Special Council

Okay.

Good evening.

Welcome to a special council meeting for Tuesday, December the 13th, 2022.

If you were with us before the evening break at 6 o'clock, we were just winding up a council of the whole meeting.

We'll be going back to that meeting after we complete this special meeting just to ensure that we have uh appropriate momentum for some of the bylaws that we've um got under consideration prior to the Christmas break.

Um so for this meeting, uh we are grateful to live and work uh on the unceded traditional territories of the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation.

Uh this evening we'll hear from the public during the public participation period portion of the agenda, and this evening we'll hear uh from the public during the public participation and the question period portions of the special meeting agenda.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, please call 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter ID 900 399 901 pound.

At uh the appropriate time in the agenda, I will then announce your last four digits.

So your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid any feedback, ask you to use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality, and uh ask you not to use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, uh, when it comes to that phase, please indicate your name address uh for the record.

Uh speakers will have five minutes each during the public participation phase and two minutes to ask a question during the question period, and you'll be timed in your process in doing that just to make sure that we can get through the agenda.

Um, this meeting will be recorded, so by participating in the webcast, you're consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's web website for future access.

And that includes the recording, picking up the audio for those presenting in chambers this evening.

So for the special council meeting, can I uh have uh before we go there?

We do have a late item.

Uh thanks to I believe Eleanor uh with correspondence for two emails that were received.

Um so including the blue sheet, we have two late items.

Can I get a motion to the agenda uh to uh approve the agenda with the inclusion of the late items?

Yeah, motion is made to approve the agenda.

Councillor Brown seconds.

Uh Councillor Lemon, all in favor.

Any opposed?

Councilor Matt.

Just for clarification the the blue or the last letter, was that to be on the committee of the whole or the I believe yes, that was for the committee of the whole for the last letter.

This new one with two emails on it are for this special meeting.

Okay.

So all right.

I just wanted to make sure it wasn't make sure I knew which committee we're actually which which meeting we're actually in now.

I know it's a bit uh we're having a few meetings going on, not concurrently, but uh uh we're trying to make exceptions to ensure that we get all of our business covered as much as we can before the break.

Um can I get a motion to adopt the uh well no, we don't need one because there are no uh minutes uh for the last special meeting.

Uh so no requirement to adopt those mayor's report.

Uh I think I'll skip that for this evening because I did it at the um uh council of the whole meeting, and um we have no petitions and delegations, so we can move on for uh public participation period, and I'd ask for those present to go first and those uh intending on joining us online to get ready uh and um see if we've got anybody here that would like to uh enlighten us with your opinions this evening so anybody here would like to speak to counsel uh i'm seeing nobody so anybody on the phone that mayor toias we have no callers at this time why do i think that's strange are we actually broadcasting um yeah there was okay so that's fine so i'm seeing no one wishing to address counsel for the public participation or part public participation period.

So business arising from previous minutes, we have none reports.

We have none um and down to correspondence.

Can I get a motion to receive all correspondence, including uh the late items?

Councilor Lemon.

I see a motion.

Do I yes to receive counselor McKenzie?

Uh the motion to receive.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Uh and down to bylaws.

Uh parks and public places by law uh number nine eight seven.

Uh, and it's the amendment bylaw that should be uh on your screen, but we should uh put it on the floor for uh any discussion.

Councilor McKenzie.

Um I would just like uh if staff could remind me which parks have toilet facilities.

Uh Councilor McKenzie, there is, I believe uh View Royal Park has a portable potty.

And then uh Portage Park also, I believe, just got their portable potty as well.

Um Helm and Centennial, uh, I have to double check.

The plan is to have it there, it might be there already.

Um, there are some, I guess part of the parks permitting they to use the uh the flushable toilets during events, there's that as well.

But those are generally the three that we have.

Councillor Lemon.

Yes, thank you.

Um, Steph, it um this the byla I don't see where in the bylaw it specifies uh the distance from trails.

Can someone enlighten me?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

The currently, I think the um the bylaw has a typo, there's a reference to 100 meters.

Our intention would be that the if council agrees to adopt the bylaw this evening, we will be putting forward an amendment to the bylaw in January after we've groundproofed and created a map.

So I'm hoping that as was discussed last meeting, we would expedite this approval process to effect that adoption and um a quick amendment.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Council Rogers.

Yes, I'm a little confused on the process.

Uh, we have um um it looks like we have 1095 for adoption tonight.

That's uh what I'm seeing here.

And if we are looking to like now we're deja vu from last council meeting, uh, if we want to make any changes, because we hadn't um, you know, because I I don't see here any any wording about distance from um property lines.

