Committee of the Whole

Meeting to order.

Staff has given me notes, told me to read a statement.

So here it is. The committee of the whole meeting is called to order, and we recognize the Lekwungen speaking people known as today as the Esquimalt Nation and Songhees Nations, and their historic connection to this land continues to this day.

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

A reminder that council chambers is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.

All members of the audience are asked to refrain from clapping, cheering, or open openly expressing your opposing opinions when others speak or when they are done speaking.

When it's your turn to talk, that seems silly.

Please do not speak disrespectfully above anybody else, including counsel and staff.

Do not use rude or offensive language.

Do not make statements or allegations that call into question the character of anyone else.

Do not speak or act aggressively, bullying or in a harassing way.

Council wants to hear the views of those participating in an open or in the meeting in an open and impartial forum.

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

Then you may give us the benefit of your views.

Or use the link on the live webcast stream or the town's website under live webcast.

Again, we ask that you provide your name and street name to begin your comments.

Your comment will be read out loud 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 the items on the agenda.

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

You will be timed.

Oh mine supposed to be turned off now.

Oh you have to put your finger on it and hold it.

So that was uh Jerry and Allison.

So all in favor, against carried.

Do we have minutes?

Yeah, of committee of the whole held uh February 10th, 26th.

All in favor, against carried anyone in the audience who wish to speak to council?

Still no one. And how about our webcasters?

Anyone have anything to say?

Chair Matson, we have no messages on the form system so far this evening.

Thank you. So with that, we'll move on to staff reports, and we've got the 2026 to 35 year financial capital plan.

So for my colleagues, we need to everything that's on that 2026 and 2027.

We need to make a decision on as per discussions before that.

Some of the projects in 2027 might be started at the beginning of the fiscal year before the budget's pass.

We need to approve it next year, next year's expenditures now.

So we've got 45 non-capital projects and 51 capital projects.

And probably the easiest way of going through these when we get to that point was just to go through them quickly one at a time and see if there's anyone who has wishes to raise them.

And we, for example, we've got a $200,000 urban forest strategy, but only $40,000 for a new parks worker.

How do they trees and get watered and planted?

I'm not sure. So my only question is when we're looking at this, is there a better way of spending our money than studies and projects?

Jeez, pass it on to staff for their report.

Thank you, Chair.

Before you is a folder containing a reprinted appendix A from the consolidated financial plan that went to council on March 3rd.

It includes the financial and project schedules informing the 2026 five-year financial plan.

These are a bit easier to read compared to what was provided at uh last week's council meeting.

And so tonight the plan is for committee to direct staff regarding non-capital and capital projects.

Staff are requesting that should the committee wish to make any changes to the budget that this be done by a recommendation to council.

Otherwise, the budget will proceed as displayed in appendix A of your handout.

And behind Appendix A, you will see worksheets displaying 2026 projects.

There are two, one for non capital and one for capital.

The intent of these worksheets is to help guide discussion of the 2026 projects.

Right. There are two of them in the back of your package.

There one for non core or non capital and one for capital.

And on the right side, you'll see different colored dots there.

So there are two legends displayed on the top right and left corners of this schedules, referring to the type of change to each project, and if any, and referring to the priority level.

And on that note, the for committee's reference on page six of appendix A is the description for each project priority designation.

So that's also in your handout there.

So in terms of column headers from left to right, we've got the type of change to the project since 2025's budget.

So in the uh handout in your folder, there's uh a appendix A, which uh contains the consolidated financial plan, all the schedules, and then near the end, um past the schedule for projected reserve balances, just beyond that are two additional um worksheets that were provided to you.

They're stapled, they're they're clipped in behind.

So those two are what are gonna guide the discussion initially.

The last three pages of the package.

That's where we're going to start.

But just to review the actual worksheet itself.

So we've got the type of change since the 2025 budget, the project reference number, the project name, any high-level information staff believe to be relevant, then the funding source.

And you'll see the next column header includes the acronym 2025 FY2.

So FY2 means fiscal year two.

So values in that column represent the second fiscal year and in the 2025 budget.

It's last year's 2026 dollar amount for that project.

Many of these project dollar amounts have changed.

And so to the right is the 2026 fiscal year one budget, meaning this year's draft budget.

So to the right of that column is the 2026 FY2, just meaning for the 2026 budget, it's the second fiscal year, which means it's in 2027 next year.

And that is significant as you're aware because with approval of the five-year financial plan, staff have authority in January of the next year to begin spending based on that year two budget.

So in your folder as well, are a few project summaries that have been updated since last week.

When we get to those projects, staff ask that you uh refer to the the project summary in that package.

So reviewing looking at that uh the last three pages there.

We've prioritized discussion relating to protective services in case uh the fire chief and assistant fire chief get called to an emergency at some point.

Uh we'll then review um projects or uh projects that committee are seeing for the first time, then those with any changes in dollar value, and finally those with no change.

And then we can move into years 2027 to 2030, uh displayed in the schedules uh 2.1 and 3.1 of appendix A in the more fulsome package there.

And so just like in prior years, projects are identified by reference number, starting with N for non capital and C for capital, and the project summaries in the bound booklet are in numerical order.

Um, so finding the respective project summary should be fairly straightforward.

Um lastly, I'll just remind committee that uh very few projects you'll discuss have direct taxation impact as most are funded from other sources.

So with that, I can turn it back to the chair to initiate discussion.

Okay, and so for our protective services folks to get them in and out quicker.

Uh on schedule 2.1.

There's seven items listed under protective services.

And sort of like are there any of those people would like to discuss, bring out?

Sort of like a consent agenda.

If if you're happy with them, we you can sort of pass the whole thing.

And if not, we can move forward.

So this is on in our book here, which is also probably the same as it's part of the problem with getting this all these different documents when they're different than the ones you sort of looked at in the first place.

Yes, just a comment.

You know, it's it's a lot of information.

So the idea was to work off of the uh the two that were uh stapled in behind the the main package there, as that sort of filtered out uh those projects that uh committee has seen in in previous budgets, and then move into those newer projects.

We sort of want to try to guide and and and help the conversation for you because there is a lot of information there.

Yeah, so I'm assuming for the protective services, no one actually has any questions.

We can probably get rid of all of those at one batch, but if you've seen them, I I spent all my time looking at this little booklet, and now you've got something that looks totally different, so it's really hard to jump from one to another and actually beaking coherently.

Easy one on just protective services if anyone has issues.

In terms of how we're going to approach this, you know, we've got the paper, we've got the books.

What does Councillor Brown have?

Does he have this material?

He does. Okay. So but you know, we all should be on the same song sheet because we've got the non-capital ones with the dots, but then we got 2.1, which is the same as in the the booklet.

So shouldn't we be sticking with what's in the booklet?

Yeah, the non-dots.

John doesn't want the dot one.

Well, you know, because they're whole different order. I I can't uh interpret that.

By me.

Uh every on this document is the same as here.

It's the protective services ones.

And so I guess I have questions.

Sorry. Does anyone have any issues with any of the first seven on protective services?

Oh, I see. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay, got it, got it. Yeah.

They were talking that Paul, you know, in case you have to head out quickly for something.

No, I don't have I don't have any objections.

Sure, you have a question.

Question?

Just not working well. Um are we looking oh I'll show you. It's show me where you're looking wrong.

Where's the other binder you received?

The other binder spinder.

Well, you have another disk.

This is a summary, this is just so you're saying we could just look at the same thing.

Changes with it with the first batch. It's gonna get more complicated later on.

So well uh Ron's checking this out.

One of the um you know and uh uh it takes a bit of getting used to, but I got the point.

You know, the type of change column is interesting.

So in one of the protective services, which is the next gen nine eleven preparedness, uh, it shows an increase.

Um but could you could you walk us through that particular example where for somebody, you or Paul, because it looks like the number is still the same, uh 29300, 29,300.

So how is that changed?

So in 2020, thank you, counselor.

Uh in 2025, we received a grant for $45,000 dollars from the federal government.

Um of that we've spent about fifteen thousand seven hundred.

So we have we have about 20, or is it twenty twenty-nine three left over?

That was a carryover from last year.

So staff, where are the big changes between what we have in our book and what you've given us?

Is it mainly just carried over?

Have the numbers increased dramatically in any particular project?

Thank you, Chair.

Uh nothing significant.

Um just to add on to what the chief said about uh N112 there.

If you notice that uh 2020, sorry, 2025 FY2 uh is zero.

So that was what we budgeted for 2026 um in last year's budget, but it's showing up as a $29,000, $300, $29,300 project in 2026.

So there's there's been an increase there.

It's it was carried forward.

So these types of projects are identified as such in this handout.

So my other comment is probably Jermaine, does anyone have any problems with the protective services items?

If not, do you want a motion to approve them?

Oh you have a question.

So are we talking about the non-capital projects? Yes. Only. Yes. Yes, understood. Okay, no problem.

Thank you. Question?

Yes. Do you need a motion or oh Don?

Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Yeah. Um, the three firefighters uh much needed.

Uh they're always much appreciated.

Uh I just wonder the total amount in the budget.

Now is that for a full year?

Have they been hired already?

Are they started already?

And if not, I just wonder what the start date is because obviously if they haven't started already, we might be able to pair uh you know prorated some of the money off that total.

So I think I think for the firefighters, um, they're not included in this budget. Yeah, where are they?

Yeah, protect the services five to five hundred and nineteen thousand.

Yes. So and Chair NO85 is the increase from one FTE that was in year two of last year's budget.

The plan was to hire one in 2026.

We've increased that to four.

And yes, they've already been staggered in terms of their start dates.

They're hired. They um, but they were not January one starts, so not a full year, but the actual cost uh is is reflected in the 519.

Perfect. Thank you.

Um Steve Paul, uh 2027, the 127,000, is that for an additional hire?

Yes, that'll be that'll cover uh the two the two additional hires.

So there's a reduction in um as I understand it, there's a reduction in the POC budget, and then the cancellation of the the removal of the part of the POC budget, the increase for the full time that'll cover the next two people for 2027.

Thank you.

Do you need a motion to approve this or as we go through it?

Only motions for for changes to what you see here.

All right.

I will note as well because we are prioritizing protective services.

There are a few capital as well on the um page.

It's not 13. The last page of the handout that I I gave you.

And what's the big changes there?

Thank you. We do have a volunteer and composite fire department uh equipment project.

Some some grant money is come our way.

Um so that's a new one.

We have a uh RCMP placeholder regarding uh the existing building.

Um so that's not to do with the expansion, but they they do carry out capital um improvements to the existing building, and um you know the the information coming from Langford is somewhat limited in terms of what the budget will be.

So that that hundred thousand funded from reserve is a placeholder.

And then Paul has a few carry forwards.

C 113, 177, and 190.

And in the scheme of things, it's not much.

But Paul, why does it cost $24,000 to move an office from one part of a building to another part of the building of the same building?

Good question. So the the area that the bylaw office moved into was previously the uh the live-in tenant rental suites.

So kitchen, bathroom, bedroom.

So all that had to be removed.

And then we had to build a new office, like build an office space.

So it included furniture, electrical, drywall, paint, carpeting.

So it was basically dismantling an apartment, creating an office space.

Got it. Thank you.

Anyone else have any other questions about the capital budget and protective services?

All right. So we're moving on to where general government.

Oh gosh. Microphone issues.

Thank you, Chair.

My suggestion would be to refer back to the non-capital.

We've finished non-capital, go all the way through.

We've taken care of the protective services.

And uh, you know, the first one there would be the parks worker and 136.

Uh, and then just work our way down the list.

All right, any questions or concerns about the parks worker?

Other than my comment, we'd far better getting more parks workers and less uh studies, Chair.

Mr.

Chair. John? Don? Yes.

Yeah, same question on the parks worker.

I just wonder if the parks worker's been hired, and again, if it's going to be prorated.

Uh obviously we're well past January 1st.

So I wonder if that number would be uh shaved down a little bit.

Of course, it'd be the same carrying on for subsequent years.

Well, it looks like he's only there for half a year, but I'll let staff comment.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh yeah, um, Chair Matson, you're correct.

Uh hasn't been hired yet.

It's only a half of the year this year, and then subsequent years would be full time.

And start date?

Uh Chair, staff estimate probably July this year.

You okay, Don?

Yep, that's fine. Thank you.

Everyone happy with the parks worker.

Yes. The next is the urban forest strategy.

So again, my initial comment is we'd be far better off doing anything other than spending $300,000 for a study or whatever it's going to be to and just plant trees.

