Special Council

Good evening, View Royal.

Welcome to a special council meeting for Tuesday the 12th of May 2026.

I just want to describe a little bit about why it's a special council meeting, because normally it would be uh committee of the whole meeting.

And it's not special because Levi and his uh folks are here from uh transport.

Uh it is special because in order to meet our deadline to get the tax information out, unfortunately, a bit boring.

Uh, we need to pass it tonight so Stephen can remain in the good books for getting our stuff in on time.

Uh so I'll start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Hongwin speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

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

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

If you wish to provide comments during the public participation period or ask questions during the question period, please begin by indicating your name and just your street name for the record, and then you may give us your the benefit of your views.

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

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

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

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

Questions, however, can be on any uh topic and is limited to two minutes for each speaker.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast you are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Um if there's any changes to the agenda.

If there are none, can I get a motion to approve?

Move by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? None opposed motion carries, and that brings us down to public participation period.

And we'll start in the room.

If anybody in the room would like to address counsel on any topic related to the agenda, please do so.

And uh just start with your name and uh your street name, please.

My name is Diane, and my street name is Jedburgh.

Mayor and Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I'm speaking as someone who's lived in this community for over 20 years and who has experienced firsthand how decisions affect ordinary people and families.

I want to firstly express my support for Councillor Brown's motion to align View Royal with the provincial framework for provincial for principal residents short-term rentals.

The province has already done extensive research on short-term rentals and housing impacts across British Columbia.

The provincial framework allows owner-operated short-term rentals within a principal residence because it determined that these are not the primary drivers of housing pressures.

The focus of the legislation was on large-scale commercial operations removing housing from the market, not individual homeowners.

Other municipalities like Langford and Calwood already follow this framework, and there has not been clear evidence presented showing negative impacts from allowing these types of rentals under those rules.

There is also concern expressed about long-term rentals being converted into short-term rentals.

In reality, for many homeowners, this is not a practical option.

The Residential Tenancy Act provides significant protection for tenants, and ending a tendency is neither simple nor quick.

For most people, giving up a stable long-term tenant to enter into more uncertain and regulated short-term market would not make financial sense.

It is important to keep these issues in perspective.

We are not dealing with a large number of properties.

From what I understand, there are only a small number of these rentals in View Royal.

The term vacation rental is also very misleading.

Many people using these spaces are not on vacation.

They are here for medical appointments, temporary work, construction projects, family visits, renovations, or while transitioning between housing.

These are practical, real life needs.

When we talk about housing, it's important to remember that the families that are already living in this community as well.

For over 20 years, restrictive housing and rental bylaws have not supported my family and have at times caused significant stress and hardship.

These policies you're making are not abstract.

They affect people that are trying to stay in their homes and make responsible decisions for their families.

Homeowners are not corporations.

People seek flexibility for valid reasons, to manage increasing costs, prepare for retirement, support children or aging parents, or to adapt to changing life circumstances.

Long-term rental housing is important, but it is not the right fit for every homeowner or every situation.

For me, maintaining flexibility in my home is also about my family.

It means having options for my children and planning for my future as I approach retirement.

These are deeply personal decisions.

Many residents have already made plans based on the direction council previously provided.

That could include confirmed bookings, travel arrangements, financial commitments.

Reversing or canceling the amnesty period at this stage does not solve the issue, it just creates new challenges.

It places residents who acted in good faith in a position of uncertainty and potential loss.

There's also a safety aspect to consider.

Platform-based rentals such as Airbnb include accountability measures that do not exist with many private arrangements.

Hosts can review guests, see ratings, and decline individuals with concerning behavior.

This creates an added level of transparency and oversight for both homeowners and neighbors.

There is an opportunity here to create balance.

If principal resident short-term rentals are allowed and regulated, licensing fees could be structured in a way that contributes to local housing initiatives or partnerships with organizations like Habitat for Humanity.

This would allow the community to support housing goals while recognizing the realities of homeowners.

The town's own home occupation review, also on the agenda tonight, says the town is emphasizing aligning with neighboring municipalities, fostering a business friendly community, supporting compatible home based business, and removing regulations that are unenforceable or subjective.

It is difficult for me to understand why those same principles were not applied to principal residents short-term rentals.

Housing is important, and ensuring people have places to live is critical.

However, that conversation must include people who already live here and are trying to remain in their homes.

For these reasons, I respectfully encourage council to support Councillor Brown's motion to align V Royal with the provincial framework for principal resident short-term rentals.

Thank you.

Thank you, Diane.

Anyone else in the chamber would like to address counsel on any topic related to the agenda.

Going once, twice, three times.

Carl, do we have any um web notes uh for uh public participation?

Uh Mayor Tobias, we have no messages on the board this evening.

Thank you. Um I'll just give a brief mayor's report, and I just uh finished meeting with uh Esquimalt Nation and the mayor for uh uh Esquimalt Township, who is also uh co-chair of the um Island Corridor Foundation, and as many are aware we're advancing discussions on the island corridor and have finished one preliminary study, which I've encouraged to be made public, and that would be ridership on a potential corridor that would go around the Squamalt Nation, uh, would start at the John Street Bridge and end up um in West Hills in Langford.

Uh so there's been a preliminary study completed and um now a CRD funding and their wisdom reserves some funds about 16 years ago and compounded uh since then that will pay for a second more technical study that we're looking forward to getting underway in the near future.

Also wanted to just give an update on the uh initiative for a clinic in View Royal.

Um initially Aurora Lifestyle Medicine was looking for space on the second floor of our hospital building in Eagle Creek.

Um Patison Group wanted a single um tenant for it, but now has uh loosened that restriction to allow a plan for up to around 2,000 square feet for a nonprofit View Royal Clinic alongside of their other services.

So we're working diligently with the general manager for Aurora Lifestyle Medicine now to get something before council so we can have a look at uh what that might shape up with um for a proposal to serve residents of View Royal for uh primary medical care.

Uh and just a word out for folks that might not be on the if they do not have health care now, primary health care provider, either a primary care nurse or a doctor and live in View Royal or really anywhere in the West Shore.

I would encourage you to um get on the BC House Registry, and we're going to have a communication and a link out uh on the website to um help you register there.

Um if everything is successful, the intake for that will come off the registry.

I was the biggest skeptic of the registry because I have been on it since it opened up about five years ago i got a call this week uh that i had been um assigned uh uh a medical clinic in in blankford so it does work um i'm not sure if they were waiting for me to pass before they made me the offer or not but uh it it is uh it does move uh and uh so i would encourage everybody to do that because should we open up a clinic it would actually draw from that it wouldn't come from I'm a resident of View Royal First.

Uh with that I am excited that we have representatives from BC Transit today on an update for the Victoria regional transit.

Elna we seem to have skipped over the uh bylaws so if we could please circle back to the oh thank you Alna thank you very much for that uh so the most important reason why we're here is the tax rate by law and that is to move to adoption at a last meeting we'd given it third reading and that's a bylaw to levy uh rates uh for municipal and regional district and regional hospital purposes for the year 2026 can I have a mover a move by councilor Mattson seconded by counselor Brown any discussion yes please counsel them for for people in the gallery that weren't here last week or haven't listened perhaps we could get a brief explanation for the public.

Yeah, this is the high tax rate and the reason the reason why it's back, I think.

Stephen, there was an administrative error we had to correct.

And uh if you could give us a little description uh of that before we vote.

Thank you, Mayor.

Yes, um, there was uh a clerical error uh subsequent uh the clerical error was discovered subsequent to the first three initial first three readings of the initial bylaw.

Um subsequent to its um correction, council uh amended and gave third reading to the amended bylaw.

Uh so tonight is uh the bylaws up for adoption, and uh this will give the town authority to levy property taxes for 2026.

Which nobody is uh relishing the opportunity to do, not even council, but uh we shall do our duty and uh we've got a mover and a second or all those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, the motion carries unanimously.

Thanks for the heads up for that, Elna.

And now we'll go uh to the update on Victoria Regional Transit.

Good to see you again, Levi.

Thank you so much for having me here today, Council.

Uh it's been a little while since I was last year in July, and so looking forward to providing uh council with an update on the Victoria Regional Transit Plan.

Next slide. Uh so the the primary purpose today is just once again to provide an update on the plan itself and and sort of the status of the project.

Uh and really the focus is explaining uh some of the big moves within the plan.

So, what are the the key objectives that the plan is going to be seeking to achieve over the next 25 years?

Next slide. Uh and so this is just a really brief reminder.

What what were those core goals within the plan that we set out to to achieve as part of the process?

So the first is really updating that long-range vision for the transit system.

So, what what is the transit system gonna look like by 2050 over the next 25 years?

We know there's been a huge amount of change within the region.

And so we just want to make sure that we're reflecting those changes in our future plans.

Another key component was the development of comprehensive network and route design guidelines.

We know things are in a state of flux within the region and will continue to do so.

So we wanted to have a framework to ensure that the network will continue to evolve and adapt with the changing environment here within the region.

So we don't have to come back every 10 years and update our 25 year plan.

So we'll share a little bit about that today.

And then as well, really to guide future infrastructure investment.

And that includes operations and maintenance facilities such as the Saanich Transit Center that we're working on and other things to support rapid transit and other initiatives as well.

Next slide. So aligning closely with the CRD has been a core component of this process.

And then as well, we know every single municipality within the region has updated their official community plan within the last 12 months.

So this was a really great opportunity to be uh engaging closely with all of our municipal partners to ensure that land use and transit are continuing to evolve together.

Next slide. Uh before talking about the uh priorities within the plan, I think there's value in just briefly reflecting on some of the accomplishments that we've achieved within the transit system over the last uh sort of five to 10 years.

Uh so the first being our electronic fare collection technology, uh, or or UMO as we refer to it as.

