Council Meeting

So we'll call the council meeting to order.

And for people at home again, you'll be calling in 778-402-927 and entering conference ID 134-874-674 pound.

Public participation will come up very quickly tonight.

So if there's a matter on the agenda that you wish to speak to tonight, you should be calling in now because we will be there in no time.

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

Yeah, and any of you that were here for the public hearing, you're welcome to stay, or you're welcome to sneak away.

We won't be offended.

Get a motion to approve the agenda.

Thank you.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried, and then a motion to approve the July 19th council minutes.

Smoked.

Q second.

Moved, seconded by Councillor Rogers and Kualovich.

All in favor.

Any comments, corrections?

No.

Opposed, that's carried.

I don't really have anything under Mayor's report other than kudos to staff for getting this room back, especially Dave Podmaroff, who I think worked the entire long weekend and worked long days to get it back together.

But if you saw this room on Saturday, you'd be amazed that we're we're in here tonight and it it looks good.

I I was in here at eight o'clock this morning and it was all full of badge.

Yeah.

Yeah, no, it's taken a lot of work to get it.

So kudos all around for that.

And there's no petitions and delegations, and so public participation.

So this is the opportunity.

The second just let me scan down here.

Yeah, the did so the DP for um 167-169-171 Island Highway, that has its own slot for public participation within the agenda on that.

But if there's anyone here who would like to speak to any other matter on the agenda tonight, this is your opportunity.

So is there anyone you'd like to speak to any matter on the agenda other than the the DP for the the condo building?

But any other matter on the agenda, this would be the chance.

Do we have any callers on the line stuff?

Your worship, no callers at this time.

Thank you.

Okay, what what were you wanting to speak to, sir?

I might be able to um that's the Lund Road.

So does that one also have yeah?

Sorry, that one also has you can so you can speak within that agenda item when we get to it.

Yeah, sorry, I should have said that.

Yeah.

No, sure.

Okay, so we're gonna move on then, and we're gonna go right to 8.1A, which is 167, 169, and 171 Island Highway.

I'm gonna say I quite like this aspect of it of staff coming up to the podium.

This is new as well with our redesign.

Staff always sat at the bench, but it's um I think it's good.

All right, Sterling Scorey Community Planner, uh presenting 167, 169, 171 Island Highway Development Permit with variants.

Just before I begin the presentation, um Justin Bennett, the applicant, I see he's uh online, and the property owner is also in attendance tonight.

So, purpose for the uh presentation is to consider development permit, uh, former character mixed residential.

That would uh facilitate a single five-store 82-unit uh apartment building.

Uh there would be removal of three existing single-detached dwellings and on-site trees as well as some as well as off-site trees.

I'll get to that later in the presentation.

In addition, there would be a pathway connection uh directly from the subject site into Portage Park.

Next slide.

So a bit of background on the project.

Uh site is 3,780 square meters.

It was formerly R1B detached residential, which was medium lot, and it was rezoned to a comprehensive development zone, uh, Island Highway Portage.

It was rezoned for the purpose of permitting multifamily residential use.

Next slide.

Those were informed by discussions at the committee whole and further conversations with staff and the applicant.

Those include revisions to the park connection, landscaping, so fencing was added around the perimeter of the property, pedestrian bicycle access that was a point of discussion at the committee of the whole, and the applicant has confirmed that bicycle ramps would be provided, as well as lighting and a direct connection through the front of the property to Island Highway.

The building design, and I do have a um some sample materials here on the side that council can look at that were provided by the applicant.

One of the changes there was that the soffits were previously going to be a cedar material, so cedar wood.

They are now going to be metal but have a wood grain-like appearance.

And there is a sample there on the uh the table of what uh what that looks like.

Uh the additional uh summary of changes was uh staff worked with the uh applicant to confirm the variances requested.

Next slide.

So building design.

This is an overview of the building looking from Island Highway.

The building has 82 units, as I said.

The majority of those are junior in one bedroom.

There are two bedroom and three bedroom units as well.

And there is a sample there, like I said on the side.

Um the soffits, as I said, are going to be a uh metal material but will have a um uh uh wood like appearance, and the balconies will have a white metal, and uh there will be um cement uh panels.

If we go to the next slide, you can see uh some renderings of the uh building.

This is looking down from the that's four mile house on the uh the right hand side, uh, looking down towards the property from uh Island Highway.

Next slide.

Uh actually the same image that we saw before, just uh a bit blown up, um seeing a bit more of the context.

And next slide, please.

And then this image is actually from Portage Park and uh a rendering of what the uh the building would look like uh if you were looking from Portage Park towards the property.

Next slide, please.

So overview of landscaping.

There's an on-site pavilion, on site pathway that provides, as I said, direct uh connection between Portage Park and the property.

There's also access improvements to Island Highway.

Mixture of hard and soft landscaping, which does include a raid garden and additional landscaping changes that have happened, include the a perimeter fence around the property, as well as as additional lighting.

The proposed pathway would be uh staff would be looking to secure through a license to occupy.

Essentially what that would mean would be that the uh agreement to have that access there would ensure that that access be maintained and operated by uh the uh the owner of the property uh so uh the town would not have any responsibility or any uh legal uh liability uh over the operation of that uh that access um that would be confirmed uh prior to building permit and um the details of that would be would be confirmed through the the license to occupy next slide, please uh this is an overview of the landscaping plan so uh the applicant had provided at the uh initial uh cow meeting that we had back in July two accesses, hearing council's feedback.

They have provided a singular access off the rear of the property.

It is located at the top left corner of the of the property.

And they did provide additional improvements to the on site pathway that provides more of a direct access from the site out to Island Highway next to the pavilion.

Next slide, please.

One of the things that was discussed at Cal was the tree protection, and uh staff looked to get some further clarification on that.

So there are a total of 44 bylaw protected trees on the property, as well as three within three of those are within Portage Park.

The two block arrows showing uh showing on the screen uh show two to the uh interior side uh lot line, which which is within Portage Park, and then a single tree at the rear of the the property.

Um those have been uh slated for removal for this development.

Um based on the Arborist report provided, um, they would be removed uh because the uh excavation of the site would cause too much damage.

That being said, the three trees that have been uh identified uh are in for uh fair to poor health, but they do have signs of damage and uh decline uh of health.

Next slide, please.

Uh with respect to the development uh permit area guidelines.

Uh, this is a former character uh DP.

Um design character provides uh the subject uh uh development provides uh interesting building facade and mix of uh color and landscaping that complements uh existing uh landscaping and uh development in the area.

Orientation of the building and on site uh pathways pathways make clear and identical pedestrian access uh with respect to sighting and massing, the fifth story uh step back uh reduces the appearance of a single wall face, and the provision of uh decks and balconies does help articulate the uh the wall faces of uh the side of the building.

And all parking is located underground, uh, is to be energized, and uh additional uh parking through visitor parking, which is not required by the uh zoning bylaw has been provided on site.

Next slide, please.

With respect to zoning, uh the proposed application meets all uh use, density, and siting requirements.

However, there are uh five variances that have been requested from the applicant.

Next slide, please.

I should also note too um the proposed uh fencing now that's surrounding the property uh is also compliant with the the zoning bylaw.

It will be uh a 1.2 meter high high fence uh made of uh black uh vinyl material, uh chain link fence.

So the first variance that that has been requested is for retaining wall.

Um this would be for uh retaining walls into the uh garage.

Um the variance is to request the variance requested is to vary the height of the retaining wall from 1.2 meters to 3.0 meters.

Next slide, please.

The second variance and third variance are uh in conjunction.

Um the first part of the variance is that the uh request is to vary the maximum.

A balcony may project into the side yard setback from 0.5 meters to 1.1 meters.

In addition, that the they vary the width of a balcony from 2.0 meters to 9.2 meters.

So what we're looking at in this image is the extent of the balcony, which is shown in the uh the black, solid black line.

Um it projects past the minimum setting required.

The um it is for this one uh particular site or one particular place on the site, however, it would be for um floors two to five.

So it would be required for four stories.

