Council Meeting

Good evening for Tuesday, April 16th, 2024.

Uh for the Town of View Royal Council meeting.

I'll call the meeting to order.

And uh before we begin, I'll start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Laquangan speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public who telephone in during the public participation and question portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227 and when prompted, enter conference IDs 715-398-972.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute yourself until you're asked.

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

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback, and ask you not to use your speaker phone.

I will then ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

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

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.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda, please?

So moved.

Councillor McKenzie, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Minutes and adoption of minutes from our last council meeting.

Can I get to approve?

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

That carries.

Just a few quick remarks.

A reminder that Earth Day is April 20th.

And if you check the town's website, that there are activities going on in the morning in Welland Orchard Park.

That I have the honor on Thursday of a ground blessing ceremony in Esquimalt for a new road expansion and house center, and have an opportunity to meet with the mayor of Saanich on Thursday.

That we're not going to be talking about housing, but the potential of planting trees in parks and along potentially the highway.

And I will get back to counsel on any outcomes of that, as he will have to go to his council too, because that's the way it works.

No petitions and delegations.

That brings us to our first public participation period.

That was quick.

Is there anybody that would like to address counsel on anything?

In the room.

Carl, to you on the phone.

Once, twice, three times.

Mayor Tobias, we've had no callers so far this evening.

Thanks, Carol.

I don't think we have any business arising from previous minutes.

Oh, we do from uh staff reports.

And I think the first one up, Ivan, is with you in Ireland Highway and the Helmkin Road Transit Corridor Classification.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan Leo, Director of Engineering, speaking to you about the Island Highway, Helmkin Road Transit Corridor Classification.

I wish I could bring this report in a little later.

Uh over BC Transit.

As part of our strategic update.

They need an answer for us from us about this fairly soon.

So they can get bring it to the board approval of the VRTC.

Just a little bit of a preamble here.

The idea is that BC Transit wants to confirm whether or not to keep these corridors on highway and Helmkin Road as a frequent transit route.

Long story short, regardless of the option that we take right now, the level of service will not change.

And that's quite simply because there's too much traffic, too much congestion, and there's no way that buses can provide the 15-minute transit that a frequent uh transit route would uh ask them to do.

Um, however, in terms of long-term planning, it is considered, you know, in the eyes of um planning and engineering as a strategic approach to providing um uh or satisfying a lot of the town's initiatives and strategic planning.

So OCP strategic plan, active transition network plan all speaks to keeping this route.

Um from a transportation perspective, we have the rapid bus blink line nearby that could cause trickle down effect of increased transit island highway in Helmkin.

Um, the mobility hub that uh the ministry may present to us in the near future, that also adds an element of active travel.

And then from a planning perspective, and this comes from the notes that uh director uh Taylor has told me, um, it all befits within the OCP in terms of uh envisioning higher density and fill residential development around the island highway area, um, keeping it as a frequent transit corridor is vital for long-range planning, which is consistent with the OCP.

That said, we understand that council has a challenge before them with respect to housing, and there is a an impact should 15-minute uh travel be you know feasible in the near future.

BC Transit has stated that uh the trigger point for them to improve transit along that corridor would be if a town center was uh was uh implemented in the town, such as the the rebuilding of the Fort Victoria area.

So a big, big development.

Um so we don't expect change in that sense.

So from in the eyes of staff here, the recommendation before you is to maintain this frequent uh frequent transit route as is without downgrading to a residential, um, knowing that uh it cannot be feasibly done right now.

But in the future, we want to make sure that uh that the town is identified as frequent route because it's a lot easier.

It's a lot easier for to be downgraded to a residential than to be upgraded to uh to a uh frequent.

And so we're trying to take the a strategic approach to this.

That said, uh the report here is before you.

Uh happy to take any questions about this.

Thank you.

Uh starting with questions and not comments.

Uh Councilor Rogers, please.

Yeah, yes, thank you.

And I I uh thanks for the report and uh hit the high points.

And um uh certainly um I I agree that uh with the the level of congestion that's that's happening and and likely to even increase with um the likes of the light at Prince Robert or you know, something at Shoreline, uh, that would definitely impact that frequency of service.

It was interesting, uh and of course we obviously want to work to um have a new transportation master plan.

Um I guess um one of the questions I had is do we we certainly know the definition of frequent service from uh the ministry.

Does transit has transit provided you a definition of what they consider frequent?

Uh yeah, thank you.

Um Mayor Tobias, that's a very good question because frequent uh frequent travel route versus frequent transit for the ministry that they are very similar wording.

Um what BC Transit is doing is trying to align with the provincial.

Uh so in terms of what's the um the BC Transit saying is frequent is 15 minutes on average, which is in line with provincial.

Yeah, thank you for that.

Um did transit provide you a an overall regional map of uh the corridor strategies uh because again, my question would be uh it's one thing to identify Helmaken, but bang, suddenly it's not Wilkinson and Sandage.

And so does uh do those two transportation frequent corridors match?