Um, so that was uh around uh just pre-COVID that we we were able to introduce that and allowing people to pay for their fares uh on on their phone or on the internet.

Um and we're very close to uh launching uh tap for debit and credit, so stay tuned.

There should be uh updates on that very shortly, which is exciting.

Um of course the the new handy dart facility was just recently completed within View Royal, allowing us to finally reinvest in in our handy dart system for the first time in 10 years.

So that's a huge uh step forward for improving accessible transportation within the region.

Um we launched our first rapid transit uh route, the Route 95 uh Victoria Langford in 2023, and we're now carrying over 11,000 passengers per per day on that service.

So that's exciting to see the growth year over year.

Um in 2021, the province uh introduced the kids 12 and under ride free.

And uh we are seeing uh we're continuing to alleviate pass-ups uh around schools, uh, and we're seeing the demographic of of kids riding the bus more and more frequently.

So that's great.

It's great to see that the uh the service is doing well and that we're having to continue to invest uh to uh support kids moving around our community.

And battery electric bus is the last thing I'll speak about.

So we have 25 uh battery electric buses driving around within our community now.

Um, and uh I think seven hundred thousand kilometers.

Uh so yeah, the new buses have driven a collective 700,000 kilometers.

How many?

10 10 diesel tankers worth of fuel consumption avoided.

So it's it's really great to see these things out on the street and seeing the value that they're providing to our community.

Next slide. So our current system, we deliver 58 different routes across the system.

We have over 300 conventional buses and over 50 handed art buses.

Last year we delivered almost 900,000 annual service hours out on the road.

And we carried over 26 million passengers last year as well.

And that continues to grow year over year.

Next slide. So it was really great.

We had almost 1,900 people respond to our online survey.

And we talked to about 350 people who came out to our open house events.

So that we got some great feedback and input through those conversations and through the online survey.

Plus, we had uh a lot of targeted stakeholder engagement uh with neighborhood and community associations, uh, major employers, key institutions such as universities, and then we had a number of workshops with local government staff for each municipality and the capital regional district.

Once again, just really making sure that we're aligning transit with land use and transportation priorities uh for municipalities across the region.

Um, so what did we hear?

Uh the biggest thing is really more frequency, more reliable service was was the biggest thing we heard.

The most uh sort of open comments we received were around rapid transit.

I'd say like 80% of all the open comments that we received were related to rapid transit in some way, shape, or form.

And you'll see when we get to the big moves that that is reflected in in terms of what we heard.

And then finally, uh people are looking for simpler, more direct, faster routes within the system and then improve connections as well.

Next slide. So I talked about network and route design guidelines.

Uh, what are those?

Trying to describe those in 30 seconds is really challenging.

Uh really um we're trying to develop a demand-based framework.

So we're aligning service with the level of ridership demand we see while still maintaining a base level of coverage for the broader community.

Um what is the goal of these?

It's really to provide greater clarity to the public, our local government partners, and ourselves as well, to hold ourselves to a standard around, hey, if you develop your community in this way, this is the kind of service you can expect.

Um, and so that's gonna help us guide sort of the evolution of the transit system over the next 25 years.

Um, what are we hoping to do with this?

We're gonna modernize the existing service.

Um, I'll talk to that in a little greater detail on the one of the big moves.

Um, and just really looking to better serve uh the region moving forward, both in terms of existing residents and the residents we know are going to be joining us over the next 25 years.

Next slide. So that gets us to the big reveal, the big moves.

Uh so we've got 10 of them.

Um I will note there's one thing missing here.

Um, so uh but I'll I'll start with it and then I'll I'll fill that out.

So um you'll note a lot of these are associated with rapid transit.

The first one I'll speak to is the higher order transit between uh downtown Victoria and the West Shore.

So, what does higher order transit mean?

That means uh essentially transit using larger vehicles, whether that be light rail, um trackless trams, essentially something that's going to carry 150 to 200 people per vehicle.

We know that that's going to be needed over the next 25 years based off some of the modeling that the ministry has done recently and that and the additional ridership review we've done.

So that is something we're looking to implement over the next 25 years according to the plan, which is exciting.

In order to support that, we've got the Uptown Mobility Hub, which is a really critical to tie our bus services into that future higher order service.

And the thing that's missing is the six-mile mobility hub.

So that will be reflected in the plan, really creating that link here for the West Shore and for the View Royal community as well to make sure we can access that future higher order transit.

There's a number of other things.

I'm not going to speak to all of them right here, but one of the big pieces is the frequent transit network and network modernization, which I'll speak to a little bit more.

Improving interregional connections up island, so that's something to better connect existing services and maybe improve service in the other direction at some point.

And then a bunch of rapid transit.

The peninsula, McKenzie, two new ones include a potential extension to the Jubilee area and James Bay area based off recent developments in those in those neighborhoods.

And then potential supplemental rapid transit corridor on the West Shore pending further review.

Next slide. So the network modernization and the frequent transit network is the most sort of complex one to describe really briefly.

So, what does this mean?

Through conversations with local government staff, we've uh identified where the future frequent transit corridors are planned to be within the community.

And that's based around the updates to the official community plans that were recently done.

So, what we've essentially done is we've got density thresholds that we know support frequent transit levels of service.

And so the goal is uh developing that out over the next 25 years.

Um beyond the frequent transit grid, um, we've also got some new service layers that we will be looking to introduce within the region, including a regional express service and then uh express overlay service, which we currently operate, but we're gonna look at extended.

I see I'm running out of time here.

Uh digital on demand, we can talk a little bit more about that if you have questions about it.

Next slide. Uh there's a potential to uh modernize the network and improve the efficiency of service, including reducing service duplication and uh harmonizing some of the bus stop spacing across the network where it's sensible and it makes sense.

Next slide. Uh modernizing our handy dart service.

Uh so we've got a new custom transit solution that we're looking at to improve booking and make that easier.

It's one of the most common things we hear from the handy dart uh users is improving how booking functions.

Next slide. Uh I talked about this.

How is the higher order to to the West Shore going to be phased and framed within the plan?

So the first piece is we're gonna revisit the alignment, um, recognizing Langford and Collwood's OCPs have changed, the V Royals OCP has changed, so just making sure that we've that alignment makes the most sense uh to how land use is changing.

So that's the first step.

We're gonna need to develop that six-mile mobility hub, the uptown mobility hub to support the development.

Um, and then there's a bunch of other infrastructure that's going to be required depending on what technology is chosen.

Next slide. So what does this mean for the town of U Royal?

What I will say is this is a very ambitious plan.

It's still seeking to achieve a 15% transit mode share for the region, which is over double what we're the current mode chair is.

So it's going to require a significant amount of investment on VC transit in the provinces side of the equation.

But there's also a lot of things that individual municipalities can do to continue to support the achievement of this vision.

Some of those key things include prioritizing transit in on key corridors where we're going to be delivering more service or where we're seeing significant delays to help make the decision to take transit a little easier.

Looking to improve accessibility at bus stops, because bus stops do fall within the local government's jurisdiction, adding shelters across the system where warranted.

And ensuring that transit supportive land use is aligned with where higher order transit is planned, where frequent transit's planned.

And I will say that through conversations with staff, I think we're really well set up on that front through this plan and through the recent official community plan.

So with that, in terms of next steps, so next slide, we're in the process of updating all the municipalities across the region.

I believe you were all your number five.

So we've got Wishes Lock, we've got a bunch more to go.

And so we'll be doing some final key stakeholder and rights holder engagement over the next couple months, and then we'll be bringing the draft plan to the commission in July for their feedback and input.

Um, so with that, I want to thank you very much for having us here back again today and happy to answer any questions council may have.

Thank you, Leva.

I know my colleagues have got a bunch of questions.

I just wanted to make a comment first, and that I hadn't taken the bus until um the bus on the shoulder got to at least McKenzie and took it a couple of times within the past couple of months and was very impressed with both the service, the cleanliness, because I think um a lot of folks get uh make some judgments about BC Transit Victoria service without having experienced public transit on buses in other cities, and I would put us far above that, and that's thanks to you and your staff.

So thank you very much for all of the work that you're doing there.

Um I just wanted to note that View Royal has been particularly um hit by transit work in the past, at least in my term.

So we had the bus on the shoulder, uh of course go on the handy dart as well, the extra stuff that went all to six mile.

Is there a plan?

Because things bottleneck again at six mile.

Um, is there a plan working with MOT for six mile bridge new another lane?

Is that in the cards at all that you're aware of, Leva?

Great question.

So I I can't speak to too much on that, um, other than to say that the six mile mobility hub is something that's going to be identified in our plan.

We know it's in the ministries uh in their their wheelhouse, they're aware of it.

It's still within their long-term planning and priorities.

Um, beyond that, unfortunately, I don't have any more information uh with respect to that specific initiative.

Okay, thanks.

And I'll go to my colleagues starting off with uh counselor lemon and then counselor rogers and counselor maximum hi leva thank you for this um rapid transit you haven't uh absolutely defined that as light rail have you uh so so great question so through through the chair rapid transit is a spectrum of services and and that's how we're gonna be framing it within the plan everything from rapid bus on the low end of the scale what what do we mean by rapid bus um it's essentially a branded service operated using higher capacity vehicles like double deckers um it's limited stop service and it's got it's it's got enough transit priority that um we're gonna save at least 15% over over if it was just generally operating in mixed traffic um and then as well it's at least 10 minute service all day 7 a.m to 7 p.m.

um there's full bus rapid transit which is the next level up which is like full dedication all door boarding um potentially more technology and then beyond that you've got higher capacity vehicles whether that be light rail transit or trackless trams that the big delineator there is being able to carry more people per vehicle um so that could be a train it could be um a trackless tram is essentially a train on wheels um and so hopefully that that helps sort of frame the spectrum of of rapid transit it does thank you um and just further to that my my take from what you said was that all all rapid things will lead to um uptown.

