Council Meeting

I'll call the meeting to order for uh the council meeting to order for the 17th of March.

Um we've already um had our territorial acknowledgement.

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

Uh please note that comments regarding the Official Community Plan Bylaw No.

811, 2011, Amendment Bylaw No.

1163, 2026 are not permitted as the public hearing for this bylaw is concluded.

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

You may then give uh council the benefit of your views.

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

Again, we ask you uh that you provide your name and your street name to begin your comments, and your comment will be read aloud uh at the appropriate time by a member of our team.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes.

Read speaker and must be related to an item on the agenda.

Question period is open to any question and is limited to two minutes each for each speaker, and you will be timed.

The meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

Um can I get approval of the agenda?

And I think counselor Brown wanted to uh move some things out of the consent agenda.

Councillor Brown, are you online?

Yes, I am. Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Yeah, under consent agenda, I would like to pull D1 and d two please yeah b uh they may be a bit different can you read out the subject uh that you wanted to pull out uh counselor brown the first one's the tree canopy one and the second one is the uh uh memorial sidewalk and the pride sidewalk okay so that is uh yeah that's d one and two that's correct on our agenda thank you counselor brown is there any other changes uh to the agenda counselor lemon we pull out c uh uh the what the garbage collection contract uh thank you so counselor lemon wants c out so i will go to uh uh item 11 and we will add counselor brown for uh one uh d1 and two and counselor lemon for c will be new 11 d12 and 11 C.

Any other changes seeing no other changes uh can i get a mover and a seconder for the approval of the agenda please move by councillor matts and seconded by uh counselor McKenzie all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries and this brings us down to public participation period would anybody in council chambers like to address counsel on anything seeing no one here would like to address it Carl um refresh your cash and tell me if we've got anything uh for the council meeting uh mayor to bias there's nothing on the form system thank you sir uh that uh gets uh us to bylaws and uh that is the official community plan uh number 811 2011 amendment bylaw number 1163 2026 uh byla third in adoption uh you're moving third and adoption do you have a seconder second seconded uh any discussion motivation would be okay all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries unanimously i don't know we've got that right and recorded we're good okay uh mayor's report an exciting week uh i think i uh had the opportunity to uh get up and uh address the uh SIPP Rising Economy Conference with the mayor of uh victoria sanitz and the crd chair um and that opportunity took place last week and the place was packed and really well attended.

So it was good um to see some of the things that um uh they asked was, of course, a lot on transportation, a bit on the train, a bit on how municipalities could help out with clinics.

There are two things that I passed on was that I think it's the job of councils to help facilitate the planning for a complete community.

And that helps businesses.

So I know there's been an emphasis on housing, but if we don't have enough places for people, and somebody had actually cited the fact that when they were walking around with the realtor next to a school, the realtor said, and the school is right nearby.

And when they asked, the waiting list for that school was three years long.

So the reality is that there are challenges from not having enough services for people to move into.

So I discussed that a little bit, and one of the things that did get a standing ovation with the CRD Transportation Service starting up was wouldn't it be great one day if all the municipalities worked together and mapped out where they're going to do road construction along the same route all the way from downtown?

So certainly that hit a tone because of the Johnson Street Bridge being closed and other things being kind of impediments to uh to travel, as well as even the CRD trail was closed for a while as well for for those on bikes uh that use it.

Um so uh that was great.

The biggest thing, and it came as uh a bit of a surprise, but a good one, is Counselor Qualitz um having the opportunity to hop into a different role.

Um, and he will unfortunately uh and has uh tendered his resignation from council, and we've had to accept with very begrudgingly.

Um, I don't think uh Councillor Kowalewich can be replaced.

Uh none of us can for bringing what we bring to council, but I really enjoyed um uh counselor Kualowicz your your opportunity to be frank, thoughtful, open, your willingness to actually represent probably uh a good deal of the community that um is is not only in your age group uh but but a different way of thinking than uh perhaps the the rest of us have.

And that I always appreciate to balance council decisions out.

Um and uh you know your your involvement uh you know for many years, both on and off the ice uh in uh in West Shore Parks and Iraq has been nothing short of outstanding.

And uh yeah, I think your legacy will be felt uh from your mark on uh West York Parks and Rec for generations to come.

So please join me in applause for us.

And over to you, sir, if there's remarks you want to make.

Well, thank you, Your Worship.

And I was at home with my wife saying this.

Well, you really don't actually get this opportunity to do this most times because you either will run again or you don't run again, and it's very unique to have a resignation.

So I will take this opportunity to say to say a few words.

And I want to begin to say how grateful I am to have served in the town of U Royal for almost 10 years now, Ron.

And Ron and I were working that out in the lunchroom with our mathematics together.

And it's so special, a very uh immense privilege to represent the public.

Um, past and present.

There's also been some other counselors I've worked with in the past.

And Dawn, you're out there in the virtual universe tonight.

Thank you for the note very much.

Um we've we've always approached issues very differently, many of us, but all was for the for the greater good, and all was for the same end goal, which is to make View Royal a better place.

Lots of respectful dialogue.

Certainly changed when we started to live stream, but uh we had some good times before the the cameras were on too, didn't we?

Um your worship, you have stepped in here with uh very well with no political experience, and you've risen to the challenge.

You've become uh an anchor here for the CRD for leadership.

Uh you have thoughtfully challenged the provincial and federal government and received provincial and national attention.

Uh it's quite impressive.

It's it's been excellent to get to know you, and uh, we've been served very well for four years by you.

So thank you. I want to thank the residents of U Royal.

Uh they have reached out just last week.

Um, it's it's a pleasure to run into them in the grocery stores.

As we know, seeing them at events or in the public is uh what really makes this all worthwhile.

Uh when you cut the ribbon at a at a bike park, John, uh or or at a uh canoe launch.

It's really what it's all about.

It it really is, whether you're with the West Shore Parks, seeing people smile.

Um that's that's what's been really special to me.

So uh as I resign, stepping into a new role, deputy chief of the San Angel Police Department.

It's just the right thing to do to make sure that I give this institution uh the attention it deserves.

And I just can't do that.

I can't give that to both.

So uh everyone's been understanding and thank you all for your wishes and and support.

Uh I do want to thank my family.

Public life is not easy.

Uh it's uh it elevates you to a different level with uh with the community and it takes away a bit of your privacy.

So my wife and and kids have been wonderful and uh it's it's just really special to have been a part of it.

I leave this with so much uh gratitude, humility, and confidence moving forward for the remainder of the term.

And this is my chance to tell people to put your name forward.

If you're interested, be inquisitive.

We need good candidates.

We need people that are thoughtful, inclusive.

You don't have to be perfect, but you just have to have some resilience and some energy.

So thank you all.

Thank you, uh Counselor Qualit, and and congratulations on on uh uh you know being selected as chief.

That is uh um, you know, the the pinnacle kind of of uh of a career.

Uh uh being a chief uh was um actually an assistant chief was the rank that I did not want to get promoted to chief from because uh you can uh be all the support but uh some of the responsibility but that's for the actual chief uh I wouldn't have traded that opportunity for the world and actually tried down tried to turn down my promotion to chief because I was having such a fine time as uh as uh the next rung up so uh congratulations on that and just for uh a public statement uh I'm just confirming with Ellen and Scott the because of how close we are to the election we'll have no intention to running uh a by-election um and uh um I know that all of us will be interested in motivating others that um uh are thinking about running for mayor or counsel for the um for the next election did I say anything uh untoward uh Elna is that uh on uh with compatible with legislation that we're within the window that we don't have that one um legislation um states that um if there is a vacancy on council after January the first in an election year you may choose to hold a by election but you don't have to it it would be a good idea however for council to perhap pass a uh resolution this evening stating that they uh choose to not um go ahead with a by election uh well we can do it right now actually on the flight uh that we don't choose to um uh have a by election prior to the election.

That's the motion, and it's been moved by councilor uh rogers, seconded by Councilor Matson.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Saying none opposed motion carries.

Good for the record?

Okay. Um yeah, so I think that brings us down to operational requirements for establishing a natural asset inventory.

Ivan, and I believe this is over to you, sir.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan Leong, Director of Engineering.

Uh the purpose of this report is to respond to council's resolution from the February 17, 2026 meeting that consideration of a natural asset inventory be included in the 2026 budget deliberations.

Um there's a bit of talk at that time about um incorporating uh natural asset inventory into our financial plan.

I believe there is a petition delegation from the Natural Assets Institute to provide council more information.

And so this is to provide an update to council as to um the recommended actions should uh council wish to accelerate the program.

So there's a few things that we have already done uh with respect to the national assets uh in general.

Uh we did undergo the Natural Asset Institute roadmap uh that essentially goes through what resources we have now and what we need to do to essentially get to a national asset program or one that's resilient, a program where it's not left on the shelf.

Uh based on that roadmap, there were five uh key priorities that were identified.

Um they are written in order in the staff report.

The first and foremost thing to do is to adopt an asset management policy that includes explicit natural asset language.

Uh next is to update the asset management program strategy.

A third item is to appoint a natural assets lead to access an ambassador to the ongoing natural asset management improvements program.

The fourth item is to develop and implement a resourcing level service plan to ensure that the plan is sustainably integrated into the town's core operations.

So in order to have a program, we need to have the necessary resources to support it.

And then the fifth is to establish a uh natural asset service inventory to track the performance of the natural assets against the input efforts.

This program or project N111, and we've added a natural asset management strategy line item into the year 2029 and 2030 of that program.

So the question one may ask is why policy first?

And the reason why is because uh generally speaking, when it comes to developing programs, uh form should follow function.

And what I mean by that is that we should develop a skeleton of the program first before we reaction anything.

Um, without developing uh KPIs, without developing um decision points, uh, then what could be left is a program that's left on the shelf because we don't have the resources to support it and we don't know where to go.

A good example of that is that if we were to establish a natural asset inventory now, we have to figure out what program to use because the program the software we have right now doesn't support it.

So it's best to kind of figure these things out before we start actioning these items.

That said, not the end of the world.

Um council wish to accelerate this program, then staff would recommend also accelerating the asset the natural asset management strategy or the 2029 30 2030 works to an earlier year.

Additionally, because staff don't have the expertise to do this in-house, there is some consultation required to establish the strategy and the policy and the inventory as well.

Additionally, um, because level service is uh highly predicated on, or the success of this program is highly predicated on the level service applied to it.

For one thing to add on to the stack, something else must come out.

So we would have to defer uh some other capital projects or delay them, uh, which it also could risk delaying other community benefits.

So that's another decision that needs to be made.

So risks to accelerate the program, uh, unclear outcomes, uh, reduced capacity of course services and delays to plan projects.

I've explained that uh to it in order to alleviate those risks, then uh staff's recommendation is to is threefold.

One shift the natural asset management program to another in year, its current budget is $20,000, I believe, in the program.

We retain a consultant to create a natural asset inventory, about $50,000.

So staff recommend that being a conservative amount.

And the reason why I say that is because uh the natural asset in the roadmap does state that there are abilities to sit to reduce costs by leveraging other master plans.

And so the town's already conducted its or is in the process of conduct uh finishing its drainage master plan and its urban forest strategy.

And both of those actually do create a bit of a natural asset inventory in the sense of tree inventory and uh natural drainage assets.

So uh by using those, we actually can reduce the cost to uh develop a overall natural asset inventory.

But $50,000 is what is expected to for it to cost.

Uh finally, um, it's about a quarter time staff time to be required to manage these programs, the inventory, the policy, and the asset management strategy.