But uh I don't know if anyone else has the same concern.

So staff, can you explain that one for us?

One four one.

Thank you, Chair.

Let me just get to this one.

Yes, so this project is the urban forest strategy GCCC programming.

Um staff came to council a few weeks ago asking for permission to make application to get grant funding to do this work.

Uh it is probably the first thing to do when it comes to uh adopting our urban forest strategy or amongst those strategies we've presented.

Those this is one of the first things that should be done.

Um the reason why staff just can't go and plant trees.

Uh more information will be presented to you fairly soon.

Um you'll recall that council um requested staff to look at 35 to 40% canopy cover targets.

And I don't want to spoil things too much, but generally speaking, the the calculation of the modeling suggests that we don't have enough space in the town of View Royal to achieve 35 to 40% canopy cover targets as it stands right now.

There are other ways to do it, and I would like to present that to council as soon as we have fully um reviewed that document to ensure that council has an absolute understanding of what the challenges are to achieve 35 and 40 percent.

So that's the short of it in terms of achieving it.

It's not as simple as planting trees.

Um regardless. And that is to uh go through LIDAR and field.

I think one of the projects is literally going to the field to assess the tree health, something that it that uh technology can't do for us just yet.

And so a lot of this is just getting a baseline of the tree health, and that will help inform my future programming.

But this is necessary in regardless of what canopy target council wishes to adopt.

And um just going by the adage of using other people's money, this is a good opportunity to use other people's money to establish or start our urban forest strategy.

So this money won't be coming out of view one of View Royal's plots.

Uh to the chair, I have to look at the grant funding again.

There is a town contribution, generally speaking.

I believe the GCCC funding will fund up to 80%.

Anyone else have other questions? John and then Jerry. Yeah, no.

Um, certainly uh I'm in I'm in support, and I can see that uh you know council approved um um in a regular council meeting on February the 17th.

So um what I'm hearing is that we need to improve our ability to data gather.

The um so the geotechno geo uh what's that geospatial inventory and and um doing an asset inventory and this is asset inventory that's beyond parks, it's all assessing all the trees using LADOR and all those other technologies that and do we have the software that's able to accept all that data from other um extraneous sources.

Um Chair Madison, we don't have the software.

Um there very well may be a risk that should we wish to staff up and do things in house that we need to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars a month on or a year on software.

Do we need to um so the the information that's gathered from LADOR and other um services that that have a means of identifying the the nature of the trees that you know with canopies and so forth, so we don't have to go out into the field and do any tree counting.

Uh Chair Masse, should this program go through, other people will be counting the trees, not the town staff.

Jerry.

Yeah, I'm just I'm I'm confused, Ivan.

Um in the executive summary, it says that uh there will be a direct an award to Diamond Head Consulting, uh grant grant funded through the Growing Canada's Community Canopies grant funded work.

But then in our proposed source of funding, it says casino revenue.

So I'm I'm confused.

Uh yeah. So Chair Masson, that would be in the absence of a grant.

Um what should be in here actually is that's proposed source of funding is 80% grant funding if we received.

And then council can have the choice of whether not doing the work at all if we do not obtain that grant, or we can use casino revenue.

So council does have that ability to inform staff to proceed whether or not receive grant funding.

So for clarification, if it's approved, but we don't get the funding, grant funding, you would bring it back to us and we you wouldn't be taking a casino.

That's correct. And I'll probably add a note on here to do that anyways.

The other ask part of this was 22,000 to get figured out to how to go from 35 to 40 percent.

But you said the quick answer was we couldn't do that.

Does that mean we're not spending the 22,000?

Uh we spent 22,000 to get the modeling plus the strategy to do it.

I rest my point on case.

So is this um is this grant dependent?

Yes.

Council could make that decision if they wish.

Well, you know, it says the proposed source of funding is casino. That's what I just said.

Yeah, so you know how staff just told us that they'll come back to us when they find out whether or not to get the grant funding, and we'll make our decision on whether we not to proceed with this project.

I'm don't worry.

Um, Mr.

Chair, if if I could, I either we could wait and then half the year is over by the time we get on an agenda to come back and approve it or not approve it when our terms are are done.

If it's something that council wants to continue that work, um, I would move that we approve the line item as it stands, with the first option being grant.

But if grants are not available, then we continue on with the casino funding for the urban forest strategy GCC program, if uh got a second or second.

Do you have motivation?

Uh yeah, just a bit of motivation.

I I think this is something on everybody's mind.

Granted, you know, uh um cherry, you've you've raised some concerns about the actual studies.

But they're if we're running out of space to do this and we need to negotiate with other players like Department of Transportation to put trees on the highway, for instance, that's gonna take some work to do and be able to present them with the plan.

We just can't go to them and say, hey, we want to plant a bunch of trees here.

But if we came to them with a plan and say, here's where the trees are gonna go, here's the type they're going to be.

Um I'm receiving almost weekly concerns with the new highway bus on the shoulder project going through.

They're not putting up any extra barriers there.

Uh and uh and yeah, so I'm in favor of this.

I I would just recommend that instead of it coming back to us, if they we've already got steam uh going on this momentum, then we can carry on with it.

But the first option would be to get the grant.

The second option, if the grant wasn't available or we were turned down, then we would carry on with funding as proposed in the budget.

Just for some clarification from staff, are we also looking at property that doesn't belong to the town that's located in View Royal is in terms of the study?

Um yeah, thank you, Chair.

I think just ensure that things are not being simplified here, it's best that staff bring forward the staff report, which should be forthcoming very soon.

The staff report.

How's the staff report relate to what given that we're now talking about whether we should approve it or not?

Uh Chair, the question was whether or not we can plant on private properties.

So that is separate than this project summary that we're speaking to.

Uh what uh you're speaking to is quite literally can we plant what are other areas we can plant to achieve the target?

And that is part of the staff report that I have that will be brought forth to council very soon to inform council on how it can be done.

It's completely 100% mutually exclusive of this project.

All right, and that's just town property though.

Chair, I think just to avoid oversimplification oversimplification, it's best that we bring it forward to council on another date.

Right. So we've got anyone have any other comments.

Um momentum. And if we we don't uh keep this going, we've lost the momentum.

Meanwhile, go forward to six.

You know, the um, you know, tearing down existing homes, wiping out trees in the harbor, um, you know, all those kind of uh scenarios are busily working against us.

And the urban forest strategy that we did see showed us that we were in a quite an abysmal situation.

You know, we've only got 30 percent.

Uh you take away Northview oil that um you know uh uh above Theatre Slake, but the rest of your oil is is uh is getting you know pretty darn thin.

And an urban forestry during a climate crisis is uh is is also very critical.

So um, yeah, let's let's keep the momentum going.

Grant, hopefully, otherwise, casino move it along.

Elison.

Just a quick question for staff.

Um, I'm just uh reading about the the fund here, and I was just curious what um if you have a feeling of how likely we are to receive this.

Is this something that um you have experienced with in the past?

Or um, yeah.

Uh thank you, Chair.

This is the first time we've applied for this grant.

Um the good news is that the consultants ran the grant on our behalf, which is a lot we gives us a lot better chance of obtaining the grant.

Having staffing off the side or desks usually has diminished returns.

And the second good news is that this uh having them write it, it is cost recoverable.

All those in favor? Against carried. So has this been in how does this is this new to the document?

Thank you, Chair.

Uh this is new to this year, and uh that cost of $25,000 reflects the incremental cost uh of going from 0.5 to 0.7 FTE.

And that is actually for the full year.

So if we were to proceed on this, it would be prorated and uh lowered slightly.

Anyone have any concerns? Fine, everyone. So the graffiti removal is that new?

Chair, if I could on this one.

Um currently the uh EN rail um has just got enough to do basic maintenance, not even weeds.

We I'm receiving lots of complaints about um everything being tagged for trestles that are running over, including coming into View Royal, the trestle there.

Um so there may be an opportunity that Island Corridor could do that within the five-year plan of redoing things and getting light rail up, but it's not going to happen this year, likely not next year.

Um and this I think is an ongoing thing.

We spent a fair amount of money on beautification for the uh Helmkin uh trestle.

Um and that looks great, but it doesn't look so great if you're tagged above all of the artwork that we put in.

And it's not going away, right?

There's just more, it's compounding uh and being tagged over.

So is this something that we want to do or we could uh put the onus back on the island rail corridor I don't think it's gonna get done on their priority list I really don't uh all their money's gone into getting this light rail up and running so um either we we pay for this and CRD's already been approached and this is not CRD's business so there's nobody else that is going to do this except us so our decision is if we want it cleaned up we're gonna be the ones that have to do it as opposed to somebody else doing it any contrary opinions are you contrary there we go um where is this in the book thank you through the chair it's in the last page of the the project summaries that came to you yes thank you so um 3000 buys just how many hours how many square feet of of uh graffiti is 30 000 gonna remove um through the chair in the big scheme of things not much um we obtain direct uh costs from the ministry uh on the repairing or covering up tags on overpasses it requires specialized equipment specialized training and whenever you have um specialized staff with specialized training doing the work it means there's a lot of money so here I believe it's estimated that for thirty thousand dollars would provide a town with five cover ups per year and our experience with graffiti is that if it's not covered up right away um then they should become systemic so if you cover it up and then wait two months it's not gonna do anything because it's just gonna get tagged the next day so that's the that that that is a level service the council needs to um help staff understand if they wish to if council wishes to adopt this program to help top up additional cover ups then the reality is it may require a lot more than what's on this project summary but this project summary is a start is a start for uh council debate all right so hearing no objections everyone's happy fine with that one hello hello yes Don I'd like to make a motion that we move this item to the 2027 budget i this in this um what I'm asking what the council blown what's rationale well we have to go through multiple items here and we need to shave and if we're talking uh a few thousand here a few thousand there, it's gonna make a big difference in the end.

And if it's something that can wait till twenty twenty seven it's gonna take a lot of work for someone to do.

Um, I know I wouldn't want to be uh dangling upside down taking the graffiti off.

Um the the director of engineers correct if you put it up and uh cover it up, quite likely it'll be uh back up there again.

So to me, this is just one item of many we're gonna have to either shave or cut because um even though we're a little bit under nine percent, uh I think we need to cut here, there and everywhere, whether it's a hundred dollars here, a thousand dollars there, we move this to 2027, it doesn't totally disappear, it's just something we can deal with next year.

Um it's not up for discussion. Just we've had no one seconded, we're fine.

So the point is that and I hear counselor brown, I think we should be you know just table this.

This is important, but we got a whole bunch of other things that are that are uh more important that are uh so when we get it at the end of the day, we're still happy to spend thirty thousand dollars of taxpayer money to do this, then uh fine, but um or we can do this, approve it, and then when we start cutting, um you know, reducing the the tax burden, then we can remove it.

Okay, so I'm gonna call the question.

All those in favor of the motion to delete it.

Motion fails, we're gonna leave it in.

So the next two items, if staff could clarify.

Uh does that mean they've been removed because it's uh negative, so we're not doing them this year.

Through the chair, correct correct.

Um they both projects, the Helmkin Centennial Park Master Plan and the Little Road Park Plan have been deferred to 2028 so that we can uh complete the parks and trails master plan first and then focus on the smaller plans.

Okay, thank you, staff.

Uh everyone's happy with that, I'm sure.

Okay, that's good.

So the OCP. We originally budgeted 300K and now it's an extra 52,000.

So I was just wondering.

This is N25. So I'm just wondering how that works when we really reduce the scope of the whole project.

I thought the thing would cost less than we initially planned.

So through the chair, uh the the amount has been reduced by 10,000.

And uh council may recall that some changes to scope were made.

However, it did uh create more work for consultants and uh did affect the budget slightly, but we were able to find cost savings elsewhere by staff taking on um all the engagement and also doing some of the work in-house in order to bring those costs down.

This proposed budget also takes into account phase three of the OCP review and update, which are the design guidelines and the development permit areas.

We will be writing the design guidelines in-house because we have the expertise to do that.

However, we do not have the expertise for mapping and some of the technical work.

So we do require consultants for that, but the budget has been adjusted to do some more of this work in-house.

Everyone's happy.

Correct. For for 2026 to do, we're working on the draft.

So this is as of January 1st.

So we've been working on the draft with the consultants, and then there's engagement, and then there's um the final draft, and then there's phase three.

Have we got a projection of what uh subsequent years of the OCP will be when we do the rest of the town?

Through through the chair, the scope of the OCP was not just the Western Gateway Corridor, it was the entire OCP where we were looking at all the chapters and all the policies.