Is that right? So uptown will be the jumping off point to go fast to uh the peninsula to the to the west shore to downtown.

So through through the chair, the primary alignment in the plan, which is uh via um Douglas uptown to the Six Mile Mobility Hub, and then we need to confirm the alignment from there to the Langford area is the primary sort of higher order alignment that we've identified.

Okay. But there's a number of other rapid transit corridors will be identifying within the plan.

I will also indicate that the um uh the ENN corridor, of course, is represented on the map.

Uh it's currently there's a lot of regional discussions about that.

So we haven't identified that as as a as a big move in the plan in its current state.

Um, but it's something that once the CRD's regional transportation plan is updated um in 2027, we can look at making tweaks and adjustments as we can.

So have you have you had any discussions with the um Island Corridor Foundation at all?

Yeah, for sure.

So um Thomas Bevin and Anna Um were stakeholders through through the process.

We've had a number of conversations.

Um beyond that, uh Elisa, did you want to speak to sort of next steps there?

Um so Elise Wren, I'm government relations manager for Victoria Regional Transit System.

Um, and I represent the staff voice for the commission.

Um, so recently at our um previous uh commission meeting, the commission asked for a letter to be written to the Island Corridor Foundation about the reconciliation corridor initiative to ask that BC Transit have more conversations as they develop their terms of reference framework to see how BC Transit can support with primarily support at first with statistics and organizational knowledge for them as they're moving through this preliminary planning.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Sir Rogers, please.

Yes, thank you.

You know, um on the uh big moves map that you showed there, I was really interested that you had the ENN corridor.

Why?

Uh so through the chair, um, we've indicated on the map, recognizing that it's a regionally significant transportation corridor.

Um, we haven't indicated it as one of the big moves in the draft plan at this point.

We're really waiting for uh greater regional clarity as these conversations continue to unfold.

Um, and and we're gonna be working very closely with the CRD and other stakeholders.

Um ultimately the CRD's regional transportation plan will hopefully incorporate sort of the outcome of this.

And then once that plan is complete, there's the opportunity to make some minor tweaks and adjustments to to this plan as well to make sure we're capturing the broader regional vision.

Yes.

And I'm I'm it looks also like um uh with the rapid bus going into Langford, you're maybe giving some second thoughts reasonable, rational second thoughts to going down Goldstream, which is a lovely congested road that peak hours.

I see that you've got other options uh in the works to assess and make sure that you get the bus to Langford quickly.

Uh through the chair, that is correct.

We want to make sure that with some of the changes to land use and also to transportation that we're uh accounting for the best possible outcome given the current state and anticipated future state of the community as it continues to grow.

I I really commend um transit for finally getting the number 40 bus.

And unfortunately that's that's one of the things you should have put on the V Royal page.

Number 40. You know, because you not only serve us, you serve two First Nations, Esquamalt and Sandage.

So it's um and I think it also will uh alleviate some of the east-west movements because people will can live in Saanich and quickly get to the dockyard.

So I I think that's um really good.

However, I understand that the uh number 40 at this moment is only every 90 minutes.

Uh so through the chair in peak periods, it's every 30 minutes.

Um certain times I it depends at certain times on like week uh off peak periods it might hit 90 minutes.

Um but yes, it is an introductory in implementation.

Uh and you will note that on our frequent transit uh map that's gonna be embedded within the plan, that corridor is targeted for future frequent transit service levels, which would be 15 minutes all day.

And uh we just need the resources to to continue moving in that direction.

Yeah, yes, yeah, it makes sense every 15 minutes.

Uh one of the things that V-Will obviously needs to do and same with uh the other um um uh miss policy is that we gotta get bus stops.

I mean, you've got we got the signs, but we don't have the shelters.

So um uh I think and I hope that um VR recognizing the number 40 is there will we get those uh shelters in place.

But the number 46 is still only peak hours weekdays.

So how do our youth get to the one if you correct centers they live in along Admirals and Glanford and you know Glantana and so on in those that area?

How do they get their weekends and and nighttime if the number 46 is only very limited?

Yeah, great question through the chair.

Right now, it's with more than one connection, probably.

So it's something we'll need to look at as we continue to modernize the network.

Um, in particular with the development of the frequent transit network and modernizing, and over the next couple of years, we'll have the opportunity to look at that in greater detail.

And and one of the other uh points is that it is by me?

One more thing.

Yeah, one more thing.

Um I was reading the uh the minutes um of the the commission, and there was a staff recommendation that there be a representative from the uh West Shore, Langford, and no mention of View Royal, never any mention of View Royal.

I wonder if we can solve that problem.

Through the chair.

Um, so this has been um this has arisen through our 25-year plan process, um, the need to um the sorry, I'm just thinking as I go here.

Um, so through this 25-year plan, we have noticed the growth in the West Shore, the explosive growth in the West Shore.

And when you look at the BC Transit Act, um, when it was enacted in the late 90s, um, the BC Transit Act legislation tells um the uh the ministry who should be on the commission.

So it has uh City of Victoria mayor, a counselor from City of Victoria, Sanich Mayor, Sanich Counselor.

It has either Oak Bay or a Squimalt mayor, it has one representative from the West Shore, so that's everybody else, and one representative from the peninsula.

So at the staff level, when we look at that, when we look at population from 1997, that makes sense.

When we look at population from the most recent census of 2021, it doesn't make sense anymore.

So we wrote that letter acknowledging that we would like one more representative on the West Shore side.

So adding a third West Shore member, because we have Machosen and we have Souk representing currently, adding a third member didn't quite math from the 2021 census in terms of population seat share.

It's a little above Victoria and Saanich, but it'll be interesting to see when what our 2026 census says about West Shore population.

All that to say that you'll see in the commission minutes from this morning that the actually no, sorry, I can't say that that was enclosed.

But there was a report.

Yes. And so the commission, I what I can say is that the commission is working to um working on that with the ministry in terms of making sure that representation is fair for the West Shore.

What would be ideal, uh, and the the commission has articulated this is um a West Shore representative from an urban West Shore municipality and a rural um because the needs of each rural west shore and urban West Shore are very different, right?

Um, to represent uh with their regional hat on on the commission.

I'm sorry about that rambling.

I hope that uh that's answered your question.

Well, my the other follow-up question is do the chairs um and those representatives do they rotate if we have five municipalities, would they rotate between those municipalities so somebody gets the chance?

Yeah, so through the chair, um they they sit um at I forget what the term is at their pleasure.

Um so they sit uh on the commission until they're no longer an elected official, um, or the ministry can choose to swap uh elected officials.

So recently we saw um uh Mayor Murdoch from Oak Bay decide to step away so that uh um Mayor Desjardin could step in as commissioner.

That should change. Thank you. Thank you.

And uh before I go to you, Councilor Madsen, just um I guess since our incorporation, some 37 years ago, View Royal has never had a seat on the transit commission.

And just a plug, um View Royal is both urban and rural, so would make an excellent representative.

And being, as I said before, the meat in the sandwich, um, we have our own challenges.

Like you might have rapid bus, but by the time we try to get on in View Royal in the middle of Russia or it's full.

Um, so yeah, I'd be delighted to see some at least um acknowledgement that it could be uh View Royal, Langford or Callwood type of thing.

Yes, elected Machosen, 37 years, you know, pick View Royal, and they've got one bus that goes once a week, I think to Machosen.

What's with that? Uh through you. Um I I do want to clarify uh that the ministry does make the selection.

So BC transit I'll know where to tell target money.

BC Transit does not make the selection, it's done through order and council.

Okay. Do you make recommendations?

Uh through the chair.

Um, we can um we can make staff level recommendations to the commissioners.

Um, but I I would recommend exercising your your voice as elected officials to your fellow elected officials because that's where the very much.

Counselor Mattson.

You mentioned the uh Six Mile mobility hub and exchange, and so my question, what does that look like?

And how much property of view royal property will that take?

Uh it's a great question through the chair.

Uh at this point it it is uh ministry prior project, and so I don't have all the details about sort of the scope and scale.

Um, what I can say is that the mobility hub would need to support the interaction between higher order transit, whether that be a train or something else, allowing bus services to connect in, other modes to connect in.

Um with respect to the Uptown mobility hub, the intention is to integrate uh sort of uh residential mixed-use development with the exchange.

Uh ultimately the the ministry is gonna have to contemplate uh the full scope of the plan, but from a transit functional design perspective, we need to integrate sort of between that higher order transit, other bus services and uh active transportation modes trying to access transit at the location.

Hopefully that that helps.

I I don't have I can't speak to the specifics with respect to the ministry's vision for for the site at this point.

Okay. At one time I understood they were gonna put a whole bunch of parking in that area.

So is the parking gone now and it's just uh an exchange of passengers from one type of uh vehicle to another.

Uh so through the chair, my understanding is there was the uh idea of integrating some kind of park and ride facility at the location that potentially could still be a part of the plan.

Um, but yeah, at this point it's further discussion is required with the ministry.

Um, and this is just really identifying that this location and this functional need uh is a key infrastructure priority for the for the transit system and and all those additional details would need to be determined through further conversations, further planning.

Yeah, if you could just remind the highways or the fitness for transportation that park and rides have a tendency to um uh have people parking there because it's convenient to park and have nothing to do with the ride that goes along with it.

So we we we've experienced that quite a bit.

And I would hate to see a big chunk of Uroil become a parking lot for no particular benefit.

Thank you guys for coming out.

And I realize this is uh on your off schedule.

Hopefully, you're getting some compensated time off that you can take for leave.

Tell your boss as I said so.

Um, but yeah, it's it's a difficult um road to hoe because everybody's uh has high expectations uh for transit and you've got a limited budget in order to work with.

So appreciate all the work that you do.

Thank you. Thank you for having us.

I think that uh brings us down to financial uh or consolidated financial statements 2025, and that's uh agenda item 7a.

