Council Meeting

Colleagues, hopefully we're ready to go.

I'll call the meeting, council meeting to order for Tuesday, June 16th, 2026.

How did it get to be June 16th already?

This is bewildering for me.

Starting off 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 the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

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

All members of the audience are expected to act like they're around family dinner, which depending on your family, uh maybe a little bit more ratty than we wind in here.

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

You may then give us the benefit of your views to provide comments virtually during the public participation period or to ask questions during the question period.

Scan the QR code or use the link in the live webcast stream screen on the town's website under live webcast.

Again, you will uh be asked to provide your name and your street name to begin comments.

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

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

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

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 or future access.

Can I get an approval of the agenda?

And that includes the blue sheet.

Um, and with that, would anyone want to remove anything out of the consent agenda?

Council Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

I'm just wondering if it'd be timely to with poll the number two OCP review and update final draft.

Sure. So for just for contextual updates if necessary.

Well, pull that.

Anyone else have anything else out of the consent agenda that they would like to pull to speak to?

Okay. Can I get somebody to move?

Second.

Move by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councilor McKenzie.

All those in favor.

Any opposing then oppose that carries?

And I think that brings us down to public participation period.

And we'll start in the room.

Would anybody like to address council on anything on the agenda at all?

Seeing no takers, uh Carl, do we have anything that was emailed in to us?

Mayor Tobias, we have no messages so far this evening.

Thank you, Carl.

And that will bring us back.

We are delighted to have uh most of the senior members of the fire department here.

So I'd welcome you to uh poll for your bylaws uh item A1 through four, I believe it is thank you, uh Mayor Tobias and members of council.

Tonight I'm here to present the council report on the Fire Safety Act implementation and fire protection bylaw updates.

The recommendation is that council receive the report titled Fire Safety Act Implementation and Fire Protection Bylaw Updates for Information.

And that Council give first, second, and third readings to fire protection and life safety bylaw number 954, 2026.

And that council give first, second, third readings to fees and charges bylaw 958, 2016.

Amendment bylaw number 1054, 2026, and that council give first, second, and third readings to municipal ticket information bylaw number 643, 2007, amendment bylaw number 1055, 2026, and that council give first, second, and third readings to addressing bylaw, addressing bylaw number 82520 or 2012, amendment bylaw 1170 2026.

The purpose of this report is to provide council with an overview of the province of British Columbia's Fire Safety Act and outline the operational governance, administrative and legal or legislative implications for the town of V Royal and View Royal Fire Rescue.

This report also seeks council's consideration on set of several bylaw amendments required to align the town's municipal bylaws with the new legislative framework.

On May 29th, 2024, the province of British Columbia brought the Fire Safety Act into force, replacing the former Fire Services Act.

The Fire Safety Act represents the most significant modernization of fire service legislation in British Columbia in decades and establishes a modern legislative framework governing fire service delivery, fire prevention, inspections, training standards, enforcement authorities, and public safety responsibilities throughout the province.

The new legislation was introduced to modernize fire safety regimulation, improve consistency across British Columbia, strengthen firefighter and public safety, and establish clear accountability for local authorities and fire departments.

Contained in the report in front of you is a comprehensive analysis.

I am prepared now to answer any questions that you may have.

A question. I mean, for you guys, you're you're a professional hull, but this must be a challenge for little we volunteer um departments in small communities, huh?

Good question. Through the chair, it's it's been a lot of work, but this new fire safety actually actually actually supports our department and streamlines our bylaws and and operations.

So it's gonna help us out.

I've got a question that I'll go to uh Council Rogers.

Uh there any uh aside from training, is that training already budgeted for?

Is there new training associated with it?

Is there a financial impact to that training?

Thank you. The question there's no financial impact to that.

This training is already well underway, and it's just a matter of maintaining that those training standards.

Great. Thank you. Council Rogers, please.

Yeah, um, so indeed, very uh very comprehensive and and long overdue, I reckon.

Um, so you don't uh anticipate any cost, any additional staff, any additional resources uh necessary to uh comply?

Because I did see one aspect an ongoing modernization repeated over and over and over again through the uh uh the plan.

Uh but surely that would take uh resources and time.

Yeah, thank you for the question.

Through the chair, there's no financial impact to these uh bringing in the modernization of the new fire safety act.

Thank you. So that's that's great.

Uh does it have any impact on our uh mutual aid or support uh contracts with the First Nations?

Another great question through the chair.

It does not, they follow our current bylaws, and um we provide the same service to the nations as we do is the uh the town of B Royal, so no.

Thank you. Another question.

I'm surprised that well, maybe with um the whole controversy and and concern about uh EV batteries uh you know going into flash over and creating uh significant fire, is that all wrapped up in hazardous materials?

Through the chair, um if you could just clarify that question. Yeah, sure.

So um we have um uh you know rechargeable batteries in apartment buildings and condos, and suddenly they uh they for some reason burn up and creating an intense fire, lithium fire.

Um so lose if that were to happen in any even uh an EV vehicle in in the basement um or in the parking, uh is that um covered in the hazardous material section of this uh legislation?

Yeah, through the chair, I don't I don't think it is.

I where we're gonna pick up that is through our regular um inspection schedule or if there's been a fire through our fire investigation program.

If I may, one of the uh when I looked at uh the contracts of um um fees and and so forth, I was quite surprised that the fireworks permit is only a dollar.

Is that is that um is that something that we're gonna be able to do?

How is that dictated?

Um is that something we can have control of?

Yeah, thank you.

Through the chair.

I I could defer this question to the chief, but I I will try and answer it.

I think the reason why it is a dollar is because we were encouraging compliance on this.

So we wanted people to come and get a permit, and then therefore they had the training, it'd be a safer event.

That's why it's a dollar.

My last uh okay, good.

My last uh comment.

Um again, interesting in in the legislation that uh mutual aid costs um recovery would be uh borne by the owner of the building.

Through the chair, what section is that you're referring to?

Uh section 15 15.9.1.

Yeah, through the chair, maybe I will just defer this one to the chief for uh follow-up on this.

Thanks, Carl. One one more time, if you could, counselor, just uh the question again, sorry. Yeah, sure.

Um in in section 159.1, um, it talks of um if the fire department didn't have the particular equipment or personnel required to deal with an incident, the mutual aid services provided uh to the town, and the town would impose the cost of that on the owner of the property.

That's a pretty hefty charge.

It is. So there are provisions now in insurance policies where if the costs of suppressing a fire are beyond the capability of the local jurisdiction, then we can uh impose those costs onto the insurance company.

There are special riders and insurance policies now that'll cover that.

So for instance, it's a hazardous materials fire.

Say we have to we have to stay at a lithium car battery fire in a parkade for two days and it causes it it ruins all our gear, then we can we can invoice um either the owner through the insurance company to recover those costs.

So we don't bear those costs.

I see so through the insurance company. I see what you're saying. Yep. Okay, thank you.

Any more questions or comments?

No. Um can I get a mover and a receiver for the report itself, and then we'll go down the actual bylaws.

Move by counselor brown.

Second. Second by counselor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposing none opposed.

What I'd like to do if the mover and the seconder don't mind is keep the same mover and seconder for uh the fire protection and safety bylaw 954 2006.

Is there any comments or questions on that?

Okay, same mover and secondary.

All those in favor?

So would you I guess to support that moving second or on that particular bylaw? Correct.

Okay.

Uh so that that is uh and unless uh there's a requirement for motivation.

Uh so moved by counselor brown, seconded by counselor Lemon, uh by law to establish municipal fire and rescue service and to regulate fire protection and protection uh and control services.

So first to second reading.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries and uh fees and charges bylaw 958 2016 amendment bylaw number 1054 2026 with councillor Brown moving councillor lemon seconding it's a bylaw to amend fees and charges um pertaining to fire protection and life safety first to second reading.

All those in favor any opposed no uh just uh sorry you're correct.

First, second, and third reading.

You are correct.

Um so uh that changes anything, but let's just try it again.

All those in favor to first to third reading.

Any opposed? Seeing that opposed motion carries and municipal ticket information bylaw number six four three two thousand and seven, um by law 1055 2026, a bylaw to amend the municipal ticket information bylaw pertaining to fire protection and life safety, and that's first to third reading with councillor brown uh moving the motion and councillor lemon seconding those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries and I think there's one final bylaw, and that is associate uh addressing bylaw number eight five two two thousand twelve, a bylaw to amend the addressing bylaw in relation to displaying addresses.

Can you briefly describe why that change is occurring?

Yeah, thank you for the question. It was just consolidated into the 954 bylaw. So it was a redundant language in there.

And what will this mean to the average resident that they need to um adhere to?

Or is it for displaying addresses?

Is there any change for the average resident?

There isn't um change, but what it does is more descriptive in the type of lettering and the contrast of the lettering.

It just it gives further detail.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions on that bylaw in specific?

Councilor Brown and Council Lemon, you have to do move and second that one?

Okay. Uh if there's no other questions, all those in favor from first to third reading.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thanks, fire guys.

I guess we'll not see you again for another six months or something.

Is that what goes on?

Sid, can you see me?

Hear me? Thanks, gentlemen.

Hello, Sid. Uh, Counselor Matson, you've made it online, have you?

Oh, yeah, I just wanted to make sure I was there.

Yeah, you you're on and we can hear you.

Okay, thank you.

So uh I think that uh brings us down to Lian, your um uh one for adoption at zoning bylaw uh number 900 2014 amendment bylaw number 1172 2026 and uh just removing the underground provision, density bonus provision in the RM1 zone and renaming the low density provisions.

