Council Meeting

Thank you.

So I've already done the territorial acknowledgement and the usual um so they just switching now to the council meeting.

So there's the public can call in under public participation and the question period portions of the agenda.

So again it's 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 783-545-125 pound.

And public participation is speaking to anything that's on our agenda tonight, except of course the issue that we just had the public hearing for for, which we cannot take any more input on.

But if there's any other items on the agenda that you would like to speak to, that is your opportunity to call in.

And so with that, can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

Similar.

Second.

Moved and seconded by councillors Rogers and Lemon.

All in favor?

Opposed, that's carried.

Second.

There's minutes from January the 18th.

No adoption.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kowalewich.

Any comments, corrections?

No.

All in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.

I have no mayor's report.

There's no petitions and delegations.

So we are right at public participation already.

Staff.

Okay, so I think in fairness, we should probably just um maybe give them a minute because of the public hearing ending.

And so people who did want to talk to anything on the council agenda tonight, you need to dial 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 783-545-125 Pound.

And we'll just pause there for about a minute to give you a chance to call in.

Your worship, we have caller uh who'd phoned in uh previously still on the line, last four digits five six three seven.

And I don't know if they wanted to make a comment uh about this part of the meeting as well.

Oh, okay, thank you.

Caller with the last four digits five six three seven.

Did did you have anything you wanted to add under public participation tonight for the council meeting?

Five six three seven.

Do we have any other callers on the line now, staff?

It's been about a minute.

Your worship, we haven't had.

Oh.

Apologies.

I just wanted to say um no, I don't have a comment on this, but I just wanted to let you know.

I'm just listening to the meeting.

Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, there's no new callers.

We'll move on.

Your worship, we have no new callers at this time.

Okay, thank you.

Um so I think we will move along to 8.3A and B, which is West.

Anybody in the room?

Oh, sorry.

Yeah.

I'm so used to everyone being remote.

Yeah, no, I have anyone in the room.

Yeah.

No?

Okay.

So we'll move along to 8.3 AMB, which is West Shore minutes.

Movers to both.

Thank you.

A second and I can provide an update if uh needed.

Okay.

Yeah.

Sure.

We are heading into uh 2022, obviously, at the West Shore Parks and Recreation.

Uh I was um uh elected vice chair again at the previous meeting to represent uh View Royal there.

Uh there have been some uh closures and openings due to COVID, but right now uh everything's open.

I believe there are some limits on uh on class sizes still and things like that, but the weight rooms back open and uh patrons are enjoying the facility.

The 2022 budget will come to View Royal Council on February 8th for review.

It has been supported already by by Metchosin and is in front of many councils uh very soon.

Uh the COVID testing site continues uh at West Shore Parks and Rec.

We are receiving financial compensation for that from Island Health, although it is uh scaled back somewhat from what it was.

Uh the seniors center, uh the older adults there do have a plan to return eventually.

Uh uh not yet though.

So uh lots lots of things happening and uh lots of positivity there with uh with all sorts of programs with diversity, equity, inclusion for individuals in the community from all walks of life, providing opportunities for recreation and arts.

Thanks, Damien.

Good.

Any specific questions on the minutes?

Councillor Rogers?

Yes, thanks very much.

It really gets in reading the administration human resources side of things, it appears to be really challenging, you know, with the FTEs dropping and um departures of staff and and um a new collective agreement um coming out.

Um are these things that um you know could be affecting the budget process?

We have had strategy uh strategy sessions within some of our meetings, uh presentations by human resource employees there, uh managers showing us ways that they intend to recruit part-time employees, full-time employees.

It's no secret that we recently uh lost the director of finance uh to Sooke, and we uh recently replaced uh that person with a new candidate.

Uh West Shore Parks and Rec have not been immune uh to the overall uh employment shortage and job hopping that you see in Canada.

And we are actively working to try to fill spots and have uh recreation available to everybody.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I I I noticed in on the uh the maintenance side as well, staff shortages and lack of skilled applicants are also leading to um um maintenance and I'm sure there's probably the whole issue of um um uh challenges with getting parts and and uh fixing that.

Uh counselor Rogers, as you can imagine, a large recreation facility like that, things like hockey rinks and swimming pools, you need to have special training, special tickets, uh post-secondary education, which limits the number of applicants.

It's a very competitive market here in Greater Victoria.

We have lots of rec centers and people are known to hop around from facility to facility for that for that raise or that extra week off.

So we are fighting that.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah, big, big challenge.

Yeah.

Um just as a as an aside, your worship, um, I'm just wondering, and maybe staff can help me.

Do we have any sense of when collective agreements in this in municipalities are you know, are they ongoing in negotiations at this point just generally without getting into detail source most certainly the uh collective bargaining is in process but we are not uh part of that process ourselves as we are non-union so we get less information than you might expect so that that is ongoing it is ongoing right thank you okay everyone's good counselor matsen from your spot on the beach did you have a question no okay okay so I'm gonna call receipt of the minutes.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

So next we have uh three letters for information, I suppose, really.

A, B, and C.

Well, move receipt.

So you're moving receipt of A, B, and C.

It is for information, but uh I'd like to make a comment as well.

Sure.

Yeah.

So moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kualowich.

Go ahead.

Yes, you worship.

Two things.

One is the first letter um on the BC ambulance, and I appreciate the the um um the letter from the minister, and and uh but I'm um I I guess the proof is in the pudding and and um I'm from Missouri.

Show me um the I I worry about um um whether or not six um staff uh added to Victoria is uh is sufficient.

Um I I somehow see there's an overlap with uh hospital staffing issues, shortages, and lack of um uh the doctors and whatnot.

It's it's all um pieces that are are very disconcerting.

And uh I guess if um what I didn't see in in this report was information to uh allay my concerns with respect to response times.

And that um I I know from the fire chief's perspective, uh you know, he's been giving us some candid insight, and I worry.

And I I I'm sorry that um uh the assistant deputy minister did not uh speak to that.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

And if I could just say one other thing, you worship on letter B uh on the OCP public hearings.

You know, it it does worry me that any future counsel could uh decide um to uh shortcut the process uh if well for lack of better terms.

Um we've been really good about asking for public input on on uh these items, but it it does seem to message that if we can't uh trust um that public hearings will um happen, that we will listen to the public, even if we've done a vision of an OCP and we vision this, um, but we decide that at that time the best interest is not to prove it.

But if the way this thing is going, it's almost like maybe what we should do is down zone the OCP.

You know, if that's uh it's it's you know, how do we caution and um to make sure that um future councils in VR, which we can't fetter, will actually um uh adhere to the good intentions of listening to the public?

Well, I don't think we can.

Yeah, no.

So I mean, it will be permissible or is permissible now if it meets your OCP, not to have a public hearing.

But I I think it's been done more for bigger jurisdictions than us.

I'd I'd be very surprised if smaller jurisdictions such as View Royal started to take advantage of that.

Yeah.

It is what it is.

Letter number C for Mr.

Clancy, how can we make sure that that gets somewhere where it'll get, you know, I'm not saying we're going to put sidewalks in there, but it's not really part of the OCP.

But it would be nice that he would get a response.

So maybe it could be forwarded to engineering and um or something.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay, everyone's good on that.

Okay, I'm gonna call a question.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

So next we have the tree protection bylaw.

Um, I mean, I think we've seen this.

So we're looking really for rem receipt of the report, I suppose, and then first, second, and third of bylaw 1069.

Can I may I just make a comment you wish to sure?

Yeah, thank you.

Um and and maybe staff um could assist me on this one.

Uh on I want to beat the bush on um uh on the whole thing of uh and this come out of had come out of um um parks and recreation advisory committee uh about controlling uh and having residents control the ivy the invasive species idea and on uh residential trees for the impact of neglect and and future damage.

Um and and you know I I really think that this is something that um um needs to be identified um and you know because if if the staff are going to raise this issue with people they're gonna look back and say well where does that show where's show me where that's an issue i think counselor rogers we have forwarded that to staff at just the last council meeting um and they will bring back a report on that but i mean i think we don't want to hold up what is a good new tree protection bylaw waiting for that.

True, I agree.

So I think we want to wait, you know, give staff the time to turn around and report back to us on that.

But go ahead with this.

Would staff can concur, Director Rosenberg?

Thank you, your worship.

Yes, that that would uh actually uh work well for us because we are looking at uh options and seeing if there's other municipalities that are trying to deal with it because one of the concerns is capacity issues and how we would actually um be able to track that and then uh deal with it.

But um, we're hoping to find some other municipalities that have had this issue and then see if we can mirror something that works for us.

