Council Meeting

Today is the Esquimalt Nation or the Kosapsum Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public during public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

Um if you wish to provide comments during public participation period or ask questions during question period, please begin by indicating your name and your street name for the record.

You may then give us the benefit of your views.

To provide comments virtually uh during public participation period or to ask questions during the question period, scan the QR code or use the link on the live webcast stream screen uh or town's website under live webcast again.

We ask that you provide your name and your street name to begin your comments.

Your comment will be read aloud at the appropriate time by a member of our webcast team.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to items on the agenda.

Question period is open to any question that is limited to two minutes for each speaker.

The meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

So uh I think I'm going to initiate a little move uh on our agenda, and that is to move the mayor's report because we've got a couple of awards to put out um just after the approval of the agenda.

Is there any others that would like an amendment to the agenda?

Uh so with that change recommended.

Uh could I get a mover and a seconder for that change?

So moved. Seconded.

Seconded. Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed. Seeing none opposed, motion carries, and now we'll go into um the mayor's report.

And I'm going to hand the microphone over to Councillor Kowalewich.

Thank you, your worship, uh Mayor Tobias.

And what a great gallery we have tonight.

And I know a lot of folks are here to support their loved ones for various reasons tonight.

And we will be starting the evening to recognize a special person who's here, Russ Ridout.

And just stay seated, Russ.

We're going to talk about you for a while, okay?

Whether you like it or not.

Russ Ridout came to know Mike Mason, a long-serving garbage truck driver on Burnside Road through simple neighborhood interactions that grew into a friendly routine, short conversations on collection days, many waves goodbye, and the occasional dog treat.

On November 27th, 2025, Russ was returning home and turning on to Burnside Road when Mike pulled over alongside the roadway.

Russ stopped to check on him and quickly realized that something was wrong.

Mike explained that he was feeling faint and lightheaded and was waiting for dispatch to send relief.

Russ immediately recognized that this was a medical emergency.

Without hesitation, he moved into action, called 911, and when that wasn't quick enough, he went to the View Royal Fire Hall, the public safety building, and met with uh the chief and deputy and and their team there to get help.

Which they did, along with the BC Ambulance Service.

Mike later shared just how critical Russ's actions were.

He said Russ knew exactly what to do and he didn't hesitate.

His actions are the reason I have a second chance.

Russ, you trusted your instincts, acted with purpose, and you put someone else's well-being first.

Russ, your actions remind us that everybody can make an extraordinary difference when they choose to act.

Tonight we're so proud Mayor and Council and the town of VRoyal to recognize you for your quick thinking, compassion and life-saving actions.

It's an award on behalf of Mayor Tobias who's also here with us uh for Russ's outstanding work and I'll let the mayor present this pin.

Got a couple for you Russ. All right thank you you look like a boy scouting thank you very much.

Why don't we move out in front here to get some photos we can do that. Thank you.

Russ of your family here And because one isn't enough, uh, I'd ask Councillor Lemon to prepare uh a statement and also uh honor somebody who's very important to be royal.

So I don't have a a speech, but I I do want to say it is an absolute honor to recognize Mike Mason this evening.

Mike, I consider you a friend, and so do a few thousand other people across View Royal and their dogs.

And and it's safe to say you are loved on nearly every street and every neighborhood.

And uh not many of us can say that.

In fact, there's an election coming, Mike.

Could you just meet me up at the podium and I'm going to present something to you?

In recognition of the very best qualities of community spirit, kindness, and connection, Mike, through your dedicated service and genuine care, you have strengthened the bonds that make View Royal such a welcoming and compassionate place.

Your friendship to residents and to the many pets who are an important part of our families reflects a quiet leadership grounded in generosity, reliability, and heart, with sincere appreciation for the positive difference you continue to make across our community.

And this is from his worship Mayor Sid Tobias, a mayor's award.

Thank you. What a lovely touch.

I just I will now be weighing my lab on a bi-weekly basis, unfortunately.

Um thank you uh uh again, uh Russ and Mike.

What a wonderful story.

Um and you know, to Counselor Kwalowicz's point, it takes a lot to act.

We have neighbors that some of them aren't doing so well.

And uh in an event like this, it really takes trust in your hunt your your conscience and and uh maybe being a little bit more forward than you normally would with be with somebody as in your case, Russ, to be able to recognize that and act on it.

So I think it sets a wonderful precedent to us that small actions can make big differences in people's lives.

So thank you again.

Um I usually take pot shots at the NDP government at this point.

I'm going to forego it this evening, um, much to the chagrin of I'm sure all of you that came out aside from those that came out for the presentations.

This is your opportunity for those to come out.

The the night does not get any more exciting than what just happened in the past five minutes.

So we will not be judging you if you want to exit stage left now.

Uh thank you very much for coming out.

Otherwise, you're in the middle of bylaws uh for us, and I know you're all civically minded and want to hang out, but I understand.

Okay, folks, we're uh about to recommence uh with our public participation period.

So is anybody in the room uh have anything to address council on uh regarding the agenda?

Anything on the agenda you would like to address, council on going once, twice.

Uh Carl, do we have any uh comments from online?

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have no comments on the form system this evening.

Thanks, Carl. Uh and Leanne, I guess it's over to you for the next uh bylaw that's four A.

Good evening, uh Mayor Tobias and members of council.

I'll just wait for the presentation to be uploaded here on the screen.

Carl, we can't see the presentation.

But I'll just note that Councillor Rogers and Councillor Brown have joined us online and are present.

Wonderful. So this evening we are bringing back an amendment to the official community plan because staff recently discovered that there were the land use descriptions for residential and large lot residential were missing from the land use policy table in the uh 2011 official community plan.

And uh some parcels in View Royal are currently designated residential and large lot residential, and we need to add back in the descriptions of these land use designations.

Next slide. So here on the slide, you have the current descriptions of the land use uh designations for large lot residential and residential.

So there are no changes to these descriptions.

Um they're the exact same that were in the 2011 OCP.

We need to add them back in.

Um when we were uh undergoing amendments uh last year, and there was a few um changes, it was discovered that these the descriptions were not added back into the table.