So it's just not the Western Gateway Corridor.

It's a much, much larger project.

And we will be revisiting the OCP in five years after we complete our next housing needs report, where we have to update our OCP to be consistent with our housing needs report.

And at that time we would be potentially looking at those land use designations at that time.

So um Ashtil, when do we when is in the OC process that we're going to be looking at um the rest of the island highway?

Fort Victoria. We're not.

We're not.

No.

Through the chair council removed that from the scope of work last year.

Okay. So we're only looking at the Western Gateway Corridor.

Um there are no other um review of any other land use designations in the OCP.

That was a change of scope.

So council decided, yeah, 2011.

And so just for clarification, even if we thought that 140,000 was outrageous, we've already have a contract and we can't pull it.

Correct. Thank you.

Anything further on that one?

I would chair move the next page, page two of three.

Everything there doesn't affect um doesn't affect taxation at all.

And I would uh move that we um support from N Zero Four Seven to N one Four Two.

Okay, so I had some issues on uh some things I have to figure out which ones they are because they aren't in order.

So people can let me see.

Uh through the chair.

Thank you for that question.

So council may require sorry, council may recall that uh we resi we received a grant for the coastal hazardous mapping, which is phase one of the coastal adaptation project.

And that work is um almost completed, and we will be bringing forward the report to council in the near future.

And phase two of the project, which will also be subject to grant funding.

So we are recommending in terms of how the how this will be funded, it was it would be through grants.

So we are actively uh researching potential grant opportunities to carry out phase two of this project.

If we are not successful, then we will not be pursuing it in 2026.

So it is subject to grant.

Okay, and the drainage master plan that status of that uh drainage master plan is about 75 percent done.

Got a question.

And I'm still one more and the transportation master plan?

Transportation master plan is about 30 to 50 percent done.

Okay, thank you. And John, you have a question?

Yeah, um, with respect to the uh coastal adoption plan, aren't we working with the other municipalities, Victoria Shanicho?

Uh, through the chair, that is a separate project.

So we we yes, so we we do have um a coastal uh regional coastal adaptation plan that we are working on with our neighboring municipalities for the gorge waterway.

Um, but um town of U Royal's coastal adaptation plan, where we have received funding for phase one of it, uh, is almost completed.

So that's all the technical mapping that we need to do and then phase two uh we will be seek grant funding for phase two of that and that would be for 2027 so I'm still confused um we have the ocean and we have the port of Ginlet so the port of Ginlet uh and the gorge uh we we shared because the city of Victoria had undertaken you know the lead on that right that is correct so um what costs are we in for that one the the that project received a grant okay so what I'm still confused about how the the other 100 000 hundred thousand is um what is that paying towards if we've um been able to get the grant with the other four municipalities so that doesn't look at look at um like a squamalt harbor or other coastlines so it's just portage park it goes just up the gorgeway and um and portage park area but not um esquamalt harbor or other uh coastal areas of view royal so it's a very um targeted area that project uh that is being conducted with the five municipalities and our project our coastal adaptation plan is uh all of you royal so all of our looking at all of our coastlines and 18 118 zoning bylaw updates.

$40,000 again, that can't be done in-house.

Through the chair, nope, because if we are wanting to introduce inclusionary zoning, which is introducing affordable housing requirements in our zoning bylaw, then we need to do some financial analysis on that.

And we do not have the in-house capability to do that.

We're not land economists in-house, so we would require uh a consultant to help us out with that work.

Yeah, so we just can't put in a policy saying five percent of that buildings in the unit that have to be uh uh affordable.

I'm just wondering why we need go to the expense of somebody to tell us it's going to cost the developer money to do this when we already know that's going to uh so the the province has passed legislation on inclusionary zoning.

So if we're wanting to embed inclusionary zoning into our zoning bylaw, then we have to follow the legislation.

If council wants to have just a standalone policy in the official community plan, uh then that is um something that we can consider.

Uh when council will review the draft OCP at the end of this month, uh could be a time where uh you could uh you know look at something like that.

Um however, if if council wants to uh embed something in the zoning bylaw, then it's through inclusionary zoning and we have to follow the legislation through the chair no council passed a resolution for staff to look into it and we have looked into it um uh several times and council may recall that we updated our community amending contribution policy several years ago by increasing our contribution to the capital regional housing um trust um because we do not have the in-house capacity to manage affordable housing units so the one last question for me before i ask in house uh and 129 so where are we with the parks and trail master plan uh great question so council may recall that we applied for a grant and we uh the a provincial grant and through UBCM and we are still waiting to hear back if we are successful if we're not successful with this grant then um the funding would be uh LG CAP as well as casino revenue great we've already approved that does anyone have any other items on this page that they have questions about John Yeah um the uh the mayor had moved um all those items on that page and I would shaken the movement.

Don, are you over there somewhere? Questions? Since I can't see you. Any questions, Don on this page?

No, I'm good.

It's so you don't, as I'd heard before, you don't really need a motion. We just have to move on. Well, good.

Yeah. So we're on page 33 now.

Yeah.

All right. First item is communication study.

Communication sorry, community satisfaction survey.

Anyone have issues, concerns about spending 45,000.

I guess I had a question, Chair.

And when was the last one done?

Was it been a while?

Five years ago.

Right. So 99%. That's great.

But we don't know if it's still 99%.

Yeah. So yeah, so I I'm I'm all in favor.

And if this goes ahead, would this be executed this fiscal year, correct?

For the and it would lean on the previous study for questions for correlations and stuff.

Okay. Happy with that.

Yeah. So given all the good luck we've had with people responding to surveys, couldn't we just code up survey monkey or something on survey monkey for people to apply and uh the results would be just as relevant as we've been getting?

Uh the the point of this project is to compare the survey to the last one that was done, which was not done with SurveyMonkey.

Um there will probably be a few questions added to it uh to further develop the sophistication of the survey, and the idea is to give this to the newly elected council.

Uh help with strategic planning and uh get a get a finger on the pulse of how our residents are feeling.

Thank you, Staff.

So anyone other than me who's feeling a bit iffy on this one, I don't see it.

So truth and reconciliation.

Uh I'm just wondering if we have a line item in there.

Each year we get um asked for a donation for um the rally that song he's puts on.

Um is this part of that?

I mean, I'd if it's gonna happen like on an annual basis, uh I think it should be a line item instead of going into grants and aid every time and trying to figure out how to manage it if we know it's gonna be a request.

It's consistently been supported by everybody.

It's uh item not sure whether it's two or five that we pay each year.

I think um, but it's uh there aren't you know it's even more special for us because they're they are our neighbors and uh they don't ask so much.

So I'm just wondering if it's not a line item, could we have a line item attached to that?

That if it's an ongoing expense, then it's not a last minute decision that we have to do without the benefit of a council meeting.

And if they don't ask, we don't have to pay for it, obviously.

Thank you through the chair.

Uh there is included in the uh public relations uh line item 2500 dollars earmarked for that purpose okay perfect thank you yeah asset management program improvements tool it climate action leadership training for three thousand don speak up if you are unhappy with anything invasive species portage park 10 000 the green team does an excellent job with that and i think we have to keep all those ones in uh okay good with that one the dcc bylaw update again we have to hire a consultant for that uh yeah chair it's necessary um also to uh there's an amenity charge cut bylaw or amenity cost charge project here as well and we would likely I myself would be proposing to join up with Leanne on that project probably will save a lot of money on that yeah so um just uh you know help me understand we've got an amenity cost charge and we've got a DCC development cost charge uh both 75 000 each um what what uh how does one complement the other where we are, where we should be paying um so many five thousand each so through through the chair, I I can speak to the money cost charge bylaw.

And uh before I get into that, uh it has actually been uh common practice in other municipalities to combine the two together because as uh director Lung said, there are some cost savings um associated with that.

Uh $75,000 is actually on the low side for this type of project to be to be done.

So hopefully with the combined uh budget, uh we'll be able to uh do both.

And uh as part of this um work um under it bill 40, pardon me, it was under bill 46, the housing statutes bylaw where um pardon me, it wasn't bill for it was bill 16, where the um province introduced um some legislation on allowing municipalities to uh collect funds um for amenities such as community centers, recreation centers, daycares, and libraries to support an increase in population.

Um but in order to do this work similar to DCCs, we do have to do a technical analysis, which we just don't have the abilities to do.

And uh it's really good to um uh uh to consider both at the same time, both types of um bylaws, because uh it will really give a fulsome picture on um the cost of development in Pew Royal.

So I was just wondering on the amenity one, because we just I don't know if it's quite arbitrary, but we came up with a number of six thousand, I think of six thousand dollars per per unit.

Um what more are we gonna get out of doing the study other than you know just setting a new number?

Through the chair.

So right now uh the legislation is quiet on community amenity contribution policies.

These policies are also um negotiable.

They're not we cannot require CACs.

Uh we can negotiate them or um request them, but they're not required.

Whereas an ACC bylaw, it will be required.

And so right now we we still use our CAC policy.

We still and we you know we request the developer to provide contributions towards our reserve funds for uh different uh um improvement projects within the town.

Um but again, council uh needs to know that it is voluntary, it's not required under legislation.

So the amenity fees we receive now are voluntary.

And so you're saying this policy would allow us to put in a bylaw requiring it and making correct questions, sir.

Um Scott, I know that we um have some work to do with DCCs, particularly for the RCMP building uh with our neighbors.

Um that is something that again the legislation uncovered as a opportunity to to have that there.

I'm just wondering before we dive into this, whether it's worthwhile, because really the impetus is the legislative change and probably um some non-alignment with our neighbors.

Um and I'm just wondering if it would be reasonable to approach Callwood and Langford and say, hey, we're doing this study, we've got some other DCCs.

Instead of looking at kind of View Royal myopically, would there be advantage of partnering up with uh Callwood and Langford?

Uh, because this is relatively net new and we could incorporate things like um things like the RCMP building, things like the one to Fuca Rec that we could be adding on to that.

Uh thank you through the chair.

Um I like the way you're thinking.

However, the DCC bylaw for the RCMP building uh will be something that we are doing on on behalf of the CRD.

And it's very time sensitive.

Um so for those reasons, uh, it's for different government body, uh the the RCMP development cost charges as well.

That time sensitivity won't allow us to look at all the things we want to do with with West Shore Parks and Rec or Callwood or Langford want to do.

It's it'll be a expedited DCC bylaw.

And if I can follow up a little bit, uh Chair, just like I'd love council to have the full picture of what a developer, because that developer might be us, you know, in in the future or or or something other than a traditional residential.

It might be um a town center of sorts or a neighborhood center.

Um will we have a full picture of what that um proponent is actually paying or would pay to develop that area like the full picture meaning here's what's going to CRD, here's what's going to the town.

Um like by the end of this will council have a full idea if somebody builds this structure for five million dollars, these are the other costs that are going to be occurring.

Um correct we would uh as part of this work I think it's important to get the full picture um like uh what you're saying mayor to bias on now what are all the charges that uh developer would have to pay in order to to the town in order to to build something and so those are the types of uh things that we will be looking at um when we're looking at our DCCs and we're looking at our ACC bylaw and that's why we have to conduct a financial analysis um so we're not um in impeding development uh moving right along to the sanity sewer master plan what I have to ask is don't we already we have an old one now don't we and what's changed in terms of our sue our sewer infrastructure since the last time uh yeah it's a very good question counselor matsen to start off the the reason why the uh budget here is 200 000 is because it was set in our DCCs as $200,000, which meant that developers are paying about almost $200,000 for this um I can't see at that time what the estimate was for.

I can tell you though that the sanitary master plan is actually in relatively okay shape.

It's not like a drainage master plan or a s or a transstation master plan, which basically needs a whole redo.

This one you might actually see some savings.

Of the the actual work, it'll be remodeling, um take into account climate change factors because that wasn't predicated in the previous one.

Uh take into account um the OCP essentially, so you have to basically remodel based on new land uses.

Uh I would say that that won't take up the entire 200.

What would make it approach it is we really want to put a focus on the condition assessments of our sanitary systems.

And that hasn't been done in quite a long time.

So that's probably going to be one of the drivers as to keeping this at 200.

But the other reason why too is because uh I believe only half a percent is being paid through non-developer.

So we've charged developers funds for this plan. Okay, thank you. Anyone else have questions?

So in actual fact, it you know, it's just master plan, but it's a master plan update, isn't it?

That is correct. Yeah, thank you.