Okay, thank you.

Could you wish could um Mr.

Rosenberg, is there any idea of when um we could hear back on how we could address this?

Um, it's likely gonna be uh at least a month or two.

Uh we've got quite a few other issues that are um certainly more pressing at this time, um, and we're still in the process of investigating it.

So if we find something quickly that actually works well, then it'll be sooner if we don't, and we have to start from scratch and it'll take a little longer.

Yeah, we can say you can't go to Colwood until you get the sorted out.

Thank you.

I certainly could put it at the top of my list if I was told to do so.

Thank you.

Okay, so I need a motion to receive the staff report, please.

Second all in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then we need first, second, and third reading of bylaw number one zero six nine.

It's a move.

Second, move by Councillor Rogers.

Seconded by Councillor Kualowich.

Comments?

Questions?

No.

Everybody's good.

You're good, Councillor Matson.

Okay.

That's carried.

All in favor.

Opposed.

So next we have bylaw 1084, municipal ticket information bylaw.

Move first through third.

Thank you.

First through third is moved to 1084 by Councillor Rogers.

Seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

Everybody's good.

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

And next we have first through third of 1085.

Move.

So move first through third.

Moved by Councillor Rogers.

Seconded by Second councillor Kualovich.

All in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

And so now we are at the so we're gonna go through.

So how I see this playing out, because we know there's strong opinions surrounding this issue.

So I think Sarah has a presentation she's gonna do for us.

And then I'm gonna ask for questions, not opinions, but questions of staff, and then we will have a once around the table just to sort of measure the temperature, so to speak, and then we can go to a motion after that.

So I hope that works for everybody.

And um Sarah, we'll go to you.

Great, thank you, your worship.

They're going to be calling up the presentation right now.

And then I will speak to my notes in the presentation.

Oh, Councillor Mattson left us.

Now we can just see his beach.

It's a lovely beach.

Great.

So uh it's it's a PowerPoint with about 17 slides in it.

So I will walk you through that this evening.

So the first slide, and it is in the report, is a timeline that walks council through uh where this issue has been and uh the different timeline or the dates or across the top.

So it was uh first an exploratory report in November of 2020 where council directed that the report, the information go to its community development advisory committee for additional information and that it go to the committee.

So the committee met later that month, and at that committee, they asked for a great discussion and they asked for additional information themselves.

So a follow-up report was put back to the Community Development Advisory Committee in March of 2021.

And the outcome, after much discussion at that group, was a recommendation to council to increase council size with a view to increasing diversity on council.

A report then was forwarded to council with that additional information that had originally been requested and the CDAC recommendation.

And council in April said, all right, let's see what the public has to say about this.

So a public engagement report was prepared and was brought back in October, and a decision looking at the options was that we would have a public open house on the in the middle of November with the November 16th, so the day following, an opportunity for the public to have a section of public participation dedicated specifically to the council size issue.

Well, wouldn't you know it?

That happened to be our atmospheric river and uh power outages in the area, and uh we had some intrepid people come and we'll talk about that in a few minutes.

Um, so interesting time, anyhow.

And um so so we did have that, and and uh due to that inclement weather, though, there was a decision made really quickly thereafter, the week following, that why don't we have a second open house and give people a second opportunity to come out?

So a date was set in mid January uh of 2022, and again, the follow-up the next day at the council meeting for a section named on the in the public participation um portion of the agenda, which is very unusual, to specifically ask if members of the public wanted to provide feedback uh on on the agenda and give them that opportunity to phone in or or speak at that at that time.

So we did have that.

Next slide, please.

So I wanted to talk a little bit about the November 21st engagement and the outreach.

There were tweets and Facebook posts weekly, five posts, in just under three weeks on both of those sites and other social media.

Interestingly, it was picked up by friends who like the Town of View Royal, View Royal Community Connection, and interestingly enough, uh Grumpy Taxpayers, which prompted some newspaper articles.

There's no such thing as bad publicity, is there?

So articles in both the Goldstream Gazette and the Times Colonist appeared as well.

And we placed ourselves two ads in the Goldstream Gazette.

The open house happened on the 15th, and as I said, that was the Atmospheric River, and we had power outages in the surrounding area.

But we did have seven intrepid attendees come.

Some of them provided feedback forms.

The content of their feedback isn't embedded within the report that's on the agenda this evening, uh verbatim.

And uh three people called in the next day during the council meeting, and um a summation of those comments is provided again in the staff report that's on your agenda this evening.

And as well, there was some correspondence on that night's agenda.

And as I said, there was a decision made to hold the second open house with the follow-up public participation the next night.

Next slide, please.

Then we did have that second open house just recently.

To avoid any comments that not enough people perhaps knew about it, we thought, well, how else could we spread this message farther, wider, be very inclusive about this?

So we were a little bit more broad in our information on our website rather than just what's new.

We thought, well, let's park it very permanently and prominently as a spotlight item on our website.

We had a link as well to the reader boards.

That if you can't make it to the open house, hey, click here, you're not going to miss anything.

Here's the information that's going to be on our posters at this open house for you to read and see what's going to be happening or presented that night.

And so it was a walk around open house, and so people could walk around virtually if they wanted to and see what was going to be presented to them if they had selected the opportunity to come out.

As well, there were tweets and Facebook posts again, some similar, some new content added.

Seven posts to each platform were put out in December and January.

More ads in the Goldstream Gazette than previously.

We had articles both in the Goldstream took an interest and as well the Times columnist, though that one came after the open house, more promoting this evening rather than the open house event.

Almost 4,000 invitations were sent out with a personal name and address on them to the residents, to the property owners in View Royal.

They were sent out the first week of January.

We wanted to miss the Christmas rush, so we did, and people got those, and they were based on the FAQs that council had seen earlier.

I think we'd put out a draft with the October staff report.

And so we we took that and turned it into an invitation, but wanted to put information with it.

So we took that FAQ sheet, turned it into an invitation, and you probably have received those in your mail sometime in early January to come to the open house.

And at the January open house, about 16 or so attendees.

There was a flurry, it was 16 or 17.

So I aired on the side of caution and listed 16.

But it was it was busy, steady there for a while.

And four people participated during the council meeting.

You may recall that that evening, one in person and three by phone, and as well.

And going back to the open house attendees, some comments were left, and some came in, a couple came in after the meeting and were hand delivered.

And again, the content of that is included verbatim in your in your staff report tonight.

And correspondence was on the agenda that evening.

All the correspondence that we've received, because it's appeared in November, it appeared in January, and one other agenda, it's all and late item agendas are all included in tonight's package for for you and the public to see.

Next slide, please.

In October, when council did look at what kind of feedback opportunities they wanted to consider, there were five that were on that report.

The one that was selected is the first one listed, which is have the community open house, and the pros and cons of each of those options were listed.

And some of the information that staff is hearing is well, why didn't we, or why don't we go ahead and proceed with the option five, which is listed here, a non-binding opinion poll, a question on the ballot coming up in the October 2022 election.

And staff has turned their mind to that, and as well, some of the points here raised also pertain to option three that we're going to talk about in in the next few minutes.

Next slide, please.

And in some of these reasons for concern about the uh the option five, um, despite the perception that it might be efficient or economical or or democratic, it not being recommended is primarily because of one of the cognitive biases is the status quo bias, which is people stick with what they're familiar with.

Now that I've had a uh the type of dog I have, I will never have another type of dog.

Now that I drive the type of car that I drive, I would never buy another manufacturer's vehicle.

We order a pizza from the regular pizza place, and we'll never deviate from that.

You stick with what you're familiar with, and that's simply what is known as the status quo bias.

And in the case of voting, that means potential voters make their decisions based on the status of your current or the current policy.

And I've listed an example in the report, and we'll talk about it here tonight.

In Qualicum Beach right now, and they're wrestling with this again as we speak.

They have a population very similar to View Royals.

In 2016, they were listed at almost 9,000 people.

They had a council-sized ballot question in both the 2008 and their 2014 election.

And while it's becoming increasingly popular, a little less than a quarter of the population voting supported it in 2008, moving up to a little less than a third in 2014, it was still not supported that they move from a council size of five to a council size of seven.

And in this circumstance, in View Royal, as Qualicum Beach has now experienced twice, um staff anticipate that it would remain the same after a ballot type of question, given that it is the current situation or the status quo bias that that Qualicum Beach has experienced would be the same situation that that would result.

And in status quo bias, next slide, please.

This is heightened where there is a higher voter uncertainty, or there's indifference, or there's lack of knowledge.

