Council Meeting

658.

I think we can probably call the meeting to order.

Oh, there we go.

Hi, Jack.

So I thought today, being National Indigenous Peoples Day and us also having a council meeting, that it would be appropriate to say a few words about it.

I'm going to be very upfront and say that what I am going to read is largely paraphrased from the federal government website, but it's well written and it's appropriate, and I thought we would start the meeting that way.

So today on National Indigenous People's Day, we invite all Canadians to learn and celebrate the vibrant and diverse cultures, languages, and beautiful traditions of First Nations, Inuit and Metis people.

We also recognize the important contributions Indigenous peoples have made and continue to make to Canada.

As the longest day of the year, the summer solstice has held deep cultural, historical, and spiritual significance for many Indigenous peoples and communities for generations.

And it was 26 years ago today that the government of Canada joined Indigenous organizations in choosing June 21st to celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day.

While today is the time to celebrate Indigenous peoples from coast to coast to coast, it is also an important opportunity to acknowledge that there is much more work to do on the important journey towards reconciliation.

Last year's tragic findings of remains near the former Kamloops residential school serve as a stark reminder of the systemic oppression, inequalities, and discrimination that Indigenous peoples have endured over the past years, decades, and centuries, and the injustices and challenges that they continue to face today.

So as we look over our agenda today, I did write this last part.

As we look over our agenda today, let us be mindful of the potential implications that our decisions have on Indigenous people and their traditional territories and to consider the common interests we have with our friends and neighbors, the Songhees and Esquimalt nations, and indeed the nations throughout our region.

Here, here.

Thank you.

So for the people at home, if you're wishing to call in under either public participation or question period, the numbers are on your screen, 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 233-412-106 pound.

Public participation will come up quite quickly tonight.

There's one petition and delegation to speak about a tower on Talcott Road, and immediately following that will be public participation.

At the appropriate time in the agenda, I will announce the last four digits of your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback, ask you to not use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star six.

And if you could begin by giving us your name and address for the record, please.

This meeting will be recorded.

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

And with that, if I could have a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon all in favor opposed that's carried and we have minutes a b and c move adoption thank you moved by councillor rogers second seconded by councillor lemmon comments corrections no all in favor opposed that's carried I don't have any mayor's report so we'll go straight to Mr Gregg um speaking about the communication site at 94 Talcott Road perfect uh good evening, Mayor Screech and Counselors uh can you hear me okay?

We can.

You're you're freezing up a bit, but we can hear you.

Oh, my apologies.

Uh I hope it uh is clear as time progresses here.

Do let me know if uh if it's not uh clear whatsoever.

Seems fine now.

Okay, great.

So I will share my screen and my presentation and uh try to go through that briefly to leave time for questions.

Okay, so is that visible to you now?

It is.

Okay, wonderful.

So my name is Brian Gregg.

I'm a land use consultant representing Rogers Communications.

And I guess before I jump into my slide deck, I just want to note that um I'm born and raised in Victoria.

Went to uh Margaret Jenkins Elementary, Oak Bay High School, graduated from UVC.

So although I'm now in Vancouver, I'm intimately familiar with the Victoria community and spent the first 25 years of my life there.

And I get back as often as I can.

So I know the areas quite well.

So I'll briefly touch tonight on a proposed communication site for Rogers at a BC housing-owned property at 94 Talcott Road.

The items I'd like to touch on are, you know, what is the objective here?

What are we trying to achieve?

I'll show the land use context in the area, walk you through the design that we're proposing, the consultation process that we went through, and the results of that, and then conclude with our request for a motion or letter of land use concurrence.

So the why am I here tonight?

The real reason is that we're trying to maintain continuity of existing wireless service in View Royal.

Currently, Rogers, as well as other carriers, have antennas installed on the BC Hydro transmission towers that run through the vicinity of this property.

And basically, the transmission tower that Rogers antennas are currently located on is going to be subject to relocation redevelopment.

And so we've been asked to find a new home for our equipment.

So I think that's the most important point here is just to note that we're doing this really because we have no choice.

We can no longer remain on the structure that we're currently on.

So we, as always, we try to look at the land use in the area to find a suitable location for a tower.

It's not easy.

We don't always have sort of free reign to put our equipment wherever we may want it.

We have to find a willing landlord and a reasonable location that we think we may be able to get land use approval for.

And so ultimately, we found a location directly adjacent to Highway One at a BC housing owned property.

Here on this slide, you can see the land use context.

Hopefully it's large enough, but effectively, this property highlighted in blue is 94 Talcott Road.

This is the Highway One corridor.