All right, so we've got all of the uh non capital projects on this document.

So is this included everything that's in the book also?

Thank you, Chair.

So these included uh any projects that uh are in 26, any projects that are in 27 with a 2026 uh associated component.

So there are now that the next step when we uh go through the rest of the non-core will be to discuss those that are initiated in 2027, and those will be found in your appendix A on page seven.

Might I suggest though, since we're on 2026 still in terms of capital, would would uh committee like to switch to the blue page and then we'll be past 2026.

Your decision. And discussion would begin at C202, the Pride and Veterans Uh Memorial Decorative Crosswalks.

I do have a comment on this one, Chair, if I may.

Talked with the um chief briefly about a program that probably wouldn't cost as much, but be a lot more visible through the town.

Um towns on the east coast use banners that families or the town sponsors of uh folks that they've uh you know uh uh lost uh veterans uh and they sponsor them per uh per banner.

So it's their responsibility to get the banner.

We facilitate printing of them, and maybe if I talk nicely to the fire chief, we'd use it as a volunteer opportunity for some ladder work.

Um but there's a way that I think we could do something here that we've got the infrastructure.

We we probably need some volunteers to help support um getting that as opposed to a sidewalk which would have ongoing maintenance and and other things, and it just wouldn't look as nice over time.

These banners would be uh somebody pays to have them printed uh and uh small donation for let's say have them up there.

It's something that I think our residents could take a bit of pride in.

And um, aside from taking them down and uh putting them up, I don't see a significant cost to the town.

So what I'm saying in that I would move to remove the veterans sidewalk portion and have banners as opposed to a sidewalk.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, and we have one motivate person is motivated.

Do you have seconds you get to motivate?

No, Don does, whoever.

I think it was you.

Yeah, the uh yeah, I I brought up the uh veterans uh side uh crosswalk, but um Mayor Tobias has a great idea, whether it's a banner or simply a flag.

It could be pride flag on Pride Week, or it could be uh uh veteran's flag for the the week leading up to remembrance day.

But I do like the banner idea, it's certainly a lot cheaper, easier to uh maintain um as opposed to sidewalk or cars are driving it on all the time we'd have to be repainting it probably every couple years so um I agree with uh 100% with what uh mayor Tobias's motion is thank you so Jerry and then Alison question I see okay well I'll motivate but yeah you're still I don't have much to say except I you know I do think the forty thousand dollars from reserved for sidewalks um will be I don't see that as being appreciated by by residents and uh you know if they complain about flower beds they would certainly complain about sidewalks or or crosswalks so I I think that's a great idea so yes I agree with you Tobias Alison thank you so um it was either a year or two years ago I raised a motion around the Pride crosswalks and the background of that was actually it was raised by uh the pack um from URL elementary school they had seen that the crosswalk was being um updated anyways maintained uh painted white and they wondered you know why can't it just be painted colorful uh like to celebrate pride um so that um was uh why I I raised it and I still don't really understand why a colorful um crosswalk requires that much more maintenance than if it's painted white regardless you're gonna have to paint it every few years um so for that reason I I would like to keep this project in okay so right now we're just talking about the uh the veterans one yeah that that was so so yeah so that that's what the motion was gone thank you chairs two comments one I think it's already been answered that it was just the staff now understand that it's just the veterans banners and not the pride banners um just another thing for council's consideration just because I've seen it before and because there's significant cost savings with not putting in a crosswalk uh some municipalities also have on top of street signs they have a symbol for veterans memorial so council may also want to consider that option it's fairly cheap to do but I don't want to step on the toes of council I just want to let you know that if council's looking for additional options that's another one I've seen uh I believe Sanichas they have it on uh Richmond Avenue I believe so we have a motion to remove the 2000 for the the veterans and we'll at another time come up with something else yes this thing's not working okay uh staff the um so the the the court the the suggestion is banners and using banners right so um I'm just wondering though what um uh is there a considerable amount of staff time to uh put up banners take them down because this will officially be part of the um I would imagine um Boulevard maintenance uh yeah, thank you, Chair.

I believe we took in we may have taken banners out of our boulevard maintenance contract.

But that said it's a nominal amount.

It's not it's not gonna break the bank to to put them in.

Um but it is it it does require a cost if we do hire contractors to do it, they have the equipment and the expertise.

So just for clarification, said are you suggesting to take the 20 out of crosswalk and put it into banners since that's what the motion is.

Thanks, Chair. I think the uh what was the total amount here was 20 for each, I think.

Well 20 for each.

Um I I would recommend uh just just for a holder, um uh ten thousand dollars just for the that so it would reduce the entire thing by ten thousand.

So just ten thousand, and that might support instead of each family going out and getting things printed, like the town could carry out the printing for all of the interested parties and they would pay the town or or however we decide to do that.

Uh I'm looking at the Legion now by being able to support us in this, which is something that would fit in.

So yeah, uh leaving uh some notional mud uh money in there of ten thousand for printing and potentially um uh putting the banners up or taking them down.

Don't think we'll spend it, but uh at least it's something in there.

All those in favor.

This is I don't know what the cost is, you know, you got four.

Staff.

Thank you. The original uh project as it was worded uh is is was going to be funded from capital works reserve as it would result in tangible capital asset.

In this case, it will be thirty thousand dollars funded from that capital works reserve with the remaining ten thousand being taxation funded.

Is that correct?

No, we're removing ten thousand dollars so that right now we're looking at twenty and ten so that so it's twenty from the reserve ten i i have no where idea where it's coming from but we've just reduced the the veterans one from uh twenty to ten and and the tens right now is a placeholder right i guess i'm curious if uh as council's wish to fund from an alternative from from taxation it would be okay sure all those in favor yeah it's carried so we're gonna update this project right yes you're just sort of doing it so now the the only other one but the the pride one i heard allison say she likes it i heard jerry say she doesn't like um do you don't like site you don't like the painting on the boulevards so do you have a motion jerry to scrap that one motion but i don't think it'll cost twenty thousand dollars well maybe it will just for one at euro elementary it as if i i support that that's fine okay so we don't need anything uh unless john has a motion yeah so um at the moment we've been talking about banners.

There's you know 20,000 for the veteran and uh we have you know on state two oh two is 40,000.

Total 40,000. So the um estimated cost for the decorative crosswalk is 15 to 25.

Assuming it's 25 and we got 20, we're now over budget.

John, with staff will come back to us. I wouldn't get too vexed about it.

If we're you know, if we're giving um you know the staff the approvals to do both at the estimated costs here.

Well we scrapped one and we're gonna be safe doing uh banners.

The other one is we're gonna keep the the sidewalk in or the crosswalk.

And we've got 20,000 in that pot, and if if staff needs more money, they'll come and let us know, and we can always increase it by three or four thousand dollars.

Okay. So all right, for 017, we've scrapped that one all together.

That's the uh drainage Beaumont Stewart.

Yeah. Everyone's happy, and the trestle.

We've also stopped that one.

That one is deferred.

Yeah, and parks uh replacement that's been deferred.

So view royal park development.

Uh that looks to be tabled.

Well, most of it seems to be deferred.

So we're only spending 35,000.

What's the story?

That one. Hello, Chair.

Uh, just for clarification, please, regarding well, C203. Are you okay with C203? Ready step roll?

Sure, that's all in a grant anyway.

So okay, thank you. And then uh regarding C017, staff was just looking for clarification. Are you looking to table it?

I thought staff said it wasn't necessary at all.

That is staff's recommendation.

Yeah, that was staff's recommendation a few months ago.

So we decided to table it for budget.

So now we need resolution to delete it.

Okay, so I if you don't think it's necessary, I everyone anyone want it, even though it's not necessary.

Again, sorry, what are we talking about?

C17 uh U roll drainage.

Oh yeah, that's right. Okay. Okay, green car.

And now we're at C20. And staff wants to what exactly do we want to do with C120? Or C20.

Oh, that's uh change in case Christy Point one.

Yeah, and so do we even need that anymore?

Because if and when Christie Point develops, then we might have to look at it.

And the plans we made several years ago will probably change by that time.

So do we just want to take it off?

I I would certainly I would move uh I would move that to that. We remove C one uh C20 altogether.

Okay. Yeah. All in favor. Against carried. And we're deferring the vehicle. Are we deferring the vehicle?

Yes, deferring the vehicle.

Yeah.

Um there is no we've hired consultants to do a lot of research to even we even use AI to figure out if there's a EV or placement for the Ford F 350 dually, and there is none.

Thank you.

We're because council has asked us to pursue EVs.

The strategy right now is to wait to see if there is an EV replacement for that next year.

It is at risk of this vehicle falling apart, though.

It is a 2003 and it uses thousands of dollars in gas.

So thank you. So for C third or C35 for the View Royal Park Development.

Now we can't do that until we finish the study and we've tabled the study.

If I got that correct.

What staff are recommending is to delete a couple of assets there, one being the Portland Lou, the other one is the uh I think the overhead overhead shelter, and to repivot and start looking at prioritizing planting trees in that area just to support the urban forest strategy.

So that's that's the reason why it's table for discussion here with the recommendation in the project summary to delete a couple of um projects in that program.

And what's the 35,000 for then?

Let me just hold on a second, I'll take a look.

Okay, so thanks to it. So we don't need a parks plan for the for those good things.

DAP will do it internally.

And you know, I know Councillor Masson, you've been asking for that Virual Park sign for a year or so, and we'll want to use this to get that up here.

Yeah.

So Paul, can you tell us about ready step role?

That's uh one again, sorry, Chair.

Uh the right set role program.

So the uh the town enter into the right set role program with um Eagle View Elementary School.

It was is facilitated by the capital regional district.

It's a way to collaborate with all parties, including our CMP police, PAC to improve uh accessibility, travel by foot by picking up drop-offs to schools.

And so out of that program, there has been two key uh recommendations that came out of that that staff are recommending to do, and that's to traffic calm Burnside Road West, right where the crosswalk is by Kami Court.

Um, there's opportunities to slow traffic down that's coming through Sanich through the rural road.

And so the idea is to install physical traffic calming measures similar to what you see in Stormont, and to install speed reader boards.

And did we get a grant? I thought I read we got a grant for that.

We have not got a grant just yet.

However, we are pandering with ICBC to help us with this safety grant that they provide.

And um timing's great because we actually just engaged them last week about that.

And John, you have a question?

Yeah, uh question.

So the um um for the short term uh improved safety within speeder boards and and traffic calming.

Uh how long does this program last for?

The race step role program usually is only the program itself is is administered by the Caporin Zoo district.

They do it every year, they have municipalities apply.

We've actually just made application to enter the Redis at Rule program for Shoreline Middle School.

In terms of the final finish ending and product, uh, it's a report that is actually publicly you can access it through CRD website on the Racep Roll.

Um, but overall it provides recommendations as to what uh municipalities can do, what the school district can do, and um, and uh internal programs.

Uh but in the meantime, these are the first two that um staff agree that the town can do to significant improve safety on Burnside Road.

Should we show how many months?

Like six months for the raise that role program, like entering in the agreement and going through the motions of discussing with uh the school and that that's a one to two year process.

It's a $40,000 cost of which we might be getting all in a grant. Otherwise it's coming out of reserves.

Uh chair, uh yeah, sorry, I'm I'm I'm kind of confused with the question um that said to enact this work would take maybe a week.

IT workstation overgreen over overgreening.

Evergreening. Uh we budgeted 50, but we only need 30, so it's reduced by 20.

Everyone's happy.

I did have a question with that for uh next um terms council.

I'm not sure how folks have happy they've been with the surface versus iPad.

I think you had iPads the term before.

I know that CRD uses iPads, but um I'd be happier with an iPad than I would be with a Surface Pro.

That's my only thought if evergreening is going to be part of the council's um uh and I'm not sure how this would affect the budget line item uh at all if it was ongoing.

I guess that question would might be for you, Steven.

Thank you. Yes, through the chair.

Uh I have had discussions with our manager of IT, and he's aware of the challenges.

And uh definitely moving to iPads is a possibility staying within budget and all that too.

So just wondering also, Chair, is could it be a matter of choice?

I know that uh some people might be very Windows biased.

Um with or would that cause too much confusion when it comes to security updates and whatnot?

Thank you. At this point, it's difficult to comment on uh the tablets.

I do know uh in terms of uh staff phones, we do have uh multiple varieties of phones that we administer.

Um Apple phones as well as uh Android.

So it's I I think it's possible, but more information forthcoming on that.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd certainly support tablets.

I've had a horror.