Um Steven, is this Joel that's delivering this or yourself?

Okay. Welcome, Joel.

Yes, this is uh Joel Adams, our deputy director of finance.

Sorry, on uh thank you, Mayor and Council, for allowing me to say a few words about the financial statements.

Um there's some slides up there that I'm gonna be uh following along with.

Uh next slide, please.

So I'm gonna cover uh just a quick overview of the various parties' responsibilities, uh current audit status, and then spend a few minutes just summarizing some of the key points from the financial statements uh that were included in the staff report as well.

Next slide, please.

So, in terms of responsibilities, essentially management and staff create the financial statements.

Uh mayor and council make sure that management is uh doing their job and and asks uh questions and makes sure that uh management's on top of things.

And the auditor conducts an independent review of the financial statements, uh including internal controls, and uh expresses an opinion on whether the financial statements present an accurate picture of the town's financial position.

Next slide, please.

Current audit status.

So we uh legislatively are required to submit our financial statements, our approved financial statements by May 15th.

Uh the auditors are prepared to release a clean audit opinion subject to council approval.

Uh and uh representative from our auditors MNP is uh I believe on the call, and we'll be going through some slides after uh my presentation, so we'll have some more to say on that.

Uh next slide, please.

So, in terms of the results, so on the revenue side, we exceeded our budget targets by approximately 1.8 million.

On the expenses side, we were approximately 1.4 million under budget.

So we ended at 2025 with an accounting surplus of approximately 2.9 million.

I think it's important to understand that as an accounting surplus, uh, we budget for a uh zero-based budget, so essentially wanting to have no revenue or sorry, no surplus or deficit for the year.

Um, but financial statements prepared under public sector financial standards, uh, treat certain items differently, capital expenses, debt principal repayments, and transfers to and from reserves being the primary ones.

Um, so we actually end up with a budgeted uh deficit of 0.4 million.

Uh, and there's a note in the financial statements that explains basically the reconciliation, how we get to that.

On the accumulated surplus side, oh, sorry, yeah, thank you.

Um we have we ended uh the year with 157.7 million in accumulated surplus.

Uh that's broken down into a few different categories.

So equity and tangible capital assets 122 million, uh reserve funds 20.5 million, appropriated surplus of 6.3 million, and unrestricted surplus of 8.6 million.

And there's again a note in the financial statements that that breaks out the various categories within those those different uh segments.

Uh next slide, please.

So this is a chart basically comparing revenues and expenses or sorry, revenue compared to budget uh for the year.

So you'll see uh various categories there.

Budget is orange and blue is uh actual.

So I'll just make some uh notes on that.

So basically um we exceeded our budget target by 1.8 million in total on the revenue side.

Uh contributions from developers was significantly over budget at 2.4 million compared to a budget of 10,000.

Uh primarily that was contributions from uh developers that contributed tangible capital assets.

Uh let's treat it as revenue and the financial statements.

Uh investment income was approximately 0.8 million over budget, and development charges were approximately 0.4 million under budget.

Uh so as I mentioned, totaling about 1.8 million uh over budget.

Uh next slide, please.

On the expenditure side, uh, same thing.

Uh orange and is budget, blue is actual.

Under budget by 1.4 million for the year.

Uh there's some uh detail there around transportation being approximately 0.6 million under budget, due mainly to timing of work on master plans.

General government was 0.4 million under budget.

Uh admin was under on wages and finance was under on wages and training.

Protective services was under budget by 0.2 million, and there's some detail on that in the staff report.

Uh next slide, please.

Summary of our financial position.

Uh net financial assets increased over 2024.

So that's a result of our our positive variances for the year.

Tangible capital assets end of the year at 125.4 million, including additions of 5.6 million and amortization of 3.3 million.

Uh our MFE debt, uh, we have two issues still outstanding, one of which will be fully repaid in 2026.

So that's the portion related to the land on the public safety building.

Uh the debt related to the building will be repaid over time.

And note seven has additional details on on uh the debt.

Uh so in summary, staff's recommendation is that council accept and approve the 2025 financial statements, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Excellent. Thank you very much, Joel. Good presentation. Is there any questions for the council? Council Matson.

So thanks for your presentation.

I I like some of the numbers in terms of our uh accumulated surplus financial assets.

So what I'll ask the same thing about auditor too.

So what what's your perspective on the town's financial situation?

Uh through the chair, I mean, I would say we have strong uh net financial assets.

Anytime you're seeing increases happening uh year over year, that's always a good sign.

And and what keeps uh our finance staff up at nights worrying about the uh items for the future.

Uh yeah, I think uh, you know, strong cash balances um and I think we're in good shape.

Uh I would maybe uh uh pass that over to Steve for a little more uh insight into that.

Thank you. Through the mayor, I would say that uh, you know, the the recurring uh upward pressures in terms of expenditures, especially you know, RCMP related protective services that are they're big drivers, as well as um the downward pressures on revenues uh that we've experienced gaming revenue and other grant revenue.

Thank you.

And just to add to a comment, uh, something that I think about that keeps me up at night is not only our financial statement, but what is our capital debt actually costing us and and to service that debt, like how how much of that?

And there's been a few newspaper articles on it as well, different municipalities in the region and how much we're carrying.

So I I asked Stephen about it.

I said, how much are we actually carrying like per household?

So you can contextualize that a little bit better.

So for the uh 3.2 million that we're currently carrying right now, that's 277 in debt per household that is being carried, and the cost of servicing that debt is about $50 a year.

So compared to other municipalities, along with the um financial situation that uh that Joel just summarized, I think leaves us in.

We should be proud, and the previous council should be proud as well, of leaving the town uh in in a financial position that's as favorable as this is because not all municipalities are in the same boat at all.

So, Stephen, thank uh you and Joel for the hard work that you've done.

Any other questions for Joel?

And I think that segues into our audit, does it, Joel?

Uh we need to accept and approve the consolidated financial statements.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed motion carries.

And I think the audit is the audit later.

Yeah, the audit is later.

Um so this brings us down to item B, and that's development variance permit for 226 uh for 254 Island Highway.

Leanne, is this you or is this Leah?

Yeah, okay. Steven.

My apologies. Uh our auditor is going to be attending virtually and it is coming up right away here.

So she just needed to be in.

Okay, we're just waiting for the auditor. There we go.

So my name's Louise. I'll be presenting uh the auditor support today. I hope that you can hear me all right.

We can, Corey, thank you.

Okay. Uh so excuse me, little tickle.

Uh we will be, as Joel mentioned, it will be an unmodified opinion or a clean audit opinion again this year.

Uh so um basically our an excerpt from our opinion paragraph.

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated financial.

Oops, sorry, I forgot to uh move the slide along.

Oh, there we go.

Sorry, there's just a bit of a delay.

In our opinion, the accompanying consolidated financial statements present fairly in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the town as at December 31st, 2025, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards.

And we will be able to do that shortly after this meeting.

And just uh uh did you have more sort?

Sorry, I do I just have a delay in my slideshow, so I might just yeah, anyway.

So we do examine the controls in place to ensure the uh financial statements present fairly and we sample transactions so we don't test every transaction, we sample transactions, and we have a material materiality, which is based on five percent of revenue, and this year that materiality is 1.25 million, and we examine all items over 1.25 million and sample below that number uh oh okay next slide please and then next slide please okay and then next slide please there we go so our engagement status there was no limitations placed on the performance of our audit uh there were no significant unadjusted amounts and we didn't find any regular irregularities materially impacting the statements or evidence of conflicts of interest unusual related party transactions or illegal or questionable payment next slide please uh you don't have a return an internal audit auditor sorry so no reliance was placed on the internal audit and we are required to review the annual report before it's published to the website to ensure the financial statements are accurately reproduced next slide please and we'd like to acknowledge the cooperation we received from management and staff uh for the so that we can complete our audit next slide please and we confirm that we are independent with respect to the town of Uroil within the meaning of the code of professional conduct of CPA British Columbia as of this date and next slide, please.

And I'd like to thank you for um had letting me have the opportunity to present today.

And uh sorry, this was an older version.

I'm Louise. Corey's presenting elsewhere today.

And uh please let me know if there's any questions.

Thank you. And uh are you uh happy to entertain any questions from council?

Yes. I've got my first one.

How do you decide on which items you're going to select in materiality?

We so materiality is based on your revenue, and we what we do is we normalize revenue for unusual items.

So in a year where you have an unusual grant, for example, a non-recurring revenue, we would reduce your revenue by that for the calculation of materiality.

Understood. Thank you. Any other questions from council? Councilor Matt.

So the same question I asked our staff.

Um from your perspective, what do you think of the town's financial position?

And is there anything we need to worry about?

Anything we should be doing different.

We didn't note anything during our audit procedures that you needed to worry about.

And uh yeah, we would say that the town was in a favorable financial position.

Thank you. I can say that again just my time.

Thank you very much for your presentation. I don't think there's any further questions.

All right, thank you.

And we don't uh do we have to receive the auditor's report as well, Stephen.

So move. Second.

Moved by Councilor Lemon, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All those in favor?

Any opposing non opposed motion carries.

Thank you. So I think Elna, are we're ready to go to the looking for you to guide the ship here.

So uh development variance permit uh for 254 Island Highway.

Leah, you're up.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

So this presentation is to introduce development variance permit for 254 Island Highway.

The applicant is requesting two variances to reduce the number of parking spaces uh for an office use.

Next slide, please.

So please know that the following um that this is an introductory presentation.

Public notification will be required before a second report uh appears before council's agenda, so that way there we you can make your deliberation and consideration.

Next slide, please.

So on screen is an aerial photo of the subject property.

254 Island Highway is located on the corner of Island Highway and Stormont Road and is zone comprehensive development 17 and is approximately 607 meters squared or 6,542 uh feet squared in size.

