Council Meeting

All right, uh to call the uh council meeting to order.

Um, we are grateful to live and work on the unceded territories of the Squimalt nations and Songheast nation.

Gotta read all the same.

So this evening we will hear from the public who will telephone in a public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

For members of the audience, the council is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.

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

When it's your turn to talk, do not speak disrespectfully about anybody else, including council and staff.

Do not use rude or offensive language.

Do not make statements or allegations that call into question the character of anybody else.

Do not speak or act in an aggressive, bullying, or harassing way.

Council wants to hear the views of those participating in the meeting in an open and impartial forum.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-927.

And when prompted, enter the conference ID 537-232-017-you'll be asked, or you will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Do not unmute until asked.

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

Please remind me about that one.

And ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

We ask that you do not use the speakerphone to ensure sound quality and ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

To begin, please indicate your name and address for the record.

Speakers will have five minutes each to speak during public participation and two minutes to ask questions during question period.

You will be timed.

You are consenting to be recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

Okay.

So we have two new agenda items on the blue sheet.

Item one 8.1a and 9.

9a.

So a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

Moved by Jerry, seconded by John.

All in favor, against carried.

We have the minutes of February 15th and February 20th.

Motion to receive and adopt.

All in favor, against carried.

Nothing under mayor's report.

No petitions and delegations.

Public participation period.

Does anyone in the audience have something that they'd like to say about tonight's agenda items?

Hearing none, I will ask staff if there's anything anyone online who'd like to speak.

No.

Acting Mayor Matson, we have no callers so far this evening.

Ah, thank you.

So moving right along to staff reports.

We have a development permit application 2022 oh nine, 1681 Island Highway.

Thank you, Chair.

And that is Burger King changes.

Jeff Child, Senior Planner.

This is an application for a development permit at uh 1681 Island High, which was the Burger King restaurant.

The uh proposal is to do some external building renovations and revise the the sign.

Okay.

Um so I'm just gonna do a quick uh quick initial walkthrough of the proposed changes.

Uh the proposed changes are to um to the roof of the roof of the structure, except for the uh the main kind of um uh atrium area, which is uh has a standing sea metal roof.

Uh the proposal is to raise the parapet and also add uh um sort of a column entrance to each uh face of the building.

Uh this this slide here shows the existing building and below the proposed changes.

Uh so on this face, which faces the parking lot, main parking lot, uh the main changes are to the lower half of the building to add a parapet that would that would have a light band on it, as well as a new kind of uh raised parapet where the building entrance is.

And there would be some updated signs including a graphic sign at the at the entrance on the island highway side of the the building.

The changes are to the again to the lower to the lower roof again by adding kind of a raised section and adding a different kind of material kind of a wood look material to it as well as a canopy that kind of provides a bit more texture than than what is there.

On the Wolford side of the property, again you see the kind of the raised parapet and the light band, and the and again a new awning facing facing uh Wilford Road and a little and some graphic signs at the street level facing facing the street.

The rear entrance would be fairly unchanged against except for the light band on top.

So the um the when the proposal was initially introduced to the committee of the whole, um, some questions arose on a couple of items that will be discussed in the rest of this presentation.

First one is about the signs and the light band.

The question was about um what the sign materials and lighting and illumination and brightness would be like.

Uh that material has been provided in in the report.

Um basically, in terms of uh lighting, uh, the sign bylaw requires a certain level of lighting that not to exceed 200 nits between sunrise and in the nighttime, 2000 nits in the daytime.

That's basically a standard that applies across the town.

In this case, they've shown an example of a light band at a similar type of burger king constructed elsewhere.

And again, the lighting is would be would have to be in compliance with the town's regulations.

So we'll double check that during the sign permit and the building permit phases.

This lighting here shows that it's not going to be um of obtrusive.

It's not going to look like Las Vegas at night.

The second item was about graphic signs and those are basically just signs at the the building entrances at the street level.

Again one on the parking lot side and one on the Wilford Road side.

And basically those are just kind of images of the type of um uh food that they serve.

They're not intended to be advertising signs.

They're not really signs that are permanent from the street.