I don't think that's uh specifically mentioned in this uh 1095.

It looks like it's the old one, uh aside from the fact we've added Portage Park and Portage Linear Park, but um I'm at a loss to find um where um as per the motion to have a distance from property lines.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

I think what we did was exactly that.

We added parks to it, and we had to, we were not informed of an analysis, a geospatial analysis for the effects of the bylaw setbacks on the actual proposed site.

So I think that came as a result of analysis after the last motion.

So if I may just uh get clarification from some staff, um we're not really going to be adopting any bylaw tonight.

Because if we have an error in this bylaw that's before us right now, or an omission, um, just like again last time, where we won't had had to add two parks not to go, no go parks, um, then that put us in a position of having to rescind and uh all the process below.

Are we in that same position again?

I'm happy if council chooses to table the issue and we'll deal with it in a future meeting.

Uh thank you, staff.

Uh councillor Matson.

I I thought I just heard staff say they were hoping to just approve it now to get something on the books.

And in January, we would do amendments as per whatever we want, but to just get something on the books today.

So that's the intent for just to be clear that everybody's clear is to be able to uh amend this bylaw to be able to get it on the books as well.

We still have some analysis to do about uh the setback because preliminary discussion and indication says that 100 meters of setback from known trails would leave no space available as has been uh suggested before council brown yeah i like to i mean if it was if we were passing a day would have like three potential amendments uh so for staff to consider um one is the the time limit because when the supreme court passed their decision that there were people were allowed to park in Abbotsford Parks uh they put uh the time from 7 p.m to 9 a.m uh we don't have a bylaw working at 7 a.m typically so that'd be one thing to suggest um the other thing is to uh personally i would like to see it just cut off at at parks period because because all those parks we've listed that people can't park in actually they can park and they can camp in those parks so i would prefer taking that list right out and leaving the the bylaws really good the bylaws really good the conditions they have to abide by but i would prefer to see it apply to all parks that's that's the second and all also the distance 100 meters is way too long um well it's impossible to to find a place that's legally you can park you can camp there i would prefer to see something like 20 20 meters or 25 meters those are just my comments and hopefully staff will consider incorporating those.

Thank you, Counselor brown.

Counselor Matson.

So I I'm a little confused so are isn't the intent just to pass whatever's on whatever we receive now today, and then we'll come back to it and make amendments.

Yep.

Good.

Thank you, Councillor.

I'm just looking for clarification if that was the intent.

That is the intent for this evening.

And Counselor Rogers.

It's impossible.

Because we had worked on a hundred meters, as Council Brown and were just saying, you can't have a hundred meter distance.

Um this this V-Well Park is a no camping park.

Based on that rule that we have, if we intend to pass this bylaw, it just means that no one's gonna park camp in any parks.

Because if you if you apply the uh rule of a footpath within the park, and we know the circular footpath, you know how that is, 100 meters from there just eliminates every single spot um in View Royal Park.

But we don't have a bylaw to work with.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Is there anybody else?

Counselor Matson, did you have comment?

So again, I know that as written, there's problems, but if we approve this now, staff have something to work with should somebody start camping.

If we don't, they don't have anything to work with, and we'll be fixing this in January with to include everyone's recommendations.

So I I'm all for passing it now and not letting the perfect get in the way of the good and just get it done and thank you, uh Counselor Mattson.

The other thing uh counselor Brown to your point, um I I think one has to look at bylaws as as reflecting perhaps um the decision from seven to seven regardless of whether we have staff in at the time or not they could get called in.

So I I think sticking with the seven to seven intent, uh, you know, from our executive role, not as a bylaw enforcement officer, but let's keep it our level.

I think you know, seven to seven is okay.

How staff wish to manage that is another thing.

But playing devil's advocate, uh, someone could say I can stay here till nine, because that's what the Supreme Court has said.

Stay can stay till 9 a.m.

So that's what the Abbots for decision says, 7 p.m.

to 9 a.m.

So why would we deviate from that?

And and it I if we vote on the bile as it is today, I will be voting against it, only because I think with all it's park should be exactly the same.

Because what we're gonna do is we're gonna funnel everybody into the one park.

And we don't want to see a big, massive tense city, and that's what I can see potentially happening.

So go ahead.

Yeah, I'm gonna pass it tonight.

I'm not I'm gonna vote against it, but I'll have three potential amendments, uh, motions at the January meeting.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Steph.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um, to explain a little bit further, the um the times mentioned by the Supreme Court were based on the bylaws that were in place at the locale.