Directly across the street, there's the Fort Victoria RV park storage facility.

There are some single family homes in the area that we are ultimately aiming to serve, as well as multifamily up in behind.

And then again, you can see here's the BC Hydro Transmission Tower that we're currently located on that we need to get off of.

The subject property is zoned P4 regional institutional.

And again, I think what we've tried to do here is keep it as close to the Highway One corridor as possible, hoping that it's respectfully set back from residences and not causing any view disturbances for people living in the area.

So on the left here, there's a site plan, and you can see that our footprint is quite minimal.

It's really just a couple, the size of a couple parking stalls.

5.1 meters by seven meters wide is the total compound size.

So I always note to people when I'm talking about our infrastructure, that our footprint on the land relative to the service area is very minimal.

We are also proposing a monopole structure, as you can see on the right here.

And the monopole structure is really the slimmest or most stealth design solution available to the wireless carriers.

It does cost more money, it's about an extra hundred thousand dollars compared to a typical lattice tower.

So this is a pole, basically with antennas on it, and we can paint it any color of the municipality's choice, often forest green is a preferred color scheme.

Here I'm showing some photo simulations.

So again, right near the Highway One corridor, this is looking northwest.

And then here we're looking east.

You can see right here, there's the existing transmission tower with antennas on top of it, and effectively, we're looking to migrate that equipment over to this structure here.

So that's critical as well.

So in order to move forward with any tower proposal, in most municipalities, unless there's a sort of council-adopted tower setting protocol or policy, we're required or obligated to follow the Innovation Science and Economic Development Canada default process.

And basically this has three components to it.

We notify area residences and occupants within a radius of three times the height of a proposed tower structure.

We do a newspaper notice, and actually, we were encouraged to put our notice in two papers.

So we did two issues in both the Gold Stream Gazette as well as the Times Times Colonist.

And then after doing those notifications, both in the mail as well as in the paper, we give people a 30-day minimum comment period.

And actually, we did that from the date of the second notice, just to ensure that people had plenty of time to comment if they were interested.

And then the process concludes basically with a request for land use concurrence via council, which is why I'm here tonight, basically to conclude this process.

During the consultation, I thought that maybe we would hear from more people, but actually we only received one comment from the entire community.

And it wasn't either neither supportive nor opposed, it just contained some suggestions, which I sort of touched on this previously.

One of them was to paint the structure green to blend in with the adjacent trees, and that we ought to consider, if possible, a landscape buffer near the compound just to try to integrate it into the surroundings to the extent possible.

This is a requirement in order to satisfy innovation science and economic development Canada's requirements.

I've proposed some sample wording at the bottom of the slide here, but it's really just an example.

I won't read it to you.

An additional thought that I wanted to conclude with, I was reflecting on this proposal and sort of how to best position it within the context of other similar situations that we've encountered.

And as you can imagine, as the network matures, increasingly there are situations where, because we have literally thousands of these facilities, where we have to relocate the infrastructure for a variety of reasons, redevelopment or otherwise.

And actually, we had a similar situation in Oak Bay where we had a facility at the Oak Bay Lodge property, and that property's been redeveloped.

And so we had to actually remove our equipment from the rooftop of that building.

And I had the challenging task of going to Mayor and Council in Oak Bay to seek approval for a tower in that area on that property to ensure that there wouldn't be a service outage.

And we were delighted to find that mayor and council recognized that, especially with remote working on the rise at the time during COVID, and for public safety reasons, given that 80% of calls or more to 911 are now placed through cell phones, they were supportive of that facility and it is now indeed there.

And so this is kind of a, although slightly different context, a similar situation where if we aren't able to secure your support for this facility tonight, there could be a service outage.

We need to get off that hydro tower by August and we have no other place to go and so while we recognize that uh new infrastructure uh is is not always preferred um truly uh we we believe that this is the best location in the area uh to ensure continuity of service thank you yeah thank you i'm i'm curious why because the hydro tower that you're referring to is being simply relocated right it's not not being eliminated.

So I'm curious why you couldn't just be part of the relocation of the hydro tower.

Yeah, so as i understand it, uh still waiting to find out all the details as to where that will be shifted to uh is one aspect of it.

Obviously, there will also be a period of time during the relocation of that facility where we need to have service on air.

So there would be a service outage if we don't find a home for our antennas in the interim.

And then I understand preliminarily, um uh I don't know all the details, but I spoke to I asked my colleague this very question where we believe that that relocated facility will end up is uh going to be very challenging uh for Rogers to get its infrastructure into and all of its radio units, and it would provide inferior service, is what I've been advised of.

So um apparently it's not unfortunately not an option.