It's not the um staff's favorite way of animating um a pedestrian level but it's better than leaving it blank.

Uh color and material kind of information has been provided.

And those are all kind of colors that are for the most part are kind of consistent with what we see in a commercial type development.

They've clarified that the side doors at the back of the buildings, which weren't really shown in the drawings, that the back doors would remain, just minor detail.

And one of the big questions was about what were the visual impacts from adjacent residents, namely the uh residences at the Coho condominiums at 285 Wilfort Road.

So in this case, uh we did the little uh kind of photo study showing showing the view impacts from four different points, uh two at each end of the building and and two at the uh at the apartment site.

So uh there are two views from the from the Burger King, and we'll show kind of a corresponding view from the opposite point on the uh the Coco Coho apartments.

Uh this is the closest taken from the closest corner of the building to the uh neighboring residences.

Um so development permit guidelines call for buffering between commercial and residential uses.

In this case the spatial difference is over 72 meters between the closest points of the two buildings and that's what you see in this photo here.

So the only part of the the development that would be that would have a direct view of the Burger King is uh from the top floor, top maybe second floor of the buildings in the corner closest to it.

And that's because of the grade difference, um, because it's on a quite a large hill, uh, off 22 meters you know higher than the Burger King, as well as the um the spatial separation.

This is a view from the uh from the parking lot point, um, and that kind of shows the the vista that you see from up there, so that the Burger King because of its distance and is is uh is not a prominent part of the the viewscape.

And this is from the corner of the building at on the island highway side.

Again, you can see um uh just the top floor of one of the condo buildings can can see the development.

And when you look from the top of the driveway, um the building itself is not not highly visible.

There's a you may not be able to see it, but there's a little I drew a little yellow outline around the building.

So in conclusion, uh the proposal is consistent with the commercial development career area design guidelines and can be supported for several reasons.

Um the new parapets provide variations in the roof height to create visual interest along the roof line.

It would be consistent with the lighting and the light band itself can help us define the building form without impacting neighborhood residential areas.

New canopies add um make the building look non-splocky and uh no variances are required.

So staff recommends that the uh the application be uh approved.

And that's the staff recommendation.

Uh if there's any questions, uh the applicant and their architect is is the applicant is present.

The uh applicant, the architect is uh is available online if there's any questions.

Okay, so Jerry, John, anyone else?

Thank you.

Oh, is that me?

Okay.

Um I I sure understand why they would want a band of lighting, especially as the trees around their property are are getting more mature, and uh I understand they're going to go up a little bit with that too.

What I'm I just want some clarification on is a parapet.

A parapet is actually a flat roof, right?

So it'll it'll just be a c kind of jacked up flat roof.

No, the uh so the the top of the roof, uh the parapet extends beyond the top of the roof.

It's like the old country western towns you see in in old western movies where the front of the building extends above the the uh the flat roof.

Oh, okay.

So that's okay.

That's called a parapet.

Got it.

Okay.

Sorry for the jargon.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

John.

Yeah, thanks.

Um uh there's note that um added canopies uh helped to break up the blank walls, and and I uh cannot understand what those canopies are.

Uh the canopies are basically on uh two ends of the build, well, I guess um the kind of the the island highway side of the building.

Uh so basically over the entrance, it provides uh shelter and cover from the parking lot, the parking lot entrance.

And on the other side of the building where the drive-thru goes around the building, um again, it would it would kind of add a little a kind of visual element uh to sort of so it's not just one big rectangle that you that we saw when in the example photo of a Burger King done elsewhere.

Yeah, so that's the um that's the driveway entrance side of the bill of the building.

Uh so the changes proposed there are are fairly minor.

Just uh adding adding the raising the roof a little bit with the parapet and the light band.

Thank you.

Yeah, that I that's an additional to the top.

I understand that it doesn't seem like that it's very thick.

I see that the um those protrusions are gone, a door is missing.

Um but you know, one of the things that occurs to me, the uh one of the achievements, a significant achievements that um um Mayor Camden and the council of nineteen ninety-seven, 88, Admirals Walk, Alder Smith and Um and Admirals, um, there was the foresight to add um a if you're like a fake glass, and uh that glass has done an extraordinary job in in breaking up um uh a wall like this.