Can you give um uh council and the public a brief reminder of what that is because we're at adoption now, but it would help if you just kind of summarized uh why why this change is coming?

Um the uh under bill bill 16.

Um no, pardon me, I think it's uh bill 44.

Uh the province um is has mandated municipalities to remove density bonus provisions from their zoning bylaws.

We have one density bonus provision or zoning bylaw related to green roofs.

So we are um we have a bylaw in front of council this evening for adoption to repeal the green roof density bonus provision.

Um we're also uh removing the underground uh well we're renaming the underground uh density bonus provision in pardon me, we're removing the underground density bonus provision, the RM1 zone, because that density provision is not consistent with the OC the density that is supported in the OCP designations for the parcels that are designated are um that are within the RM1 zone, and uh those parcels have land use designations that don't um that don't support the underground density bonus provision in that zone.

So we're uh recommending removing that so that the zoning bylaw and the OCP are consistent and uh renaming the lot density provisions um because of these these changes.

So that uh this bylaw is up for final adoption this evening.

Thanks for the summary, Leanne and the refresher for us.

Any other questions for Leanne before we move to adoption?

Can I get a mover in secondary, please for adoption?

I'll move final.

Uh move by Councillor Lemon and seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed? I'm assuming you were uh you were voting on with it, uh Councilor Mattson.

I just couldn't see it. Correct.

Thank you.

Uh so that passes unanimously and uh brings me briefly to Mayor's report, which I skip most of the time, but I figured now that would be uh a good time to have a couple of words.

Um before us this evening, there's a number of agenda items that kind of look into the future, and uh I just wanted to spend some time reflecting on kind of where we've been.

Uh and Carl, I'm gonna quote the Canadian band Rush and Closer to the Heart as a fitting theme for many of the decisions before us tonight.

The song speaks to how the choices we make today shape the reality we inherit tomorrow.

Reminds us that leaders, artists, workers, and citizens all play a role in building communities we want to leave behind.

In 2001, View Royal entered a very different era.

The opening of the casino brought a significant new revenue to the municipality, and council made a decision to support regional arts and culture funding at a level comparable to communities with much higher uh populations, densities, and broader tax bases.

Other municipalities contributed less, and some chose not to participate at all.

Twive years later, our reality has changed.

Casino revenue revenues have declined, costs have increased, and councils are faced with balancing a growing number of competing priorities.

In that context, council uh supported a motion earlier this year to move View Royal from the first tier to a second tier of funding for uh arts and culture services for the Capitol Regional District.

That decision should not be confused with a lack of support of the arts.

Rather, it reflects the responsibility of every council to periodically review programs and services to ensure they continue to provide the value for money and remain aligned with the community priorities.

In fact, by my estimate, since 2001, View Royal taxpayers have invested approximately 1.5 million dollars in regional arts and culture programs.

View Royal has and is going to continue supporting the arts.

That's significant contribution, and that's one we can be proud of.

It has helped support artists' performances and cultural opportunities enjoyed throughout the region.

At the same time, it's worth reflecting on that what sustained local investment of that magnitude combined with fundraising and community partnership might have achieved closer to home.

Over a quarter of a century, uh those resources could have formed the foundation for a significant West Shore arts facility.

Something comparable in scale to the impact of the Mary Windsburg Center in Sydney, but serving the growing communities of the West Shore.

It is not a criticism of decisions made in the past.

Those decisions were made in good faith and reflected the circumstances and priorities of the time.

Rather, it is a reminder that every investment carries an opportunity cost, and they and that every generation of leaders must reassess priorities in light of changing realities.

Like the message in Russia's song, our task is to make thoughtful choices that move our community closer to the future we want to create.

The question before us is not whether that arts matter, they do.

The question is how we best support arts and culture while meeting the many other expectations that residents have of how we serve today.

So thank you for indulging me for that.

Carl, you can put that down the record that the mayor quoted Rush.

So staff reports.

I think we go to the first one, and that's the developments variance permit for 18 Fenton Road.

Hey Jeff, we haven't seen you in a while.

Good to see you.

Thank you. Good to see you.

Uh Jeff Chao, Senior Planner.

This is an application for a development and variance permit on 18 Fenton Road.

And Fenton Road is one block.

Next slide, please.

Purpose of today's meeting is to introduce a uh a proposal.

And if uh councils feel it's worthy of consideration, uh public notification would be conducted for um for uh an actual decision at a future council meeting.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh the subject property is uh one block uh west of town hall, to step the road here.

Next slide, please.

At the end of a cul-de-sac, it's a single family dwelling.

Um it has been subdivided in the past and uh and uh consists of um a house near the rear of the property and two outbuildings in in the front.

Next slide, please.

The proposal, so the the two accessory buildings in the front yard uh consist of um include one garage.

Uh that garage is quite old now, it doesn't have a foundation.

The request is to remove it and replace it with a slightly larger garage that would also have a uh a carport attached to it.

Next slide, please.

Uh the building would be one story, and uh this shows how the carport would be to one side of it.

Uh it would be stucco with asphalt roof colors that kind of complement the uh the other buildings on the property.

Next slide, please.

Uh there are um several variances requested to accommodate the garage.

Uh two will be for the the actual building itself.

Next slide, please.

And two will be for um for zoning requirements for the site.

Next slide, please.

Uh the first variance is for the uh dimensions of the structure.

The zoning bylaw requires 7.5 meters, and the request is to permit 9.8 meters.

In this case, you can see uh the 9.8 meters is because uh the building has been expanded with a kind of a carport and it's measured to the uh to the column of the carport.

And in terms of the depth of the building or the width of the building, um, it's 7.62 meters, which is just slightly over and is considered uh insignificant.

Next slide, please.

Um, this property, this uh the building, the request is located in the front yard.

Uh, accessory buildings are typically required to be located behind the front of the building.

In this case, the the houses at the rear of the property, the the front yard is actually more than half the site.

Uh and in this location, it's separated from the adjacent buildings by more than 18 meters on for the properties on all three sides.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is uh rendering of the street view.

You see the site is fairly screened.

Uh it wouldn't really have significant significant visual impacts to the uh street.

The building would be located uh approximately 18 meters from the front lot line, and uh the zoning by lash would require 7.5, so it's really quite set back.

If you ever go up this the end of Fenton Road, it's really kind of hard to look into this property because it's right at the end.

Next slide, please.

Uh the third variance is to increase the maximum building floor area uh from 372 square meters to 567 square meters.

Um it sounds like a large number, but in fact, the previous variants in 2017 that um that varied the uh the size of the building to 562 square meters uh to permit uh a couple of things.

So maximum building floor area could include all buildings on a property, so includes the accessory buildings as well as the house.

Um the the approval in 2017 was for 562 square meters, which allowed an addition and a secondary suite.

Uh so the incremental difference to allow this garage is five square meters, less than five square meters.

So it's it's uh it's fairly uh fairly small change.

Next slide, please.

And the final variance is to increase the permitted lot coverage of all accessory buildings and structures on a lot from 60 square meters to 158 square meters.

Um so uh this is a large lot.

It's the 2280 square meters.

Uh so while the increase and the other part is the preexisting buildings were already 124 square meters.

So the increase in this case is is a 34 square meters.

That allows the slightly larger garage and the carport roof area.

Um while the number seems kind of large, uh in terms of the size of the lot, it's well under 10%.

So uh given the size of the lot, um, its location, its screening, the variance is uh might might be supportable.

Uh next slide, please.

There are a couple of impacts, potential impacts to consider.

Um, two trees are proposed to be removed.

Uh one is uh so part of it is um for the relocated the garage is relocated to uh reduce impacts on a tree on the shared property line.

Um so our brisk report has been provided to um that says there's a probability that this building could be located there.

One tree is in the proposed footprint, so that would have to be removed.

The other uh the other uh tree is a birch uh closer to the front block line, and that's not in great condition, so it just needs to be removed.

Um the Arbus report um has indicated that recommended techniques to uh to be addressed through the building permit process to make sure there's no significant routes that would be impacted within the footprint of the area.

And if there are, there are other uh it could have the location either could be shifted or there's different construction techniques that can be done to minimize the impact routes, and those would be addressed through the uh tree permit process.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh the amount of impervious surface on the property would be increased because uh the existing the proposed garage is slightly would be larger than the existing garage.

Uh the driveway would also have to be widened.

So the uh the um stormwater management bylaw requires that when you increase impervious surfers that be no net increase in runoff.

So again, those that would be something to be addressed during the building permit stage, but those aren't considered to be significant barriers.

Next slide, please.

So the recommendation is to um uh is to consider the application after giving notice.

And uh if there's any questions, I would be pleased to answer them.

Thanks, Jeff. Thanks for the report.

I've got a couple of questions before I pass it over to my colleagues.

One is that um when you were doing your calculations, even though it's low, would that involve the removal of the structure that it's intended to be removed?

Did you minus that before you add it on?

Um for you, Mayor, yes, that's correct. So it would be the net, it would be a net increase.

Okay. And um questions about uh removing two trees. Is there a plan to replant those trees on the property?

Uh for the chair, the it would be in accordance with the uh tree protection bylaw.

And the last one, because we bumped into this before, would it be part of the permitting to uh we had a challenge before of um uh it was conditional but perhaps not stated that there was an intended accessory structure be removed but it wasn't removed.

So would that be part of the uh process for or condition of the permit that that the building designated be removed actually be removed as a condition of the construction?

Uh in this case, the the new building would actually be located on partially where the existing building is, so the existing building has to be removed in order to uh I understand, but will it be a condition for the permit?

So I'm kind of this leading question, Jeff, but what I wanted to see is that part of the permitting process is the removal of the building would be part of the condition for approval, because we had that brought to council back several times.