So should staff council wish for us to accelerate this program, then staff will go ahead and try to find uh non-critical capital or non-capital projects to move out the way to support that program.

Regardless, uh the staff uh the recommendation is that this report be received for information.

Uh on the front page, there is an alternative option on the steps uh that staff would recommend to move a natural asset program forward faster.

Uh, but I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ivan. And I see some questions. We'll go with Councillor Lemon and Councillor Mattson and uh whoever's next.

Thanks, Adam. And just for clarity, what you're proposing as is that you incorporate it into yours, Ben's um regular work, right?

Uh yeah, uh Mayor Tobias, the the recommended option is to stay the course because we already have a trajectory to enter that program in 2029-2030.

Uh in the meantime, there's a few other pro projects that we have that Ben and I would um collate together so that when the time comes we can easily send that package.

So okay, but but while you're working on those other projects, which are asset management related, this the the natural assets would be a natural part of that?

Uh it's separate.

Like I uh it's hard to to amalgamate uh bridge asset with a natural asset, for example.

Yeah, we do have to um staff recommend prioritizing our bridges and sewer pump stations um as in in the program just because of the higher risks of failure or the consequence of failure.

So it is its standalone, but in doing so, it does provide a more effective investment so as we're not blurring the lines of other weather assets.

They are their own asset classes, their creeks, ponds, wetlands.

Um yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Rats. Thank you. Councilor Rugg.

It's I think just disappeared on me.

Um so uh I then as you probably are aware, I'm a little bit dubious about some of the money we spend on contracts and consulting, etc.

But on this one, I mean I always thought Bureau was a really good steward of the environment and far ahead of a number of our adjacent municipalities.

So I'm wondering, so how will this improve our environment?

Or is that something that yeah, that's what I'm trying to find out.

How are we going to benefit from this?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, that's a good question.

That answer um would be developed as part of the asset management policy and strategy work.

So I don't have an answer for us right now.

And I hope that that's um further emphasizes the importance of starting with policy and strategy.

Okay, thank you.

Council Roger.

Uh yes, uh, I think the staff of Hester's report has done a good job in uh identifying the natural assets that could benefit Vol to uh Councilor Mattson's point, creeks and riparian areas, lakes, ponds, wetlands, marshes, forest trees, coastline areas, and open spaces.

So those are the benefits of uh of the natural assets.

And um I guess the question is um with uh the alternate recommendation, which I I support, um the uh the fifty thousand dollars for the consultant.

Obviously, um uh this would be if we move this ahead, and staff are already so busy.

Um uh consultant is um uh a logical force of action.

And um, you know, staff noted that they're fully subscribed with little bandwidth and uh deferring of planned and non-capital identified um projects and the financial plan would be required.

We have done so in the consent agenda number three, um, we have um removed C 20 from the uh the capital plan, and that was um had allocated $140,000 this year.

So that more than compensates uh for the um um uh program estimates of uh of a consultant for 50,000 and um I'm sure the time and effort and it was actually um C120 or C20 was uh 1.4 million in in uh next several years hence.

So we were making I think a substantial savings and um uh to the benefit of the natural assets, the broader benefit of view oil.

Council Rogers, I'm gonna politely interrupt you.

It sounds like you're you're motioning toward uh or you're you're heading towards a motion for the alternative option.

I'm okay with that, but it doesn't sound like a question for staff.

It sounds sounds like that's where you want to go.

So if you had a question or something, now it would be appropriate.

Thank you. So my question is that uh since we have um uh at the last council meeting um or committee of the whole uh removed uh C20 from uh the project list, wouldn't that be giving um time and uh um a budget to make uh the alternate um option viable.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh that 140,000 project.

I think that's the GCCC programming project the standby Tobias, if I could um get some clarification, council Roger is speaking to uh the deletion of project C020, which meant that there's additional capacity for staff to do other projects.

Uh yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh yeah, that's um all been built in.

So uh there's other projects that um that have priority as well.

Uh in order for the program to work for that year, C020 had to come out.

So there's still no bandwidth because that additional bandwidth created has already been enveloped by other projects.

I'll move receipt.

Okay. Uh there's a move to receive.

Do you have a second or sure?

So council Lemon has a second.

I'm assuming that you might have another motion.

Is that true, Councilor Rogers?

I would be saying, yeah.

Okay. Uh so uh all those in favor of receipt.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed.

Uh motion carries.

Go ahead, Councilor Rogers.

So let's hear about it some more. I would move option two.

And uh uh okay, so that's the alternative option that's provided.

Are you I think one of the questions in the alternative motion is to identify a year that that could be considered because right now it's 2930 if I'm uh hearing it correctly.

So um are you proposing 2829 or 2626?

2027.

2627?

27, 2027. But that's negotiable.

2728. Is that what you're sure?

Yeah. 2728. Okay.

And uh do you have a seconder?

Uh I'm okay to second for you, Counselor Rogers, for this um uh for discussion.

So the only real movement is um is moving that down a year.

Um I getting that correct with the alternative motion.

Ivan, am I saying that correctly?

They to consider it earlier that we'll have some obvious implications with budget, but we're bringing it from I think Councilor Rogers proposing with the motion to bring it from 28 to 29 to 2728.

So I guess that would be a year earlier.

Would there be a dramatic um implication in that?

Um the actual uh acceleration would be from 2029-2030 to 2027-2028.

So it'd be two years instead of one year.

Uh yeah, I mean, there's some projects in the hopper that we're doing design right now for the purposes of 20 of 2027.

So there are impacts to that.

Um but you know, should council wish to accelerate, then staff will be needing to present uh the ability to present to roll that out by cutting service elsewhere or cutting projects.

Okay, thank you. And I'll I think I'll turn it back over to you to motivate Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

This is not to uh detract from uh the the uh key aspects of the N111, um, which is asset management, which is also critically important, and staff gave uh very good reasons for this.

That is set for 25,000 per year.

So this um uh motion that I'm making is for the equally important aspects.

So the natural aspects that uh the staff have have identified are not going to be repaired, fixed, considered in an inventory that is really quite critical for you know our our uh climate strategy that uh hopefully none of us have forgotten about.

Um it um uh in it's set far enough way for us to um start the process on N111, um, but it also uh allows us to align with the that initiative uh to and I'm suggesting this is work that is done concurrently, not consecutively.

So it um um and that by that time um you know the um and it I guess the placeholder as well, so that we don't forget about it and um that we do set the funds aside because of obviously we have deferred it stopped a project that was 140,000 for this year, 1.4 million, and maybe indeed um we might be successful in getting grant applications.

So members of council, if you consider the environment, you know, our streams and and so forth, seriously, I urge you to support this uh this motion.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Um uh echo those remarks and as well as saying it this uh if it was done a bit earlier as Councilor Rogers is moving, and I support it may well line up with some CRD strategy as well.

Um currently they don't have uh uh they're they're in the process of developing their uh forest strategy and how to take care of standing dead, reduce forest fire, uh fuel management, all of those things are studies that are underway now.

So and seeing how um you know a good deal of view royal is taken up by Thetis Park.

Uh that will um obviously dovetail uh with some of the work that we're doing here.

Uh so I yeah, I would support this uh this move because it doesn't push it out so far that the next council will forget it and brings it forward to I think a level of importance that we've all been striving for with the amount of development that we've had.

Are we creating the right balance with managing our natural assets?

So that's my pitch.

Councilor Matson.

Yeah. Um anyway, so I don't support moving it forward.

Staff's already told us they're gonna have to cancel projects to be able to do this.

They don't have the resources to do it.

Um they've said we don't actually have a policy, we haven't set goals.

We don't know what this thing is gonna do or what we want it to do.

So I'm having problem with us trying to move forward when we don't really don't even know what we're what we're planning to do or what it's supposed to do.

Um my colleague mentions about improving the safety of our streams, etc.

Man, we already have really good policies related to what we can or can't do near our uh our streams, our lakes.

All those policies are in place.

Staff are doing a number of other things in terms of uh determining what our assets are.

And so I just don't see us any benefit at all to pushing this ahead at this point in time.

In fact, um staff haven't even said what the benefits of this program are because they have still have to figure out what the policy says and need concurrence from council and sort of what they want it to do.

And so we haven't done that yet.

So I just think this is really premature.

So I'm quite happy leaving it as is because I don't want to delay any of the things we're currently doing.

Thank you, Councillor Metz, and anybody else? Uh Councilor McKenzie.

Thank you. Uh yeah, I I it's a bit of a tough one for me because I do agree uh with Mayor Tobias and in terms of this is a priority for us, but at the same time, I think I'm uh leaning towards relying on staff's judgment in terms of uh the work that's happening and not uh uh uh duplicating work or you know waste not wasting time, but taking time when there's work going that will go into this um project.

I think the we are working towards it steadily, uh given the plan that staff has outlined.

So for that reason, I'm I'm not in favor of the motion to bring it up.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie. Uh Councillor Lemon.

Um just uh I I want to point out that this was Councillor Brown's motion. I'm wondering if he's online.

Counselor's yeah, there you are. Um did you want to proceed to this? Thanks, Councillor Lemon.

We're we're in a bit of a rock in a hard place because we have a lot of projects.

Uh in some ways, I don'd like to see it even pushed ahead.

Because uh I mean anything you delay, of course, we're still gonna have to deal with our future councils are gonna have to deal with it.

I think I think it's a great idea.

Um it needs to be done.

It's just a matter of when.

Um I just don't want to see stuff pushed off the table.

It needs to be done as well.

It's like the same thing when you apply for grants.

We can always assume that they're gonna be approved.

However, the provincial government's struggling with their budgets as well.

And at some point they may say there's no money left in the pot.

Um, and then we start leaning on to our uh casino revenue, which of course is is going down and down and down.

And every time you dip into that pot, there's less money for grants and aids and other projects.

So uh it's a tough one.

I understand where you guys are coming from as far as pushing it ahead, but I also don't want to pressure staff any more than they already are, and I'm quite happy to keep it the the way it is.

Okay, any other comments?

Uh I'm I'm an advocate of this.

Um and part of me thinks, oh, you know, if we push it, we if we bring it forward, the consultant um that we'd have to pay 50,000 for now, we'll have to pay a lot more for by 29, 2030.

Uh so you know that's that's a consideration.

Uh but it's also it's also an an unknown.

I I am inclined though to you know go with policy.

And and um, you know, to the disappointment of the uh VRCC, I I think if we go at this willy-nilly, um we're you know, we're gonna be out there counting wetlands without a basis of knowledge.

So thank you, Councilor Lemon. Anybody else? Councilor Rogers for a second.

Yes, thank you.

And and I again I just want to remind council that this is in alignment with the uh core guiding uh principles.

We have objectives, and uh as staff have pointed out, environmental conservation and and environmental sustainability and protection, two objectives of the official community plan.

Here we have an opportunity to actually put those objectives into action so that we could quantify, measure, protect um those um those vital aspects that um are not only important in terms of parks in terms of uh tourism, but in terms of our own um economic well-being in the in the long term.

Um because you don't do too that too well in a in a uh you know desperate situation.

We do have fortunately um the urban containment boundary that helps us protect the green spaces, but uh and north area, but it still calls for a um this kind of analysis so that we do know and can quantify and protect.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So if there's no other comments, then we'll go to vote.

So councillor Rogers has moved, and I have seconded the alternative motion.

All those in favor of the alternative motion, all those opposed to the alternative motion, the motion did not succeed.

So the motion to receive uh has passed.

So I think that brings us down to request for decision for urban forest strategy adoption and canopy covered targeting.