The property contains a two-story commercial building uh with a floor area of approximately 438 meters squared, uh which covers approximately 52 percent of the lot.

Next slide, please.

So the building is considered legally non-conforming to the current zoning from both a parking and siding perspective, as the building was constructed originally in 1941 and has been added to since.

In 2010. The town initiated a rezoning of the subject property um as part of the island highway improvement project, which further increased the non-conformity of the building's sighting.

During the rezoning process, the town acquired approximately 26.8 meters of frontage to allow for a smoother, safer turning angles along the island highway and Sormont intersection.

The previous business at the subject property was the Winemaker, as you can see on screen, which operated from 1998 to 2025.

And the building is currently sitting vacant.

Next slide, please.

So the applicant is interested in using the building as the location for their head office.

The proposed change of use from like a liquor type store to an office triggers the a need for parking variance, and the following variances have been requested.

To reduce the required number of parking spaces from 15 to 4, and to reduce the required number of accessible parking spaces from one to zero.

Subcontractors and trades do not come into the office and reducing the required demand for parking.

This was also in their letter to Merin Council, which is attached to the report.

To offset the shortfall in parking, the applicant is proposing to induce some transportation demand management TDM measures, including two EV charging stations, two class one, which is long-term meant for employees, bicycle stations, and two short-term visitor bicycle stations, which comply with the current zoning bylaw.

The applicant has also indicated that they will install an end of trip facilities, which would include showers and a change room for employees.

These facilities are kind of shown on the plan within the red bubble, but further details required, and that will be anticipated before it comes back to council.

Next slide, please.

Evidenced when the previous winemaker business was occupied, and since then it's because it's been vacant, we haven't seen as much.

As a result, the change of use may increase parking complaints, but that is to be seen.

Despite these concerns, this application can be supported for the following reasons.

The proposed office use complies with the CD 17 zone.

The subject property was developed originally, as mentioned in the 1940s and is considered legally nonconforming.

The site constraints which have been existing throughout this entire time, and the innobility to physically add more on-site parking.

Um and the parking variants would be required for any of the permitted uses listed within the C D 17 zone.

I ironically, the proposed use requires the least amount of parking for all of the listed uses.

And the subject property has been sitting uh vacant for more than six months um meaning at the previous use so even if the winemaker was to go back into that building they would also need a variance for parking um long-term vacant commercial spaces are not desirable for safety economic viability and community private perspective and as noted above um the applicant would be installing EV and class one and class two bicycle parkings um as well as an end of trip facility so the showers next slide please uh so um the recommendation is on screen happy to answer any questions any questions council level thank you Leah um yeah obviously 15 parking spots won't fit there that's silly um but of the four that half of those would be EV charging stages really generous I'm wondering would those be for staff use or would they be for the rare client use like why why two B two EV stations?

Uh through the chair so and within the letter of Tramoring Council I believe it was stated by the applicant that is basically their fleet also includes some electric vehicles so they do intend to use them for their own vehicles um and when they are not there they would also be available for the public uh would be my interpretation but yeah all right i i have no other questions so I'm good with this.

Counselor Matson Yeah I was just curious how how our bylaw comes up with 15 i'm not saying it doesn't i was just curious to that's uh it seems like uh a lot of parking spots uh so through the chair um within the bylaw i believe it's table uh 5.2 of the zoning by law um speaks to like parking uses and how many is required per meter square um so i believe it's attachment three of the report does cover like the calculations for each of the uses um as well as like kind of covering like the majority of uses um are like a one parking space per 10 meters square which when you have a building that has 400 meters square that's already quite a bit you're you're sitting at for like approximately 40 parking spots for just about anything to go in there um that is not in office use so that's a lot um how we got there i'm not sure uh that was a lot of it came from even the land use bylaw uh when it was existing so it was just transferred over okay thank you and i guess tonight we're just expressing our opinion on whether we we like this yeah but we can't we're not approving it tonight not not approving it that'll go through um they'll give staff permission then to take the next level which is um the engagement leanne do you want to add uh through the mayor you're correct so um um before you have a recommendation that um council after giving notice or public notice um to consider the following motions so uh the next step would be to notify the public within 100 meters of this development variance permit.

Invite the public to come and provide comment on it at that um that council meeting, and at that time, council will uh decide if they will support the development variance permit application or not.

Thank you.

Leo, I've got one question.

I think there are three kind of shared parking spots just on the curb of Old Island Highway directly in front of the winemaker currently.

Is that correct?

Through the chair, I do believe it is either two or three spaces.

Thank you. And uh uh I guess my next question would be there would be no commercial opportunity that would be conforming given our current um zoning for this spot, correct?

That is correct. Uh no matter the use, there would be a variance required for parking.

Okay, thank you. Council Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Actually, uh very conveniently, your aerial photograph uh that you provided does share the parking that's in front of these three stalls, whether or not it's uh and that is with the other next door.

So yeah. Um but I also see that there's uh quite a bit of uh parking stalls uh further on down towards the old fire hole on the other side.

So it does seem like there's um some flexibility of of uh street parking um for the for the visitors.

Um I'm wondering about the loading zone.

Yeah, I'm obviously not they're not bringing wine in anymore uh to make.

Um could the does the loading zone count as any uh parking for uh for this use?

So through the chair, the the loading zone is yet another requirement of the zoning bylaw we have uh uh a use of for office at least there's one loading zone required um I'm assuming this might be for garbage and or deliveries for example for the printer or servicing um if they have anything going on in the building I that being said if it's empty I could see it being used for parking but we'll see what they do.

So when we were considering um the expansion of uh Canadian Tire um and other commercial places uh we um evoked uh the cash in lieu of parking had staff considered that uh as an um an aspect for uh the situation uh through the mayor um counselor rogers could you please repeat that question I was just uh sure um in in other situations we've always uh when there's uh uh an applicant is coming for a variance um uh we one of the things we consider is cash in lieu of parking through through um through the mayor that yeah uh yes that is correct um however I am unaware if if those discussions occurred with the applicant or if the applicant um wanted to provide a a cash in in lieu contribution to the town uh in this case here uh they have come forward with their application for uh for a variance instead okay maybe uh staff can raise that from the time we hear it again the staff can raise that with the uh uh uh the applicant.

Does the applicant um um well, I suppose if uh they expand they'll you know to uh having a lot more staff, 10 instead of five, then I guess that's the time when they'll decide to uh go up or move.

I'm not sure if staff can answer that question. It's way out of scope of this.

Yeah, it is it's just you know we're um uh we're relying on the rest of the area to uh absorb this um potential increase in parking.

Um and one of the things I noticed about Stormont was there's no signage that says residential parking.

So that um that might be an aspect uh to consider in the future if uh if it does become a problem.

Um again, Councilor Rogers, we're we're just bringing it so staff can do the next step.

We're we're not making a decision tonight, right?

No, no, I don't know.

Um, but if you've got something that staff would need to dig into that would affect your decision tonight, then I think that's definitely within scope.

Yes, I have. Uh you know, one I needed clarification on on the loading zone, two, um, the cash and loo issue, three, that if um there's going to be an issue in in in the future, then uh the town should be uh considering uh um residential parking signs to uh respect the the resident residential needs.

Thank you.

With that, I'm happy to support staff's second recommendation.

So low by counselor matts and seconded by Councillor Lemon, and this will authorize the issuance of the DVP for in accordance with the plan submitted, uh, except for the two conditions for the variances of reducing the required parking spaces and the accessible parking space.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, that carries you get more information.

Okay. So councilor Rogers is opposed.

Motion carries, I think uh 421.

Um thank you, Leah.

Appreciate it. And I think we're up next.

Are you going to carry the next report as well?

So home occupation regulations update.

So thank you once again.

Uh so this presentation is for the proposed changes to the home occupation regulations in the zoning bylaw and other relevant town bylaws.

Next slide, please.

Uh so at the committee of the whole meeting on February 11th, 2025, the following motion on the screen was passed.

Um, that the committee recommend the approval of the scope of work to review the home occupation regulations and the business license bylaw, including the definitions, um, the section itself, um, if there's any additional amendments required, and addressing um some items within the the business and regular license and regulation bylaw.

So staff has reviewed section 2.4 of the home occupation and section 4.3 bed and breakfast regulations within the zoning bylaw and compared them to regulations and definitions of several municipalities, including the city of Colwood, Courtney, Duncan, Langford, Nanaimo, Parksville, Victoria, and the District of Sainage and Central sandage.

As a review, um, as a result of the review, it is recommended that the following bylaws be amended the business license and regulations by law, the fees and charges by law, the municipal ticketing bylaw, the sign by law, and the zoning bylaw.

Next slide, please.

Please note that in attachment three, there is a red line version of the zoning bylaw, and attachment four is the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw, and attachment five is a comparison of the previous two proposed amendments to the zoning bylaw specific to sections 4.3 and 4.2.

So based on the comprehensive review of the following as a summary of the proposed changes to the zoning bylaw and others.

So as on screen, you can see we've suggested a schedule, an amendment to Schedule A to replace the bylaw enforcement officer with the bylaw compliance officer.

We've included new definitions for the home base business classes, as well as the definition for the home occupation itself.

Remove regulations that are unenforceable or subjective, reorganizing regulations to make the flow better, to remove signage regulations and add them to the sign bylaw, to move parking requirements to section 5.10 of the zoning bylaw where all the other parking requirements are, include a maximum number of home based businesses per lot, which is important given we have small and other multifamily developments.

So next slide, please.

Other changes include reclassifying level one, level two, and level three home occupation classifications with home office, minor home base business, and major home-based business, removing the lists of permitted uses for levels one, two, and three, removing the minimum lot size requirements for level three, removing the minimum lot size requirements for level two with suites, and combine the bed and breakfast regulations with the existing home occupations section to make it one cohesive section, as well as adding daycare and daycare small regulations to minor home-based businesses.