Uh yeah, thank you through the mayor.

So uh the BC Transit has undergone the same exercise with many municipalities in the area.

My understanding is that uh BC Transit reached out to the district of Sanich with respect to Wilkinson Road and um I believe they mentioned that it was uh brought to a residential not a frequent transit route okay so I'll make that editorial comment later what I also um note um uh reading from the the transportation transit uh initiatives that they have McKenzie corridor study and that they were working with Santa's to have a uh rapid uh bus schedule um at the end of 2023.

Um so I I think this might be a really good opportunity, and and uh uh I'd like your opinion.

Um if we have a McKenzie uh transit rapid transit corridor or rapid um frequent bus service, wouldn't we want to then take an opportunity to also encourage transit to include admirals?

Because again, I'm thinking of the number 40 bus and um which it would benefit three municipalities and two First Nations.

So is it a good timing to uh ask uh transit to include admirals with the McKenzie stretch?

Um staff can certainly take direction from council on that.

Not exactly in in line with uh what's on the floor right now, but that's it.

I do know that Route 40 and the push for Route 40 is on the draft strategic plan.

So should council wish for uh staff to pursue that even further.

Um we can certainly take uh direction from council on that.

Thank you.

Uh uh related question, and this might uh pull in planning as well, um, because this is around frequent transit and our current um exercise of uh rezoning.

Um just wondering if we've got anybody from planning that could talk to the fact is this um this will have no impact on their current work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, staff, but I believe it does not for the current work.

Yeah, it's not triggered as part of any work that's in line right now.

Okay, so really there they're there this is a um a a wishful frequent transit classification, not saying that they're able to meet it within the 50.

Uh Mayor Tobias, that's exactly it.

So they've acknowledged that they cannot meet it.

It would take a significant amount of development to meet it.

Um should in the event it does get met, then the provincial bill does get triggered in terms of the the bubble around that.

That said, uh uh Director Taylor and I have had some some good conversations about this in terms of the the main corridor of frontages along Island Highway are are going to see densification anyways.

Um there may be some outer elements uh beyond that might also be uh included as part of that, but like like we mentioned, there's uh very little chance that that's going to happen in the short term.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah I didn't have my hand up there.

Go ahead Ron.

Yeah I was kind of wondering what potential negative consequences there would be if any at all if we just removed it removed the designations.

Because it sounds what I thought I heard staff say was the province could potentially do something by it might remove some uh council's abilities to determine what's going to be on those thoroughfares if uh we have this designation.

Thank you, Council Matson.

So uh through the mayor, um there is no real uh change in the short term.

Uh what planning and engineering are looking at is what impacts does this designation do in terms of the long-range planning, and so by downgrading to a residential transit route, it may be difficult to upgrade that in the future.

And which would mean that investments to transit uh as part of the midterm, short term may be moved to other regions in Greater Victoria but that's your question councilor matsen not not really i'm just thinking that you know if we do increase if there's increase in development why why would it delay uh or make it more difficult to to sort of raise that up to you know when it was actually necessary to have a a quick bus route anyways i'm I'm just leery about uh putting in leaving things in place which could potentially remove the ability of council to make decisions in the future.

I think um to bias, what uh councilor matsen is referring to is um should 15 minutes be feasible here that that impacts council's abilities to uh provide input on development as a response to the bills and this is the reason why we're here before you with respect to um this agenda item is because uh even though all boxes are checked in terms of all the strategic uh planning plans initiatives that that staff have um housing is important to council and it is an item that uh we certainly don't have uh direction on just yet.

It's in progress.

So that's the reason why it's here before you.

Thank you, Ivan, for that.

Can I ask another related question?

How long have have we designated this um a as a um high frequency or frequent so uh it's a very good question, is uh I don't have that answer for you, but I don't think it's changed for a while.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Um so my I did have the concern, the same as uh Councillor Mattson, around uh whether this would have any impact on the housing legislation, but as you've confirmed, um the regular 15-minute service can't be achieved in this area at this time and probably not in the near future.

Um, so I'm in agreement with staff's recommendation that it is best to keep it as the frequent transit route designation, um, at least until our OCP is updated.

And I the reason I think this is because we should retain the priority and the consideration uh while BC Transit is developing their strategy so that we can have some routes that connect to the blink that they consider the service within uh View Royal so that it's ease of connections.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I think you were moving.

I think that's a way what that was.

Uh do uh before we we go further in discussion?

Uh do we have a seconder for uh councillor uh McKenzie moved option one.

Do we have a seconder?

A second with an amendment.

Uh second with an amendment, and that would be um I would um yeah, I further all the points that and I'd I'll speak further to um um uh the the first part, but if we could um also add um and and further that um um we encourage uh Victoria Transit to amend the McKenzie uh um frequent transit corridor to become the McKenzie Admiral's corridor.

At this moment they're only um uh addressing Saniches aspects, and we want it to be a regional uh tra frequent corridor within the number 40.

So that's uh this won't be coming our way for quite a while.