And there is more than one Supreme Court decision.

Each of those decisions had different times.

We were thinking, practically speaking, that if we set a time from seven to seven, recognizing that we may not have a bylaw enforcement officer, it may well take some time to have them move on, particularly with only one bylaw enforcement officer.

And we expect that while it's it's seven to seven, practically speaking, clearing off the um off the park may well not take place until nine in the morning just based on the practicality of enforcement in terms of the list of parks our original draft of the bylaw it did not have a list at all we actually um had a draft that was permissive in other words you may park in these parks and um the response was um I think that the the public was astounded that we would get permission at all.

And so what we wanted to do was recognize that permission is already granted through the court process.

And what we wanted to do was limit the number of parks in which um persons may camp.

And of course, when we enforce the bylaw, the enforcement process is one where our bylaw enforcement officer would check in to understand whether or not other facilities are available for the homeless for that night of stay.

And if that were the case, then the persons choosing to camp would be asked to move on.

So the list is intended to provide clarity.

These are the parks in which you may not camp.

And the parks that are admitted omitted from the list are omitted with purpose.

So staff can um accept either way.

If council chooses to table this now, we will bring forward amendments in January or soonerafter.

We do want to make sure we take care of this before the warm season starts when there is um more people that have migrated to the Greater Victoria area.

Thank you, staff.

I think Councillor McKenzie had a point.

Yeah, I had uh one comment and two questions, I think.

Um so one of it uh I thought that um outside of bylaw office hours that the fire uh uh would be called to is that no?

Okay.

Um and then my other question is whether staff has looked at View Royal Park since the the committee the council meeting last week to see if it is indeed uh it wouldn't fit in it within these boundaries councillor McKenzie staff if I may we have determined that more work is required to groundproof the measures that are quoted in the bylaw 100 meters does not work at all okay in effect it eliminates any camping in view royal park even if it was intended to be a permitted area right okay thank you.

Staff, Councilor Brown.

In a sense, we're uh putting the cart before the horse because if we don't have a place to to put people and some person's camping at one of these restricted parks, what are they gonna tell them?

Oh, you can park in View Royal Park.

That's my concern.

And that's why if it comes to a vote tonight, I'll be voting against it.

Thank you, Counselor Brown.

I mean, uh to Counselor Brown's point, um, I think the bylaw focuses on where we don't want people rather than identifying that place that could be managed where uh given the right circumstances for the right amount of time, uh, the town, including our staff, could best accommodate them.

You know, um, I appreciate the sensitivities around the issue, but you know, it's been brought up tonight and it has been brought up when it was previously discussed.

Anyone has a right to overnight shelter given um the event that there is no other shelter available for them in any of our parks at any of our time at any time, um given the fact that they do that.

So this bylaw, the purpose that I see that adds value to the town and our residents is it provides some safety for those seeking shelter that qualify and for our staff and residents.

Um so I I I am hearing that we need to get it right, that we need to do some more analysis, um, that we need to also keep in mind where we can best manage this scenario, and perhaps look at it less from an exclusionary point of view and more focused on what we could do to keep our residents, our staff, and those seeking shelter the safest as we possibly can, too.

So that would mean some analysis of uh geospatial information from uh the uh setbacks we've got now, particularly from trails, I think is the biggest issue.

Um and uh the other issue that counselor Brown uh brought up about uh uh timings, I think is is another issue.

Uh, and whether or not we need those uh that long list of things that are going to be excluded if we know that the only place um that we want folks is that area then why don't we eliminate that page of information and just say this is the only area that uh we can allow it counselor McKenzie um and I think one for me having the toilet facilities is like a huge thing that's why we limited it well narrowed it down to the three parks.

Um so I think that's perhaps we change it to say where there is a toilet facility or you know, that so you can instead of saying all the different parks.

Council Mass.

Yeah, I from my perspective, I think we absolutely need to not whether we say specifically they can only park and camp in Portage Park or list everything other than Portage Park because what we don't want staff to be doing is having to go to all eighteen or however twenty-five parks searching out to see if there's anyone camping there, whereas you know, legally camping there, whereas you know they're they're obviously not allowed to accept in that one spot.

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, and if anyone challenges that again, they can camp at any park.

They can.

So why would we funnel them all into one park?

We what we need to do is find a place where people can go, whether it's our place or somewhere, like a cold weather shelter place or something.

That's what I'm saying.

We've got the cart before the horse.

The intent of the bylaw is that the first check is is there a shelter available?

Yes.

Otherwise they go to that shelter.

If there is no shelter available, then an allowance within the bylaw is where they stay.