I hate this thing compared to the tablet I had for years.

Uh sewer gravity main upgrade, and that's been deferred until or has that been screwed?

Yeah, so we have $300,000 spending in this year.

What's happening there?

Um yeah, Chair, the recommendation is to defer that $300,000 is in there in case the Sanitary Master Plan states that we have to upgrade it.

Um sorry, so standby.

$300,000 in 2027.

Okay. Yeah, so it's basically just to uh demonstrate the council that this project would take two years to do.

So we put it into financial plan for two years.

Um just just to this makes it easier for finance um for projects that do go away.

But we're just we're proposing deferring because we do want the sanitary master plan update to inform on the actual risks.

So there's basically no money will be spent until you have the master sanitary master plan.

Curb and sidewalk on burn site.

Didn't we scrap that all together?

Yeah.

I'm not sure if we we scrapped it all together, but obviously we need to um uh defer this until Sanich has uh has their project going, right?

Uh yeah, chair.

I recall the conversation we had about this late last year, and um there was talk about tabling for discussion uh to basically today, and also there's discussion about likely deleting it because it's not in the short term for Sanich.

It's sidewalk that lead to nowhere, and it's something that nobody wants.

So that was I believe what was the discussion there.

So it it is a good fural until Sanich.

You know, clearly on on the um ex Screech side, it's very dangerous.

So but there's it's impossible to fix without Sanich coming working along with us.

Okay, so everyone's happy with deleting it until Sanit's comes back sometime in the future.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Allison Don. Don.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so yes.

Um the intersection improvements in Helmcken and Road, and have we ever seen what those are?

Uh yeah, so uh staff sent a staff report to council recently um with some more data and council provided um us with direction on what the intersection should look like.

So removing the bulb, uh having two lanes go southbound, no dedicated left turn lane, and no works on northbound.

So it's a significant cut from the uh previous design.

Yeah. So the cost for this this year is that the 500,000 or 200,000.

Thank you, Chair. The the cost for 26 is 500,000 with 220 in 2027.

Thank you.

And sure, just a question on that one.

Does that include the light change coming from Chancellor to Helmkin for a left-hand turn?

Uh yes, that's correct. Perfect.

Thanks, I north Sanit or North North Burnside drainage improvements. Uh we're tabling out to 2027.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Yes. Um, this is why we we need a robust drainage master plan.

And the recommendation is to wait till we f see the findings of the Drain's master plan before we invest anymore in this area.

We have banded it up in the last few years.

It's it's performing well in the short term.

Um, but there are some other systemic issues around the area that we need to resolve or to to um to address before we can do this work.

All right everyone's happy with yep so with the uh island highway prince Robert Drive realignment you're suggesting we gong this all together um uh yes chair there's just been no development in that corner and I haven't seen a proposal or any plans for that uh in the near future so the idea is to basically wait until an application comes through and then we would uh move forth and come to council for the reason of incorporating to the financial plan but right now because there's no development I don't know when it's going to happen it's hard for me to put it into the financial plan.

So we already have plans though for redevelopment it's just that we're not we don't need to redevelop because there's no project through the chair the land has been rezoned however we have not received a development permit.

No I understand but did we do the planning on the road like we talked about having to put in a light and and those various things so we already got the plans set up to do that work.

Uh the developer or chair that um the applicant or any land developer is not proposed their servicing drawings to us yet they haven't even got to that point yet.

Okay, thank you.

John so um if um 346 Island Highway goes ahead or comes to council, is is any of this uh road alignment still required uh uh for that uh development proposal.

Um Chair, I don't know as a fact, but I based on what I see in this project, it it won't. I don't think it will, no.

C 180, uh Admiral's Road Active Transportation Improvements.

So what I what I was worried about is we've never approved this.

We the design that originally came through to us, and now we've got stuff for 2027 $300,000.

So what's happening there?

Uh yeah, thank you, Chair.

It's a very good question.

We did we certainly haven't um approved the design.

It's just received.

Actually, there is no design in the ATMP, is there's a range of options.

Um in order for us to move forward and present a uh a concept of the council, we need to make sure that uh the ministry is on board first for the options.

So we don't want to present options that council say, yeah, we're in favor of this, and then the ministry comes and says no, we're not gonna allow that because this work is on ministry right away.

So the idea is to engage with the ministry first with the range of options, and then after that come to council.

The unfortunate reality is that the BCGU job action has significantly delayed their ability to review um our uh the the concepts, and so that's why there is a request for carry forward on this project.

All right, and then my only concern is staff keeps we've been reminded that if we approve something in 2027 today that we shouldn't go back and look at it in 2027, but we have never seen a plan, so we can't say that we're happy with it.

So I I'm just a confused in terms of how how that works.

I can weigh in there.

Um typically projects that are approved in in year two of the five-year plan, staff like to get a head start on them and not wait until uh a third of the way through 2027 to get started.

So so you're exactly right.

Uh approval on a 2027 project means staff are authorized to commence that in January 1st or beyond of 2027.

Okay, so that's my point.

We've never seen a design or approved any sort of design.

So I personally hate to approve something in advance that I've never seen.

Yeah, uh point taken.

I mean, you uh you can actually see a picture of it on um page 143, and so that gives you a conceptual idea of what uh uh what's being proposed here.

Are we moving a lane having um uh possibly a continuation of the ENN uh shared uh bike uh bike to two lanes um sidewalk and bike lane, but putting the two bike lanes on one side.

So um I guess if we're allocating three thousand dollars to this, one of the critical aspects is to um uh just like um you know, council, how much is council seen, how much council is council aware, it's the public that needs to be aware.

You know, the businesses that um are going to be um expecting their customers to be able to cross uh you know two lanes of uh uh bi directional bike lanes and all being on one side, the loss of a uh uh travel lane.

There's so many implications here, both for uh residents that live and and um on Aldersmith and Admirals and Glantana, but it's also the the businesses uh and the impact on the on them as well.

So um where will we be able to gain better knowledge from the council's point of view and be able to really inform the options and help the uh and ask the residents to guide us, not not just the first nations, that they're important, but the residents are equally important, the businesses are equally important to understand what is the bottom line uh safety and um economic implications.

So this is um um and I'm pleased that the we didn't uh manage to get the any kind of grant funding uh for this because it's still too early for anybody to understand what the implications are here.

So will does 3,000 buy us the information we need.

Staff.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um should uh the ministry have uh haven't had to go through the challenges of the job action.

Then staff would have brought forward the concepts of council likely last year.

Uh that will inform on the subsequent um costs, which are design costs, which would go through the whole the engagement process with all of the stakeholders in the region, which are uh approximately three municipalities, two First Nations province, and probably DD.

But because of the BCEGU job action, everything had to get shifted one year.

And so the $3,000 is quite literally just the First Nations engagement portion.

Uh is basically called funding to participate.

And that's another part that's required given that the song is First Nation is right next door.

So in terms of timelines, uh the proposed timeline here is to, and we still haven't gotten the review back from the ministry, but once we do get it, then that's our opportunity to come to council with the concepts.

So our priority is high in terms of giving it giving this to council because as chair has mentioned, um, it's very important for council to see what's being proposed before we even move forward, if any.

So that's that's the that's the proposal as as part of this as this project.

Thanks, Chair. Um yeah, I'm happy with the three thousand dollars for this year, especially for First Nations engagement.

A couple of questions for staff with this one.

Um, one is have we engaged CFB Esquamo, mainly the base commander, because they are the person that is pushing 6,000 cars down Admiral's Road, probably every day, or will they be part of the stakeholders as well?

Uh, Chair, yes, they will on two fronts.

One is part of this project that we're speaking of, and another one is part of the transitation master plan.

Thank you. And uh I noticed uh some of the sidewalks there are kind of inconsistent, like they're very nice in places and others are kind of crumbly.

Will this address um you know supporting some sidewalk repair there as well?

I would say, Chair, that the concepts do.

I think though is important that we bring those concepts to council's attention so that they can see the whole big picture.

So back to the $300,000.

Should that be in it if we haven't approved a plan?

And we're by approving the SEV $300,000, we're approving the expenditures of funds that we don't know what we're spending them on, other than a design most of us don't like um chair.

One option that we could do is that uh that 300,000 be contingent on council approval.

So what that would look like would be uh presenting concepts to council and then us asking the question to council, do you want us to move forward with this?

Yeah, that would direct for me, Allison.

Yeah, I I think we well, we know that this uh is needed.

Admiral Road needs something with the act of transportation, and we know it's not gonna cost no money.

So I think having this money, approving this money, we know it's we're gonna have to spend money for this.

So Mes will approve it, and then once we get the design, as staff has said, um, then we can approve that.

But having the money there is important, I think okay so are people happy with staff's the 300 000 is contingent on us then approving a design or the council of um approving a design that comes forward to them everyone is John are you yeah you know it it's not just a council approving this um and I understand that we're gonna have the three thousand dollars to uh here um negotiate and and work with the the first nations but there's nothing here in terms of money to um survey the uh the businesses and the residents along admirals that are gonna have to live with uh the design never mind none no none except for Alison none of us live on admirals none of us gonna have to live with those implications unless of course we take out a lane and and now we're struggling to get to uh to uh um cfbs guamal but it sounds as if we're spending three but it sounds as if we we'd be just approving 300 000 contingent on approval which approval could also can include public survey yeah whatever the council of the day wants to include yeah yes so m my other question to to staff is that you know we've got sidewalks and bike lanes what about a bus stop for the number 40 I think we're getting way too into the weeds no but like no we don't have a plan yet so they're gonna bring a plan back to us and so I don't want to be talking about what we should a plan that we've never seen no no, no.

Can I can I just clarify?

There's an active transportation improvements.

Transit is an active transportation.

The number 40 bus is now in service.

The number 40 bus doesn't have uh I think yeah, John.

This is the end of the project.

So what we've got on the table now is the $300,000 contingent on staff bringing back a plan to us to look at and then make a decision as well as determine which will include whatever else we want, bus, etc.

Staff, Steve.

Thank you, Chair.

One more point is that uh council may recall that last fall we provided a preview, if you will, of the 2026 projects.

Um and we could do the same in this fall, 2026 for 2027.

So these are the the projects that we're ready to go on, and that at that time if more information becomes available where council prefers to table to a year from now, then that could be done as well.

So there will be opportunity in the fall perhaps to discuss further.

Okay, so but we do we have I guess I think it's a motion following up on staff, just make it contingent to 300,000.

So everyone's happy with that.

All in favor?

Second.

Accessibility wrap 188. Park shed 100,000 for electrifying it. Okay. Jerry.

Ivan, have staff been working in the dark.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh no, this is the electrification required to power more EV vehicles.

But thank you. That's a very I can I read it now.

Then that's a fun one.

So the six mile road improvements, the I was thinking like there's what $300,000 for improving the lighting on Six Mile Road or some huge amount.

I'm just I know so is there any end to the money we keep spending on that road?

So the only thing we were planning to do this year is put in a traffic or a crosswalk?

Uh yeah, chair both.

So the idea is to put uh street lighting in and crosswalk.

I believe we've cut the scope quite a bit on the street lights, we actually might not use all of it, but I don't there that would still be necessary for contingency.

So sorry, what the street lights were necessary for?

I believe the scope has been decreased uh by a nominal amount.

Um so I don't foresee us using all of that.

However, it is necessary to have a contingency apply to the streetlight project because of what we saw in the roundabout.

We saw quite a bit of contingency required for that one too.

So Jerry, does the province chip in at all.

Chair, not in this case.

They've stated that um should the town wish to increase the level of service for street lighting on that roadway, that it's on our dime.

And it's necessary to increase the street lighting.

It was a recommendation in a six-mile order study.

And there has been a ongoing uh, I believe a five-year program to improve uh the six-mile road, which included the roundabouts, speed reader boards.

And so that is that has been in the financial plan for several years, which has been approved by council.

Um that said the ministry believes that it meets their standards for lighting, so they don't feel the need to support us in adding more lighting.

Okay, and so just for clarification, the cost of the street lighting is before I ask people if they're happy with it.

I didn't catch the budget for the street lighting is $240,000.

Yeah, I will say that the crosswalk budget of 75, the actual dollars is gonna be half that just because of where we're putting it.

So it's the cost savings there.

Right. So I'll just ask people. Oh, John, you have a question?

Yeah, sorry. Um, the crosswalk on Damien, um that that's gonna be incredibly dangerous.

This should crosswalk for six-mile, right?

So we didn't cross six mile.

