Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal, and welcome to the council meeting for Tuesday, April 7th, 2026.

And we'll start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lekwungen speaking people known today as the Esquimalt or Kasapsom Nation and Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

Uh public uh or to provide comments virtually during the public participation or to ask a question during question period, scan the QR code or use the link on the live webcast stream screen.

Uh, or town's website under live webcast.

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

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

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

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

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And that brings us right down to public participation period.

Is there anybody that would like to address council in the room?

Seeing how everybody's occupied here.

We got anybody online?

Carl. Mayor Tobias, we have no messages on the forums board.

Thank you, sir.

And right down to bylaws.

And I think this is Elna.

Good evening.

So before you this evening is an amendment bylaw to the election procedures bylaw.

The purpose of this amendment is to align our bylaw with the local government act regarding mail ballot voting.

Previously, mail ballot voting was limited to individuals who were either out of the country or had an illness or injury preventing them from attending a um a voting place.

However, since um the local government act has been amended, and mail ballot voting is now open to any eligible voter who wishes to vote by mail.

So this amendment ensures that the town's election procedure by law uh reflects that broader access.

Uh staff are requesting that the amendment bylaw be given first, second and third reading.

And uh the timing is important regarding the amendment of this bylaw because election-related bylaws need to be adopted prior to the October 17th election.

So uh July the 6th would be our last day for adoption of this bylaw.

So it's it's really just a procedural keeping everything in line with the local government act.

Thank you, Elna.

And uh I'll go to council with any questions.

This there'll be two motions here, one to receive the report and then uh a separate mover who could keep the same ones for uh first, second, and third readings as this is primarily administrative to align it with provincial legislation.

Are there any questions?

Councilman.

Yeah, and what I was wondering was how do you go out and how do you how does somebody get a ballot?

Do they have to come in and get it?

Then you cross them off a list.

So what happens in in regards to the mail ballot voting, um, just refreshing my memory here, is um people request a mail ballot and and then they will come in and we we do register them and we keep track of whether or not they've come and picked it up.

And once they've picked it up, they they do have to fill in um their registration as if they're coming here and voting on uh on voting day and they need witnesses to sign to as to their you know their eligibility.

Okay, thank you. Any other any other questions?

Yeah, um so the individual uh has to come in to collect the ballot.

Um and so they if they were in California, could they go to the website and then pick up a ballot?

Um so what could happen in that case is that sorry, I should correct myself.

We can mail the ballots.

We prefer that the ballot be picked up just because there really is a tight um turnaround between the time that the candidates are um announced and between the time that um the the ballots have to be in.

So we we prefer that they're picked up.

However, there's various ways for them to um to to have this, you know, delivered to them so they they could have it by courier, uh several different ways.

Uh we would mail the ballots to them, however, if there's other arrangements that need to be made, we'd have to to look in into those kind of those arrangements.

But I'm sure there's other arrangements that could be made.

We can't have them go on to the website because we need to actually physically, I mean they could register, they can get the that information, but then we need to mail them the ballots.

So yeah. Any other questions?

Can I get a mover and a seconder for receipt?

Move receipt. Uh moved by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Counselor Brown.

All those in favor.

Uh that passes unanimously.

Uh can I get a mover and a seconder from first, second, and third readings for the bylaw procedures amendment 1164 2026.

Moved by Councillor Brown seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed that carries thank you Elna.

Mayor's report um I hope everybody had a bit of a relaxing opportunity over Easter.

I had the privilege of opening up the World Cup of Soccer for youth at uh Juan de Fuca Recreation Centre.

There was over 800 kids there.

Uh and uh it was Friday morning and so they all came out with under their flags they all get assigned a country there was uh girls under 11 all the way up to 16 years old.

It was also the first opportunity that um they had young referees that had just done their training to go out.

So it was a good opportunity to get out and uh really amazed at how many how many kids showed up really excited to play soccer?

There was homemade flags there as well.

So it was really, really well done and um privileged to be a part of.

So that was uh that was an opportunity, I think, for us to see the power of um really our investment, one if you correct and how well used the facilities are.

Uh and I think we go down to staff reports now.

Ivan with solid waste collection contract renewal.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Ivan the young director of engineering.

Uh this staff report before you uh the purpose of it is to respond to council uh who've directed staff to investigate options to provide residents with secondary suites, the opportunity for additional garbage and organic waste bins.

The uh benefits of that would be uh improved wildlife attraction, attractance prevention, uh as well as an increased level of service to secondary suites.

On the second page of the report, you'll notice that there's a SWOT analysis, so strength, weaknesses, opportunities, threats.

Um there are a few uh items that council should be aware of should should uh this program be enacted.

Uh staff looked at things from both a feasibility and workload perspective in terms of rolling out a program or an extension of this program.

The the first item that uh kind of will in terms of risk, there are known risks and unknown risks, and the unknown risk that we have is that uh we don't know how many folks would uh enter into this program.

We do know approximately that there are about 600 secondary suites-ish, give or take 100, let's say.

Um however, uh two of them are we know as a fact that they're that the suites are um are occupied through the the secondary suite permitting process, but there are about 400 that are unknown.

So we don't know how many people would enter, it uh it makes it unclear to the garbage collectors as to how many trucks they need, essentially.

So uh maybe only 10 would be in the first year, but maybe in the second year, maybe all 600 would be there.

And you know, maybe there's a there could be a potential for them to have on-time performance issues or they need to have a second truck.

So we there that there's that unknown.

But that said, there are uh it is feasible to do.

Um there requires a few tweaks to our bylaws to make sure that it's allowable.

Um so doing through risk management analysis, we do suggest uh some recommendations.

So if council wishes to have the ability for secondary suites to have an additional bin, uh there are regulatory changes.

One's being that the uh residential garbage and household food waste bylaw will need to be amended to include secondary suites, is currently not in there.

Uh staff would also recommend to include garden suites as eligible uses.

There's I think only one in View Royal this time.

Uh but um by not including them as a separate land use, and it would it would probably cause a little bit of unfairness to them, even though they're quite literally almost they do the same thing.

Uh the fees and charges bylaw would also need to be amended so that we have the ability to charge property owners the additional bins.

Um staff suggests that the property owners wishing to have additional bins that they pay for the bin itself as well as the bag tags.

Uh we would recommend that the property owners be offered the choice of either garbage food waste or both carts.

We we imagine most of the requests would be garbage bins.

The organics bins are quite literally just meant for food waste.

It's not like other municipalities where they're allowed to put in um like garden waste in there.

So we can offer the choice, but most likely we won't have any issues with the people.

I don't think we're gonna have people asking for additional organic waste bins.

The approximate relevant costs for a bin in 2025 rates are about 142 dollars per bin.

Extra bag decals are about $3.50 per decal.

In terms of administrative costs, you know, it's uh it's a dynamic between the engineering and finance departments to get the charging done.

So we would imagine that if we were to apply a hourly rate or a cost for staff to administer the getting the bins to the front door, it would cost about $30.

So to sustainably administer the program, staff also require in uh, in addition to the amendment to the bylaws, to provide administrative ceiling for the bin requests.

So I don't think our staff can handle 600 requests in year one, not never mind a hundred.

So we recommend some sort of ceiling.

We don't we don't have that exact number right now, but it's something that we that staff can work on.

Uh an addition, additional item is to place the onus to the property owner to notify the town to remove the extra bins if secondary suites are canceled or there's no one there.

So one thing that we have to be careful about is is folks that perhaps have a secondary suite, but it's not occupied, and what happens is that they have two bins for themselves.

One of our strategic plan items is to reduce waste.

And so having two bins for one property could encourage more garbage waste for one family.

Quite simply, maybe halfway through the year, they don't want to have that service, and they say, I want to return my bin.

Can I have a refund in 159, 360 fifth the amount?

You know, there's it is quite onerous to do that.

Uh, and that the bins remain the property of the town are non-transsible, non-transferable and must be returned to the town once additional service is not required.

Uh, because it's we have the competitive bid process for the garbage waste coming up.

Uh, I do wish to put out to RFP fairly soon.

But because we don't know how this service would impact the the new or existing or I guess a successful proponent, uh staff recommend onboarding this program in year two of the uh contract, so not in 2027, but in 2028.

And the reason why is because it'd be worth discussing with the with the proponent on how this program could impact them.

Uh you know, should they, you know, an example is that uh an assumption may, well, we may need extra trucks to take on the external 600.

So there's uh there's impacts from a financial perspective as to how much it will cost a land, uh, a property owner just with the with a lack of economy of scale.

Um we do recommend that we ask the secondary suite property owners do they wish to have an additional bin so that we can get the numbers first and then we can we can talk to the garbage contractors at that time to get a better idea.

But the idea is to basically do it in 2028, come back to council letting them know this is what it would be and how much it would cost.

Uh so that said the staff report is just to be received for information.

However, if council wishes to uh move forward with this program, then uh the alternative option is is written before you, and that's that council directs staff to proceed with amending the residential garbage and household food waste bylaw number 745 and the fees and charges bylaw number 958, amendment 1115 to allow additional garbage cards to be provided for secondary suites and garden suites, and that service be onboarded and established in 2028 as part of the 2027 2030 solid waste collection contract renewal process.

Uh but that concludes my presentation.

Happy to take questions.

Thank you.

Yeah, before I pass the colleagues, I've got a couple.

Um firstly, if I had a secondary suite right now, could I come to you and say, Ivan, I'd like another bin?

Um is that allowable under our bylaws if I pay for the extra bin as uh as an additional service?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, under current bylaws, no.

And we do we do get requests like that.

Uh, but the bylaw is strict in the sense it's only one bin per residential dwelling.

Um however, if it changes, uh if we do make those amendments, then the answer would be yes, you just have to have to pay a fee and still pay for those decals.

And that would be the that's the suggested uh uh way to do it.

Excellent. And uh my second question is uh what you're proposing is entirely voluntary, correct?

If I I could, as a secondary suite uh owner, uh I could choose uh opt into the service or not, correct?

Okay, thank you. Uh Council Glenn.

Mayor Tobias, that is 100% correct.

Thank you. Um Ivan, separate from it going forward to bid, have you have you had a conversation with waste management about their capacity?

Should we do this?

Uh Mayor Tobias, no, we have not reached out to waste management. Okay, thank you.

Any other questions? Counselor Matson?

So Ivan, how many requests do we get for extra bins a year?

So question one.

And number two, how many decals uh do we sell on a course of a year?

My my question is I'm just wondering, are we making a policy out of something that isn't an issue?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, good questions there.

Uh in terms of the number of uh requests, um it's between 30 to 50, top of my head.

So not too many.

Uh in terms of the number of decals, that answer currently eludes me.

Um I believe is in the hundreds.

Um, but I can't specify I I don't know a current number.

I do agree though, uh the first question we asked ourselves is are we making a mountain level molehill here?

Um the answer to that question is we don't know because we haven't engaged or we haven't got we haven't sent out the program yet for people to meet to know about it.

And so as a result, we don't know how many people would are interested in it.

My my third and last question is do we hear much from the company about people putting way too much garbage out for what they're allowed?

And and again again, if not, then do we need a policy?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, none that has come to my level.

So what I mean by that is that it's probably administrated so that um everything fits within the bylaw of um I've heard one or two maybe of like wrongful like not putting the right stuff in there is not bagged properly.

But I haven't heard from to my level at least that there has been an issue with overflowing garbage.

That said, um I do know that the premise of this um of this exercise was to mitigate wildlife attractions which we've heard from time to time.

But in terms of volume I I haven't heard of that and the weekly pickup is probably a a good reason why.

Yeah.

Oh Rogers Yes thank you so um I wonder currently um the individuals that have secondary sweets that um um could they not just simply buy the decals and then put out um an extra bag with um with the deckle yeah mayor to bias that's the current process so if the garbage doesn't fit in the can they purchase extra bag decals and then they literally just put the bag beside the garbage bin um this new program is to or this uh the council what they're asking staff to look at is to provide a bin so that it it kind of reduces or mitigates wildlife attractions attractance um yeah yes what I if I understand then uh having the bag um leaves it vulnerable for animals like rats, crows, bears, so the bin would uh be better able to keep it protected.

Is that right?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, that's that's the assumption.

Thank you. Um have with this um have we considered doing a pilot?

I mean, it's great that we would be canvassing uh the secondary switch, but uh to assess manageable um uh issues, managing issues, uh both for the collector and for the staff, maybe a small pilot is uh like you did with the the bear um bins.

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, we haven't uh suggested a pilot just yet, no council McKenzie.

Thank you. I was just wondering, is there like a minimum number of bins that you have to purchase uh from the town, or can they be as requested that the town purchases them?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, the um the rule is that it's one organic bin and one garbage bin for a dwelling unit.