Some people have followed the topic with some interest, but fewer than 100 responses, despite extensive outreach, has been obtained.

In fact, some people have written twice, you will notice.

But out of almost 4,000 letters sent out, less than 100 points of contact is really a considerable amount of indifference.

And so there is a little bit of concern that while it may be an economical approach to put it on the ballot, it may not generate the type of visionary or nuanced consideration for counsel that the topic really warrants.

Next slide, please.

If it is on the ballot in 2022, it puts off addressing the issue because it's not something that would be enacted until the 2026 election.

It puts off addressing the issues that has led to this being something that's been discussed since 2020 in the first place, and that is depth of coverage of business meetings.

Council members will recall we've had a couple of meetings with three members, and I recall one meeting, there being some concern expressed in an item tabled where notice had been sent out on a large application, and council felt that they didn't want to deal with it that evening because of that.

And so there was concern about that.

And as well would be a situation where there would be a lack of opportunity for potentially diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We'll talk a little bit about more of that in a minute.

Next slide, please.

If it is on the ballot in 2022 and it doesn't proceed, the 2026 ballot would still only seek a five member council unless that next council passes a bylaw during their term to increase council size, and then the 2026 ballot would contain an opportunity for a seven-member council.

And it would be a minimum of eight years or the 2030 election when the topic could come up again as either a ballot question, or unless that next council, the 2026 to 2030 council, passes a bylaw to seek a passes a bylaw to seek a seven-member council in 2030.

Next slide.

Would there be any confusion or cause for concern prior to that next election?

Would people have forgotten what was decided?

Does it put off addressing those issues, or it does put off addressing those issues that led to this issue coming up in the first place?

That is the depth of coverage issue and an ability to increase focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Next slide, please.

And so what staff have heard is that the feedback has been very diverse.

The perspectives are varied based on perceived advantages or disadvantages.

And so, in thinking further about this, the um the book that George Cuff has written in 2019 talked about leading.

What is the real value of a mayor and council?

He encourages councils to be visionary, to provide the essence of where to from here, where do we go from here?

It is the necessary framework to subsequent goals and priorities.

And he notes that it's a democratically elected council, and so there is democracy involved in the essence or in the act of the public selecting council to move forward.

And so next slide, please.

Earlier I mentioned that we would turn to demo demographics or statistics, and there is a link to the report or in the report to the 2018 stats.

And View Royal stats point to our population going up, so our eligible voters are going up, and yet our turnout seems to be on the decline.

Next slide, please.

The elected incumbency rate is sitting at 100%, which is almost 20% higher than the 80% average in BC.

Next slide, please.

And in looking at the diversity, equity, and inclusion, women make up 20% of our council.

The average in BC is 35 percent.

Next slide, please.

So, in conclusion, the topic has been discussed for the past 14 months.

It's been considered by CDAC twice and recommended that the council size increase with a view to increasing diversity.

A comment earlier provided by a caller was is this social engineering?

And staff have thought about that issue and and thought, well, I'm not so sure that's the case because diversity, equity, and inclusion is actually everyone's responsibility.

And if it isn't something that a local government or a government takes up, I'm not sure whose responsibility it is then.

And um council sought public feedback, advertising broadly and received a broad range of perspectives through two widely promoted open houses, though with low attendance and low response rates.

Council has the information to make the decision.

It really comes down to one's beliefs around the future direction and vision vision that the town should be headed towards.

Going back to the broad perspectives, there were many reasons offered to proceed or to not proceed, or proceed, but maybe don't proceed now.

But as George Cuff has indicated, the framework is to set the framework is to set subsequent goals and priorities.

And so it's very futuristic and looking ahead.

The draft bylaw is before you this evening.

Next slide, please.

And staff's recommendation is to provide consideration of three readings.

The slide before you is the essence of that bylaw.

It's a very simple one with three three sections listed in it.

And considers increasing the council size by two, consisting of a mayor and six council members, becoming effective at the October 2022 general local election.

Next slide, please.

The alternative recommendation is that the report simply be received and that the bylaw that's before you this evening not receive three readings.

Next slide, please.

And this is the final slide.

The recommendation is that the report be received and that the bylaw indeed be given three readings at the appropriate time in the agenda.

Great.

Thank you, Sarah, for a very comprehensive report and also for all your work on it.

It's been a significant file.

So we'll go to questions for staff before we start weighing in with opinions.

So who has questions for staff?

Um I owe you first, Councillor Matson.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

I mean, I have some comments about staff's report, but you know, I'll I'll skip that for now.

I think we need to talk about that later.

But uh the most simple question I have is, you know, if it went to uh a question on on referendum or even if it's non-binding, I mean, why couldn't we just have a uh a a by-election afterwards?

If if the community actually felt that they that they wanted this.

And and the other question about selective selection bias, I mean, how how do staff think aren't the voters always right?

If they don't like something and they vote against it, how how can staff not be supportive of decision by the voters?

So basically two simple questions there.

Well, I yeah, I'm I'm not sure.

Yeah, okay.

Well, I'm gonna let staff answer that if you're comfortable answering them.

Well, I think the f the how can the public not be right?

I think the more I thought about this is that it really in the response, first of all, the response rate was incredibly low for the amount of um the for how broadly it was promoted, and and so I'm not sure it's just for clarification.

I meant if we voted if it was voted for by the public that during the next election on whether they wanted to have seven counselors or not, that's that's the issue.

So however many people come out and vote, they get to choose who they want to be on council and whether they feel it's time or it's necessary to add additional counselors.

So that was why would that be wrong?

And the other question was if we did do this, couldn't there be a by election to add the additional two counselors if that was what the public wanted?

I don't think it would necessarily be wrong.

I'm not sure that a by election, I'm not sure putting the question on the ballot with 25% voter turnout rate for this type of question is the visionary approach that may be required for this type of question.

And yes, something could be done for a by election, and it's simply a matter of funding a by election.

So my only other comment would be so I guess council or the public electing us isn't all that electing members of council isn't all that visionary based on what you've said, but we can I I don't want to get into the voters elect council to govern and to make decisions.

But we're getting into comments, so I'll stop there.

Councillor Kualovich.

Director Jones.

Are you able to let us know that if View Royal Incorporated today, what would be the uh recommended andor designated number of elected officials?

It would be seven.

You would have six council members and a mayor.

Okay.

And are you able to talk about the uh legislation and or uh regulations that uh propose that uh number of elected officials a bit and explain that so the public can be aware of it?

It is based on population size, and so we would technically even be considered a city council has um the option to choose to change its council size without actually changing the designation or the name city councillor lemon uh further just further to my colleague's um question at at what um population level would you typically or if incorporated as a new um a new municipality, would you move from five to seven?

I'm just checking what it says.

Would you move from five to seven?

If you are a city or a district less than fifty, you are fifty thousand population, you're a mayor and six counselors, and you become a city, anything over five thousand.

Okay, so it um if if I may, so if you were to incorporate, if if your royal had incorporated at a population of what if we would it be 5,000 and you would need to and and at that point would okay yes 5,000 if a city if you you become a city if you are you can when you incorporate in your city you're over 5,000 you you become a city and you would have a mayor and six council members.

Okay, thank you.

But having said that, Highlands is only 2,000 or they have seven.

Yeah.

They are they're a district, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

That would be why.

Right.

Town or village is mayor and four council members.

You good?

Councillor Rogers?

Yeah, I have lots of questions.

Okay.

Um, you know, the definition of a city, you know, I can appreciate the definition of a city in some rural location where they're responsible for all services, water, sewer.

Do you think that the definition of a city and a CRD with 13 other municipalities and a CRD holds the same significance where that city must take care of all its resources where we don't have to?

Isn't the definition different?

The intent different?

The purpose different?

I think council's intent was not to consider the city designation ever.

Right.

So we're not even talking about city.

You know, it's it's a new point because we don't want to talk about it because it's irrelevant and that I'm getting into opinion.

In your um uh charts of information, you provided a list of uh 25 executive appointments um for uh and you get a whole long list um of those.

Um how often do you know that the um you know the Friends of Coal Island meets and the council rep?

I don't think that's a fair question.

It's not up to staff, especially when you know that those are appointments out from this table, and staff are listing them for what they are.

They don't they don't have the responsibility to discover every single meeting of every single organization.

Yeah, yeah.

So um I I think um you know it's um it infers that that meeting has the same weight as the CRD board or CRD arts.

There's an inference in that information.

And um I I wonder staff would think that might be misleading.

I think that I'm not going to allow that question.

You're asking staff to suggest that they are being misleading in their report, and that's just completely inappropriate.