Ivan, back to you.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um I have uh on the screen Talas Searles uh are from Diamond Head Consulting to provide and so um for the chair because this is a um a complex subject, uh we've broken our presentation down into two stages.

And so the first stage is uh Mr.

Searles to explain the memo that's attached to the staff report and provides an opportunity for council to ask questions of technical technical nature to ensure that council has clarity on the subject.

And then following that, uh I will be presenting uh my own presentation.

And the purpose of that is to provide a little bit more of a focus on the impacts of the town of each um canopy cover target option should they should council wish to choose one.

And so uh for items of a technical nature, I urge council to um ask Mr.

Searles those questions.

He's definitely the right person to ask.

And anything that comes anything that uh is with respect to a level of service or impacts of the town is programming.

Um I would I would urge council to ask me those questions.

So uh for now, what I'd like to do is I'd like to uh pass the torch on to Mr.

Searles, who will start his presentation.

Thank you.

And thank you Ivan um good evening Mayor Tobias members of council um and thank you for the opportunity to present this work on the financial and operational implications in association with the town's urban forest strategy.

What I want to do this evening is to provide some some of the context to support this evening's decision making.

This is less uh report out of findings in sort of a narrow sense and more practical look at what our modeling suggests different canopy directions would actually mean for View Royal in terms of planting staffing maintenance and and long-term fiscal commitments.

Next slide if you could thanks um so I'll move through four parts of the presentation each made up of just a couple slides.

The first will be the method used to build the scenarios um then the canopy cover pathways themselves followed by our findings through a scan of peer municipal programs and then the sort of a high level review of the operational enhancements we see as needed to support implementation.

The central question in uh the presentation is not simply which canopy target sounds best it's uh it's what scale of urban forest program the town wants to to commit to over time, and then what level of resourcing is realistic to sustain that commitment.

Next slide uh so methods.

So our work involved developing alternative canopy pathways for 30, 35, and 40% cover consistent with council's direction through a previous session.

Then involved testing planting capacity and target feasibility, and then building financial and operational models around each of those pathways.

The central intent was to move beyond sort of aspiration and to ask what each option would require in practice.

Next slide. Desired target year as planted trees continue to mature.

And it just for sake of simplicity, I've called this overshot.

So these pathways are best understood as sort of directional planning tools.

They show uh relative effort and relative ambition and not a hard stop where tree growth somehow sort of ceases to continue beyond the dark desired target date.

There's another practical reality there, and that's uh that moving a desired horizon can often achieve a greater target with the same number of trees and same level of effort sustained over a longer period.

Um there's a balance to be achieved in looking too far out, however, just given municipal processes and documents and strategies tend to have uh shorter shelf lives than you know 40, 50, 60 years, and setting canopy aspirations into a faraway period without any dedicated decided direction has some inherent uncertainty associated with it.

Next slide. So this figure starts to connect canopy and vision to both uh planting rates and budget.

Uh, as the target moves from 30 to 35 and then to 40 percent, both annual planting requirements and annual program costs rise materially.

The main takeaway, I think, in this is that uh higher canopy targets are not just a matter of planting more trees, they require uh a step change in sort of program scale.

Um, and assuming that each of you have had some time to review the uh the full financial and operational report, you'll note that there's an element of economies of scale shared between these pathways, and Ivan will expand on that a bit later in his presentation, I think.

But what I mean by that is that core program adjustments, matters like staffing and administration, um, maintenance program enhancements and monitoring processes are a heavier lift initially.

But as the number of trees within the population, and I mean the tree population to be to be explicit here, uh, as that number increases, their impact relative or the impact of those costs relative to the full program budget is reduced in sort of a relative sense.

Um at achievement of the relevant pathway.

So that's that's to say uh not realized tomorrow or next year, but rather when the program meets the design prescribed through the urban forest strategy and this plan and the tree population reflects the estimates assumed, the tree population estimates assumed at the relevant pathway at the decided point in time.

At that same time, uh incremental or elevated rates of planting to achieve growth are are not factored into the modeling.

Um, and so there'll be some uh scale up costs, so to speak, in that endeavor.

I could just use a uh a civil analogy in in sort of keeping with all this asset management discussion just a minute ago.

Um, but this is this would be understood to equate to the cost of um the maintenance of a desired road network, for example, and not the the cost to scale up and build the network out.

Next slide. So this is sort of this the scale issue in plain language.

The model points to roughly 250 to 1,300 municipal trees planted annually, depending on the pathway, with most of that overall canopy growth needing to be achieved on private land at roughly six 600 to 2,000 trees per year.

This matters for two reasons.

First, to be clear, municipal lands alone can't carry the full load of this commitment.

And the second is that whatever gets planted creates a larger future inventory that has to be watered, inspected, pruned, and eventually renewed.

And so this resourcing has to scale with a growing asset base and not with uh not just with the initial planting effort to get there.

Next slide. So just coming back to this slide briefly, um, and so the difference you're seeing between 30%, 35, and 40% targets is a function of the number of trees entering the inventory and the city's management purview under each pathway, and by extension, the maintenance burden associated with tree care.

Next slide again.

So this slide's an important one, and it helps to sort of situate the playing field amongst a selection of peer communities.

What we have here is a plot identifying targeted canopy change.

I've called it canopy delta against program budget.

And things are divided into four quadrants.

And then lower target delta and higher resourcing in the bottom right, and then lesser resourcing and a more modest target delta in the bottom left.

Characterizing each, I would say the empty quadrant in the top left would be more consistent with an apparent aspirational program.

So sort of aspirational in nature and without resourcing or sufficient resourcing to meaningfully back it.

Not a particularly desirable position, and you'll notice none of the communities we scanned occupy this space.

Victoria was the largest center in this cohort and has achieved a relatively unique balance between resourcing, unique balance amongst these comparators between balancing resourcing and aspiration.

In the bottom right, we have lower targets but significant resourcing.

These are programs that have made a conscious decision to prioritize elements that are not inherently growth focused.

Often these are communities where there's a lot of ground to be lost rather than to be gained.

And so effort and resourcing can go to regulation and maintenance rather than planting and aggressively pursuing growth.

And in the bottom left, we have many of the regions with many of the regions' smaller centers.

Um and so this slide overlays View Royals modeled scenarios onto that same peer context.

Uh once the town's 30, 35, and 40 percent pathways are plotted, you can see that the 35 and especially the 40 percent scenarios move you royal into a uh more highly resourced con quadrant.

Um the 30% target would put it uh into the sort of the more a lot to lose quadrant, which I which I would also say is not totally without basis.

Um in other words, if you know if council were to um move towards higher targets, there'd be justification to also move towards uh the kinds of staffing funding and programs um if it is to remain aligned with peer municipalities um when they're pursuing similar levels of canopy change.

Next slide. Yeah, and uh so this land covered comparison is helpful because it communicates the influence of context.

Um what it shows is that uh communities are not all working uh with the same starting conditions.

View Royal's urban land base is heavily shaped by roads and residential uses, and that has direct implications for where planting can really realistically occur.

You know, it also shows why simple comparisons of canopy targets can be misleading a municipality with more parkland or more sensitive areas within the area they've set for their target, um, or a different urban form, even may have an easier time or a more difficult time expanding or otherwise influencing canopy uh than a community where planting spaces is tighter or potentially more fragmented.

Um so peer comparison is useful, but it has to be interpreted in context.

Um, to use another analogy, um, borrowing another community's canopy cover target at face value is is not that far divorced from you know borrowing their zoning fabric.

Context and community fabric are what make those tools relevant to the community that they're assembled for.

Next slide. And so this slide sort of gets at the core logic of the financial and operations plan in the urban forest strategy that it's predicated on.

A proactive urban forest program spends more effort keeping trees healthy through their high benefit years rather than enabling failure removal and replacement to become dominant sort of cost centers.

And the value of that shift is is that it inherently improves return on public investment.

The goal is to maximize time in the life stage where trees are providing the most shade, the most cooling, the most storm water, the best habitat, and the and the greatest general urban forest benefit while minimizing expensive reactive interventions later on that also tend to tend to materialize as worse prognosis for the tree.

These aren't things through this work that we framed as extras.

They are the systems that make canopy growth uh durable and sustained.

And if the if a community to were to invest primarily in planting without uh simultaneous investment in administration monitoring care, a larger spare of sh a larger share of spending would be expected to end up going towards renewal and replacement instead of maintaining healthy assets already on in the ground.

Dollars spent on costly removal and replacement instead of care.

Not an optimal cost return.

Um hailing back to the roads analogy analogy I made earlier.

We don't invest in the development of built community assets like roads, parks, or sewers without planning for life cycle maintenance and renewal activities.

Tree care is functionally no different.

Um except that there's the added benefit of uh in that sponsoring those sort of activities actually sustains a greater return on investment where trees are concerned, given trees appreciating value as they mature, whereas built infrastructure is completed and sort of immediately starts deteriorating.

Next slide. But what we were trying to convey again here is how the maintenance model changes under the future pathways.

Um, the program mix shifts away from reactive pruning removals and planting and toward planned pruning and other proactive activities.

I've bolded things and tried highlighting in hopes of drawing your eyes to the right parts and in hopes of making the point more clear.

Um, through the modeled pathways, tree service life would be expected to improve considerably, sort of on balance uh under a more proactive regime.

And at the same time, the town would end up managing a much larger inventory in a more deliberate way rather than responding to problems, sort of on a case by case.

I just posit that as an anecdote, a reactive program can pose actually more of an administrative burden than a proactive as trees are added to an inventory and an inventory grows.

Most trees with regular care or more trees without regular care sort of creates more stochasticity in the system, creates more tickets that are generally more costly or larger in scope.

Whereas under a more proactive models, things are costed at uh time of their addition, and the introduction of municipal management is sort of done in a more controlled sense, and there's the resources there to mitigate some of the more unexpected and unanticipated issues as a tree grows.

Next slide. Rather than discrete numbers, I think I'd encourage council to pay more attention to the orders of magnitude on both this slide and next.

In a nutshell, we'd expect program funding to for all intents and purposes double from where it is towards this target and under an enhanced management regimen.

I'd say under this pathway, the 30% pathway, a significant share of the nominal cost increase is administrative in nature.

Made the comment about economies of scale earlier, but um what you'll notice is that currently a relatively large share of the program is tied up in removals and reactive pruning.

In the 30% pathway, the cost structure shifts decisively towards uh planned pruning and uh active asset management.

So even the the the lowest growth pathway, there's still a meaningful operational transition, not a not a minor expansion of the the status quo, say.

Next slide. Um same pattern continues as we move up the scale.

The 35% pathway is estimated uh at about 1.1 million annually and the 40% pathway at about 1.7 annually again at full build out with the tree population supporting achievement of those targets.

Um again, the point is not only that the totals are larger, it's it's the the greater share of the program becomes dedicated to planned pruning and sustained life cycle management of a much larger tree population.

So moving from 30 to 35 and then to 40 percent, you know, it's not a small incremental choice, it represents a major increase in both annual spending and long-term operational responsibility burdened by the or the burden of which the municipality would bear.

Slide. Great. I uh I think that's it.

Um thank you, and I'll uh I'll hand things back over.

Thank you for the presentation.

So I think uh you've got another presentation following this one, uh just uh Yeah, that's correct, uh Mayor Tobias.

Uh now would be a good opportunity for council to ask uh questions of a technical nature to uh Mr. Searles. Thank you.

Uh Councillor Rogers and Councillor Matson, please.

So um one of the things that um I I see that we didn't get any recording for and and what uh we will consist of is sensitive areas.