Yeah, chair, we did an engineering analysis with qualified professionals and save they've provide the warranting system and the location, so it's not so this is just gonna be pedestrian uh activated?

Yes.

The um the traffic backup on six-mile road, um it it backs up all the way up six mile to the six mile off ramp there were cars on the off ramp so that's without a crosswalk at Damien and we we certainly have seen the implications of a crosswalk on the island highway you know that are pedestrian and and the uh the traffic that's uh backing up on that so it is uh the crosswalk is it approved by the um minister highways uh chair still has to go through that um but they have agreed in principle based on engagement as part of the six mile study uh which was adopted by council of the day uh in terms of the crosswalk itself the reason why it went through a warrant process is because staff initially didn't believe that there was a requirement for a crosswalk but there there is uh a warrant for it based on the proximity to the mailboxes and the number of crossing the bus stops right right across the street so there's no way for for folks to cross the street so there is merit for it uh and that's why it's been in the plan for for so many years and council's policy is pedestrians bus than autos in terms of where our where we lie okay so okay thank you all right do you have a motion uh yes no crosswalk at Damien until we get the Ministry Highways approval for all the implications that it you know if it backs up on to the TCH those is okay it's good any seconder yep I'll second okay uh you don't want to get Ministry Highways you don't want to put it on on their owners because you know we we'll do this and you know they should be wearing it it is their road and I know it's our residents but it's their road and and it you know if if it's such a great idea they should be building this this sidewalk so crosswalk Don do you want to motivate or can we just vote it just just vote we do yeah just just vote just scrap atkins pump station 100 000 everyone's happy yes yes playground replacement address chancellor park can we scrap yes staff oh thank you chair just with respect to chancellor um for yes chancellor park playground upgrades where we left off of that was that um council um uh denied the the design we still have 125 000 in federal grant funding left so we need direction from council as to how to proceed just a question if i can chair can we refurbish anything that's there or or improve with what is there with that grant money?

The grant is for creating an accessible playground structures, so no.

And how long can we hold on to the grant money for?

About till the end of this year.

Okay.

So I think the concern that we shared was how challenging it was to get across the goose for accessibility.

So it would need another site, or is there space um next to the parking lot at Chancellor Park?

Or is that CRD property?

Uh yeah, that's CRD property with um a very important water supply main there.

Okay. Yes, Amy.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I have been quiet tonight, so it is like I get some turn turns here.

Yeah. Uh Director Liung, this grant, I know we discussed this a while ago.

Has it been any follow-up from staff on an alternate site or what that might look like?

Surely it's reasonable for us to come back as a town and say, hey, we've reevaluated, we think there's a better place for this.

Has that been done?

Um, Chair, the best opportunity for that staff will recommend as part of the Parks and Trails Master Plan.

Okay, I'm I'm I'm following up because the money was specific to that geographic location initially, correct?

Uh for that exact playground location. Right.

And uh what's the source of the funding?

Federal funding under eludes me right now, but it has to do with yes, um federal accessible grant.

I'll email it to counselor if it's if it'll help them.

Um but uh yeah, it's specifically for installing accessible equipment.

Okay. Since the last time we had this discussion, has staff pursued communication with the federal government to seek an alternate site or permission for that.

Uh no.

Okay.

Yes. I think that's staff contact the federal government to see if uh we can find a more suitable location for that type of playground.

Yes, and I appreciate staff your patience with this.

I realize it's extra work, but certainly that's a lot of funding and a very valuable accessible park that we really want to get built somewhere.

Okay.

I I wonder if the mover would um be amenable to just an addition to that motion and that concurrently that staff look for a place where this might go because they uh you know where it might be possible that we could place this rather than just putting the onus and then get the federal folks to come back if you're happy with that, then you can add that to us.

Allison.

Thank you. So I think what I heard staff say was that they, in order to do that, that would be following the um parks and trails work.

And then also that this is we only have the funding until the end of the year.

So I just don't know if that gives enough time to explore that.

So what I I think the motion probably is just for staff to not wait till the end to that parks and trails master plan is done and just pick a park where it would be more suitable and then ask the federal government.

Certainly. I mean, at the end of the day, Director Liung, if we can't get something done somewhere else, I expect to shovel in the ground December 31st at Chancellor, right?

I mean, ultimately we're not going to let that money go, but we should make every effort to find a suitable location that's accessible for all, considering it's an accessible park.

So let me see if I understand.

So we're saying, you know, we, you know, can staff find another place is one.

Can the government allow us their funding to put it in another place?

If they cannot find another place, are we happy to put it back in chancellor or she'll never be?

We'll probably discuss that if it doesn't work out.

I think it's fair to say, I mean, it's my motion.

I at the end of the day, we're not gonna let 125,000 go down the drain.

But I still have a fundamental issue with an accessible park where you have to cross a busy pedestrian, cyclist, uh, electric vehicles with no regulations at high speeds crossing.

Uh and and the idea that that people are going to roll to this location on their wheelchair uh is aspirational.

It really is. And I think some people will, but for the most part, uh these become destinations for the entire CRD.

Staff. Um thank you, Chairs.

Council may recall that uh we did uh some substantial engagement on the Chancellor Park uh replacement project where we had a couple open houses and we had a survey completed and we reported reported back to council with a what we heard report.

Would council expect that level engagement on for a different park?

Because if that is the case, then it will be quite challenging to um do all of that.

Plus, we're doing engagement on the OCP right now.

We need to kick start our parks and trails master plan.

Um there is quite a bit of work and obviously there's a deadline with this grant.

Now we just get staff to say no, it's X number of square feet.

We're uh one of our existing parks that it could be very useful, and people won't have to risk life and limb to get there.

So through the chair, um my question is is that we did substantial engagement.

No, I don't think there's an interest in doing a substantial engagement.

Just staff that has fair amount of expertise, and that's speaking for Damien that staff should just be able to pick a spot that makes sense to them.

I'll uh I don't mind jumping in here.

I I definitely was the impetus for this getting delayed.

And I think to sum this up, I I would expect staff to look at the parks master plan to look at a playground that is either aging out or close to uh with a suitable parking lot and an accessible area for all.

Um and and I think uh I trust staff in doing that, and I don't expect any more public engagement and i think uh that can be a staff decision staff you've got the motion all those in favor against carried it infrastructure pump station man is there no end to these pump stations and they're hugely expensive uh so uh workstation replacement everyone atkins road sidewalk carry on carry for it so that's coming along well staff uh swimmingly from what i hear uh the park at the burnside road handy dart site bridge rehab program why on earth do we have to spend that money on a new bridge?

But everyone seems to be okay.

Traffic signal reviewal.

Accessibility entrance town hall.

LED lighting upgrades.

Darkway pump station upgrade.

I'll come now with solo again.

Why can't they all be like that?

Uh bus shelter 13,000.

Oh it's 130,000 for bus shelters.

How many bus shelters we getting?

What's that six?

For what I see the program used to be a X amount of dollars per year.

It just made more sense for us to consolidate all into one year.

We get a lot of cost savings from that.

Six. Let me check.

Everyone's happy except for John so far. You do care, John? How many they're building? Nine.

I think it's around half a dozen around there.

So the um 139, how many bus shelters do we get to put in for 130,000?

Well, we do so in order to put the shelter in, we need to upgrade the pad underneath it.

So the majority of that is civil works.

And the um shelter itself is free from BC Transit.

So we're gonna show these are two bus shelters a year.

No, all in bus.

Okay, so that's not clear. We're upgrading every one of our bus shelters.

I don't understand these are six new bus shelters, correct.

So 2025 for the project summary shows Walkers at Marther, Atkins anda, Hackins at Myra.

So there is one, two, there's six, potentially seven.

Six, potentially eight.

It's all it's all in the project summary.

Okay, thank you. That's good.

So staff, we've gotten through this list.

We've got both of them.

Oh yeah, SCAT. Sure.

Staff, tell us about SCADA upgrades, but they've been deferred to 27.

Yeah, SCADA, it allows us to only operate with one technologist, one staff on our on our underground services.

Uh is basically a signal from the pump station that tells us from the office whether or not the pump station is in trouble or not.

So instead of having staff go around and inspect it's everything, a lot of it's automated.

That software is nearing its end of life in a sense, it's not being supported anymore.

So that's the reason why we need it.

The reason why we didn't get it done last year is because we've been citiving we've been short resourced and we haven't been able to do it last year.

Uh yeah, Chair, I'm not too sure it's a fact.

I do know that Escalmost Public Works Department is 20 to 30 times more than ours.

Thank you. Now that we've gotten through those, where are we now, staff? A27.

Thank you, Chair.

So what I can do here is direct you to page seven of 24 in the handout you received earlier.

That appendix A.

So once you're there, I'll just have a few comments.

So page seven, and that's going to be schedule 2.1 non-capital projects.

I'm seeing nods.

So what we've done through our preliminary uh discussion here is covered 2026 projects and any 2026 projects that had a 2027 component as well.

So I'm looking at N88 there.

We've got four with and the fourth one has a component of 25,000 in 2027.

So we've already discussed those.

We've discussed the next one.

N101, if you can see that being the 12,500 sort of uh initial um project within the five years, that's where we'll start off.

And as we go down this 2027 column, we'd be discussing all of those that do not have a 2026 component because we've already discussed those.

So on page seven of 24, everything listed under 2027.

We still have to make a decision on.

So what I'll do for that one is have like a consent agenda.

Does anyone want to pull anything out of that one?

Chair, if I may, chair.

I for you uh any projects in 27 that are uh initiated in 2027, so they would not have uh a dollar value to the left in the 2026 column.

Okay, those are the ones that have yet to be discussed.

You have discussed 2027 projects that have a 2026 component.

We've already discussed those.

Yeah, correct.

The first batch of general, there's about seven or eight of them there.

So anyway. Personnel we've already talked about.

We've already made a decision on the graffiti.

So that thirty thousand.

It's just the ones that don't have a twenty twenty-six, just the twenty-seven.

So where's the first one?

Is that first one off street parking review, right?

So staff, what what why do we need a consultant to give us a report on off-street parking?

Can't we just make decisions without this?

It just seems seventy-five thousand is a lot of money.

Yeah, so um through the chair.

Um this particular project summary council is as you know deferred last year, and uh staff is deferring it again to be combined with our zoning bylaw update.

And um as part of the off-street parking review, uh we are uh needing to um engage consultants to uh assist us with um doing a sort of a comprehensive parking review with respect to our our requirements, um looking at what other places do, also looking at um cash and loo compensation, um considering other transportation demand management measures um to be incorporated into our our zoning bylaw, looking at um like bicycle parking, um best practices.

So it's quite a comprehensive review.

Our parking bylaw hasn't reviewed in quite a long time, and uh it is at a point where we we do need to update it, and uh some of this work we can conduct in-house as part of the zoning bylaw update, but uh we would um like to engage as part of the zoning bylaw update.

Uh we would like to engage a consultant to assist us with that work.

I I know there's concerns about that, and I've got concerns of spending 75.

I think we could uh cap it at something like $40,000.

I think that's fair and have staff do some some work um as well.

View Royal is not that large.

We've got lots of neighbors around us that have parking bylaws.

The streets are all the same.

The streets have no names.

Um the uh yeah, I I just think we could probably cut the difference there and say forty thousand dollar cap for uh for consultant fees for off-street parking review.

That would be my motion if I had a second.

You have a seconder.

You know, the um view royal streets are not all the same.

We do not have uh sidewalks all over the place like Victoria or or Squamo.

Um but uh one would hope that the um parking review that other municipalities have done would educate us, and uh we we might may even find a suitable one to um uh to take a lot of lead from.

But um I do want to say that you know the comment providing too much parking will discourage alternate modes of transportation.

And one example staff gave back in 2021 was there is way too much parking at Eagle Creek Shopping Center.

And in actual fact, there is way too few parking stalls in Eagle Few.

So in the in the six years, five years that we'd uh you know for the case.

Councillor Rogers, I'm just for the chair point of order, we're not here to solve it.

This is by so we've got a Jake.

Let's not get into details.

All right, so we've got a motion to drop it down to 40,000.

Any all those in favor?

Um demolition waste management bylaw, 10,000.

Happy content.

Something to add about that one.

Uh uh CRD just passed.

They were presented a demonstration demolition waste bylaw um that we can adopt.

Um, and that's gone through the cycle already.

So I I think I forwarded it, Scott, to you.

I can forward it to Leanne as well.

But it seems like it's pretty much put Town of View Royal on the top of it, and it would it's pretty solid.