Next slide. This is the land use map that was amended uh in December 2025, where we had to uh change the land use designations for the majority of residential and large lot residential uh parcels to the small-scale multi-unit residential land use designation.

Um but there were some that um are don't don't qualify for that land use designation and remain within the residential and large lot residential land use designation, and you can see those ones in yellow.

And uh the descriptions of these land use designations are within a table in the OCP.

Next slide. The recommendation um in front of you this evening um to deal with this this administrative error is uh that council give first and second reading to uh the amendment bylaw number 1163, and that a public hearing date is scheduled for March 17th, uh 2026 as we um would like to uh expedite this process in order to get these land use designations back into the OCP.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lynn.

So we've got uh three motions that we need to consider.

One is to receive the report, the second one would be the first and second reading of the bylaw, and lastly the scheduling uh public hearing uh for March 17th.

This is uh entirely just a correction for an oversight uh for it, but uh I'll stop there and see if anybody has any questions for uh for Lynn.

Um step recommendation.

Staff recommendation.

Okay, uh Council McKenzie, do you have a question?

Just uh thank you, uh Chair.

I just had a question of curiosity.

How many uh properties are we talking about that are impacted by this?

Through through the mayor, um I'm not sure the number of properties, but um off the top of my head um that were not added to the small-scale multi-unit housing designation, but there are a few um that aren't um because they're not uh connected to sewers.

Uh but uh we we need to add this, like this is actually something that needs to be put back into the OCP.

It is problematic that it's not in there.

Thank you, Councilor McKenzie.

Anybody online with a question for Leanne?

Okay. Uh we've got a mover.

Do we have a seconder to receive?

Seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor of receipt.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, that motion carries.

Uh can I get a mover and a seconder for the reading of the bylaw and that official community plan bylaw number 811 2011 amendment by law number 1163 2026 of bylaw to amend official community plan 811 2011 to add the residential and large lot land use designations back into land use policy 1.5 land use designations.

Can I get uh for first and second reading a mover and a seconder?

So moved. Move by councillor McKenzie, seconded by councillor Mattson.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, uh, passes unanimously.

And then finally, can I get uh a mover to schedule a public hearing for March 17th?

Moved by Councillor Matson, seconded by counselor uh Lemon.

Uh who's close on the buzzers there with counselor McKenzie.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And that concludes that.

Leanne, is that everything you needed for that agenda item?

Okay. Uh and now we have our draft financial and uh plan and project consideration.

And that this isn't uh just for clarification.

If you could start off, Stephen, what is your intention tonight?

Thank you, Mayor.

I will cover that as uh part of my remarks here.

Where are we? Okay, so thank you, Mayor.

Um we'll be discussing the 2026 to 2030 draft financial plan.

Uh committee were provided with an overview on February the 10th, and this is more of a fulsome look at the entire uh budget package.

Next slide, Carl.

So the purpose of tonight's discussion is to help familiarize council and the public with financial planning and to review key aspects of the budget, including special projects.

Council has the opportunity to make any changes.

Otherwise, the budget will proceed to next steps uh status quote.

Staff refer that if council do wish to make any changes, that this is done by resolution.

So I'd like to take a moment here to confirm for council that there are only four tax-funded projects in 2026.

They are the three staffing projects and the truth and reconciliation work.

So besides these, any decisions on projects, whether capital or non-capital will not affect taxation.

Instead, these projects are all funded from sources like reserves, uh, gas tax, DCCs, that sort of thing.

So that is something uh to keep in mind for tonight's discussions.

Uh, you do have the project summaries in front of you as well.

Uh, staff's timeline for meeting our legislative deadlines is based on council initiating discussion of projects tonight and hopefully concluding next Tuesday.

Uh staff are here to answer any questions.

Next slide. So, without getting into the weeds of municipal finance theory, I'll just provide an overview of some key aspects of financial planning.

As council are aware, legislation requires that the financial plan by law be adopted prior to the tax rate bylaw and both before May 15th.

The financial plan must cover five years and be balanced such that expenses cannot exceed revenues.

Sustainability as it applies to municipal finance generally means that the local government can consistently deliver public services at the desired level service level, sorry, over time through various economic ups and downs.

Sustainability is achieved through something that is called structural budget balance.

And this is the use of ongoing revenues like taxation to fund ongoing expenditures such as label labor.

Sorry, and that's something we touched on in the last meeting as well.

It means being able to afford the purchase, rehabilitation and maintenance, and replacement of assets, so they deliver the levels of service expected by the public.

And it means ensuring today's decisions don't create excessive future liabilities or degrade service capacity.

Now, in terms of process, staff estimate future costs and revenues based on best information at the time, considering market increases and inflation, contractual requirements, growth in demand, levels of service, master plans, financial and other policies.

And a policy example is where, for example, grant in aid is 5% of prior years casino revenue.

Legislation states council must undertake a process of public consultation regarding the proposed financial plan before it is adopted.

Staff will undertake similar public consultation to prior years.

The budget package is available to the public as part of this agenda.

Budget discussions are held in open meetings with an opportunity for public participation, and an engaged viewer all survey will seek public feedback around March 17th to April 1st with links on all social media and our web page.

Next slide, Carl.

The budget package contains a number of schedules.

Schedule 1.1 is the consolidated financial plan.

And by consolidated, we mean operating revenue and expense, together with capital expenditures and funding sources added together from both the general and sewer funds.

So Schedule 1.1 is basically a compilation of information in schedules 1.2 through 4, and then there are the project summaries that council are familiar with, which provide greater detail around each project.

Next slide. February the 10th.

We did refine the numbers slightly.

The plan increases tax generated revenue by 1.4 million in 2026, and this includes a projected $300,000 in non-market change revenue.

Council will recall that non-market change revenue is revenue from new properties created through development, development or subdivision since the previous year.

We do see a decrease in sales of services attributable to decrease permit related revenue.

This decrease is offset slightly by increased revenue relating to fire protection fees.

As the fees are calculated based on an increase in the protective services budget for 2026.