Next slide, please.

For the municipal ticketing bylaw, these are primarily general amendments to ensure that the bylaw is aligned with the proposed and previous bylaws.

We have also suggested some changes to remove some outdated information, such as Schedule 2, which is the land use bylaw, which is no longer in existence really.

Next slide, please.

For the sign bylaw, as mentioned, it would be a good idea to move the sign by law requirements currently existing in the sign bylaw, zoning bylaw, excuse me, into the sign bylaw where they would align with all the other signage information.

As it stands currently, signage is not permitted with level one home occupations, and signage would be permitted for level twos and or level threes, which include bed and breakfasts.

For the business license and regulation bylaws, it would be simply removing the definition for home crafts and changing home occupations to home-based businesses.

And the fees and charges bylaw would be simply once again removing home crafts and changing home occupations to home-based businesses.

Next slide, please.

Should council move forward with considering the proposed amendments to the above bylaws.

It is recommended that the proposed amendments to the zoning by law and business license bylaw and business license and regulations by law come into effect on January 1st of 2027 for the following reasons.

Business license holders have already paid the 2026 business license renewal fees.

Staff are proposing to remove home craft business license classification, which would mean a price increase for those in that category.

And the delayed start date for changes would give staff time to make all necessary changes to our system for the proposed classification.

And the business licenses renewals are sent out on December 15th of each year, which would mean that we'd be able to give them the heads up in advance that these changes are coming.

If council wishes to carry forward further public consultation on the proposed changes, this would need to take place before the first and second reading.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

Thanks, uh Leah. I'll open up to questions for council. Counselor Matson.

Hi, thank you for the presentation.

Two questions. In terms of uh daycare, I understood for you could have a home business daycare if you had three children or less, but I thought I read in the documentations the number eight was in there.

So if you could just clarify that for me, I'd appreciate that one.

Sure. I think just one moment.

But basically, what it comes down to is we have obviously the commercial side of the daycare, that's daycare large and daycare smalls with provincial legislations, uh, basically say eight and under versus three.

Um, so I'm not quite sure where the number three has come from.

Um, however, we've been accepting applications with eight following the provincial requirements, essentially for our home-based businesses.

Thank you. Leanne, did you want to add to that?

Yeah, through the mayor, and just for a point of clarification, there has been no changes to that number.

That's the that's the existing zoning regulation, so there's no uh recommendation to increase that.

It's just where we are locating that that requirement within the chapter on home-based businesses.

Correct. It's it's for clarity.

Okay, so uh are daycares allowed in any size lot or just the large lots.

Um currently it's suggested that they go into level two.

So um essentially they'd have to meet the requirements for that particular classification, um, which is basically single family homes.

I'm not sure why it hasn't been an issue, but uh given our problems with the church and the the daycare there in terms of the just the noise and the speeding mom's going.

But uh so my other question is, and uh back to our secondary suite versus a bed and breakfast.

If the if you have what is this like a separate suite, but there's a door that goes into the house uh from the you know without going outside.

Could you have a bed and breakfast in there if they don't have a stove?

I I I'm one of those things I was always curious because I really and looking at the definition, I I didn't see a whole lot of restrictions in terms of bed and breakfast, unless there's some restrictions somewhere else.

Through the chair.

Um the the bed and breakfasts have like a lot of the regulations proposed, haven't really changed from what was previously there.

Um it's more moving them into the home occupations to make it clear that that's how we're classifying them.

That being said, I believe it would be just removal of the door in order for it to be considered a bed and breakfast.

Okay, so I I know we've got a lot of people asking, but if there's entry into the main house from a door that's not an outside door, you know, connecting the two.

Would a bed and breakfast be allowed?

And I'm I'm happy to have any staff member answer that one.

Leah?

Through the mayor, the our our zoning regulations are pretty clear that the bed and breakfast must be located within the detached dwelling.

You know, if there's um a separate door um to access those bedrooms within, for example, if these bedrooms are in a basement and there's a basement door to access those um two sleepy units without having to go through the front door, but it's not a secondary suite, then that might be okay.

We would have to uh look at the floor plans just to ensure that uh the layout complies with our uh zoning bylaw.

I don't know how difficult it would be, but and certainly not this evening.

Could it would be possible just to get some sort of sketch, something sketched out to see?

You know, I handwritten, I'd be I'd I'd be happy to somebody just drew it.

Like I'm just because we have a lot of people asking and I always thought that you know you had to sort of strip everything out of the secondary suite but if it's just a matter of putting a door from one part of the house to the other and you don't have a stove in it then if that it could then be a bed and breakfast.

Yeah through the mayor that would be very challenging to sketch um and uh we have to look at a case by case basis um we have so many different layouts of houses um in our community and so to come forward with us with a sketch I I I think it'd just be a very challenging exercise for us to do our bylaw is pretty clear in terms of what this looks like the way our zoning by our bed and breakfast regulations are pretty consistent with other places that's very similar.

Obviously if a bed and breakfast is looks like and looks and feels and like a secondary suite where that where there is a kitchen and a hot plate you know obviously we will there'll be some red flags for us.

But it would be challenging for staff to come up with a sketch just because every and every house has a slightly different layout and there's not a one one size fits all yeah Councilor Matson I think probably the best thing to do is refer the people who are asking you questions to the planning department so they can answer them as opposed to us trying to take it on to interpret counselor Lemon and then Councilor Rogers thank you um leanne i i read the different kinds of uh businesses that could be considered major but do we have a definition of what makes a major home based business uh through the chair I believe it's uh the first page of um attachment five um the I have the definitions listed for you so a major home based business means a home-based business or occupation that requires or generates customers or clients to the property so you're talking like for example uh um maybe a hairdresser for example or like someone who's operating a massage RMT type um little space in their home um that would be someone who has a lot of visitors coming got it good to know because my next question was how can a B and B be a major home-based business but you've answered it good thank you Councilor Rogers yeah it's um I I think it's gonna be quite difficult I had challenges trying to understand this but I I do appreciate that and say level one level two thank god that's gone uh that made no sense uh having minor and uh major is uh a lot more um simple um but the the amount of redlining um I know particularly with respect to the parking that uh that does uh concern me.

Um and uh I'll go to the daycare example where you had on page eight, and I gather the definition of daycare would be small to minor.

It's not major.

Oh, through the chair, um the definition for daycare small is existing and no changes have been made to it.

Um we would just be fitting the daycare within the minor home-based business.

So uh a daycare can have eight or less children, uh and it's I gather small, considered a small business, and there's no parking required.

Um so once again through the chair, the parking is just being moved to table like 510.

It's not being removed from the bylaw, it's just changing locations.

Okay. So they would still require one parking space.

One parking space.

That's yeah, that's that's interesting.

Um, you know, when you have um eight uh clients coming and going, or maybe more, depending on the number of parents, um, and so they're coming and going at different parts of the time, particularly in peak hours.

Um how do you how does um and any I suppose any place can have a a um a small business like in Choco area, that would be interesting when there doesn't seem to be that much parking on those streets there.

How do how do how do we um uh resolve that with the surrounding parents and and homes?

So through the chair, the parking would be required to be provided on the lot.

So if the lot can't fit the one parking space, uh which most cases they can because there's only one parking space required for residential purposes.

Um, but that's just how it currently is.

Um if if the council wants to make changes to that, that's something we should note.

And and just gonna uh have Leanne uh chime in, I think.

Yeah, it's through the mayor.

Just on the topic of parking, um, that is one area that we can consider when we do our full parking review.

Uh, again, we're this these types of um proposed changes are um administrative in in in some ways, adding some clarity to the bylaw.

Uh doing going to further investigation on parking, that's more that would be more handled under our parking review when we look at everything.

And and I appreciate that.

I understand we're we're getting clarity and and resolving a lot of uh um inconsistencies, if you like.

Um that's fine.

I'm you know, the devil's in the details and how much we're going to be actually able uh to address the the parking thing when we we find to get around to it because we're gonna clean this up.

And um, I guess we'll probably have to come back to another amendment if we've now put a situation in where uh uh a neighborhood and and council Manson made reference to the uh the daycare at the um at the church.

They have tons of parking on site.

So that's gonna I'm gonna swing us back here.

This is a request that staff prepare the bylaw.

We're gonna debate the bylaw and what goes into it, but uh everything we're talking about now isn't gonna go into that.

They put in some recommendations, but we're gonna see those bylaws come back to us to debate and deliberate and approve.

So if we could just this is what we're voting on.

It's not everything, you know, it's just for the first to go away and prepare this right now.

Okay. So the minutiae of really talking about grinding down, that's the discussion later.

And then not now. And the minutia will be, you know, when that goes out to the public and the public.

Great, but let's focus on this motion, the minutiae later, Councilor Rogers, because we're we're debating things three or four times, and it's a bit frustrating for the rest of council if we're not addressing it at the right time.

We're just giving staff the direction to prepare the necessary bylaw, not to debate the bylaw right now.

Move staff recommendation.

Is there a seconder? Good. Uh Councillor Mattson's second, Councillor Lemon moves. All those in favor. Any opposed.

Okay.

Councilor Rogers.

So motion carries.

Uh overview of short-term rentals.

Is that you as well, Leah?

Or Leanne going to do that one?

And again, folks, uh, I know Councillor Brown has a motion in.

This is not a debate about short-term rentals.

This is a report that we're receiving because we asked for it.

I do have one question.

Oh, you can have all kinds of questions.

That's okay. So one.

So let you gotta let's hear the report first, though, right?

Okay. Leanne, thank you.

Good evening, uh, mayor to bias and members of council.

This evening I will be presenting an overview on short-term rentals.

Next slide. The purpose of this presentation is to provide council with a summary of the town's current short-term rental regulations.

And secondly, identify policy and bylaw changes to permit and regulate short-term rentals.