And it's one thing to point out the uh the view from um the COHO, but I'm concerned about the view from the Montessori, the view when when people drive from uh the D, that wall is awful.

So um and frankly, I'm not uh satisfied that um you know that the the architect and the company probably should raise the bar and and uh break up this wall a little more.

So can do we need that as a I don't know that uh let's hear from the rest of the council, but um yeah that's one uh point that I'd be really interested in seeing remedied.

And if it means the wall on the other side, you know, whatever that's the north wall, wonderful.

Allison?

Oh, the chair.

Uh one of the things that we had clarified earlier was that the the the two doors and the lighting that you would see there are proposed to remain.

And there was that's what we were asking about previously, and they clarified that those two doors and the lighting would remain.

So is that you know, okay?

So John, that that addresses your issue?

It's not a big blank wall anymore.

There's two doors.

It is not um the number of doors, it's um, you know, one blank wall, you know, that's uh stirring at the um, you know, folks that drive by, drive in from the Coho, you know, that um I I think the you know, and it it is interesting.

I'm not gonna bel um belabor the point, but um the current building has very nice sloped roofs, and that was um uh an exciting feature again uh from Mayor Camden's council.

But um uh this uh I I understand the revisions are gonna update this, but I really hope we could um do more than um the red band that's uh showing right now.

So I just uh question to the architect who's here.

If you have any comments about that, Councillor Rogers comments.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um we recognize, oh, thank you personally for allowing me to speak.

Um the we recognize that there are fairly large and nondescript walls there.

Um we're working within the confines of a very particular language that's been set up by the corporate entity here, but it doesn't mean that we don't have a little bit of latitude, and we could certainly look at breaking up the blank phase, perhaps by introducing similar materials that we have on other sides of the building, uh, perhaps to create some visual interest.

Uh and my apologies, yeah, we did act accidentally omit the the second door there.

That door is remaining.

Okay.

So staff, is this something you could work with with the architect to just let us know what's you know what what else he's recommending and can be done with that wall?

Yeah, through the chair, um the director of development services in considering a building permit application can consider some minor changes to uh what's approved by council.

And certainly uh as a condition of the development permit, uh we could add a condition that this face of the building be um uh reconsidered at the building permit stage.

Okay.

So, staff, do we need to change uh the motion to to add that or um through the acting uh acting mayor um uh certainly we can we can do that however um my recommendation would be to um um that staff work with the applicant prior to issuance of the development permit um so that um council um can approve the development permit this evening with the condition that the applicant work with staff to make further refinements to that is that the east elevation.

I can't remember the I'm not quite sure what the elevation is.

Um, and prior to issuance of the development permit.

Thank you, appreciate that.

So is that a recommendation?

Thank you.

Secondary.

Great.

Um, any other discussion or just all in favor?

Against, carried.

Thank you.

Uh the next item.

Oh, I don't see Paul trying to encourage us with the the Bush truck.

Uh acting Mayor, I am willing to stand in for Director Hearst this evening.

Do I do have one question just about this that maybe you could in your discussion just address this.

We always hear from Paul that after some truck gets about 25 years old, they have to replace it because of um some organization who fire underwriters.

So since this one is starting off already as an older truck, even though it only has 9,000 kilometers on it, we we this isn't one of those that the underwriters is going to ask us to replace in 10 years.

No, because it's a uh wildland unit, uh it doesn't it's not subject to the same rules.

Um and uh Chief Hurst has done extensive research finding this truck.

Um he's he's presently on his way to go inspect it.

So uh we're counting on a po positive outcome this evening.

Where did he find a truck in Argentina that he could buy?

Uh uh not Argentina, uh Brindley Mountain, Alabama.

Yeah.

So I'm I'm happy to answer any technical questions, although I have not seen the truck, uh, nor have I ever bought a used fire truck before.

So I think this is already in budget and the money's all all available, etc.

So does anybody have questions or we just want to make a motion?

On Lucia's recommendation.

Uh okay, all in favor?

Against carried.