Uh the other aspect of it is um as time goes on and uh additional technologies um are increasingly added to the network, um, that results in more equipment, more antennas, and it's actually becoming quite challenging for some of these hydr structures to accommodate all of the technologies that a company like Rogers has.

And so uh, you know, that would probably be uh a really challenging option.

Uh so to the best of my knowledge, unfortunately, it it's it's not uh something we're able to pursue.

Okay, and one other question, and then I'll hand it over to Kelly.

We you you make a reference to lease arrangements with the landowner.

Are you are we talking real money when you talk about lease arrangements or are they is it more of an honorary um no?

So so with any um that's a great point.

I I probably should have touched on that.

I sort of glazed over it.

But yes, with any uh tower location, we do compensate the property owner for use of their space, uh, which is only fair.

Obviously, we do have, although it's minimal, as I pointed out, we do take up space uh that property owner can can no longer use for a uh a certain duration of time, whatever our agreement says.

And so we do uh pay uh a fee for that.

Um you know, we're we're not able to disclose what what that is, it's private and confidential, but in this case, uh I think we're we're pleased to see that if this does move ahead, that the fee would go to we think an honorable cause which is to uh uh the bc housing organization rather than say uh uh an individual private property owner uh somewhere in the area which is actually often the case um so so where feasible we do try to partner with uh you know government agencies um even municipalities from time to time just so that there's a broader public benefit from from any of that revenue that we would pay through through a lease or a license or a right of way yeah thank you.

Counselor Kwalowicz, did you have something?

Thank you, Brian.

Uh, and just before I make uh a couple questions and comments, uh, can I assume are you an independent contractor speaking on behalf of Rogers who's been had their services retained?

Yes, I'm a consultant representing Rogers, but I yeah, I'm not a Rogers employee.

Okay.

Uh I just um I'm familiar with Rogers.

Uh I know that in 2021 their uh profit was 12.53 billion dollars.

And I guess my biggest problem with this whole presentation tonight, and I realize you were probably given certain facts and data from Rogers and did your did your research and prepared this, but your comment about View royal residents losing service in August of 2022 if we don't make a decision, it's it's really concerning to hear that from Rogers.

And I don't mean like concerning, like we might have a job call.

I feel like it's high pressure sales, and um I'm disappointed and I have a hard time believing it.

Okay, I think that that's actually really helpful feedback.

I I can sincerely appreciate that.

Um I'll I'll share sort of my perspective as to what I've been working on for the past while uh and to how we got to this point.

Um and this is of course just my experience, you may interpret it otherwise, but uh I've been working on this for over a year.

Um we have no exaggeration, hundreds or thousands of of sites to work on, and uh some of them are quite challenging.

And so I've been working on this personally for quite some time, over a year.

And by the time we're able to find a willing landlord, negotiate the terms of an agreement, go through a public consultation process, consult the municipality, the public, so on and so forth.

That takes quite a period of time.

And unfortunately, it's really not our choice.

But I believe Rogers has been given notice by BC Hydro to vacate off of that structure.

So we're not intending or hoping for this to be a high pressure situation.

We actually sincerely hoped to find a solution well in advance.

But it is true that at this point I don't believe there is much time.

And so though that's a that's the honest truth, those are facts, and um it isn't intended to be um high pressure sales tactics or anything.

That's that's the honest truth as I know it.

Um and I'm sorry, I wish we could have given you uh a lot more time.

Counselor Lemmon.

Yeah, um hi, Mr.

Greg, thank you.

Um I was once uh Margaret Jenkins mum.

Um what area is potentially or devastatingly um at risk of being without service should this tank in August?

Yeah, that that's a great question.

I wish I had brought with me a coverage map to demonstrate the specific areas that this facility services.

The honest truth is I don't have that with me and I don't know the exact area.

But what I should do if you're fine with it is I could follow up with that data from our engineering group at Rogers, and it would be a lot more accurate than just me sort of surmising or estimating on the basis of these maps.

That said, typically a cell site, you know, having worked on hundreds of these or thousands of these facilities, usually they do service a multiple kilometer radius, a tower like this.

So, you know, it's it's probably fair to say that it's hundreds or several thousand households that would uh you know find themselves with limited services from Rogers.

Now, obviously, we recognize there are other service providers.

Uh, we're not trying to paint sort of the end of the world scenario here, um, but to be sure we would hear about it, and uh there would probably be some people that find it to be extremely inconvenient if they're working from home and so on and so forth.

Sure, fair enough.

No question.

There's also the um, sorry, pardon me, the uh the Highway One corridor where um you know sometimes people need to call for help for a variety of reasons.

