to answer your question, I wouldn't suggest doing it in one year, although if that's where you guys want to go, totally cool.

Uh, but it will take some time, and it's just about how fast do you guys want to get there?

As I mentioned, the one thing that's really going for you, but I wouldn't take it for granted, is that wave of expenditures kind of 15 to 25 years out.

So you have a little bit of time.

Different communities that have a wave a little bit closer might not have that luxury.

So, as I mentioned, don't I don't want to sit back and relax and let that wave happen?

It's like let's plan proactively so we don't have to do what you suggested, which is this crazy increase over a very short time.

So hopefully that provided some context and perspective.

And yeah, if you have any further questions, happy to answer them.

Counselor Matson, are you good?

Counselor Lemmon.

Just a uh well, I guess it's a it's a questionslash comment, Corey.

Um do I understand correctly that other communities that that we're something of an anomaly?

Let's go with that one.

We're something of an anomaly.

Um having reserves, period.

Did I get that?

So through your worship.

Um, you guys are special.

My mom told me that the other day.

Um, but uh yeah, all joking aside.

Um, I would say, okay, so there's different varying levels of local governments.

There's some that haven't planned at all, putting money aside.

There's other ones that have done an amazing job.

They have reserves set up, they're putting money aside, and they're almost fully funding uh that asset target, and those communities have started like a few years ago, right?

So I don't like this comparing yourself to others because I think it's a zero-sum game.

Uh, you always find someone better, stronger, faster, you know, whatever better looking, it's it's a zero sum game.

So I always like to compare yourself to yourself and where you're tracking towards.

But to answer your question without skirting around it too much, I think you guys are doing a great job.

I think the fact that you have a asset replacement reserve set up, like thumbs up in my books.

Number two, you're putting money aside, thumbs up.

The next step is just honing in what is that rate contribution level based on your desired feature state while considering affordability.

So you've kind of knocked over the first couple areas.

So kudos to you guys for that great forward thinking, both you guys and staff.

And now you're just onto that next hurdle.

So okay thank you.

Yay yes.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah thanks very much.

I think um not only is ViewRaw young, but as you said, um the water uh we're not like Oak Bay and Victorian Esquamo, where we're sharing the water uh challenges uh with the the West Shore just as we are with recreation.

If we had to do recreational loan, you can imagine the swimming pools and and all that stuff um you know adding those as assets uh that would be much more challenging.

I think the um uh it would be and and I guess maybe this question to the to the mayor has uh has the CRD undertaken a similar initiative uh to assess its assets and how its health yeah yeah no so that that and I'm I'm thinking of a regional transportation plan where we're you know trying to s um sort out what's our next steps to to deal with uh the on on influx of all the people coming here so uh that's that's a bit different than asset replacement right because this is this is based on replacing existing assets I know I I think what I'm what I'm saying here is that um when um you know like the CRD undertook the the sewer um project well that diverted a lot of money from from view oil we had to start a new thing to pay for and um and and um and uh invest in.

Um anyway, that's just a thought.

So let me come to the asset asset replacement funding plan that you've got.

And you say for, for example, scenario three, eight hundred thousand.

Is that 800,000 over a five-year plan?

Yeah, through your worship.

Uh, great question.

That's 800,000 annually invested in asset replacement.

Now, with that said, it's not considering how you're gonna fund that.

So, what portion of that 800,000 is coming from taxation and rates, what portion is coming from reserves, what portion is gonna be debt funded, and what portion might come through grants and all those things.

And to the worship's point before, that's where the financial strategy comes in.

So I appreciate the question, and hopefully that ties it together.

Today wasn't answering how are you gonna fund that.

It's just showing you different options.

But eventually you'll have to one of the next steps to consider um, you know, once you figure your target, how how will you guys wanna fund that?

Yes, just a follow-up.

So um, okay, so we're clear then that it's um if we were going to aim for 80%, um, then that would be 800,000 a year.

But I heard you say that um it is it's reasonable to to consider 70%, which is somewhere between three and four.

Um I I think it also is when um when we when we do something like 70%, it does over time uh cause us to start thinking about what's not, you know, rather than what's nice to have, it's what you need to have.

You know, so if you need to you know fix potholes, you may um have less um uh funding capable to uh for beautification.

So it's um there's some interesting trade-offs that we have to assess um you know as we're going down here for uh life of buildings and parks and transportation and sewers.

So I I appreciate this is a very important report, and I'm really really uh appreciative of staff um uh getting us going and and making this a um uh a project and and putting the funding to get this done.

100% and through your worship, I'll just double-click on that one sec.

I think you that was a really smart insight that you brought forward.

And just because communities have assets today or they inherited them doesn't mean you need to always keep them.