Council are aware of decreased gaming and small community grants.

Finally, the increase in contributions results from a slight uptick in DCC funded projects in 2026.

And moving to transfers or for operations, the increase is attributed to increased amortization triggered by higher asset cost base.

Next slide, Carl.

Moving to expenditures in terms of operations.

Again, uh these align closely uh to those.

Sir, do you have a question?

Yeah, I should have a question on revenues, and I'm just wondering if sales of service were being a bit optimistic for 940,000.

Like that's basically people with respect to people building and the permits they provide, because I don't know.

Unless I've missed something, I don't know how much we don't seem to have a a lot of building going on, and I don't see uh right a lot of bright lights in the future.

It it includes it includes um yes, permit revenue, you're right, fire protection fees.

Uh we're close to 500k on on fire protection fees alone.

Um, so that's that's a big chunk.

And then there are some smaller amounts in there.

Um, I don't have them in front of me, but fire protection fees, that's the funding we get from Songhees and correct.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

And yes, if if you have any questions along the way, just feel free to.

Uh Councilor Brown, go ahead.

Yeah, just that question, Steve.

Uh the salaries, uh, you know, personally I'm full 100% supportive of the increase in the FTE and the new positions.

However, I just wonder the numbers on these pages.

Is that based on a full year, a full year wages and uh benefits, or is it because we're already March the first, so obviously we haven't had a paid January or February uh salaries for that those increases.

I just wonder if there's a little bit of uh wiggle room to start uh, you know, say just for sake of uh discussion, we started on April 1st or May the 1st, because each month we start a little bit later, realizing it's gonna take time to recruit and get people on board anyway.

Um, but I just wonder if this if the numbers here are based on a full year's uh increase uh of these FTEs or the increase in FTs.

Thank you.

Yes, through the mayor, um they they do take into consideration both the staggered um start dates in the year as well as the um positive impact, I guess if you will, on on other budgets uh in terms of our paid-on calls, uh, which decreased.

So there is a table in the report.

I don't have the exact page in front of me that has a number there for new fire salaries.

So that is the net amount for 2026, and um in appendix A.

When we look at future years, um in terms of schedule 1.1 or 1.2, I guess there, um the full year is incorporated into protect protective services, as well as uh the taxation uh for full year in years two through five, plus the additional full year um staffing levels in in years two to five with the added two, two, and two for fire.

So we we can discuss that further.

I don't think taking too much time here, but uh realizing it's already uh we're into March already.

So um for this particular year, 2026, so that number might be slightly slightly reduced depending on the start dates or uh well for the new employees anyway, uh based on that.

So there might be a little bit of a uh well, I hate to use the term, a tiny bit of savings um for the remainder of this year, and then of course 2027 on, uh it's established and be put into the uh future year's budgets.

Correct. This year's numbers reflect partial year um hires.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, with consolidated expenditures, along with the records management project, uh increased engagement coordinator capacity and the 2026 fall election, all relating to general government services.

Uh the standout here is council's commitment to health, safety, and security with a jump in protective services.

And this does include the addition of the four full-time at the fire hall.

Uh you'll see a positive variance in the transportation services segment, mainly from lower boulevard and drainage costs.

Uh the increase in parks, rec and culture are a result of adding one FTE to master plan projects in 2026, and work relating to the urban forest strategy, as well as increased requisitions from West Shore Parks and Rec and Greater Victoria Public Library.

And in terms of capital, we see less capital projects and transfers to reserves increases slightly, mostly due to increased contribution to capital renewal, which is offset by a negative outlook uh toward casino revenue.

Next slide, please.

In terms of capital spending over the next five years, you'll see from this slide that transportation services in blue will be administering the majority of capital projects with a big jump in 2028, due mainly to the Admiral's Road Active Transportation Improvements Project and sewer gravity main upgrade at Fort Victoria.

Next slide. While in green, you'll see the impact from the projected decrease in casino revenue, combined with a heavy reliance on non-statutory reserves such as casino and community works funds.

And while community works funding will be stable through 2034 at approximately $600,000 per year.

Staff project a close to $200,000 decrease in annual casino revenue by 2030.

So gradual.69 is the amount of incremental tax revenue net of non-market change required for this budget.

It's very difficult to project with any accuracy the impact to the average representative home at this time.

If we use 2025 tax data, uh the increase would be about 205 to the average representative home.

Uh, as stated in the report, council does have discretion over a few items on this list if changes are deemed necessary, such as staffing increases or reserve contributions.

Uh next slide, Carl.

In terms of next steps, we would like to continue the discussion tonight around tax revenue increase and project review.

In the past, capital has been a more fulsome discussion than non-capital projects, so perhaps council uh would like to take more time to review the capital project summaries ahead of uh next week's meeting, at which time um staff hope to discuss capital projects and leaving non-capital for tonight.

Um we plan on continuing budget discussions through March with public engagement happening at the end of the month.

April sees the review of public feedback, tax rate options, and first three readings of the financial plan and tax rates uh bylaws and adoption prior to May 15th.

So with that, I'll turn it back to you.

Thank you, Stephen.

Uh good brief. Um let's start with questions from anybody that haven't been answered by Stephen so far.

Any questions for Stephen?

Go ahead, John.

Yes, yes, thank you very much.

Excellent report.

Thank you. And I'm certainly very pleased the um the staff appreci appreciate and are and are planning for the um decreasing um amount of casino revenues that uh is is coming to the town and uh looking to allocate uh and find alternate funding sources that have been so traditionally um reliant on on a casino.

Um I'm curious in in the um five-year plan, have you um and I'm sorry I couldn't identify it, but can you identify what um the expected um tax increase will be over the next four years in each year?

Uh we project for a five percent increase over the next four years after 2026.

Even with um the new police building and ongoing um staffing increases in the fire hall.

Yes, through uh through the mayor, the staffing increases are included.

Um the the RCMP building is still at a stage where we don't know the actual impact and and and how that will um affect homeowners.

It it if there is a sub regional service that is uh requisitioned through CRD, it will show up uh as a CRD charge on folks' tax notices rather than part of our income tax or sorry, our property tax uh rate.