So I think there's no harm in in putting that forward as a continued message.

So that that, Councilor McKenzie, we'd have to take as a friendly amendment.

You'd have to accept that, or we would have to find another second or and vote on that.

I'd like to hear from staff whether that's actually uh a feasible thing to do.

Thank you, Councilor McKenzie.

Uh Mayor Tobias.

Um BC Transit came last, I think it was a a month or two ago, they provided an update on a myriad of um of uh initiatives that they're working on that's going to inform on their strategy.

And one of them was actually that stating that uh the discussion on Route 40 was going to be brought to the board for uh discussion.

Uh I haven't heard anything since then.

Um, but that said, uh staff are and continue to uh note to the BC Transit uh the need to uh push for Route 40 um per council's um per council's direction to staff.

So to do this friendly amendment, it it won't change uh staff's process.

Um it does uh in in writing, you know, state the need to keep pushing.

And then Councillor McKenzie, with respect to Councillor McKenzie's motion, it's they're kind of two different elements.

Um it's almost like you have two different potions, but I mean, I don't have any issue with it at all.

Okay, I I'm happy to accept the amendment.

Oh my gosh, separate amendment uh motion later.

So we won't have it as an amendment, we'll make it a separate motion.

Pardon me.

Well she just said she'd agree.

Pardon me?

She said she agreed.

Did you agree?

Yeah, so uh um so thank you.

So it no sense arguing with agreement.

Um uh Councillor McKenzie, would you like to motivate?

Yeah, I think I I mean we really want to encourage people uh to be taking transit and for that to be as easy as possible.

So I think making sure that BC Transit considers View royal and makes that possible, I think um it it's only to our benefit, really.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes um uh for the same reasons and I think the um um uh council matchon raised an interesting point does it uh have any any uh if we were to go to residential would that have be any problems and yes it would be um the neighborhoods and residents are you know really still quite annoyed that the number 46 is has terrible service it's every 30 minutes and doesn't do Friday Saturday Sunday and so it really is an irresponsible service as far as the public's concerned it's great for those that are um going from uh Coldwood to the base, but it doesn't do anything for service of Uroyal.

So by keeping it as a frequent status and and as we do see um um additional developments, um, I think that uh is an important service to uh continues to provide and support.

What I also note in in the staff's report is um I don't think we're gonna get too frequent service until we have additional vehicle lanes on Island Highway, which was a really interesting point.

Uh shades of four-lane four-laning.

Um so whatever those prospects may be, but that may be we're leaning a little bit outside the box here, Councillor Rogers.

Let's reel it in a bit.

I'm just saying that it's gonna be a long time before we we really do see a 15-minute service where the the uh uh the ministry would apply their new bills, which means we do we'd see uh you know all the complexes for 400 meters on either side.

So I'm I don't think uh staff saying I don't think we need to worry about that at this point.

So I'm happy with the uh recommendation yeah thank you any other comments uh counselor lemon then councillor mattson after counselor lemon sorry but um i you know i think when this was when when it was uh established as a frequent transit um route bc transit and council of the day were looking forward and i think to do anything but maintain it would be to go backwards thank you, Councillor lemon uh counselor Matson, please.

Yeah, just i mean my my main my main issue is um staff would advise that it, you know, should BC transit decide to, yeah, this is the should be a 15-minute corridor, then we're gonna lose some of our ability to establish uh, you know, what level of development.

And as Counselor Rogers said, if they expand that to that 400 meter, you know, uh there's just things I don't know what the potential negative impact could be, and I'm concerned enough that I certainly can't support this.

Um it since there's no problem with us downgrading it at this point in time, and for you know the foreseeable future, or as Councilor Rogers said, it would probably never get to the point where this would happen because you'd have to forlean it.

Why would we not, why would we take a risk that either this government or future government could do something which we could even lose more of our ability to dictate what our community looks like?

So I I can't support.

Thank you, Councillor Mattson.

Uh Ivan, uh the good question for you, and I know we we've all commented on this, but there doesn't seem to be congruency between um transit's definition of frequent because they're admitting they can't meet the 15-minute schedule, and noting having taken the bus downtown every day for many years, um, that your posted or your scheduled departure times seem to fall drastically apart uh during rush hour particularly due to the capacity you can't get on the bus because the first three are full that are going by you so we've got transit's definition and then we've got housing's definition and they don't am I wrong here they don't seem to be quite aligned to give you an exact answer to that um I don't know for sure.

I do know that they're aligning closer and closer as it each day.

What I do know is that um by keeping this designation, it allows us to plan for the future and allows uh and it encourages uh year over year for residents to continue to try to take transit.

Um by reverting to a residential, uh it can be an uphill battle in the future to try to get frequent transit.

But also outlined in the report uh with the residential transit there are corridors in the region that while it doesn't have 15 minutes may have half an hour or so that does seem to meet the needs.

Uh Island Highway is a corridor that uh has the benefit of in the OCP a lot of development potential for a density, uh likely um there'd be there might be parking variances as a result to try to foster additional transit.