And I think it addressed just about everything um Allison you brought up.

Uh and they've been doing some pretty good studies with it, and it's aligned with uh what um what they can take in now and the current uh tipping fees, um, and uh as well as some of the local uh wood reclaimers and some of the other small businesses that spun off from that.

Sure. Okay, so is your motion to remove this and just have staff use modify CRDs to fit URLs notes?

We'd maybe have a motion that staff evaluate the um CRD um uh by law and then maybe come back to us on uh seeing how that that's not gonna hit us this year until 27.

They could take a look at that and see what more that they would need.

Okay, so yeah, um thank you, Chair.

Yes, and so that is um a great timing on the CRD's part app for sure.

And uh phase one of this project, so phase one would take place in 2027, and that would be the completion of a review and analysis of the existing housing stock and report back to council on um the number of um single family dwellings and duplexes that were constructed prior to 1960.

So we um so that you know analysis would have to be done.

Um but we would come back to council regardless with sort of an update on that project scope uh in 2020 in early 2027, which may uh impact the budget in a good way.

So would this be another option to make this contingent to funding contingent on staff coming back and us making another determination?

Everyone's happy with that and evaluating the CRD.

Yeah, after staff reviewed it and see what we think is reasonable.

Okay, so you got that, staff?

Does that work for you?

Thank you. Okay, contingent.

Okay, all those in favor again's carried.

Thank you. So page nine actually is is uh information about funding, and so we just go back to page seven there.

Uh on page seven, you've got a 2028 column there.

If we are planning on completing all the non-capital prior to capital, or we shift to capital at this point and finish 27 capital, whatever is your pleasure.

So we've just completed 2027 non-capital.

So you can either continue on through the rest of the five years, so we've got three years left of non-capital, or we've we shift to capital at this point and finish 2027 capital.

So I don't think this is yeah.

We don't want to go back into non-capital no 2028.

So yeah. So we'll we'll do that 2028 and 2027.

So I guess we're on page 13.

So the first item would be uh 188 accessibility round.

Well, I guess we've already approved that, but what is there?

Yeah, so canceled that.

Yeah, 020 we've canceled, right?

Yeah. So staff, did we talk about the burnside drainage improvements or is that uh Chair?

It looks like C one eleven will be your initial project.

Dealt with the sewer gravity mean for three hundred thousand SCADA, yeah.

And that's a grant.

Okay, it's a heart road.

We're only doing if we get a grant for that amount.

Is that correct, staff?

Which grant?

Uh through the chair, yes, that is correct.

This particular project's summary keeps getting pushed year after year because there are no grant opportunities available at this time.

Looks like we're finished, is it?

Thank you, Chair. We are completed uh in terms of 26 and 27.

Okay, and I don't think there's a big push for us to look at 28 until next year.

All right, Staff.

So yeah. I I don't see any push from any, well, except Allison might be all enthusiastic about doing 28, 29, 30.

So I think we're okay.

What's next?

In terms of budget discussion, we can revisit anything uh that's been presented prior.

Uh obviously the uh tax increase drivers, uh any any other part of the budget committee wishes to to discuss, but uh I'll leave it with you.

Um Steve, the what is the next opportunity for us or the final opportunity, I guess, for us to look at the uh at the taxation.

Thank you. Through the chair, uh the revised roll will be out uh in a few weeks' time, at which time we'll get a final non-market change, final uh market change value.

That'll impact uh the tax increase for 2026.

We'll have our revised role, understand better uh where we're at, and and in April we can have that conversation.

Okay, so we can entertain things up until April, but we'll have to make a decision probably early April for um for tax rate.

Yes, early to mid-April. I can I can email our uh our our timeline for the balance of the sessions.

Okay, no. Thanks, Stephen.

Happy with that.

So that moving right along, and you thought we wouldn't get out of here till 10 o'clock.

There's the department update staff.

That's you. A department department update.

AO report.

Thank you. Uh basically up until the last committee of the whole meeting.

Um overview of activities in the five departments, six if you include mine.

And uh any questions, you can either ask me tonight or you mail me afterwards.

I I had a couple questions.

The administrative penalties the province can put on people who uh don't get the permit for a uh short-term rental.

Said staff had to talk to the province, and so two questions.

How much is the penalty and what's the likelihood of the province leveling a penalty?

And if there is some, should we be advising the public that although we have a policy that we're going to take a break for those two or three months, uh they're at risk.

Uh yes, we have been advising the public of that.

Uh we've been told that View Royal has been flagged by the ministry, and so we would recommend that anyone who wants to apply comes to see us for a business license, um, which we likely can't grant, um, and that will be required to get through the provincial process.

So uh basically frustration of the process.

Province did it to us again.

Um my other question about building permits.

We got 14 permits.

What are they for?

Things, big things.

Um through yeah, through through the Mary up, um, a lot of little things.

Uh we don't have any building permits for big projects other than the building permit for the new energy center at uh VGH, but we have a lot of uh small permits coming in through the door, which is great.

Thanks. And staff did a nice uh job of just uh discussing what we'd be doing for uh road closures, etc.

in terms of informing people.

But one of the neighbors told us they had 489 people zooming down View Royal Avenue uh when during rush hour when it first started and so i guess our question would be what can we do to prevent that should something like this happen again like do we put up I don't know but we were putting residents really at risk because people were driving at high speed Jerry can attest to the people speeding down her street too uh yeah thank you chair yeah day one is usually the most disruptive I understand day two is essentially less it's typical of the case so there are certainly teachable moments um for hydro and so should this happen again on a highway we would see what we can do to elevate their level of service and traffic control anyone Damien first I think if if and when that project comes back maybe counselor brown could communicate with the RCMP as well for traffic enforcement is probably the real only realistic solution Jerry totally different subject um I've been in Portage Park recently and it it is it is a change park it's absolutely it's wonderful the work that the uh green team and where are was there a Vie Royal habitat team in there too yeah it's it's amazing work.

Now is that largely from the the um the the funds put aside for the um I can't remember the oh the grant infer.

Uh yeah, through the chair, that's it's is drawing directly from that budget.

Okay. Yeah. That's great. Nice work.

Anyone on to the right of me? Anyone have a question of staff on the report? John.

Yeah, the um Barlow was having a challenging uh month with um homeless camps.

Uh we were talking about uh V Royal Park.

Has uh have there been any instances of individuals choosing to camp in V Oil Park?

Hello, counselor.

We had one instance uh of a gentleman that was camp in the actual designated spot and he was gone at seven in the morning.

So he was obviously uh worldly to the bylaw, and he was gone before the bylaw officer got there.

So one instance in Bureau Park.

So just following up on that, so number adjacent to Portage Park is our old Thetis uh what did we call it?

Thetis Cove uh plan that was now sold on us.

So there were uh at least two or three different locations where there were people camping overnight and some of them have left and they've you know left a horrible mess.

I don't know. Do do we ask the province to clean it up or do we clean it?

What's the story?

Yeah, so our bylaw officer contacts uh the province and advises them because of course it's technically their property, I believe, hasn't been signed over yet.

But yeah, any they've been actually pretty responsive to to getting in there and cleaning up the uh debris.

But it is a it is a problem area.

We try and move them along on behalf of the province, but they do tend to leave uh sizable amounts of debris.

The other the other area that's uh starting to pose a challenge is underneath uh Parsons Bridge.

They're actually in in the superstructure underneath the bridge.

They managed to create a ladder, and then they've they've put you know platforms and boards, and they're up elevated under the roadway.

So we're we're working to try and move them along as well.

It's a very dangerous situation, actually.

Okay.

Okay, thanks now. Motion to receive. All in favor against carried. Okay, so we're on to portfolio report.

Uh thank you, Chair.

We are in amongst the finance and administration for the year.

So um uh looking forward to some discussion actually that um councilor Lemon has on how we're going to actually fund things for the um the RCMP building.

So as we were all aware that the callwood passed uh the last hurdle, I guess, of the agreement for going ahead with the RCMP building last week.

Scott, uh the mayor of Langford and the Mayor Metchosin and myself were present during the council meeting.

Um I don't think there was anything new that was brought up uh as far as guardrails from the report that was generated.

There is the IPD process, and then there's a governance process.

So this will be new territory for three municipalities doing an IPD process.

Uh so we've already been meeting almost on a weekly basis amongst the mayors and CAOs.

Um we wrote a charter in the summer.

We've all agreed to the charter plus the MOU.

That can improve a lot better.

So just to explain, hopefully, for the public as well and the council.

Nobody will see the police station as a tax requisition on View Royal taxes, right?

It will come as a CRD subservice between View Royal, Callwood, and Langford.

They will all be proportionate to whatever uh the funding agreement is closer to the date of signature.

We'll approach that tomorrow at the CRD meeting because it will uh goes to the inspector municipalities.

We probably won't see it back at CRD until they finish their yeah, it looks good.

Uh, this will be the first police building service that a regional district, I think, has provided, as well as the first IPD process that three municipalities go into.

So lots of discussion with uh how Burnabies actually built some of their stuff, including a big RCMP building.

Um, some of the things where IPD worked out fabulously was as in the process of constructing their RCMP building, they found an archaeological artifact.

They had to actually pivot the building about 180 degrees uh in order to do that.

If they weren't working with IPD and just traditional project management, they would have ran out of money there because it would have been a complete redesign, but the team was able to uh kind of agile approach to just move things along and uh and and it worked out well for them.

There was also some opportunities for some cost savings for some days' cares that they're actually under budget.

Uh not saying it solves everybody's problems, but it's uh uh one uh I think shared responsibility where contractors actually their profits get eaten up if they're over budget with an IPD process.

So it makes sense to bring them along.

So I'm happy we're at the stage we're at now.

Um it will look like probably temporary bo borrowing that would be attached to the the larger sum for the CRD um service.

That temporary borrowing uh would take us out probably a year till the actual borrowing takes effect like a year from now around tax time for the CRD.

That can uh definitely progress our work along some of the demolition that needs to be done as well as um setting the footings because if anybody's been watching any of the projects that go on, this is a post-disaster building, so it will take considerable time to build.

Um, so we can get started on it, even though the full approval will take um uh a year to do kind of thing.

Uh so happy with that.

And the only other point I wanted to add was that I had the pleasure of being invited with Mayor Alto, uh, the mayor of Santa's and the mayor, the CRD chair for the Social Island Prosperity uh meeting this afternoon.

It was kind of ask us anything.

Uh so it went over really well for an hour.

Uh when I got to uh talk about things, I'm not sure why they invited View Royal with all the other big players, but uh it was um it was a good opportunity to meet some of our business folks, many of which which are local that came from View Royal.

So that was good to see.

And that's all I have, Chair.

Thank you.

So for the thousands who are out there watching, I think the original estimate for the cost of the View Royal to V-Roll family each home would be 188 dollars if we borrow all the money for 20 years.

Um I I think that's what we're gonna figure out, and then it will be a council decision, and I would recommend probably a motion that I think we all sagely nodded toward that if we wanted to use our growing community fund to offset the cost of that dollar amount, then we would do so.

Um that may um I'm sure Scott can check it out.

That may um decrease that cost somewhat more or decrease the length of time, but I think it would be cost more than anything for us.

All right, thank you. Uh Protective Services, Councillor Brown, are you there, Don?

Yeah, sure. I am.

Um I can't tell you how pleased I am that uh finally something's gonna happen on the police building.

I really thank uh Mr.

Somerville and Mayor Tobias for both of your work on that.

I don't know uh how many arms you had to twist or whatever, but uh I really appreciate the work you did on that.

I know the staff that are gonna be working with there are being appreciative, and so it would be a building that we're proud of, just like our fire hole.

Thank you very much.

And that's it.

Engagement, Damien.

Nothing significant to report.

I have been in communication with Miss Corky, uh anticipating possible communication on a tax left, depending on where we land to be continued.

Thank you. Jerry, Arts and Library. Thank you.

Also nothing significant to report.

I had you know library board was last month, but there was there was, you know, it was planning and planning a retreat and so on.

There was nothing really reportable out of it.

I had a meeting today with the planning and policy committee, but again, it was it was uh it was uh house work, you know.

Um so nothing, nothing and nothing nothing to report out of arts.

Um but just just another plug for the library.

I did some exploring on their website, which is a dreadful website, but there as as I hope I've mentioned, uh there is a new one and new sensational one in the works.

Um but you can learn 140 languages off the GVPL website.

So I've started Gaelic.

So isn't it it's so it's you know, it's it's many, many services there.