And uh we from our experiences having uh contiguous coverage along Highway One and Highway Corridors is is also um, although not uh maybe directly pertinent to just the View Royal community, and uh an important aspect of this perhaps as well.

So um can I ask with this is it View Royal or Nowhere?

Or is it specifically to service View Royal, or how is there a possibility of other locations, other municipalities, whatever, um, or is it View View Royal centric?

Well, this is specifically for this, we call it a search area.

And just to sort of put it into context, as the network matures, there are um many, many more cell sites uh that we're working on.

Uh, and as as again the network matures, there's a higher density development of these cell sites, and that's because of uh the frequencies that are being used for data and the rising demand on the network.

So I have, for example, it's too early to talk about it sort of publicly exactly where it is, but I have another proposal kind of directly to the west, northwest, somewhere along uh Island Highway in, I guess it would be Langford, or at that point near Calwood, Langford.

So that's an adjacent site that we're also looking at.

And then you know, more further east as you get closer to Victoria.

And this is sort of in the middle in the sweet spot where we need to have it, approximately in this area to tie it into the network.

The other thing that's important, at least to Rogers, and I think community members, is what we're trying to do is match the existing service that is already there that people have come to expect or rely on.

So you have we, you know, we have customers and people calling in in that area every day using their devices that are used to a certain level of service.

And so in these instances where we have to find a new location for the antennas, we try to site them as close as possible to that existing facility, not only to tie it into the network and the other sites we're planning, but also so that people in the area have a similar or the same level of service that they've become accustomed to.

So it really does need to be in this immediate area effectively.

Okay, thank you.

Thanks.

Councillor Matson.

Well, given that Rogers earned $12.2 billion last year.

I was wondering if there was some sort of funding to view role for using V Royals Airways for this.

That's an interesting idea.

I could certainly uh and I'd be thrilled to put you in touch with um Rogers government relations team.

I know there are all kinds of discussions ongoing with um local governments for different types of partnerships and opportunities and I don't know what that would look like.

I don't want to speak out of turn it's not my place as a consultant dealing just with strictly land use matters but it's an interesting question.

Certainly pass it along so you could come back to us with with Rogers's offer.

I like I like this idea.

Certainly beyond that beyond the scope of my uh role, so to speak.

We one observation I would have is that we could certainly write to the province and suggest that um given that they've taken away our grant in lieu on this property, um, maybe they should be giving us half of the revenue they're receiving at the very least.

But at any rate, yeah, they could even keep it secret and give us half.

Counselor Rogers.

Okay, um, yeah, thank you very much.

Uh a number of questions.

Um uh you know, obviously the tower that um you are on presently is being moved because of the HandyDART facility that's going there, and they're only moving at uh a scamp in 100 feet.

But it sounds like it's uh BC Hydro that's uh the landlord of the poll is uh kicking you off.

Yeah I think it's a combination of those factors.

So there's the the plans that I was I've just been sort of combing the media it sounds like there's some some additional issues with the whatever's proposed for that property then and obviously we have no hand in that um but that's an aspect of it I'm perhaps why the tower is being relocated but at the end of the day um my understanding is that uh yes BC Hydro has you know needs to have that structure shifted and as a result we we have sort of no choice but to get off of it.

So one of the things that I I guess might be different.

Um on the existing tower pole right now, do you have an uh equipment shelter at the base?

Yes, yeah.

We we uh always have uh equipment at the base of a of a tower um and yeah sometimes it's in uh in cabinets like locked equipment cabinets kind of like you would see from BC Hydro or or other times a shelter.

Is it the same size as what you're proposing that you've had both um now and what you're proposing?

I know a lot more about what we're proposing than what's existing at the other site.

I don't know the exact dimensions I I've driven by it I've seen it of what's there currently but it it should be quite similar.

Um, I believe the shelters are all cl nearly the same, six by eight feet.

We call it a walk-in closet.

You can see it on this slide here.

But it's sort of like a portable structure that you might see in a variety of applications and uh pretty small, like it's again six six feet by eight feet.

You mentioned that um it's not only you but others that are gonna that are uh being asked to come off the pole or the uh current tower.

Um so this this tower that we're is is only Rogers.

Um I don't know um here I'll go back to this aerial photo.

There I am aware that TELUS, I believe, is just to the south um on this transmission line, and I I have no knowledge of whether or not TELUS has received the same request.

Uh looks like it's quite a different property.

It's at the Fort Victoria RV park.

I don't know whether or not there's any redevelopment plans for that area that would impact TELUS' infrastructure.

I haven't heard about it if it is.