Uh so the short-term changes is none, the long-term changes can be potential.

Thank you, Ivan.

I'm I completely um heard Councillor Mattson's comments have similar concerns, but I'm gonna support uh the motion mainly because I think anything else would be a step backward.

Um so I think with that we're done comments.

Um all those in favor of option number one with the amendment of 44 McKenzie Admirals.

All those in favor.

All those opposed.

And noting councillor Mattson's opposed.

Um thank you, Council.

Thank you, Ivan.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I think next up is Sarah with the staff presentation for the strategic plan.

We saw this not that long ago, actually, in March at the committee of the whole meeting.

And so this is back before you because the document went out after it received comments it at that March meeting, went out for the public consultation period, and is back before you uh tonight for approval of the 2023 to 2026 strategic plan.

And before you, I have put together three options that were in the report and before you on the screen.

And we'll talk about these again closer to the end.

But in summary, one is that we approve it as is and consider the feedback provided at our check-in early in 2025 that we just simply approve as is.

And the third option being that we table it, have a further session to discuss the feedback received in the next month or two, and then we will be able to consider that feedback in more depth and decide where we go from here.

So just an overview, and that is where we've been.

Workshops right after the election in October 2022.

There was one workshop at that point.

There was a desire expressed for a high-level plan with a short to do list.

And I looked at at the plan the other day and I thought, well, there's 23 goals, not bad for short to do list, and 61 work plan items.

I thought, well, I don't know about that.

That's kind of a long to do list, but we'll we'll see how we do.

And uh but that decision was based on about 85 to 90 percent of staff time already being dedicated to day-to-day core work that happens.

The next session took place in March 23, discussion and review of the mission, vision, values, uh, and resourcing of the plan.

And the group decided that four of the six priority areas would be tweaked and some more discussion about that.

In May, we remet, refined the goals.

We talked further about what elected officials perhaps identified areas of interest would be to consider during this term what you wanted to achieve.

And so what else did you want to add to the plan?

So that conversation happened.

And a final check in in January of this year, talking about measuring, how are we going to resource measuring and celebrating our priorities and progress, setting priorities and community satisfaction with how council may be doing on things.

It was approved, as I said, in principle at the committee of the whole meeting, and a decision to put it out for public comment.

No comments from the public have been received.

We did receive comments from two council members.

One is attachment B provided, and the other is more cloaked from a council member Damian Kualowicz, and it's contained in an item he's put forward.

His comment was let's weave it into future strategic plans, the DEI aspect or diversity, equity, and inclusion.

And so that was kind of not a direct feedback, but an indirect feedback provided.

So I thought, well, that's feedback nonetheless, and we would include that as his comment.

So two two council members provided feedback to the plan.

So the six strategic priorities are listed for you on the screen and in the report.

And the report has been provided as attachment A for the public if they're looking at the document later or at home.

So of the 23 goals they follow under these six strategic priority areas.

And we did take the we heated, we heeded the words of wisdom provided at the March meeting, and that is please make it more readable.

Add photos, take away the table format, and I take my hat off to the executive assistant who really spent time with this document.

It looks fantastic, and it's so much more readable and understandable, still containing many of the elements that were there.

And we will be able to talk more about these as we see our regular quarterly updates, anyhow.

So you will see this again, and you will be getting the status updates that you would normally get, but they'll be coming to you in a much better-looking format than we've had in the past with the photos, table contents added, and uh, and as I said, it is a living document.

Um, one thing that has been removed are the uh targets and measures, and we talked about that at many of, well, I think all of the workshop sessions, and we talked about the fact that of the 23 um goals and the and the 61 work plan items, there were only 18 flagged.

They were only flagged and not really discussed to any great extent by elected officials.

Um, but it's a matter of resourcing and and how do we resource those?

Do we resource those?

We aren't resourcing those currently.

And so if we aren't, do we do we include them as this point, or we do simply focus on achieving the work plan items?

And so at this point they have been uh removed, and um, and maybe that is something we do need to do further work on in the future, but at this point they aren't in there.

Um so we we have before you the uh strategic priority A.

And again, it harkens back to the community survey that was done.

And we did also talk about in the future do we want to check back in with our public against that benchmark survey?

And this uh you'll see echoes of the what we heard from our citizens, and uh so on each of the strategic priorities, there is the comments that we did here in that survey work.

And the goals are based then on what we did here.

Enhancing livability, sustain sustainable development, and then the different goals associated with it.

Each of the priorities are listed in the document.

Climate action and environmental stewardship, financial sustainability sustainability and service excellence, community engagement and good governance, and again the goals on the right, health, safety, and security, and the goals again that will be different for each.

And so what you have before you is the recommendation.

And that is, I think it is important to get this document out and have it out on our website.

It's a year and a half post election, and get this document into the hands of our community in an adopted format.

And that we do provide the quarterly updates on where we're going with our goals and our work plan items, and that what we should be working towards is checking in and doing a more fulsome and early 2025 review of the feedback provided because many of the comments were additional items.