The dwelling unit is a is a it's the definition is basically a single family or up to a fourplex, I believe.

Uh sorry, uh just to clarify my question is from wherever we buy the garbage cans from, is there a minimum order number that in order to get those?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, there's there's no minimum order per se, but we usually order a um we usually order in bulk, so a lot of bins for economy of scale.

So uh I would say informally, yes, we do have a minimum order.

Any more questions? Councilor Brown.

The recycling program, that's a totally different program, right?

Uh Mayor Tobias, that's correct. That's the Capri Resile District's program.

I don't know if it's the only thing you know anything about that, but is there a minimum or maximum number of containers you can put up?

Because it seems like there's lots of blue bags, lots of blue.

Let's let's stick with the garbage. Council Brown. Okay. Stick with the garbage.

Um yeah, for garbage collection, maximum is one organics in one garbage bin.

Go ahead.

So is it is it potentially um uh you know if we have the main residence secondary suite and then the garden suites that all told we could have six bins on the street?

Uh Mira Tobias, if one property had a residence and a garden suite and a secondary suite, uh by verbiage in this report, the answer would be yes.

Uh councilor Rogers raises a good point, and that's certainly something that we can look at.

Should council wish to um provide uh direction, we could create a bylaw to restrict it so that it's not six.

Just gonna make a comment, and I uh I I see it on my street with folks with secondary streets, or because council's already authorized two um suites in one house or something is the same difference.

Um those bins are overflowing, which means crows get into the top of them, which means if there's bears around or raccoons or whatever, they just um happen.

And of course it's worse during the summer.

So I personally I don't have a problem with advancing this because it on a volunteer basis.

And if we're I think View Royal was one of the first places to kind of sanction secondary suites and garden suites, or why not?

And um uh if we don't have something that's voluntarily available for overstuffed garbage, then that garbage gets strewn around the road or increases wildlife.

So I don't think there's an extra necessarily a cost to the town if we offset that by.

So I'm I'm I'm kind of in support of moving this ahead if we want to include this into any notion of uh of contract, which is I think what Ivan's trying to do, getting us ready to get there.

Counselor Matz.

I mean, if we do it, the option I like is it's voluntary and somebody pays 148 dollars, they get they get their bin, and every year they just get continually get charged an extra 148 doll until they bring the bin back, and we don't charge them anymore after that, but still every year just keep charging them.

Is uh Ivan.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um in the staff report there are two options in terms of funding it.

So uh and when we did a jurisdictional scan, um the way that Councillor Mass must be can do, which is an annual fee, uh, that is done with larger municipalities.

And I think the reason why is because they have a lot more staff to administer the back and forth.

Um, and also because they have different bin sizes.

So sometimes that also fluctuates.

Uh the smaller municipalities, uh ones maybe indicative of U Royal, they have a one-time fee, uh, which is just to pay the bins, and then they use extra bag decals.

And the one I think probably the most important thing to think about here is that out of all the municipalities we've looked at in Greater Victoria, uh, none of them have the exact same model as us.

And in fact, mm those municipalities that provide this additional service, they use their own garbage contractors.

So uh by doing that, they have exact they exactly know where else day one who's interested, who's going to be asking for it.

But also ultimately there's a lot less risk in terms of illegal use, I will say.

Also processing and disposal costs.

It does encourage the cessation of additional service if suites are not occupied.

So with what Council Monson was suggesting, if I don't have a second someone occupying a secondary suite, I don't want to pay 148 dollars a year for something that's not I don't need to use.

So it does encourage them to return the bins.

The cons though is that uh it does cost more money to the residents wishing for that service.

Um additional measures are required to ensure ineligible dwellings try not to participate.

So what I mean by that is that um folks with with garden suites or secondary suites, if they're not occupied, but they have this bin, they may put garden waste in there, they may put other just a whole bunch of waste into a bins that which kind of goes against our strategic strategic plan of reducing waste.

Um and the administration cost to keep chasing down the 148 dollar fee.

If it toss costs $30 dollars to to administer just a one-time purchase then to chase residents uh year over year can be quite time consuming uh one follow-up question so okay you spend your hundred and forty dollars whatever it is get a bin and for that bin every week you want to use it you have to put a sticker on it or it won't be picked up yeah that's that's what staff are recommending okay yeah so other municipalities have done that i think one of them uh mentioned they need five bag decals applied to the to the bin uh in order for it to work but it was only like 75 cents for a bag tag ours is five times that amount so it doesn't matter in that case but we would that would be the way we do it and put it onto the bag itself not the bin so does somebody want to move another option or do we just want to receive it is the question there's option two I'm happy with the option that staff just spoke about that's option two is we understand it Ivan that is correct mayor to buyas just mic we slowly go at this and like you said in 28 or whatever that option we have a seconder for option two seconded by counselor brown any other comments motivation council brown motivation okay all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries thank you very much an election charge that would be garbage.

Request for decision, Erskine Bike lane.

I think ivan, you're still up there, so I'm I'm gonna assume that it's back to you.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Uh so the purpose of this report is to seek direction from council on how to proceed with uh some of these systemic parking issues that we've seen on Erskine Lane.

Uhskin Lane does have an uphill buffer bike lane that was installed as part of the Nine Erskine development.

Uh, what we're seeing right now is uh a lot of folks parking in that bike lane, which is a bylaw infraction.

However, the issue has been so systemic that uh bylaw can't keep up.

Not only that, but um even if bylaw was able to keep up, it doesn't cover the evening and nights when it happens.

And with uh nighttime, and if we're trying to encourage cyclists uh to use our actual transportation network, which plugs right into the Gallup and Goose rail trail or Gallup and Goose Corridor, which is 50 meters away, does pose some safety issues.

Uh we also have had some um concerns been voiced from the neighboring area about the number of vehicles parked there causing um uh issues with them being able to cross the street to get to the sidewalk.

Uh there's uh they're unable to do that.

Sight line issues, they're all they're all fairly they're they're they are warranted.

So we do want to present some options to council, and we do need a decision decision on this.

And one reason why is because the recommended option is to basically put in some barriers or no post barriers onto the buffer bike lane.

And um thing that council has uh directed staff to do is whenever staff requests or recommends an uh protected bike lanes that it goes to council for their uh deliberation.

So there's been about four options that have been looked at, but only two of them would really solve the issue.

Uh, one of them is to convert the bike lane onto to on-street parking, which is not recommended.

Uh, doing so does set a precedent with uh, especially when we see more denser housing coming in.

Um with the transportation demand management that has that is always part of developments.

Uh it's important that we still maintain um or provide equitable access, uh, especially with the Galloping Goose corridor so close.

Um however, it does allow it does solve the issue with uh with parking by allowing parking.

It just the cyclists would need to uh use the roadway to access the galloping goose.

Option two is a recommended option, which is to install knockdown bollards on bike lanes.

The one difference between now and when the town uh released the actual transportation network plan, is that our roads contractor actually has the ability to maintain these narrow buffer bike lanes?

They actually have a machinery that can go in there, quite similar to what uh Sanich and Victoria do.

So there is that added ability to do that.

It does cost some maintenance dollars though, and some capital costs.

Uh if you look in the staff report, option 2b is a recommended one at this time.

It's it's less it's less good looking in the sense that it's uh it looks more like a um a temporary no post barrier, but it does get the job done uh and is also cheaper, so about three times cheaper than what Sanjay does with their uh with their barriers.

Um should council wish to proceed with uh option two B, staff estimate, and this is based on a on a quote we received from our our road maintenance contractor.

Uh the cost to install will be about $5,000 plus GST.

Um sweeping is about $2,900 a year uh based on existing levels of service.

But we will budget approximately $7,000 to account for uh having to replace some of the some of these um delineators, whether it be from snow plowing or from damage.

Uh two non-defeasible options or three non-feasible options that we've explored, we're retaining a towing company to automatically go in there and just tow.

And for after a lot of research, we couldn't find that service anywhere of having towing companies uh being able to tow on municipal right-of-ways, mostly only on parking lots or parkades.

Uh the do-nothing approach is certainly an option.

However, by doing that, it does uh set a precedence and it does uh send a message to the town about uh illegal parking and the ability for people to do it quite simply because you don't have the level service to to administer it.

Uh and then the third option is to is to add additional bylaw enforcement staff, but that hasn't been that hasn't been requested in the five-year financial plan, and it doesn't solve the issue about evenings and weekends.

So happy to take questions on this.

The staff recommendation here is that uh council directs staff to install knock-down ballads akin to option two B in the staff report, uh, using the town's transportation roads budget to install the ballards and maintain the asset.

So $5,000 one-time cost, and then about up to seven thousand dollars annually.

Um, so that is the recommendation.

Uh, there's two alternative operate alternative options.

One is to use the fancy sandwich ones, which cost up to fifteen thousand dollars to install capital wise.

Uh and we estimate that it'll cost probably ten thousand dollars annually, just quite simply because those assets cost more to replace.

And then option three is that council directs staff to convert the bicycle lane into on street parking.

Uh and we put in here complete with a installing a mid block crosswalk to help some of the residents on the other side of the street cross um and to just to improve the site line issues with crossing the street.

That would be a temporary measure because I believe 10 air skin, which is further down the hill, once they develop, then there's a requirement for them to install a um a sidewalk all on that side road all the way up to Wakis Way.

So that would um eliminate the need for a crosswalk.

Uh, but we haven't heard anything for that development just yet.

We assume that it's a long-term uh development.

We we assume it's not gonna work.

So uh, but that's it.

Um the recommendations before you happy to take questions.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Council Brown.

I think you answered it anyway, but I was wondering about the sidewalk on the other side.

So I think you've answered that because people could could access the galloping goose bikes and pedestrians using that sidewalk.

Um potentially.

Um, yes, pedestrians can use that sidewalk, the existing sidewalk right now to get to the galloping goose.

Um cyclists aren't allowed to to travel on sidewalks.

Um, but with that new tenor skin development, that would be a brand new sidewalk in the other side of the street.

That would sometimes be a good idea.

I'd like to make a motion. We accept uh 2B, the staff recommendation.

Uh no, uh let's let's go through our questions for um Ivan, I've got a question.

Have we reached out to the operator?

I know the uh the operator of the building.

I know they had sent a letter in on lack of adequate parking.

Um and especially for oversized vehicles.

Do they charge extra for parking with their apartment?

Is that why like why are people parking on the street is what I want to know, and I think we all should want to know is does the truck not fit in the underground parking?

Is there an extra charge for it?

Like in order to understand our problem, like is there uh enough parking stalls in the building that that will allow for the people?

Uh yeah, Mayor Tobias, I I don't know as a fact.

Um I have heard in in other developments in other municipalities that they do charge and that's entices people to park elsewhere for free.

I don't know if that's the case in in in this particular circumstance.

Um what I do know is that the uh the strata has sent messages to the engineering department uh requesting that it be changed that the bike lane be changed to uh on-street parking, uh, because uh the repeated amount of correspondence that actually the town has sent to them saying you know your your residents or tenants shouldn't be parking in these in these bike lanes.

So their position is that uh we should be installing on-street parking instead of bike lanes.

Uh but that goes against the development and and uh and our strategic plan.

Leanne, did you have some input?

Um yeah, not um I don't really have much else to add at this point.

I'm not sure if um the the um the current property owner charges for parking on site.

We don't get into that level of detail in terms of how parking is managed on site once the development is is completed.

So um I uh I can do a quick uh check to see if if we have any information on that uh in terms of if they're paying for parking, we have any if we've been told that.

Um, but otherwise I'm I don't have any um any further information on that.

Okay, um I'm kind of concerned that if there's empty parking spots there, and you know, the there's a myth, I think that we have an abundance of parking somehow in View Royal, and I don't think that's the case at all.

We don't. And especially if we're looking at the growth that we're have inadequate roads that are don't have shoulders and no sidewalks and no parking lane, and lucky to squick squeeze a bike lane on one side of them.

Um so I I kind of felt that this has happened, and that that road is not built out yet, right?

They've still got another major development to go in there from what what I've seen limited on my street, and then of course uh right across from me, we've got a spire going up, and that hasn't opened up yet.

So we're really gonna see the effects uh likely both on Helmkin trying to park uh on that and uh as well as um Burnside itself or west burnside, which is gonna be a nightmare because that's a narrow road anyway.