So, for example, uh a year ago or so I inherited a van uh from my grandparents, and I thought, oh wow, this is amazing.

I have this beautiful van, and I started driving it, and then I had maintenance expenses and this, and I had to sell it, and that's because I was inheriting that.

And a lot of local governments are inheriting kind of decisions of the past.

So it doesn't necessarily mean you need to keep all those assets.

I'm not saying you don't have to, but it's just another consideration in the whole grand picture of things is do we need this or can we get rid of it?

And how does that help change our funding plan?

So uh just something to think about, super smart insight, and uh I'll end it there.

Okay, and and as you noted when you were answering Councillor Kwalic's question, the the the whole discussion of when the asset truly needs to be replaced is another one that we have to have as well and and get a better better handle on.

But I think I think we're all good.

Thank you, Corey.

You're in your enthusiasm and your obviously love for this work certainly shines through in your presentation, which makes it far more interesting than it probably normally would be.

So thank you for that.

Awesome.

Thank you to staff yeah thank thank you so much for your warm words, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here.

And yeah, I just want to say thanks to staff and council.

Uh, I appreciate the questions um yeah that's why I get up every day is to kind of answer questions help out so I appreciate the engagement and have a wonderful day and if you need anything never hesitate to reach out okay no thank you and thank you for the report so we just need a motion to receive that and then staff will be bringing it forward second cat so it's moved and seconded by counselor lemon and counselor rogers all in favor opposed that's carried and now we're back on to the public art policy Sarah why thank you your worship I will need my report brought up by the web producers please and I will have a much shorter presentation and the slides are numbered so it's uh easy to follow along for counselor matsen at home so by way of background on slide two we can so we do yeah we do have the presentation oh there you go yeah it's up now coming up and then with the move to slide two please okay by way of background we uh this this committee looked at that on May 11th the report and it was referred to the community development advisory committee and that committee met on May 25th there was support for it coming forward we're gonna talk a little bit more about what that group talked about in a minute uh with some proposed amendments to the objectives area and the funding area and as well, the report before you uh this afternoon also has a few uh staff amendments that we will get into.

Next slide, slide three, please.

So the policy covers these headings and these titles, and I was encouraged when Corey talked about getting rid of things because that is actually one section in the policy, and that is deaccessioning, which remains in it.

The changed items are noted in red, and as well, the policy is attached as attachment A to the staff report, and the items that are changed are also noted in red.

We're going to get into these in a little bit more depth in a moment in the PowerPoint presentation, but I just wanted to show you what is there and what is changed.

Some of it is minor, some of it's a little bit more detailed.

Next slide, slide four, please.

So the staff amendments are, and some of it is uh related to the conversation I uh had with the CDAC group on May 25th, adding the word tangible to the definition of public art, um, adding changing a section for clarity around funding, and uh we'll we'll change funding to support this policy to instead say funding to acquire public art, very more direct in the wording around it, and and so that's just a just a grammar grammar thing, and uh adding a section about uh council having the final decision for recipient sites, and that pulls out the decision around selection of art pieces and site selection separates them out a little bit in the policy instead of lumping them together.

Uh so you'll see that change now in the policy, that nuance and CDAC amendments.

We'll turn our mind to those, and that is at the bottom of slide four here.

Uh so there was support for the policy with these two suggestions to the objectives from CDAC, one being change section 2.6 in the objectives from celebrating the town's culture and heritage to celebrate the area's culture and heritage.

And that was more to reflect the area being inclusive of our First Nations neighbors.

And so that is now incorporated, you'll see in red in the policy itself.

The second was a suggestion that promote climate change awareness be added as an objective.

Staff are recommending that this not necessarily be included because expressing shared values is inclusive of promoting climate change awareness with climate change awareness being one of our community's shared values.

It's simply just listing nine objectives that public art can hold for the town.

With respect to funding suggestions provided, the policy doesn't point to anything beyond tangible public artworks.

And the discussion at CDAC was do the council wish to add performance or passive works and scholarships.

And staff's perspective would be that these are operational, not capital items, and would be funded instead from an annual budget or grant and aid program and not necessarily reserve reserve funded item.

The other suggestion around funding from CDAC was could we use community amenity contributions to acquire public art?

And so that is reflected in the document now.

Next slide, please, slide five.

Another discussion point, and it's discussed in the staff report that came up at the CDAC meeting is selection panel.

And not all projects require the same amount of staff time or the same amount of detail or the same amount of money, but some of the larger projects will take an awful lot of all of those things.

For example, projects under the purchasing policy, which is how public art greater than 75,000.

Well, all acquisitions are covered by the purchasing policy, but those greater than 70, 75,000 or greater will require terms of reference to be drafted.

And CDAC discussed, well, when we're getting to that type of level of expenditure, would it behoove us to use a selection panel, which could be an ephemeral body?