And um I thought we would have had some uh recording of uh streams and um you know we got mill stream craft fire creek, hospital creek, we got all the shoreline of uh 15 mayor setbacks and and the trees within that.

Wouldn't we be able to cover or count um you know that within you know the um these tree canopy coverage percentage?

I think that question uh was to you, Todd.

Uh thank you through you, Mayor Tobias to to Councilor Rogers.

Um yeah, so if we're if we're referencing the the slide where I showed sort of the uh the canopy by land use, there is an um an environmental protection layer or um by some other name perhaps, but it it would capture those areas.

Um we could just cycle back to that slide.

I hope that answers your question.

So y yes, in I I guess in short, um yes, we did consider the canopy cover within those features to be as part of the where they're contained to the urban core to be as part of the municipal canopy cover percentage, absolutely.

Oh okay, so the same question on those circles is that we've got a huge area in Northview Oil, which is the rural, which is purple, and in those circles, I don't see any purple.

Or am I wrong? Is it purple there that you know the deep purple that uh just like the song?

Uh so through through you, Mayor Tobias to counselor uh Rogers.

Um so the decision so I I should be clear on where the canopy cover percentage um uh relates to in in view royal's case, and that's within the urban core.

So there was the decision to intentionally exclude thetis.

Um I I can answer questions on on why that decision was was made, but that that is the reason you're not seeing rule and you're not seeing significant contributions of parkland uh being um millhill and and fetus as they are not considered.

No, I'm not referring to mill hill.

I'm not referring to the Thetis Lake, I'm referring to the um View, which is north, which is not parkland, and it's still part of V oil.

I'm I'm surprised that you know we we're just looking at the um urban side and not the entire uh treat area of U Oil and through you Mayor Tobias to um uh to counselor I I can yield to Ivan thank you mayor to bias um yeah the highlands area is outside the urban containment boundary so their urban containment boundary uh does not include the fetus the millhill and the highlands area if we did include them then our canopy cover target our canopy cover existing would be 60 percent and we wouldn't have to do anything based on targeting but the reality is that the urban containment boundary is where uh people are the most affected by a lack of trees and that's the focus of this report I see um so um can I uh get you to actually move move around and we'll come back to you because maybe another uh counselor might ask one counselor muttson go ahead yeah okay thanks thanks for your for for your report um so I've got it we for the urban canopy we're at 29 percent for all of Uroyal we're at 60 percent and to go from 29 percent to 30 percent it's gonna cost us an extra 343 thousand dollars per year uh to go to 35 percent uh 440 oh an extra 800 000 per year which in my mind is close to 7% increase in taxes so what I'm trying to figure out is what would the noticeable difference be going from 29 to 30 percent and then what what's the notable difference going from 29 to 35?

Because I'm just trying to balance out the the money we'd have to pay for the benefit and I I just don't see it.

Yeah, can't in your answer to that question.

Could you uh give us an order of magnitude as far as how many trees is that?

So I think people could understand that a little bit better if that helps.

Like how many trees does 1% actually give us?

And along with that is like is that forever? You know, like for how long is this 800,000 per year, for example.

Thank you, Tyler. Hopefully you got all that question.

Yeah.

So through through you, Mayor Tobias.

Um I think uh first maybe I'll ask um the clerk if we can move back to the slide with that um that lifecycle costing table, because that has some of the populations depicted on it.

I I understood what no, I just want to say I understood what the difference in service would be.

My concern would be what is the notable difference to the community.

Yeah, so so through you, Mayor Tobias, uh to the counselor.

Um you know, I won't I won't speak to uh experientially.

Um I'd say there's uh some research uh out there that suggests um that um urban forest benefits are experienced by residents on sort of a continual basis and they continue to ramp up up to about the 30 percent threshold, like everything else that's nuanced to community context.

And so I would say, you know, jumping from 29 to 35, 40 percent um is would be a significant ex, I would suggest it'd be a significant experiential difference as far as a pro tangible outcomes from the community.

One of the primary, you know, I try I tried to harp on it through the presentation, but one of the primary outcomes through uh through the strategy is a more sustainable program model for the the maintenance and management of the urban forest.

And so I you know, in an idealized sense, um investing more in sort of sustained and proactive management will help to realize larger mature trees in all cases and not just more trees.

And there's great benefit to be experienced there.

Thanks.

I no, I sorry, I and then just to speak to the numbers point, it was the table slide, if you wouldn't mind.

So I think it's a few after this.

Maybe one or two more.

No.

Oh do you want further down or further up?

Further down, I think so.

Yeah. There's the population there.

This is not uh so it's 10,000 estimated currently, and then 14,000 under municipal care at 30%, 24,000 at 35%, and then 40, 40,000, just about under at 40%.

So that's it's uh in order in terms of orders of magnitude, that is four times as many municipal trees as present in order to achieve 40%.

And that's just speaking to the contributions on municipal land, that number would be higher on private land, uh, probably by orders of magnitude more.

Thank you. Ivan, you had something to that? Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh, council will recall in the um original presentation a month or so ago that uh the town is currently at a canopy cover of 29%, and that if we were to maintain existing levels of service for 20 years, we we would be bleeding trees, it would be regressing.

So to go from 29% to 30% is not the investment is not just the one percent, but it's also to stop the bleeding and then add one percent.

So I I can understand the the um the confusion in the sense that to get only a one percent achievement is requires so much investment, but we all the the program also requires us to go no net to uh net neutral model, which is an elevations assuming elevation for uh level of service plus one percent.

Uh Council Lemon.

Yeah, thank you. Um Tyler, we I'm I'm assuming that ROW stands for right-of-way, am I right?

Correct.

So we seem to have a lot of it.

And and uh compared to uh um Port Moody that doesn't have any.

Um, so having 24 percent of our urban area in right-a-ways, does that negate the possibility of tree planting in those areas?

Right? Possible?

Um tell me.

Um through you, Mayor Tobias to Councilor Lemon.

I wouldn't say it negates it.

There's good pri there's you know, a bunch of developing research and how we can better tree highly urbanized streets and then in the areas that aren't highly urbanized.

There's certainly practices and standards that uh the town could adopt to the better facilitate tree inclusion through wit right-of-way design.

And I think there's some good examples in View Royal of that work being done as it stands.

I would point out that a big component of that ROW use in Viewer is the highway.

And so certainly on that particular ownership structure, yeah, your the town's ability to influence planting there is fairly restricted.

Okay. So based on that, that we got this big chunk of right-of-way.

Um did I I think I heard you suggest that given what we are and the restrictions that we have, that going over 30% is less plausible.

Did I get that?

And through through you, Mayor Tobias to Councillor Lemon.

It's a it's a values decision.

So you know, as I said, three of the four quadrants in that graphic I had uh in that plotting I had showed up have have good merit.

Um as long as the you know uh the resourcing and the program design justifies uh the target.

Um it it's ultimately a municipal uh a municipality's decision on on where things land and you know okay each has its own merits okay all right so one last thing and just to to um be succinct in the previous response um by going up one percent within that extra three hundred and fifty thousand dollars what you what we get and it would re and it would be as a staff cost is better care um and consistent care of the trees we have plus any new ones if I got that right through you mayor to bias to counselor you hit the nail on the head yes and then as as uh Ivan had acutely pointed out a a reverse not only uh uh slowing the bleeding but a uh reversal on historic trends as well okay thank you thanks um uh Tyler I've got uh a couple of questions what's the cost of doing nothing so uh we don't increase our uh support for the canopy at all we've got very mature trees in view royal um uh rate now for the urban side we're at twenty nine percent if we do nothing what would the impact before Mayor Tobias um yeah so I I sort of wish I had plotted a a status quo line on the on the plot, but what what you do see in that scenario is likely continued loss, you know, um development procedures and policy can be reviewed to to sort of reduce the impact of um that historic growth has had, but under scenarios of intensification and significant urban growth, you will likely continue to see attrition of the urban forest canopy over decades to come.

Okay, so it's not going to get better on its own and trees aren't gonna magically grow where you want them to.

Um Ivan, I think when you and I had a discussion with Ministry of Transport, and it was around uh the sound issues and uh cedis pale, that they were fairly open to a discussion about some plantings uh on their um uh along the highway.

Granted, it's some of the most challenging terrain aside from perhaps portage park.

Um uh, but uh is your experience been that they would be okay in some locations given the nature of our crazy terrain here.

Uh Mayor Tobias, I I I think you're I think you're right.

Uh we have lobbied to the ministry to improve their greenery, and I would say that um they've reacted, and it also depends.

So to give an example, when they're they're widening the Galvan Goose Bridge right now uh by walking sway, so they had to remove a lot of vegetation, and it was just a double, it was uh a double positive in the sense that they removed a whole bunch of invasives and they're doing a three to one tree replacement there.

Uh in addition to that, they've um done additional uh plantings, not tree plantings, but near Porti-Solino Park.

But we're doing our best to try to have them put as many trees in there as possible.

And and so we're working with them on it.

I would say that they uh have an amendment to it on the condition that it doesn't cost them additional maintenance dollars.

So that's the the kind of tugware we have with them.

But it is working, and we are trying to advocate as much as we can to plant more trees in there right away.

And I think they were okay in our discussion if the town was to plant, given and within certain parameters that they approved.

Um if obviously it's coming down to money with the province, they wouldn't, of course, service the trees, it would be up to the town to both plant and maintain those trees, correct?

Uh yeah, I think so.

And um the other big thing is safety, though, because when you're planting trees and maintaining their highway, there's always the risk of of um of uh hazards.

Okay, thank you.

And uh I had uh uh another few questions as well.

So I don't think we're communicating this kind of effectively that I know that the focus was on the urban area, but did I hear a confirmation that for all of View Royal, including the urban areas, we're at about 60% coverage for all of View Royal that's on a map.

Um, yeah, Mayor Tobias, I believe is in the original urban forest strategy uh report where it made mention I think the total is six percent.

Uh Tyler, am I am I correct in saying that?

We can both look at that plan, but that's correct, Titan.

Yeah.

So it's 60% for all of View Royal that's on the map, but within the area of our concern, the the urban area, we're at 29%.

Yes, that is correct.

And that's the reason why when you look at our big towns like District of Sainich, when you look at their urban forest strategy, they don't actually come up with uh total canopy cover because their land is so vast and wide, they've actually segregated into different neighborhoods.

Because it's just like if they had a canopy cover and it's not their canopy cover, but it was like X percent, let's say 30%, there'd be areas where it'd be like 80% areas that are like 15%.

So the averaging doesn't actually um it's not actually valuable information.

Thank you. That was helpful. Uh other questions, Councilor Mattson.

Thank you. Uh so to maintain our 29%, we're currently spending about $350,000 a year.

And we provide we we get the town plants trees, plus we give a number of trees out.

So I'm wondering how there seems to be a disconnect, at least for me, that things are disintegrating when we plant, I don't know how many hundreds of trees do we give out every year.

Uh Mirror Tobias, it'd be too it varies between 30 to 30 to 60, 30 to 90 a year.

The analogy I give is that um if you employ one person and they're able to maintain one tree, then if suddenly you give this person a hundred trees, they can plant that many trees, but in three years, those trees are gonna die because they don't have the necessary resources to maintain the establishment.

So for an individual who who gets them, I mean, so if we're giving 30 to 60 out and we're supposed to potentially give hundreds out, but it's the residents, we don't have any place to plant them except for private property.

And if we wouldn't just us giving out more trees to individuals uh at a lot and so what are we getting for a 350,000?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, I I can certainly speak to that as part of my presentation.