Thank you.

You guys are so kind tonight.

Uh for the members of the audience, we have a large number of resolutions in turn that have related to the budget.

I think we spent three or four days and ten hours or so debating them.

So if you don't hear a lot of debate tonight, you'll know that we've already talked about these extensively.

And after much doing and froing, we uh concluded that the majority wanted all of these items.

So we have the uh two A 8.2A and 8.2B, a large number of motions and C.

Does anybody want to pull any of these out?

Yes.

And number five for discretion and clarification.

Okay.

So with that, we have a motion to approve.

Sorry, I would also like to pull out some.

Under non-core projects, I'd like to pull out the the first one, about the communications and engagement coordinator.

I would also like to pull out number three about the municipal or policing municipal employees.

And are we on to the let's see?

So which is the so 8.2a one?

One, yes, and three under there.

Okay.

So with those taken out, can we have a motion to approve the rest of them?

Second.

All in favor, against, carried.

Oh sorry, I was in it against.

I would actually like to discuss the majority of these because I um am in the opposition.

We've already okay.

I I just wanted my opposition noted.

Okay, so I'll anyways.

So Allison's uh opposed to that motion.

Okay.

My goodness, it disappeared on me.

Here we are.

Okay, so we have uh the non-core item 8.281.

Do you have a motion with respect to that, Alison?

Should we hear Alice's concerns?

I'm asking her if she has a motion to make.

So that we're not voting on a on a negative motion.

Essentially, my motion it would be that we do not have fund this position.

Okay, so maybe if somebody moves to approve this and a second it, and we can have a debate, and Allison can express her concerns on this particular item.

So we have a motion.

Oh second.

All right.

Alison and does anyone did the mover and seconder have any comments, or are we just gonna wait for Allison to Yes?

Go on.

Any organization, especially a political organization, I think it's very important to have uh this type of person role.

And and within this uh uh motion as well, it also says it can be reviewed too.

So I think it's important because if you realize that it's not um effective, then we don't have to continue it.

So it's not an ongoing thing year after year after year.

But I think uh you know as a growing municipality I think it's important for us to to have this uh engagement person.

Uh there's a lot of things going on.

Um it uh certainly helps uh all of our staff you know get the word out and have that uh uh constant uh uh talking to the public to our members so I think it's uh a good thing and again it's got it right in there to review it so it's not necessarily be carried on forever.

John uh yes, I I I agree with uh Council Brown and and I think staff gave a very reasoned um um uh uh rationale uh for this position.

Um it we we really do need a communications coordinator.

It's uh a long time in coming.

Um it's a it's a short term to test, uh kick the wheels, make sure it's working fine.

And uh yep, it's time to do it.

Okay.

Allison.

Yes, uh something I don't think we discussed um during the budget discussions was that although the new legislation is gonna temporarily result in increased work for development services, there I think there will also be some staff that see a reduction in some of their tasks.

So in particular now that we're not having public hearings for redevelopments that are consistent with the OCP, those staff will no longer need to spend the many, many hours that they currently do sending out the notices for public hearings.

So I believe that this time could be spent on other types of engagement, and therefore I do not believe that this position is necessary.

Okay, thank you.

Does anyone else have any comments?

I think it's essential.

We've we've had this, we've had this discussion for many, many years, many over many budget budget uh debates, and uh I'm I'm so happy to see it finally finally coming to fruition.

And it's not just something that should be should be expected of all staff to do off the side of their desk.

It's it's a skill set.

It's it there's there's specific um there's specific skills that are involved in doing engagement and communications.

And also if we you know as as as we have this laundry list of must-dos and with with dates, um I think it's I think it's imperative that we have someone to help us ramp up engagement so that we can meet our OCP and um housing needs um uh deadlines.

Thank you, Damien.

Thanks.

Yeah, I mean lots of support, obviously, so we don't need to convince anybody, but um and very uh great observation by the way with the public hearing.

Uh I fully agree with that.

I think that's part of the reason why we've dropped it to 0.5 FTE, is just to test the waters and uh see how that works.

Uh, I also think staff could probably utilize this for internal communications, to be honest with you.