So each time that there is something that large contemplated, where their sole role would be to either recommend rather than go to staff and the CDAC group to come up with a recommendation, or to simply select an artistic work through the competition set out through the terms of reference.

And why would that be?

Is perhaps perhaps they are a little bit more tuned into artistic works than CDAC felt qualified to perhaps to handle.

And membership for this type of ephemeral group would vary based on the requirements of the project, and um, it's not like it's going to be a standing group, it would just meet and it will change depending on the type of the project.

Who could be on it?

It could be an artist, it could be a professional from the visual arts community, so perhaps a curator, uh, perhaps a visual arts faculty member.

We do have postsecondary institutions that have those types of faculties on them or embedded within them, an architect, representative from Esquimalt or Songhees Nation or both, depending on the type of project, a representative from CDAC, perhaps one of the council liaisons wish to be involved from CDAC, and a staff representative from development services.

This group would still use the terms of reference and the evaluation criteria that are set out in the policy, evaluation criteria that we discussed at last month's committee, the whole.

So, you know, are the materials high quality?

What's the merit of the artistic works that we're looking at?

So those lists that were set up for procured public art.

Next slide, please, slide six.

The policy itself doesn't identify specific recipient locations.

The staff report does talk about three.

Some locations as ideas.

Chancellor Park on the northerly side, Helmkin Centennial Park in the central area, Georgia's Corner Park in the more southerly area.

It was intended to be fluid just for discussion purposes.

Locations will vary based on potential funding surrounding development that's happening in the area and whether or not things are going to be changing in that area in the next five years.

It may not be a good site yet, but might be down the road.

Safety is it a good location for the works that are contemplated?

The context for the artistic work, does it make sense with what we're contemplating putting there?

And opportunities that arise and it will change over time.

Recommendations for locations could come from CDAC and staff, and that continues to be envisioned in the policy from earlier contemplated.

Next slide, please, slide seven.

Funding we talked about a little bit last month, and it's in here, and we talked about it more at the Community Development Advisory Committee at its May 25th meeting.

Wanted to expand a little bit more on that and what it would look like because I don't think there was a lot of information around that, but perhaps more questions at last month's meeting.

And that is right now what the policy discusses is how would funds go in, or what is the level of funding that would go into this reserve fund that's contemplated.

And right now it talks about an annual budget contribution, and it says equivalent to at least one percent of the current year contribution to the Capital Works and Land Reserve Fund.

So that looks like it would be around $600 a year.

And we're going to talk about what you can buy.

So that'll be in a minute.

So we may want to look at that one percent.

The next item being significant town led projects was another way to contribute to the reserve fund that's listed in the policy, equivalent to a minimum of 1% total budget for capital projects that are over $500,000.

And in speaking with the director of finance, she indicated that between 2018 and 2025, so things that have happened, things that may yet happen.

Fall into that over 500,000.

If all of them proceed, that 10% then look or that 1% then looks like $109,000.

And the policy can be clear on the source of the funding or not.

And then donations continue to be listed.

We would the policy discusses using the that fund to leverage other funding.

I've listed, and you'll see it in red in the policy itself that community amenity contributions may also be used.

Again, it continues to talk about maintenance through the annual operating budget, would be in accordance with the plans provided.

And I've listed here a sample of what the city of Victoria has in their public art policy last updated in 2018, is that they had put in 150 per year with 135 of that for new artwork and 15 for maintenance of existing.

Over time that will vary because the more art you get, the more you need to maintain.

So they periodically update their policy.

They've set up their dollar value in their policy itself, whereas ours is not tied to a specific dollar value.

Next slide, please, slide eight.

So I wanted to talk a little bit about based on these numbers, which is not so we had 109 and we had $600, what things may cost.

Very broad spectrum.

Really difficult, I found to find the dollar values on projects that aren't your own.

So we have what we have in View Royal, a beautiful stone wall, the love story by Kuner and Zettel.

And in 2020 and 2012, that was approximately order of magnitude costs in the range of 225 to 250.

Next slide, please.

Slide nine.

Dr.

Helmkin, which our Helmkin Road is named after.

Was a sculpture done in 2011 was $180,000.

So that gives you an idea of cost for bronze work.

A sculpture which you can see at Save on Foods in 2003 was $120.

Next slide, please, slide 10.

In 2007, another bronze.

Emily Carr, 200,000.

Next slide.

And this is from the Arts Alive, one of the more recent programs in Oak Bay.

These are the prices on excuse me, some of their programming that they have significantly smaller pieces.

And for their Arts Alive program, which is the pieces go out into the community for about a year, and people can look at them.

And at the end of the year, people can vote, and the municipality may buy up to $18,000.