In um there was a summary of uh another slide, summaries of counselors in BC, and it showed View Royal of 2019 having a salary of $15,216.

Today, um, you know, I and you know, the proposed salary that staff are suggesting for two more counselors is $22,100.

So Steph, um I I wonder if you you think that increase of $7,000 in those three years might be an incentive enough for uh individuals to want to apply for counsel because remuneration is uh is is is certainly a drawing card.

That was not an increase, actually.

That 15 something, there's actually benefits that apply to that that we have to collect and re and put out for um to the as if it's an employee.

And then there's also discussed in that education and conference attendance that's included in that 22,000.

So the it's a combined number that is actually currently what is applied to council members.

So the the combined number, um, how did how did you um calculate that number 22,150?

I took the amount of money that the council members are currently remunerated or the stipend that's provided, and I looked at the annual budget that's allocated by council for things like conference attendance or education and divided it by five, which is how that's typically allocated for attendance at things like FCM, UBCM, AVICC, and that works out to on average, I think 5,000 and something per person, and combined those.

So um so really the the increase for counselors is 2022.

The two in if this were supported, the two new positions would be for 2023.

So actually, I would suggest that uh wouldn't you agree that um we would be adding the standard cola, that there would be a staff report and consideration of this council to increase the salaries remunerations for the 2023 next year.

Wouldn't that wouldn't those be factors that would make this outdated?

The councillors will start work on November 1st of this year.

So staff doesn't have a crystal ball.

Of course, things are going to go up in the following years.

And yeah, I suppose if council decides to vote itself a major increase this year before the election, then obviously that would put up the salaries of the new ones as well.

But I think that's unlikely.

Maybe.

So it's staff, um, when you calculated the uh the cost to um uh to the town, you know, and when I've looked at um the other uh municipalities, it it uh I get the impression that the mayors with six counselors get a higher rate than mayors with four counselors because they got to herd more cats.

Uh did you take that into consideration or or assess that are you council Rogers?

Are you looking at the Justin McElroy information?

Um I'm looking at when I was looking at the other municipalities of of um and what the salaries of mayors are and comparing the salaries of mayors for five council with the salaries of mayors seven or nine, um, those mayors get um you know significantly higher.

This review did not consider the salary of the mayor.

No.

Okay, so that information wasn't provided.

It was not the subject of the report.

I we can clarify that in a flash to our CAO.

When we do our comparison of council salaries, we compare it to likewise sized municipalities, do we not?

That's correct, your worship.

So it's done by the size of the municipality rather than the number of counselors.

Yeah.

Again, we'll say about that.

Um the um you indicated that rationale for five member council says that incumbents have an 80%, and you indicated in now in your report that um it's uh 100% in incumbents they voting in.

How does that change with um you know a seven member council that um the incumbents would actually have a more likely 100% chance of getting back in now that you've added two more seats it increases the odds for the existing councils to be reelected don't do you not agree i i think your counselor rogers with respect you are trying to invoke staff into a debate and it's not appropriate so ask them factual questions about the staff report if you like i guess then we will debate those issues i guess what i'm saying your worship is that um you know, and there are there's information that's been provided, um, but um, you know, there it it infers that these these are justifications and reasons why we need to have uh two more seats.

But you know, there there's you know, and I when I read the report, I didn't see any only so well, two reasons why an increase of counsel was not a good idea.

Well, I mean staff are entitled to their professional opinions, whether or not you agree with them or like them is completely up to you.

I mean, the one obvious thing is that there's seven on council, is it is more than likely there's gonna be a little bit of turnover and people are gonna drop off.

I mean, that would be one argument I would throw out there.

Um, but you're right.

Theoretically, seven people could be elected.

They could all decide to sit up here for the next 20 years and we may never get a new voice.

But we can't control the voters' outcomes.

So I I really would prefer it if rather than debating, if you have actual questions for staff on their report, let's do that and then let's get to a discussion.

Our CAO has his hand up.

Yes.

Your worship, I wanted to um to discourage hypothetical questions.

We don't have a crystal ball here.

I can tell you from personal experience in Wamish, in the 20 years I've been there, every election, the majority of council changed.

They during that time, they had six counselors and a mayor.

And coming here to view Royal, I'm quite surprised at the longevity of our counselors.

Thank you, Kim.

And I would expect that those variations will exist throughout the province.

That's that's excellent.

That's my point.

So there's a likelihood that if we keep it as it is.

But we're not debating at the moment.

We're asking questions of staff.

I appreciate uh Kim's point, it's a really good one.

Um, so the depth of coverage issue that staff mentioned, um, and and giving that one example where we had to table um a significant development proposal because there wasn't enough.

There was, I think we had four members and not five.

And in fairness, we wanted to give everyone a because it was a controversial item.

I cannot recall any other instances where we had a depth of coverage issue.

We've been very good.

In fact, the 25 years that I've been on council, we've been extremely good about um having that depth of coverage commitment of the council.

So I I really um, unless staff can give any more examples besides that one my time.

Yes, your worship.

Uh June 2021, uh June 2019, both meetings, there were three, and the one that uh the example I gave was a three-member attendance that caused the uh postponement of an advertised um development permit consideration.

Three times, no three members.

Uh well three instances I think you're referring to.

Two times.

Thank you.

So um in the last term.

I didn't go back further.

Steph, do you think there's any other ways that we can uh increase diversity?

Councilor Rogers, I'm not allowing that question.

So if you're done with your questions, we'll move on.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you very much.

There are any other questions?

Councillor Matson.

No more questions.

Okay.

So it's my hope that we're going to discuss this rationally.

Um, clearly, minds are made up by some, including myself, I must admit, but I do always feel like I'm prepared to listen to my colleagues.

And let's remember that we're talking about the future of the town of Ural, the corporation of the town of U Royal.

It's not really what we feel as politicians, it's what's in the best interest of the town as we grow and we're growing like crazy.

Um, and we need to think about that.

And this was last considered in 2002, um, and it was rejected then.

And so, you know, if we don't do it now, when do we do it?

So I really hope we're gonna have a good discussion about the pros and cons of doing this, not just immediately jumping to strong positions.

So, counselor Mattson, I'm gonna start with you, and we'll just do a round the room of thoughts, and then we'll go to a motion.

Well, based on what you just said, I'm I'm probably going to disappoint you because I don't see a whole lot of positives to doing this.

And so I do have some points, so I just like to, you know, you've probably heard some of these before.

And uh here we go.

But you know, this is on the basis of adding two additional counselors, is it's likely going to increase the workload for staff, uh, maybe lead you know to additional requests for staff and certainly cause more stress on staff.

By adding a couple more people, we're gonna increase costs at a time in the municipalities already facing significant tax increases.

We got the highest rate of inflation in decades, and according to stats can it's currently 4.5 percent, the highest since uh September 1991, which was at 5.5 percent.

One of the things in staff's report about sharing the workload, but you know, if any of you members of council, you know, think you know, other than the mayor who who has a number of different projects thinks they're overworked, you know, let me know.

But that's certainly not been my experience.

And in fact, this last term we've probably had as a council, as counselors, sort of less to do than we we've had and had previously.

So uh increase in number of counselors certainly isn't going to be doing much to reduce the which is already a pretty minimal caseload.

And you know, just counting the numbers, there probably seems to be you know slightly more people opposed to this than uh supporting us in terms of the public.

But as staff pointed out, we only had a hundred people responding.

Only a hundred people think that this is probably worth their while in terms of making you know expressing an opinion, even though we've talked to sent information up to 4,000 people.

So, from my perspective, unless there's a significant need by and expressed by the public, I I just can't see a good reason for doing this.

There's certainly been no push for the public.

So, and then the people I had talked to, they say they they just don't understand why we would bother doing this.

And if you look at what's happened in terms of people applying for counselor positions, uh, I think since 2005, when council got in by acclamation, we've only had six people running for counselor or more than six people running for the counselor position once.

And this meant that you know, all those who ran for the four counselor positions had to spend a lot of time and energy to get elected.

If it would have been six, um, either they would have got in by acclamation or they wouldn't have had to put in the time and for the public to actually come out and vote for them.

So, I mean, I have I have a problem when adding two additional members will just make it much easier for, as counselor Rogers said, for the current members to get elected without having to put in much effort.

So if you look at sort of the the two least popular uh people who get elected, although the public the electorate's always right, um they will just simply detract from the votes of those people who got the majority of uh, you know, who would have been elected if there were four.

So I think just it actually does a disservice to the power of the vote by the members of the public.