Parts of it down near where the Esquimalt Nation uh owns some lands.

Um, we're sort of we're we're looking around there because there are network challenges, but if I'm totally honest with you, um that's been ongoing for some time and it's been a it's been a struggle.

It really is a challenge to find a location with a willing landlord that is prepared to have infrastructure on the property for the long term.

We typically try to do uh either 20 or 30-year-long agreements because it's capital intensive, these are expensive uh facilities, and we have to have a certain amount of time to recoup that capital outlay.

Um, and so to make long story short, uh there are other areas in View Royal that we think may need service improvements, but uh there's nothing that's sort of progressed to at this time.

Um, but I think that'd be a broader discussion.

It'd be something we should do.

Other municipalities have asked us to kind of disclose, you know, what are our other plans rather than just coming forward with sort of a one off proposal as we go, having a bigger plan.

But this is the only one I know of that's sort of you know coming before you any anytime soon.

So and my last question is this the uh the tower that you're proposing is that only going to have largest equipment or are you going to lease out the space to other providers?

Yeah, so this is always a trade-off.

So this is designed to be as minimal in height and size and scale as possible.

Innovation science and Economic development Canada, so the federal agency we are regulated by requires that tower structures are shared.

And so if another third party, say a TELUS or Freedom Mobile or whomever were to apply to co-locate, we would have to reply.

Rogers would have to reply and let them know what positions are available on the tower.

However, if we were going to design it purposefully to be a tower that we would try to sublease space out on, usually those towers need to be much taller and bigger structurally because all the carriers want to have their antennas at a certain height, you know, above the tree line and above the topography.

And so what ends up happening is you know, the idea of sharing a tower sounds great on paper and from a policy standpoint, but then in practice, uh it it does result in larger structures.

And so, you know, we thought long and hard about this here.

We're only aware that Rogers needs to relocate its equipment, and we thought that we would have a much better chance of getting approval if we proposed the smallest possible tower that we could get away with.

Okay.

So do you um so your your commitment is to this height, and then you're not gonna come back and heighten it or increase the height?

Yeah, so um I get that question all the time too.

So, and the reason for that question is in the um Innovation Science and Economic Development Canada protocol, there's a um an allowance in there where hypothetically like any carrier, this isn't just Rogers, um, and this is for rooftop antennas or a tower.

You could hypothetically extend the height of an existing structure by 25% without consultation.

In reality, that almost never happens because uh it's very expensive and difficult to go back and do that.

We're better off proposing what we need for the future right from the outset.

So, you know, we've proposed the tower uh to suit the needs that we we have foreseeably into the future.

I'm not aware of any plan to come back and and uh sort of raise it up and uh like structurally and from a cost standpoint, uh that's that's quite difficult to do.

Again, we're better off just to to propose what we need from the outset rather than trying to come back later and sort of incrementally add on structure council so that's not that's not the plan this is this is the proposal that we are aiming for we're not trying to do that I have a question for our staff um staff do it is there any um responsibility um for a tower um owner to provide emergency service space to the host municipality.

Another word.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

I I could comment on that too if you'd like.

Sure.

So to the best of my knowledge, there's no responsibility.

But every carrier does provide the service of 911 calls.

And that even, for instance, a TELUS customer, a customer on another provider would be able to, I think even people who just have a cell phone and they don't have any plan can still make a 911 call.

So there is that.

And then the other thing I wanted to add is just that there's been so many times where I've offered to allow municipal governments, uh, regional districts, um, fire departments, RCMP, uh, and police authorities to add their antennas to our structures.

So Rogers, if that was of any assistance, I think Rogers would be pleased to consider having emergency communications equipment on this facility.

Indeed, I just worked on a project for Rogers between Sooke and Port Renfrew to deliver connectivity along the West Coast for the first time.

And on numerous of those towers, there were seven of them that we got approved through the CRD board.

We had the Capital Regional Emergency, I don't know exactly what it stands for, CREST is the emergency uh telecommunications provider, uh affiliated, I believe, with the CRD.

And they added their um it's just a single antenna to the top of those towers uh for emergency response needs.

So that's a great example where Rogers has done that, and I I see no reason why we wouldn't be prepared to uh to do that here if it would be helpful.

Very helpful.

Thank you.

Staff, is there an opportunity for the town to require some sort of remuneration for having towers in their property areas?

There is not there isn't so they'd have they'd have to do it at the goodness of their heights.

We just can't force them, so I just not allowed them.

I'm not I'm not aware of that.

Well, what I am aware of is that um BC assessment uh will levy additional, I believe, commercial realty taxes for our infrastructure improvements.