Yes, uh you know, uh much like our um our our sewer um surcharge, I expect, right?

Okay, that's that's interesting.

And I I think um while that may be the case, uh one of the things uh I keep forgetting to uh to consider and and um um I hope um we can get that information is to see what um what are the view royal CRD costs, the other servicing you know garbage um costs and uh the taxation costs.

So really try to try and get a uh a wholesome picture of of what uh taxpayers um are required to uh uh spend support um you know in the next coming years.

So that would be useful.

Uh thank you, your worship.

But that's the only question I have right now.

Thank you, Counselor Rogers.

Uh I guess my question to my colleagues would be how would you like to proceed with this?

Obviously, um uh in the report, it was pretty we can go through the projects line by line, but they're not going to impact anything out of taxation for this year.

They're going to impact reserve, other things, but they're not going to impact the bottom line of taxation.

So is it council's will to have the next opportunity to go through capital and non-capital projects line by line or a more constructed area that we could make decisions uh around that?

Just trying to meter your will right now.

Because I realize it's a dense bit of information to have received on a Friday.

Uh thank you, Stephen, for having these booklets printed out, because to Council Rogers' point, it does seem to help a little bit uh going through and and comparing um things.

But uh if nobody has a suggestion, I I would propose that the next financial um uh agenda item we have uh at the next meeting, we dedicate that space to the um capital and non-capital projects, and we just received this for information now.

We got enough playroom to do that.

Council Rogers.

Yes, yes, thank you.

Um Steve, you you did um mentioned that the um the 2026 projects are only uh three staffing and uh truth and reconciliation.

Um did I hear that correctly?

In terms of the impact of 2026 taxation, those would be the uh the projects.

Okay. Um and I note that um there'd been a significant decrease in project uh project planning, project costs um in from this last year to this year.

Um are there any uh carryover um projects coming coming over from 2025?

Thank you. I don't have the specific number.

There are a fair number, either um because that's how they were planned, just to due to the scope, or simply due to uh constraints that uh created a carryover situation to 2026.

So council would have seen uh a fair number of projects both on the capital and non-capital side already in in 2025 uh deliberations okay thank you uh thank you so we will um uh i guess the uh the the idea is that the non-capital capital projects would be uh discussed next uh next week yeah if that's council's will that's what I would recommend we do it'll give us uh uh uh a more fulsome time to review the financial plan uh and projection uh and then we we do that so if somebody's willing to support that in a motion we could do sure council matzon thank you so one of my concerns is uh the 8.69 is sort of where we wanted to to get to but it's also eaten up our 300 000 and increased market evaluation so normally those were dollars that council would look at say what can we do new with with this new group of funding we have so so that's gone so that's a a little bit frustrating from my perspective.

But the other thing I've it's an ongoing frustration with me is just how much money we spend on consulting fees.

So again I think for this year next year it looks to be about uh 65000 each year and so well I think we did really good in terms of reducing boulevard maintenance costs um I'm just wondering if we have more opportunities to sort of look for for additional reductions in sort of long term because um quite frankly I don't think our taxpayers can can can sustain this type of increase especially now that the province is no longer allowing uh uh them to defer their taxes like they used to without it being really expensive to them so I I just have some concerns that our our costs just keep increasing increasing and uh we continually spend fifty to a hundred thousand or four hundred thousand dollars on a consultant and most times I just don't see us using them that much unless some of my colleagues has has seen something different there.

But I I anyways I think that sometimes we need to look to be a little bit more frugal in terms of uh money we spend even if it isn't coming out of tax dollars it's still coming out of um budgets that we could have spent on on other projects or things we would have liked to see thanks counselor mattson any other comments no uh counselor loan um thank you a a question Steve regarding the RCMP contracted services we're not we're not hiring a new police officer this year are we or is this the one that we approved a year or two ago coming up what what why do we have a two percent increase in RCNP yeah thank you uh through the mayor each year the RCMP does send a fresh uh five year financial plan that and then and then we uh we respond with our our our commitment to to pay what uh we are told we're will pay and uh it just happens that there's been an increase um there had to answer your question there hasn't been an increase in in uh staffing you're right um and as has been discussed in in previous meetings uh we do benefit from that later on potentially where we will receive uh a credit adjustment to future um invoices and that sort of thing um i do recall there being um an increase in the guards and matrons um section of the um budget as well so keeping up prisoners basically um so i don't have the the details in front of me but yeah that's that's what it is just just a comment and we're going to be like it or not um one percent of whatever we do or approve is going to because the provinces dumped 911 on municipalities and that's unavoidable and it's unfortunate and and uh I'm I missed your mayor's report um and I you know I I it it's it shocks me that we're actually more comfortable than we ought to be with an 8.69 percent increase because over the last five years we've had you know in that realm every year so you know the people that you know moved here um five years ago are likely paying very close to 50 percent more in taxes than they were when they arrived.

However, that's where we're at.

That's the world we're in, and it's and it's happening across the board.

But it's it's it's not uh it's not comfortable.

And there it is.

I have nothing to say except to highlight that.

No, and I think we're all feeling that, counselor Lemon.

Stephen, in your uh calculations, and maybe uh if required, we'll we'll do a motion for this, but um taking our usual million dollar home or eight hundred and fifty thousand dollar home, if one of those exists uh in View Royal, then um and we looked at our taxation rate with our projected taxation this year.

I think it would be good for council as well as the public to know.

So you're in View Royal with a house of this valuation.

Here's how much, regardless of percentage, here's how much your tax bill is going to be this year, Vice, Callwood, Vice, Esquimalt, and and Santa's.

Like what is the bottom line?

Is it uh and normally when I look at those things after the fact we're a kind of lower middle of the CRD?

Um, but it would be good to say, okay, what what is because everybody's taxes is going are going up in the CRD, including the CRD taxes.

Um that that is one thing for sure.

But is there a way you can graphically demonstrate that for us so we get some idea?

So uh, you know, we're we're feeling the pain of uh of inflation, but how are other communities doing it?