The one that I think has been voted People's Choice Award, but they can buy any of the pieces, but they allocate about $18,000.

So this gives you an idea of the range of prices that the artists have put on their pieces.

So $5,000 is I think there's lettering punched through some sort of metal piece on the left.

I can't actually see what it says at this size.

But there's a message on the board.

The other is some sort of metal sculpture.

And the other again, another metal sculpture on their main street there.

Next slide, please.

So the next steps, and this is my last slide.

If approved, we would need to bring back to you an amendment to our reserves and surplus policy and a bylaw to establish that reserve fund.

And the recommendation is before you from staff is that the public art policy be approved.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes, uh, thanks very much.

Um it was a good discussion with uh CDAC, and and uh I appreciate your your input.

Um and I'm I'm pleased that staff's uh giving some thought and and recommendations on the selection panel.

I I think that's um um a great step forward uh for the for the uh arts policy.

Um and speaking to that, you know, I um when you talked about memberships there, I would say um uh because we don't know if the CDOC is going to be ever forever committee.

So um perhaps a a uh when you say a resident or representative from CDAC, it could be a representative, a town representative, a town citizen, um one of the council liaisons for CDAC, it could be a council member, um, a staff representative doesn't have to be from development services, but just say a staff representative.

So we can uh give it some not to restrict it, but uh give it some um more openness.

But I certainly appreciate the uh the other recommendations.

I uh that would bring a good level of artistic sense and um representation.

Um I would also suggest on the selection panel that the acquisition that the uh the limit be for works of 50,000 or more, not 75.

Um I think that's um 75 is too great.

I think the um individuals with their artistic skills and abilities, um, anything that comes up at 50, I would I would recommend that we we go to the that panel.

Um but overall, I and and just let me say that uh thank you for researching um uh the the uh the works and examples.

I'm particularly challenged um excited with uh how it based on it with um having a piece of art that residents can look at and vote on.

Um that really does speak of um a community involvement, participation and buy-in.

I think is a great model to follow.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, John.

Okay, go ahead.

Yeah, um, thank you, Sarah.

This is so interesting.

And um I didn't realize that a Veroyal resident was actually the uh the artist who uh the sculptor who did um Dr.

Helmkin de Barbano.

Yeah, how about that?

Yeah, yeah.

Um so that's a comment, but but uh uh wow.

Uh in the policy itself, there's a reference to uh music in the park.

There's not where did I see that?

Okay.

That was that was the advisory committee's recommendation that that be included.

Okay, okay, good, good.

All right.

I have nothing more to say.

Thank you.

Counselor Mapson.

Oh, thank you.

Hello.

So in the uh the selection panel, I I would like to see all decisions, final decisions made by council and using them but the artwork at the memorial center is a perfect reason why it shouldn't just be left up to a selection panel.

Because I certainly wouldn't want them to decide something like that.

And then thus for council or the community just has to live with it.

I I like the idea of the selection panel actually making the recommendations with order priority and then sort of leaving it to council.

I also agree that uh I I didn't support uh CDAC's recommendations for you know things like bringing in climate change and scholarships or music in the park, so I appreciate that staff removed those things.

Um and I just had some concerns about um setting a specific percentage of the the budget for capital project.

It just seemed like that depending on the project was potentially too too high to be you know finding the funds for.

And as John said, I also like the idea of a contest uh so that the you know public actually gets to pick their favorite piece of piece of art.

In fact, I probably prefer that way rather than having uh uh a selection panel do it.

So those those are probably my major main comments thank you okay thank you the the one thing I'd say about your first comment somewhat tongue in cheek but there are advantages to council being able to say we didn't have anything to do with selecting that piece so you might want to just cogitate on that a little bit well we could represent Mickey sorry when I when this I'm doing this by cell phone whenever I unmute myself it it then tells me for a minute or 30 seconds that it's unmuting me and I can't hear anything else that you're you're saying so whatever you said in that 30 seconds I didn't hear any of it right yeah well that's difficult I was just I don't know if you did catch what it but I was saying that the the one there's a couple of advantages to me of the selection committee one is we often hear the the opinion from our advisory committees and things that they don't have any real authority to do anything.

So in some ways I think maybe you do have a bit of a leap of faith and you say you know that that we're going to delegate that but I I can also see advantage to not council not making decisions on art um and and delegating that to a committee.

So I I I get what you're saying, but I'm not a hundred percent sold that it isn't better for us just to delegate it.

I don't know if he heard that or not.

I heard it.

Okay.

Okay, good.

And I like the 75,000 rather than 50, because that would just mean that we don't have to use them that often.

Anybody else on my left?

It would a committee decision would come back to council anyway.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Sarah?

Thank you, your worship.

I just wanted to clarify that the 75,000 comes from the purchasing policy.