Counselor Rogers.

So um it seems like the greatest enemy um uh to our existing trees besides uh uh drought, disease, decline, age, is Bill 44.

So we've passed Bill 44 with a great plan of continuing the re removal of trees because when you want to put you know a forplex on uh or even a new building in the harbor, you know, we're we're projecting to have go from 500 to 2,000 people in the harbor.

How many trees um would you estimate we would be without?

I mean, I they they that's what the whole I I get staff's point, you know, is stressing the urban canopy, because the urban canopy is of the greatest threat.

And um that's why we've we um you know we have this report and we haven't even touched, you know, we're at 29 percent, we haven't even touched Bill 44 yet.

If you want to have a sense of Bill 44, look at Choco.

Choco is was an astonishing clear cut.

The only thing that they had question, Counselor Rogers. Well, I think we haven't got too much.

I mean, is there any analogy that um you know if we had uh our um our um our awareness and uh the appropriate strategies of an urban forest, we would have designed the whole um Shoko area with a in much greater um and and that's I guess that's the point, unless this we have an opportunity with this bill uh with this um the strategy here and um and i think the the whole point is is stressing on um pruning and watering and that does not happen by magic you need the staffing resources now we've already put our um our treatment I don't think we've got to the point where we're motivating or coming up with anything so if you got a question right now because Ivan's got a presentation on this same thing so if you got a question my my question is um if we do nothing and Bill 44 comes in what percentage will our trees be in 20 years Mayor Tobiason we'll probably need to do in five years another analysis to answer that question but I think if it's if the question is rhetorical it it's that um you know we gotta start planting trees now thanks uh Ivan and before we move on to yours I do have a question that I don't know if the data was gathered in the urban forest strategy but it it appears to me in having to answer a lot of questions about um about mature trees blowing down with wind or or whatnot it seems to me like we have a lot of residential and trees probably on municipal property in some of the older neighborhoods that are nearing the end of life uh very large and have been around in a while.

Did the inventory take in account like uh health and our is there a larger percentage that are just gonna age out in the next few years?

Tyler, can you answer that chance?

Yeah, I I think this will be a joint effort between you and I, Ivan.

But um that's a um thanks great question, Mayor Tobias.

Um View Royal does have a pre-existing tree inventory.

Um its design uh is fairly limited and uh in places inconsistent.

One of the key suggestions through the urban forest strategy was to round that thing out and and beef it up.

Generally the municipal inventories only extend in the municipal land given their municipal uh asset, but there are ways to get some perspective into private land as well.

I would say succession management is one of the cornerstones of urban forest management, absolutely.

That and that's you know, a single subdivision being built out along a similar timeline, and then the trees aging out 60, 70, 80 years later is not an uncommon dynamic, and it absolutely does happen.

And it is something that can be proactively managed, particularly on the public side of things, but good education can go aways as well on the private side.

So great question.

Okay, thank you.

I have a question for Ivan that he can answer in his presentation.

Okay. So given John's scenario, or where would we plant 600 trees or 600 trees?

Is it 600 trees a year?

However, where where can we possibly plant trees given the potential of uh having to put sidewalks, curbs, and gutters in areas that don't have any of that?

Um, anyways, i if you could just let us know where we can where we'd get them, put them while you're doing your presentation.

Thanks.

Thank you. Yeah, Mayor, I can easily answer that in my presentation.

Thank you. And Tyler, thank you very much for your presentation and uh entertaining all of our questions.

Thank you. Uh Ivan, over to you.

Just wait for the presentation to come on up.

This one will be a little quicker.

It's uh later, late, it's less data intensive, some more pictures.

Thank you. So Ivan Leoung, Director of Engineering.

Um so, like I said before, uh, what I'd like to present to you are impacts of the town is level of service.

Um, just in try to draw some more guidance or to receive guidance from council as to you know what um canopy target uh that they envision um targeting.

So in order to achieve 35 to 40 percent canopy cover, there's three additional strategies that should be added on to the reporter strategy.

Right now we have uh 14 strategies and 51 actions, and that's to do a a uh no net loss um uh target.

Next slide. So it's mentioned in the memo, there's limited urban space to accommodate all these trees.

And I wanted to kind of give you a little more visual context of what that means.

Uh you'll notice here two drawings are two street views of uh existing boulevard areas in the one on the left is Island Highway, and the one on the right is Parkhus Drive, which is a residential row, but that road is indicative of a lot of V-Royal.

So the red zones are areas where if I was to walk in the street and say, Oh, there's a good place to put a tree, let's do it.

But unfortunate reality is that there's actually underground infrastructure underneath those parcels of boulevard.

Um, quite shallow, they could be water, sewer, or drains.

Um, historically in development, this was the theme.

Uh developments in the past, it's a lot cheaper for them to install underground infrastructure under the lawns than in than in roadways.

And I'll speak to what changes we can make uh in this for subdivision and bylaws in another slide.

But I just want to give you a visualization of what that means.

Um, this issue is quite systemic through all of Uroil.

Uh a lot of our underground infrastructure are within um boulevard areas or lawns.

Next slide. So the memo outlined three strategies.

So the first strategy, uh, if I was to put it in simple terms, is to help existing trees live longer.

So take for a tree that may live 40 years and increase it to 60 to 80 years.

And by doing that, for every tree we plant, uh, it wouldn't be to replace a tree, but it would to be to add on.

So if you look on the left, uh the the verses, um, the top figure would be ideally what we want is to help existing trees last longer, and then every tree we plant would help improve canopy, as opposed to the bottom figure, which shows uh at 40 years, uh, trees may need to be they are end of life and may need to be removed, and every tree put in would be for replacement.

So, in order to do this, requires uh three things.

Uh, generally speaking, uh proactive instead of reactive maintenance.

So that would be proactive pruning, uh proactive watering, uh, additional staffing.

Uh, the memos uh makes mention of uh dedicated arborists, a full-time technician, uh, the addition of summer students, expanded roles for graduatory green teams and contracted services.

And this is required in order to uh provide those proactive maintenance services.

The third thing is to um increase the invasive removal and tree planting opportunities.

So that's again uh improving volunteer opportunities, greater for the green teams for invasive species removal and expanding it so that instead of just removing invasive species, we we would uh we would also replace trees on top of it.

It's a wonderful opportunity to uh improve canopy cover.

Uh all in all, these three things do require an elevated level of service, which means uh higher operational budgets.

Next slide. The second strategy is to create new planting space in the Provok area.

So to start, though those would be items such as changing the subdivision development servicing bylaw and the tree protection bylaw.

Uh an example would be to make sure that there's no underground infrastructure underneath our boulevard areas, uh, underneath uh lawns, making sure infrastructure is in the roadway.

Uh you know, that can inform on our capital projects, our design, making sure that we don't have that we still keep have opportunities for trees.

Um there's opportunities to maybe have ballbouts where you have more trees instead of a linear fashion to have more um trees that can balk in one space.

So making changes to those bylaws will inform on our master plan, such as our transportation master plan, and parks and trails, master plan, and our financial plan.

And through that, those are two documents that'll help us inform on capital improvement projects, capital renewal projects, and works and servicing or development requirements.

Next slide. The final strategy is to emphasize programs to plant trees on private properties.

So one reason why I decide to bring this as soon as possible is because to my right, Sterling, he's in the he's in the midst of uh updating the OCP.

And so right when council makes a decision with uh with this um this issue.

I'm sure that both Sterling and I'll be feverishly feverishly updating policy wording for in the OCP.

So the urban forest strategy integration into OCP policy is is vital to uh creating programs to plant trees on private property.

Uh on the parks department side, uh, there are opportunities to expand um the resident tree planting program.

There might be other programs out there that we would also suggest.

We haven't got that far just yet, but there are maybe opportunities to offer more trees to residents.

There could be uh um other opportunities to have them adopt the tree in right-of-ways.

There's there is some opportunities that we'd like to explore that will be relatively low cost.

Next slide. So this table outlines the operational financial requirements to achieve these canopy targets.

Uh I'm just kind of uh dialing in a little bit to what uh Mr.

Searles has mentioned here.

Those uh costs below are uh directly from his report.

Um to achieve a 30% canopy covered target would require uh over tar two times existing levels of service.

35% would be over three times level of service, and 40% would be over five times level of service.

You'll notice that there's a um a red highlight there showing a few numbers, and what that shows is um efficiencies and economy of scale.

So it's uh the the increase in cost depending on the the target we go with, it's not a linear fashion.

It kind of peters off near the end.

And the reason why is because once you receive a critical point in level service, so as soon as you hire additional staffing, then that makes it a lot easier to achieve the higher targets.

So that's what this is trying to say.

Next slide. This is an addition to a figure that was in Mr.

Searle's uh presentation to show that if we were to achieve or have a target extend our target instead of 20 years to maybe 30 or 40 years, you can actually achieve a higher target with a lower level of service.

So by extrapolating the line here, if we were to look at the 35% canopy cover target, if we were to extend that level of service by about 10 years, you could actually achieve a 40%.

I mean, I'm it this is it's it's in it's in layman's right now, it's just overgeneralization, but I think what Tyler was trying to meant to say here is that if you keep on momentum with a lower canopy target, you can achieve a higher canopy target with an extended amount of time.

Next slide. Again, just a kind of a dialing in with this um chart, which has been highly effective for us.

Uh, the top left corner is aspirational.

You'll notice that there's no municipalities here that uh offer that level of service.

Um, the top right is high resources, high dollars.

So in the in my staff report, I made mention that you know City of Victoria has the same land size, they have similar can urban canopy coverage, and they they're adopting a canopy coverage of similar to what the town would would like their programming would be similar to what the town would need to do to achieve 40 percent.

So uh to speak to the question of can the is getting 35-40 percent achievable.

The answer is yes, it just costs a lot of money.

So if we were to adopt a Victoria model, that's 16 times V Roles budget and 16 times more staff.

Um, the bottom right's more on the protection and maintenance side of things, so 30% canopy cover.

Uh the green RUC there is uh I I circle that as economy of scale because um just based on the the math of the graph, that's uh it only requires uh it requires a lot less investment to jump to a five percent more from 30 to 35 percent.

Next slide. So, this is the final slide to summarize.

There's currently not enough planting opportunities to elevate Canada V cover significantly in order for us to elevate canopy cover sustainably, the town must foster preventive maintenance activities to make trees live longer.

We must change its bylaws and master plans.

Um regulatory and policy development, and we must foster urban forest stewardship to its residents, so increase our budget and resources to provide more trees to residents so they can plant on their own properties.

Uh there was a question about the number of trees that need to be planted uh for.

So next slide, Carl.

Is that the urban forest strategy be adopted with canopy cover target set by council?

So the purpose of this is um, you know, depending on what council adopts for a canopy cover target, uh, staff would start looking at um resource and requests to uh make sure that we can uh achieve those targets.

Uh but that concludes my presentation.

Happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Ivan. Council McKenzie, please.

Thank you, Ivan.

Um, my question is uh for for you.

Um I was wondering the tree planting program.

Is there does there seem to be uh a demand from residents for the trees?

Like, what is the anecdotal uh feedback from people?

Like, is it that we don't have enough for the demand, or I'm just wondering if we had more trees, would people necessarily plant them, or what is preventing people from wanting to plant them?

Yeah, thank you, Mary Tobias.

It's a very good question.

It's uh I have two answers for that.

Um the staff's level current existing level of service.

So we have uh one person um, which is not full-time that advertises this program.

And I believe that if we had uh the resources to really advertise this program, we'd probably get more uptake.