So so they have their piece of the pie, so to speak.

As for municipal authorities, I'm not aware of a way that that happens.

Um, but I could I may just not know.

But yeah, there there hasn't been anything like that.

Um you know, some I know that some local governments have asked us to um you know secure, although it's not required.

We're under the national building code, but like you know, to apply for say a building permit, and you know, we can pay like a whatever reasonable application fee.

We're happy to do things like that to sort of compensate for staff time.

Um, but obviously those are sort of nominal amounts.

It's not going to be a huge line item in your budget or anything.

How about a new fire truck?

Okay, well, thank you very much for coming.

Um answering our questions.

Is there any interest in providing them with the motion that they're looking for?

Of land use concurrence.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I I gotta say I am satisfied with the consultation process and and uh we've had the opportunity to um, you know, what what they say is it's a permitted use the design and it is a federal approval process yeah although obviously our approval is is important to them yeah I'm I'm I guess that one could say the uh you know there's uh approval letter of approval but wishing that we'd have some of the uh funding cost sharing of the the funding add that little statement to it you well we can certainly do that I mean we we could give land use I mean I don't have any problem with the poll I think it is needed um and obviously to keep the cell surface within the town so but I I certainly think we should write to the province and um say you know given that you decided to stop paying taxes on this property and you're now receiving revenue we feel that um you should at least be providing some of that revenue for the town it probably will fall on deaf ears but we'll make a point at least yeah yeah yeah yeah I would but at any rate we do need a motion on the floor if if there's interest in the yeah we'd move um um the uh the letter resolution proposed as well as the additional letter to the ministry from the mayor yeah second second that okay so it's moved and seconded discussion Damien.

Well, not perfect uh we need to trust the information from engineers.

And I think for me, the biggest piece is emergency phone calls and communication methods for people.

So that's that's just um that's the crux of the decision for me.

Yeah.

I think the other thing is that I don't think um they wanted to do this, but they were required to because of BC Hydro's requirements.

Yeah.

Okay, everyone's good.

Okay.

Call a question.

All in favor.

Opposed.

No one opposed.

So that motions carried.

Thank you.

Thanks again.

Thank you.

Next up, we have public participation period.

Staff, do we have any callers on the line?

Your worship, we have one caller, last four digits 5493.

Well, we know that one.

Caller with the last four digits, five four nine three.

Did you have anything you'd like to say or are you just listening in?

No comments or questions at this time.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So we're gonna move right along to the staff report 8.1A, which is just there for receipt.

Thank you.

Okay, all in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

Thank you for doing the report.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um, next we have item B, which is the Helmcken Bay Pump Station Upgrade Tender Award.

Moves council staff recommendation.

Yeah, move by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Matson.

550,000.

Nothing compared to a billion for a water filtration plant that we don't need.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, I just note uh again, thanks to the uh good staff report that um uh this company that's done experience um work for us and task staff is satisfied with the work that they've done.

So all good.

Just one more question to staff is there seem to be a huge difference between the two.

Do they think just because announcer why why why was one reason totally unreasonable through through your worship, sometimes this happens, uh especially when there are less bidders um i can't really comment with the losing bid what what i can say is that uh some contractors are biddiers busier than others and the bids reflect that thank you councilor rogers yeah that's sorry i do have a uh question the the the uh new installation will that have the same footprint as the current um setup infrastructure through your worship the there is no expansion uh what is happening is that uh within that area they are the the design will relocate the valves from inside the um the wet well which is where the sewage is and they're gonna put it into its own separate uh and cleaner uh chamber but there's no going to be there's gonna be no expansion from the area and and sorry if again if I may um it this it's not gonna inhibit the uh public access down to the beach through worship no uh it's not going to inhibit access through construction uh there might be some safety measures work safe items where it may require uh temporary closures for access during work hours and maybe afterwards but it will be done only from uh from time to time and then post construction the the same access will be provided thank you.

Good.

Did you have something, Councillor Manson?

It was just basically that I was kind of disappointed that when we built the one on hap on View Royal Avenue.

I mean it looks very nice, but it sort of seems to mitigate future access down to the water.

So we just need this to happen on this one.

Right.

Yeah, we should have a look at that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'm gonna call the question then on that.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

Thank you, staff.

Next up is the Elements Casino Liquor License Referral.

On the staff recommendations.

Second.

Okay, so that's moved and seconded.

Discussion.

It it's interesting that they're it's just the uh uh morning hours, yeah.

They're they're changing, so that sounds reasonable.

Uh it doesn't.

Yeah.

I don't think we actually need to to weigh in on it.

Okay.