So I'm looking forward to it.

And the uh the possibilities are limitless.

I think it's wonderful and um probably a welcome addition for staff.

Okay, I'll call the motion.

All those in favor.

Opposed?

Carried.

Uh I'm assuming this next one will be similar.

So item 8.2a3, maybe a motion to similar um John.

Again, um uh a strong uh reasoning uh provided by staff.

Um uh this is our our um municipal employees are so vitally important and uh to uh give that support to police officers on on a day-to-day basis, and I think it's a uh a reasonable uh expenditure.

Yes, certainly municipal employees uh help the uh uh uniformed police officers with their day to day tasks, uh keeps them on the road more.

Uh they're doing a lot of the paperwork that uh would uh otherwise be tying them up.

So I think it's uh definitely a must.

Okay.

Allison.

I have two questions uh probably for staff.

The first one is in reading the uh project summary, it repeatedly says that View Royal is required to provide support staff to the police.

Uh, but am I correct in understanding that the ratio of one municipal employee for every three RCMP is based only on a recommendation and is optional?

And was this ratio negotiated by the previous counsel?

Um the chair.

Um that is a uh a commonality between all three uh municipalities uh that are the main funders of the West Shore detachment, a three to one ratio.

It's an unofficial agreement.

Uh it's quite remarkable in this day and age to have an agreement that's gone on for as many years as it has.

But uh that's that's a a traditional relationship, three officers to one support staff.

Thank you.

So do you have a question?

Well just carrying on on that one.

Sorry, traditional just to our West Shore, not a more general um common practice.

Or is that is that what you mean?

Uh I can only speak to uh our detachment.

Um and there there are talks of uh doing some more studies of of neighboring municipalities, similar size municipalities and the support staff ratio to officers and the officers to population.

But uh that that's where we're at today is three to one.

Okay, thank you.

And I just want to clarify the municipal police employee that's being uh discussed here.

This was the one that was approved last year for January 2024 start, and it's just a movement of the start date to October.

That's right.

All those in favor?

Anyone opposed?

Allison's opposed.

Carried.

We're talking 82b3.

And did you just want clarification on that?

As opposed to okay.

So if you could ask staff the question.

Steph, just a clarification.

My understanding is that Atkins Road was there were two parts of one was that the status would be moved from strategic to required.

But I think, if I'm not mistaken, that the uh start date uh had been altered to 2025.

I don't know if um if I'm it's just a hunch, and I just want to make sure that we got the year correct in the plan.

I re listened to this specific part of the tape, and before the mayor called the question, he repeated the motion, and this was the motion.

I think there was a hope that staff would be able to work on this uh quickly, but we didn't want to tie staff's hands to try to have it done in 2025.

There was discussion, but this was the motion that was voted on.

You are correct.

Okay.

All those in favor of the motion.

No, it was a point of sequence clarification because my understanding was it was oh, pardon me, that was number three.

Yeah, yeah.

Capital pro number, I know no capital projects is number three where the title is, and it's uh Admiral or Atkins road there.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah.

So Don, we had this very long discussion about not like staff knows it's uh I know I just I discussed this earlier today that but there's no date on here where some of the other ones actually do have years on there.

Obviously 2024 is not even feasible, but uh just by adding the dates twenty twenty-four, twenty twenty-five, twenty twenty-six to to the uh to the line there.

How about checking that?

Staff, you were going to point something out.

Okay.

The the project summary does have a um uh a date already listed for it.

Um it has design listed for 2024.

All right.

Okay, all in favor of the current motion.

Okay.

Anyone opposed?

You're opposed?

No, Allison's opposed.

You're on a roll today.

Carried.

So John.

Yes, you just want to vote against this one?

No, no.

Point of clarification as well, please.

Um so when we had the discussion with respect to the uh the noise barrier and uh allocating a hundred thousand dollars for for this for a study, um there was uh discussion also about um uh the uh bus shoulder project that um Ministry Highways will be doing um in in front of uh Portage Inlet and uh and the the park there, Portage and the near park, and a real concern of uh noise reverberating um across and around the harbor.