So um I I guess my point in is I need to understand this problem a little bit better because otherwise we're just gonna keep replicating it um and i'm not sure exactly how to do that but let's finish the round of questions council lemon well let's go to you first in response to your comment um mayor to bias i i do know that um several probably not all of those parking there are are frustrated with trying to park at the hospital and they are they're parking long erskine because it's there so it's not all from number nine understood okay thank you for that councilor matz yeah the uh the other part of this is we've have this policy whereby we allow uh developers to buy parking spots and they pay us I can't remember whatever the amount is so they don't have to put in the parking which just exasperates the problem because we get that there there isn't enough parking and uh and you're right if they don't allow the people to park in their building without paying extra they won't do it and uh it'll really hard to even if we did want to allow remove the lane you're still gonna get all the hospital people parking there it's gonna cause a nightmare so whenever we're allowed to make a motion up uh councillor Lemon I was gonna make it you go stick well you might not um you might not.

Um, I I had coffee recently with one of the Erskine Lane residents, number 14, um, whose townhouse backs onto the street, and who was a you know, during the last administration was a constant fixture here in council.

She has not seen one bicycle.

She said it's nice, nice there's a bike lane.

There, I've not seen a bicycle.

And um that says to me that there hasn't really been a demand.

So my inclination is to move that we just leave things alone and for the time being give people trying to you know get to tests at the hospital or whatever, an opportunity if they need to.

That's a motion.

I'll say thank you.

Why? Well, I'm motivating now.

Am I motivating now?

So we were I I've just got a uh clarification.

We've gone from an overflow of parking to apartments to now turning this into a hospital thing.

Yeah. So so I I think we need to separate those two things.

And if we're talking about spillover parking from the hospital, that's something that we deal with, I think, anyway, through bylaw.

I think, and bylaw apparently is active there.

Um people are getting ticketed, but they're also you know, cutting through and going to the hospital.

Um I I think it's just a matter of parking.

I don't know where it comes from, other than the hospital, probably number nine, but it's not, it's clearly not number nine specific.

And we should have people looking for a place to park.

And there's no bicycles.

My motion is let it be.

People aren't looking for a bike lane.

They're looking for a place to park.

I think I'm just uh Ivan's got something that he wants to chime in on. Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Based on research and talking with bylaw enforcement, it's mostly the uh the tenants of the apartment complex and not the hospital as parking there.

Councilor Brown. We got a motion on the floor. Councillor Rogers, check yourself.

Yeah.

No, that this is the way a motion works.

This way Robert's rule of order works.

They get to speak.

They've made a motion.

There's a motion on the floor.

No one else gets to speak to it after they're done motivating.

Councilor Rogers, please have a little bit more decorum and respect for your colleagues.

Council Brown.

Yeah, I drove by there several times over the weekend.

Um never saw a bike on there.

It's not the only street I've never seen a bike on.

Actually, Man Road in the San Francisco has bike miss both sides.

I actually saw a bike there finally after about three years, maybe a hundred trips down the road.

People are parking on the lawns now because there's no place to park.

Brown brothers of no relation to me are the property managers there.

They did send us a letter requesting at the uh occupants' request to to be allowed to park there.

On Saturday and Sunday, both times went by.

There was five vehicles parked there, two big trucks.

So obviously a bike's gonna have to go on the road, and there's room on the road for a bike.

They don't have to be in the bike lane.

Um by law, that's ridiculous to have bylaw enforcement.

It's ridiculous.

The thing I like about 2B is those plastic barricades can be removed quite easily if we change your mind in the future.

And you know what?

There's there's people renting apartments there, and there's long number of students.

There's four and five people surrey.

And guess what?

They have three or four cars, so that's where the cars are coming from.

When we approve buildings, we have to make sure the builder provides adequate parking.

And Councillor Matson's correct.

We don't do enough of that because people are parked there and they're going to continue to park.

Even with the ballers are going to continue parking there.

So why spend the money now?

And I agree with Counselor Lemmon, leave it for now.

If you really have to, and there's a truck park there, and you're riding a bike, you go on the road on the right-hand side, like you're supposed to, make your signals like you're supposed to, and go on the galloping goose.

And I don't think, you know, anyway.

I I haven't been there in the morning to see if any of the students of the school use it.

I I don't think so, because human nature isn't going to go more of a direct line.

So that's my take on it.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Councilor Rod. Thank you.

Um this council debated long and hard on the development of those um apartment buildings.

And parking was a key aspect.

And we did um negotiate and with staff's recommendations on creative ways that they would have alternate means to the cars, like bus passes, bikes, and indeed, if there's any one location that has walkable services to the school and to uh to buses and to the galloping goose and to shopping, this is it.

I mean, the um if what we are saying is that um we might as well park in Watkiss Way.

That's just take allow parking in Watkiss Way.

That will deal with all the problems because they you know it'd be much easier than going down a narrow lane.

Um I'm really concerned that staff um you know have rightly identified that this is certainly a good reason to have um a uh a bike lane.

Youth under staff help me, what, under 12, under 14, are not allowed electric bikes.

They can't ride electric bikes, so they got, and we haven't even considered um the youth and the use of um Erskine Lane for Stone Ridge.

All that area is this is a quick way down and up to the galloping goose.

So we haven't even thought about, we're just thinking uh about maybe it's the hospital.

We're just thinking about this the the apartment buildings, but adequate uh we've we've met pretty much the parking requirements for that building, but obviously we haven't met the visitors and God knows what else, but that's you know, and in our OCP, we are looking to reduce the parking, reduced to what we got.

So, you know, this considered this is a narrow lane.

Cyclists, if they're going up the hill with all those cars, they are going to be possibly threatened with a car door coming open on them.

So, you know, consider the the health of and and safety of cyclists, using this, frankly, I wouldn't go with the just the bollards, I'd concrete this thing and really protect the cyclist lane.

So because that you know they have every right to use a street safely, and parking is a luxury, and that I don't think that we should be sacrificing the possible risks to our our cyclists.

No, if we say that we haven't seen a cyclist, I haven't seen anyone going up and down this road here.

Should we take out that bike lane?

I haven't seen anyone using um the going buck to the theaters.

Should we take out the bike lane?

Should we allow parking on on uh the six-mile road?

Because I don't see any cyclists.

What you're doing is you're setting a precedent and sending a message that bike lanes don't count.

And they do. They're they're just as important as a means of travel and it's the whole precipice of uh the act of transportation.

I'm sure the the um uh transportation master plan do not permit this abusive use.

I would be more than happy to support a tow truck come by councillor Rogers.

You're we're just speaking to the motion, so I get it.

You're not in favor of the motion for the reasons that you stacked on there.

Do you have anything more to add?

Councilor McKenzie.

Thank you. So I'm just looking at the report and the complaints, number of complaints received.

I would imagine that those complaints would be sent in by would be cyclists or cyclists, because why else would you be making a complaint about the bike lane being um parked on?

And you have to think for every complaint received, there's probably a number of people who don't have the time to make a complaint and therefore they just put up with it.

So that pro that number of impacted people is probably more than what's in in this report.

Um so for that reason, I I agree, or I don't agree with the motion, and I agree with the points made by counselor Rogers.

Um while I'm on this point though, can I just ask in that table with the complaints?

What's the MTI mean under it?

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Matthew.

Yes, I do cannot support this motion.

Again, there's all the issues that were pointed out.

You're basically putting cyclists at risk.

And one of the other things is we've established we have a long-established priority, pedestrians, cyclists, public transit, and then drivers.

And so what we're doing is we're just throwing that all out, and because the developer isn't provided sufficient parking, we are putting uh parker no cars in the cycling lane.

So I just can't support that.

And we I just think we're going backwards, just a quick one.

I remembered when I couldn't get a cycle lane uh passed by our municipality 30 years ago to go from island highway to the school because you can just ride on the sidewalk, and which isn't the truth.

So I I just think we'd be making a step backwards if we removed the cycle lane or even ignored the fact that it is a cycle lane.

Thank you. Um yeah, and I don't have much more to add.

My only concern is here we're not done building that street over yet.

Right. And I'm not sure the occupancy.

I think last time I talked to the owner who's not the owner anymore, um, uh they were near 80% occupancy or or higher.

So it's probably not as full as it could be.

But I I would like to know, and maybe I'll go and ask the question myself is why are people why is there inadequate parking?

Why it is is the parking lot full from what we've got.

So we've um got a motion on the floor.

It's to allow parking, basically a do nothing approach.

Um uh moved by counselor Lemon and seconded by Counselor Brown.

Um number of people have uh spoke not in favor of it.

So let's put it to vote.

All those in favor of counselor Lemon's option um to allow parking in this space.

All those in favor.

All of those opposed.

Um motion doesn't carry, but I heard you good reasons, Councilor Brown.

And I'll follow up a motion to uh pass the recommendation uh to B.

Second. And that's the uh uh with the removable bollard uh to be. And did you want to motivate counselor Brown?

Well, it's good because again, I'll repeat myself, but um they can be removed in the future if a future council decides to do that for whatever reason.

I know they're building up the sidewalk on the other side, that may not be a good reason, however, um uh I I agree with what everyone said, but anyways, uh to me that's the it it kind of appeases both.

Keeps the bicycle in, and uh well, I guess there's a hope in the future that there'll be uh more parking spots.

Counselor Matson, you're the secondary motivate.

Okay. I've got a question directly related to this.

So we've got bylaw now working over time.

Let's see if somebody takes their monster truck and drives through and destroys all of these bollards.

Now we've got damage.

Um is like is that now an RCMP file or uh yeah, mayor to buy us that'd be an engineering file?

Okay, but there if it was damage and repeated damage, then it would be a good one.

Yeah, that we could make it an RCMP file.

Okay, all right.

Just uh just a question associated with that.

Uh so any other questions?

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed? Noting councillor Lemon is opposed.

Thanks, Ivan. Um Scott, can you put on our list of things to do maybe a friendly visit to those apartments and just try to dig down a little bit and find out why there is no why there's inadequate parking?

Is it just because there's more, which I'm assuming?

If you know, uh what's our ratio, Leanne, for parking or for that building?

I'm not expecting you to have it off the top of your head, but is it 1.4 parking spots per um unit, or how's that work out normally?

Uh through the mayor, I don't have that information on the top of my head.

I don't know. Um the uh yeah, it just depends on the gross floor area and the number of units, and I yeah, anyway.

I think can you follow up with uh Scott and I on that and maybe council just to find out what the ratio is?

Sure. Thank you, problem.

Go ahead.

Yeah, just a point of interest.

Of the five vehicles that were parked in two days, four of them had N and L stickers on the back.

So I'm assuming they're young people, and they could be couch surfing or sharing a port with multiple people.

Just a guess. And there was one vehicle there that was a company vehicle.

Thanks, Councillor Brown, for your detective work.

I think we're down to the shortest item on our agenda, which is the official community plan review and update.

Um, and I would like to thank staff for putting the draft motions um that we um asked in March 31st.

There should be a copy.

There's also two from the OCP advisory committee meeting.

Now these were normally minutes that didn't get signed off as minutes at the time.

And now we're down to I think the re uh Ellen I correct in saying this, these are the new motions that counselor Rogers had put together.

Any of the are any of these contained in the draft motions?

Uh no, not that I am aware of. Um that information from Councilor Rogers is is for just for information.

Okay, so that that's though those ones that you've got in front of you, correct, Councilor Rogers.

That that are um good.

And so if anybody was willing to follow along the bouncing ball, they could open up their OCP draft.

And go ahead, Councilor Roger.

Um, you know, the the first one I had um, you know, and it really wasn't a motion but an observation um that um in in the OCPS overall, there was um about 122 consider considers considering consideration you know and um I I would just encourage um uh staff to um find uh those some of those considerers and I found a couple uh that we could turn actually into a uh more proactive um um um like advocate collaborate whatever so that we could um move it uh out of just uh a consideration status that's just a general comment.

Uh the other uh comment um I would move that uh council table the action items a little bit let's deal with these one at a time as we're going through all right um I either we can move them as a block and I don't know if anybody is prepared to move these as a block and would rather go through them one by one um but let's uh because you uh we've got to kind of um have a motion on it councilor rogers just uh make sure that staff gets the direction it's not just your opinion but at this point council has to say that this is what we want to do and agree with you right so um has Council Rogers got a seconder for reducing half the 122 consider considers consideration to um adjectives that evoke more positive real action in the OCP if I may I could just amend that uh that council review and um you know to review the number of considerers to see if we could see if they could strengthen the uh uh the verbiage I think that's probably be better.

I don't want to don't want to give a number to it but uh asking that staff review the uh the number of considerers and strengthening the the wordage.

Gotcha.

Uh do we have a seconder second or counselor brown uh I don't think we need to do much motivation all those in favor uh we're voting sort of I know but I wanted to I have concerns the most and because consider versus if you put in implement I I can't support implement something that I'm not sure what it is rather than yeah I don't think the motion is saying implement but looking but well you know what I mean it's a something stronger than consider so or or a different word than consider yeah investigate okay investigate yeah stick to one yeah okay I'm happy with investigate yeah go ahead uh council McKenzie uh just curious whether staff has uh any issues with this or if that's acceptable to them uh we'd would just like some alternates to consider uh rather than using consider sorry that was not in yeah yeah you used it again uh I I think uh counselor Rogers put one up here investigate counselor Rogers do you have others that you might not consider what on what the motion is that staff review those that are would consider to uh uh see if um alternate language and in more specific direction uh that would be useful and relevant and I think yeah the staff get that but staff are looking for examples like you used investigate, which is good.