I struggle with the idea of people starting to drink at 10 in the morning.

But struggle with people going to the casino at 10 in the morning.

Well you can always yeah.

Yeah.

I mean it's not our Baileywick, right?

Like the licensing.

Even on Sunday.

Goodness.

But does anyone think that this is the norm in all the uh casinos uh starting at 10?

I don't I thought that wasn't clear to me.

It I suspect it's certainly the norm in some of them.

And of course, if you go to Reno or Las Vegas, you can drink right around the clock.

There you go.

Yeah.

Um so okay.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

So then 8.2A is our committee of the whole resolutions, which we can probably just move.

Yeah, that's just the two of them.

Oh moved.

Okay.

Second.

Moved and seconded by councillors Matson and Rogers.

All in favor.

Pose.

That's carried.

Um and so now we're on to other reports which is West Shore for May 12th and the AGM June 17th.

Uh move a sheet.

Yep.

Move your seat of AMB.

Yeah.

Yep.

Move by Councillor Rogers.

Seconded by Councillor Mattson.

See Damien's got his hand up.

Just looking to see if anybody's interested in hearing the speaking notes from our June 16th board meetings.

You didn't have a meeting on June 16th, according to this.

It was June 17th.

Can you check your calendar to see if you were there?

Nobody else would have to do that.

I did I did ride my bike there.

But sure, yeah, why not if you've got notes?

Yeah.

Uh so there was an update provided.

Um, if if you weren't aware, the uh 55 plus BC games will be running from September 13th to 17th in 2022 this year.

And one of the host uh host locations is the West Shore Parks and Rec uh Society.

So we'll be we'll be hosting some events there.

Looks like we're gonna be hosting bocce and carpet bowling.

Wow.

So um get your tickets, get down there.

And also we had a presentation by the Victoria Pickleball Association.

They are lobbying for new pickleball courts.

As you know, pickleball is on the radar of many greater Victorians, uh young and old, and they are advocating for some new pickleball courts that uh would uh find themselves on the West Shore Parks and Rec property.

We had a presentation from their president and some of their members, and we have agreed in principle to uh um to uh move forward with the feasibility study uh for some potential pickleball courts uh finding themselves on the West Shore property.

The details of what that will look like uh we do not know yet.

Uh they have history of raising money and being able to assist and contribute.

Of course, there's all sorts of conversations that need to happen about the the public aspect of it and then where it would go.

Uh there's some Gary Oak meadows there that are very critical that we don't uh we don't want to lose.

So um preliminary discussions have begun, but it's safe to say that pickleball is uh bouncing its way into the West Shore Parks and Rec world.

And we are um we're looking to uh see if we can help them move forward.

It's a really popular sport, lots of people playing.

We want to get people active, we want to get people moving uh at at older ages and and help with that.

Yes, Councillor Rogers.

Thanks.

Um it's interesting, and and certainly we know that the uh the seniors are are keen on it.

Um is there any space adjacent to the seniors complex?

The proposed locations right now, and I don't want to speak out of turn, but there there is some open land kind of next to the tennis courts, if you know where those are, down by the golf course.

You know, the first T box is there, so uh we can't have any left-handed golfers slicing the ball, if you know what I mean.

So we have to look at how that would look and and the fencing and and how you would you would uh the egress would work for people leaving games and entering games.

So there's a lot to work out.

Uh and um the top lot there uh you're referring to with the parking lots, that's something that um we need to look at as well.

Yeah, yeah.

It's certainly an ideal opportunity for the five municipalities to possibly be able to work together to provide pickleball courts there that are away from residences and homes and and all those factors.

And next to noisy brushes.

Yeah.

Yeah, I just noticed actually that the June seventeenth was 2021.

Yeah, possibly.

So that's why you Okay.

That that's why I was yeah.

That was the AGM from last year or the minutes we're we're receiving tonight.

Okay, we're all good.

All right, thanks.

Okay, thanks, Damien.

There's good work going on there.

I was at the AGM just last week and um then I was impressed by everything we were told.

Their financial situation was surprisingly good.

Um, and just everything that was going on seemed to be to be positive and good.

And Langford is happy?

I think Langford's is relatively content.

All in favor, opposed.

Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

So I'm gonna call the question.

That's carried.

So next we have so the 9.2A.

This is um, I was hoping that we would send that on to all the other councils in the region and and copy it to South Island Prosperity.

Um, just because it I mean, it's I don't know how interested you are, but I I I had a conversation with this woman when she was in in Victoria, and she's a very high-profile Canadian businesswoman.

She built Fogo Island, um, and she's on numerous boards throughout the country in economic development.