So um my understanding is that we had allocated $100,000 for um not only to um a study and get a study on the six mile, but also for the Portage Yanlet section staff.

I re-listened to the tape for this portion as well.

My understanding when I re-listened to that, was the director of engineering had indicated that there are two ways to listen to sound, and that the study would be so broad that it would be substantially more money than $100,000, and that this was very specific to this one area and would cover just this project and this piece that that capital project set out for this study at that price.

Thanks, Staff.

So counselor Rogers, we might have to re-look at that particular location another time, but it's not included in this motion.

Allow me, you know, we did have the discussion and we did um talk about Portage Inlet.

Um uh and I I I think the whole rationale why we were going to turn this uh not not spend $700,000 right off the bat, but uh see if we were going to get any benefit out of the $700,000 in the six-mile.

And uh now I quite frankly, I think we should be able to get a good indication whether we're going to get any benefits uh from either project to $50,000 each.

So I want to focus in on this motion.

And should you want to do another motion at another time, that'll be fine.

But I my my recollection, even though I was miles away, what was we were looking just specifically at this site and spending $100,000 to see uh what the improvements would be and whether it was actually worth spending any money on, whether the sound attenuation would be sufficient to actually warrant further expenditures.

I I realize I'm I'm late to the party with this and um but I did spend the day watching the videos of these previous meetings and I'm not um I I'm not convinced and not clear that we we know that sound attenuation is required there.

So you know in 20 words or less staff can you tell me why we need a hundred thousand dollar study.

Thank you, acting mayor um $100,000 is a conservative estimate.

Uh Ebidley, however, is very difficult to determine specifically in that uh six-mile road off ramp site, given the geotechnical concerns in the area um staff realize that there is not only an acoustic study that's required, but likely a civil port and design as well as geotechnical and structural.

So this embodies a conservat to a conservative level the costs.

So $100,000 a lot.

That's a lot.

Was there confidence that $700,000 would cover whatever was needed without a study?

Yeah, thank you.

Through acting mayor B, uh the original estimate was six, I believe six hundred thousand dollars at the time.

And that was based on an estimate that the staff received from the Ministry of Transportation for a noise bearer wall that was done for the McKenzie Interchange.

So taking inflation into account, uh the estimates or the cost that you see in the project summary uh reflects a close to estimate that was provided um for a similar wall.

And just to sort of add to that, my understanding is even if we spent a $700,000, we don't know if it would actually work and so that's what this study's the purpose of this study is besides to it to finalize cost or what it would actually cost but to see uh whether or not it would make us a difference in terms of sound attenuation so just just one more question so do the if if if we were to install uh the sound barriers that are used at McKenzie do those ones work uh through through acting mayor, that's um it's difficult to say because uh sound barrier walls are very much site dependent.

So um what you see in the McKenzie interchange, uh the topography there is uh significantly different than what is at uh the uh six mile off ramp.

And as a result, a study is required, is generally required.

Um that is what the acoustic engineers provide is they give you uh they give us what they will provide as part of um this project is determination as to whether or not uh a sound barrier wall can reduce sound um to the levels that are to the metrics that the Ministry of Transportation does for their uh for their walls.

That is pretty much the only um metric that we could find standard uh in terms of noise reduction.

But that that report is very key because it'll tell us whether or not we need a sound attenuation, a sound deflection, whether it will work or whether it will not work.

Okay, so I'd like to call a question this question.

And if John wishes to ask staff to come back to us at uh the next committee as a whole, in terms of you know an idea of what it would cost to do that other study, that'd be fine as a separate motion, but we we won't be debating that tonight.

No, I appreciate that.

And and the the good news is the highway project isn't until 2027, so we will have an ample time to uh get another study for the Portuguese in it.

I agree with that.

Um, so um, you know, yeah, I think the discussion points are are are valid.

Um, and I'll be voting against this because I do not think that even $700,000, even a hundred thousand dollar study is way too much and it's not going to prove a darn thing.

Um plug-build wall, which will then reverberate sound to the six-story building, which will reverberate it back and over.

Okay, thank you.

Allison, do you have comments on this particular motion?