So uh I just want to make sure that that's part of the condition.

So uh uh uh thank you, Mayor Tobias, for that question.

So a couple of things come to mind.

One is that um, I guess the uh for this new building, I'm re reiterating what um Jeff is saying.

So for the new building to get built, the other building has to go because it's taking over the same the footprint, and they can't keep a half a garage that's there.

Second of all, I think that it would also um increase the variances because it would be more area.

So they would actually have to remove it regardless, because they couldn't have a portion of the existing plus the new one.

It they'd have to come back for more variances.

So there's really no um it's it we have uh there's there's um aspects in place that we don't really need to add that condition because it it um it would create additional variances on the property.

Thanks, Lann. Jeff.

Yeah, let's give me a chance to add one more point is is when the development permit is approved, it would be as per the plans, and if the plans show the building to be demolished, it has to be demolished.

Thank you. I I'd much rather prefer for councils in the future that if we've got it written down explicitly that a building be removed, then that was conditional on the acceptance of the new approval because we could be sitting here or future council in 10 years saying we decided to to adjust our plans and retain the old building, and now we're in a conundrum because a building was supposed to be removed, right?

Just to make it really clear, especially if we're going out to the public and asking for their input, really clear that a building is being removed, a new one's being built, it's different dimensions, but uh that that seems to be something that neighborhoods are concerned about.

Other questions from uh Councilor Rogers and Councillor McKinney.

Yeah, hi. Uh thanks, uh Jeff.

The um it it seems to me when looking at the um variances and applications for change in the past, um, that we had, I think about 1999, we had approved uh that there could be two accessory buildings on site.

So could you repeat the question, please?

Sure, yeah. So it it in the list of uh changes that had happened previously, uh it seems like in 1999 there had been uh um um a council of decision staff decision to allow two accessory buildings on the site.

So by and what we're doing is just removing one accessory and and putting a larger accessory building on the site, right?

Uh yes, so the number of buildings would not change.

Yeah, okay. Um the uh the garage um will this include um plumbing that would uh permit a uh suite above the garage.

Uh through the mayor, uh so the building is one story and it does have a 45-degree kind of roof, so it you know it does have some height to it.

Uh the plans that are shown uh show two things.

One section shows trusses through that space, and the other section just shows that there's a window that's more of a clear story window to eliminate the inside.

Thank you. Um I don't have any further questions.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers. Councillor McKenzie.

Thank you. And I was kind of going along the same lines as Councillor Rogers there, because I noticed that there is um it says it would accommodate two-piece washroom in this space, too.

Um, and I know we don't uh kind of oversee what people do with their spaces.

Uh I assume if they were to want to put in a suite, that would be a whole different process, like they would have to get approval um to do that.

Uh the mayor, um yes, a building permit would be required to convert the occupancy from accessories to something else.

Um the um another thing to note is actually garages or accessory buildings that are built to a different standard than a residential building.

Any other questions? Councilor Roger.

Sorry, and thank you, Councillor Uh McKenzie for pointing this out. Why would we need washrooms in in a garage?

Uh through the chair, um, it's a large property. Um it could be a long walk to the washroom from that from that garage.

Um it's I think Leanne had a comment as well.

The mayor also our current zoning bylaw does allow for one plumbing fixture in an accessory building.

So having that there is is consistent with is in compliance with their zoning bylaw.

Any other questions? Comments? Uh anybody want to make a motion.

I'll move that we uh uh support staff's recommendation. Second.

By councillor Lemon, seconded by councillor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing non-imposed, motion carries.

Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Leanne.

And Ben, you're here for asset management policy.

It's the only time we see you, man.

And boulevard contracts.

But uh yeah, nice to see you, Mayor and Council.

Thank you for having me this evening.

So, my name is Ben Luberts.

I'm the deputy director uh with uh the engineering department.

I'm also the co-manager of the town's asset management program along with my co-manager uh Joel Adams here, who is our deputy director of finance.

So uh the report in front of you presents uh View Royal's first asset management policy for council's consideration for adoption.

Uh so with the report and policy in front of you here, I'll provide a brief a brief overview.

The town of View Royal uh has been advancing asset management in alignment with uh the AMBC framework for sustainable service delivery and the FCM asset management readiness scale.

If we look back at uh remember back at January 2024, council received for information at that time our asset, our first asset management program strategy, which established a roadmap for advancing the town's asset management program over a five-year period.

So that strategy recommended the development and adoption of an asset management policy as a foundational action.

So uh the policy uh the purpose of the policy is stated in section one of the policy attached to your report.

The purpose is to establish a governance framework and guiding principles for View Royal's asset management program to define roles and responsibilities uh for the program and to document View Royal's commitment to sustainable service delivery through asset management.

The scope of the policy is listed in section two, essentially applies to all town service areas, departments, officers, and employees, and all new and existing assets owned, managed, or used by the town of Uroyal to provide its services.

So this policy is important to View Royal because we utilize upwards of 400 million dollars worth of infrastructure to deliver our services.

As well, View Royal is a stakeholder in the management of multiple hundreds of millions of dollars more in assets through West Shore Parks and Rec, West Shore RCMP, GBPL, and any other partner agency.

On average, for the assets that we directly own, we are about halfway through the useful life of our assets again on average as just an aggregated statement.

And of course, the demand for reliable and affordable services remains persistent, and at the same time, the cost of infrastructure maintenance and replacement is always going up.

So with an asset management policy, what it does here is it provides us with a foundational document to drive the business processes around managing services in balance with costs and risk.

So the principles are listed in section four, and I'll just briefly go through them, not in detail, but just go through the the highlights on them here.

So essentially each principle uh leads with a policy statement, and then it's followed by a commitment in bullet form, a number of different commitments under each policy principle.

So a 4.1 is about service delivery to the community.

It essentially says decision making will be guided by clearly defined levels of service that reflect community expectations and balance risk and affordability.

Principle 4.2 is about managing assets in a manner that is socially, environmentally, and economically responsible, and that it meets the current community needs without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their own needs.

Principle 4.3 is holistic and integrated approach.

So it recognizes the interrelationships between assets, services, information, finances, and people as a connected system across our organization.

And principle 4.4 is about the responsible use of funds and ongoing long-term financial analysis to support informed and defensible investment decisions that balance service outcomes, risks, affordability, and reporting obligations.

And finally, principle 4.5 is about continuous improvement.

So it's about fostering a culture of learning and improvement.

So increasing the town's asset management maturity over time and strengthen service delivery for our community.

Finally, the last section is roles and responsibilities.

So the policy sets clear roles and responsibilities across the organization.

So council's role here is to approve and endorse the overall direction in terms of service delivery and asset management and to represent the community's priorities around service levels and risks.

Our CAO provides executive leadership for the asset management program, ensures alignment with corporate goals, and that council receives sufficient reports on progress and results and outcomes.

We have then our internal asset management working group, which is comprised of senior staff, and they coordinate asset management across all departments, ensuring the asset management program remains on track through the development and implementation of our asset management program strategy.

And finally, we have the individual department managers and or directors who are responsible for specific assets, making sure that they are sufficiently resourced to perform within the service levels that the community expects.

So staff's recommendation is for council to approve the policy as presented, and I am happy to take any questions.

Will this change how we operate now?

And I'm thinking, I'm I'm, you know, I look at council's role, and you know, we're to provide the overall and the budget, etc., etc.

But will um say, you know, one of your trucks breaks down prematurely and you need a new truck.

Will situations like that, items like that come to council still for approval, or will this policy see these, you know, wrapped up in the policy?

Uh through the chair, I I don't know that I could comment on a specific scenario such as that, but yeah.

Um big items, big surprise items.

Essentially, with a policy like this in place, um, this becomes the guiding uh the guiding policy document amongst all of our other policies that we that we uh refer to when making decisions and also making recommendations to council.

Um I would say that we honor each other's time and we have respect for the amount of resources that you have at council and we have at the staff level.

And so um issues that are addressed in policy um, but maybe delegate authority down to staff, or maybe that authority relies up at council will act according to whatever whatever the policy says.

Um but our recommendation, if it does come to council, our recommendation will be grounded in uh these uh service deliverer, service delivery principles around those five guiding principles that that are listed in the AM policy.

Does that help?

What I heard there then in your last line is that some things might come to council. Got it. Good, thank you.

Ben, I've just got uh one question.

Is the asset management lens going to be put on as well?

I know I think we're done doing an outstanding job uh currently with um our alignment section and reports that are generated for council.

You got a strategic plan, how it aligns with the official community plan, other policy documents.

Will the asset management policy actually be embedded?

So there's consideration for the asset management plan.

So if we're putting new signage up for parks, um has asset management kind of noted that and are uh it's now on your radar kind of thing.

Thank you. It's a great question.

Uh so what I can say is at the moment our reports uh have a other policy documents, which is where for now this would be referred to um would show alignment with the asset management policy.

Um if there were to be a future change to the format and the template of reports, that would be through our corporate services, and um likely through uh consultation with the asset management working group, um, which Scott is a part of.

Steve, myself, Joel, and Ivan and Chris.

So um if there was a desire there, I'm sure that's uh something that we could look at.

I think Scott's got his spot.

Um I would I would say that um all decisions related to assets or or the finances required, um will be done according to the asset management policy if they're not already.

So I don't I don't know that it would be a box we would check that would say, yeah, we're following the asset management policy because we should always be following that policy.

And just further to the last question that Ben answered, nothing will change as far as um how council makes the decisions about purchasing assets.

It's just how staff will prioritize projects that come forward to council.