Investigate, collaborate um I don't know there's there's other examples.

Counselor uh matzon and Councillor McKenzie. Go ahead, Lynn.

Through the mayor, thank you.

Because some of the policies that have considered, there's a reason why it's consider for some of the reasons that have other council members have brought up to give us a bit of flexibility and not sort of locking us into something specific.

But we can revisit the number of considerers and um and come up perhaps with appropriate word that you know meets council's wishes as well as ensuring that there is sort of some flexibility within that that policy.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, so staff gets the intent.

We've got a mover and a second or all those in paper.

Any opposed? Seeing non opposed motion carries.

Councillor Rogers.

Your worship, I don't think anyone's willing to move it as a block.

Uh so I think we are we're ready to carry on.

Okay, great. Um so the next point is that uh move that uh council table, the action um list um to uh a later date, uh perhaps after um community surveys are done or the public feedback, um, but it's really not part of the OCP body.

Seconder. Second about counselor Mattson.

I don't think you need to motivate.

I think we'll have enough to chew on with the OCP itself to get that through, and then the action plan is not is actually spinning.

Through the mayor, thank you for letting me chime in here.

Leanne.

So the action plan is a part of the implementation plan.

Which is part of the OCP bylaw.

So typically, you know, we include implementation plans within an OCP.

However, there have some municipalities more recently have decoupled their implementation plan from their OCP so that it's not really a bylaw.

It's um it's separate, so it's more it can be changed and adjusted without having to amend the OCP bylaw.

So that is an approach that we can look at here if council will like to um you know review the action plan in more detail.

Uh so I wanted to throw that out there.

Thank you, uh and so if you're how does that action plan work with the OCP and Scott will look to you for this and balancing that with our strategic plan and our priorities.

Is it one that is in harmony with uh each other?

Like how do you how do you do that?

Because the OCP should be given your strategic plan kind of marching orders on on uh compatibility.

And I didn't use considers.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh typically an OCP is a community plan that can last for five and uh in our case 15 years.

Um a strategic strategic plan is typically something you sit down with the council early in the term and you spell out the priorities for the four years.

Uh OCP is a bylaw requires public consultation strategic plan is a is a living document that is amended quite frequently um i believe the ocp is a is a gift you'll be giving to future councils um to help guide them and get them started whereas the strategic plan uh is something developed by the newly elected uh to guide them through their four-year term there should be some synergy between the two though should there not there there typically is i mean motherhood and apple pie are typically written into the OCP and show up in strategic plans but the strategic plan is more of a ground level uh action items whereas the OCP is more aspirational.

I don't I've never seen them oppose each other um where a new council comes in and says uh that that old strategic plan or that OCP is not relevant anymore things don't change that quickly in local government um but they're not always exactly harmonious yeah through the mayor thank you the one one option to think about as well is staff is also undergoing a review a comprehensive review of this draft concurrently with the public and with council because of it is a bit it is an expedited review process in order to get this document um past the finish line prior to the election.

One suggestion I'd like to offer is that um instead of um of um perhaps making a motion on the action list or the implementation plan, wait until we bring back the final draft um to committee of the whole.

And if council still wishes to remove the implementation plan from the OCP, we can do that at that point.

Staff also has some concerns with some of the actions that are in the draft.

And uh we just haven't had a chance to present that to council yet because of the timeline, but we will.

And um perhaps it might be an opportunity for council to weigh in at uh the committee of the whole once staff has had an opportunity to make those recommendations.

And that committee of the whole meeting's coming up next month, or tentatively scheduled for for next month if all ducks if all stars aligned, but uh it obviously the our our CAO and corporate officer must um confirm that.

Right.

That's uh that's consistent with my thinking.

I was worried that um uh this if this was going to be part of the OCP and we only had until today to uh tailor it and give our thoughts about the action plan, that was not gonna be possible.

So uh what we're hearing is that we wait until the final draft and and we'll see what the evolution is uh after my list of a hundred items, um, then we'll have a better idea what the action list will be more realistically like.

So you're okay with withdraw your motion?

You're in a second, yeah. Within okay.

And uh down to number three. I'm just trying to be efficient with their time, Councillor Rogers.

And I I have a policy change I'd like to make. Uh the same way we have these four or five things.

We're still on Council Rogers.

Was he he's not going through. I thought he just passed the whole thing off now.

No, no, that was just on the actual one.

That that was that was just on the action items um discussion that we had.

Um so yeah, you're still on the go there, Councilor Rogers.

So um, you know, I would move that to uh we table the action item list to uh after the final draft.

Um staff have prepared and reviewed uh with public consultation before we actually get into the um I don't think we need a motion.

That's just what's gonna happen.

Okay, good go. Thank you.

And then we can review that at the committed to the whole next month. Go ahead, counselor.

So uh this relates to an item that was in the action item, but as counselor rogers pointed out, it's related to a policy.

And the policy would be to update the zones on the island highway to increase density.

So that's what staff is, I think is recommending.

And I my motion is that we do not update the zones on the island highway to increase density.

That's my motion.

Is there a secondary?

So that that's on the action list, but what counselor Mattson's concerned with is that it's part of the OCP, but he you can't find the reference word, or what would it be?

Yeah, it's 5.9.3 C, which is the uh action item.

And somewhere along the line, that action item has to be aligned to uh the policy in the OCP.

So the same way a number of these are just sort of broad statements.

The broad the broad policy statement I like is we don't increase change the zoning to increase the density.

Okay, so we already made the decision.

We'll get to the action item list later.

Yeah, except this.

But you're concerned with what it actually says in the OCP, and you're looking for confirmation of the reference where it states it.

Is that correct?

Well, I just or what I want is it to be excluded from the OCP, that specific policy statement.

Okay. And you want motivation?

Uh no, we need a secondary.

We got a secondary.

Counselor uh Brown, sorry, you were the seconder.

Uh go ahead, motivate.

Yeah.

Um we've already found out that I mean we are we have made the determination that we were going to not deal with.

We're only gonna deal with the the corridor, gateway corridor.

And so obviously Island Highway is outside of the gateway corridor, so we should be excluded if for no other reason we should leave it as is for no other reason than we've decided to already exclude that.

Um so I I think the OCP allows up to four stories.

I sure don't want to see any more six-story buildings all over the place on the island highway.

So I'm again I'm opposed to increasing the density for those reasons.

Yeah, I concur the uh yeah, the density uh is not necessary.

Um like personally, uh I know we're gonna be rezoning stuff later, but that's more appropriate for light industry businesses, et cetera, et cetera, etc.

Not for uh housing, certainly not multi-family multi-story housing.

I agree, I don't want to see two rows of six-story buildings all the way down Island Highway.

Thank you, Councillor Uh Brown.

And is there the math that I did with our OCP because primarily of re the transit oriented area development by the hospital, and then changing all of our current lots to small-scale multi-unit housing uh four to six units.

So with our initial housing study, we're at um I think 4,000 units additional over the next period of time.

If we input today's numbers in, there'd be more like 2,000 units with a rate of growth.

But our OCP has much more than that, like 8,000 units going in.

So we're increasing density everywhere according to the OCP, not just one area.

So yeah, I'm happy to support the motion for this.

Um other comments on that council Roger.

Yes, thank you.

I was just trying to um uh show uh the question to staff is that um councillor Mattson has um made this reference.

So do we actually need the um the page number, you know, where 59C is and um and the specific object uh objective or policy to uh effect change.

Because I think we're looking for the reference, and I know you guys are looking for C um, but I think uh it would be fine for us to pass this instead of a paper chase motion.

Uh fine to pass this as it is, and then staff can uh report back when they do their markup and adjust things.

Okay. Um any other comments on the motion.

All those in favor.

Any opposing that opposed motion carries unanimously.

You went to scratch your head, I thought you were opposed.

Okay, oh yeah, I got opposed.

All right. Uh okay, uh Counselor Rogers.

Uh thank you.

Um so again, this is general, and um uh my motion is that um uh somewhere in the OCP that we would um add uh the um the text uh provincial legislation specifies that the following portions of this OCP uh will be final and cannot be open for any public debate or hearings or debate.

Second uh Leanne, you had a comment.

Thank you. Um through the mayor, uh council may recall that um a motion was already passed that we provide some background information background information at the beginning of the OCP on the provincial legislation and how it limits some of the town's decision making.

So that was already captured in a recommendation.

Is it in the OCP itself?

The recommendation was to add that, and we haven't done that yet because this was a recommendation that was brought forward at the special council meeting last week.

Okay, uh so that had a move over in a second.

Are you happy to withdraw that councilor Rogers?

Seeing how it's incorporated and down to encourage community traffic.

Okay, uh next one.

Um again, I cannot um it might be in the transportation section, but encourage um commuter traffic.

Um travel along regional rapid bus routes, um, um island highway and admirals for the number 40 bus uh to ensure efficiency, emergency emergency vehicles, service deliveries and school buses, etc.

can travel on our our regular roads.

So in other words, um uh uh community traffic go around View Oil, going along the island highway as opposed to traveling through V Royal.

Do you have a seconder?

Councillor Mattson.

Okay, I don't think we need much motivation there.

All those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed motion carries, and then the next one, Councilor Roger.

Uh move that um promote uh the ENN transportation corridor, especially when the Transcanal Highway has uh reached capacity, active transportation is unable to accommodate um and the level of service uh along our corridors have reached uh level service half.

Okay, uh is this a specific um that would that would be an uh sorry that would be an objective in the transportation section?

An objective, okay. Uh councilor Lemon, were you seconding?

May I just uh did John? Did we not? Is that not in our list of motions from last week?

I I think yes, we did have um, and in certainly in the OCP it it speaks of um the town.

Yeah, we made the motion to ENN.

The ENN corridor continue to be recognized as a transportation corridor in the infrastructure community plan and that the ENN rail corridor remain a strategic priority.

Indeed.

And it it there is a couple of places where it is one staff uh waving at it.

Leanne?

Yeah, th thank you, Mary Twice.

Um so uh we also have our director of engineering on the line too, who may be able to chime in.

But um from an OCP perspective, uh this level of detail really would belong or be more addressed in a transportation master plan.

Um I'm we don't really get into the sort of levels of s service and specifics.

Uh we do have some objectives and um and policies around um you know promoting the ENN transportation corridor and um and the active transportation um in order to deal with um you know the congestion and the um um in the three traffic going through Vero Royal, which is a is a which is a huge issue.

And um and how to deal with those things would be further refined um in a transportation master plan.

However, I will um see if Ivan would like to chime in uh on this one.

Thanks.

Thank you. Yeah, I would agree with um Leanne here that you get into that level detail would be best uh represented in a transportation master plan and actually probably more so in our um asset management strategy because it definitely defines level service.

Uh so yeah, I would agree with Leanne that's you know the the the high high level of getting you know commuters around the rural is certainly a good uh strategy that we can piggyback on when we continue to do our transition master plan but the actual level service uh the analysis involved in that uh whether it be level service of e or f or or d or whatever council or staff wish to identify as uh as something that needs to be done that is meant to be done in the transportation master plan okay i just i may just speak into that i i i totally agree if uh and indeed if the uh transportation master plan uh can do it um but um i guess i'm i'm could i we do have section seven transportation and mobility i think what he's saying is the level of detail that you put in here isn't appropriate for the OCP not that you're wrong not that anything's uh challenged but all of that detail can't be in the OCP that's a master plan thing okay okay all right so I I guess my um the the the the level of detail what really what I'm driving here is that um when um our roads have reached the level of and this is an objective a goal once it once our the roads um have uh reached the level uh of capacity uh that we can no longer um you know move um then the transportation the ENN corridor um becomes a uh a critical uh aspect you know to the entire region now I suppose that the the CRD would also take that position.

Councilor Rogers we have 20 more your pages to go through.

So you're gonna have to be more efficient.

So the next one is uh amended new development must ensure these natural amenities can be appreciated by existing and new residents.

Yeah. So you see on the um this is uh on page uh 15 section 2.3 um uh I guess subsection three.

Anyway, on the um right side I've given you the wording new development will give consideration to these amenities.

And this is one of my concerns is that um it's um um is that we amend it so that new development must ensure that these natural amenities can be appreciated by existing and new residents alike.

So it is not motivate yet.

Got a seconder seconded by counselor McKenzie, and you're gonna have to be quick with your motivation.