And I think it is a great time to take off items that we've achieved at that point, a year, a year into the plan, and say, okay, well, what do we want to add based on feedback received?

And there's going to be more feedback received from either members of the public or the full council at that point.

And I will turn it back to you.

Thank you.

I've got a question in advance of my colleagues' questions, and that is if I'm understanding the process correctly, we've got a strategic plan.

We budget around the goals in the strategic plan with a work plan that comes up.

Do we have an operational plan?

Based on the strategic plan, each department does have its own work plan.

And um I would consider that what we do operationally to be the plan.

But each department works on their own and and many of those projects, I think, uh interact w interdepartmentally as well.

For example, the asset management project includes more than one department, and so many of the plans cover more than one.

Okay, and it was almost a a separate document that would take you for a shorter period of time.

Uh and probably um, Scott, it would be your plan, I would think, uh in in discussion with the work plans and those approvals.

But uh, I was just looking for a touch point like to be able to hear back from uh Dawn potentially when it comes down to budget, like we're not going to meet your strategic objectives because you haven't approved the resourcing for these things of the project plans that we put together.

Kind of that constant loop as a reminder to council that this was on your strategic plan.

It might go unfunded, but uh you know, you can't expect it to be achieved without the resources there.

But Scott, go ahead, please.

Yeah, uh the one missing link here is the annual report.

Um the annual report reflects back on what we've accomplished in the previous year, what we plan on doing this year, and what we plan on doing next year.

So I like to sort of combine the budget, the strategic plan, and the annual report, and that paints a picture of uh what has happened, what is happening, and what is going to happen.

Whether it's a resource or not, I think that's up to staff to come and point out.

If it's a priority, it needs to be resourced.

This might be challenging to do this task without without funding or without staffing, but uh we can we can check in through the annual report.

I I prefer to use that document and keep it robust.

And that comes back every year.

Um, it reflects on the annual report uh and it also contains uh last year's financial statements.

So uh once this strategic plan has been adopted, we will turn our attention to the annual report.

Thanks, Scott.

That was a great explanation.

Uh questions for um council.

We've got a mover and a sector to move uh adoption for the strategic plan.

Um counselor Mackenzie and then Counselor Rogers, and I keep on looking at you, Counselor Matson, uh after that.

Thank you.

Um well first I yeah, I want to thank the staff for the updates.

I think it looks great.

And I know um some people might have thought that this wasn't necessary to you know add photos and things like that, but I think it really does uh produce a product that we're proud of and that we're uh excited to show people and that people will be engaged to read.

So uh I think that's that's been achieved.

So thanks again.

With regards to the feedback, I'm I am disappointed that we didn't get any public uh input on it.

And I think if we had, then I would have gone for like option three to prioritize incorporating that.

But seeing as uh the feedback from Councillor Kolowich and uh Counselor Rogers uh has already, well, not already been considered, but they were part of developing the strategic plan.

And this plan is intended to be a living document.

So for that reason, I am in support of uh you know making those changes changes come our annual review.

Thank you.

Councillor Rogers.

That's great.

Yeah, thank you.

Um first off, I I really like the new format.

Um I it is uh a lot more uh presentable and and uh readable and I think um uh the residents will appreciate it.

The um um I'm a little concerned that um we'd suggest that we do the check-in and late winter spring 2025.

I hope that we could uh you know just make it late late.

Um and and the reason I'm concerned about is that then um there are things if we don't have in the strategic plan, um I worry that it won't then become incorporated in a capital plan.

Because it was the the old argument that if it's not in the strategic plan, that's it.

We're not gonna talk about it, we're not gonna do it.

And uh hopefully we don't have that philosophy.

And and maybe I I take hope that the annual report will be picking up what uh what we've done and what we plan to do.

Maybe that would be um uh some um comfort for me.

The the the point is that uh we've been making all sorts of um you know supported motions of this council that aren't in the plan.

So um one of which is to um um you know upgrade Atkins.

That's on that's in the plan.

It's not mentioned here.

It's we haven't mentioned in the plan about building sidewalks.

Um all we've got is the um uh the youth um uh safe routes to school, but that's the school.

That's not routes to shopping, routes to work.

Um, so it's very limited in in that regard.

Um I I guess I'm also concerned that you know we've we've um wanted to reduce the speed limits in our neighborhoods.

That's not in there.

So uh likewise working with uh First Nations and and um uh other groups, our near our municipal neighbors, um, to um have um get to admirals with um sidewalks and bike lanes that uh do go north and south along with the number 40 bus, that's not in there we just are you recommending that we um change the um annual check-in because to to take the strategic plan apart right now is this is not the place to do it.

No no I'm seeing how we've already had agreement on that.

But would you are you suggesting that that check-in occur in the fall as opposed to winter and spring so it does make it on the next fiscal cycle?

Yes.

Okay.