Um the guidance we give will will be guided by the policy.

Uh, but it it should appear very similar to what council's seen in the past.

Thanks, Scott. And I think to combine kind of uh councilman lemons and and my uh comment/slash concern is that if something does come up with a new truck, it's we've been we've done due diligence as far as asset management and either lays in you know the plan or is outside of the plan.

That would help council, perhaps councils in the future say we've been planning for this, we know where we're at.

You know, uh we've got some money tucked away, this is expected to happen.

This this is what was going to do.

Vice, um, no, we didn't decide that.

It just adds for us a little bit of assurance.

We see something like that come up, and there's already a plan for it when we feel comfortable with it.

Scott.

Yeah, uh, through the mayor.

Um all the asset decisions we make um should be planned out in advance.

So ideally there will be no surprises.

It's one of the the tenements of local government.

Um there will be the odd surprise, and that will be flagged as being like um unexpected expense or emergency expense.

But the whole idea is to put a plan together so that we're looking five, 10 um maybe even further into the future with our asset plan.

So uh I know the the fire guys are just here joking about a truck.

But we will this fall we will tell you what year we will require a new truck and approximately how much it will be in addition to many other uh budget items.

Thanks. Councillor Rogers?

Yes thank you um I look at this um as uh the mayor's looking at trucks I look at trees and um so the uh I was particularly interested in uh 4.2 the long-term sustainability and resilience and because I'm I'm thinking of the urban forest I'm thinking of the tree canopy the you know the uh the towns and uh council's commitment to maintaining a 30% tree canopy so that is how does that uh figure in when we say um recognizing the value of natural assets taking a proactive core um um approach to um mitigating and ensuring those uh those sort of aspects so that I guess that's one thing that I'm thinking of if I may I'll just carry on uh because I'm also interested in pointing out 4.5 continuous improvement um maintaining a complete and accurate asset inventory so if we're recognizing that natural assets are an important feature are we going to be doing a natural assets inventory I think we dealt with this before is a separate counselor rogers so I I think you're you're adding something in here that's I know I know the perspective, Councillor Rogers, that you would like to see natural assets, but I think this is not part of this report.

Well, uh, if if I may, you worship, um, you know, it's very clearly stated in this policy 4.5.

Maintain a complete and accurate asset inventory.

I get it, Councillor Rogers.

Darn amazing. Yeah, for what's before us, it it it is not part of the natural asset uh inventory.

It's something that I think all of council wants, um, but but it's not part of the plan to date.

If I may, you wish it, I'd like uh I appreciate what uh where we're coming from on staff, but you know, Steph, what's your point?

What's your uh thoughts on the uh the aspects of continuous improvement of um asset and you know part of asset inventory, you know, one of the uh more recent uh discussion points um was our settlement ponds along Mill Stream.

So sorry, Craig Frag Creek.

And um so again, um is trying to find the best practices to uh ensure that uh our assets that the developer put in way back when the Riverside Ridge was put in, uh, is is still sustainable and does the job.

Thoughts on that.

Uh so through the chair.

Uh so what the policy does as any policy is it doesn't get into the operations and the mechanics of how we would play this out, but it enables us to do that.

So essentially, natural assets is a priority that we have heard from council and from the community.

And so this creates an avenue for us to integrate that into the whole plan, prioritize it, provide it with resources because it will take resources to establish an inventory or to expand out the inventory that we already have.

But the continuous improvement is exactly that.

Um it can only get better.

That is kind of the promise of asset management.

And this is what we see throughout municipalities all throughout BC and Canada is with a framework such as this, based on policy and these guiding principles, it allows us to get into some of the more enduring things beyond just these hard physical constructed assets, but into more of the natural systems.

It is fundamentally a different type of management because natural assets is actually about a hands-off approach and stewarding the natural asset as it originally became and grew, as opposed to a built asset that requires more input and constant maintenance.

But all of that is addressed through this policy.

And this will be addressed further in our update to our asset management strategy.

And then you will see that with any proposed project and request for funding.

If I may, yeah, thank you.

Thank you for that.

I also assume that what the asset policy does is uh integrate with our master plans, like um you know, the Suez Master Plan and the Stormwater Master Plan, identifying those infrastructure aspects that are um, you know, so we've we've got the linkage and and uh the support from both uh plan and policy.

Correct.

Sorry, through the chair. What uh your response?

So the the asset, you know, the the policy that you we were considering and and supporting yes is that that policy then that um supports the the plan, the long-term plan, and making sure that um we we have the uh adequate infrastructure uh to meet our growing needs uh so through the chair an important distinction between asset management and master plans is master plans is a forward looking exercise it looks at growth whereas asset management looks at uh sustaining what we have here today um there is an integration between those two processes and absolutely that would be that is contained within this policy and through our our practices thank you councilor anybody else councilman would you like to move it move adoption second uh moved by council lemon seconded by counselor McKenzie all those in favor any opposed thing non opposed um Carl have we lost uh councillor mattson or is he still online I'm here okay just just uh survival check counselor mattson it's like being married thank you and I think uh Leanne is that down to you now for uh regional context statement yes thank you mayor to bias the purpose of this report um is to seek approval from council to refer the town's regional context statement embedded in the final draft of the official community plan to the capital regional district board for consideration of acceptance each municipality within the CRD is required to include a regional context statement in their OCP to demonstrate how the OCP aligns with the CRD's regional growth strategy.

Our regional growth strategy is a plan adopted by a regional district to guide decisions on growth, change, and development within its boundaries, and it's guided by legislation in the Local Government Act.

The town endorsed CRD's regional growth strategy in 2018, which includes 10 objectives to ensure that human settlement is socially, economically, and environmentally healthy, and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land, and other resources in accordance with the legislation.

The town's updated regional context statement in section 16 of the draft OCP identifies how the policy sections and directions align with the CRD's objectives in the regional growth strategy in a clear and concise manner.

Throughout the OCP review and update, staff have kept the CRD informed of the town's OCP project and timeline.

The CRD also reviewed an early version of the draft regional context statement to ensure that the town's format and content is aligned with the regional growth strategy as it must be approved by the CRD board.

CRD staff are preparing to bring forward the town's regional context statement at their next planning and protective services committee meeting next week following council's passing of a resolution this evening.

This is a vital step in the process of the OCP being adopted in September.

The recommendation in the staff report is that council refer the regional context statement as provided in attachment A to the staff report to the Capitol Regional District Board for consideration of acceptance.

Thank you.

Thanks, Lynn. Are there any questions on it? Council Rogers.

Thank you. Um gosh, let me find the it's the uh the first one that uh that we have on um I don't know it, you know, uh section six point sixteen point two one point one keeping urban urban settlement compact.

So it's that was the very first one.

And uh sorry, I'm looking directly at the OCP.

I don't know what you've got.

Yeah. So let me see if the staff report.

No, okay, nope, you don't have it.

Okay. So uh 1.1.

Um that you know, and this uh I didn't catch this when we were looking at um the OCP earlier.

Um what concerns me is the um the very first word promotes.

You know, it promotes infill and redevelopment um via the um um again let me sorry I have to find it again.

Okay, so the summary of policy direction promotes infill and redevelopment within existing neighborhoods through the small-scale multi-unit housing land use designation.

I have a problem with the word promotes, because it wasn't council that in decided to put in this policy.

We were told to put in this policy by the province.

So um maybe we can say the word I'm okay, Councillor Rogers, if we entertain that because you pulled that out of um the so I think for this one that's the regional gross statement.

If it's in the regional growth statement, then it's fair ball.

But if it's in the OCP, then we can address it uh when we get to it as we pulled that out of these consent.

Right. Thank you. Yeah. So that's that'll be mine's poll.

So did you have anything about the regional growth statement to the CRD?

And just for council's um uh information.

So this is the regional growth statement is something that the CRD directors will vote on and will review.

The OCP itself, they they will not look at it.

That's kind of a staff-to-staff thing, but the re it's the regional gross uh statement.

Now, I did send out an email with a uh inconsistency that I brought up.

We've got um good words that speak to some of our challenges with transportation, and we've got good words to speak to how we're gonna grow, but we didn't put them together.

And this council, like other councils on the West Shore, particularly Callwood, has actually come out and said we've actually lowered the density of some areas where we sought higher density because of our inability for a transportation infrastructure to keep up with it.

So they're already scaling it back down, and they're already having nightmares about how to integrate Royal Bay with its growing population with the rest of Callwood, and then the call would crawl and everything like that.

So um uh I think it's an important addition on there because it does two things for us.

One is it allows other councils to use the same logic that we have used to limit the density of some buildings based on our concern with our growing traffic.

Our traffic is not, it is a town problem, but it's not just V Royals traffic that's going through V Royal.

It's regional traffic that's going through that's compounding.

Um the other thing that it does is I think the statement that I created, or any way we want to modify, modify it, also adds credibility to the um nascent um transportation service by CRD.

It gives them credibility to say that okay, we're gonna have to increase our transportation if we want to increase growth because it is impacting quality of life, the environment, um, and our ability to even um have emergency vehicles on the road and being able to make it there.

So, what I had said for the benefit of the public is that uh to add to the regional growth strategy, seeing how we don't think we want any other amendments, so that the town supports the objectives of the regional growth strategy and recognizes the growth transportation function as an integrated system.

Decisions regarding the location, intensity, and timing of growth directly influence travel demand, congestion, infrastructure cost, accessibility, and community livability.

The town notes that regional transportation planning work has identified increasing pressure on key transportation corridors and growing communities throughout the capital region.