Yes, I actually have questions and um comments.

Um, so I have my first one is when we've previously discussed this topic, we heard that anecdotally the sound increased when the CRD housing was constructed.

And I assume that given the proximity of that housing to the highway, that the CRD has also received uh possibly complaints about the highway noise.

So I was wondering if we have um in the past spoken to the CRD at all about potentially contributing towards this study or a future implementation of it.

Through the acting mayor, uh, from what I can recall, though, it's from myself and like has to become half of staff, but we haven't heard anything from the CRD building.

And the province was clear that they wouldn't be contributing.

In fact, they said I think we received four million dollars.

We could spend that on that if we launch it.

And and the funding source for this study uh would not be from taxation, it would be um from which pot of money again?

Uh yeah, through the acting mirror.

I'll see if um Director Christensen can uh suss that out for me.

Right.

Okay, and I in terms of comments, I also agree with uh counselor Rogers.

I feel that we do have a lot of information already about the options, and there are a lot of risks around them.

Um even the wall, it it might not work, and it's very expensive.

And in the past, when we talked about the 700,000, um, a few counselors were in opposition.

So I'm a bit concerned that we're going to spend $100,000 for a study, and the recommendations might not then be approved, therefore wasting the $100,000.

So for that reason, I will be voting against as well.

Thank you.

Staff can make sure throughout the project that we keep council apprised so that there are um stage gates as to where not um staff can will continue proceeding with the project.

If council deems that at an early stage, that that's enough, then we can and staff can certainly react to that way uh a hundred thousand dollars is certainly a uh a sweet pot and um it does have it does it is slightly conservative given the uncertainty in the land in the area um I would say that we wouldn't get uh if all goes well we wouldn't get close to that number but you never know staff all those in favor move the motion no one's in favor okay all those opposed motions not carried move C.

We move received the items A and C.

So we we'd move A, B, and C and then pull those out.

So we're all we've done all the rest.

Yes.

So we're on correspondence items for action number.

Oh just the late item for action, UBCM and staff has had a recommendation for us on that one.

Yeah, and I would move um uh AVSEC is recommended recommended amended um resolution.

It makes sense.

Do we have a seconder?

Allison uh yeah, um staff, uh I really appreciate uh ABACC's uh helping us out here and and uh strengthening the the resolution for consideration uh at the conference.

Um I think their points are well taken.

Um and uh I um hope we can support it and and then uh succeed on the resolution.

Awesome.

So I I I think the majority of their changes were very good.

I think though the line that um I'll paraphrase here, RCMP funding framework that gradually increases the cost share rate for local governments and then the um cutoffs, I think it can be interpreted differently than what the intention was.

Um it kind of the way it's written, it sounds like we are actually asking for the cost share rate to be increased.

It could be interpreted that way.

Whereas I think there that's not the intention of the resolution.

If if I may chime in.

Sure.

Thanks.

Yeah, Alice, that's a that's a good point.

Um I I think also though that um the uh AVSCC staff are helping us to word this so we can get it passed.

I think they're they're um it may be um more vague and in some senses not as what we just specifically what we'd wanted, but it still achieves the um um the uh whole aspect of reviewing uh the um the framework and uh getting some increases uh and getting increases and doing so um immediately prior to the uh 2026 consensus.

Just following up what John says, I mean it they've done enough of these over the years that they know what sort of rings true with uh the counselors there.

And and they aren't trying to hurt us by making these amendments.

Any other comments?

All those in favor of the motion as all in favor against carried's great.

Uh we have uh an item of information.

Mr.

Farnsworth, I'll second.

Sure, I'll second the sure.

Um is Director Christensen in still in the building?

Hi.

Um, do you have um any estimate on that this this would be from tax dollars, not from grant funding, am I right?

Or um casino funding?

Uh just clarify that.

Sorry, sorry.

You're you're muted.

I'm sorry.

I clicked the button and thought I was unmuted.

Um sorry, to clarify, you're talking about the e-com dispatch.

Yes.

Yes, that is uh that is scheduled uh to come out of taxation money as as there really isn't another source of income for that.

Right.