Um the reason that this could be supported is that it is still set back a considerable distance from the set uh interior side setback from Portage Park.

Next slide, please.

The fourth variance is with respect to the siting of an accessory building.

Um, the applicant has requested that the uh variance be uh be for the setting of an accessory structure in the front yard.

Um, the zoning bylaw does not uh permit an accessory structure be permitted in the front yard.

Um, so that accessory structure in question is the pavilion.

The pavilion is a uh a communal space that provides uh covered uh seating area and uh a fireplace.

Uh staff feel that this could be supported because it is set back approximately 18 meters from the front yard and does provide communal space for the site.

Next slide, please.

And finally, the the last variance requested by the applicant is for parking.

The variance requested is to vary the minimum number of parking stalls from 93 to 92 spaces.

The applicant has provided uh visitor parking, which is not required um uh a total of nine visitor parking stalls.

Staff feel that the the variants can be supported because there is uh amenity sorry there is um services in the area that provide uh substitutes for uh vehicle use and um that would include the e and e trail uh bicycle uh uh bicycle infrastructure uh and uh public transportation next slide please there are uh numerous recommendations with this report i will summarize them um the first is to um approve the uh the report uh or sorry, not the report.

Approve the uh permit application um the second side uh next slide, please.

The next set of development permit application motions here include a tree permit and a security deposit for landscaping.

Next slide, please.

A agreement in the form of a license to occupy, which I had mentioned, would be required for the access for the property into Portage Park.

Next slide.

As well as additional reports we provided prior to building permit.

Next slide.

And uh the variance and variances themselves, which include the five uh I had covered.

And that concludes my presentation.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, thank you, stop.

Questions for Councillor Matson?

Uh the parking variance, is this something that could be just covered by our um I think it's our our policy to allow the uh proponent to buy a certain number of parking spots?

Uh through the your worship, um the I'm not sure what policy you're referring to.

Oh I think it's like is it $12,000 a parking spot, something like that.

Yeah.

So so I'm just wondering if, for example, we didn't give that variance, would they just be able to, for the lack of a better term, just purchase that parking spot.

We we do have a policy on the books.

It really is a director of planning type question, I think, in fairness to Sterling.

Um Kim, are you able to I mean we do have the policy on the book?

So presumably if council wanted to decline a request for one spot, the the applicant would have the option to purchase the spot.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

I that's some clarification.

Okay.

Kim knows all.

Councilor Rogers.

Yeah, thanks.

You know, it it's interesting the um the I'm going to talk about landscaping in the trees.

The um one of the um the staff report suggesting that um uh there be big leaf maples um uh be part of the landscaping plan.

Um it would be necessary, I I think for the arborist and the town to think about that.

Um there's uh quite a blight that's happening with big leaf maples right now, a mold that's uh causing quite a lot of distress.

That's why you see all those white leaves that have been affected.

So um if that's going to be our problem, uh that the survivability maybe uh um they think about plan B in terms of a tree.

Um and again, still let's talk about trees.

Um I'm a little concerned, and and maybe African can can think about this.

Cars that are coming down four mile um might, and maybe the building is set back far enough so that the car lights at nighttime will not shine directly into the building and cause a uh a problem for the occupants in that building, particularly on the corner towards uh Four Mile Pub.

Um I I see that there's uh no boulevard trees or no large trees considered for that um uh that portion between Fourmile and this property.

And uh again I I leave it for staff and the applicant to think about, but that might be an issue for uh for the the applicant or the people that are in the building.

That's uh a free bit of advice.

Um I'm wondering about uh refresh my memory, what's the uh step code um for this uh building uh currently the building bylaw we require that they build to step code one step code one yeah I think it was in I thought it was uh through two a uh two it was in for quite some time yeah it was in for quite some time yeah so if we if they put it in now we probably wouldn't allow we would require a higher step code I think so do would you do you know the um what the heating source is for this complex or is that an applicant question for the applicant I think it'd be the same, Councilor rogers, with respect to as when you asked the question before, and it was electric.

Oh, did I thought thank you thank you for reminding me.

I couldn't remember.

All right.

Uh we're getting older.

Yeah, that's why I've, you know, I could have changed in halfway through it.

Okay, thanks very much.

There's my questions.

There are any other questions for staff.

No?

Okay, good.

Thank you, Sterling.

There is an opportunity for comments from the applicant if they would like to.

Sure.

Yep, come on up.

Council, Graham Man.

Thank you for having me.

I just want to speak briefly to the fact that we did have 93 stalls.

Um, when we ran into an issue with BC Hydro as well as our water vault, that we had to reconfigure some of our mechanical to make it all work, including also the ramp was coming down in, and that's where we lost that one stall.

But we do have uh nine visitor stalls.

Um, I I don't know if it has been done, if one could be assigned to the building that are, but it is above ground.

But they just wanted to make it clear that you know that was the reason why we ran into that because the way our storm water was and getting the the pipes in, we had to make some adjustments, and um we also made two access points into the bike uh room area, otherwise, some people would have to walk it completely around the parquet to get uh to get around to the bike room.

So we felt that was a the proper move.

That would that would be it.

Or if you have any questions, yeah, just for clarification.

So maybe this is better to staff.

So there's a requirement for 93, but they've got 92 and another what seven x nine.

We have 102 102 stalls on site.

Okay, and so I guess the question to staff is if they have 102 stalls on site and they only needed 93 do we did they need a variance yeah that's I guess a something uh it's just it's just the underground 92 and then nine or above ground um and so it's kind of I'm happy I just it's more of a question to staff do you they actually need the variance then if they have nine spots on site well I think staff feel they do need the variants because it's the actual resident parking under the building yeah which doesn't quite need the bylaw so no I'm not gonna ask that they pay the 12,000.

Okay, I'm glad to hear that, Councillor Matson.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Um so if there's anyone at home that would like to weigh in on this matter, that now would be your opportunity to do so.

The number is on the screen for you to call in.

Is there anyone in the room who wanted to speak to this DP, the Island Highway?

No?

Okay.

And I'm I'm sort of presuming we have no callers on the line staff.

Your worship, we have one caller, last four digits 6671.

Oh, okay.

So caller with the last four digits 6671.

I'm not sure if you were tuning in for this one.

This is the 167-169-171 Island Highway development permit.

But if you were, this would be your opportunity to speak to it.

Last four digits, 6671.

You you may need to press star six to unmute yourself if you were trying to speak to us.

Okay.

So I'm going to carry on with the agenda, I think.

So we'll we'll close off comments from the public.

There's one item of correspondence.

Move a seat.

Second.

Thank you.

All in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

And then is someone prepared to move the recommendation?

Staff recommendations.

Thank you.

So the move by Councillor Manson.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, go ahead.

Comments, thoughts?

Everyone's good?

Yeah.

I'm good.

Um, I appreciate the uh the correspondence that we received about concerns that might uh have an impact on parking on V Roll Avenue.

But I given the the fact that the we've basically met the um parking requirements and particularly the visitor, um, I really kind of think that there's a slim chance, particularly again because of the excellent bus routes and and um the E&N Rail Trail rail trail.

Yeah, no, I think it's it's a great looking building.

I'm really excited about the project, and um, I think it's a great fit for that spot.

So thank you.

So all in favor, opposed.

That's carried.

So next on our agenda is where we have a lot of these development variance permits tonight.

So tonight is is next, these 49 Tovey Crescent.

Thank you, worship.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

Uh, this is a uh development variance permit for uh actually the purpose of this uh report is to introduce the development variance permit application for the replacement of a uh detached carport with a garage.

And hopefully our presentation will be coming up shortly.

Um this is a waterfront property um on Tovey Crescent, but the works that are being proposed are outside of the development permit area, so those requirements don't don't apply in this case.

The proposal here, next slide, please, is to the property owner proposes to do a couple renovations to the property.

One is to add a deck at the front of the building with stairs, and no variance is required for that, as shown in the plan there in the blue on the right hand side.

On the left hand side, there is a carport, existing car open carport, and the proposal is to uh remove it and replace it with a new garage that would be enclosed.