Growth patterns, transportation net transportation network performance, transit effectiveness, and infrastructure capacity are closely interconnected and should be planned together because a lot of the infrastructure just isn't for royals to decide on.

Accordingly, the town supports growth that is aligned with available and planned transportation infrastructure and services.

The town considers transportation capacity, transit service levels, active transportation connectivity, emergency access, and regional mobility performance to be important factors in determining the scale, pace, and location of future growth.

Where transportation infrastructure and services are not keeping pace with population and employment growth, the town may advocate for transformation investments, transportation investments, and capacity improvements before significant additional growth is accommodated.

Expectations regarding future growth should be informed by realistic assumptions regarding the delivery of provincial, regional, and local transportation infrastructure.

The town will continue to work with the Capitol Regional District, neighboring municipalities, BC Transit, the province of British Columbia, First Nations, and other partners to support integrated land use and transportation planning that maintains mobility, supports economic activity, and protects community livability.

So I think that statement, in addition to all the good words that staff have already put together, will make it clear for future councils to say that's too big.

Here's why we want to see this occur first.

And uh so I I would just um make a motion for uh for that statement to be added.

If I could get a second or happy to spend lots of time discussing, Councilor Rogers, and you had a comment statement.

Can I just see clarification?

This is what you're uh your suggestion that we or think that we have to put into the regional context portion of the OCP.

I love it. So hopefully there's you know, with that, you know, there's the appropriate policies elsewhere in the OCP that would substantiate what you've what our position is with the RGS and and right.

Yeah, uh, I think your microphone's still on councillor Rogers.

So uh there were statements for our growth, there were statements for transportation, but we never made a statement of a limiting constraint that could that should council a future council wish to they could evoke that because it was in our regional growth strategy statement.

Council McKenzie, you had something.

I I had a different question, but I think I've answered it.

Um but for staff, is this the paragraph or two that are that's in here currently is that taken from elsewhere?

Like is that a common one that's used across municipalities?

Um through um through the mayor.

Um, thank you for that question.

Um I I'm I'm not sure.

Um I haven't looked at other municipalities.

Um this type of statement um from staff's perspective, this type this type of statement belongs more in the OCP and through policy and context sections of the land use and transportation um sections of our OCP um instead of the um the regional context statement, um, because the regional context statement is identifying how our OCP you know is aligned.

So some of the strong the strong language, I think it should be because be part of policy so we can hang our hats on policy in terms of decision making.

So from staff's perspective, this should this belongs more in um the policy sections of the OCP.

You know, as long as it's in the OCP and staff saying that uh we can appropriately put it in the policy, then that um that is something that staff will read our OCP.

Maybe the uh the the directors will look at the summaries that we provided, but they're gonna read and and make sure that uh they're comfortable and and that there's cohesiveness between the RGS and and the OCP.

So I if we can put it in into policy, we've done the same thing and and uh we're just as effective with the region.

Our challenge is is that our our transportation issue is not a Bureau issue.

No, right? No, but so it could be an internal issue, but that gives us no leverage if something larger comes up that we can say yes, but we need um a bus to increase its service level before we agree to it, or we need a rail um uh to increase it.

So bury it in a policy statement.

No, I don't want to do want to bury it in the policy.

So staff will know that, but nobody else will. Yeah.

But if we put it in the policy and also uh just hang a second, Ron.

Should we put it in in the policy as well as section 15, you know, the RGS statement, context statement, then we've accomplished both.

We've drawn that to their attention and we've got it in policy.

That was my comment to put them in both. Yeah.

That could be a motion of council as long as it's stated, but also part of the RGS, it could be part of both.

I'd be happy to uh support that.

It's just not making the link with the linkage of conversations we've had around this council table for the past four years about the same concern.

And even though we put the OCP, we put transport, we put density, but we never never married them together to say um people should know that we're limited by our capacity right now because of our concerns for adequate transportation.

Council McKenzie.

I have a question.

Um, maybe Mayor Tobias, because um since you're on the CRD board, like have have these come before the board from other municipalities, and it is there really much altering or like if we change it, I'm just wondering, is it likely that they won't accept the the wording change?

Uh I in my perspective, Council McKenzie, no, and I think um a couple of other West Shore communities that are experiencing similar things would uh also be very supportive of it, as would the new regional CRD Transportation Service.

And this also gives us leverage down the road for um replacing six mile bridge, for instance.

That's limiting right now for that.

But if we've said nothing in our regional contact statement that we're we're concerned about this thing, then we get nothing to back it on.

But if we say in the future, maybe Atkins is a bigger development or whatever and we're still with the same limiting factor where the bust on the shoulder can't cross the bridge because it's not wide enough or we bisect the lane we can use this statement to to justify that.

So is it scrutinized?

I think there's parts that are pulled out other municipalities are looking at two lenses one is they're looking at it within a regional context uh very concerned about the big things with the urban containment zone that we're that we're in for development and the other thing that they're looking at is alignment to other services because this will have an impact on everything when you talk about our asset management just think about water distribution sewers sewer capacity biosolids refuge landfill it it's it's significant on on their growth protections but often left out of it has been transportation so I think it would would be the meat in the middle of the transportation sandwich for the West Shore I think it's a good statement to kind of get out there.

And I wouldn't be surprised in the future if Callwood and Langford make the same one on theirs.

Leanne um thank you mayor bias um just a quick um just a um point of clarification so um if council is wanting to make an amendment to the uh the to the regional context statement, then um I would recommend um modifying that the recommendation um to as as amended, like adding as amended, I may um decar corporate officers assistance on that.

And the reason why I'm bringing this up is that uh we are really down to the wire with the time the timing and meeting the CRD uh dates for them to consider our regional context statement because this has to be approved before council can adopt the OCP.

So that is something to uh to keep in mind, unless and if council wants us to bring it back, then that is going to be a different uh a different timeline.

Leanne, I think if we uh it doesn't have to come back to us.

If we uh put it in, I've sent the text for amendment.

Um everybody's got a copy of that text.

I don't think we need to see it again if we approve it as amended.

Do we, Scott?

Uh it would be nice to uh have that read into the record what the amendment is.

I just read it.

Yeah, maybe one more time so we can uh we can write it down.

Uh I can send it to you again as well. Because I've got it read it verbatim.

I I think, yeah, just one more time, maybe for council's benefit as well.

Okay. Bear with me, folks.

Transportation uh uh capacity and growth management.

The town supports the objectives of the regional growth strategy and recognizes the that growth and transportation function as an integrated system.

Decisions regarding location intensity and timing of growth directly influence uh travel demand, congestion, infrastructure costs, accessibility, and community livability.

The town notes that the regional transportation planning work has identified increasing pressure on key transportation corridors and growing communities throughout the capital region.

Uh transportation network performance, transit effectiveness, and infrastructure capacity are closely interconnected and they should be planned together.

Accordingly, the town supports growth that is aligned with available and planned transportation infrastructure services.

The town considers transportation capacity, transit service levels, active transportation connectivity, emergency access, and regional mobility performance to be important factors in determining the pace, scale, and location of future growth.

Where transportation infrastructure and services are not keeping pace with population and employment growth, the town may advocate for transportation investments and capacity improvements before significant additional growth is accommodated.

Expectations regarding future growth should be informed by realistic assumptions regarding the delivery of provincial, regional, and local transportation infrastructure.

The town will continue to work with the CRD, neighboring municipalities, BC Transit, the province of British Columbia, First Nations, and other partners to support integrated land use and transportation planning that maintains mobility, supports economic activity, and protects community livability.

Done. Was there any other comments?

Moving the movement motion is uh both to place this under policy of the OCP and in the regional context section of uh 16.2 um for the alignment section with RGS.

Yeah.

And I'm just fine with that.

Happy to support that questions, uh Councillor Lemon and then Councillor McKenzie.

To staff, um, you know, it's one thing going into the RGS.

Um but it into the context statement.

Um but how will it affect your paginating in the guts of the OCP?

Um through the mayor, thank you for that question, Counselor Lemon.

Um, as I reflected on the motion that was passed, um a lot of that uh verbiage is already covered in policy in our OCP.

So it won't be a lot of um work uh because a lot of it's already covered.

Um but we'll we'll we'll go through it to you, and if there's any um specific points that aren't covered, then we'll we'll add.

But I'm um I'm feeling pretty comfortable with it that we could uh that we have most of the content there and we can just make a reference in the in the uh contact statement.

Thanks, Councillor Lemon. Councillor McKenzie, yeah.

Thank you. I just had the same question. I was concerned about how it would impact staff's workload.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Rudd.

Yeah, so looking at the OCP, however, and and the drafts and so forth, you know, I've never been able to see the connection until Meritor Bayash mentioned it between, you know, the uh the ability and the decision in that the OCP to control growth if the infrastructure does not meet that growth.

I've never found anything and if staff can specifically point that out to us, what section uh in the policy that states that that supports what Merit Tobias is saying, you know, that's the key that um I uh I'm still have not been able to find in this current OCP.

Uh Go ahead, Lady.

Okay, thanks. Um through the mayor.

Um in terms of we have some policies around um no development outside of our urban containment boundary.

There is strong policy in there already in the OCP uh outside of the urban containment boundaries.

So that would be up in the Cetus Lake area.

Um in terms of um having sort of that strong language of like no development without um I mean you we can't develop you can't develop a piece of land without um without having sewers and and water.

Um in terms of transportation, um transit will not increase transit service along a corridor if you don't have the population to support it.

So um when we were looking at Waukis Way when when um council was wanting to add that is a a corridor which we have in the OCP, um the BC Transit came back to me and said it was is there any um entertainment or any interest in perhaps increasing the densities along there to to support to s to to get the transit.