And given there's a four-year commitment that's required, uh there's certainly no guarantees that we'll have any impact on diversity at all.

That just seems to be a non-starter.

And contrary to what staff said, really, the public's always right, put it on referendum.

And if the public decides that we should be having six members or six counselors, then we could just have a uh a by-election and elect another two members.

A bit of a cost, but far better than saddling the people with six counselors when it's not really necessary.

So those are my points.

Um thank you very much.

Um, so I think I'm gonna go to my left now.

Um, either one of you.

Just for initial thoughts, right?

Yeah, yeah.

That's what I'm looking for.

Okay, and and then we'll go to motions after that.

All right, one more okay, yeah.

All right.

So, well, first of all, I I want to thank staff for the report.

And I want to thank the residents who took the time to share their views in correspondence and in public participation.

The opinions and arguments on both sides of the decision were thoughtful and very much appreciated.

And those in support of a seven member council cite the need for a representation that reflects our growing town and its residents.

So I don't I don't think there's a right or a wrong, but it's a question and a matter of what is right for our town.

Not so long ago, Bureoyal was uh the fastest growing community in BC with a population under 10,000.

And we've been growing since.

And now we're closing in on 12,000.

And so we're by far the largest municipality to have a uh to hold it a council of five.

So it I I understand or respect that some of my colleagues are you know steadfast in their belief and commitment um to maintaining the status quo and um would welcome the matter going to referendum um but you know council makes spending decisions every year um many most many much great far in excess of the 44 00 required for two more council members and to me this is a matter that to be made at this in this chamber um by the people elected to make decisions um and to my mind uh the referendum process is more suited to big ticket items like fire holes and uh for matters like that, which is which will affect people in their in their wallets and where they live um the and it's this question also touches on how councils work.

And I I believe a council needs to be reflective of the community it represents and responsive to the changing times and the changes in a community.

This is a knowledgeable council, and between three members here, there's combined 70 plus years of experience.

Uh incumbents are reelected, as it's been pointed out, 100% reelection here.

And people interested in running for council recognize this and feel that it's a closed shop, and there aren't many opportunities for new voices and new opinions and new views.

Council needs the historical memory of that that is reflected by the people here now.

But we need to more realistically represent and reflect the people in View Royal.

Right now, that council is at it's a five-member council, but they've only got three people there.

Uh, they've been circumstances, you know, one an election and uh leave have reduced them to three.

So that's not effective government, and it's certainly something that could happen here.

Um, it hasn't, but it could.

Um, we have a second level of of representation in our advisory committees, and these are community members who are appointed to consider issues important to the town and make recommendations to council.

And these committees reflect the population in in age, ethnicity, gender, and uh twice this matter has gone to the community um development advisory committee, and they've considered it and told us it's time to go to seven.

And I respect their input, and I agree it's time.

I'll go to Councillor Rogers next.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Then we'll go back to you, Councillor Kowalovich.

Yeah.

I was disappointed, you know, to um you know see the list of of appointments without any suggestion and Councillor Rogers.

You know, it is inappropriate for you to criticize staff in a public meeting.

So can you please talk to the issue?

I have, yeah.

I think um I personally do not think that we are overworked.

No, we're not.

In in um in the bad old days, um uh, you know, we would have meetings that went on to 10 30, 11 o'clock at night.

We'd have to have an extension of of uh times.

And um, and yes, all those all these meetings that that we have listed here, these appointments, none of them are irrelevant in the sense of time that it takes.

The gorge waterway initiative is not a council appointment.

We have a resident rep.

The um friends of Coal Island, no, it's it's that's not happening.

The the Colkwitz uh Gorge Watershed, the Squawmont Harbor Advisory Committee, um that you know, Council Match's on that.

You know, I was on that, that's once every four months.

The uh parent advisory, uh, family court, the View Royal Reading Centre.

I mean, I'm on archives and archives of, you know, they're doing fine themselves.

They don't have me in uh involved in any any of that stuff.

But I am involved in in my concerns and and you know um and and dedication for the history of U Royal.

The so to suggest by 25 committees that we're busy, no.

We're busy because you know, we are going to be out there in the community uh listening to issues, um, and it I'm more busy on an ad hoc environment committee uh than uh most of these that are here.

Those that's that's a grassroots uh thing.

Um I am I am concerned um that the I know of the ratio that we're proposing here.

We say here we're a city, and today we would have had, if we were a city, we would have had seven members of council.

What's the ratio?

One politician for 1700 people.

And Saanich has, you know, if we went to that rule of thumb, the CRD, all the 13 municipalities should have 294 politicians tall.

And even right now, the uh the region is uh, you know, when I go to FCM and and UBCM, and uh they're aghast.

Those are the politicians and um Burnaby and so forth, they're aghast, and it's a mockery.

Um when when Burnaby has nine politicians with 233,000 people and they're doing fine.

It, you know, if this was such a fantastic idea, then um, you know, you know, you just can't say that our ratio, we need to have more counselors, then it is also suggesting that with our current population, when we double to 25,000, we're going to have to get two more counselors because we doubled.

The logic doesn't work.

The workload doesn't work.

And to suggest that um by having two more um counselors, we're going to get the diversity is incorrect, uh, is presumptuous, I should say.

Because I know that there are, you know, a few white males that are anxious to get voted in and they're supporting this.

You know, and that's the essence here.

How do we get the diversity?

And I totally agree.

I think we did a good job when we when we were talking about election signs and all that kind of ways and means of um making it easier for people when they want to uh run for polit um for office that we're gonna make it easier for them, they're gonna have a level playing field.

I like that.

But I think um what we made a significant mistake by not asking council uh staff, well, we were very limited.

Let's get two more.

That's all we asked.

We did not ask about what are the ways and means and the creative options, how we can increase diversity.

Diversity um for getting more women or um a minority groups or handicapped individuals, mobility challenge individuals.

We might be lucky, but then we could just come back and see the same ratio again.

So my concern about going ahead to doing this, the the way this happened in a pandemic, with pandemic fatigue, with pandemic apathy.

We have got, you know, and and you look at the letters that we've got.

We got a grand total, I added them up.

We got a grand total of 34 letters, not counting the repeats.

And in the 34 letters, the the ones that said no, we're really very thoughtful.

And so 22 of the uh the 34 letters said no.

So they've they've told us, they've told us this is not a good idea.

And seven of those individuals are in the harbor.

And you know, interesting enough, we have a glut of politicians in the harbor.

Um, so it's I I really um I'm concerned that we're moving ahead with this, and and we say that it's only 22,000.

Well, no, it's it's not going to be 22,000 in four years.

There's going to be, and I would suggest actually that the real dilemma for getting new counselors is not two more seats.

It's because it's a four-year term.

That's a long term.

When you talk to people saying, and they said, nope, no, there's not a chance.

I don't care how many seats you got, you can have nine, but it's just too much too long a time to me for me to be committed.

You don't get paid enough.

And you know, when you go to all these meetings, it's not these 25 meetings that worry them.

It's the time and effort, you know, and the preparation for these council meetings.

That's that's uh what concerns them.

And um, if we don't prepare, then we shouldn't have got elected.

But you know, people don't know that when when it comes time of the ballot box.

I am really concerned about this town's financial situation and what we're facing.

There's, and I think that's that's the theme that's gone through here.

We may say it's only 26,000, but really we know that in the last fiscal plan, staff are recommending an 8% tax increase.

And we've been hearing all sorts of bad news about what the province wants to do with the e com.

We've had a police chief that is saying we need a new building.

He's told us that at protective services.

You know, we um, you know, we're very thankful that we have a composite fire hall, but we never know what's going around the corner uh when a union could come in.

I asked about collective bargaining debt um uh at the West Shore Parks and Rec.

And you know, we're not a union shop, but we are a fair employer, and we do respect, you know, those, and we do not know what um what those futures will be.

Um, and and staff have told us we need more staff.

We need, you know, and for the vacancies, just like at West Shore, the vacancies that we've got there, you know, it's an issue of um uh not having the right skill sets, and you gotta have the right skill sets, you gotta buy the right skill sets.

So, you know, we can have and we staff have told us the you know, we can bring in someone new and we can train them up and they leave.

That's the problem with 13 municipalities.

There's always employee movement, and we get the vacuum.

So, you know, I'm I'm deeply concerned about what the taxpayers, and I think again that's corresponding to the letters here that we received, and um and you know it is a huge worry for me.

Um yeah, my prediction in the next four years, I think that uh staff salaries or the council salaries could go up to 30,000, 35 just just by you know the in the inflation rate alone.