This is turning a um a consideration into an action.

Okay. Council McKenzie. All those in favor, any opposed. Motion carry. Go ahead, Councilor Rogers.

Thank you. Page 19.

Um, this is um seem appears to be the one and only instance where um we have a list of actions uh provided in in a section, and um this the OCP should be consistent.

Either put the actions into the action list or um take all the actions that are in the action plan and put them into the body.

So we are inconsistent uh in um uh how we're organizing the OCP.

Go ahead, sir.

Yeah, yeah. Through the mayor, uh, I believe the section that councilor Rogers was referring to is the reconciliation section.

And those actions listed are to do with the UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration of Rights and Indigenous People.

So they're separate from the action list in the uh end of the back of the uh OCP in the implementation section.

Um it is duplicitous. You've already got that.

So so yeah, we're not arguing, we're creating motions. Okay.

So so we my rationale is that um those that are on page 15 are also in the action plan.

So we don't need them both.

And if we're going to decide that we want to have the action plans with in the body, then that should be consistently applied to all the action plans in the uh that we have, all 27 pages.

We've got to move them, each one of them into the body of the OCP to be consistent.

So either we do don't want to waste our space doing that, or we simply acknowledge those portions, those action plans in the so we've got uh we got a seconder to make uh consistency interactions.

You and Stimular I think it's similar to what I raised at the last meeting where I thought it was and duplicative, and then we said we would ask the First Nations to give their comments on it.

So I think that might be a good idea.

Yeah, we can No, that that's good, Councillor McKenzie.

Thanks for reminding us.

I think that um well while the intent is good.

I think the consistency is probably better, and are we adding more things to it than we probably need to?

I'll second that one, Councilor Rogers.

That um that it should be it should be consistent because otherwise it just makes for a very long duplicative read.

Uh anybody other comments?

Questions? All those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing Council McKenzie's opposed.

Um and that takes us to OCP includes statement of the 585.

On page 23, um uh we've got the text where uh the problem set the target for view all to construct 584 new homes over five years as announced in July 2024.

And um, so what I would like um to add is that further um of the 585 XXX, whatever number has already been built or in construction and total anticipation by the end of 2027.

So we've well they've that's my that's my motion.

Thanks. Uh councilor Rogers. Uh second her. Seconded, Councilor Brown, uh Leanne, did you have anything?

Uh through the mayor uh through the mayor.

We we we can do that.

However, we do we are required to do annual reporting out on our housing targets.

So it would be a little odd to have one stat in our OCP, but then perhaps our housing report might be slightly different.

So I'm not sure if we need to be in that level of detail given that we have to risk report out on this on an annual basis.

But this is already in the OCP, is it not on page 23?

We identify the number of what our target is.

But we haven't we haven't indicated the number of units built are in construction and the total anticipated occupied by the end of 2027.

Like it's that's it's kind of um a bit challenging for us to get into that level of detail for the OCP and we do report out on it on an annual basis.

Okay.

Council Rogers allow me to simplify um we have the and as of the time you know as of the uh yeah at this time as of this time these number of units have been built so you know we're just being able to tell how many units we built already it's already in there anyway we're just uh council rogers point is we should state how many um we built I don't think that's um we're already going through the level of detail that states the um the target through the mayor, we can um it's not a problem.

We can add we can add that in.

Um and um and we'll see if we can uh come up with something in terms of the anticipation anticipated occup occupy uh then the anticipated occup um occupancies for by end of 2027.

Uh yeah, we'll do what we can.

You push it, may I help?

So uh staff, I I understand the work that's involved in going to 2027.

Your points well taken.

So all I'm asking is that um uh province has set a target as announced in 2024, and as of this date, we've had these numbers constructed.

So it's very simple.

You don't have to conject what's in 2027.

Okay, we can absolutely do that.

Thank you. Thanks, Leanne. Um council McKinsey.

Just from uh my policy experience, um, I've always avoided putting in kind of numbers where it will almost immediately be outdated.

So for that reason, I won't support um putting in the number that I would support council McKenzie if you were um suggesting we just remove that whole sentence.

Because technically we should be getting new housing targets after five years, and the OCPs for 40 years.

So I either we include it in or just take the whole thing out about the housing targets entirely.

Um so I I I'm happy with keeping the target in because it's as you said, like it's not as of tomorrow, it will be a different number, whereas the other number of constructions possibly could be, or you know, it's it's gonna that's gonna numbers gonna change more quickly.

So um, and I think Councillor Rogers, I don't know if you had a motion on the floor already.

He does. Uh anybody else want to speak to this.

Leanne.

Yeah, through Ma through the mayor, I just wanted to add to you is that we have to um uh we do have to update our OCP by um the uh the end of by twenty thirty to align our OCP with our housing needs um report so we can update this section of this OCP um if if necessary because this is our target until twenty twenty seven.

So we're keeping it in with numbers is what we can provide.

Yeah, as your uh motion.

All those in favor.

Any opposed. See none opposed, motion carries.

Um something about pie chart colors on page 36.

So on on page 36, uh figure seven, um it's got the pie chart and the percentages in each of the different colors.

Well, I have a hard time and uh maybe a lot of other people do when you have uh as many uh different colors as you have there.

It would be very helpful simply to say uh repeat the percentage, like single detached homes, uh brackets 36.

So they're able to see the numbers and the percentage and even confirm the colors the colorblind.

Okay, you got a seconder.

Well second. Uh it's part of accessibility.

I think it's important to put it down there.

If somebody can't see blue, then you're not gonna interpret.

But well. Yeah, all those in favor.

Any opposed. Not opposed, motion carries.

Go ahead. So um my own.

Sorry, just a sec.

Oh yes, 42. Um the the bottom portion extrapolating to 2050.

Um, you know, quite frankly, I I would um my motion is to remove this exception altogether.

It's a conjecture is too so far out.

And um I think we'll have a better number when we have to do the OCP in 1920.

So we move the extrapolation to 250.

We have no idea how the immigration and uh who with all the people leaving the province.

Go ahead, council McKinsey.

Oh, I was just gonna say, because it's a plan to 2050, I think that's necessary.

Yeah, we've been marketing it as a plan, Councilor Rogers, for the vision 2050 for a bit.

But uh let's say the motion's on the floor.

We got to get through this.

Uh do you have a second?

You know, if but no, you're not motivating anymore.

You gotta get a seconder before you get motivated.

Uh secondary. So it's not seconded, so we'll go from 42 to 44.

That one didn't pass, Council Rogers.

Next one, uh tables uh 12 and 14.

Uh uh, sorry, 12 and 13.

Um, that's on uh 44, 45.

Um the um unlike the other tables, um uh it would be convenient to have a reference point um from 2019 to 2025 as a column, a new column added so that we have a baseline comparison.

Um you'll see that example on on table fourteen.

So 13 and 14 are two have two different tables, one with a baseline visible, how many we have and the other one without the baseline.

Uh I've got 20 on table 14. I've got the 2019 to 2025 blank.

So it's yeah.

So there's no information there, Council Rogers.

So let's see. Let me say a sec. I'm sorry, ha, I can't move this thing.

Staff, just a question on uh we're at page 46, table 14.

Is there a reason why that 2019 to 2025 column is entirely blank?

Through the mayor, it could be a couple things.

One, uh we don't currently permit um or sorry, no, that's office.

Um we can double check with the consultants if it was perhaps perhaps a administrative error.

Because I think that should tell us what we have right now, and it might be helpful to figure out how much extra we need.

So for you know what I mean?

Yeah, um through through the uh through the mayor.

I uh yeah, we'll reach out to the consultants.

Um it might be a matter of um not having this information.

And uh if we want them to gather this information, it's gonna expand it's gonna expand this the scope um uh for them to to do further analysis on this um because they already have the I wouldn't consider it should cost us anything, Leanne, because the the column is already there, but the values are blank.

No, I recognize that.

Um however it's uh we'll get back, yeah.

We'll get back to the to the consultant on it.

But I I do re I have a recollection that it had to do with the availability of the data and it wasn't included in the land economics update memo that was presented to council last May.

I'm I'm having a challenge with that, Leanne, because how could you get to the next series of numbers without knowing the baseline?

Right. So I I would suggest we go back to the consultant and say uh in order to validate your next series of numbers, then you've got to have a baseline to do it.

Otherwise, how did they make the calculation?

Okay.

Uh table 15 does have the example, but they have numbers in 2015.

So indeed, if um uh so in table 12 and 13, hopefully we can um get the consultants to give us the baseline data.

Okay, uh thank you.

Uh uh all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Go ahead, Council Rogers.

Uh yes, as as we discussed um on figure eleven uh last week um about adding Watkiss way uh to figure eleven.

Um to be consistent, um I'm assuming that staff will do so by me.

We're on page 50.

This is the motion I've added here is um uh on page 5511, you know, that it also be added there.

Now, whether or not you know that's gonna be consistently applied in the OCP, I think it is, but I just wanted staff to confirm that.

Go ahead, Leanne.

Through the mayor, yes, that was a motion that was passed last week and will be updated in the OCP.

Thank you. Uh next one.

Next one. Um so here's here a new motion that I would like to add to section five.

Um, that um both land use and density is constrained by the very pinpoint uh pinch point geography and real transportation commuter infrastructure limits.

Um the the whole point is that um on that map um there's a map there it it shows the you know the geography of um of View Royal is that it every all the services, roads, rail, trails all have to be pinch point between Theus Lake and the ocean.

And um that is a geographical uh aspect that should be um uh related because what that is that does then is um challenge our town our um to uh ensure efficient movement of goods and if we can't do the efficient movement of goods then our land use and density um theoretical density targets are no longer viable.

Sure, second.

Uh okay, we got a mover and a seconder.

I I think this is too much detail for the OCP, Counselor Rogers.

That's my perspective.

Um, but we can this is this is too too weedy for allow me um but but that's just my opinion.

We haven't put it to a vote, so uh you can go ahead and move on.

Allow me to assist.

Let's put the first sentence in.

Because the next sentence where efficiency movement of goods and so forth, that's simply an explanation.

So if we have the first sentence, then we've done um achieve the goal.

Okay, thanks, Councillor Rogers.

So it's uh down to land use and density is constrained by the very pin-to-point geography and real transportation infrastructure limits.

Okay, uh go ahead, Councilor.

Yeah, I um I agree with this, and that it should be acknowledged that all roads through any point in Bureau is a pinch point.

Um, but I also don't think we should be wordsmithing the OCP to this degree.

Good point, but I don't think it's for us to be writing the copy.

I may speak to that.

This this is not uh wordsmithing, this is adding to.

Um so I would suggest that uh it's a key point and a very real limitation that um you know people just don't simply think about.

And um uh in in the transportation section, it's um you know you could be saying it just helps explain the problem.

Yeah, uh but I think you're taking away the point, Councilor Rogers that counselor Lemon was making.

However, so uh the motion is on the table to add to uh 5.0.

All those in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Go ahead, Councilor Rogers.

Pardon me. Um page 55515D amendment or heritage, archaeological or cultural assets uh that may be significant to the town, Songhees, or the Kersapson Nation, etc.

etc.

So it's um it's just adding to the town.

Yeah, to the town.

Okay, uh, I'll second that.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Anything not opposed.

Motion carries.

Council Matson.

I think we're getting way too nitty-gritty for this.

We're getting way too nitty-gritty.

It's not gonna make any difference to anyone.

You just if if they are significant, I agree that it is arduous, but I also know that all bylaws have to be aligned with the OCP.

So if everybody is a hundred percent happy with what is in the OCP and wishes to move ahead, then you can suggest that um you're happy with the current wording in the OCP.

Somebody could make that motion.

And uh Councillor Rogers uh could go through and see if there was another um uh avenue he would like to take in making changes to make it more general.

And if I may, you know, the this is with respect to uh land use and development and um um our heritage archaeological aspects are not only important, obviously very important to the first nations, but they're also important that we have to consider that with the town's own situation.

So it uh it it's but otherwise, so it's a nuance and an important aspect that is silent, and you cannot leave that silent because it's supported elsewhere in the OCP.

Uh agree with that.

I think Councillor Mattson may have another motion.

Let's deal with yours first, and uh do we have a seconder to add the town to the town for this one?

Do we have a seconder?

Not seeing a seconder, Counselor Rogers.

So that doesn't go anywhere.

Counselor Matson, you had a comment that needs to be a motion.

I mean, just oh sorry.

I'm just asking John to focus on things that he thinks are really important as opposed to just wordsmithing.

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah. Um I I respectfully disagree.

This is not wordsmithing.

Uh this is capturing a key element that um uh you know without it, we don't understand.