And um the desire is um the the the there's the the outcome of that is there there have there's no changes to the land use designations along there at this time, but council can reconsider that in five years when we when we reconsider the OCP.

So um some of these things um you know the the transportation infrastructure that um you know that council and the community are looking for especially along our our corridors um that is is it's tied to um to the having the population to support it so um and we have policies on on that in terms of um encouraging um growth along our corridors um to to support uh transit and transportation um in our in our community council right okay that you know uh i'm i'm sorry that still does not address what the mayor is saying the mayor is saying we don't have you know um you know if we haven't got even with the transit um ideals if you like what they want i mean i god i could go on in a book them what they have not provided for us even with the use lake when we have 120 000 people going to the slake and they still got hourly service to that lake so it's um it's not just population that is an aspect but transit um the the the key point that mayor to bias is saying is not as far as i understand as far as i see it is not reflected in the ocep because it does you know this specifically um our road infrastructure is inferior it will not support you know if we go to a um and that's the thing that mayor to buy is saying if we all our development and what the region puts us to level service F failure gridlock congestion, then um we've we certainly haven't met transit needs because their buses are stuck.

And that's what Mary Tabash is saying is is in the thing that we want to make sure that we have the transit being able to move through our towns.

But if we don't have that policy that specifically states that there is a capacity limit if we bring everything to a standstill.

Council Rogers, any other questions, comments?

So we got moved and seconded the staff recommendation as amended uh for RGS, uh the regional growth statement and for OCP policy.

Um I think I I moved it, Councilor Rogers seconded.

All those in favor of any opposed to it.

Councilor Mattson, were you opposed, or I'll just assume you're in favor?

I'm supportive. Can you see me? Hands up.

I know sometimes I can see you, sometimes you can't.

You're hiding. Um, but thank you for that.

Uh so I think that brings us down to policy review approach.

Uh Director of Corporate Administration.

I'll be filling in for Elena this evening.

Um, she's she's not feeling well.

Um, so before you this evening is basically three options for catching up on policy review.

Uh, we have policies dating back to uh the early 90s, um, which have not been reviewed, despite the policy saying they'll be reviewed every two to three years.

So fair to say we have some catch-up to do.

Uh the the point of the report is to a um not surprise council when you start to see policies and to give some options as to how we will tackle this uh monumental task.

Uh Ellen has suggested uh a three-phased approach.

That's her recommendation.

Um policies requiring reclassification from a council policy to an administrative policy, being the first phase, second phase being policies requiring amendments and rescission or repeal.

And the third policies requiring review only.

And the third option is to not review the policies at all and to kick the can further down the road, which uh could be problematic as well, as we expect to see some new faces this fall, uh, which will be trying to wrap their heads around what what governance is and uh what fun it is to go over these policies.

So a few options before you, and uh I'm open to any questions.

Questions for staff, first uh council road.

Yes, thank you.

Um certainly I I agree that um policies definitely need to be reviewed, and phase two seems to be the most important, you know, making the re um existing policies that are obsolete redundant, superseded by legislation.

You know, that's that's a great cleanup.

Um, and I think the policies um requiring review, maybe not so much.

But what makes me a little nervous is the policy from council policy to administrative policy.

And um it's hard for me to say, yeah, that's a good plan because I don't know what that policy would be.

Um, because we've we had an example where I think there was uh some uh some OCP amendment uh suggesting that council decisions would be uh um become staff decisions, and we took that out of the the OCP.

We didn't like it.

So that makes me a little nervous about uh reflecting on this, um, what council policy would be um uh again handed over to uh to staff.

I'm happy to move uh on phase two, phase three, phase one.

I need to see what those are.

That's good.

Uh so just just to be clear, we're not talking about bylaws.

Um so you brought some examples of bylaws, but um I would be curious if council could name a policy that is currently a policy of council and uh not administrative.

So of course we would bring a package forward to council to review so they could see what they're signing off on.

Um and I think you'll be surprised at uh what council in 1991 uh thought was a council decision and what staff are doing on a day-to-day basis in 2026.

So I I think uh I think we'll all have a bit of a chuckle about it, and there's nothing ominous, and certainly if council disagrees um with changing any of the policies, then we will keep them as they are.

And and since 1991, um Sarah Jones was very very consistent in in bringing and identifying it um policies and and procedures, and and that's it.

Maybe it's policies of procedures, not necessarily bylaws.

Um but um you know I'm a little surprised because I thought uh Sarah had covered all the bases and and uh brought us nicely up to date uh um in the last 15 years.

Um so again, yeah, I I appreciate that we can we'll be able to get a list, we'll see it, but we need to consider the implications.

And if it's talking about um any policy that limits our ability to hear what the public is concerned about, that would make me nervous.

We'll get to see all of those, Councilor Rogers.

This is just talking about I know policy review in general.

As they come up, council will have an opportunity to address whatever is on their mind.

There are some things that are written down there, the technology doesn't exist anymore, right?

That's how outdated they are.

They are all updated, pretty much.

Counselor Lemon.

If that was a motion, Counselor Rogers, I'll second it.

Uh well the the recommendation is that the report dated just be received for information.

Right. Option two was that council request staff to proceed with a review of town policies and present all the proposed policies, amendments, policy reclassification, policy rescinds in a single package, or that they don't proceed at all.

If somebody would like to modify that, I'm happy with it.

But the the way we were just receiving it for information.

That's that's all we're doing right now.

If counselor Lemon's moving that, I'll second it.

Okay, counselor Lemon is mover, and uh Counselor McKenzie is secondary. What was that, Counselor Mattson?

I wasn't sure what was being received? We received that we received, yeah.

Okay.

Any other comments, questions?

I am happy, you know, okay.

We receive it because I don't think there's time for you know, we only got nine meetings left, so I don't think there's it.

What was your intention as far as timing goes and review policy?

This is for the next council, I'm assuming uh this would be for the July council meetings.

We take a break in August, and uh then we would bring it back in September and try to finish off a few more.

They would all be prioritized based on uh on how important they are, of course, but um yeah, it's it's a multi multi-meeting process.

The staff think that they've got the time to be able to bring something to us that you know are good housekeeping things.

Yes, um, I'm happy to say that.

So um, you know, would we if we move receipt?

Um, does that they would appear on the agenda and we'd address them as they came in? Okay.

Let's see the list.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing that opposed, motion carries.

So thanks, Scott.

Thanks, uh Elna, even though you're not here.

Uh and correspondence.

I think we could hit that first.

There's a big one.

Uh annual report.

Sorry, annual report.

Annual report, and uh, we've already gone through this, and this is that final uh we adopt it.

Second, we've got a mover uh of councilor Mattson, a second or councillor Lemon.

All those in favor, any opposed, seeing none opposed, there's um annual report is adopted, and now going down to correspondence.

Um or nine A, is that what you're talking about?

Uh move receipt of it.

I think we need to talk about a little bit.

That's the planned Canada Post Delivery Charges in V Royal or changes.

And uh so basically what the we've got notification from Canada Post that all of Vie Royal, pretty much that I saw will be moving to delivery boxes as opposed to home delivery.

Uh I'm not sure.

I'll leave that up to council.

I don't think that's a question of advocacy.

I think everybody's watched the news and has seen how bad in financial shape Canada Post is.

I'm thinking we could advocate around it, but it's coming.

So how do we mitigate the fact that it's there?

There's concerns from accessibility for people that are mobility impaired.

There's uh questions that we've had about uh because it's going on municipal land.

What about lighting?

What about who's taking care of snow clearing?

Um Council Rogers said, well, where are they gonna be a trash box there for junk mail and who's going to empty that?

Um I think all of those questions will kind of come through, but I was also one day wondering, as I I think a fight would be futile uh to try to say we're not going to do this.

I think it's gonna happen whether we like it or not.

Um, is there an opportunity?

Can we put um for instance our our current policy is that and I think it's in a bylaw that we post stuff on town hall that nobody reads, nobody ever reads, nobody ever stops by and reads it.

However, if it's a community mailbox, is there an opportunity to have a similar type of thing that could be locked once things are in there to get our messages out to the public that's not junk mail and flyers.

Um there's an opportunity to do that.

So I wanted to pull this out and read it mainly because yes there's significant changes um that uh that are coming uh the in 2027 uh most of the West Shore is already at community boxes uh except us and then their intention I think is to move to the core uh in time and do that but welcome any questions or comments certainly staff can't help us out on this one too much I don't think go ahead counselor.

Yeah I I obviously I had well I have I have questions that nobody here can answer.

Talking to our much loved postie the other day who is understandably devastated and he has um the route he has which is all hills you know we we live you know we live at at the bottom you live at the bottom of the hill the middle of the hill or the top of the hill and he has that route because he's youngish um and very fit and he could do it nobody else can um so I you know I I would like to know I would like to know you know if if we're writing them how did how did they decide that the V9B would be according to the the types colonist the the first um postal code in well they said the region um to get how how did they how did they decide that you know a neighborhoods with you know um senior elderly um populations in all hills should um have to do the hike.

Um you know I it it is it's happening and um and also I would like to know if you're writing a letter to Bias, um, which you know pe if we have questions perhaps you will.

Um where where where are they gonna put these?

Are they gonna put them at the top of the hill, bottom of the hill, middle of the hill?

I think the the explanation that they gave us, Councillor Lemon, was that they they haven't got to that stage that they're mapping them.

Yeah.

So there's lots of questions that we'll have.

But I can write to them and say we disapprove and why us as the question.

Why you pick it on us?

Um I'm happy to do that.

Just uh council needs to let me know that they make a motion that the mayor write and ask some questions about why us and uh and uh we're not happy.