The uh the requested variances are to locate that an accessory building in the front yard, and secondly, to vary the required separation between an accessory building and the principal building from three meters to 2.1 meters.

Next slide, please.

Uh this is kind of a site plan, shows a little bit more detail of uh where the garage is on the building relative to the relative to the principal building.

Uh on the right hand side you'll see an outline of what the garage looks like from the street.

So um, okay, and next slide.

Uh a couple reasons to support the application.

Uh a variance would not have been required if the garage uh was attached to the house.

Uh in this case, the floor plan doesn't accommodate it because right behind is is a washroom.

So there's no kind of way to provide access from the reasonable way to provide access from the garage into the house.

Uh secondly, there's no street skate impact because the new location is is set back a little bit, even set back 2.7 meters further from the street than the existing carport.

And that's a total setback of 13.7 meters, which is um which is quite a large setback.

The standard is 7.5.

Next slide, please.

Next steps are subject to comments from from members of council.

Notice can be conducted for a council meeting to uh consider this application.

And the recommendation is to receive the report.

Okay.

Thank you, Steve.

So I think this is here in because we don't have a committee of the whole meeting this month, so it's certainly run by here.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh so the carport.

So removing it back from the road and removing it further further from the property line.

So my question would be though, even if it we left it in the exact same spot and they just sort of rebuilt it on the same spot, they wouldn't need a development permit.

Uh through your ship, actually rebuilding it, uh, you would need a variance.

So even like wall by wall by wall, I thought you could just replace uh through your worship.

Um it's it's an open carport right now, and what they're proposing is is an enclosed garage.

So that's that's quite different.

If you're replacing pieces of wood, yes, but we need to we need to when you have a building permit, it has to comply with the uh comply with the zoning.

So even though it's a non-conforming use, uh, because it's non-conforming use, you need a variance for that.

Okay, I was just curious as to whether they could just but so if they if they actually had walls, they wouldn't have had to uh if it was if it was connected to the house, yeah, they would need they would not need a variance, but anyways, I I'm I'm quite happy with it, but I was just curious as to whether w what we're allowed to do under you know, you know, anyways, my understanding was if they if they would have had walls on the beaten up walls on the cardboard and and they just replaced everything wall by wall, then they wouldn't have even needed a permit.

Or not a permit, it wouldn't need a variance.

If they don't need a building permit, that can be done.

Yeah, okay, thanks.

Councillor Rogers.

Uh th thank you for the information, staff.

The um any concerns about um the uh proposed um new garage, uh vis-a-vis the sideline is it um enough distance away.

Um no variances required from side yard.

Um through your ship, uh no variances are required from the side yard.

Thank you.

I have no problem with this still.

Okay, just a little bit better looking in the carport.

Yeah, no, I'm I'm fine with it as well.

So we just need a motion to resil it.

Okay, second.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

So we'll look forward to seeing that at a council meeting in the future.

Great.

And the last one, I think, is 2446 Lund Road.

Yes, so this is a um for decision on a development variance permit.

The proposal is to consider a uh variance to the rear yard setback from six meters to 2.1 meters to permit a patio cover to be attached to the house.

Next slide, please.

Um this uh this this house um had a patio area in the back.

So between 2015 to 2017, the uh previous property owner uh expanded that uh that patio.

Um a permit is not required for that because it's because it's landscaping.

And the proposed patio actually uh complies with zoning requirements for lot.

Um we don't have lot coverage requirements, but we do have a green space requirement.

So this site does comply uh with that enlarged patio, does comply with the zoning requirements for green space.

And the requirements 20%, and even with the patio, the the green space is 26%.

Next slide, please.

So a patio cover was installed, I understand from late 2021 now.

The proposal now is to follow the procedures of getting a variance to get a building permit for to allow a properly constructed patio cover.

The patio cover would be the patio would be a flat roof with posts holding it up.

There would be some drop screens that would that would provide some shelter from time to time, but there would be no fixed walls, windows, or doors that would create floor space.

If approved, the building permit would be required, and that would include proper stormwater management, which is includes diverting rain water from the rooftop into the uh into the storm drain.

A strain pipe drain pipe already had been installed, but through the building permit stage we'll we'll verify that the there's adequate capacity for for the uh for the roof.

Next slide, please.

In this case, the application can be supported because the patio cover would requ would would meet the side yard requirement of 1.2 meters for being part of a principal building.

The other thing of note is that in this zone, in this specific zone, an accessory building or structure such as a detached patio cover could be located zero meters from the verbal lot line and zero meters from the side lot line.

So this proposal would actually be less intrusive than what the zoning could permit for detach for detached patio cover.

The patio cover would not cover the entire paved area of the patio, and uh as well a compliance with the zoning in terms of the amount of green space that's that's required.

Finally, um, rainwater would be diverted from the patio cover into a perimeter drain, and that would improve the uh the uh current drainage situation next slide please uh so it's council's prerogative to approve the requested variance as proposed uh reject it or approve a different variance to the rear yard setback next slide and the recommendation is to approve the approve the proposal there is a condition that uh fixed walls doors and windows are not permitted okay thank you.

Councillor Lemmon.

Hi.

Thank you, Jeff.

Just for clarification, prior to this, with the and and i know this is going back in history, and you you said that there was no requirement for a permit.

So if something on one property created creates um changes the surface flow onto another property, that is a civil issue.

So in the case of things where we have a require a building permit, then storm water management kind of requirements do kind of come in to reduce the the opportunity for uh creating flows onto other properties.

But when people do things on their own property that don't require a permit, um it's it's a civil issue if if um flooding or um or water drains onto another property.

So when you say it's a civil issue, it's a matter of neighbor relations or a civil issue.

Okay, thank you.

Um and so what you say is this particular proposal or application a an outcome of this would be to lessen um drainage the drainage impact on neighbors.

That's correct.

The rooftop, the uh the patio cover would cover most of the patio, and that would that would significantly reduce the any potential flows that may come off that patio.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Rogers.

It covers most, but it doesn't cover all.

So there is still the um likelihood that the uh the rain um and if again if we have a lovely atmospheric river, um, the rain that would not be covered would uh be hitting the patio and then flowing, I would think, off the property with not being any chance of attachment, not being any chance of absorbing into the ground and flow into the neighbors.

Yeah.

Right?

That's correct.

I guess the other concern I have is my recollection of Chilco Park is that these um that park is higher than these properties.

So water that's coming from uh Chilco Park that flows down the slope, again, thinking of that river, flows down the slope, um hitting the hard surface of 2446 and then sliding into and and again swamping out um the neighbors 2450.

So no, yeah, because we don't have the we don't have any permeable surface.

It you know, what we hope would be catched by a roof or a patio, uh, you know, the canopy um we got good chances of that not being possible and and uh having a downstream impact adverse downstream impact on neighbors um the the park itself is a permeable surface so it obviously would capture some of that yeah some not being yeah I know so if there's an issue yeah yeah there could be an issue that way yeah yeah it gets pretty shocking okay thank you and and I just um I I was really um taken with the letter of correspondence um from the Mars next door and uh I think they've they've hit all the possible concerns and and I think when we heard this at the public hearing or sorry at the community whole, I did wonder what the impacts had been and could be uh with the neighbors, and I think um the letter definitely points out a worst case scenario.

Thank you Councillor Matson?

So just on the water issue, I'm a little confused.

If there's no roof on anything, you're getting X amount of water on there, and if you put a roof on it and it still falls underground, you're still getting the same amount of water falling in the yard.

So I I'm just having a problem with how this could possibly make it worse when they're now forced to actually put the water into the storm system.

So, anyways, that's confuses me.

Uh, the other question I had was so if they if you they bought one of those, you know, 10 by 12 tents sort of thing that you pop up and it's got legs on it uh with a canvas top that they wouldn't need to be here, they could just throw one of those up and out, right?

I guess somebody did something like that in the past.

Uh three euroship, that's correct.

It would be an accessory building, so structures would have to comply with the setback requirements, in this case is zero meters from the from the lot line.

And yeah.

All right.