So um and and you know for those points I mean we've made some uh uh you know excellent suggestions and and I think they're um the active transportation ones are wonderful like Atkins.

What a huge achievement.

So yes, if we could do this in the fall and actually make a note of of how we've been uh meeting our our our strategies with concrete action, I think that uh the public would be um um most appreciative.

So yes, late fall would be an excellent time for a check-in.

Council McKenzie, I know you spoke in favor of the um the recommendation.

Would you be amenable to having the check-in in the fall as opposed to spring and winter?

I think that we have quite a bit already on our strategic plan, and it's unlikely that we are to get through all of that in addition to uh what councillor Rogers is proposing.

So for that reason, I think it is fine.

Uh I would prefer to to wait till uh winter spring because it'll next thing you know it'll be here.

Okay, thank you.

Um counselor Lemmon.

Yeah, I just I just forget about me again.

Uh no, we're just gonna have a little bit of a recess.

Uh can I get a motion for recess, please?

Moved recess.

Uh moved and seconded by counselor Lemon and I'll second.

Uh Councilor Mattson, go ahead.

Counselor Lemon was sorry, Councilor Lemon, and then Councilor Mattson.

Um I and I just want to echo my gratitude to um staff, in particular to that particular executive assistant for it.

And uh what a difference.

And probably the first ever that's been friendly, bright, and accessible.

So thank you very much.

Counselor Matson.

Yeah, I I always thought that a lot of the times our strategic plans included way too much, and they too many objectives, all these things listed, and it was way too much for a strategic plan.

So I like I like what we've done here.

Uh Counselor Rogers made some good points in terms of items that are important to us, but there's many items that are important that don't get put into a strategic plan, but they're they're on our list.

Uh the example Atkins was put into our budget, five-year budget plan.

So all of these things are still included.

It's just not necessary to try to put everything we're planning to do in a strategic plan.

So I like the format, the approach, it's easy to read.

And and a lot of these things are basically the strategic plan is supposed to help inform the public and what we're doing and planning for the future.

And this does a really good job of that.

And it's easy to read, easy to understand.

And so uh kudos to staff.

I really appreciate the work they've done.

So thank you.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Mattson.

Any other comments?

Other comments.

So Councillor Rogers, I think we've discussed it.

Everybody seems to be in favor of moving um staff's recommendation, and that's been, I think, moved and seconded uh now.

Uh no, uh still with the winter spring because uh I think the just in summary, I think the the the there's a lot on it already.

We've made some gains in accessibility and we can always add to it uh on the next one, and that there's probably enough on on this plate right now.

Um so we're both ready to call the vote.

Uh so all those in favors of moving um the strategic plan as uh recommended by staff.

Um all those opposed.

And noting councillor Rogers is opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, sir.

And I think this brings us down to the committee of the whole uh that we've already discussed, and there were recommendations from the committee of the whole, and we've got uh A1, which is that the committee recommend to council that the 2024 to 2028 financial plan be approved in principle uh as amended, and that the 2024 2028 financial plan bylaw be prepared for consideration at the April 16th council meeting.

So move the triple.

Moved by Councillor Matson, seconded by Councilor Lemon.

All those in favor?

You're opposed?

Okay.

And Councilor Rogers is opposed.

And uh 2024 tax options that the committee recommend to council that a tax rates by law be prepared for 2024 to implement general municipal tax rates with no change to the property tax class ratios from the prior year except for the recreation/slash nonprofit class eight, which is set to uh at 6.5, and utilities class two, which is capped at a rate of forty dollars, uh, as was scenario D presented by Don.

Staff recommendation.

Seconded.

Got a mover and a seconder questions discussion.

Um we went over this forever.

Once in months, yeah.

I'm with you.

Um, so we got a mover and a seconder.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

I think that's everything you needed, Don, for those that uh part one and two.

Uh other reports or minutes of the standing committee on housing uh that was held on March 15th and uh the one held on April 5th.

Move receipt.

Got a move for receipts, seconded by Councillor Brown.

Uh questions?

Yeah, sure.

So I'm going to be uh voting against receiving these minutes for two reasons.

The first is that I continue to have concerns with the lack of diversity on in the selection of this group, and I cannot for that reason um accept these discussions as being representative of the town.

And my concerns were validated when I saw in in the minutes suggestions of exemptions for the neighborhood where two-thirds of the committee live.

Interestingly, this was the only neighborhood mentioned in the minutes, both minutes.

Secondly, I also believe that these first two meetings unfortunately didn't have the expected level of effort made to make the meetings open to the public so that others could have input as well.

Even I, as a member of council, was not aware of when or how to join this conversation.

Although I believe that this will be rectified going forward, and I do encourage anyone listening tonight to join the next meeting, which is this Friday at 3 p.m.

And you can join either in person, in the council chambers or watch it live online.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Just a question for staff.

Are committee meetings normal advisory committee meetings where they telecast?

Anyone could have uh listened in to those.

This new platform is one whereby people can register to listen andor watch.

That is a new platform that we're using through the team's um system that we didn't use for the advisory committees.