I'm happy to make that motion following further questions.

Just a comment.

I'm I moved to the URL in 2005.

We've always had a community mailbox, and I think most of the new developments have.

And as the mayor rightly said, the Canada Post is bleeding millions and millions of dollars.

My idea, which I thought was a good idea, they obviously didn't think it was a good idea, was alternating uh deliveries to, you know, three days one week to the next.

So uh because you know, honestly, how many people get mail?

Um the number of times I've been to my community mailbox and there's nothing in there other than like Councilor Rogers said is is junk.

Uh or well, I shouldn't say the stuff from my MP is junk, because that's not nice because I did I did the nominator.

But anyway, whatever.

That's an aside.

But yeah, we've what I've never had a community we saw at a community mailbox and there's 14 of us in our towns and that's pretty common in townhouses and apartments to have the community mailboxes.

And in a way in some ways it's some ways it's nicer some ways.

I know you don't get the the one-on-one with the poste.

But um yeah I mean they're losing millions and millions and millions of dollars.

So I think the idea is uh to to gradually put stuff in.

I I why they picked VRL to be one of the first to me they they aren't one of the first because we've had them for many many years anyway but um it it's something we just have to get used to answered yeah I I think it's a given so um and uh one of the the mailboxes that I think of is that the uh the foot of Chilco before the cars go up there's the Chilco mailbox and I'm always impressed that uh they've they keep it clean and or somebody keeping it clean it's remarkable but I've seen others that are you know really a mess.

Um so what is it um and hopefully it would simply be uh civic pride um but um and and that people do take all of their junk mail home um is is there any thoughts of um you know can and I guess a question of staff um providing uh garbage cans that uh we could you know hopefully add to the list for emptying is that a possibility I I think we'd prefer to put some recycling in there.

Um because most junk mail is recyclable, but uh this this could take up to nine years to transition.

Um so we've got we've got some time to plan and to work with Canada Post.

I think staff will start identifying some suitable locations.

But uh this is happening right across Canada.

They I mean I know we we feel picked on as V Royal, but um it's it's happening to millions of Canadians uh over the next decade.

So we'll we'll work with them and we'll try to make the the spots accessible, well lit, um well maintained, and with recycling and garbage nearby.

Counselor Lemon or uh Councilor McKenzie, sorry.

Um yeah, I'm not I'm not really supportive of uh writing a letter.

I think we have to choose our battles, and this one um is is not really one uh to do.

I'm you know, I've also had community mailboxes in Ontario as well, and they actually always worked quite well.

And in some cases, a positive is that um sometimes packages are left outside of people's homes w in Vie Royal, and you know, with those mailboxes they're locked away, so there's less theft in that um way.

And also you do get to meet your nail neighbors when you go to the community mailbox and and see.

So there are uh positives, so for that reason I I don't feel we need to write a letter at this time.

Thanks, Councilman. Can the counselor brown?

And Canada Post has done a really good job of advertising and they have uh contacts for people that have uh limited uh uh physical abilities to get to mailboxes.

They will make home deliveries in certain cases you have to apply.

Um also some rural deliveries are gonna carry on.

So I don't know really if it doesn't really affect us here, I don't think, but they've they've done a really good job of advertising it and uh making uh allowances uh where necessary.

Thanks, Councillor Brown.

So uh we've discussed it.

I don't know if there's uh I don't think there's a motion on the floor.

It's uh the way it is, and I'm sure there'd be more information coming.

We just got the notification now that it's gonna happen.

And as Scott says it's gonna be a couple years.

It just won't be they're starting next year, but they're not going to cease until your community mailboxes up.

Um so uh we need to receive that and B for information unless somebody wants to talk about B.

Go ahead, Counselor.

Um yes, um I I'm really pleased that we've uh received this correspondence with um uh an aspect I didn't know.

We are um certainly having our share of rats uh through the community.

And um this uh program is something that I think uh we should um you know quickly write.

It's a it's a logical thing to wear ashes or are uh with respect to a fertilization uh control products uh that would help uh address and suppress the rat population.

I think it's timely and a recommend excellent recommendation.

I think we should uh um write this letter to uh to the appropriate resources, health canada and so forth.

I'll second your motion.

Okay, we got a mover and uh seconder.

Do we need to motivate or are we happy with uh to doing it?

Um okay, uh all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries, and the motion was for me to write to um to the government of Canada about rat population control.

Okay, I'm happy with that.

If you can remind me, Scott, of that tomorrow, that would be great.

And uh other things on the consent agenda except what councillor uh Rogers pulled out, and that was the OCP number two.

Can I get somebody to make a motion to receive the rest of the constitutional?

Second. Moved by Councillor Matson, second by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motions carried.

Go ahead, Councilor Rogers.

Thank you.

Yes, the the this microphone.

All right, thank you.

Um the specific amendment um that I would like to make, and this is in the um uh section six sixteen point two, the original context statement, um, and it was the first one 1.1.

Um, rather than us saying the text promotes infill and redevelopment via um SSMUH, um, I would just prefer that we use the word, I would move that we change the word promotes to enables.

Potato potato.

Well, it may be, but you see, with with promotion, it suggests that um you know the the council um uh it was the council's idea, it wasn't.

It was uh uh the province with uh Bill 44 that um imposed all this irregardless of um of the impacts on our streets, our trees, and so forth.

So uh we've changed, made the change, and if I think it says there's more appropriate wording that it's enables as opposed to promotes.

I would have supported begrudgingly enables.

But uh enables enables this.

Okay. No, I'm happy with that change, Councilor Rogers.

Thank you for it.

I'm I'll support that in second time.

That's motion.

Uh all those in favor. Any opposed? Seeing none opposed. Motion carries.

Thank you.

And then now move receipt of uh and move receipt of the uh of the OCP, which is number two.

Uh moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

That brings us to question period.

Anybody here? There's only you.

We've got an opportunity to ask questions.

Uh Carl, we got any questions?

Uh Mayor Tavite Tobias, uh, no messages this evening.

Okay, and uh, and then we've got motions and uh for consideration today. Go ahead, Councillor Rogers.

Uh yes, thank you.

I'm I'm gonna change the motion um and it's a little more prescriptive.

Uh I moved that the town improves Admiral's uh transit infrastructure through two capital projects.

Um one C 139, install bus shelters at the two new stops, rest all drugs and admiral's walk for routes 25 to 26, 46, and 40.

Second, uh C 180 enables the Admiral's Road Active Transportation Improvement Long-term project, um, protects these shelters and builds bus pull-outs.

And further, that the town writes to encourage Victoria Transit to collaborate with First Nations and install bus shelters along Admirals on the east side of Admiral's Road.

Do you have a second or anybody seconding for Capsule Road?

Second it for discussion.

There's no such thing, Council 11, just so that we know it might make you feel better, but there's no such thing.

Yeah, uh so that's moved and it seconded us on the table.

Um what I've got one question for staff.

What is their status right now on that capital project project?

Ben, do you know?

Uh through the mayor, which capital project? There was two that were mentioned.

There was one uh for Admirals Road, I believe. Two, yeah.

Sorry, insulation on bus shelters, and we have a budget of 136,000.

Um, and I don't know which bus shelters we've we plan to do in 2026.

Um, but the other one is the long-term capital project for Admiral's Road that we would have to work with the ministry and First Nations.

Uh thank you through the mayor.

I'd be happy to speak to each of those.

I'm actually managing the bus shelter improvement uh project, which is the C 139.

Um can enlighten you that we actually have uh a prioritization like matrix um of all of our bus stops that uh says which ones to focus on first.

Um that said, we had heard previously that number 40 coming online uh was fairly low uh hanging fruit uh in terms of uh in filling the uh boulevard between the sidewalk and the curb with concrete, making it more pedestrian accessible.

Uh, we also just removed a tree uh out there in support of uh BC Transit buses to give them better clearance and pedestrians better access.

So that work is already underway and prioritized under that project.

Yeah, go ahead, Councillor Ritter.

Thank you. So uh indeed, um the number 40 bus is a game changer for the residents of View Royal.

And um it uh it enables the residents in the Admirals area uh to be able to go up to McKenzie, ride the 95, and easily much faster get to the West Shore parts of Iraq.

Important for the youth.

So that's and the second point is that it allows VUR residents a faster, more effective way to get to the UV without having to ride the number 14 into town through town.

So it's more direct.

Um, third, it enables the needing DT employees, even the employees of Canadian Tire, Admiral's Walk, all those individuals to be able to ride a bus to work and back.

And speaking to the manager of Canadian Tire, uh, he was thrilled that the number 40 buses is in place, but it's only hourly.

And so in order to increase the ridership, we uh one of the more successful ways of increasing ridership is ensuring that they are protected from the elements, that they have suitable safety lighting, that there are garbage cans and seats.

We have done an extraordinary job in building bus shelters through View Royal.

And if you look at um uh Island Highway, and you please look at the map.

The map is there for you, and it shows you the blue line, and on that blue line, bus shelter, bus shelter, bus shelter, bus shelter.

We've done an extraordinary job in providing that.

Now the number 40, which serves the other end of our community, Adlose area, um, Glentana, and and so forth.

No, it's great that we've got the number 40, but this this island highway only has the number 14.

These, this Admirals has four buses, not just the number 40.

And um, so it's great, yes, staff have done a great job in removing the tree and putting the signs, uh, but I will note that the Rexall drug still doesn't have a red line uh that it signifies to drivers that uh it is a bus stop.

And we have red lines on the other ones, but they're all worn out.