Anyways, so it just seemed that this would be this is such a such an improvement over what they could throw in versus and and I guess if they put one of those tents in, they wouldn't have to worry about drainage at all either.

They wouldn't have to do anything with the water that flowed off it.

Okay.

Thanks.

Counselor Kwolovich.

I think we can all agree on that.

Thanks it's it's certainly not a perfect situation.

But uh what I really think is important, I want to clarify this before it comes to the decision making time because there's there's two parties here who have concerns and two neighbors.

Um the previous owners elected to uh pave or put down uh large uh patio concrete uh flooring in their backyard, correct?

Correct, which which adhered to um the requirements they didn't need a permit.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

That created a less undesirable effect for uh rainfall uh and the way it it uh drains into other yards.

Is that fair to say?

Uh that's what's been indicated.

Okay.

And what I'm trying to trying to figure out here, and Councillor Matson's um focusing on it too, is that would this uh roof structure uh mitigate in any way that rainfall?

Could it help as opposed to making it worse?

Uh yeah, through your worship.

Um all the rain that that lands on that roof that will cover most of the existing patio would be would happen to divert into the municipal storm drain.

Okay, so it would be okay.

Yeah, and we can we'll discuss it, we can discuss it, but that that's great.

Yeah, good.

Thank you, staff.

So there's the opportunity now for the applicant, if they would like to speak to this.

It's completely up to you.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

So anyone in the room who'd like to speak to it, come on up and give us your name and address, please.

And then there's the opportunity for the public.

And you've got up to five minutes to give us your views.

It's um Mike Myers from 2450 Chilco, Your Honor Council.

What we're forgetting here is we've been in contact with the town of View Royal since 2011.

Since the original cement pad was put in, um it immediately caused problems for us.

If you look at one of the photos here, you can see part of the problem is the shape of the buildings as well.

So ours is an L-shaped building, and all the water is focused into that L.

So it has nowhere to go.

Another problem that may not be aware is that there is no perimeter drain on our property.

It is the only property without a perimeter drain.

That was okayed by the town when the house was built.

There's no place for the water to go.

So you're saying this is a civil matter.

Well, take this into consideration.

All that water is going underneath the pad of our house and down our driveway where all your gas and electrical lines are going through.

So when that happens, who's in who's going to have to pay for that?

Is it the residences that want to pergola?

Or the residents that are trying to protect their own pad, their own property.

Our house has shifted.

Okay, we have problems.

We have holes in our or dips in our foundation now.

You can see a water line where the picture we showed you where the water is deep, you can walk a water line right to the garage and there's a clear dip.

Any counselor is more than welcome or the mayor is more than welcome to visit the house to see it for themselves.

But but I guess what we need to hear from you sir I mean we've heard clearly that the water situation will actually be improved by what is being suggested.

Okay so so that that's okay.

So the water situation there, we keep hearing about drainage that they've accomplished here.

Just using a child's sprinkler toy on that patio will cause a water on our yard.

And that's a child's sprinkler toy.

Okay.

So now we have a roof, which you say it's drained into the gutter.

The storm gutter is nowhere near where they are.

I have seen no trench built.

They provided no details for drainage.

So where is this drainage?

That drainage, I think they're assuming, is our backyard.

And it would be hooking into a storm drain that's on their property that would be hooking into the town storm sewers.

And and staff is nodding their head at that.

So it's at the drainage for these.

They have not been provided that.

And right now, if you want to provide a water test by emptying any sort of water on that pad to see what type of drainage that will handle, we would be appreciative because right now we are inundated with water, standing water and any rain that happens, inundated.

So I don't know what type of drainage they have or how big the pipe is, but it is not adequate.

It is simply not adequate.

So I wonder if staff could show the flow of the water on a picture just for the well, I mean, I think at the moment there it is not going into any storm drain, is my understanding.

And and this would actually understand that.

I'm just wondering if on a picture they could just show staff, we just show where the storm drain is and how it where they have flow water.

Was the storm drain in place when you empty the pool, your child's pool?

Yeah, so I'm I'm gonna cut that, right?

You're you're addressing us, and and obviously, as neighbors, you have some um some differences, which but um so you need to just really.

I mean, what's on the issue tonight is whether or not this cover should be allowed.

It's not even really about the drainage.

When it comes right down to it, it's whether or not this cover should be allowed.

Also, this blocks our sight lines to the northwest, and we strongly believe that this will devalue our property as well.

So when you're in our yard, we can't see anything out to the northwest now.

So the only country that we could see is now blocked from our view when they put that up.

And the only reason why we're here discussing this matter is an act of nature.

If that had not collapsed under the snow weight, we would not be here.

They did not bother to address you to ask permission to put that up in the first place.

It only collapsed.

It was illegal.

At the beginning, it collapsed under its own weight, and now we're here.

Okay, thank you very much for your input.

I I will give you the opportunity if you'd like again, it's completely up to you if you'd like to.

Just gonna say about this.

The reason that we didn't apply was just sure because we are first property that we buy in the C in BC, and we didn't know the process until we realize we the visit of one of them, and then we notice the process and we start the process before the program collapsed.

Jeff knows that.

So that incident was just like on the way on us trying to get the approvals and all the permits.

How long have you owned the house?

Three and a half.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

No great.

Are there um any callers on the line staff for this matter?

Your worship, we still have caller 6671.

I don't know if they want to address this topic.

Okay, thank you.

Caller 6671.

Was it this matter that you were on the line for?

6671, the Lund Road.

If the if it was this matter, this would be your opportunity to speak.

Good evening.

No, sorry, I'm waiting for the um active transportation presentation.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Sorry, earlier I had a kerfuffle with my AirPods and muting and all of that.

But I think I've sorted it out now.

Okay, no problem.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Okay.

Okay, so I'm gonna close off comments from the public.

We have one piece of correspondence to receive.

Thank you.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And then there is a staff recommendation if anyone's prepared to move it.

So moved.

So it's moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Kualovich.

Comments?

Just in terms of we did we've discussed, I know water certainly heard that water is an issue, but I've also heard from staff that whatever water is currently falling on that cement pad will now hit the roof, and the drainage, all the water will drain off and go into the storm drains and be carried away from the property, including the neighbors, neighbor's property.

So in that respect, it's to my mind it it's a big benefit because if uh even a child's pool flows into the neighbor's yard now that the water that would have hit the patio, which is well which is quite large, will will now be carried away.

So in that respect, I think it's a positive.

And sorry, I just I don't know what we can do about the both of you.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Kowalovich.

I would like to uh first I will address uh the uh the actual homeowners uh their uh to to my colleagues, their um lack of diligence uh when uh when it comes came to uh actually communicating with the town.

Um it it is disappointing.

Uh there are mitigating factors involved uh including uh new to the neighborhood and country as well as suffering probably financial loss from the structure falling um as for the neighbors it is not without consideration that i do support this motion i feel that the the actual decision tonight itself does not have to do with pre existing drainage unfortunately it has to do with the structure being built that is recommended and supported by our engineering department and town staff after uh extreme research and diligence and um proposal to council.

So on that basis, I will support it.

Uh I would suggest um that you know if if in fact the homeowners have been communicating, the neighbors have been communicating with town staff since 2011 over drainage issues, um, that those uh that those owners communicate with members of council uh if they need uh assistance moving forward, communicating with town staff to seek remedies for for that.

Um I know it's not perfect, but the situation tonight it's a tough one, and I and I do support the uh this proposal.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Councillor Rogers?

Yeah.

Yes, I can appreciate that um the roof structure um would help with the rain, but then if you didn't have a concrete patio, you probably would be uh able to work with the neighbors even more and and um uh address drainage and and work in tandem in cooperation.

Um I I think there's an issue of um site impact of of that roof and and the enjoyment of um of the neighbors.

Um this um cover will not cover the entire patio, so there is still that risk of of uh rain run runoff to the adjacent properties.

Um so it it's uh I don't think all the matters have been uh addressed in in uh misapplication.

I so I'm not going to support it.

Okay, thank you.

Do you want to weigh in?

I'm sure I'll weigh in.