Next slide, please.

I'm going to summarize some council motions that have been passed over the last few months concerning short-term rentals as a refresher.

So on January 20th, council passed a motion to receive a report from the Director of Development Services on the consideration of vacation rentals, and that there be a non-enforcement period of our zoning bylaw pertaining to short-term rentals from June 1st to July 31st during the 2026 World Cup soccer.

Next slide. Wish to share with council, just speaking about providing housing choice in our community.

So policy HS 1.1 range of housing types acknowledges support for a range of housing types, including secondary and garden suites that meet the housing needs of current and future residents.

Another policy, HS 1.9 innovative approaches, supports innovative approaches to creating affordable housing, including market rental.

Next slide, please.

In 2007, the town legalized secondary suites in single family dwellings.

In 2023, the town legalized garden suites on single family and duplex zone lots.

On November 15th, 2022, council adopted bylaw number 1105 to prohibit vacation rentals, which is also short-term rentals, except for bed and breakfasts, regardless of length of stay, for the following reasons.

Prevent the displacement of residential units by commercial non-residential uses and protect long-term rental housing and prevent neighborhood disturbances such as parking and noise.

And the original staff report is attached to this current this council report for additional background information.

Next slide. Of bed and breakfast is which means the provision of nightly accommodation and breakfast only for transit accommodation as an accessory use within detached residential dwelling.

There are a variety of zoning regulations, which I won't read out because council did consider them in the last presentation.

However, I do want to make note that this is a case in point that I did miss two bed and breakfast regulations under the bullets.

One is that bed and breakfasts are currently permitted on lots that are a thousand square meters or greater, and you cannot have a secondary suite in a permit.

And the bed and breakfast regulations under our current home occupation section are dispersed, and so staff can even miss it.

And then lastly, a business license is required for bed and breakfast.

Next slide, please.

Staff completed a very high-level desktop exercise to get a feeling of how many short-term rentals are currently being listed on online accommodation platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO.

And in that exercise, staff discovered that there are seven short-term rental active listings.

The town has issued six bed and breakfast business licenses.

However, it is unclear if they are all advertised on online accommodation platforms.

There are a couple of active listings, however, that are identified as bed and breakfasts on Airbnb that do appear to be fully self-contained units.

Next slide, please.

Now I'm going to give a sort of a very brief overview of the provincial short-term rental legislation.

The province defines a short-term rental as follows.

Short-term rentals are accommodations provided to members of the public in a host property in exchange for money for a period of less than 90 consecutive days.

They are generally tourist accommodations that are often found in residential or resort areas.

They may be advertised via online platforms such as Airbnb, VRBO, or Booking.com, and may also be advertised on other web forms, including Facebook Marketplace or found in classified ads in the newspaper.

Short-term rentals do not include accommodation that was intended to be provided for 90 days or longer, so long-term rental, but which unexpectedly unexpectedly ends before the 90 days have passed.

Next slide, please.

Some of the legislation requirements are a short-term rental host must register the provincial with the provincial short-term rental registry and pay an annual registration fee to operate a short-term rental.

Applicants are also required to provide a valid business license to register in Viral.

Well, pardon me, just in general, but we do issue business licenses for bed and breakfasts.

Province has developed tools to assist local governments to enforce short-term rental bylaws, such as a platform accountability as well and data sharing.

And preserve existing and future long-term rental housing.

Next slide, please.

Now I'm going to discuss some of the policy and bylaw changes that the town would have to undergo to permit short-term rentals.

Should council wish to permit short-term rentals, then a zoning bylaw amendment would be required.

There are two options to move forward.

One is default to the provincial threshold, so no restrictions, or establish restrictions, such as restrict the number of days, maximum number of guests, maximum number of bedrooms, location on a property, so either in a secondary suite within the detached dwelling or at a garden suite.

Several municipalities have adopted restrictions.

How it is crucial that the town consider the local context before establishing short-term rental requirements.

And further review is required so that council is fully informed about the implications.

Staff wanted to provide a quick turnaround to provide council with some information.

However, it is advised that more review and research is done so that council has a full picture of what they might change in the zoning bylaw concerning short-term rentals.

This slide further um elaborates on some of the community enforcement considerations.

So some of the positives are that short-term rentals provide additional revenue, generating opportunities for homeowners.

It also offers alternative visitor accommodation and also fills a gap that we've heard from members of the public.

However, some considerations that also need to be considered over the long term is it may impact our long-term rental housing market, and it further analysis is required in terms of how we could have a balance if that's the way council would like to go.

Right now, we may not um it might not there not might not be an impact, however, we need to think about the future as well.

It's just not the current state.

And we do have limited capacity and resources for that.

And it would also short-term rentals, regardless of where we land with this, um, it will increase staff time on monitoring the short-term rental activity in the town.

The recommend next slide, please.

The recommendation for council's consideration this evening is to receive the staff report for information.

Thank you. Thank you, Lynn. Council Brown.

Um, at what point is an Airbnb that's the license fills all the compliance.

At what point does the Airbnb become a short-term rental?

I mean, you're you're renting a place for two days or airbnb three days.

Um so what makes that Airbnb a short-term rental?

It's it's confusing for the sort of confusing for me, even to this day.

I love the report, by the way.

Very detailed, which is great for next week, but I still don't understand at what point does the Airbnb become a short-term rental.

Through through the mayor, um, thank you, Councilor Brown, for that question.

So Airbnb is is an online um platform where uh hosts can advertise their short-term rental.

A short-term rental is um that is less than 90 days, is essentially not the permanent residence of the person who is occupying the short-term rental.

So it's a visitor accommodation.

Short-term rentals are also not subject to the residential tenancy act, so it's not the permanent residence.

Any other questions just on the staff report?

Because we'll have uh wholesome debate on counselor brown's motion um uh next week.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thanks. Um, so um I think I understand that Colin and Langford are using the provincial guidelines.

Is that right? Do you have you had any other feedback from other municipalities on on what they're uh how they handle short-term rentals?

Um through them through Mayor Tobias.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers, for that question.

And uh staff has not had time to do that investigation.

Um, you are correct.

Um, from my very high-level um uh review, uh both Colwood and Lankford appear to default to the provincial threshold, whereas other municipalities in the region seem to um be debating some restrictions on perhaps entertaining uh short-term rentals, um, but establishing some some restrictions.

Uh and uh again, staff would need to to look into that a little bit further.

And again, with some restrictions and some municipalities might not be the best option for View Royal.

So it's uh I think it's important that uh staff do come back to council um with more information if that's what council wants.

Another question.

So it was interesting uh in one of the correspondence that we've been getting, a lot of correspondence, uh there was a suggestion that um uh we could uh increase the the um what license fees to a thousand dollars a year or whatever.

Um and and I guess how much would we uh that's one of the things we'd have to calculate is how much uh time and effort uh it would be to monitor and police and put that into a monetary amount and then charge that that rate.

I know that we did that way back in uh when uh we were looking at secondary suites, uh we had quite a significant dollar value on secondary suites to make sure that everyone complied, particularly with two cars, uh uh two car parking.

And um, but that eventually got negotiated down to simply a business license uh for secondary suites.

So, you know, good intentions eventually would just fall away.

So um I had uh had staff thought of and and I don't know if the provincial standards today anybody suggest that there should be a uh significant fee.

Through the mayor, staff would need to explore that a little bit further and and just see what other neighboring municipalities are doing from the business license scene um approach.

Uh what I understand is that perhaps some municipalities where short-term rentals are permitted, that um they are introducing a higher business license fee, we would need to look into it more.

Thank you. I've got a question for Scott on the other implications.

Scott, we've got, as Leanne suggested in their study, we've got seven just a cursory search from staff, and certainly if you don't go on Airbnb or Verbo and just say short-term rentals near me in Google Maps, it'll come up with a lot more than seven.

Uh blue pillow, I've never heard before, but apparently it's a thing that you can get.

Do we have the because we've got uh right now our standing bylaw is that we don't allow short-term rentals, and yet there are short-term rentals in View Royal.

So, do we have the bylaw capacity to enforce our current bylaw?

Uh thank you, Mayor.

That's a really great question about many of our bylaws.

So um, as council knows, we have one bylaw officer and he works 35 hours a week, and we could probably have several bylaw officers.

Um, but because we're complaint driven, we don't get a lot of complaints about the secondary suites, and we don't the bylaw officer does not have time to go and um look for blue pillow and uh the other platforms for renting.

But I think it's a it's really important to look at um the capacity of the bylaw compliance officer to enforce the cost benefit of allowing short-term rentals, what we would have to charge uh to uh do cost recovery on on the administration and the enforcement, and I can tell you having worked in a resort municipality for 10 years, uh it was the playground of uh Calgary, and we would get a lot of stag parties that would come.

And these places would fill up and there would be things going on there that uh we would hear about from the police report the next morning.

It took a significant amount of staff time.

Now I'm not suggesting View Royal would have that same clientele, but you never know what you're gonna get when you rent out.

Um as well, you know, we're in the process of trying to attract a hotel to View Royal, and I am concerned that possibly allowing short-term rentals might uh fly in the face of that hotel attraction strategy.

Um, if there's other options, it might reduce the hotel occupancy and the and the math that makes a hotel make sense in View Royal.

So just uh many considerations.

Um, but I I do appreciate counsel asking about uh enforcement of our bylaws.

Go ahead, Ton.

Well, we'll just say next week, but anyway, I won't get into that.

But um the province downloads stuff onto us all the time, so if there's a provincial legislation, why don't we just let them enforce it?

I mean they get the staff.

We don't have the staff, and that's my point to try to line it.

I'll leave it there because it'll have lots to say next week.

Lots to say.

A lot.

Uh if there's no other questions, can I get a motion to receive the report?

Okay. Uh moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries.

And Leanne, I think you're up for resentral residential development update.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

This is a very uh short presentation.