Um the second thing is that's uh perhaps education is the other side of things.

Um the more that we can uh educate uh property owners about the benefits of urban forestry and to provide these incentives, I think the more curious they would be to plant more trees in their property.

And Ivan, just can you remind council uh how many trees we purchase each year and do we have any leftovers or they all take it out?

Uh yeah, mayor to bias, we don't have any extras.

We it's um we provide a quota based on existing data.

So we make sure that we have enough so that the number of people that request them get trees, and we also make sure there's nothing left.

I would say that the number of requests are slightly higher than the number of inventory we have.

So we have been given the budgets allotted.

We have been trying to provide more trees.

Uh, but we certainly could use a lift in our um procurement budget to provide more trees to folks.

But how many do we give away each year? Is it like 10, 20, 30?

Uh each events like between 30 to 60, and we have two events a year, so 60 to 120, I would say.

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Uh, anybody else questions for Ivan Council Lemon and Counselor Rogers?

Yeah, Ivan, you on the uh operational financial requirements slash the the the one with the lines, do you know the one I mean?

The the lines going up to 40%.

Okay. Um, so do I understand that if we very hypothetically were to opt for if okay, not even hypothetically.

If we were to just go with 30% and invest in the existing stock and add proportionately in time, like 2046, 20 years, we could have just staying at 30 percent, could be could have by then a 40 percent coverage.

Yeah, thank you, Mary Tobias.

Uh based on the on the line below and um the 30 percent target won't see too much of an increase over an extended period of time.

Uh it does require a significant amount of investment to steepen the curve.

So based on the modeling that uh Mr.

Sarles has done, if we were to adopt a 35% canopy cover target programming and we achieved the 35% target in 2046, if you continue that program for another 10, 15 years, we can actually achieve 40 percent.

So we wouldn't have to have a lift in level of service to achieve 40 percent.

It may take us longer to get there, but we'll get there.

Thank you. And questions were where we're at right now. Councilor Roger.

Yeah, so um uh sorry.

So um strategy 17 where um we talked about emphasizing programs, uh plant trees on private property.

Um the um there's the idea about integration into the OCP policy and and development requirements.

So uh is that suggesting that um staff are going to be um already working creatively to um ensure that Bill 44 um could be a a net zero loss uh mayor Tobias that's the spirit of it um like I mentioned before uh Mr.

Scorey here is is waiting feverishly to figure out what the target is here so that we can move forward with presenting policy to council at a very soon date the the other question you had about um or the point about parks department and it's not just our parks department but also the CRD and so I'm wondering um because I had heard from um aquatec um who had been working on the uh transit um um site there and uh the trees along Craig Crab Creek are dying and so it sounds like um this could be a a uh creative um joint project with CRD on the Gallop and Goose Trail and the Craig Fire Creek uh even uh provincial federal authorities is that uh one of the possibilities of um incur getting more tree canopy and view oil yeah mayor to bias council recall in the original urban forest strategy that there are 51 actions and I believe one of those advocating or or partnering with other um jurisdictions was one of those actions so it's already in the program that basically you know in order to adopt a higher a higher canopy coverage council has to remember it's not just these three things but it's also these other 51 action items.

My last question is um a few years ago, uh staff uh attempted to um uh plant trees along the McClellan trail uh between the Helmak and uh and Overpass and Vuell Park, and um it was it was very difficult because we didn't have the staffing, we didn't have uh the watering, and obviously the um the results were quite disastrous and disappointing.

So um how much um how does one get uh you know with the current and increasing drought uh situations and um heat waves that we're getting, how much um uh time and effort is it to uh to water the trees that in our in our you know public areas and and private areas, I guess, or the public, you know what kind of resources is that?

Is that can you just estimate how many people?

Uh Mayor Tobias, um the report states exactly that.

So in order to adopt that program, depending on your target lifecycle management costs range from $500,000 to $1.3 million, depending on level of service.

It's right in there.

Uh in terms of staffing.

Um again, there's Babe mentioned that uh it's important to have dedicated staff as opposed to what is currently provided.

So a dedicated town arborists, uh dedicated um forestry tech, uh, and then help from volunteer coordinators like grade reporting green teams, uh our invasive species coordinators and summer students.

So there's a lot to go.

Um there's a lot of investment on the staffing level required to make sure that those trees um not only last the three year establishment period, but even beyond.

Thank you. Councilor Matson.

Thank you. So uh one of the things that sort of worries me is if we're only being able to give away 30 to 60 trees per year, and if we get a few more trees, it it sounds like we don't have a demand that's that we have a huge demand that we're not meeting.

It sounds it we could give away a few more trees, but basically it's you know 60 or 70 trees a year that people are asking for.

Since we can't we're running out of space on municipal property, um where would we put the trees if the residents aren't asking for trees to plant on their property?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias.

I would like to point counsel on to strategy number two of this report, which is and again, this won't solve it, but it would help.

So we'd actually have to change bylaw to find ways to plant within our boulevards within space.

To give an example, maybe we need to relocate a water main away from the boulevard so we can plant trees.

Like that's like high up, you know, something that I don't think we would do, but it could be that.

The other thing we can do too is make sure our designs of our roadways are ensuring that they don't conflict with utilities so that we could plant trees in boulevard areas.

So those are the things that we would have to look at from an administration point of view.

So there's what I hear there's really costly options to be able to plant more trees in the within the town property.

Um I just doesn't seem to be any easy solution to increase the the number of trees within the town if the public doesn't decide to take trees and plant them in their yards.

Yeah, I just wanted to um uh ask Ivan one more question and then we'll go to you with the motion.

Uh Ivan, uh through that partnership, I mean most of the parts of uh Uroil is right away.

Uh and it's not just the Trans Canada Highway.

We've also got the island rail corridor running through.

Um could part of the opportunities to plant more trees where perhaps there's not the um challenge of having to plant on top of infrastructure uh partnership with uh both uh island rail corridor as well as um transport.

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, certainly an idea, and I think that's one of the 51 action items is to advocate and sub and partner with others.

Uh the one concern I have is that we're starting to develop policy on things that are beyond our control.

That's the only risk we have.

Yeah, understand that would be an MOU or whatever for the those areas that we do.

Thanks, Ivan. Uh Council Lemon, you had a motion.

Yeah. Um I moved that we adopt the urban forest strategy with a canopy cover target of 30 percent um with emphasis on maintaining the trees in maintaining investing in the trees that we have now and by adding to the um trees to to public involvement um residential involvement to increase the numbers of trees across the town that makes sense it does uh so that's uh you're um moving uh for 30 percent coverage uh second got a seconder i do have a question on tax impact this fiscal year ivan or uh stephen yeah thank you mayor to bias uh one thing that's emphasizing here is that the the numbers um the costs to enact these programs are at the end of the timeline so 2046 numbers so that doesn't mean that we need to have those numbers next year it's a gradual um development so what uh director vella and i will do uh uh depending on the target set by council uh we'll likely develop a program uh to bring forward the council for their future budget deliberations um probably as part of the next budget deliberations thank you ivan uh so you got a mover and a seconder over to you councilor lemon to motivate i think all I I want to say is encompassed in the motion, and I think it's you know, the health of the current the trees that we have in the municipality now and those that are part of a regular replanting program be a priority, and by to get to that one percent more to 30 percent, that we provide more opportunities for residents and for the community to be involved in adding to the numbers of trees across Few Royal.

Thank you. Uh Councilor Rogers, motivational.

Um thank you. I I think staff have given some excellent strategies for that um uh uh come out from the original report.

The um by revamping and uh reassessing um both our our development um uh services by law, the tree protection bylaw, transportation parks, all of those um uh go to um assure that we're gonna be able to plant more trees.

And it's not just a residential problem.

You know, we think because we've just identified uh the highways, we've identified um um uh ENN, we've identified Craigflower Creek, all of which are going to be opportunities to increase trees without saying to the to a resident, put this in your backyard.

We have a lot of other opportunities to do that.

Um but one of the things obviously, in in terms of uh subdivision and the transportation um master plan again to Bill 44, as we um and maybe we should be considering uh some kind of um you know I don't know, DCC, that uh not only is there a sidewalk tax but also a tree tax, because obviously when uh you put in um another 500 homes in the harbor area, then you're gonna have to have sidewalks and if you're gonna have to have sidewalks you're gonna have to do the blasting you're gonna have to put in a storm sewer and that's there there again suddenly now you're gonna have an opportunity to um uh place these trees so here's I think um this is an excellent start 30 percent and uh we move towards protecting and keeping the uh the trees that we've got thank you counselor rogers so we got a mover and a second or for 30 percent all those in favor of 30 percent coverage uh yeah we could do uh we could do that for sure but the program sounds good my issue is it's a four percent tax increase whether it's half this year half next year it's still a four percent tax increase so I'm I'm kind of iffy I don't think our residents can take much more uh I just want to confirm with Ivan to see if uh counselor mattson's assumptions correct I think we're gonna hear the financial impact so I think over time just looking at the number it's 445 thousand uh not not disputing that at all but I think that was over the lifespan of the project so I thought it was per year.

Well that's but then it's carried forward forever over the period of time to 2046 would be that would be the cost associated with it that I'm understanding but Ivan go ahead.

Yeah mayor to buy us you're 100% correct it's not next year we're going to up our budget by two 790,000.

It's a gradual, it's a gradual increase.

Sorry, but over what time period?

Uh until 2046, which was the time period we established.

So no. So we could go up to, I mean, we could just go in a linear fashion and start with zero dollars for the first year and then just linearly go up to if you if that's council's wish.

But that's something that um I believe Director Vell and I should really put heads down and figure out what's we can do sustainably um over the next 20 years.

Yeah, so just this will be coming back into budget discussions with a plan, but that will be until 2046.

So it won't be uh all of a sudden a major tax hit, it could be a point five percent over over time.

Potentially, yeah.

But but I mean they're gonna come back with the plan.

So we but the the takeaway is there's not gonna be a four percent tax increase this year or next year that they're gonna come away with a plan that will smooth it out over the period of time.

I don't know, did I get that right?

Okay. Uh any other questions or comments?

How valuable motion on the floor is 30% over in a second, or they've motivated all those in favor.

All those opposed.

Counselor Brown, just checking in.

Are you still with us, sir?

Yeah, yeah, but I hope I'm happy with the motion.

I'm glad that got clarified because it uh also makes my pollout from the uh consent mesh uh motions uh I can pull one of those items because that was my big concern because uh I was gonna say if uh we didn't get uh grant funding that we postpone it because uh it would be a massive hit to the casino revenue, but uh it's again it's a boot point, so I'm really glad that got clarified because that wasn't clear to me at all.

Okay, great. Thank you, Councillor Brown.

So that motion passed.

I think we're down to correspondence now.

Uh and we did have uh an email from the physiotherapy association.

Second uh moved and seconded.

Uh is there anybody else that wants to make a comment on it?

Counselor Lemon.

Um, this could have gone into the consent agenda, but but I I I guess I wondered if council wants had had any feelings around this.

Chiropractors can do x-rays, but I'm gathering from this that physiotherapists cannot.

So I, you know, do we want to support it?

If it were to go as far as supporting MRIs, I I wouldn't be necessarily because that could just clog up a system that's already clogged.

Well, it says diagnostic imaging, so it could be could be could be anything, right?

And yeah, my my first thought when I saw this is like we're not the right body to advocate for this.

This is a medical discussion, and and I agree with your assessment on impacts.

I think we've got two big ones right now in the medical specialists waiting for them and imagery.