You know, I I I think that the challenges, particularly for your neighbors, uh preceded your arrival.

And they've been they they've had an issue for a long, long time and and I'm sorry, you know, I'm I'm really sorry to hear of relationships and you know neighbors having such a struggle, and I I I hope that there's a way for you all to work together and work on that and mend it and and uh you all seem like nice people.

And uh, you know, I'm I'm sure there's a way.

What what I what I heard was there was a problem before.

Um it wasn't ideal, you moved into it.

You've struggled with it.

And I heard that there is a potential to help address some of this so that you will have less less discomfort.

Okay, thank you.

And um yeah, I I'm also gonna support it.

I I think it's a reasonable request, and it it does sound to me like there are solutions to the the water problems on the neighbor property and and the and that the appropriate drainage needs to be installed.

So but I do I do feel that the the application is reasonable as much as I I understand the the tension and the angst between the neighbors.

So I'm going to call the question all in favor opposed so councillor rogers is opposed and the motion carries thank you very much and um next, we're on to the and as with the other people earlier, do feel free to sneak away if you'd like.

We're now on to the active transportation network plan update.

Thank you, Your Worship.

I haven't the young director of engineering here.

I'm gonna try something new, so see if I can get this to work.

Okay.

Thank you, Your Worship.

So this is uh an update to the Active Transportation Network plan.

Uh the last time we brought this forward was at the June 1st, 2022 council meeting regarding the engagement strategy.

Uh at that time, uh we were in phase two, and so this is just an update uh of what's happening in the last couple of months.

So um, like I said, this is to update council on the progress of the Active Transitation Network plan and ultimately to summarize summarize the project's first round of public engagement.

Is it going?

Should we be brave trying something new tonight?

Yeah, yeah.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

Looks like something comes over on their end.

Oh.

Yeah, so let's try this.

Sorry, folks.

Can you just share?

Okay, let's try this.

Okay.

Okay, I'll do it this way for now.

I'll go from there.

So this is uh our community engagement to date.

Uh as you can see in this kind of uh this was brought forward at in the June council meeting.

We have five phases here.

And um in June, we were just starting phase two, which is the initial stakeholder and public engagement.

Uh fast forward to now, so we've been working with our consultant on our first round of engagement, which included uh Community Ideas Fair, which is two um in-person engagement events, one at Portage Park and one at Chancellor Park.

Uh we have one online survey, and we've had stakeholder interviews.

Um, and that's since been complete.

So, the what we heard summary number uh number one report was presented to staff um a couple of weeks ago, and we uh attached it to our presentation for you to review.

Uh, just generally by the numbers, we've had 369 online survey respondents.

We've had approximately 76 ITEAS fair participants, and uh we successfully engaged with seven um of our key stakeholders as part of a stakeholder interview stage.

So these are highlights from our online survey.

Age wise, about 50% of the app of the respondents were between 30 to 49 years old.

There's also 17% that were from 50 to 59 years, and 16% that are between 60 to 69 years old.

37% of the applicants indicated they've had children in the household.

So this is just a breakdown of the of how old their children are.

As you can see here, generally the respondents have approximately one to two children, majority-wise, most of them between 0 to 12 years old.

So destinations and getting there.

This is just a um a brief list of uh what people have said as to the purpose of their like the reasons why they do active transportation as well as their top destinations.

So I've highlighted the top three or four in this slide.

There's in the report itself, there's several other reasons.

Top destinations.

The top four were the Eagle Creek Village, Status Lake Park, Admiral's Walk Center, and the Porridge Park Town Hall.

So a mix of commercial and parks.

So general barriers and desired improvements.

These were so basically we uh the Watts staff they found three common issues through the three engagement events that were done.

Um to start off, the what was found was that there were comments about poor lack of sidewalks and or gaps in the network.

Um I'll just preface by saying that this is for walking and rolling uh for now.

Um there's a desire to fill the gaps, as that would help improve connections to local destinations.

Uh in addition to that, they uh there are a lot of respondents that noted that there are many road crossings that felt unsafe, and the speed of motor vehicle traffic makes some facilities feel unsafe.

So there's a desire to provide more separation uh of pedestrians from other modes of uh vehicles and cyclists, as well as reducing intercide intersection crossing times, including the time, including the time to cross over the Trans Canada Highway.

Uh the general barriers and desired improvements uh for cycling.

So, again, um what found three common issues throughout our uh the engagement period.

Um respondents noted that there was discomfort cycling on arterial and major roads without painted bike lanes, uh, as well as conflicts with all road users.

So that'll be pedestrians, vehicular traffic, uh, and cyclists, other cyclists.

So there's a desire for more separation or protected bike lanes or protection from vehicles on a road corridors and intersections, as well as to implement traffic calming measures to slow vehicle traffic.

There's also a note that there are poor connections to key destinations in VRO and a desire to improve connectivity, continuity of the bike lanes, as well as wayfinding within the cycling network.

These were generally found from stakeholder interviews, but also there were notes from the state uh the um ideas fair as well as uh in in the online survey.

Uh generally there was dissatisfaction with separation between cyclists and pedestrians, as previously noted, as well as connections between trails pathways and other routes so that would include the EN Rail Trail and the Gallup and Goose Regional Corridor.

There is a a desire to uh and a need to engage and collaborate with neighboring local and regional governing agencies so that'll be Esquanwalk Victoria um the CRD with respect to the Gallup and Goose and the Island Rail for the E&N Rail Trail uh and then finally lighting challenges um they were found on these regional trails so during our uh the online, especially the online survey as well as the ideas fair, there were a nice uh board up there at that um where the question was asked to respondents as to uh where would you like to see a facility, uh, what needs improvement, and um what existing facilities existing facilities need work.

As for example, is it too narrow, too close to motor vehicles, etc.

Um, so what Watt did was collate the results of the survey and the ideas fair uh and found that there were some nodes within the transportation corridor where respondents felt need work.

So the purpose of this exercise is that the the consultant Watt would be taking this data and looking at ways to improve the corridor and prioritizing projects as part of uh the the plan.

Finally, there are some high-level questions asked amongst the public about a community vision.

So imagine via Royal in 10 years, how would you envision active transportation to be?

And here are just a list of items that the consultant Walt has listed.

For example, one with sidewalks, trails, and protected bike lanes that link neighborhoods and key destinations, seamless connections between trails and key destinations with commercial hubs next to and facing key access points.

Improved safety for all modes and especially for children.

A well lit active transportation network that includes lighting on trails, and reduced vehicle traffic with more people choosing to use active transportation.

With respect to stakeholder interviews, the top three values were safety, connectivity, and equity.

So that has to do again with protecting the cyclists and pedestrians, connecting them and closing the gaps and a sense of equity.

So making sure that all road users have the resources to go from point A to point B.

Next steps.

So we are currently working with while consulting on phase three, which is drafting pedestrian and cycling network maps, drafting pedestrian improvement options, drafting cross sections for key road corridors, developing a list of priority active transportation projects, drafting the planned vision and goals, and finally uh doing public engagement round two.

So the recommendations of uh this presentation is to um to uh uh receive the report for information.

And that concludes this presentation.

Questions?

Okay, thank you, Ivan.

Questions?

Councillor Rogers.

Hi.

Um thank you.

Uh thank you for that.

It's it's certainly been very enlightening to uh to see the uh uh the input so far.

I I guess one basic issue I have is that when we're talking about active transportation plan, it's walking, cycling, transit.

And in this report, I saw very little about transit.

How is transit active transportation?

Yeah, because you know, active transportation is is um the whole premise is to take people out of their cars.

And so I think buses and transit as an alternate way of and certainly transit transit transit is the word is there but um is not a separate category in terms of analysis and and giving us ideas about how we can improve because people walk to transit but when they get there are their bus shelters when they get there is there information about efficiencies of service and so forth and I guess um one of the I I feel that one of the missing stakeholders was transit to give us that insight um from you know from their readership, uh writers, pardon me, ridership, um, and and having to get around and through the town and and so forth.