You know, that that's um I hope it doesn't happen, but that's that's a possibility.

Um I don't think we can afford this.

You know, staff have uh advised that if we went to um a ballot.

The good news about a referendum is it draws voters out, and I think we could increase the voter intake, but even with 25% of the voters, we would still get 10 times the response than we got today in these two open houses, and we saw how barren we were with with people phoning in on this matter.

Did they care?

Is it apathy?

Is it the pandemic?

You know, I I um I think we can do this, but I think it's going to be an election issue.

I think people are going to be looking back at this after they see their taxes.

You know, we have this doesn't have to be decided until April the 15th.

April the 15th is when is the dead drop debt date.

So we could actually in February March see what our taxes are going to be like because the public's going to be seeing those reports as well.

And they're going to be seeing maybe it won't be an eight percent tax increase because the assessment's all went up.

So, Councillor Rogers, you're well over the five minutes that we're each allowed.

Thank you.

I'll uh I'd like a second round after this, you worship.

Well, we will be debating a motion in the next round, and then everybody will have their five minutes as per our procedural bylaw.

Councillor Kowalovich.

Thank you.

And thank you for the uh comments from my colleagues.

Uh I know that this is a uh challenging decision.

I I am not overly crazy about this even being a decision made by council.

I've actually expressed that over the past 14 months.

However, here it is, and I'm faced with making a decision and weighing the pros and cons of this and making the best decision for our community.

Uh the comments that I would like to make about this, uh first off, I think we have uh we have checked the box with a robust public participation.

The the lengths that we have gone to to communicate with our residents has been quite impressive.

The uh literature, uh references and documentation for the pros and cons uh are are there.

Uh staff has provided that um they've showed their case and made the recommendation.

Uh on the on the topic of uh government bureaucracy, because I think a lot of the letters uh do reference government bureaucracy and the over governance of of the potential increase um I think and it's very easy to look at at us, Town of View Royal, as uh as part of a conglomerate with the CRD and drawing on other services.

But um I think like like development permits, like rezoning, you do need to look at it as a singular issue.

Look at us and say, okay, this is this is just us, um, and exclude uh those uh those extra pieces.

So uh that was important.

In respect to long-term visioning of View Royal, uh, I think as an elected official, it's it's a big piece of why we're here.

And uh faced with decisions such as this, the residents are depending on us.

Whether apathetic, different, we must uh continue to make these decisions.

I would I would argue that a lot of topics up here that we deal with suffer from apathy from the community.

And that's not meant to be negative.

It it is what it is.

That's why we're here.

And and there's a level of trust.

The low voter turnout can be looked at negatively or it can be looked at positively.

It could show uh an immense amount of support for our decision making ability.

I I would argue that uh a lack of voter turnout may may actually show a lot of uh support for our decision making process.

In regards to committee work this is this is an interesting one and you know as a as as an individual on council uh yeah I'm I'm the youngest uh I have a full-time job.

I have a family.

I do sit on committees.

And yes, life's busy.

Absolutely I I think I I I truly believe that if you added more council members, you could allow future elected officials such as myself to say, hey, okay, uh, you know, the mayor is gonna spread spread it around.

Uh, I don't have to sit on so many committees.

Uh, I I can I can attend, you know, one or two.

Uh, as the town continues to grow, there will be more committees, there will be more responsibilities.

The more people you have, the more work there is for elected officials, for staff.

That we can all agree on.

So I'm a big believer that you're gonna attract more um uh diverse applicants or diverse candidates who who may have kids, who may have full-time jobs, and say, hey, okay you know what may maybe I can give this a try for for four years um yes there are competing interests in the region uh that we that we need to attend to it's very unique we're in the CRD we have 13 municipalities so there there are I'd say an extraordinary amount of committees I agree with counselor rogers some of them don't require much input or any at all some require require a lot uh the West Shore Parks and rec the library board I mean I stood on that it it takes a lot it's a lot of time uh also it would allow whoever the mayor is to uh select uh from a more diverse talent pool on council for these committees uh and give that uh her or him uh more options to pick from.

On the topic of fiscal responsibility in relation to adding two counselors, this this point's not lost to me.

And I and I've been bringing up my anxiety surrounding the uh financial uh status of not only the town of Ur, I think all of Canada is suffering from from this.

But uh, this is not lost on me.

Uh however, if if you look at our budget uh globally, I think we're uh we 17 million ish uh CAO Anima.

Okay, 17 million ish.

Uh this increase, uh, it is, I think it does.

Um it is important to to think about.

Okay.

Okay, is there going to be a financial impact from this?

Yes.

Now what about the benefits of increasing it?

Does that outweigh it?

Do the benefits of adding these two members outweigh that small, and I will call it a small increase because if you do look at the global budget, it is.

I mean, are we a point?

Uh sorry, I don't want to put you on the spot here, CA animal, but is it 0.3%, 0.2 increase?

This would this would happen per year?

1% is the 94%.

Okay.

Okay.

So uh under 0.5%.

I I've been saying that you it could be it would be 0.2% in this year's budget and 0.2% in next year's budget.

Okay.

And that would cover the increase.

Okay.

So for that reason, I do think that the uh the benefits of the two members do outweigh that minimal increase.

Uh I pledge to continue to keep a watchful eye on the financial situation here and always uh increase my financial literacy for constituents and make decisions that uh will will benefit the town as a whole.

Uh I I this is a very challenging decision, and it's it was it was down to the wire for I think for a lot of us.

Uh some some have made their mind up earlier than others, but uh faced with the decision, uh, I think the best the best course of action would be to support the increase.

Okay, thank you.

I'm I'm well, yeah, I don't know how much I'm gonna say.

I'm gonna say I'm not gonna say much, then I probably will.

But I think this is a must.

I I this was debated in 2002, as I mentioned before, and the same two voices that are arguing passionately against it tonight are the same two voices that argued passionately against it then.

And our population has doubled since then.

Um this council has not, you know, we have not really worked well as a council, frankly.

This council, we've done well sometimes, and we've done really poorly other times.

And I truly believe we need more voices at this table.

Um, just to give us more breadth of opinion, more opinions that we're not currently getting, you know, hopefully more gender equity, but who knows?

I know we can't guarantee that.

The the argument that there's not enough candidates, you know, with respect to my colleague, I don't know how many people I've had who said to me, Why would I run Mayor Screech?

All the incumbents are running.

Why would I run?

Um, you know, when when incumbents get in 100% of the time in view roll, apparently, why would somebody run?

Um so I mean, I think that's just such an important point to, and especially a younger person or someone who's not that confident about running or whatever it may be, why would they run up and and basically waste their time and money if they felt they had no chance of success?

Outside appointments, you know, frankly, again, with respect to my colleagues, they are what you make them.

I spent eight years on the library board and I spent eight years on the CRD Arts Committee, and those were both onerous files.

Um, and both of them in many ways took as much as the council work does.

And like anything, you can do as little as you please or as much as you please.

Um, you are representing the town at those, and my hope is that everyone is giving it 100% to represent the town to the best of their abilities.

And I can tell you as the one who does the appointments and brings them forward to council for approvement.

I don't think we have much of a pool to choose from.

I think if we had more counselors, it would be a larger pool to choose from.

We would be able to rotate.

A squamalt, for example, rotates constantly their appointments to the library board, the CRD arts committee.

Um, whereas we tend to just go with one and it stays there.

And again, maybe that's not bringing diversity of opinions to those different boards and commissions.

Um, the the fear-mongering of saying that council's salaries are going to go up to 35,000 a year almost isn't worth gracing with an answer.

I mean, that would mean that council is going to vote itself a 300% increase.

And no sensible member of council is ever going to do that, especially in an election year.

So I really don't see that as being an issue.

As Councillor Kowalowicz said, we have engaged the public very well on this.

I think the public expects us to make the decision, and I think that's why we haven't had a lot of feedback on it.

In that community survey we did at the beginning of this term, that was certainly the overwhelming feedback in that community satisfaction survey was they felt that we were elected to make decisions and that on the whole we were doing a good job.

I do wonder, you know, when you look at the number of MLAs and MPs across the country, and those numbers are constantly examined and adjusted as populations grow.

And imagine if they if they didn't do that.

So, anyhow, I could go on and on, but I I think for the the town of View Royal, it is absolutely the best thing.

I think it does increase the chances of getting some different voices up here.

I know it does for this first initial election.

After that, I can't be so sure, but I do think the chances of some turnover um with seven are greater than with five.

So I will certainly be supporting it.

And staff, I want to say again, I have been so impressed with the quality of the work presented at the open house.