So you usually need imagery before you see a specialist.

So yeah, your actual treatment is if you can get primary care is delayed that much further.

So I'm I'm happy just to receive that.

But good um, yeah.

Uh so the move uh we got a move in a second order for receipt.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries, and we've got uh traffic safety commission, and buried within that is actually a request for a bylaw.

And uh just wanted to explain a little bit about what this does.

If you haven't heard of it, um uh the CRD uh is establishing a transportation service, which will mean there'll be a full-on trans permission uh transportation committee.

They will do things like we're kind of doing now without the mandate, but coordinating for the island rail corridor, um potentially another set of uh governance for things like BC transit, uh coordinating things like construction on roads and where they occur, uh, and will give us greater ownership around the importance of transportation.

I think we can support it.

In doing so, what they have to do is shut a service down, which is the traffic safety commission establishment, uh that that's done by bylaw.

So we need to agree.

They're asking us to agree to shut that down so they can transfer essentially the funding and the resources over to the new transportation service.

So um uh the council resolution may be worded as the council consents or not consents to the CRD adopting bylaw 4719 Traffic Safety Commission establishment bylaw uh number 525.

And again, that just helps uh establish the new service uh in order to get to the new bylaw, which is the transportation service.

So if I had uh any questions or a second or I will move it, I would move to consent.

Second.

Okay, uh moved by councilor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Matson.

Any questions on it at all?

It's mainly administrative with the new service.

The only point is that um they've made it clear that the the principles of traffic safety will continue to exist.

Yes, you bet, you bet.

Uh, and uh that will just be assumed by the new transportation service.

So all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed.

And I think Elna, the action there will probably be uh response back to CRD that we consented to the um to the amendment.

Okay, so consent agenda I'll move the revised consent agenda.

Remove the advised with the ex uh yeah, okay, yeah, thank you.

We have a seconder for that.

Seconded, seconded by councillor uh McKenzie, all those in favor.

Any opposed, saying none opposed, motion carries.

So I think we've had some pulled out, and we'll go to councillor Brown's first.

Did you want to skip the urban forest strategy, Councilor Brown?

Now that you've got some information and just go to number two.

I can't hear you.

Uh maybe you're muted.

Sorry.

I'm glad it got clarified because I was concerned about the uh the uh the big cost, uh especially for the 2026 budget.

And the only thing I was gonna do was uh suggest if the grant wasn't approved, uh, to postpone for for another year.

But again, it's a moot point.

There's there's only so much money to go around, and even though we get grants, it still comes out of our pockets in some way or another.

And our casino revenue is going way down, and anytime you fund any project with the casino revenue, you you're taking away other potential grants and grants and aid.

So uh that that's more of a comment, but uh again, it's a boot point.

I'm I'm really happy that uh Ivan has clarified that and and for Ron for bringing that up because it wasn't clear to me what the cost was going to be for 2026 in particular.

Thanks Counselor Brown and moving on to number two uh you had uh pulled that and that was on the um motion that we had where that was the separating the two uh crosswalks and now the veterans will be banners uh as opposed to to crosswalks you want to just speak to that yeah my motion would be to remove the pride sidewalk as well and treat it the same way as we did the uh veterans memorial crosswalk to reduce the budget by another ten thousand dollars and replace the sidewalk with banners um or and are benches but some kind of tribute uh not only to veterans but also to pride but I don't know why we would treat one uh differently than the other well I'm happy to second it but we probably need a clarification on which benches are yeah what what do you want in their banners or benches just to make it clear leave just leave it at banners just like we did with the uh memorial okay so we got a mover and a second or council McKenzie just as a motivation yeah we need to motivate first so counselor brown go ahead for motivation and then get again the motivation is uh I don't disagree with the idea the thought and the I appreciate the uh the pack of the school requesting that but it certainly uh a nice banner over by the school would be uh would suffice in in my opinion.

And again, I don't understand why we would deal with one differently than the other.

And either way, those sidewalks, uh there's a lot of maintenance involved uh and keeping them at expenses too, especially when you're doing with multicolors of paint.

So again, I I like that there was your your idea, Mayor Tobias was the was the banners.

I think it's a great idea.

Uh so we're retaining some money in the budget, but we're cutting it down to 20 instead of 40.

So uh uh probably a point two difference in our uh uh budget increase in 2026.

So I think it's the right thing to do, and I think it's a positive for both uh both the uh veterans veterans and also for for the pride.

Thank you, Councillor Brown, Councillor Matson, you want uh my motivation would be we could let the uh invite the schools to uh create a create the uh posters for us or create the banner for us, and then we could put those banners.

If we did that before, I think that's a great way and it it's probably be more meaningful to the children because they would you get more input in terms of what the issue is and uh rather than just uh some bullet crossing or uh crosswalk.

Council McKenzie.

Um my understanding was that the reasoning uh we are talking about for the um remembrance uh flags was because there was actual funding or organizations that funded that kind of work, whereas I am not aware of any organizations that would uh fund towards uh pride flags or benches or anything like that.

Um unless I'm mistaken, but uh that was my understanding of the differentiation was because there's specific programs to support uh rem uh remembrance memorials thanks council McKenzie uh according to our uh what's on here we've still allocated 10,000 to uh veterans memorial banners but we were uh the the thought behind it was that individual sponsors would pay for their own banner we'd have a cost to put them up and take them down but that would be the cost associated but there's still ten thousand dollars in the budget so I think the motion on the floor is to basically do the same with uh as an alternative to the sidewalk for pride that it would be ten thousand dollars but uh uh Ivan I'm not sure what the cost of coverage or how many banners we need and how much they cost to produce and would ten thousand dollars do it would be appropriate yeah uh I think when the ten thousand dollars was was established at the last meeting it was we didn't have too much involvement as to the magnitude um is it'd be easier for us to and we're we need to present a staff report to council anyways because uh we need to show council here are street lights that can hold banners and this is how many and where do you want to have them so we have to do that staff report anyways.

So it wouldn't be difficult for us to quantify um dollars as well.

Okay. So uh the the motion is though to bring it down from uh twenty thousand for the decorative saw uh crosswalk to ten thousand for banners.

That's a motion on the table.

Did you have another question or comment, uh council McKenzie?

Yeah, I guess um so my understanding uh there's probably people out there who would want to sponsor a or pay towards a veterans memorial, probably in remembrance of grandparents or or things like that.

Whereas I don't see the same thing happening with pride, like a specific family or person sponsoring that.

So that I that's how I don't understand how um they can be treated the same.

Yeah, I think there the town will still have to outlay a sum of cash, even though we're getting potentially reimbursed by a veteran's family that wants to come in and do it.

Um so it would still be uh uh an outlay of we're budgeting up to ten thousand dollars, even though we were able to recoup a certain amount back from let's say um people that were supporting a a family member's banner, but that would also allow the town to potentially um go through archives and say there was three or four families that were prominent here that we want to put uh those up, but wouldn't be an extra.

So that would be included in the price.

So um yeah, I would be assuming that the staff would come back with a report, say we can do 20 banners and have them uh for pride or or however we decide uh how many banners how long it would take and installation and and uh and taking them down.

So both of them one of them would have an opportunity to potentially recoup some cash, one of them would not.

That makes sense.

Council Rogers.

So we're doing banners to both with uh for a total of 20,000. Okay.

That's my understanding.

Uh now that will they'll both be the same.

Any other questions or comments or thoughts on it?

So uh I think we got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor of banners for pride, all those opposed to banners and pride, noting counselor McKenzie is opposed.

Uh that motion carries.

Um so I think that uh brings us back to one that you pulled, counselor Lemon, and that was garbage collection contract.

Yeah, I I wanted this pulled because um Mr.

Daviola um wrote us twice.

She feels strongly, and I wanted her letter to get the light of day.

And and uh just you know, passing it in the consent agenda.

I didn't feel it would.

Um, and uh I'm uh and I wanted to confirm with Ivan or check with Ivan, where are we at on the garbage contract?

Mayor Tobias, we're in the midst of sending another staff report to council regarding the feasibility of providing additional bins to secondary suites.

Okay, so once that is done, then that will subsequently trigger us to start the RFP process or the competitive bid process.

There's another item there that I'll probably uh want to present to council for decision, but uh level of service would essentially be solidified after that.

Okay, so will um some of her interests be reflected in your report.

Uh no, Mayor Tobias.

Um the staff report we presented had two options.

One was to maintain the existing level of service, uh, which council has adopted with an amendment for secondary suites.

The alternative option was for staff to uh come back with staff reporting on uh impacts of a different level of service.

So because council proceeded with the existing level of service, uh we did not move any further with additional analysis.

Okay, thank you. Okay, um yeah.

I I've got a question, Sue. So go ahead, Councilman. Yeah.

Um could you remind us on how much the average each home pays for garbage?

And I think for my colleagues, I checked in AI, told me what Langford costs are, and I think it's 560 a year.

So I think we're considerably less.

Thank you through the mayor. Uh in 2026, the curbside uh collection is 290 per home.

So we are considerably less than Langford.

Um my question was uh Ivan, how like you you probably receive feedback more than council does.

So in the four years that I've been mayor, I've heard why don't we get bigger bins like Sanich?

And there's only was one or two emails, and there was one or two emails that said let's go to biweekly service.

Um, but are you hearing differently?

Are people unhappy generally with the level of service?

Mayor Tobias, no, we haven't.

I think that was expressed in our last report that we have received none or very little in terms of uh different level of service, especially with uh pickup intervals.

Yeah, and I and my understanding is that you know what an associated issue is uh wildlife attractance and length of time between pickups and whatnot.

So there's uh a couple of other things to consider there.

But thanks, Councilor Lemon, for pulling that and having the discussion.

Any other comments on that?

Happy move. Uh secondary, uh Councillor Mattson, all those in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And I think that brings us to the end of the consent agenda as well as um the uh items moved from the consent agenda, and it brings me down to something that uh was originally brought up a print of the whole, and then we had uh pushed it here and uh wanted a little bit of an explanation.

So I followed up with staff as well.

Um Carl, can I ask you to bring up uh uh it's a word document under new business um item twelve, please.

While he's looking, I noted that half of or that one side of price road would be removed.

But there was one street, like there was a street that sort of comes off of price road, and so if we're removing price road, we should probably remove everything that sort of comes off of price road, because you wouldn't want something big to be built.

I think my mine my focus was on Heart Road, but if you want to bring that up as a as a point that we could add on to there, well, Price Road would be excluded too under this new diagram.

Yeah, but only there'd be a chunk that wouldn't be like you go down Price Road and there's another road that comes off of it.

I think the motion will encompass that, and I was just comparing the two maps.

So my point being here, colleagues, is that the first map that you see on that link is the direction we that we said staff um we're happy generally with the amount that the province has reallocated our land use in View Royal, but we'd like a plan for the Western Gateway.

That's what we asked staff to do.

Staff came back and gave us the first map and said, we're gonna go away if it's okay with you and look at a plan to develop this area in accordance with your direction.

Staff made a decision to change that area, and that is the area that um uh the Western Gateway corridor uh that includes now the the area that's the nice map uh and includes the area uh on art and some of the area other area on price.

So my concern with this is that uh and it's was also council's direction was also indicated in another uh map in the staff presentation where you can see it outlined in yellow, that's the next map down.

So that was not only our direction uh uh two staff that we agreed on to for the area, but that was the expectations of the public, right?

And then there was a decision made uh without council that came back with the final map, which was um uh more area in that residential area than we had agreed to.

So I'm not sure if this was an oversight, but I don't think it's appropriate to go forward with that without council having a discussion to say whether we agree with it or not.