So the best way that we can really facilitate, and and we heard from transit that um they will improve and increase the um frequency of the number 40 if there is ridership, and um if we protect them, then they will have, and I think it's is it's a lovely thing to do and and responsible thing to do is provide shelters um for um for those, and it's it's great for residents, it's great for businesses, it's great for tourism.

There's no reasons not to do it because we already have these projects, we are already funding these projects.

It's just now that we've got a new bus route, uh, it does shift, it should reasonably shift our priorities to address this.

So all of all of these things are in the projects that uh have identified, and and obviously Ben's working on one for bus shelters right now.

So, what are you asking that isn't in a project already?

Uh okay. Uh question of staff.

Staff, when do you think um in the priority and do you think it's reasonable to shift the priority list of the bus shelters that we'd had now considering there's number 40?

Uh through the mayor.

So I'll just uh reiterate what I had said before is um we have actually prioritized that stock within our matrix.

So um it'll be something that is completed this year.

Just for clarification, though, what happens is first you have to prepare the site uh and then you make an application to BC Transit for funding for a bus shelter.

So those are two separate things.

The one doesn't require the one is a capital project, the second stage is not a capital project, it just requires an application to BC transit.

If I may another question, staff.

Sure. Thank you.

Um the East, thanks, Staff.

The um the two bus stops, one is at Rexel and the other is Admiral's Walk.

Um, do we have to make any arrangements and negotiations with um those property owners?

Um thinking particularly of Admiral's Walk right in their entranceway um to get a shelter there.

Uh through the mayor, I don't know what the property lines look like off the top of my head, but that is something that we always have to take into consideration.

Uh encroachment onto private property uh using the public road allowance essentially for public amenities.

Right.

Okay. So the um I think um I'm confident, I'm really happy that staff are are um you know got this on the radar.

Um the C 180, um, the policy is is quite silent on transit.

It speaks about bikes, it speaks about pedestrians, but it's silent on on transit.

So um that's why, you know, again, this this uh motion number two was to make sure that uh um there are the whole project uh recognizes transit and the bus shelters and bus pull-outs.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

I'm in support of uh everything, but like that area is not sorted at all for a plan.

That's a provincial road.

First nations, uh I believe that is a provincial road, at most is a provincial road, it's not our road.

Everything is gonna have to go through them, as well as negotiations with First Nations, as well as the rail uh Esquimaltt Nation has just approved a uh a route around that basically working with CRD to replay or install rail and then move the the um CRD trail along with it, so it goes along there.

So I'm in favor of everything except investing too much in something that's going to maybe altered or changed tomorrow.

Like if we go ahead and approve bus pull-outs and it eliminates a lane for the base that is already over capacity right now.

I'm not very much in support of that.

So if you're limiting your goal to shelters, Councilor Rogers, and so and that's work underway right now.

I don't even think we need a motion for it.

But as far as the other work that um has yet to be approved, I'm I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that, but I'm gonna go to Council McKenzie.

That's just my comment.

Yeah, I I kind of agree with uh what Mayor Tobias just said.

I don't I'm not supportive of bringing up the timelines on these bus shelters because we have yet to figure out what the act of transportation along um admirals looks like, and I wouldn't want us to spend all this time and money on the bus shelters for us then to create um an issue down the road for bike lanes, for example, because I you know two different priorities, but they're both important.

So I don't want one to create an issue for another.

May I comment?

Let's go to Councilor Matson first. Go ahead, Councilor Matson.

I mean approving anything on Admirals is really premature.

We've had a design that nobody that we've never approved.

So we we need to actually have a design that we can agree agree on, and then we can talk about you know where you want bus lanes and other things.

And there's also all those other items that were were mentioned.

We're doing anything on admirals is really premature at this point in time.

Yes, thank you.

Um actually uh Councilor Matson, there's no design.

Um the policy is um sufficiently blank.

Uh it has a um uh a conceptual photograph, um, but um the actual details are um uh suggests that there will be removal of lanes.

There will be lanes removed as as per the um uh uh C 180 as it is.

And that's my concern.

If we are removing lanes, then uh the opportunities to go around buses uh like we have right now will be gone.

And so as we are building in the um, you know, however, and uh and I just want to be able to um uh ensure that not only are we um um looking at this project to address pedestrians cycling, but our OCP also strongly um dovetails and and respects the the um uh the needs of uh buses.

So um and bus pull outs so it's let me reiterate but council's never approved a design for admirals so it's really premature to even talk about what you're talking about the the problem is that the the project is silent on transit and that's if we're going to uh have a design we need to um uh ensure that that project respects the transit aspects as well as pedestrians and cyclists.

So is that that your original motion that is um I I would just a suggestion that that might be more palatable for council counselor rogers is that staff incorporate infrastructure improvements into the active transportation improvements plan for Admirals Road.

I wouldn't get into bus shelters, pull out bays, bus pads, transit shelters are already being taken care of.

I think if you want support you I think where you're getting at is that you want equal or or suitable accommodation for um transit infrastructure improvements alongside of active mobility uh improvements as well.

Indeed, indeed.

And and my point again is that um C 180 is future long term.

Yep. C through 138, as staff are saying, that they're already working on it.

So I think we're addressing that.

So I I would agree with that amendment, your worship.

Um that's me.

Um and I know I seconded this.

Um, so I'll vote when we vote, but I I'm really concerned.

Last last night, as in many, many nights, residents approached me about what are we going to do?

What are we going to do about transportation in this town?

You know, there's so much growth, and any planning has been in hindsight, it's never been in forward sight.

And it's it's planning for yesterday and it's never planning for today, let alone tomorrow.

Um that, you know, I I I people drive, and people are going to continue to drive.

And you know, by by putting in bike lanes or or or bus shelters, we're not going to change the habit.

So I'm really concerned about the strip in general, about removing a lane, um, for example, to put in a bike lane, because you know, and I'm not anti-bike, but I am pro-reality.

Um that when we have very um well-used and and fabulous corridors like the the EN trail and and the gal and the goose, um that which will take you to the dockyard.

So I don't even see a need for a bike lane on this.

And so I I I think this whole strip needs a really thorough um discussion, perhaps with the next council.

But I I'm sorry, Councillor Rogers, I'm not I I I don't want to do something random here when I think we've got a bigger discussion ahead.

And I'm very worried about us losing lanes because people do drive.

If if I may, you worship.

Go ahead, Councilor Rogers.

Councillor McLean, we're saying the same thing.

We are. And that's where staff is is identifying an issue.

We do have constrained land and so forth.

And my point about bus pull-ups, just like we have, if you look at um all up and down the island highway, the buses have a pull-out that allows the traffic to pass the bus.

And then when the bus wants to come out, you put the signal and so forth.

Admirals, you know, they don't have any pull-ups.

So they will be obstructing the traffic.

And if we are going to have lane reductions, the bus will obstruct that one lane unless they have a pull-out.

So you see, I'm just trying to anticipate that we are going to still have smooth movement of traffic, as well as recognizing the buses and bikes and all those others that need to use the road.

That's right.

But but if I get stuck behind a bus that's only only traveling the road once an hour, I'll live with that.

There are four buses using that route, four buses. They all will be having different times.

So you they're not going, and if you have them backed up, then you will have four buses backing you up so um this this is why Admirals is important, because it's not just the one bus on Island Highway, there are four buses on that road okay okay uh I think we've had a lot of discussion about something that we've had already had a lot of discussion about and something that really your motion probably we won't see the life of that this term for sure aside from the bus shelters that are going into place right now that's your your point your point about uh you you suggested an amendment yeah uh and and that's was quite simply to that staff incorporate transit infrastructure improvement into the active transportation improvement planned on along Admirals Road that was uh all that is that it's not separating a lane that's not that's just incorporating it in because there was a lot of biking and and uh sidewalk but not a lot of um of of um bus transit planning if you move the motion I'll second it yeah I will happy well it's your motion so I can't I cannot move it all right well uh I will move the amendment to it uh and then you can uh second that and that was just to shorten it up to say that staff incorporate transit infrastructure improvements into active transportation improvements planned along Admirals Road second seconded right uh all those in favor to the um the motion as amended all those in favor all those opposed to it is that sorry is that just for the one where you that that small one about adding transport yeah that that's all it is transit that's it okay yeah I'm fine with that so you're supportive of that okay uh so uh so supportive were raise the hands again sorry uh counselor rogers myself counselor brown and counselor mattson against who is counselor lemon and mckenzie um so motion process you were for it okay okay my council machenzie was against so that satisfies that moving down to with uh between the lines yes um counselor uh matzen it's over to you to uh read in your uh notice of motion oh thank you um and this has to do with our uh district arts functioning issue but anyway my recommendation is that staff report on the processes or the legal requirements and financial implication of modifying or withdrawing view royals participation in the capital regional districts arts and cultural support service including any precedents from other municipalities and whether a service review would be required that's it thank you counselor mattson and now uh I'll turn to counselor rogers just to read in his motion no debate about it tonight just the notice of motion all right so um so the first is um to request bylaw amendment changes for view rolls participation area from group one to group two um by two twenty seven um that once done, allocate the difference um about 70 000 each year into a reserve account dedicated towards the uh construction of the West Shore Arts and Cultural Center.

Um three, um, amend um encourage sorry encourage all West Shore municipalities to become group two members in the CRD arts uh commission arts service, and as well as create their own West Shore Arts Facility Reserve account.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, no motivation or anything tonight, just reading those in so staff and council can have thoughts about it.

Uh and I think we're at question period, maybe.

No, we're already at question period.

So now we're at uh notice to adjourn.

Submit.

Moved by councillor Lemon, second by council McKenzie.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Motion carries.

Thank you, staff.