That was more of a call in.

Um and this is a little bit easier because then people aren't providing us with their information and we're not um they they don't have to call they can just simply see the link register themselves so it's a little more self-service thank you and could they attend previous committee meetings in person until the pandemic yes thank you uh thank you counselor um McKenzie for that any other comments yeah just I don't know if it's worthwhile but I'm somewhat offended by my colleagues comments I you know sort of suggestion we're trying to hide things, we're trying to slip things through the cracks.

Um there was and no, I I'm not gonna comment.

I just I'm just offended.

Thank you.

Council Rogers.

Thank you.

You know, one of the uh the the things that we've been really able to see is uh regional information.

Um so um we've been getting I think really good context of um to see with mapping uh the the properties that are involved in in the various scenarios um uh examples of of how different neighborhoods um are able to cope or not able to cope with um uh what the province is is expecting of us.

I think the the clear message is that um and and you know the resonating factor in with all this is we're not Victoria will not obey we don't have sidewalks everywhere and we don't have the infrastructure like they do and uh so we're we're trying to reconcile um the one size fits all approach that the province is is taking uh upon us and and um uh trying to appreciate um both the exemptions and the uh um and the extensions the exemptions are um um hopefully we'll see that um next tuesday but um view well is profoundly impacted by tsunami impacts profoundly impacted by sea level rise, and um which is um you know uh we could consider the municipality our size and how much land that that that's impacted.

Uh so we're we are I think um um both staff and individuals are trying to represent as much as possible the overall issues and concerns for with the neighborhood.

I look forward to um hearing from you more and and making sure that that's gonna be the case.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions?

Uh I think there do we have a mover and second or to receive.

Uh all those in favor receipt.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries to receive that.

Oh, sorry, uh Council McKenzie was opposed.

Um, and I think we've got correspondence is our next one.

And for action, it was a uh letter dated uh or a letter from the Minister of Housing for notification of the town of U Royal Selection for Housing Targets Assessment.

Um just as a little bit of explanation, those meetings are scheduled over the time that we're our staff are going to be significantly busy with getting our bylaws ready for um the housing legislation that we've got.

So there's a series of meetings that already start.

I wrote back to the housing minister alerting him that it's kind of interfering with our ability to deliver on the expectations for the housing legislation, bylaw uh rewrites, uh, and asked for an extension of a month just to give staff a bit of a breather room.

Um, Scott, did you want to add anything?

I just wanted to add that I have uh given up to the province who our senior planning staff are.

Um, so they've been notified, but uh no no response back from the ministry yet.

Thank you.

Uh and I just want to note that um this is a lot of work, whether you agree with it, don't agree with it, or whatever.

Our staff are under a lot of pressure and a lot of timelines.

And this also probably would spill over on the uh standing committee that I called up as well.

If it was looked like it was hastily put together, it's because our timelines were were kind of dictated for us that we didn't have much of a say in.

Um so uh can I get a motion to or that is for action, or how do we want to word that because it was kind of already actioned, or is that explanation what you were recommending, sir?

Simply to receive is fine.

Okay.

We proceed.

Moved by councillor Lemon, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And uh we've got a number of letters here.

Uh does anybody want to pull one out or go through them one by one?

I would move A through D.

Moved a th through d for receipt i have a seconder seconded by councillor brown all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries and i think that brings us down to bylaws uh for the first second and third reading don did you want to introduce the bylaw prepared for your consideration is per the financial plan that have we have spent several months on uh for your consideration thank you questions i'll move comments first, second, and third.

Got a move her uh did you have a comment, Councilor rogers uh yes, I I'm Saturday I will vote against the uh the bylaw.

Um the um having the discussions and seeing the tables that uh staff had provided us um you know and in in reflection, um I do not think that um the uh tax increase um that we've had gone from the staff's recommendative of about 11% down to 6.6.

Um and looking at um the fact that we've not investing as much in the asset management strategy as uh staff had recommended, um looking and seeing how the casino revenues um are flatlining and that we didn't uh implement the um transition away from casino to uh to taxation, the 0.5%.

Um I think we've been putting it off for many, many, many years.

And um I think this is the year that we recognizing the flatlining that we should have done that.

Um also seeing uh the reserves that um uh that are under duress, um, particularly noting how in 2024, already in this year that um our revenues uh from buildings um um are far far less than um the previous five years, which uh worries me greatly.

And I and looking at um the comparisons of the um 13 municipalities, the average uh percent increase is 8.14 percent.

Um if we had um given the five percent or 0.5 uh to um help the casino and to put that to taxation like we did with library, if we had made a greater contribution to reserves um uh in consideration of the replacement gap of 250 million that we're facing, um then that would have put us about 7.6 percent.

That would have put us halfway um in in the pack.

So it's it's with regret, but um unfortunately I think we're going too low, and and I see this all the time in in strata buildings where people just constantly undermine their strata, do not put in reserves for the uh the construction and maintenance of those those buildings and we're doing the same thing with uh not planning to um address our aging infrastructure in in the long haul.