Um I I guess I also would have been curious to see in terms of a stakeholder, Victoria General Hospital, you know, what's their input as as employees move to and from uh and even patients, uh, which I guess might be transit being a transit hub.

Well, this is just round one, right?

Yeah, yeah.

We've got a long ways to go.

Well that's thankfully.

And I guess what I'm saying is I hope that um um the consultants and uh we start turning a focus to that, and if we've missed a stakeholder, and I'm suggesting we have too, that we can cover that base and and make sure that we've um uh we're we're gonna make this fully a three focus, three uh accompassed um idea.

Um I'm assuming that the the consultant will look at the active transportation plans of the Esquimalt and Saanich to see how what and Saanich is amazing, um, you know, that what they've covered will help us and you know what we can do to link in with that municipality.

Um one of the slides you had, uh let me see, it was the top destinations.

And you know, if you actually took the top destinations of West Shore Wreck and Juan de Fuca Library, they're actually to the same location.

Then I would suggest that that's a top net destination.

I would suggest that would be probably 60, 70 percent.

Um so if we put those two together, they don't fall down at the bottom, they're at the top.

So that you know how are we going to uh fix that?

So it's um do you want to give Ivan a chance to respond to any of this before yes yes thank you.

Go ahead.

Thank you for the thank you for the questions and through your worship.

Yeah this so this presentation and the and the report is fairly high level.

It's almost a summary of a summary given that the what we heard a report is a summary in itself.

With respect to BC Transit uh yes, they were engaged as they were one of seven of the stakeholders that were interviewed, actually.

So um they were certainly uh I don't have the questions on hand uh as to what uh the consultants how they engage them.

However, one thing that did come up uh in and it was stated in the report was the need to improve amenities at bus stops.

So um certainly agreed that uh buses, bus stops requires walking or even cycling to and from.

And they were certainly identified as one of the key stolen stakeholders that could benefit from an active transportation network plan.

So they were certainly engaged, and when it comes to uh the identification of projects and further engagement, uh BC Transit will continue to be engaged accordingly.

Uh, with respect to the uh VGH, the general hospital, um, I can sort of comments and probably imagine that for improvements to road quarters in and around that area, the the VGH would certainly be engaged at the detailed design level as well.

And as well, your worship, uh, there's plenty of other engagement events coming down the tube for the actual transportation network plan project this year.

Thank you.

I think I'm forgetting one.

We'll talk.

Counselor Matson.

Thank you.

Uh yes, thanks for your thank you for your report.

So, one of the things that you know, there's the higher precinct, but there are other areas where the roads are basically shared by pedestrians who use it for for walking, uh, because there's not that much traffic.

Uh cyclists, you know, kids play on it.

And and some of that is spoiled by you know, drivers speeding.

And I so what I'm wondering is is there a way that we could emphasize this as a shared thoroughfare, like we've seen, so that everyone knows there's it this is to be shared and everything and used equally, and so that just because someone's driving a car, and a lot of times people say, Well, get the hell off the road.

I'm this is this is the road, right?

And so is there a way of sort of getting that mindset out of the drivers who are using you know those roads that are basically you know pedestrian bike thoroughfares as well as for getting cars through that.

So other than you know, signage, you know, share the road.

I'm just wondering if that's something that could be looked at.

Through your worship, I can certainly comment that there are streets out there um not just in the copper region but also in the mainland that that that does utilize uh shared roads it is dependent on vehicle speeds as well as volume peak traffic um so we'll certainly be relying on the uh expertise of our consultants to come up with cross sections based on the baseline conditions that they've developed in phase one uh to come up with ideas that would involve uh shared streets uh shared use thank you.

And maybe we need to be looking down the road at more, you know, not necessarily proper raised um concrete sidewalks, but more walking paths at the side of the road with some sort of separation on streets that don't have it now.

Any other questions for Ivan?

Go ahead.

Sorry.

I will I apologize.

I did I did miss the right BC transit was part of the stakeholders, so I'm relieved to see that.

Thank you.

It was a small bit, but yeah.

Yes, good.

Um, you know, when you had in in your your reform that they was talking about um new and improved facilities.

Was was new and improved facilities seem kind of vague.

How did you identify what those might be?

Or so everyone was on the same page?

I don't with respect to the BC Transit stakeholder interview, I don't have the exact particulars on that.

Um what I do know is that there are uh I can comment that separation of pedestrians from roads is uh a comment oftentimes.

Um BC Transit does have uh their own bus stop standards, and there are many different types of bus stops in the region.

Okay, good.

Thank you, Ivan.

Thanks for the work today.

That looks good, and we'll look forward to seeing more of it as it comes forward.

Thank you.

Second moved and seconded by Councillor Lemmon and Rogers.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

Next up, we have item E, which is always an interesting one, Council remuneration.

Kim, did you have a presentation?

Or I mean the report is pretty self-evident.

Okay.

Do you want to take questions or do you want to go through it?

Or I intend to speak to this.

I don't have a power when I hold down my speech.

You don't.

What do we do?

Well, in my in my past, I've been accused of having far too many slides.

He's never forgotten the one time in all the years he's been here that it was pointed out that maybe he had a few too many slides.

Yeah, I think that was probably 2011.

Yeah.

That's right.

In any case, the uh the intention here is to get council to make a decision about 2023 and what the remuneration should be for the next council.

Uh we by policy make adjustments to council's remuneration annually on the basis of CPI.

The exception being every four years, the year of an election, council is asked to make a decision about the following year's remuneration.

Once that's done, they'll follow again on the basis of CPI.

And so what we've done is we've hired a um uh HR consultant.

Uh her name is uh Jo McDonald.

She has years of experience in HR, and she canvassed the same local governments that we have been using uh since prior to my arrival with the town of Vroyal.

Um so why do that at all?

Adjust on the basis of remuneration.

I was reading an article in the CBC, um, a CBC publication on the internet, and it talked about um low pay being a barrier for young people participating on council.

Typically, it's much easier for retired folks to be on council, and um it's unusual for for younger folks to be there.

It's also uh somewhat of a barrier barrier for women, and um the article also talked about you know the need for more diversity, diversity is better, was the thrust of the article.

Uh, what prompted my reading, of course, was the uh the Times colonists' coverage of Cullwin.

Um but speaking to the report, if if you were to go to page 206 of the agenda, it's a uh a table that describes the different approaches used by all the local governments that were canvassed.

And so you'll learn by looking at that that uh Central Sanage is doing a market survey, and their intention is to look at the uh the 50% quartile.

Um Colwood used a council remuneration committee.

COMOX for 2023 has increased the mayor's rate by 30 percent, and they did that by using a combination of CPI and the average of those that were uh compared in their review.

Lake Cowichan is awaiting a consultant report.

Oak B an increase of 62%, plus Victoria CPI.

Parksville increased on the basis of the QP percentage increase for 2023.

Port Albernie, a 34% increase for the mayor.

All of the other municipalities in that list of comparators are going to be using the change in CPI from January of 2022 to January of 2023.

After going through all the stats, the consultant made a recommendation that the remuneration for the mayor be established at the 75% quartile.

What that means is that 75% out of the entire population of those that were surveyed, the 75% number has 75% of the municipalities below that and 25% above that.

The 50% quartile would be splitting it down the middle.

It's not the average, it's where they appear in the list.

So halfway up the list or 75% of the way up the list.

That's intended to be the target based on the recommendation from the consultant.

And so on the basis of the stats, the 75% quartile that would be the Comox municipality, and the amount would be 44,687.

The consultant is also recommending that the councils be established at 50% of the mayor's remuneration.

The range of percentages is a low of 36% in Langford to a high of 66% in Machosen.

So counselors in Langford get paid 36% of what the mayor gets, and the chosen is 66%.

Now this is a uh a departure from what we've done historically.

Historically, we've excluded Victoria and Sanjay from the um the study.

We've included them in terms of the information that was presented to council, but we didn't include them in the mathematical calculation.

And so if we did what we have done in the past, excluded them.

The four the report shows that the 75% quartile would still be Comox.