And and so what kind of dollars and ergo, what kind of um tax um impact would that have?

Just give me a second here.

So currently, just making sure, uh, currently um in the budget that was presented here uh a week or so ago, the e-com dispatch costs are to start in 2025 at about uh 230,000 and they go incrementally up from there uh uh in just adjusted by inflation, I believe.

I don't um I don't have a source document for where that number came from, but it it certainly came from a quote um at a certain point in time that I'm sure that we could provide for you if that was needed.

Thank you.

So and just starting out, that would mean a two plus percent um tax hit.

All right, I think this is shameful.

Thank you, Don.

Yes.

So we have a motion to receive the letter, unless somebody wants to make a motion after that to say nasty things to Mr.

Farnsworth.

But all those in favor of receiving the carried.

I was just uh so that brings us to question period.

Does anybody in the audience have any questions?

Good leave.

Give me your your name, Donna, and factor you live on View Royal.

Donna Brewing, View Royal Avenue.

I noticed at 167 Island Highway where the Grand Infer is projected to be built, there's three uh large mesh fences around three trees, which I'm assuming that means they're to be protected.

But there is also a very large, healthy-looking hedge that is not fenced off, and I'm wondering if this hedge can also be protected, or is it not is it fair game for the bulldozer?

I think the plan is to clear cut the whole lot, but I'll just ask staff for clarification.

I I did look at some of the aerial views that they have on their advertising for the sale of some of the properties, and it doesn't look like there's much of anything there.

I don't see why they couldn't keep it.

So staff answer.

Yeah, acting acting mayor, that hedge is going to be removed.

Uh some of those hedges are actually they actually qualify as a protected tree, so we will be getting two to one replacements for a good chunk of that hedge.

But just for clarification, that's a hedge along the front and hedge along the side between the four-mile pub are all gone.

Uh the hedge along the side, I believe, is also going to be removed, but also replaced with uh trees uh after construction's done.

Okay.

Um can I ask another question?

Yes, you may.

Um during wildfire season, um, members of our department are often called to help out in the interior.

And I'm wondering who how where does that money go?

They must be the town must be reimbursed in some way, and I understand that the people who go must get paid, but then there must be some compensation for the equipment.

Um where does that money go?

Does it go towards replacing equipment?

Your two minutes is up, Donna.

We don't have to the staff could answer Donna's question.

Certainly, I if I may jump in, uh Acting Mayor Matson.

Uh certainly I can confirm that if there is any surplus funds provided by um emergency management BC um for when View Royal personnel and equipment is used to fight wildfire, we do contribute that.

We calculate it very carefully and keep track of everything so that we can contribute the difference if there is a surplus at all, and typically there is a little bit.

I'm sorry, the fire equipment reserve to be used to replace uh equipment in the future.

Okay, thank you, Steph.

I think that's it for questions inside.

Oh, here we go.

Thank you.

Claire McDougall, View Royal Avenue.

Um for the benefit of people at home, are you aware that people were not able to view from home this evening?

Um, I think some phoned in eventually.

One phoned in for sure that I know of, but like they couldn't watch in any way on the on the um video thank you okay well council council wasn't aware do we have any questions from uh any phone in questions acting mayor matts we have one caller last four digits nine nine one five so with the caller nine nine one five tell them the dear oh yeah start six.

Yeah.

So I did I thought I did.

Caller with nine one one five.

Nine nine one five.

Star Six.

Well we star six to unmute yourself.

Are you are you there?

Nine nine one five.

Oh, okay.

So here in staff.

All right.

I did wish to clarify that there are attendees online, and there uh is information on our website about people clearing their caches, and it does make it easier to to access the meeting online.

So that could be perhaps part of the issue people are issues people are experiencing if they're trying to access it online.

So I think that's it.

So a motion to adjourn.

And oh wait, we have an in-camera.

Yeah.

Motion to move and uh closed meeting.

Oh wait, we gotta read this out.

Oh Sarah's gonna read it.

Good.

Yes, thank you.

I will do that.

There is a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of council, officers and employees of the town, and those identified under section 91 subsection two of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 90 subsection 1e land and K municipal service.