Sure. Uh Mayor, for for 2026, we will have to obviously wait a little bit till we have uh final assessment numbers, but that information can be uh generated um later closer to I would say around the timing of of uh mailing of tax notices, and and that's something I know in the past I believe we have included in in the uh insert that goes with tax notices as well, just to sort of show you where you are in terms of URL versus the rest of the CRD.

Um so yep.

Even something historical like what we're paying right now for our our current roles, that would be useful for the next meeting and probably already exists, right?

Then we can come up with that for sure, yeah.

That would be great.

Council Rossy. The other thing that was really useful just in terms of things we used to get at this time of year or a little later on, was uh unlist all council's properties would be listed and a few others businesses, and so we would actually see what the impact of the tax increase is.

I think we did away with that for a privacy reason.

But it because it's the public document.

And I know you like it, but all our information is public.

You can get it off the BC assessment.

Right, it's not that out there and already published, though.

Somebody would have to dig for it, and not in the published document.

Anyways, it was very useful to have is the point I'm trying to make, and I I miss it.

Okay, because we don't we're missing like the overall impact on on people by not having that sort of information.

And it also helped when we took a look, say at a business like Foremile to see when we start shifting taxes or we when we we were shifting rates in between uh residential and commercial, we we would see what the impacts were.

What the actual impact was, yeah.

Stephen. My only comment on that would be to um where we do have to be careful um we do not want to come across as making decisions um in a punitive manner not saying that that is the um motivation um but it could be perceived as such and as well when setting tax rates I think if councils uh homes are there then could the public perceive that as a potential conflict as well um in terms of setting tax rates knowing what the impact is going to be on on your home so that was part of the discussion last year um around April I think we we talked about that and yeah thank you and we could uh get um more defined uh in in our next meetings after we talk about the projects at the next meeting but if we want to talk about how else could we reduce the amount of the um uh eight eight plus percent increase um if we wanted to smooth things out with reserves uh over a number of years my I guess my concern in doing that is are we just passing the buck further down the road uh with those increases and uh and uh who knows what's coming next year for us if there's anything else left that the province wants to download on us for instance um if there's anything left um then that that might be one of those unforeseen things that even we don't know about uh a little uh little bit, uh, yeah, Donald, go to you in a second.

A little bit about the police station.

So uh callwood's got a meeting coming up Thursday.

Um, that they will make a decision, I guess, on.

Uh part of that stems from two reports.

The first report was a quality survey that in hindsight, we should have uh completed when we started the IPD process.

Um, what that quantity survey does is look at the validation report and say uh the validation report is here's the building that you want.

Here's what we can build it for, right?

That's the validation.

We can build you this building for this amount of money with contingency plans.

The quantity survey looks at really um uh how much is that validation report within the guidelines of 15% of known construction costs or whatever.

This quantity survey came back at 0.01 percent difference.

So it validated the validation.

The other thing that we had come in for us was uh a letter from eDivision that said we're good with the build.

Right. So that took all of the window to the sales about people saying it needed a lot more things in it.

Um, and and there's room to play moving things around that aren't going to incur cost to make the new um uh superintendent comfortable with his new new arrangement.

Uh, with those two things, uh, I'm I'm hoping that Callwood will pass it this this year.

As Steven evaluated or um uh you know mentioned, these this will be a CRD sub-service.

It's already gone to second reading and all the um uh inspector municipalities is waiting for is Callwood's go-ahead with it, and that will start the process of municipal funding and loan.

The challenge with that is that is really a fulsome year out, but often what happens is a temporary loan to get us through this year that's feeding off of that master loan in order to do it.

For instance, the demolition of uh the existing structure and getting everything ready to go and maybe even starting construction, because that takes years to get through.

Um the funding for that.

Um Steven and I and Scott are gonna go away and look at the growing community fund that we can come back later and decide to utilize that to decrease the pressure on uh on the RCMP.

Um, you know, uh and that was sitting at I think four or five million dollars was it uh I put you on the spot, Steve.

That number, if I could point you to schedule four in your package.

Growing communities fund.

The beginning balance in 2026 was three point eight.

Is three point eight, sorry.

And um, you know, scheduled capital projects have it down to three million, I guess, at the end of 2026.

So we've got three million dollars that's uh unencumbered of the growing community fund.

Scott, what was our uh requisition for this sort of the subservice just for view royals portion of the uh fund?

Can you remember?

Uh yet to be determined because our population, our assessed values are changing all the time, but it's gonna come in somewhere about 14 or 15 percent of 103 million, which is about 15 million dollars.

So we could potentially um whatever council would um look at, and I guess that that number that's gonna be hard to calculate will be a CRD number that occurs on our um on our tax bill for next year, but that won't occur this year, correct?

I don't believe that it will be on this year's tax notice, as far as I know.

Um then we'd also have options to potentially, if it's council's will, to use reserves as well on top of the um uh growing community fund to just notionally for for discussion, um, contribute $15 million in it, and that would leave us nine to pay off, which over the same period it's a $25 year amortization, I believe, would decrease it significantly.

So those are uh other options that we'd have down the road um to help bring that down a little bit.

Yeah. Did I hear you say that the borrowing for the police building will show up on our tax notice is as an increase in the CRD costs?

Correct. It won't show as a view royal cost because the way we've approved borrowing is to create a sub-service with Callwood and Langford and us to uh to pay for it.

It's the same way that uh Panorama or other uh rec centers pay for that.

This is the first police station.

I think I'm saying that right, Scott.

This is the first police station that's funded by a subservice.

So this is new for everybody.

Uh it's also the first time I believe three municipalities went in for an IPD process, which is uh a new thing, although it's becoming more popular.

Um the other thing that gave us gave me uh quite a bit of confidence in dealing with uh Burnaby, who uses the IPD process to I think they built two fire stations, the RCMP building, daycare or more.

Uh some of them actually came in under budget, right?

Because it it allows flexibility.

There were problems with one site that they were building on.

They found an archaeology or an arc artifact, they had to pivot the building.