Um and when construction or something uh comes along to destroy um heritage aspects um of the town, um we have to I don't think he's just talking about heritage, he's talking about the rest of your um submissions.

Okay. Yeah, yes, motion passed.

Anyway, moving to page 56.

Okay, hang on a second, counselor Matson, did you want to put that in a motion? Sure.

Okay. What's the motion?

The motion is he thinks you're wordsmithing too much, and if you had higher level general comments for the OCP, he'd be happy to support.

But it's your words, Counselor Mattson.

And Counselor Lemon is seconding um all right so i think where is there anything counselor rogers before we go further that you would want to pull out as more general comments for staff or anything that is absolutely critical you want me to pull out specifically well anything that you I think the comment was is that we're getting into the weeds and they're we're really losing the value of meaning.

Okay when we get there I'll tell you to ignore it.

I think they're willing to do it now is the sweats on the floor.

Well uh so we gotta we've got a mover and a seconder um uh uh about uh being too word smithing um and perhaps that could go two ways for for general and their interpretive so all those in favor of um counselor mattson and counselor lemon's motion on um word smithing and if there were more general comments that would that would be entertained all those in favor any opposed and counselor rogers obviously is opposed so counselor rogers if there's general stuff that you wanted to bring up that we could refer to staff or if there is a glowing error that you've been keen to actually address but for the remainder of these I don't think council is seeing value in making the your recommended changes as it really doesn't um alter the um the meaning of the OCP.

Okay so um let me test you on this one can we go to page 56 okay that's the then the motion by council yeah council rogers I know so if you have a poll something specific now that out of that that isn't perhaps as wordsmithing but is a uh black and white kind of error then go ahead okay page 56 Jay 568j um is missing and an important aspect of um uh an important criteria that you know in terms of reviewing um new forms of housing and the density is proposed safe egress in and out of road traffic so we've got access to transportation options but this could be in and out of highway and and uh unsafe so you know safe egress in our traffic I think is a point that uh should be uh noted in J unless you consider it a given I think that's what council's saying that's the we're saying that those things are given I think we've gone through uh enough of these counselor rogers that some of them, uh some of your initial ones had some uh definite merit.

Um, but uh props that is okay.

That is the limit.

And uh this isn't the only, this is not the only uh opportunity we'll get to provide feedback from staff as well.

We'll have the council the whole if there's something, but probably uh the takeaway for council is the level of detail that you've been diving into probably won't be supported as much for a change that you're gonna have to have councils uh support.

I'll I'll take that chance one by one.

Okay, so so to be clear, the council just went through and said that that's it for the remainder of your submissions for this evening.

So I will be happy then to make notice of motions on all the rest of them.

Sure. We can you you're fully within your power, but I'd uh just caution you that you may not be supported if council um figures that the level of detail you're diving into is not gonna affect the end state of the OCP.

Um so uh does anybody have anything more on the uh official community plan review and update that has not been captured this evening or in the draft motions by council that were held on the 31st.

And just checking with you, counselor Lemon, for the draft motions for the OCP advisory committee meeting.

I think they were captured in our recommendations to council, both by um you and myself.

Um the second motion was counseled by um uh a visual representation.

Uh that was the first one on our one, and it's the second one from the OCP advisory uh committee.

And the other one was affordable housing policy that was uh captured with uh clear targets and included within the OCP, and that is I think the second one there.

And there's also the third one.

So I think we've captured everything that the OCP committee you recall.

Uh where do we capture uh the presentation around um supportive housing for people of various abilities?

Yeah, I think that was uh on the first page of our draft motions from council meeting on the 31st.

Number two, number two, and I think number three as well.

And I think it was pretty much for rebatum for number two that it captures.

Okay. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm just I'm I'm not seeing the um that was in their um the SCP advisory recommendations.

So that's pretty much verbatim for the one that we're gonna have here.

Great. I'm happy. Thank you.

So anybody else with comments?

Council Rogers. Yes, thank you. Um I would like to uh move on page 93 the removal of Shakespeare. 93.

Okay. Uh understand.

So uh 60 632A is uh continue to uh consider opportunities to facilitate and increase housing supply by expediting development approval and permitting process through the delegation of authority from council to staff where appropriate, such as authority to issue development permits and minor development variants permits as specified in the local government act.

Uh do you have a seconder, Councilor Rogers?

May I speak to it?

Counselor Matson is uh seconding. Go ahead, Council Rogers.

Okay. No, I'd I'd okay.

Speaking to the motion, um uh this is where um the delegation of authority from council to staff.

Um I I think it's um uh uh staff or council should retain um its um its authority uh where um to issue development permits even in a minor basis since we have it that oversight, I think a critical oversight and connection to the community um and um so that's my motion thank you council matters yeah i'm happy with the uh amount of delegation we've done to staff at this point we don't have huge agendas where we don't have opportunities to speak on items so i will support this motion okay anybody else want to speak to it i don't think this is appropriate for putting in the ocp of a future thing that I think needs to come the council separately especially for delegation of powers I don't think that's appropriate for an OCP at all um to be honest with you and I think that that shouldn't be allowed in the OCP and I'm not sure who stuck it in there but uh I'm in support of you counselor Rogers all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries anybody else my turn again go ahead thank you I'd like to remove 632 F um the uh promote ground four what page is it 63?

um oh sorry page 93 same page yeah 632 F okay so promote ground level uh residential through expanding the zoning permissions enhancing the flexibility and so in other words um we're and and also enhancing the flexibility with development regulations.

My concern is that uh this is uh enabling greater density, grading building height, greater lock coverage than uh what's already been identified in the OCP.

So we would you councillor Rogers.

Uh is there a second second?

Seconded by Councillor Mattson.

Your turn to motivate Council Rogers?

Um yes, we've already established um FSRs and Heights and so forth.

And um uh whether or not we want to promote, I think if a developer comes and makes a pitch, that's one thing, but I don't think we should be um uh promoting this.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Councilor Mattson?

Good point. Okay.

Uh anybody else?

All those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Anyone else? She's gone already.

She is gone already.

Okay.

Uh go ahead, Councilor Rogers.

Yeah. Um 94. Okay, page 94.

Um, this is 633 F2.

I think I got that right, yes.

Okay. Advocating to senior governments.

Are we all good there?

Yeah. Okay. So advocating senior governments to review taxation uh related barriers, disincentives, and establish programs to promote and facilitate development of market rental units.

I do not think that um, you know, it's it's our job to, you know, yeah, if we want to do this, then we would all be that through the OCUBCM.

But to have it in an OCP, I I disagree.

Agreed. Um Leanne, is this something that staff generated or is the consultant generated?

This seems like um like really pushing density policy within an OCP that I don't think it was council's intent.

So through the mayor, this particular policy has to do with um, I guess incentivizing affordable and rental housing in in the community.

This is market housing though.

Market rental housing.

Market rental housing, not affordable housing.

Well this is uh this is the section is under section six point three point three, which is affordable and rental housing.

So um that's that's what the policy is is stating.

Um yeah okay, thank you.

Uh got a mover, seconder all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed motion carries uh for the removal of that.

Uh council Rogers?

Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm I'm my cross is moving just a sec. If anyone else has anything while I get orientated.

Oh yeah. Okay. I have one.

Uh on the same page G four.

We've been or reducing application fees, amenity cost charges, community amenity contributions, development cost charges, and other than separate fees.

Second.

Motivation. I just have a problem with this, especially on those things where we're not getting any funding for removing various costs.

So if there's ongoing costs that we're not or taxes we're not going to be getting, we should get at least get the payment up front for the services that we're going to be providing the residences.

So if I can as a secondary motivate, uh okay.

So the um this is a good example is um uh where in um gosh 2018 um staff and developers uh promoting um with um uh members of council uh to waive 900,000 dollars in DCCs for the Theus Lake development.

900,000. And um at this moment now we have policy where that um we are um uh constantly adding what 1%, 2% to increase our reserves.

So if we are going to not be using the way um uh DCCs, then there will be more requirement to increase our reserves because that's what's is going to put in the drainage and and the DCCs are where staff have identified uh programs and and uh reasonable development cost charges that um the minispa uh the government uh endorses.

So no, it's um it's unreasonable to do this.

Um waiving these fees means it the taxpayer has to pay more.

Uh if you guys were happy with it, I'd like to remove all of G.

All of G?

Sure.

Yeah, it's not just that one.

We just got finished um discussing parking.

Um and I think there are things that we can do, do not get me wrong, but I think to specify it out in a way like this is again that's too much.

Uh you're you are creating a policy by writing this.

Right. And I don't so um yeah, anyway.

Um all those in favor of removal of G.

Any opposed. Um over to you, I think, Councilor Rogers.

Okay. Um page 101.

Uh uh number 73.

Um this is the more um motive hierarchy.

And um I I would like to propose that um uh the first um priority is uh economic and safety backbone.

Now at the moment it's number five, economic backbone, but it should be economic and safety backbone, which is commercial delivery services, fire protection, fire police, and ambulance.

That is the number one um modal uh use of of our roads.

Number two would be transit.

Number three would be foundation access, four, cycling, five, efficient shared uh vehicles, and number six, um private.

So the reorganization of all of these, putting emergency vehicles and um and um commercial vehicles and so forth, um as number one.

I'm not going to dispute the logic.

This is uh on page um on page six of my notes.

Yeah, let's say you're seven three uh uh page uh one oh one. Is there a seconder?

Okay, sorry, yeah.

Go ahead, Strength.

You're the mayor, just uh point of clarity for this.

So a policy like this would support uh other policies in the uh transportation master plan.

So if council was to uh make this change, um the direction that t the TMP would take would be based on a policy such as this.

This would also I think contradict what's already been established in the actor transportation plan.

So just something for council to consider when making changes like this.

Yeah, uh understood uh Sterling.

Um I think we need a seconder, Counselor Rogers, for you before we advance.

Is there a seconder for Council Rogers motion?

Not seeing one, so Councillor Rogers, we were not going to advance it because you don't have a seconder.

So um next one.

So council moved this motion a while ago because uh we are aware that um uh they are um uh widening the Gallop and Goose for the third third lane pedestrian protection and um but they did not take it out to Helmaken.

They didn't take it to the hospital, they didn't take it to um the transit uh oriented zone where it's not just gonna be transit, it's gonna be also the uh the trail and one of the critical aspects of of our regional trails is the lack of pedestrian um safety.

So we've always got to be.

So I think that is actually well it is.

Okay. Um page 105, uh map five.

Um again just as a um but I suppose this would be the transportation master plan, but um I would uh ask on map five that we also add bus stops identify bus stops on map five.

It's a pedestrian map.

Okay, point made.

Next one. Yeah.

Um page 101 G, or sorry, 110 G.

Okay, community infrastructure, I think.

Right, right. Uh we do.

But um I would um also add um in part in parking rides, we have uh the Colewood park and ride has EV stations, but we do not in ours.

I think we're hitting a level of detail we don't need to go to considering our other motion.

All right, fair enough.

So in the strengthening um the local economy, um I'm not sure where give me a site page.

Oh sorry, um page one twenty-two, 9.3 policies, 931 strengthening local economy.

No, we speak of collaboration with uh West Shore Chamber of Commerce.

I would like to have somewhere here a collaboration with Destination Greater Victoria for our tourism.

That's the motion.

Leanne, are we not part of both chambers of commerce, both the Victoria Chamber of Commerce and the West Shore Chamber of Commerce?

I believe we are.

Yeah, well both both chambers.

Yeah.

Victoria Chamber and uh and uh West Shore if I recall.

Yeah, yeah.

And we're not paying for those memberships.

I think they're complimentary coming from municipality.

But you're you're suggesting uh maybe add um Victoria Chamber of Commerce as well as destination pay to report.

You gonna second or I'll say yeah uh council matts and second all those in favor.

Any opposed thing non opposed motion carries next.

Thank you 133 um 133.

Um again somewhere in this um add educate and promote the migratory bird sanctuary in um inlet and streams.

So in 1922 there was a migratory bird sanctuary and um that's uh to protect and uh portage park uh no sorry um portage inlet um and uh colwood uh crapeflower and hospital creek those are all uh estuaries so we should be educating and promoting the migratory bird sanctuary is there a sanctuary on a map now council rogers uh there is signage but i'm not sure if we have a lot of it uh certainly this level of detail would be better addressed in the parks master plan okay and uh it show it actually mentions uh migratory rare and endangered species and species at risk shown on map 12 i'm gonna say we're into a level of weeds right now we can yeah that we probably don't need to be counselor rogers we already do make mentions of what's your next one 145 uh let's see i said yes 145 f so um this is uh emphasizing aspects of historical and cultural significance and uh view all parks um i would add um um but somewhere we're not identifying and um identifying our own historical and cultural aspects in the viewpoint again we're we're not acknowledging i it's great with the first nations but we're not acknowledging and exemplifying our own historical and cultural significance why do we exist as a town because we don't isn't that redundant it's our OCP well no no it it because it you know I unless you um unless you say it you don't do it I don't agree with Councilor Rogers though wording is awkward there emphasize access aspects of historical and cultural significance in view royal parks through collaboration with the song he's and Cassapsum nations and I was saying through the collaboration with our own archives uh so I think we're this could be a comma fix view royal parks um uh as well as through collab collaboration um with song he's in the squamous so stuff that is view royal history um can be that and then things that have joint historical rationale could be something else staff did that make sense so right after uh uh uh right after view royal uh uh parks and then comma as well as through collaboration with the song he's and Cassap nations it is wordsmithing but it gives it an entirely different meeting.