I did not catch it, to be honest with you, when staff came back and said this is now the study area.

Otherwise, I would have brought it up at the time.

But this was a decision that wasn't made by council.

Seeing how the official community plan is essentially a covenant between the community and council on how we're going to uh work with them on a plan that we get their input.

I don't think it's appropriate for staff or a consultant to expand an area of study that council hasn't authorized on behalf of the public in order to do.

So my recommendation is before we get too far down the road, and lots of maps are being drawn that'll cost lots of money to change.

Uh my recommendation and my motion is that we go back to the original study area that council had approved, uh, that does not include the area on heart.

Now, having said that, Councillor Mattson, you said there was another area that is uh different because of uh the area around uh Heart Road, or is it the same?

Or sorry, Price Road or is it price road was included in what staff it it should excluded initially and I guess it was put put in by staff.

And so under your motion, we'd be removing price road or price road would be removed because it would wasn't included in the first map that we received i see that so i i think the motion is clean and just saying use the map that council had agreed to on uh uh on both the staff report and the staff presentation yeah so that i'm happy to second your motion counselor uh and my my motivation for this is i think the ocp already already brings up sensitivities i think my motivation for focusing on the western gateway i did not have a residential area in mind it was mainly along the strip where there's car dealerships and whatnot and I think part of my support for that uh for adding more opportunities for both employment and residential was that it wouldn't impact on a lot of our residents and and though that area around Heart Road and and Price Road has already been designated as small scale multi-unit housing the province has already increased that by a factor of four right for for amount of dwellings there.

I I think and every five years we're gonna redo this plan right this will Western Gateway will not be built out in five years.

Maybe there's no change in five years.

So my point is is we've got room to add that later on if a future council decides but I I just want us to be um cognizant of the fact that the map we were presented did not reflect the map we approved.

And I'll go to counselor Matsency if you wanted to add anything else for motivation.

And and and I agree, and I just think well I personally would be sort of hypocritical if I was saying, Oh, yeah, there's a residential area that will will change with for no particular good reason when I wouldn't want that to happen to any of our residential areas.

So and as was pointed out, in five years, we'll be looking at this again.

And if there's a huge demand to go in there and build apartments or something or uh townhouses or something, then the council of the day will uh be able to make that determination.

But I think right now it's just premature.

Thank you, Councilor Matson. Counselor Rogers, and then who's ever wants to come in?

Okay, looking at uh can we go to the last picture, which is uh what staff have um uh currently proposing for the Western Gateway.

Are are we able to move to that picture?

Yeah, can you scroll uh down to the last map, uh Carl.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

I I understand the staff's intent.

You know, when you look at the south portion, it's mill stream to Coldwood border, the whole area.

And that's what Heart Road is.

It's it's to the Coldwood border.

So I understand the the portion in white.

Obviously, we can't do anything more about it because that's uh uh that's the uh condo's uh on top of the hill.

And and of course, there's that residential development, uh the new one.

So I I do understand the approach the staff have taken.

And um, and indeed, we had heard a development proposal on the last three or four lots uh for townhouses or some something of that nature.

In terms of price road, price road is has always been on the map.

It was just the left side, not the right side.

But it makes sense that it's the right side.

I see what staff again is talking about.

Because the whole if we if we're signaling out that we should not do residential, then we should take out you know, all of um the the South, you know, that whole Atkins interchange, take it all out, Price Road and Buddy Road and all that, because that's it, they're just houses.

But again, the staff intention of the vision for the Western Gateway was from the Theatus Interchange to Coldwood, both sides of the island highway.

So um I I don't see that this is uh inconsistent.

I think what staff were driving for was consistency, and I support it.

Thank you, Counselor Rogers. Uh and to be clear, Councilor Rogers, all three of those maps are staff generated maps.

I agree. And the latest the latest one.

Council did not approve the last map.

As far as the last meeting that we had, and I looked at it and we were having the discussions.

What I saw, I understand, you know, certainly there are challenges in how um you know we we assist Price Road uh residents to get out, but that's a total different issue.

That's the transportation master plan that needs to fix uh how they can safely get out on uh onto the island uh island highway.

So um I've seen this, I understand it, and um I'm supportive of carrying on Ash ish.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers. Any other comments from anybody? Councillor Brown.

Thank you, Councilor McKenzie.

Yeah, I um I I do see Councillor Rogers' point because there are other residential areas included in the map.

So for us to say we're not going to include Heart Road for that reason is uh yeah, a bit conflicting with that.

Um is Lloyd Place that right next to Heart Road.

Um that's excluded.

And I was wondering why that was.

Is it because it's a strata?

Go ahead, Sterling.

Through the mayor.

Uh the uh just a bit of background.

So appreciate the discussion so far.

Um Mayor Tobias, you're right, all the maps that have been uh provided thus far have been part of uh staff's uh review and interpretation of council's uh wishes for this area.

The most recent map, the one that's shown on the screen, has been the map that was circulated as part of our workshops or open houses, and is the map that was reviewed at the special council meeting uh three weeks ago, February 24th.

Decision not to include the uh properties on Lloyd Place.

Um they're already developed and staffed have had uh numerous inquiries over the years on properties on Heart Road.

You council may recall the studies that were prepared by Urban Systems as part of this OCP review and update that discussed the viability development and the challenges with the existing land use designations of the uh of the OCP by increasing the density of those properties to mixed residential, what is proposed and what was reviewed by council at the September 24th, or sorry, uh the uh February 24th uh special council meeting on the Western Gateway Corridor, we would likely see more development potential.

If council wishes to uh change that, then uh that's that's but by all means uh that is that's uh council's wish.

That's great. There are some challenges, I will say though, with the timing on this.

Um we are at the final stages of of the first draft.

The direction that we got from council was very clear three weeks ago.

So by considering further changes, um we're we're a bit challenged to start updating maps and uh and the the draft document at this point.

Thanks, uh staff. So the decision was made by whom to extend the area.

That was staff.

And council did not approve it before it actually went out.

We probably was not brought back to council to say specifically, do we want any changes done with the area of the two maps you originally brought before council?

Mayor Tobias, Council may recall that when we were working through the the draft survey for the Western Gateway Corridor, there was actually no uh maps prepared for that survey.

The map that was shown in the power PowerPoint presentation in the report was a general idea of what the area could be.

And the discussion was that the final map, the final area was to be decided by further review and uh and uh finalization of the engagement, because engagement at that point hadn't been finalized, and what the survey was going to look like.

So we were working through uh the three uh scenarios that we were going to present for uh community feedback.

Thank you, Sterling.

But my recollection was that it was based on the area of the map that staff presented us, that was going to be the area of study, not additional areas that wouldn't change in the scope unless you received that direction from council.

Through the mayor, the the minutes from that meeting uh I I don't recall exactly what they are, but I believe that it was to move forward with the preparation of the uh the engagement.

I don't know if there was a specific direction again without having a uh a final map um just for consideration.

It or what we were discussing was just for for what could be considered an engagement.

Um, I'm not sure uh other than what was decided upon by council earlier in May and June of uh 2025 to engage on the Western Gateway Corridor.

Um we never had any final um um kind of metrics in terms of what streets would and wouldn't be included.

Well, I thought it was pretty clear because you uh the staff report was brought back to us with those two maps, one in this uh staff presentation and one in a staff report that said this is the area we define as the Western Gateway, right?

That is the assumption that I had left with that that is the study area, not more areas, not less areas.

That was the study area, and that was the recommendation by staff.

So this additional area was aside from the map that council had approved for the staff area, added on at a later date.

Correct?

Yes, the area was added on after the meeting.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments?

Just my my quick comment would be you know sometimes when you see something initially and have an understanding, and you you go back and you see another map, you sort of miss things, and I think that was the case for me too.

Councilor Rod.

Uh staff, um at our house we just received a um uh flyer from the town of V Loyal uh asking people to give their input on the um uh Western Gateway corridor.

Is that that's that flyer has been distributed, right?

Uh seeking public input through the mayor.

The uh staff are working diligently to launch a first draft this Friday of the uh of the official community plan.

Uh-huh.

Okay, I still need that. Thank you.

Okay, so we've got a mover and a second or is any comments or questions?

Um, that the study of the Western Gateway exclude the area of Hart Road from the Western Gateway Community Corridor boundary as it was not the initial intent of the study area agreed upon by council.

Uh all those in favor.

All those opposed.

So we've got one, two, three.

Councillor Brown, how do you vote?

Yeah. Four. Vote vote for it.

So you're uh okay.

Uh so that motion is narrowly defeated.

Or or sorry, uh narrowly passed.

Uh I think that brings us down to question period.

Does anybody have a question for council?

Ryan.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

I hope you'll uh indulge me.

This isn't necessarily a question, but it is uh the last opportunity I'll have to uh tell Councillor Kwalowich, who is a neighbor of mine uh up in Thetis Vale.

Uh thank you very much, Councilor Kwalich, for the work you've done.

Uh 2017, you uh won in a by-election, and uh what a different world we live in from 2017.

A lot has happened.

Um, it has been a pleasure uh running into you, uh walking your dogs, um, and um chatting about all things view royal.

I wish you the best of luck uh in your future endeavors.

Uh I have no doubt that you will be fantastic in what you do because you've been fantastic here.

So thank you very much.

Uh on behalf of all of us in Theatus Vale, you're one of ours.

You're a Theatus Vale family members.

So again, thank you very much for all you do and good luck.

Thanks, Ryan. Much appreciated. Is there anybody else? Nobody. Uh Carl, we got anybody online.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have one message from Jason Craig from Urkhard Av, uh, Courtney, BC.

And their comment is thank you for taking the time to review our submission.

I'd like to care clarify one concern received this evening.

Sorry, I'd like to clarify one concern raised this evening.

Enabling physiotherapists to order diagnostic imaging would increase system backlogs.

In fact, evidence from other Canadian provinces and international jurisdictions show the opposite.

When physiotherapists are enabled to work with their full scope of practice, diagnosing images, requests, and specialist wait times decrease, and access to primary care improves.

While I fully recognize that health care delivery lies primarily within the federal and provincial responsibility, local governments continue to play an essential role through health promotion, disease prevention initiatives, and policy directives that strengthen community-based care.

Municipalities can help address health system pressures proactively.

We are already seeing municipal leadership across the province.

For example, the city of Langford has taken action to support improved access to primary care as highlighted in the recent CBC coverage with a lengthy URL.

Several municipalities, Port Coquitlam, Abbotsford, 100 Mile House, and William Lake have already confirmed their support for this initiative.

Additionally, Courtney, Delta, Port Alberny, Esquimalt, and North Sanich have this item scheduled on their upcoming agenda.

Thank you again for your time.

And the uh URL is cbc.ca slash news slash Canada slash British hyphen Columbia slash primary hyphen health, hyphen care, hyphen clinic, hyphen Langford, hyphen 9.2.

And that's uh all our messages.

Thank you, Carl.

They're very thorough.

I'm not sure if I could type that fast to get that URL in there, but thank you.

And it's good to see somebody from Courtney's watching a View Royal Council meeting.

So welcome from View Royal.

Um yeah, so I think that moves us to a closed meeting resolution and adjournment.

Um Elna, could you read the closed meeting resolution, please?

There is a need to have a meeting closed to the public in persons other than the immediate members of council, officers, and employees of the town, and those identified under section 912 of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 991A appointment, C Labor, G legal, and K municipal service.

So moved.

Moved by Councillor McKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Moved by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Council McKenzie, all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries no.