Okay, thank you.

All of them online.

I guess we don't have to pay money for books now.

Is that okay? Um environment, parks, and recreation.

Thank you. So for West Shore Parks and Rec, the board actually met yesterday with the contractor working on the regional parks and recreations facilities master plan.

And the purpose of that meeting was to review their proposed changes to the report or the plan based on feedback that they received from the councils and from the CAOs in the municipalities.

Essentially, to sum it up, um, the plan is it it's gone broader in scope.

It now is going to look at the West Shore.

What facilities do we already have?

What areas aren't well covered, and in some municipalities, they've actually earmarked locations for future rec.

So it's going to look at the West Shore as a whole.

What do we have?

Where are we missing things?

Um and somebody said it's not really a West Shore Parks and Rec plan anymore.

It's like a West Shore plan and then facilitated by the West Shore Parks and Rec.

So uh but they are hoping, even though it's increased to have that done in April with the the next version of it.

Um at the February meeting, we also discussed uh park amenity sponsorship and memorial program.

So uh up until now, there is if you wanted to do memorial tree or memorial bench, there wasn't a policy for that, so they received support from the board to go ahead and and develop one of those, and then the other thing we discussed was the uh reduction in available hours for the three dollar shower option.

Um, and that was uh due to some staffing staff challenges and particularly at busy times and also uh times when there aren't uh supervisors presence there was some challenges of people you know locking themselves in the showers or things like that so um we're gonna trial it with the reduced hours and see how that that goes and then just in terms of um environment that this Friday is actually the next intermunicipal climate action task force meeting and so I'll be able to report out after that thank you oh counselor matzon um nothing under planning and development as you'd staff heard from staff we've had 14 minor building permits building permits go up for 14 minor projects um and I'm not sure what's happening with the project on um uh was it Prince Robert and Island Highway but I gather should I be saying this I know they're they're looking at uh a a transition for the people who are currently living there so maybe they have something in the works I'm not sure at this point but that's that's it for for me.

I did have a question kind of related I'm wondering if staff could tell us if they've heard anything on when an occupancy permit would go out for a spire.

That's the um uh large development on Helmkin and Westburn side just a ballpark if you go that's through yeah through the chair we have I believe we've given partial occupancy to building one I believe partial occupancy has been given to building two um and we haven't given any partial occupancy to building three yet okay for the project going out next to the formall I mean there aren't a lot of workers there like it do we have a minimum time for how long it takes to build a building I mean or is it they just can't get it it just seems that they've had like about six or seven people there for a few years and there's the progress is incredibly slow.

I just do you have any idea what the story is there.

Through the chair I I have no response to that I I don't uh know in terms of the trades coming on and off the project um I mean it's been an active building site I'm there every morning and there's but there's not there's not a lot of them I just the progress seems to be really slow.

I don't know how long it takes to build a building but that one seems incredibly slow.

Counselor Rogers yes thank you um so we had the uh the uh BC Hydro project that was on the island highway um uh abruptly cancelled.

Um staff, do we have any extension of when they may be uh coming back uh through the chair and not more than what the press release stated that uh it was canceled and the more information to follow but we haven't got anything yet.

So the um you mentioned in um the projects at uh BC Hydro uh their work may be um impacting and and causing a delay in other projects in the town um I think it was the the sewer projects around Fort Victoria or something.

Um do we have a sense of which of those two projects take priority and you know uh Chair we don't know I expect that we'll get more information from BC Hydro uh in the next few months.

Okay thank you one of the um things that um uh councillor match and council and myself uh we all went uh with um to have a look at the two settlement ponds uh that um had been placed in yeah along Craigflower Creek for uh Riverside Ridge way back in the in the 1990s so it was uh really insightful to see these settlement ponds and and the work they do I wonder staff when would we be here getting a report back on um the progress and how we'll rectify and resolve some of those issues.

Chair the reports are being developed as we speak I can't tell I I'm not able to estimate when it'll be finalized and when we can report the council uh what I do know is that we've been in conducting risk managed exercises to make sure that hazards are at a minimum which they are so more to follow in the future is all I can really say right now.

I wonder if we're um as as a result, and I look forward to seeing the report, um, whether there will be um some capital um budget required to to do the refurbishment.

I can't answer that until I review the report and um through um if any is required, then we obviously go bring forth to council for deliberation.

The other thing was uh, and I'd mentioned this before, I was alerted to um uh the um uh enormous traffic backup on six mile road, um all the way from uh up to the uh the off ramp.

And um I could only surmise that it was the bus shoulder project that had implic implications.

It was backing up on the highway, and people were playing Russian roulette and deciding to drop down on six mile.

But um it was interesting watching it uh on Google Maps and and seeing how the traffic was also backing up on Choco after Newcastle.

So the the um the implications was uh you know quite significant.

Um again, um staff, do we have a sense of uh how long the uh but is is the bus shoulder project on schedule.

Uh staff can certainly reach out to BC or to the ministry to see regarding scheduling regarding six mile road.

I'm curious if that traffic was due to um the need to fix the overpass on Atkins, because I do know that there's substantial traffic manager required there, and that could have caused that um, which is a lot shorter term than the bus and shoulders project.

I gather that project will be over soon. Thank you very much. That's all I have.

Okay, thank you. Uh under new business, we have a motion from Jerry.

Thank you. Um I was actually surprised to see this come back.

I thought we'd dealt with it.

Yeah, I did think we I thought we dealt with it.

But um in the event staff if they need any.

Yeah. I think the request for a staff report, I think staff actually are reporting out to us all the time.

Uh, but we do need something for the public, especially now that Colwood is on board and and it's all systems go.

Uh so um I I look forward to input on whether we could do a town hall session within a town hall meeting um or something online, or and or um or let's do and and um information going out to all households.

Staff. Thoughts.

Well, I was prepared to speak to the notice of motion.

Oh, um you go.

Well, I mean, what what was just spoken is is different than the notice of motion.

So um I d I don't understand what a town hall within a town hall is.

Um we we would certainly like to get out more information about this project.

We are not the fiscal agents, it's with the CRD, who I understand are quite short-staffed and focused on their budget right now.

So I think maybe a couple months down the road would be uh opportune time.

Uh, because certainly I don't want to have a town hall meeting where we don't have information or provide our best guess.

Fair enough. Yeah.

Good. Good. And as I said, I I thought we'd dealt with it, and things would evolve when the time is right.

And uh the time's not right right now.

Sure. Uh uh I think one of the things that we're all concerned about, and thanks for representing and this motion, uh, Jerry, is what would be the tax implication this year.

And from what I'm gathering from Stephen and Scott and where we're at in the borrowing, there'll be no implication this year from either CRD or the town of V Royal.

However, there may be temporary borrowing against the master sum to get us moving because we've got an IPD um process that if it doesn't continue on, we're going to lose them from uh and their estimates are going to fade, right?

So uh I think we've got time to work on this and thoughtfully and and uh to Scott's point, we don't really know, but I think there's a couple of things that we can do to help staff along in that.

One of those things uh at a future meeting would be to deliberate how we might want to offset that um coming up, and that could be using the making a motion using the um growing community fund for it.

Um but uh I think for for this year, like I I don't know what I'd say for the actual funding.

We could give them a percentage, but we couldn't break it down.

Uh Counselor Mattson, that you exemplified like how much is it going to cost per household for taxation?

I think we'd be doing a bit of guessing, and that would depend on what actions do we want to take to help lessen that pressure.

I think once we make those decisions and look at the percentage of borrowing, we can then say the cost of what it's going to cost the average household and and break it down that way a bit better.

But I think we the pressure is off for this year as far as seeing it on our tax bill for this fiscal year.

So if you're happy to hold on, I'm happy to do a town hall within a town hall within a town hall if it uh if it works.

But I'd be concerned about getting the message out there in in many ways, and we haven't stopped doing that.

Uh and uh I'll applaud our communications folks and Scott for our website has been the most up-to-date of any of the three municipalities.

Um Kelsey has written a copy for in many cases for the other two municipalities.

So uh so I I think we're putting it out there.

There's better work that we could have done, and Scott and I talked about that today, is like we're dealing with a confidential building, but there's some disc obviously discussion about it that is going to be open uh discussion.

And uh, you know, those minutes that the mayors and CAOs have, as long as they're not involving anything specific to the design of the building, we'll start making those public as well.

Uh, because uh we really didn't have a project until Callwood said yes, right?

And now that they have, we can continue on with governance and building communication strategies and whatnot but before that we were getting ready to have a project I think more than anything but thank you for the motion council though John do you have a question related to what so well it's really great news and and uh that we've got uh the uh colwood uh buying into it so um I'm assuming then we will be updating our uh website because at this moment it only says Coldwood's deferred approval and um and that's it so we um we obviously have great news to pass on and maybe we can pass on what's happening with um the CRD so we can definitely if I can share we can definitely take that back and add on to uh uh the updates and and when they were last updated um I think we can do a better job communicating collaboratively between the three municipalities we haven't been there yet um and obviously there's been significant interest from some media outlets particularly targeting Callwood uh because of uh what's Cena's maybe a delay I I want to be clear that I'm I'm not unhappy with the way Callwood went about making sure that um the due process was taken but I think perhaps you know, that that error on the side of the caution was um was probably everybody has their appetites for risk differently.

Get it, right? Um, if their council required these extra steps to provide due diligence, that was great.

But you know, one of the things I put in the charter was that no process for the municipalities and councils and staff getting together should in any way jeopardize the close relationship we have with both of those municipalities for all the other things we share with Juan de Fuca rec and whatnot.

Um I haven't been happy with the way some of their counselors have behaved, but it's not my place to say so, right?

I think it turned very political very quickly, and it didn't need to go that way at all.

And that's unfortunate.

Um, but I'm committed to the process.

I hope that Collwood Council is as well to start getting really good communications out, right?

But um we got some work to do to get there.

So I thank you for your patience, but I think we're on the roll.

Thank you. Thank you. Uh, question period. Does anyone in the audience have a question?

First time's a charm.

Thank you, uh Chair Your Worship and Council, uh, and of course, staff.

It's uh late night for everybody here, but thank you for your deliberations tonight.

A couple of questions.

Um, number one, I know during the last meeting there was a discussion around um the reduction of revenues coming from the casino.

My question is, have any projections been done to potentially look at the uh three to five years of what that might look like?

Uh and perhaps that's very difficult to do, and I imagine it probably is, but I'm wondering if any planning or any uh discussions have been done with casino or folks um on elements to figure out what are we looking at?

Because for such a considerable amount of capital influx that comes from that casino to continually try to anticipate what might come in the future is likely uh uh a good idea if it can be done.

So that's one question I have.

Uh and maybe that question's been answered already.

Um my other question was around lighting.

Um and and I'm glad that uh I I stayed to hear this because we heard some discussion about the crosswalk at at Damien um and and lighting in that area.

Uh I live around the area, I work quite late sometimes, uh travel back and forth uh into Theaters Vale.

That road, that stretch below uh the Galloping Goose and the Atkins can be quite dark at night.

Um there are quite a few people walking, uh uh, especially in the summertime.

Um it can uh it can be quite heavy with pedestrian traffic, especially uh times when there are buses uh crossing and stopping in the morning.

It's not too bad with pedestrians, I will say.

Um typically it's just traffic in the morning.

Um, so I'm just wondering in terms of lighting and pieces there if any engagement has been done um with residences uh above or below that part of six mile where the bus stop is.

It would be interesting to know how folks feel there about the lighting situation.

Um, and um yeah, I think uh that was all I had.

Thank you very much.

So thank you, Steph.

Um can you advise about I think we you've estimated reductions in casino funding already, have you?

Tia Thank you, Chair.

Yes, as part of last week's agenda, there's uh the appendix uh contains uh schedule four there with projected reserve balances, and and we've got our uh projected uh five years of casino revenue there um published.

So the numbers escaped me offhand but there is a reduction plan.

I've I've not been in contact with uh the ministry or the the casino or um in terms of that.

Okay, and staff on Six Mile Road, when the study was done, did they take a look at uh views of the residents in terms of the lighting?

I guess that's why we are increasing the lighting.

Uh yeah, Chair, you're 100% correct.

Engagement was done in 2020 as part of that study, and uh one of the themes was lighting.

So seeing no one else in the audience, we'll go out to the wide world out there. Does anyone there have a question?

Uh Chair Mattson, we've had no messages this evening.

Okay, so thank you. Uh so with that, probably a motion to adjourn.

Second.

Thank you.