Um I'm impressed with your report.

I've had feedback from people who've been impressed with the time that you have taken one on one to answer their questions.

So I really want to thank you for that.

And so so that sort of closes what I saw as a preliminary round.

And so is someone prepared to move the recommendation?

I'd move that um this matter be uh put on the uh 20 uh 22 ballot as a referendum question.

Okay, so that's moved and seconded.

I'm I'm gonna hope that this is very brief because we know that it's gonna be defeated before we even start.

So go ahead and speak to it, Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Um we've had um I I do not think that we've had overwhelming support.

Um when you look at the correspondence, the letters, the the times that people have taken to write, they the majority are opposed.

Even if it were 50 50, this is not so councillor Rogers.

I'm gonna ask you to speak to your motion, which is whether or not it be placed on No, you're not.

You're speaking to the issue.

The motion on the floor is whether we have it placed the ballot on a referendum.

Yes, and I, you know, and my point I say your worship was building up to is the fact that I would um uh feel that we would get a much better feel um uh from the electorate uh in support or not for this question.

We need to take it to the voters.

This is too big an issue for just five votes, five residents.

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Mattson speaking to the motion on the floor.

I agree with my my colleague, this is too big an issue, it's too big a change the way the town does business, and from my perspective, it's an assault to the or an insult to the taxpayers if we don't put this to referendum when it's a simple matter of doing so.

And I could go on, but I'll I'll leave it at that.

Okay, thank you on my left do you wish to comment yeah thank you counselor Kroovich the only thing I would say is and and I I considered this as well and to both of my colleagues and Mariscreech and we talked about the decades and decades of experience here on Bureau Royal Council.

That is not lost on me that that experience is not lost on me.

I value it but I also have to look forward and and look at all options.

I think if we look at the the public participation and consultation process, we have achieved and we have completed our duty in that regard, and now the decision is up to us and and I although considered it, um, I can't support a referendum for this.

Okay, so thank you.

I'm not gonna make any comments on that.

I will save them.

So all in favor of the motion, all opposed.

So councillor Kualovich, Councillor Lemon, Council Mayor Screech opposed, so the motion fails.

So is anyone prepared to move the staff recommendation?

Okay.

So moved.

Okay, so it's moved by counselor koalowich.

Second, seconded by councillor lemon.

So that is on the floor.

Do you wish to speak to it again?

Or I don't have anything to add.

If if we continue to debate, I may uh comment on some of my colleagues uh thoughts and observations but not right now fair enough yeah okay counselor lemon oh I I think I've um said pretty much what I set out to say um but you know to the point of work I I will agree with my with my colleague I don't feel overworked um but I'm in a position to be able to you know take on committees and and um and enjoy them uh you know, I've got a I've got a several response committees that um require time and responsibility, um, but I don't feel overworked.

And uh, you know, I I do agree to that point.

Okay, so counselor rogers speaking to the motion on the floor.

Yes, thank you.

The motion on the floor, just for anyone who's listening or the public, is that the staff report dated January 27, 2022, from the corporate officer titled Consideration of Increase to Council Size We Received, and that council size increased bylaw number 1086, 2022 be given three readings at the appropriate time in the agenda, which is next.

Go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Um again, I am opposed to this.

Um we have not addressed the issue really at the focal point, and that is to ensure and obtain diversity on council.

Two more seats could be just more guys, more white guys, more old white guys.

And that's not necessarily going to uh address the problem, but it will cost us.

It will cost us not only in terms of the money, but it'll cost us probably in terms of um, you know, when the mayor speaks, we have not worked well as a as a council at times.

And you know, it could be that we could get some interesting individuals that uh will run and they will convince the public and they will get on and they will be very time-consuming individuals.

That is a possibility.

I I know of um in in the years past of individuals that were voted on and they couldn't be on committees, they were vo vo they were working five time, full time.

So I don't think that increases the pull.

They were they um uh were working and you know at times we just couldn't expect to see them at council meetings.

So, you know, and I do not think, I do not agree with um um uh what's said here.

I do not believe that the we got enough details about the cons.

The information that went out to the public did not speak to the cons, that the situation, did not give us reasonable options to the public, but what the public did give us was a clear no.

You were ignoring, those that are voting in favor of this are ignoring the correspondence and the well-written correspondence that we'd received here.

And I would encourage those individuals, and and uh like I say, this is going to be an election issue of not of of you know it that we did not hear.

We did not respond, we did not um, and and when we talk about um the um uh the community survey we did back in 2019.

There was no mention at that time.

They were happy with the council.

They didn't feel that they uh were uh underrepresented.

They didn't want uh feel that we should uh increase by two.

So it's um and I and I think doubling in size is uh like I've said before, it's it's a red herring.

I think um we are going to see some in significant costs in the next four years.

Hopefully, we will get a skill set of individuals that will respond to it's very, very challenging situations.

View Royal has a poor tax base.

We are not like Holwood, Langford, Victoria, Saanich.

We are going to be challenged.

So, and and that worries me.

One of the interesting things is that in terms of people stepping up, staff are still calling for people to participate in the OCP workshops that are happening this week.

We have not enough people.

We're putting out the noses, but we haven't got enough people.

Why?

Why are they not stepping up?

And you know, in terms of workload, there were the good old days with Mayor Hill that and and uh then councillor Screech and Ron and I.

We had seven advisory committees.

Seven.

And we were prepared to work with them and really get some things rocking and rolling here in the town.

Now we're down to five.

Well, down to two amalgamation, amalgamation.

We amalgamated all those, and staff are suggesting we delete those.

And there was a staff report saying we can do away with them.

No.

They take up too much time.

Um I I think that we were going about this all wrong in terms of getting um really good um representation and um by the by the public.

Um and you know, I pray, because I see the writing on the wall, or it's gonna happen.

I pray that we do get the right people.

Thank you.

So I will have quite a bit to say actually when we before we wrap this up.

Councillor Mattson.

Wow.

Actually, uh, probably everything that needs to be said in terms of the reasons why I'm not opposed, I'm opposed to this motion and would prefer the last one I've already been said, so I will just leave it at that, other than to say that I'm gonna vote against this motion.

Okay, thank you.

So I'm just gonna touch on a couple of things.

I mean, honestly, I'm absolutely floored to hear a current member of this council talking about getting the right people at this table.

It just completely blows me away.

So you're not wanting to increase the number of seats because you're concerned about the type of people.

I mean, that is just so outrageous, I can't quite get over it.

And I do, in fact, I won't get over it.

The and and the other comment that I'm gonna make is, you know, with all the respect in the world, Councilor Rogers, we've had so many issues over the years when we've had letters like 50 to one opposing something, and council has decided to go ahead with it.

So why all of a sudden we pick this one?

Um, and and I must say too that many of those letters, as you well know, were generated by some correspondence that was sent out that was full of misleading information.

Um and so it is difficult for me to accept all that correspondence as people who clearly understood what was happening.

I I find no, I'm wrapping up, Councillor Rogers, as the mayor does.

And you are incorrect, your worship.

Yeah, thank you.

I find it fascinating that this is such a heated debate.

As Counselor Kualawich said, this really shouldn't be up to politicians to decide it, because a lot of what we're hearing tonight is just simply fear of losing influence in my mind.

And I and I think that's a real shame.

But I mean, my the if we don't do it now, when do we do it?

You know, do we do it at 15,000, 18,000, 20,000?

What's the magic number?

Um, and I don't think there's any answer to that.

We've we've grown so much.

Um, and I just I I don't agree it's gonna create really any extra work for staff.

The agendas are put onto our iPads, um, you know, the meetings may be a little bit longer.

You're absolutely right.

We could get some very talkative person, um you know, that's gonna make the meetings run longer.

Of course, that could happen regardless, but ultimately there'll be more opinions at this table.

And I just I cannot say how strongly I think it's needed for us to have more opinions, and I think it will, I think we'll be surprised to see how many people will come out and run, knowing that there's two empty seats or two open seats in this election.

So I'm gonna call the question.

So all in favor of the motion?

So councillor Rogers, Councillor Mattson opposed.

Opposed?

I just need to get back in on my iPad here.

It's logged me out.

Um staff, maybe this is being temperamental.

I think next we have the three readings of the bylaw.

Is that right?

That's correct, your worship.

So what is the bylaw number?

1086.

Okay, so would someone like to move first through third of any vertical?

Thank you.

Second.

Okay.

So I'm gonna presume we don't need to debate this again.

Okay, so I'm gonna call the question.

All in favor.

Opposed.