You know, if that was the normal project management, it would have skyrocketed everything, but they were able to change the plan as they went, still go through the construction and build it uh on time and and under budget for it.

So there are advantages of being a little bit more flexible with that.

Um so yeah, these are all future conversations.

I'm just trying to plant seeds about availability options that we might have and uh um and thinking creatively for them.

Um are we okay with somebody receiving Steven's report after John?

John, go ahead.

Don, I understand. Do you have a you had a hand up before me?

Sorry, uh Don, you go first and then John.

Yeah, I'll try to be quick.

Uh I know following up on Counselor Mattson's uh comment there about I know we'll lost uh time or maybe two years ago, uh we did all get a slip of paper showing um what our personal property tax increase would be, which is useful, and we can share it or not share it.

It's up to us, it's our property.

Uh all of us on council live in View Royal and pay taxes.

So um that was useful.

It was useful to me.

It also had a few select uh commercial properties, which is good too, because uh it can show people how much more um uh commercial and recreational properties pay.

It's over four times what uh uh individual um homeowners pay.

So um it shows the value of light industrial or commercial properties to to the town.

So um, you know, it's not a lot of information, but it's certainly uh I found it helpful.

And I obviously counselor Mattson did it.

Uh it's not onerous um for us to know uh before the tax notice comes out what our own personal taxes are gonna be.

Yeah, when it's ready, I would encourage you as individuals to go to Stephen and have a discussion um uh about that.

I think that would be that would be perfectly fine.

The only problem is if we publish that on an agenda uh or a document associated with the agenda, then everybody gets not intended to be public unagenda.

It was a uh our previous uh uh financial officer gave us a slip of paper during the meeting showing us what our individual uh tax property estimated would be.

So again, it was just between uh that person uh and us.

It wasn't uh an agenda item.

And certainly the uh the people say, well, what about uh I'm not gonna mention any names of any businesses, but it was also helpful and to let people know, yeah, they're paying four times the amount of uh the the uh personal uh homes taxes.

So uh the more um businesses, uh commercial and recreational properties we have that are paying taxes, that takes a lot of the uh uh own onus off of individual property owners.

Just a comment.

And also just quickly too, it doesn't look like our uh census is gonna go up to 15,000, which is great, because once it does, we're paying 90% instead of 70% of the policing cost.

So um I don't think we're gonna hit it, which is great, uh, because when that comes, that's gonna be um a big hit.

Thanks, Councilor Brown. Uh Councilor Rogers, please.

Yes, thank you.

Uh your worship, uh, when um will we know what the uh the CRD requisition cost will be for the town?

Taxation?

Uh no, that's uh that's a great question.

And I know it's been on the top of Scott's mind and and my mind.

Uh I think we'll probably um be using this year's data for it.

So I would say around tax time we'd have a more clear uh idea of what the estimate would be for that.

And uh Scott, in your experience and maybe Stephen, if we were to do temporary borrowing now, that would just be borrowing off of the so we wouldn't be paying anything off the temporary borrowings separately, or how might that work out?

If we were to start, let's say callwood was approved, we were going to go ahead.

Would we be paying anything on the temporary borrowing, or that would just be folded into the entire subservice?

I'm I'm not expecting that we're gonna have any payments this year, but the temporary borrowing would would happen and then the requisition for that would happen through MFA, go through the regional district.

So it would be a delayed process um well into 2027.

Okay, thank you.

If I may more um more questions, um go ahead, counselor.

Thank you. Steve, um the e-com cost that um uh councillor uh lemon uh uh pointed out with great disdain.

Um how much of the what's what's the increase and what's the amounts uh for the next five years of the e-com bill?

Do you know if you can refer to uh um whatever schedule and whatever line item that might be?

Thank you, counselor.

Uh there is a schedule uh of of um tax drivers in in the staff report, which I actually don't have right in front of me here, so for 2026 I don't have that number handy.

Uh future years I would have to get back to you on on what they provided.

Okay, yeah, please.

That's great. Um, in terms of the growing communities fund, um it it's interesting because um we're in the also in the current uh process of um undergoing a West Shore recreational reassessment of uh what recreational facilities are required uh for the growing populations of West Shore.

And um so I I as we consider what we might be um spending towards police, we also have to start budgeting.

And I think uh uh Councillor Kowalitz was uh you know when uh you were liaison for and and chair of um uh West Shore Parks and and now Alison, the um, you know that that looms and is uh constantly on my mind.

Um I wonder um members of council, what uh what do you anticipate that?

Um when will our recreational costs start ballooning?

Is that something you want an answer to? Because I don't think we can answer it right now, Councilor Rogers.

Well, there I know that uh the you know we're ongoing, it's an ongoing process right now, and and I think top of mind of of the West Shore recreation, but um is that something that's uh way off five years from now or even sooner than the that uh the next council is gonna have to grapple with that best uh I'll go to Councillor McKenzie because she sits on the on the board.

Yeah, so as uh Councilor Rogers, as you know, we're currently working on the parks and recreation master plan.

Um that though is a very long-term document.

And even then, um, a lot of the facilities and and things that they're are going to pop up in the West Shore.

Uh it it will be up to the municipality that it's in to like the capital costs will be for them, and then the operational will be what's shared.

So um it's it's very hard to say at this point, but uh I don't think it will be we won't, unless it's in View Royal, um, I don't think we'll be paying uh large capital costs.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

That that certainly helps.

Um Council Matson made the point about uh contracted services, um and um maybe Steve, you can help me on this one.

Um we got Transportation Master Plan, Parks Master Plan, DCC update, we got drainage, uh amenity uh costs uh charges bylaw, um and uh so all of those are are are those essential reports, strategic reports.

Are all those done by uh contracted services?

Thank you, counselor.

Um I don't have that detail in front of me.

That is something that would be covered when we do uh review the project summaries.

I I there is a fair amount of of consultant work in there.

I just don't know um how much.

Okay, so uh we can look at that uh next week. Thank you, worship.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

So can I get a motion to receive uh Steve's report?

No, it doesn't cut it.

Okay, Councilor Masson.

Uh booked and uh Council McKenzie seconds, all those in favor.