So we have our own history, we have shared history, we have collaborative history um I'll second that if it's not already all those in favor any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion curious.

Go ahead, John.

Okay. Yeah, okay.

145. Okay. So 145 recreation C.

And I don't know if we want to, you know, we've identified it already here as a as a policy, but um uh and we talk of collaboration.

Uh collaborate with CFB Esquamo regarding uh signage for safe boating in Esquamwood Harbor Um and safe boating in Esquamwood Harbor.

I'll speak to that if there's a second there.

No, it's not. You haven't this is completely, you know, um it's it's a different policy that we need to uh recognize.

If I have a second or I can explain.

Thank you. Um so CFB Esqualmouth has um um I work with the Victoria Waterway Sloop, and um they're very concerned that uh uh boaters, um visitors and local boaters um uh do not phone ahead.

They must phone ahead when they're boating in the Esquamwood Harbor.

And um uh this is a collaboration point uh that I think is in courtesy and uh also with safety uh and courtesy with CFB Esquamold um and uh and ensure that um um obligations to stay away from um uh 200 meters from the sh from the shore and moving vessels.

So though that's that's the collaboration that I think is critically important that we're um and it's a necessary balance with for the recreation aspect.

Okay, so you just want them to um collaborate with the squamult on proper notific notice signage if you like.

Uh with the harbor master.

With the harbor master.

Yeah. And Councillor Brown, you've already seconded.

Yeah, I mean being a Navy guy for a long period of time, you go to force protection for somebody who's out uh fishing crabs all the time.

So all those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing non opposed, motion carries.

Back to you, John.

Yep, thank you.

149. Uh so this would be in uh 13.3 policies, uh 133.1 built natural cultural heritage.

Um work um policy work with the CRD and Westore municipalities to fund design and build a uh West Shore Arts Cultural Performance Center.

That's a lemon, are you seconding? Well, yeah, now it's uh seconding is probably a good thing.

Okay, I'll second.

Uh so you just want the addition of like 13.28 to get crunchy about um about supporting a West Shore Arts Center, correct?

Yeah. So that would be a new 13.28.

Uh so show support um through continued advocacy for a west shore performing arts Facility in the West Shore.

I don't think we need to get specific about how when.

Council Lemon? That was a motion last week.

Okay.

Yeah.

Uh-huh. And it wasn't specific to it didn't mention the CRD, just uh referenced a performing arts center and um supporting the arts and culture.

Okay. And the um uh the Western Gateway employment area.

Well I don't see us.

No, but we can add it there.

So yeah, uh, let's entertain that.

You were already the seconder, so we can go ahead and add it now.

Uh Councillor Lemon.

I don't see it either.

Yeah, I would I've I sure sure.

I I think we were uh in fact I made the motion last week.

Where's my motion?

Um I had my notes, but it was specific to um the Atkins area and an performing arts center and a oh right, yeah, a um and meeting spaces, meeting spaces.

Right. So that got missed out in the motions.

Um did we're saying thank you. Yeah, okay, good.

Thank you. Oh, that's already included, John. Next one.

Okay.

Yeah.

So, you know, I think I don't know where we we probably put that into the Western Gateway section, if I'm not mistaken.

No, there's no specification. I mean, that's where the intent is that it would go, but I don't think we yeah.

And so, you know, I think to um to balance that off is you know, we've identified the location, but are we gonna do it?

So, you know, enhance to include what um what my motion is to be able to work with the CRD, work with the West West Shore municipalities uh to fund design and build it.

Unless of course we want to do it ourselves.

Yeah. Um if if I may um the intermunicipal committee um on this particular file, um everyone is looking for a venue.

And uh, you know, uh I am promoting hard for um our strip there for for a site on that strip.

Um but it's I I'm afraid that if we put it into an if we're specific for Bureau putting it into the OC OCP, it could, you know, Langford could come up with the space or Calwood could come up with space because it's it's a project for all all municipalities of the West.

Okay.

True enough.

So we've we want it, but I I think we need to be more general. Okay.

This I think this is also guidance to um uh to future councils as this OCP goes on in the next 30 years.

You know, the um uh we've identified the location.

This is specific to the um built facilities and and um arts component that we uh we you know do work with the CRD and the West Shore municipalities to fund design and build.

So it this is not a repeat.

This is a um um a whole different nuance.

Well, I think yours is more general, Councilor Lemon.

Yours is the Western Gateway is so it doesn't speak to an arts thing at all.

So we could we could go with Councilor Rogers' suggests, but I don't think it has to all as well has to be so prescriptive.

We're we're already part of CRD.

They've already um are voting on a uh uh the arts service that will encompass everybody paying into supporting the current facilities plus in the future this additional one.

So I don't think we have to be so prescriptive, but uh except to say um Vie Royal will continue to advocate for uh West Shore arts and recreation facility um in the Western communities.

Something just as simple as that.

It could be that way too. Yeah.

Okay. Does that work?

All right. Allah they get did you get that?

Or hopefully they can get that from the uh video because I can't remember what I said.

Um and so yeah, so if that's a friendly amendment, Councilor Rogers, Councilor Lemon, uh initial movement uh motion, all those in favor.

Any opposed? None opposed, much curious.

Go ahead, John.

Thank you. Um page 137.

Oh, sorry, yeah, I have to go up.

137. No, no, it's okay.

Okay, 137. Um, you know, as we have um, you know, tables and stuff uh elsewhere in the OCP, I think it's very important um to um uh for us to add the table of the motion this motion to add the table if you will um produce to uh commit um reducing the various types of GHG gas sources by 2050.

So it it showed um the various components and how we were going to reduce those various components by 250 and does that already exist that graph that you have a graph or do you remember where uh where it's from it's staff have it.

Is it uh climate uh it was in the climate action climate action?

Okay, to include the climate action graph on what specifically um and it was the uh illustrative view's um commitment to um address GHC reductions.

Okay, GHG reductions to include that into 11.2 correct?

Yeah, do you have a second or councillor Mattson seconds?

Thank you. Um so this already exists, it just needs to be slid in there.

Okay. Dan, is that an issue?

Um through the mayor, I'm I'm not sure.

I don't know if we have this information, so we'll have to go back and have a look.

And if we have it, we'll provide it.

If we don't, then we won't be providing it.

Okay. We know what it is.

Yeah, uh all those in favor. Any opposed? Seeing none opposed? Most carriers. Go ahead, Tom.

Okay, so um a motion is um in the housing component.

Um it uh specifically states that we will um um uh continue uh to um pay towards the regional housing trust fund.

Um I would move that um uh we have the equivalent wording that uh we would continue to pay into the regional um arts um trust fundamental already do that but you know you see that we already do that but you see that there the staff have identified the the specific things that we do the regional housing trust fund we do pay into that but it's now ingrained into the OCP There's two different things the regional housing service is something that we pay for through requisition that I do not believe is voluntary don't we waive don't we pay um we also pay ACCs to that as well that counts the price back on the dishes so those are two separate but we also pay towards the um regional parks acquisition fund right that goes into the parks fund generally right yes so my my point is that if we're going to um enshrine in the OCP what um things we pay into to the CRD we should not just limit it to the regional housing trust fund but the park acquisition fund you know and what yeah I think that that's too many weeds child too many weeds way too many weeds pardon me way too many weeds it's consistent yeah, okay, so we will have to delete the first one out because that's really I move delete the first one.

We really too many weeds.

Council Rogers.

I move that we're going to be able to do that.

You starting to lose counsel council, Council Rogers.

It's yeah. You're starting to lose them.

So big ones that aren't wordsmithing.

No, the consistency is is really important.

Okay, page 153.

Okay, so this is on food security.

Um and uh this is a new motion.

Uh recognize the value of our agricultural assets.

Um, for example, Pollock's uh farm and the well-inherited orchard and give opportunities to young farmers on our ALR lands to secure um to strengthen food security.

We do. I'll think.

Yeah.

Well, you know, there is there is the private land of um of Pollock's farm, but um you know that that's that's ALR.

It's maybe in private, but it's ALR.

Little Road is ALR.

So I think we're introducing new stuff.

I'd be happy with welling orchard, to be honest with you, but I think we're adding new stuff to the OCP here.

Yeah, with that whole intent.

This is uh Yeah, without having a a really good discussion or a staff report or anything like that.

So I'm not quite willing to go.

I'd be willing to go with welling orchard.

Um, but we like there's a couple of places with ALR.

One of them is little road that we kind of purchased as a park.

So what you're suggesting is we throw that idea out and we get young farmers in there for little road.

And I don't think that's a whole other separate council meeting discussion staff reports, Council Rogers.

I would amend a motion to recognize the value of agricultural assets and give opportunities to young farmers on ALR lands.

Sure, if you get a secondary, but we don't have any ALR lands except uh I making little rope one park. Yep.

So uh it's in the ALR.

Okay. Do you have a second?

I'm going to. If I uh it if I may, whether I may or not, um there were several um outings five years ago.

So you're your second, or we're gonna motivate, so we'll go back to him first and back to you.

Yeah. Okay. So uh you're the gonna be the second or councilor Rogers, your opportunity to motivate.

Again, um just with food security and uh the key aspects of food security is uh to um you know recognize the value of our agricultural assets and encourage young farmers um to strengthen you know to yeah to learn the trade.

So it's um I think if we have opportunities like yes.

Um I'm just gonna chime in for a second, and the CRD has a service right now that is doing the exact same thing.

Yes. Right.

So uh I I'm not gonna be in favor of it because if we had lots of ALR, that'd be a great idea, and I would fully support.

We've got one two-acre or less.

Uh the highest density population in View Royal that deserves a park.

That's probably why it was picked up, and that was the intent of council of the day.

I don't know, I wasn't there.

You guys were, but I would assume that um some place to walk your dog or um have your kids play like you guys in the harbor district have access to Portage Park, and we've got a small little linear park uh by the highway that's really busy and loud.

We've got a small little one uh by the uh place where they cut all the trees down.

Uh what's that place called?

Little Road Park, or does the linear park by uh and that's it?

And there's the other one that nobody can find in behind um Erskine Lane, right?

So uh so I'm not I'm not gonna be supportive of this.

I think it's a great idea, and I supported it in CRD, but we just do not have the property to do that here.

Game park, yeah, that's one.

So uh gonna move in a second, or anybody else would like to speak to it?

I can't support the motion. We have yet to have that discussion on what we want to do with that piece of property.

Okay, uh all those in favor of uh the motion for food security, all those opposed.

And if you want to buy some ALR and give it to this council rogers, it'd be more than happy to support.

Tell the farmers that any more, Councilor Roger, yes, please.

Um, so um in um on page um 150 13 3 policies, um item H.

Okay. So this is encouraged opportunities for First Nations art to be included in the design and construction of new development.

I agree, but um I would also um opportunities for local artists and First Nations Is it weeds again you you're being you're being the if it is being you know very prescriptive okay one five five okay um you know we got the um um SS how uh to align uh see just say hang a second so one fourteen three two says align municipality uh municipal policies with undrip and um I don't know what that means I don't know what the implications are.

I don't know what the costs are, I don't know what how um and likewise how this aligns with ongoing treaty negotiations.

I don't understand the tax implications.

So um, you know, this is the the policies um are admirable, but you know, when we're supporting these these business initiatives in economic issues, is that means is that throughout the town.

And what's the do we have any um tax ability to uh get taxes?

What what does what are the what's the fine print on what we're doing here?

What we're embedding into the OCP.

Leanne, uh the consultant prepared most of this that seems to be pretty cookie cutter for uh is that correct?

Uh mayor, are we referring to uh 1432A on page 155?

Yeah, so that was um actually in the original project scope for this project that was endorsed by council.

And so this comes right from that.

Yeah, I'm I'm happy for the Yeah, so I so that's where it came, that's where it came from.

I'm answering that question where it came from, and that's where it came from.

Um and uh yeah, so I I yeah, I'm not quite sure what else to add.