And so the objective of a 75% quartile would still be satisfied, regardless of whether or not we included it would be the same regardless of whether or not we included Victorian Santa.

Historically, we view the average.

So while the 75% quartile is is um 44,006 in the consultant's recommendation, the average was 47,430.

If we use the approach used historically, the 75% quartile would be the same, 44,687, but the average would be 39021.

And so I've quoted the recommendation of the consultant as our as the staff recommendation, and I've included an alternative recommendation, which is more consistent with what we've done historically.

And that's my presentation.

Okay, thank you, Kim.

So before we get to opinions, of which I'm sure there's many, let's um have any questions for Kim, please.

Questions?

No?

That's an opinions.

Okay, well, opinions are good.

Okay.

You did such a good job, there's no questions at this at this point, I'm last slide.

Okay, so how would counselor like to proceed with this?

We can go around once and test the water, so to speak.

Okay.

I'm gonna start on my left.

With you, Councillor Kualowicz.

But there's is there a motion?

No, there's no motion on the floor.

I think we'll just do a once around and sort of see what general thoughts are, and then we'll we'll have a motion on the floor.

Sure.

Uh I'm I'm always mindful of uh the economic impacts of residents.

I I think this is an issue that is uh a fairly simple decision for me, and I'm I'm trying, I've tried my best to remove myself uh when making this decision and making it as if I was looking at it objectively.

If I was looking at this objectively, saying, here's a council, uh, and and it is an awkward position to be in, making uh, you know, essentially giving yourself a uh a different uh remuneration for the next term, but it is what it is.

This is how it works.

So if you if you look at the other councils, you look at the report, it's fairly simple decision.

We we are by supporting this, which which I do, uh we are keeping in line with other municipalities.

We're not going above.

And uh our CAO uh has indicated we're not falling way behind.

We're we're going to be somewhere in in the middle.

We talk so much here about recruiting and uh trying to get new council members.

We've even gone so far as to add two new positions in the last term here.

Uh we've got empty seats ready to go, and we uh have been bragging about how we want a new diverse uh council with new people.

Uh what a better way to add more incentive than to be with the average remuneration of other local councils.

This is this is basically keeping in line, and I think to me it's an easy decision, and I would support it.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Lemmon.

Oh boy.

I personally I found this report a little bit confounding, and I and I just wanted some plain language that spelled it out for me that says you're you're you're um falling behind, and we're just trying to get you up up to speed.

Um I I struggle with the timing.

Um I I know there are residents that uh were not thrilled that we were going to a council of seven, although for all the reasons identified by my colleague, and largely because of diversity, it's you know, to bring new people on board.

Um I need I you know I have I have not fully made up my mind on which way to go on this.

My inclination is to um go by steps, but I'm gonna listen to the rest of my colleagues.

Okay.

So Councillor Matson.

I'll go to my, I mean, I suppose I can say my, but I know I'll I'll go last.

Sure.

Um I mean one of the reasons I was opposed to adding two additional counselors when because when it came to workload, there just isn't a big workload for council.

And so this issue of the staff pointed out it makes it easier for younger people because the time, etc.

Well, we just don't, it there's just not a huge work, it's not a huge imposition on our time.

I mean, I started this in my first ran in my 30s, uh, and you know, coached baseball while I was on council, et cetera.

And it's all doable.

I mean, Damien's going to school, he's coaches hockey, and he's able to do council.

So there's not a huge workload that we have to, you know, bring people in and pay them so you know the so that their careers are somehow impacted by by doing council.

Um the other aspect of this is I think we had like a 5.2% tax increase, and we are one of the highest in the municipal of all the municipalities.

I I just can't support us giving us anything other than CPI.

I don't really care what other municipalities earn or pay as a position.

I think we get good people.

Um, well, except you know, ignore myself here, with the remuneration that we have, and there were other good candidates who didn't make the cut last time because they didn't get enough votes, who were were good candidates and for for this pay rate.

So, anyways, I'm totally opposed to uh 37.5%, I think, increase in counselors' pay.

Uh, I don't think there's no justification for it on the basis of workload or even an encouraging other people to run.

Sure, thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

I support staff recommendation.

The um uh if you want uh cheap, then go for minimum wage uh for council.

I think uh staff made a excellent point that it's um in fact it was one of the points that I'd raised when I was concerned about going from five to seven.

I thought that we could have achieved um um you know excellent quality candidates um uh by increasing the uh the wage for um uh the Merlin Council.

So it's um we're here and um I think the the fact is that we've got a uh professional uh assessment.

It's not the citizen organization of for residents.

This is a professional analysis of of uh of the whole situation.

And um uh it's it's interesting, you know.

I added up how much um uh time we spend on council meetings um preparing for those meetings, the site visits, the analysis on them, both for uh that and the committee as a whole, when we do the budget, when we have uh work with the advisory committees, uh we um as far as CRD, yes, there's a CRD salary, but when I do the the regional water supply and the one at UCA and the water advisory and all those meetings, I don't get paid for that.

And I think the same thing with West Shore.

And and the um our expected attendance and events um are significant, meeting residents and agencies and businesses, um, the open houses and and whatnot.

All those things we are supposed to um uh do our job and and be there.

And I think the pay demands and expects those that receive it to give 100% attendance, full participation, active debate, accountability and good governance.

And I think with that we're um you know again when I when I add it up it seems at this point we are at kind of a minimum wage.

And even with this uh going to the 22000 we'll go from 17 to 23 dollars an hour.

When and that's again you you get a sense it's um it's not a great deal.

And I hope that indeed it will, as uh as mentioned, um encourage uh candidates and and um uh to really give it their all when they're on before council when they're voted in.

I I guess for me, I'm I'm I am supportive of it.

Okay, thank you.

I I mean I agree with counselor mattson to a certain extent, but I I do also feel that there has to be enough in it for younger people, especially to be able to do it.

And that may just even be as simple as a younger person having to pay for child care and things to come from meetings.

I mean, who knows?

And when I look four years from now, um, you know, this time I think it's unusual in the as far as I know, all the incumbents are running again.

But certainly for me, I the if the voters are gracious enough to give me another term, I won't be running again in 2026.

So then you do need to look at it from the point of view of you know when people look at the salaries for both mayor and council um is it something that they're going to be prepared to step up and do and it is i mean i there's there's weeks when it takes a whole lot of my time and then there's weeks when it doesn't take quite so much but i certainly don't think that that rate of remuneration that's suggested is out of line and i think it's important for us to keep in in step so i i will support it so with that is someone prepared to make the motion for staff's recommendation okay can i just make one more comment?

Well, why didn't you save it for the debate?

So moved by councillor kualowich.

Second, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Okay.

So do I have any more brief comments or I I think a lot of us have said quite a bit already.

So uh I think my message has been conveyed.

It's uh it's about fairness, it's it's about equality with other councils looking at this decision objectively for the next council, whoever that may be.

The nomination period is still open until Friday, so uh we don't know how the story ends yet, who's going to be up here.

Uh and at the end of the day, we're we're trying to attract people from all walks of life uh to to put their names forward.

And if this is even one way to encourage that, then I'm I'm there.

Okay, thank you.

You're you're good.

If I uh just one comment uh in 2009, um the council enumeration was um 10,000.

So yeah, that's that's a lot of years.

And I think we um kind of made a mistake when we kept it low, kept it low, kept it low for all those terms.

Um and um you know it that was okay, I guess um then, but it's I I don't think it's okay now.

I think there's a great deal, a heck of a lot more uh duties and obligations that are now um that council and um have to uh the decision making process and and accountability, it's it's almost uh management and it's not minimum wage.

Thank you.

Yep, Councillor Manson.

Sure.

So I understand what some of my colleagues said, and I think in all fairness, I mean I like getting public input on these type of things because but public aren't gonna have an opportunity to talk about this right now.

So, you know, give us give us that feedback.

So what I'm suggesting then is why don't we put this on as a referendum item?

You know, we're gonna give the 37% cost of living, uh, and and let the public choose.

And I think that's a perfect way of letting us know what the public thinks in terms of this issue.

Okay, thank you.