Any opposed? Okay, so do your reading on your uh projects and uh we'll have a good fulsome discussion next week.

Um business arising from previous minutes.

Um so there's a um I think a bit of a uh typo in this one, and that uh it actually meant uh heart road and um and uh for item eight.

So uh the reason why I'm bringing this back, folks, is that we gave staff a direction to give us a plan for the Western Gateway.

And they did. They came back with their initial plan that was really focused on the strip, uh, which I call the old island highway.

Um that that um uh and mainly focused around the commercial areas there.

I think one of the principles we'd adopted is that we've already quadrupled our um our capacity on every lot with the provincial legislation.

We've already upzoned the entire uh and and in some places up to 10 stories with no parking and the transit-oriented development, right?

We've already done that, including the areas that we captured by the Western Gateway.

My challenge with this is that we've collectively said if we go ahead and approve this thing or don't make any changes to it, that's not good enough.

We want more density on the areas of the Western Gateway, and that includes all of the areas off of Heart Road and Price Road and all the way to the transit oriented.

That was not my intent.

I'm not sure if it was yours.

One of the things I'm discovering about affordability is the zoning we give it, because the cost of the units that are put on it doesn't matter whether there's a duplex or apartment building, most of that is land value.

If we do this, we've just increased the land value for those to make it less affordable for somebody that actually wants to come in and build small-scale multi-unit housing.

So my uh my ask is to kind of for council to consider let's leave the um the work we're doing around, even though we're not calling it a local area plan, let's leave that confined mainly uh to the old island highway areas and where those other areas are um uh associated with uh with uh residential that are zoned that way already.

Let's keep it as small scale multi-unit housing as it's been designated by the province.

And I'd be happy if I don't have a seconder, then we don't have to discuss it.

Uh, but I'd need a seconder to continue uh discussion of motivation.

I'll second because I have a question.

Sure.

Council Lemon. So are you thinking perhaps specifically of the areas that we were um considering the neighborhood village?

Is that the areas you're thinking of over on in the Western Gateway?

Price Road area, etc.

So is that uh let me just look at a map here.

Yeah. Yeah, I'm trying to pick up.

Yeah, so it would be Hart Road, Miller Road, Lloyd Place.

Okay, right? All of those streets, just as you go by the six-mile uh bridge, you've got uh Buddy Road, you've got Price Road, and I think High Bank borders on it a little bit.

My challenge with this is that we haven't been equal in using the same philosophy that we have everywhere else, whilst we still wanted to look at the areas that were underdeveloped on the old island highway.

It'd be hard for me to look personally in any of those residents' eyes and say um we did this and it was conscious decision to do it uh and upzone it that much more and we were we just weren't happy with small scale multi-unit housing that would increase it by a factor of four from the single line and we've just increased the land value by giving it another land use we we have um there are hectares there that we've already considered rezoning for uh the western gateway and that's the employment district and so for us by doing this to everything out there I worry about capacity I worry about land value um because now we're saying that all of those roads are no longer going to be smooth they could be all be much much more dense than they are right now so but I'm happy to um entertain comments questions thoughts uh because I think it was an oversight the first report came back to us and it wasn't on it and then this last one did have it on it and I didn't catch it I didn't catch the last one when we voted for it and I I would be kind of challenged if I was a resident out there and so we said holy I knew it was going to be upzoned for uh for the province but now it's being upzoned again because I guess that wasn't good enough.

So comments or questions.

Counselor Matson so part of my problem is it sort of just came on to me just this moment, and I'm really reluctant to do anything off at this point without further discussion.

So I mean you mean if if you wanted to have a separate meeting or on a separate agenda item somewhere to actually look at this in detail because uh it's too right off the cuff for me to be able to support, especially I'd ask staff about what sort of discussions they had with the committee and their thoughts for why the higher density there.

And so there's a whole number of things that I'd need to get my head around before I could say, uh no, we should probably leave that as uh just under SSMUH.

Would you uh likewise?

Yeah, so you'd want a more fulsome discussion around seeing the actual map born against okay.

Um then we could certainly table this to the next meeting and do it that way because I don't want to delay the OCP work that we're doing right now uh at all either.

Um but I'll go online and see if anybody's got any comments, counselor Brown and then Councillor Rogers.

I'm just a little confused.

We're talking about item 8A, correct?

Is that correct?

I'm not a whoops, I'm not opposed.

I'm not opposed to what you're proposing for Hard Price and Lloyd Road.

However, on my agenda, item eight A is saying the proposed commercial on this thing for the parcel on Wilford Road.

So um is it one or the other?

Because I think I suggested I wanted to mixed neighborhood use on the Wilford Road property.

So um sounds like we're talking about two different things.

I believe this is um El Nanda getting this straight.

My intent was to talk about the residential part of that, but it showed up on the agenda like this for reconsideration.

Leanne?

Uh through the mayor.

Um the the resolution that is on the council agenda tonight is the resolution that um was passed um by council at the special council meeting last week.

So what is being brought forward right now is an amendment or or an addition to the to the motion.

I have another question is hang on, let's get this sort of typically about the I'm just one so if it was approved at a special council meeting.

Why why would we have to do it again?

Um because I my understand is that there was a request to bring forward the motion um from the special council meeting onto tonight's agenda, and this was the motion.

So there my request then wasn't uh this doesn't um add up to my request.

My request was to look at residential, not commercial for those designations of residential land.

So there's probably a typo here.

But that's okay.

We can Scott, uh Mayor, we need to bring forward the resolution that was passed at the previous meeting.

So um this is this is the resolution that's up for reconsideration, not the intention of what you would like to change it to.

Thank you. That's good clarification for me.

Appreciate that.

So yeah, that's what we had passed, but when we passed that, we passed the entire map.

Right. We didn't look at all of the other areas.

Correct. Correct.

But we didn't know, and what I'm saying is why it's back for reconsideration is we didn't uh I didn't look at the impact on the residential areas that were already designated as SMU.

So that's why it's back for our reconsideration.

It could go on forever, but maybe we just move to table this till the next meeting.