Yeah, I think all of the questions that you're asking for are things that would be uh that would be specific actions that would come out of this, Counselor Rogers.

I don't think that the uh declaration of rights and indigenous people act uh or uh UNDRIP are really implications for cost or anything like that to this point, or land rights or any of those other things.

It's simply the way we talk to each other and uh and uh understand each other.

Yeah, and and I guess um, you know, the the objectives that there's on on um 14.2 and so forth, it it's um I understand building and recognizing however um you know the the the actual implications uh for the taxpayers have um haven't that has not been identified in in this these actions here I think the anything with the tax implication would be a separate act of counsel each thing by by the adopting these words here it doesn't have any implications on tax or implications on the town's uh sovereignties we're going to be thoughtful and inclusive of um a squamous nation when we set policy so uh so specifically um you would like to see a what removed well so it at this point counselor rogers there's gotta be an add a delete there's not debate until you what what do you want here if I okay um if I don't understand it so this this is not an exercise of understanding yeah this is an exercise of add delete modify why don't you just delete I I'd vote to delete a I don't know what it means and what the implications are and which delete which a 1432a align our municipal policies with the unrupt but you know, each each one of those other things um also have uh I think implications to um um you know like um respect uh I don't know what respect indigenous data governance already including uh principles of ownership control access.

I don't understand that. What does that mean? What is the workload in this?

Absolutely nothing unless we're going to use their data that they own.

So it's just data.

Yeah.

Uh on indigenous data governance, not our data governance.

But if we went to ask or did uh uh any surveys for indigenous property or people, then their data sovereignty would mean that they own that data.

We don't own it and can do whatever we want with that data.

So all of these things are pretty much commonplace at a provincial level right now for understanding and uh working with First Nations, and I have no problems leaving them in there for now.

And if you read through UNDRIP, you're gonna be seeing that there's unless you break that off and there's something separate that comes out with policy or uh something else, then there's nothing in there.

And let's face it, folks, sorry if you're not uh you haven't had the course yet, but UNDRIP is not new.

It's not yesterday.

And and uh and the same as the uh rights of indigenous peoples act.

So I I don't know what the concern is here.

There is nothing that that says tax implications.

There's nothing that says property revision rights or anything there.

So I I don't know where your concern is.

I guess part of it is tell you what my concerns are.

Sure. I don't want to be aligning having staff align our policies with UNRIP.

Okay, so that that's your That's my motion.

So I'd like to remove A.

That's a second.

Okay.

Your motivation?

I have no idea what's involved, how much staff time is going to take, what the policies are, what the implications would be for us aligning this, it changing our policies to align with unrip.

So it's just too many unknowns for me to support.

Could be a great thing, but I have no idea if it is or isn't and what the implications are.

Understood? Uh Council Rogers.

Yeah, similar. And um I hear day to day constantly that staff um have so much on their plate uh that we can't ask for um um, you know, you know, town in town initiatives.

Um I mean to to put in a dog park goes way off into 2030.

Stay focused. I'm I'm just saying that you know things are um, you know, this has greater um uh uh I think um yeah implications and and uh and workload um than uh what residents would want day to day.

I think we're redirecting staff initi efforts.

Okay, uh we've got a mover and a seconder. Any other comments? Although so go ahead, Council McKenzie.

Oh um, I I think it's important that we have this in here as kind of as the mayor was saying, it's the it's really the bare minimum that a government can do if we want to establish um stronger relationships with our neighbors and work to reconciliation really undrip is again the minimum um that we can we can do and we have a whole section that kind of outlines the the themes in here as well um for those who aren't familiar with it so um I'm voting against the the motion to remove it I if we if we'll just let's go with other any other comments you've already spoken for it any other comments uh councilor yeah I think if if um strengthening relationships with our neighbors is a priority we need to leave this in thank you um yeah I'm not gonna support it either because I think uh really for too long it's it's taken me three and a half years to build level of trust I can go to a squamalt nation and actually have discussions we have not had good relationships with either so um I I think this is to counselor lemon's point this is the bare entry minimum by having this in our OCP and acknowledging both on DRIP and the rights to uh Indigenous Peoples Act.

I think that's the bare minimum to to acknowledge it's not the bare minimum throughout the OCP um you know it's um in terms of um art heritage naming um you know staff have constantly given um um I think preferential treatment to uh to um you know the the first nations aspects introducing um those things into into the town and ignoring um local artists and local heritage and and so forth it's um you know that i i do worry about the the direction yeah all those in favor of removing a of 14 point three point two uh page one fifty five all those in favor all those opposed and noting that councillor makenzie uh myself councilor lemon and counselor brown were posed motion does not carry next um yeah last um there are i i'm disappointed that we're not um uh going through the other aspects of um that i've identified spent long hours with this but um one last request is that staff provide a definition uh in the gloss here terms for bike facilities the term is is throughout the OCP I don't know what it means I'm sure many other people don't do you have a seconder you don't want an operational definition no I want a seconder yeah so are you seconding okay uh I'm gonna second Councilor Rogers because I'm curious too it's not a bike rack if that's what they mean then we should uh actually put that the glossary somewhere.

I think bike f my guess is bike facilities suggest in transportation, you know, various facilities, barricades, concrete, whatever.

Place their fix.

Yes. What does it mean?

Yeah. Yeah. Uh so uh mover second or yeah I think we should be crispy with our definitions if we're going to mention it that many times a voted.

But that's my thought.

Uh all those in favor Counselor Rogers' last motion celebratory.

Any opposed being not opposed motion carries if no one was opposed why didn't anyone second I did second I know okay so I think that brings us to correspondence.

We've got uh some recommendation that we refer to staff for a report for uh no uh let's refer to staff for a report because this is gonna have to generate a letter so moved um uh moved seconded to refer to a report uh seconded by council McKenzie all those in favor comments yeah I mean as the RCMP said putting in sheltered housing just means we're gonna have a a lot more issues and I don't know if we have spots in view role I don't know what why we'd want to get staff to start writing a report okay no to uh go ahead counselor rogers you know um I think staff can identify uh the potential, but I also would hope that when they identify the potential, they would be identifying the pros and cons uh and the uh cost implications of um of uh such uh possible sites and the neighborhood implications.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers. Council McKinsey.

Yes, I think it's uh so that we can when asked by our other municipalities what what we've done, where could it be, etc.

At least a report could support our answer in terms of if we don't have space or areas for it, um at least we've looked into it as opposed to not looking into it.

So um for that reason I yeah, yeah.

Thank you for comments.

Anything else? Uh mover, I think a seconder, all those in favor of referring to staff for report.

Any opposed? Counselor Mattson's opposed, noted.

And uh I think that brings us to a consent agenda.

Happy if somebody wants to move and block.

Second move by Councillor Mattson, seconded by counselor uh Lemon.

Although did anybody want to pull anything out?

10 E. Yeah, yeah.

So we'll pull 10 E out.

So we're gonna move A to D.

Uh all those in favor.

Any opposed? Uh motion carries.

Uh go ahead, Councilor Brown.

Yeah, it's just uh won't get too big long uh talk about this we might I support the youth as my portfolio.

Um I thought that checked with the have a I I thought Martinford already approved the funding for three years, but uh I checked on AI.

It says they haven't approved I thought they approved it for three years that position.

That's what I thought.

I'd have to confirm that with the counselors I know.

And really, even if they have and they're looking for a dollar per year for resident, I would feel like a real cheapskate.

Now I'll it's probably beyond budget discussions this year, but I wonder, and I'll I'll ask Steve about this.

If it's something that they could bring up with grants and aid, would that be appropriate or not?

I I'm gonna um they specifically said they didn't want grant and aid, right?

But uh I did correspond with Steve and he suggested that one of the avenues maybe we could use the grant and aid fund, right?

That money that's associated with grant and aid, it would reduce from the amount that we took out of it to and commit it for three years as they wanted.

So it wouldn't be a grant and aid process, but it would come out of the grant and aid fund.

However, I don't think we have a motion, Steve, right now on the floor to guide staff to provide that feedback for them.

Is that correct?

Correct. If council so wished, uh you could pass a resolution to include it in the 2026 budget.

Um in terms of the grant and aid fund, we're currently oversubscribed.

There's a report coming uh next week uh based on our budget.

Now grants and aid are funded from casino, so another alternative would be to still use casino funds in the same manner that we fund um the crossing guard uh when we pay school district 61 for that service.

Um so executing an MOU and then um passing a resolution to include it in the budget funded from casino would be a way to do it on its own and and apart from grant and need.

So I think that it would take some exploratory.

We can add that to the next agenda if that would make you happy.

Um, and then we could have maybe a bit of a staff report with that, uh, because that was uh something that we laid out.

Um happy for that, uh Councillor Rogers.

Did you have a couple?

Well, you know, you know, staff report is the um I think the uh the amounts they were asking was pretty substantial.

And um the and I believe the village initiative also uh has a branch downtown.

They do. Yeah. So it's um and they the which I understood and seemed like the downtown one was closer to our our youth than uh the West Shore.

So while they're making the application, they would it probably would be if we're gonna support it, support the downtown one where our youth have better means of getting to the that resource.

Yeah, Councillor Brown's actually been sitting on uh um the village initiative board for the past while I I think it's in Vic West, but I could be wrong.

But uh and I know Colwood uh the the counselors I've talked to are are certainly 100% supportive I know they're gonna put some money towards it.

I would feel like a real I know we're cheap and proud of it but I would feel like a real cheapskate if we didn't put a dollar.

They're looking for dollar per capita.

So the $1150 total per year.

It's about mental health and awareness for youth and there's a lot of cracks out there tons and to coordinate those services because sometimes there is services there but they aren't they aren't joined in any way.

And this would service the West Shore in uh including SUK I know it's out there a bit and where the person's physically located is not um etched in stone so um I think it's money uh money spent now is money saved later because um youth mental health is so important in in all of our communities so I think it's worth exploring whether we can find the funds either through grants and aid or um just in our budget.

Yeah I don't think we have all the information yet about it and I would like to defer this until we had a little more I know that they're asking for a dollar per resident but there's other questions that I have like so they want the coordinator for three years and then the coordinator's gonna go away or have we established a pattern of funding at that time that we're gonna continue funding.

No, I like the idea of a staff report and it's the same as any program you we don't know what's gonna happen three years from now the and I would expect it'd be successful to come back again for more funding.

Um same as any program.

Um it's moving in the right direction.

I I think it's very it'll be very helpful for the youth in the car community to get all the West Shore.

Um because it there isn't a lot there.

There isn't a lot there.

And uh they've got uh in fact the school board's kicking 15 grand already.

I know that. Uh District 62.

So uh I do sit on a committee.

There's a lot of people involved.

Um very supportive uh of this and and the necessity of it.

Counselor Matson.

Yeah, I mean, there's no end of things that the town can fund.

There's no end of good programs out there.

There's an issue of what we can afford, how do we prioritize what we've pay for, you know, what we fund and and whose responsibility is it?

Like, is it the town's responsibility to provide like there's a number of questions, like there's just no end to the services that we can be paying for.

And so I really have a problem with us picking particular ones without sort of having a lot of discussion and what we want to do and see how well they fit into the the town and how many of you royal kids are going to benefit from this.

I mean, I'd much rather pay funds for kids to go play over at Shoreline than this other service where they may or may not get services.

Just give you an example.

The foundry, for example, is uh dealing with youth.

Uh they do a lot of peer counseling, uh family counseling.

Um again it's not coordinated.

So um help e I know we're on but yeah there's also things in there that we pay for now that why do we pay for how about SEP?

What do we get from SIP?

So prosperity partners I mean give me a break.

Yeah I am on the board.

Yeah both of these things you're actually taking off that board and put someone else on then go they go to the meetings at War Street they don't even electronic you gotta find parking you gotta go there and we're gonna bring it back around counselor but there's lots of there's lots of things we find that would be in my mind a lot lower priority our youth is so important and there is a huge problem in youth mental health and again yeah and it's a coordinated procession however there is nobody coordinating it right now I think we need to have this discussion whenever um when it's earlier in the evening number one uh two when we have a little bit uh more information um so uh uh uh so what what are we gonna do with this I need a motion to uh table this to the next meeting that's what we need okay so you're making that motion?

Okay. Counselor lemon seconds.

All those in favor.

Tabling this to the next meeting uh okay uh motion passed.

Counselor matts and didn't support it.

Consideration of items moved.

That's what we did.

Question period.

Anybody want to ask Council a question?

Donna. Carl, we got any questions online?

I'm Mayor Tobias.

We have no questions on the board.

Can you make some up?

Um yes, uh, if one and a half chickens can lay one and a half eggs in one and a half minutes, how long does it take a monkey with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a pickle?

I love that. One and a half seconds.

Thank you. Can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Thanks, folks.