So they're gonna say, Where can I park?

Where can I put my tent?

And they're they're gonna be told View Royal Park.

And that's why if it comes to a motion, I'll definitely be voting against.

It sounds to me that staff think we should table this.

Thank you.

Council Roger?

So I move tabling.

Uh okay.

Motion on the floor is moved to table the uh the bylaw until the next council meeting in January.

All in favor?

Sorry, can I or discussion?

Yes, absolutely.

So uh make motion vote.

I think I'll see on the table.

But you can't discuss a tabling motion.

It's just a vote.

Yeah, that that is correct.

In that case, may I have a recap of staff's recommendation why to table it?

I think that's fair.

That's my question.

Was that even a recommendation?

Staff we would be more comfortable if it was the second council meeting in January instead of the first.

However, if if council wishes this to be dealt with sooner, we will put our um knowledge of the grind down.

Uh Chief Hurst, is this um I know I know there's some challenges in having the tools that you need to support it?

Would uh is there an urgent requirement to get this analysis and underway on the first meeting in January, or could that be the second meeting in January?

Thank you, Mayor.

My my preference obviously is to adopt the bylaw.

So we do have the tools to do the work.

I understand there are amendments that are required, um, but those could be done in January after the adoption of the bylaw.

That's my personal opinion.

Uh I would defer that recommendation on the CAO.

Um I won't be here in January.

I'm off for the month of January, so I'm gonna have to rely on my bio officer and the CAO to manage the issue.

That's why my preference to uh adopt the bylaw now would be.

Thank you, thank you, Chief.

I think we've got the tabling motion.

We've had uh one, so we're gonna vote to table now, and then if uh I I think that's that's reasonable.

I'm sorry, Mayor Tobias.

Um the tabling motion should be for the second council meeting in the new year, as opposed to January.

I just learned just now that because of the Christmas break, there will not be two council meetings in the month of January.

So the second meeting in twenty twenty-three okay uh so the um motion on the table is the table.

Uh so tabling this um this motion to adopt the bylaw to the second meeting in uh or the only meeting for council in January now all in favor and uh all opposed so we have three opposed three opposed and four in favor so the motion is uh tabled until the meeting in January and I think we have the next item is uh municipal ticket information bylaw six four three done yeah first of all my my apologies because i know one of those sections is to remove the the bylaw the enforcement officers for that particular bylaw i mean we could put it in but it'd be moot point because schedule one of the municipal ticket authorization bylaw nicely lists every single bylaw and who can enforce it so I wasn't aware of that and I do apologize for the any staff time that was cost because of that and I'd like to move the the three recommended motions that are here.

Seconders.

So I think we can do this omnibus.

Do all three as a single motion.

So we're going to um move that as Councilor Brown indicated that we're uh that the third reading be rescinded, and that we're removing column five from schedule three, and that uh we're going to uh be amending uh or be given third reading as amending.

So as uh counselor by law or counselor brown suggested uh something that was not required.

All in favor, all opposed?

Motion carries.

So new business, we have none.

Um, uh and now we're down to a question period.

Um, and we'll go with folks in the room first if anybody wants to ask a question.

Uh so just a reminder: you've got two minutes to ask your question, and just press the microphone until you see a red light, and you you will see there's lots of lights.

You get to see a green light.

Um, that means you're good to go.

And when it starts flashing, then your time is almost up, and when it turns red, then your time is absolutely, yeah.

Do we have anybody in the audience here that wishes to ask a question?

Yes, please approach the podium and just clearly state your name and and your address, please.

Okay, not used to doing this, but um uh been listening to the last two meetings over the homeless um encampment, and it's a serious problem.

Safety for the homeless and safety for residents, very important.

So, my question is if you are considering changing what you have now and expanding to other parks, will you also be expanding the number of bylaw officers?

This poor man, and you only have one, I understand it must be terribly overworked and stretched.

He sounds very compassionate.

Um, I would ask, will you then look at your budget?

And according to the number of parks and the dispersal of people, homeless people, what kind of enforcement?

Because I'm sure it's not people in the office that are going to go out to enforce.

So what would be your additions to the bylaw capacity, enforcement capacity?

I think that's uh that's a great question.

Um, and thank you for it.

I don't think we have all the answers.

And we're we're in a space, I think, right now, where uh we do have homeless in View Royal, and they're not all in parks, and they're very well hidden.

Um, and and so that that is happening now.

Right.

Um, and and I don't think there's a municipality in the Capitol Region district that doesn't have the same problem.

Other ones are much more prevalent.