Okay, so uh you're gonna move to table.

Yes. I'll move to table.

You're seconding.

All those in favor of tabling next meeting.

Any opposed none opposed, motion carries.

And I think we've got so I will move the that the proposed land use designation for the parcel will for be changed to neighborhood mixed use as per the existing 2011 OCP land use designation.

Then I'll second that.

Any motivation?

Go ahead, Jerry. I have motivation too, but you go ahead.

Okay. Well, I'll motivate.

At the meeting, at the meeting, I was really pushing to have this staff.

Uh go ahead. Uh hang on a sec, uh, Councilor Brent.

Thank you. Um, there is no need to uh to pass this motion again.

This motion has already been passed at the special council meeting, and uh so therefore there's nothing further to do with this motion.

Already done, yeah.

The the reason why it came back like it did was that this was the motion that was the only way to bring up the residential part.

So any other questions or comments?

Thanks for your motivation though, Councilor Brown, but I think we're good.

Um if there are no other comments on it, that we don't have to take any action on that because it's already approved.

Uh down to correspondence, and that was from the District of Sanage for Move your seat.

ALR. Um do I have a seconder.

Second.

Uh moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon. Any questions?

Yes, your worship.

Go ahead, uh Councilor Rogers and Councilor Brown.

Yes, thank you.

Um I wonder if I could uh explain the implications if any to on reroll and and the hospital, uh what uh Shannon is proposing.

Uh through the through the mayor.

Um, thank you for that question, Councillor Rogers.

So um staff are currently reviewing the referral.

Uh we do added it onto the agenda for council's information given that it is an expansion to the hospital site, but we are working through those referral comments.

Do we um was there oh sorry?

Um yes there was um so I didn't see that.

Okay, I I understand the uh the area and this is very similar to the um application that we had uh received from VGH about the um uh the power upgrades and and whatnot.

Seems like it's it's consistent um with uh the overall um VGH um reconstruction, if you like improvements.

Correct. So it is uh yeah, it's part of that expansion and and and that work.

And uh when council considered the development variants permit uh application for the electrical building, um there was a note on there that uh they're working with the district of Sanage on this application.

Great, thank you very much.

Councilor Brown, did you have more to add?

Uh not really. After reading the uh the the item again, because first of all I thought why are they applying dissence?

But now I understand why.

But um certainly any increase in the hospital is obviously needed, uh much needed, and they're asking for a comment by the 17th.

So uh they're asking us to support, object, or have no position.

So in my own personally, I I I would support the application if someone would second that to uh tick off the box for supporting the application.

Second.

I think staff have still got to do some work and then we'll hear back from staff.

Okay, that's well.

I don't think we're there yet.

Uh is that are you looking for support from council?

It's just for information.

Yeah. Just for information.

Um so we don't need a motion for it.

Okay, but I I would take one to receive it.

I'll make that motion to receive.

Okay, counselor uh brown moves, uh councillor McKenzie seconds.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh and we've got two minutes uh the consented agenda.

Councilor Mattson moves consent agenda.

Do we have a secondary secondary councilor Lemon seconds?

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing non opposed motion carries.

And I don't think we've got anything to discuss for my issues moved for the consent agenda and question period.

Anybody in the room with a question for council doesn't have to be associated with any agenda item whatsoever.

Could be anything.

I can't promise any answers, but you can ask anything.

Thank you.

Yeah, Doug Noel, one Noel Place.

Um, we're talking about density and the provincial government pushing things through.

This is more of a statement, so I know it's but I'm frustrated as all of you are with the provincial government pushing this through, changing our neighborhoods, but not giving us the support from infrastructure bang water, roads, hospitals, education.

I think there needs to be a continued pushback from all councils.

One of the things when I was in Sanich, I talked a lot to Sanchez about development, and their big thing was development where there's density, nodes for transportation, nodes for community, walking.

When we just do development the way they want it, we lose those nodes and we lose those communities, and we don't get good development.

That's through no fault of council, it's through fault of the fact that we have 13 municipalities, and the provincial government said you all need to do in a really good government structure.

We would look at places like unfortunately, Sanich doesn't want it, but we create more density in Sanich, where we have schools and hospitals and transportation, and as we get further rural out, we wouldn't.

But the provincial government's kind of walked away from that.

So I just want to voice that concern that we continue to push back, that this is really not the place to continue to push that kind of density.

Thanks. Doug, um, if you want to go online or maybe even on Facebook, there's a fellow named Patrick Conlin, he's a UBC professor.

Thank you very much.

Um, and he he's got a PhD uh in development.

He doesn't, it's more um theoretical than anything.

But one of the points he he actually draws out is Victoria and Vancouver had the most homes added in the past 20 years per capita than any city in North America, and not per capita in general.

We are the most expensive places to live.

And so one of his reflections on land value and uplift and affordability was this.

He urged councils, yeah, if somebody comes in and wants to develop something, let them do it.

Everything they want to add for density is actually affordable that they add on, otherwise you don't consider it, because there's no way else to force affordability in there.

So his suggestion was if they want three more floors, those entire three floors are gonna have to be affordable by a formula that's uh recommended by staff that's built built for income generation in View Royal to actually live here.

This is what rate they would have to be.

So it's not it's not socialist because free uh I mean, there's a big feeling out there that if we increase supply, it'll increase affordability.

And this isn't day one.

We've been at this for a while, and it's land speculation.

We all know that.

Patrick Conwin, C-O-N-L-O-N.

Yeah. So thank you for the statement, question on question.

It was all good.

Um, and now we got to go to a closed meeting.

Uh so Elna, can I get you to read the closed?

Oh, sorry, I didn't go online.

Uh Carl, do we have any questions online?

Uh Mayor Tobias, we've had no messages this evening.

Thanks, Carl. Ella, you can go ahead with the closed meeting.

That there is a need to have a meeting closed to the public in persons other than the immediate members of council, officers, and employees of the town, and those identified under section 912 of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 91A appointment and K municipal service.

Uh motion to adjourn. So moved. Moved by uh councillor McKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lemon. Um everybody's in favor.