And she was really impressed the way that our region had come together to work with South Island Prosperity and said it's it's so unusual in the country to see where a region truly comes together like that for the regional good and the fact that the First Nations are all at the table and the public institution.

She she couldn't say enough good about it.

So I asked her to write the letter because I think it's important for ourselves and other councils to hear that and hear what a good job they're doing.

Okay, just a comment.

Yeah.

Uh yeah, I agree.

Very uh very supportive veteran.

And she makes reference to um some document illustrating um how uh we're getting uh uh we could we could do better in terms of fundraising and and soliciting funds from member municipalities and it would be worthwhile uh making attaching that reference documents that she referred to.

Sure.

I can certainly ask her about them.

So I think if we we could have a motion to forward to CRD municipalities and South Island Prosperity.

Second.

That's moved and seconded by counselors Matson and Levin.

All in favor, opposed, that's carried.

And I'll write a cover letter of that of why, just so that because otherwise they'll be wondering why.

Um it shows up on their agenda.

Yeah.

And next we have the letter from Esquire Mount Councillor Tim Morrison, um, and the chair of Crest.

Who is seat?

Thank you.

Just a comment of the the Crest building uh going in and the $60 million.

Looks like it's approved, but uh you know I I'd had hoped that it could have been in with some other joint um uh protective services, emergency services, building cost share, perhaps even you know future police buildings.

Just seems like um we have no opportunity to combine the structural costs.

Yep, I I don't I don't disagree with you, and I think it remains to be seen whether or not can it can be built for the costs that are projected as well.

So we may not have where's the money coming from.

Well, they have Crest is paying off enormous amounts of debt over the next two to three years.

So the idea is they will just replace that debt.

And so our payments actually are forecast not to change at all because they'll just be taking on new debt.

So that's the plan.

So they're building the that's we used to say the the Tajmapal of uh crest right those types of buildings.

Yeah.

Council Lemon do we do we know where it's to be built?

Yeah it's at a s a site in Langford.

I don't know the exact address but it's um it's it's sort of almost directly above the Home Depot if you can imagine that.

Yep.

Yeah.

Okay.

Above that great wall.

That's right.

It's it's on that property with that that great great wall is and I God that wall is amazing.

Yeah you know and you know I'm sure the wall is engineered but uh other walls in Langford have tumbled down in the past and uh to think that we've got CRES an emergency services building up there on that wall with possibilities of you know a number nine coming along you would think that yeah unless they're moving it away from that that cliff.

They could put it by the lagoon.

Well I can only presume that all those um possibilities will be explored before it it it is to be a post-disaster building.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Not pre.

So all in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

So next we have 10A, which is a draft amendment to the oath of office.

And so there's I guess we should receive the staff report.

Thank you.

Seat is moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

Comments, questions?

I did have one question.

The fact that the oath is or uh is your mic mic on run?

I think so.

Is it okay?

So is the uh skip here.

So the code of conduct is referenced in the oath of office.

Does that have any legal consequences at all?

Or is it just nice to have in in the document?

So your worship, the um the current oath of office does refer to uh adherence of bylaws and policies.

The code of conduct is one of our policies.

So our purpose here is to highlight it and make sure that it's clear that it too is is a policy that has to be adhered to.

So really in any real terms, it doesn't change the status of the code of conduct, rather it highlights for those that are running for office and are elected, that there is a code of conduct amongst all the other policies of the Town of U Royal.

Right.

Thank you.

Okay, so all in favor of receiving all that's carried.

And then so we need first, second, and third of bylaw 1102.

Okay, move by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor?

Opposed, that's carried.

You don't want to ask Kim more questions just so we can hear him talk with his gravelly voice.

I felt bad as soon as I asked.

Right.

Okay.

So we need first, second, and third of bylaw eleven oh three.

I'll move first, second, and third.

Of 1103.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay.

Questions, comments?

We're all good.

Okay.

With all the numbers in part three, part twos, et cetera.

It ended up getting more confusing than it was yesterday last time.

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

For anyone watching who may have a question, um, now would be the time to call in because we're going to be there very quickly.

And so the last item on the agenda is adoption of bylaw number 1101.

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed, that's carried.

Thank you.

And thank you, staff.

I'm sure that's been a lot of work to go through that, and it's more a housekeeping issue than anything else in many ways.

But it's good to have it done and formalized.

We met the province's deadline.

So next up is question period.

Do we have any callers on the line stuff?

Your worshipper.

Your worship, no callers at this time.

Okay, thank you.

So with that, we'll look for motion to terminate.

Yep.

And we'll see everyone Tuesday, July the 5th.