Councilor Rogers, Councillor Matson opposed.

And lastly, we have zoning bylaw number 900, which was the subject of the public hearing earlier tonight.

We don't want to do this one tonight, do we?

I I don't see why not, Councillor Mattson, given that you know it wasn't uh a particularly contentious public hearing.

I'm I'm comfortable with moving it forward.

If the rest of council is.

Yes.

Okay, so we could have a go-around on this, or if someone's prepared to move third reading, we can start that way.

Um could we just have a go around?

Sure.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, go ahead.

Yes, thank you.

Um, so one of the things um and I will be supporting the the bylaw.

Um, but I I do have some um nagging thoughts.

Um and maybe a question to staff, if I may you worship.

Yeah.

So Steph, does this bylaw when uh we pass this, we're gonna be cementing in the um um setting of the buildings on terms of uh lot lines rear and front.

So I think we have that, I don't know if Mr.

Chow's still with us we have the director of planning with us hello your worship hello council uh lindsey chase director of development services um in the zoning council will see that front and front rear and side yard setbacks are established uh along with all of the other normal zoning provisions um the after after zoning is adopted uh the only way to uh change those would be through the uh through the development permit process by requesting a variance on the part of the applicant.

Okay.

So um then thank you staff.

Uh my concern, your worship, is that um uh you know the staff have said the rationale for having the 18 meter um uh frontage you know which is yeah I I appreciate that there's um amenities and features um parking lot whatever um that is uh in front of the building but um the comment by staff is that it gives a better view of four mile you know I I haven't heard that one before and I don't feel that that is particularly important um I think the uh more important is ensuring um the distance um of the rear of the building from the park and at the moment if I'm and staff can help me but I I understand um the rear is what uh seven meters so i think when staff made that comment they certainly didn't mean to suggest that the reason the building was placed like that was to give a better view of the four mile they just said that it was a a byproduct of the yeah of the placement and and the building has I mean I'll let Lindsay answer but the the building has been shifted four or five meters from the original scenario because you you outlined those concerns at the beginning.

Yeah well they certainly you wish I'm um and I'm very most impressed and pleased that we've shifted away from the playground.

Um, but I don't think we've you know shifted um the rear lot.

And um, you know, quite frankly, I I would um I don't do I have no idea if we have to make a um uh but just let me say up front that I think the the front should be 15 and the rear should be 10.

That means a shift of three meters, 10 feet.

And what that's doing is it's um it it because this will be a large building facing on the rear side of of uh the park.

So that's um and it then allows us, I think you know it's really difficult, Councillor Rogers, when bylaws have had two readings to make changes like this on the fly.

If you're very serious about that, we would have to go back to the drawing board and start again and have a public hearing.

Far better to leave it with staff to work with the proponent.

Um I I feel rather you know what we're really talking about tonight is land use.

Yes, there is.

Come forward.

Yeah, form of character.

Well, I hope that we can, and I hope members um uh would uh would think about that.

Um the the other point I I just want to also add again, I'm I'm pleased with um uh the landscaping that's being offered, but um I again if we can put a a year round coniferous uh screening um from um uh alongside of the park, I think it would be better.

And I I do want to make it clear that the covenant of $50,000 really should be dedicated for the removal of invasive species.

This park is infested, and we're going to need every dime of that $50,000 to address the invasive species, and we have other creative means of adding trees into the park.

So I I would hope that, you know, it's and I never mentioned, you know, it's obviously a staff uh addition, and I hope that that doesn't um we can we're not dealing with a covenant right now, are we?

No.

No.

Okay.

No, well, we're not dealing with how the 50,000 is going to be spent right now, that's for sure.

Yeah, yeah.

All right.

So that that's um on my quick overview.

Okay, well, I think staff's made note of those concerns.

So are there any other questions, or should we debate whether or not we're going to do third reading of bylaw 1083?

Okay, so would somebody like to move third reading of bylaw number 1083?

So moved.

Okay, so that's moved by Councillor Kualovich.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

So it's on the floor.

Thank you.

And go ahead.

Thanks.

I I will be supporting this tonight for various reasons that I'll go over.

Actually, can I get some water down there too?

Uh your worship?

Sure.

Yeah.

Before we do this.

Just yeah.

Yeah.

I'll put it there.

Okay.

Anyone else?

Yes, please.

So the first uh the the most important piece I think of this for for me is uh has to do with housing in in the region and in View Royal.

It is no secret that housing prices uh are out of control.

Uh housing availability is limited whether you are a uh potential uh homeowner uh and or renter.

Uh this uh fills uh fills a need.

It's it it is eighty-two available um homes for people uh various levels of their lives, their entry-level homes, depending on their stage of life.

Hopefully, this can fill that gap for some of them.

The proximity to transit, trails, and the walkability score are also key features that make this a very uh appealing project.

I think the price point of condominiums is something that's more achievable for uh for newer homeowners and for individuals with uh that mid level income in Canada.

Uh this still in in Greater Victoria, a condominium like this in a new building will be very expensive and more than most places that you know that are in rural communities.

So it's still not cheap, but it's it's actually achievable, and people can uh qualify for a mortgage work.

There have uh there's been great efforts by the developer.

Uh first off with the land assembly, the the uh accumulation of these uh homes with the visioning of providing uh housing, uh efforts to modify the application in regards to building scope, uh landscape plans, and the overall improvement of the project have been impressive.

As elected officials, we need to balance the need of the present and future residents in View Royal to ensure opportunities for for new residents and current residents.

As you heard, I think someone called in and said that this would be an opportunity for her to stay in View Royal while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

We know that new developments around existing neighborhoods that have not had change uh are significant for people's lives.

Uh I I remember when I moved into our uh our house and it was surrounded by forest and uh slowly was built up around us.

And yes it it it it does have an impact and I get that I I listen to the residents around but we need to make decisions uh for for the for the community as a whole and um for those reasons I'm supporting this.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you um yeah, this this has evolved uh in a in a positive way.

Um I think because of the cooperation and and um and uh staff's advocacy um for working to get the best um option here.

Um you know this is quite remarkable in some respects because you know I can't think of um a place where it's located with excellent bus routes bike cycling school um shopping you know that is and you know it it really has a minimal impact on on forestation removal m not like what we saw in Erskine Lane um which is um and I think the the big difference with Erskine Lane um and and this is that we've not we're not seeing that um and I I doubt that we're gonna see a lot of parking problems in around the rest of the neighborhood.

That's um uh this is really a self-contained um um unit, if you like.

Um and I I would hope that uh we'll see that uh and I appreciate what staff are saying about transportation traffic issues and uh the egress in and out of the building, but I think um uh the the way it's situated and located, um we're not gonna see, hopefully won't see too much of a car commute from that site.

The and I appreciate the comments points um uh and resonant points and concerns with Portage Park.

Um I know, but we have many instances, I think, in the region where um uh condo have gone up adjacent to parks, and that we've seen this as being another walkable feature, another incredible amenity for those that are residing there.

And I think we're we're doing well.

I I just wanted to the one of the amazing things about the situation where it's located, this is on the um Victoria Waterways route, where you know there's a paddling route around Esquamalton View, and we've actually got the Portage Trail, which is a part, and so um the applicant um just may want to consider kayak storage on site uh because that will be a I think a significant drawing and amenity for um uh for those individuals there.

And I do appreciate the um comments of uh from people phoning in that um the CACs could well be invested in Portage Park uh amenities, such as when we were talking about concerns of having a toilet there, um, which I think is um uh would help um the community and alleviate uh some of the fiscal challenges of the town.

So um, yes, you wish I'm I'm happy to support this.

Okay, thank you very much.

Councillor Mattson.

Yes, thank you.

I'm sure you'll have heard uh much of this before.

Again, if it wasn't for the fact there was a park adjacent to it, I probably would be supporting this initiative.

But given the location and the fact there's a playground beside it, uh five stories is too tall.

And I think we'd be better off with townhouses.

And 82 units on less than an acre, again, the density is incredibly high.

But for me, like the the probably one of the biggest issues is uh that it's gonna really hurt the ambience of the park.

You saw from that photo that I had.

I mean, you know, that six trees isn't going to do anything to be to mitigate the size of that building uh adjacent to playground.

It it's and it'll be taken away this, you know, from my perspective, it's going to take away from the satisfaction that people have of the park.

And I just don't see the benefits to the town.

I mean, there'll also be some issues about access and egress from the property.

It's very nice that you're going to say that you know people are going to be able to ride into town on their bicycles along the trail, but the reality is you know they're gonna have a lot of cars going in and out of there every day.