Councilor Lemon, do you want to add anything to the other?

Well, yes.

Um, my colleague at the end has just persuaded persuaded me in the opposite direction.

I think putting it to referendum is is uh is uh daft idea.

So um so you don't have to hear the public you know I I think I think the timing is unfortunate.

I I you know I wish we'd gone to seven in the last term or or you anyway, I think the timing is unfortunate, but as um counselor Rogers pointed out, and of course, you know, I have some distant familiarity with this, um it it ten thousand dollars thirteen years ago.

Um you know, councils have not even had a hundred percent raise um or even a seventy five percent raise in that time.

So I will support.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Rogers, I guess the only the only thing is that um we purposely had put this on an open meeting so that if people had been concerned that they would have phoned and spoken to it i think it's telling the fact that it was in the times column this this morning um and fairly prominently and i have not heard anything all day from from anyone on it and and generally i do when things are yeah so okay so let's move on i'm gonna call the question all in favor opposed vehemently counselor mattson is vehemently opposed.

Okay, so that's carried.

Thank you, Kim.

Thank you, Staff, and thank you to the consultant.

So next we have the um the the letter from Mayor Helps.

I would like to discuss uh sponsoring that Powell rather than just receiving it, but let's wait till we get there.

So the staff are recommending on the fall go by bike week that we consider a sponsorship tier for a thousand dollars.

I would consider a 500.

Is that one?

I didn't look at the is there a $500 category.

If there isn't, there should be.

Well, then not then I move a sheet.

Well, just hang on.

I know there is I scanned the letter and I noticed there was different.

We we do contribute to this in the spring.

Isn't that right, Steph?

Through um through our grants and aid.

This is the same society that does the the spring bike to work week, and they they now do a fall one.

So we've already already contributed your worship.

Well, we've contributed to the spring one for sure.

Yeah, the the least amount they're suggesting is a thousand dollars.

Yeah.

So what's councilor Levin?

Uh that doesn't mean necessarily that the celebration station would be in our municipality, would it?

In our community.

I think they generally always do one at either Chancellor Park or Portage Park because we're right on the on the trail.

Yeah.

Thank you.

I I I personally don't feel that we need to contribute to this.

We do we do in the spring.

We give them a grant, a small grant every year.

Um, and this is kind of an addition, but I don't feel strongly about it.

I'm happy to support it if council would like to.

So we need a motion.

Maybe say receipt is moved.

I'm anyone gonna second it.

Sure, I'll second it.

Okay.

Yeah, I I think just giving five hundred dollars just says we're we recognize that you're doing doing something and and and we're contributing.

And we could also note that we contributed earlier.

No, there is actually a 500, yeah.

You're a backer if you give them.

I mean, and we don't need our names and anything, it's just a a grant to have okay help facilitation.

So do we want to withdraw the receipt and give them $500?

Can I just if I may uh just speak to the motion, please?

Um I I don't like this coming back a second time this is a grant Sonade this is made once and if they were going to do um you know and be upfront and tell us that there was going to be two um events then I think we should could have considered it at that time but um no this is not something special open above grant son aid and I I don't like this.

Okay.

So I'm gonna call the question on receipt and then if somebody wants to make a motion to contribute $500 we can certainly consider that.

So all in favor of receiving opposed so that's that's carried okay then does anyone want to make a motion to contribute the 500?

Well it's already passed it right yeah but I mean we we can still make the motion there's Kim's with his hand up Kim I'll just let you know the um demand application in the spring for a thousand dollars only 500 okay how is that point you know we we um we encourage all of our staff to participate yeah okay yeah I I think I think it's worth I'll move we give them the other I've given 500 to okay so there's motion on the floor then to contribute 500 as a backer.

And councillor, it's moved by councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

Sure.

Any more discussion?

Uh Councillor Kualovich.

I actually i don't support it.

Uh just based based on an administrative and procedural and with Councillor Rogers there.

I don't think it's extraordinary.

This this is not a surprise event.

They plan these yearly, and um they should have been.

I I mean I don't know exactly what their application looked like for their grand and aid before, but it should have uh elaborated on both these events, and uh I'm I'm not prepared to support it, unfortunately.

Just I just I'm worried about the slippery slope.

Uh you know, you compare it to uh 9.1B, it's much different.

It's uh one time extraordinary.

So on that basis, I I I won't.

Okay, thank you.

I know my only comment if next year maybe the council will uh consider and be aware that there's two events and then they could think of um you know increasing the amount.

Yeah, we did.

I mean, up until about three years ago, we used to give them a lot more money than we have recently.

We've really cut it because they brought more and more funding online.

So I I'm okay with sending them 500.

I I think everything they do is is good work.

So I'm gonna call the question all in favor, opposed.

So two opposed uh counselors Kualovich, Councillor Rogers, but the motion carries.

So the next is this is kind of a I'm not quite sure why we haven't had a direct request from the song he used for this, but you know, in in fairness, I think it it's here and um and we do have some money in our unallocated um grant pot, and I mean and I personally think we should support it maybe the just at the copper level, which is 1500.

I'm fine with that.

I was thinking more of silk silver just uh given their our good neighbors that provide a ton of money for fire service, and we're doing what we can to improve relations.

I d yeah, I I don't know that we have enough money in so in our unallocated grant to do silver because it was only 5,000 to begin with and we've done some since so maybe bronze be a compromise support bronze.

Bronze is 2500?

Yeah Kim's Kim about 8,000 random mean oh is it okay thank you well there seem to be lots of nodding at heads of supporting the bronze level so why don't we make a motion to that effect so move so my only question well song he's think we're cheap skates for only going bronze.

I don't think so.

I think supporting them with the $2,500 um contribution is is significant.

It's better than copper.

Yeah.

Okay.

So that's a $2,500.

And we can relay that to the Songhis rather than to the city of Victoria, obviously.

Good idea.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

All in favor?

Proposed.

That's carried.

And then we have um agreement for the CRD regional parks loan authorization bylaw number one.

I'll make that motion.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Mattson.

Second for discussion.

Second by Councillor Rogers.

Okay, go ahead.

I don't have a problem with it.

So okay just just uh points of clarification here is um is this still an acquisition trust fund?

No.

Okay.

So and how much did the acquisition trust fund raise each year?

Um it was raising close to seven or eight million dollars a year yeah okay so now we're we're doing a loan of 25 this is based this is the first the first year which that's so i think this yeah sorry it would be five million a year basically yeah three dollars per household yeah i mean the the whole and believe me we don't want to get into this long discussion now because the the decision has been made at the CRD board and I argued against it because I don't like it and and I think the way we were buying parkland before by having the acquisition fund was preferable to borrowing, but this is the way the board has chosen to go.

I'm I'm quite shocked.

Yeah, because we were borrowing a heck of a lot more than three dollars a household.

It was seven, eight, nine dollars a household, if I'm not mistaken.

It was almost twenty, yeah.

Yeah.

So I agree.

I'm I'm saddened by this that we're reducing the amount of uh funds available for land.

And we're also putting ourselves into a position where wherever we go to buy land now, we're gonna be borrowing money for it rather than having the money in the bank, which is is going to be a different approach, but it is what it is.

Bad news.

So the approval is moved and seconded.

All in favor opposed, that's carried.

And these last ones we probably just need to receive, right?

A through D.

Move receive.

Okay, thank you.

Seconded, all in all in favor.

I had a question.

On the letters, yeah.

Okay.

Um, and that um 335 Stewart Avenue.

I I missed the July council meetings.

So was it.

So nothing is approved yet.

And so the neighbors' concerns are going to be forwarded to the owners.

Okay.

Okay.

And and the the uh webcast, ma'am, is more than available for your viewing if you want to catch up.

Thank you, sir.

So all in favor of receipt posed, that's carried.

So we didn't hear any issues when this first came to us.

No.

I was surprised that.

No, well, he was away, I think, Mr.

Mathies.

And um, yeah, so clearly they have some issues to work out before it comes forward.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, okay, I'm really beginning to fade here.

Um so next we have sewer rates.

Sewer rates.