So it it's out there now.

And I think the concern and the focus for this bylaw was when certain groups were really testing that Supreme Court decision.

And groups of folks were moving from region to region occupying a part of land where that is quite prevalent in Vancouver now as well.

You're correct.

I think uh there's probably no right amount of bylaw officers that we could predict right now that we would that we would need.

But that would be a staff decision to come up with a recommendation based on the availability of resources because that would be an operational running of that plan.

So that that's my response to your question, but I value it and it's something we will track because uh it it is a tough job to do out there and we wouldn't want anybody in there without the right backup or resources.

I add a supplemental to that sure okay so um I understand that hard to predict but I also in the same way you've looked around at other uh the surrounding cities um what kind of bylaw capacity you might look into?

What kind of bylaw capacity exists in Victoria or Sanish or where these encampments are pervasive.

I know we have some, and it sounds like you have an amazing bylaw officer, but now that there's this decision from the Supreme Court and the likelihood of more people and who doesn't want to be by the inlet, you know, um, I I think it's it you need to look at what gauge what your future need perhaps is because against what exists in surrounding towns.

The safety of the homeless is as important, and it just takes one psycho.

We heard we heard Doug uh talk to us last week about that.

So anyway, thank you for listening.

I appreciate that.

And those are are really good questions, and just for everybody's information, because I'm learning too.

That was the decision, the first one that was made in, I think as far back as 2008.

So this is not a new decision for for the Supreme Court uh of British Columbia on homelessness and housing.

So uh it's not a new decision.

It didn't happen yesterday, but it's something that I think it takes a while to adapt to how it would fit in with V.

But thank you for your questions.

Are there any other questions in the room?

Yes please sir Mike Wiltshire uh 14 Erskine Lane um again, with regard to the uh homeless encampments.

The original um proposal from I was it last week was uh uh in the agenda was that there were going to be from the sounds of it by the ones that were left off the exclusive list, there would be up to three parks in that.

And it seemed quite sudden that um it was reduced to one.

And I agree fully with Councillor Brown's uh thought that you don't want to concentrate everybody into one area because as you say, it it could lead um to uh uh a problem when you get start to get serious numbers, and if you just reduce it almost completely, it's it's it doesn't allow for much in the way of option.

And I also agree with Councillor McKenzie's uh point that um as a baseline it should be a park that has some kind of facilities because otherwise you have to deal with um you know people's waste all over the place and um it's it's it's a it's I know this is a tricky difficult issue for you folks all to navigate and I yeah it's you don't I appreciate the need to want to try to restrain it because of course as you said put the poor bylaw officer would be run off his feet trying to run around to all the parks.

So I see it as as trying to strike a reasonable balance and you want to leave us with a question because this is a question periods I do sorry please leave us with a question.

I should have brought it in in the um in the uh part participation earlier but can you uh folks uh in the intervening period uh if you have the opportunity see what the other municipalities have done I know that uh Victoria and Sandich have definitely limited the number of parks and whatever criteria and rationale they have come up with I'm sure that's out there but can we see what what other jurisdictions have done so that uh we can come up with crafts up the best consistent uh uh solution for all of this thanks thanks Mike I think that was the original intent of this bylaw and I think this process started some three years ago um so obviously speaks to the complexity of it, and I believe the bylaw was largely modeled after other municipalities after a jurisdictional scan.

However, I will not doubt that those founding bylaws have since changed since we crafted the original one.

And it would be a prime opportunity to reexamine any changes in those bylaws that might make our uh law and enforcement of those bylaws more effective.

So I thank you for the question.

Uh let's switch to is there anybody else in the um audience directly that wishes to have a question for counsel?

Anyone on the line?

I'm assuming nobody online.

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers.

Sorry, I hit the mic button wrong.

That's that's that's fine.

I do it every day.

Um, so that concludes our question period motions and notices of motion.

We have none.

And uh I think this brings me to Sarah for a actually do we don't we're we're not moving to that right now.

We're going back to the original.

But I will do a closed meeting resolution now because we will just then park this meeting.

We won't close this meeting, we won't terminate quite yet.

We'll have this, then we'll have the remainder of the committee of the whole, then you'll move back into this meeting to move into an in-camera.

So there is a need to have a meeting closed to the public later this evening.

In persons other than the immediate members of council, officers, and employees of the town, and those identified under section 91 subsection two of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of set section 90 subsection one C labor.

And we will, as I said, head into that later.

So there's no need to uh to terminate this.

We're just recessing this meeting for now and and moving into back into the evening portion of committee of the whole.

Thank you, Steph.