As council well, council may recall.

I come forward every six months with an update on um the residential development within our community.

And uh tonight is one of those updates.

Next slide, please.

On this slide here, um, it shows the current large project housing supply.

On this slide, I've broken it down into two categories.

One is dwelling units that are currently under construction, so it's that blue box that you see on the map.

And there are currently 82 dwelling units um that are under construction next door to town hall.

And we've also had uh since the last report, uh we have had uh 313 dwelling units completed, and um those are in the aspire development as well as at seven Erskine Lane.

Next slide, please.

So this is a breakdown of the completed projects.

So as I mentioned, uh as the Aspire project is um has received um occupancy.

So all three buildings have their occupancy, and that uh occurred, I believe, um, in over uh a month or so.

Next slide. Seven Erskine Lane was also occupied uh recently, um, and this building has 79 dwelling units, it's all rental.

Next slide, please.

Lastly, um the uh the building that's under construction in the town is 181 Highland Island Highway, which is right next door to town hall, and in this building um there are 82 strata units, and this building is approximately 55% completed.

Next slide. The recommendation for council is to receive this report for information.

Thank you.

Yeah, happy to entertain some questions, Leah.

Absolutely.

Um I've just got one question before I pass it on to Councillor Lemon, and that is um it's really difficult for me as a council member to make a decision on hey, we need more rental housing if I don't know really, and I realize that it's a slow process to fill up an apartment building, but just to get some idea of the trend of is it half full?

Have you got some people moving in?

Um as well as you know, the the types of rent they're charging.

I know that's not up to you to do, but how might council get that information that I think is really relevant to decision making about what is the market doing right now for rentals?

I mean, you've got the real estate board that provides an update for us now for View Royal, but it's harder to get your hand around uh rental vacancy rates as well as how much is that costing per bedroom.

I mean, stats can does come up with some, but it's like quarterly and it's got lumped in with the West Shore.

But is there any way we can get some of that information or is there a bylaw that we could have reporting of these things?

Is that uncommon?

Through the mayor, the um the vac uh the vac vacancy of buildings is it ebbs and flows, right?

And um it is hard for staff to keep track of um vacancy in in our community.

We do rely on those um statistics that you've mentioned.

If if you're looking for an update on recently completed buildings, such as the Aspire, uh staff could reach out to the developer and ask like how many units are currently occupied.

Um I and we could also you know ask what the rents are for one, two, three bedroom units.

I mean, that information is is also applied or available on their website too.

So that's something that staff could easily just go look for.

But um it would, you know, it does it would require quite a bit of digging to stay on track of um just the vacancy rates in each of the buildings in the town.

I was thinking more like a a biannual or at least an annual report that I I don't know whether we'd need a bylaw or policy that they they you don't reach out, they provide information to us uh on on number of vacancy because I think if we're gonna make informed decisions about um adding more, it would be nice to find out what capacity do we have right now before we figure we're gonna add some more?

Because I think we're in a weird situation right now with immigration slowing, foreign students slowing, we're just going out of the gross spurt.

So, you know, if somebody comes in with a proposal, that that's all I'd ask.

If you could think of some ways that council could be informed of what that we say housing need, but is it really a need if we're if we've got a 50% vacancy rate in a View Royal, for instance.

Uh Council Lemon, you're up next, and then Councillor Brown.

Thank you. Um thanks for this, Dan.

Good to know. Um I'm wondering, and uh maybe you can answer this, if we're going to be adding a fourth to this number.

I noticed the old Cambridge Hotel motel um units are boarded up, presumably with the the uh tenants cast to the wind.

Um boardwalk would have done that.

So does that mean there's an application in place or do you know?

Through the mayor.

Um, thank you, Councillor Lemon.

So uh boardwalk has um apply for demo permits.

Um and um uh council may recall that they must um fulfill uh a requirement in a covenant that's a registered on title that they provide uh compensation and relocation assistance to the tenants and still staff has been working with them on that.

This this land has only been rezoned.

We have not received a development permit.

So until we receive a development permit, it's been approved by council, it won't make it on this list.

Good to know. Thank you.

Thanks, Council Lemon. Counselor Brown, please.

It's more of a housing affordability crisis.

That that's just my own opinion.

You you may say this wrong.

I do know the answer for the Earth's complaint because the property manager lives next door to me.

It's currently at 18.1% vacancy.

So that answers for those three.

We have just for the intervals.

Any other questions for the end?

I get a motion to receive the uh housing development report.

Moved by counselor Mattson, seconded by Counselor Lemon.

All those in favor.

Uh and I think this brings us down uh to you, Scott.

Uh CAO report.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Before you this evening is the departmental update for April.

I don't usually editorialize that much, but I was gonna give the Department of the Month a word to finance because they've done great work with the budget um with the audited statements, but uh I think the report shows that the engineering department has been very busy last month um dealing with some uh wastewater running the wrong direction, which is the bane of local government.

Um so um there is a definitely an update uh and a lot of activity in engineering department this month.

Certainly. Hey, can we make it more expensive for developments like the one adjacent to us who clog up our streets for like two days at a time like is it are we charging them?

I understand we can have hefty charges for them to uh start shutting down our streets.

Um through the chair, um staff can't charge more, but uh council can.

So that would require a bylaw amendment and and uh that's that's a big part of what governance is all about.

If you if you see a problem um and you'd like to you put some policy instruments in place to change unwanted behavior, um you can bring that forward as a notice of motion and and staff could work on that.

So a notice of motion to ask staff to come up with some options would be appropriate.

And I would second that because it uh disturbs my inbox too.

And I know Counselor Lemon made some comments on it, but I think you know uh that there's a concern not just because but by the traffic slowing, it's the impact on ulterior routes.

I think something that we could ask staff to explore and I would support would be uh if there are periods of shutdown, then the and it's for old island highway, then you will pay for the traffic people along those uh routes to divert them uh other places so I think what's happening is uh Ivan's uh done the best job he can right now aside from stopping work which would just delay the inevitable um to us coming up with a better bylaw to support engineering and say there's some consequences here with this action so the bylaw would read something like on major arterial roads like let's say North Helmkin and old island um that provisions be made to um you know divert traffic appropriately or whatever the case might be um so I'm just wondering given the discussion do we need to actually put a notice of motion to staff or can we just vote on I think it would probably be best for a notice motion I know you're trying to get through it the easy way but I think a notice motion would be most appropriate for have the public uh way in and potentially developers too.

Uh councilor Rogers did you have a comment or question?

Um thank you uh Scott the the streets and roads um uh section is is particularly noteworthy and and I think the accessibility uh that uh it's been put in uh as well as the um I gotta we're gonna get three transit stations or bus stops I should say um in place this year that's really excellent and uh six mile is uh looking really great so and and I should also note that um uh it's curious with the building report that uh at that this moment uh 2026 is uh doing much better than 2025.

So well done thank you.

Thank you Council Lemon.

Yeah um beaches uh there's some the the waters around um well in the harbor particularly around stewart beach and i know it even further in are concerning right now uh certainly in the afternoons there's they they're brown and this bit of a slime and i note the this algae bloom of last month so scott i'm wondering uh we our beaches are not monitored by um island health or by crd but i'm wondering if we can put in a request to them that we that we go on their watch list so that swimmers and and at one of the beaches you know there's a lot of swimmers now um i wish it wasn't so but it's happening and uh i i you know i whether there's health concerns people don't know they just go and they swim when when the water's orange um can we do that can we can we put in a request that to go on the the watch list for that so they test our waters uh so so through the chair uh we as a municipality don't don't monitor the ocean per se um understood that's why i'm asking yeah but but the beaches certainly um we can go and we can put up notice uh much quicker than any government other government agency can um but we don't we don't have the expertise on staff to always know um what's happening in the rest of the harbor um what's what's causing those issues uh there was a really interesting community debate on the on the uh algae bloom um and we did have a local expert identify it.

Um but it would be the harbor master um who who would be responsible for that and i know the mayor reached out to department of Natural Defense National Defense.

Um so we need we need to know exactly who could look into that.

May I I I thought it was the CRD when you first mentioned it, but Crd normally only looks at CRD beaches and parks.

Right. So Island Health, Island Health tests waters in public.

I a local resident called um when when this this discoloration and concerning water was first noted.

Um called the called the CRD, called it Island Health, etc.

And Island Health said, you're not on our list.

Um we only we only test waters that are on our list.

So my question is my request is can we just get on the list?

Can you place a call from the town to island health's environmental office or whichever it is, so that uh the waters on our beaches, which are actually what what they what they the uh the this resident was told was there are no swimming beaches in Vure Royal, so no, we don't test.

But they are there are and they don't know.

The staff need a motion to that effect.

Uh yeah, that that always adds some weight to the request.

Uh they may not honor the request, they they might have staffing shortages shortages as well.

Um second Jerry's motion.

We could look into it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So this uh just to make it clear for staff, the specific motion is is not only to island health, but to find out who might be responsible to assist us in in warnings and monitorings.

Is that correct, Councilor Lemon?

You said it. Okay.

Thank you. Uh and it's moved by Council Lemon's seconded by Councilor Matson.

Uh that staff investigate report back.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed motion carries.

Thanks, folks. Um, and I think that brings us down to the consent agenda.

If anybody wants to discuss those three late items that we could add to the consent items on our move the consent uh agenda.

Uh all those in favor.

And uh no, nothing was moved.

So that brings us down to question period.

Anybody in the chambers?

No. Well, you give it up.

Okay. No questions here.

Uh Carl, we got any questions online.

Uh Mayor Tobias, we've got no questions this evening.

Thank you, Carl.

You're always there.

Um I don't think anything else stands between us and adjournment.

Uh can I get a motion to adjourn, please?

Moved by Councillor Brown, second by everybody.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed? Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thanks, folks.