So with that I I think our amazingly our taxation tax rate is too low.

I would oppose.

Thank you Councillor Rogers Councilor Brown little bit of a little bit of concern about the future, but I certainly congratulate uh uh director Christensen and your staff on doing a good job putting this together.

Almost a miracle work it's it's almost like whack-a-mole.

You know, you you cut something, you're gonna add something here, you take something away.

But certainly my only concern, I I'm gonna vote for this, of course, but um I do have some concerns like Councillor Rogers has as well.

Um we we need to bring more revenue in.

We got s some big hits coming up, and uh personally I'd like to see some more commercial.

I know uh um uh other counselors are of the same mind.

And also uh sure when we first started there was a lot of holes in the ground, but once those holes in the grounds are filled, there's not really a lot coming online.

So um again, I'll be voting for it, but also with some reservations about the about the future.

Counselor Matson, please.

Yeah, I'm a little bit surprised what I'm hearing about about reservations.

We've had a lot of discussion for a number of months over this, and uh you know, I'm confident that if staff felt that there were issues that we somehow haven't taken into consideration, they would have let us know.

So um it's it's almost at this point it's anyways I I'm fully confident that in the work that staff has done uh they've taken certainly the the input from council and given us a budget that's six point seven percent we that we should be really proud of uh rather than sort of questioning the the veracity of uh of council's decisions and and certainly of the work of staff so I'm I'm certainly gonna I certainly support this and um give my you know full support for for staff and the work they've done and and uh thank them for the hard work that they they they've done and be able to do a great job in getting our taxes down to 6.7 percent I think when we first started talking about this uh end of last year we were talking about potentially 14 percent and uh and you know we've been they've been able to you know plus all the number of things that they've done in terms of we've done more work now in terms of planning for uh ac you know, replacement of uh of equipment and and things that and and anyways they've done a super job in terms of planning and yeah just we we all should be really proud of what we've been able to achieve rather than questioning the work we've done so I certainly support this.

Thank you, Councilor Manson.

Councillor Lemon please I I dreaded this this uh this budget season special especially with based on the information we had last year that we could be looking at 14% and uh I didn't know how we I I didn't know how we would handle that, how we'd show our faces.

Um so like Councillor Manson I'm I'm proud of the result.

Huge thanks to the wizard of of budgets that we have in Director Christensen.

And uh she, you know, I I don't think we're lacking anything.

We're we're you know it's gonna be business as usual.

We've made a couple of gains and uh I think we can be enormously proud of it.

So I support it.

Counselor McKenzie.

Yes I also feel that we considered the the budget uh thoroughly and the I'm confident because we actually started with the reserves we guided by staff we started with looking at what do we need to put into reserves based on our plans so um I don't have the a share of the concerns that uh counselor rogers does around saving for the future thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

I'm I'm in support of um I I think a good job.

We balanced it out.

I think as a group we uh weighed out over a long period of time.

Thank you, uh Director Christensen for guiding us through a very lengthy process.

Uh but we were able to deliberate some priorities.

And um uh I I think the real this this isn't about the future without humans, this is about the future with humans.

And humans, our residents right now are going through a real tough time with the affordability and inflation.

Um so I think uh we struck the right balance.

Um so I will uh definitely be supporting of it.

So we've council Rogers.

Yes, I do want to be clear that um uh my my comments and concerns are no reflection of staff.

I um I saw where we started from.

I understood that.

I felt that we deemed a double digit, but if we were going to get to eight, the average of what we had here, and we saw you see across the other municipalities.

But anyway, such as it is, we have an eight percent looking at us next year.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So uh all those in favor of a first, second, and third reading of bylaw one one three two.

Any opposed?

Rogers is opposed, so motion passed.

Scott, do I have to do each one separately or is it okay that we just did it that way?

All right, thank you.

Uh and that brings us down to diversity, inclusion, or equity or inclusion.

What I'd recommend, council, that we do with this is can we table this until our fellow counselor is back with us?

Can I get support for that?

Move to table second at all those in favor.

So uh I was wondering when we get this back to like, you know, I understand the words, and but there's a whole bunch of different, you know, depending on where the policy is coming from, it means totally different things to different people.

And so I really like some clarity on what this really means for View Royal.

Yeah, that's why I'd like uh uh Counselor Kwowicz uh to lead this discussion so he can he can best um you know guide us on what his intent was there.

Um so that passed to table and for our next council meeting, Sarah, if we could, uh, which I think is what table means anyway, unless we specify a date.

Uh and tree protection bylaw, Councillor McKenzie.

Yes, so this is um just notice that I will raise a motion in the in the future uh requesting staff provide clarity around the tree protection bylaw, and in particular around removal of trees on town property, uh initiated either by developers or um a resident, perhaps due to sight lines or damage to property um ivan thank you mayor toias um i can certainly provide some comment on that right now uh as to not wait for report um should the discussion creep a little bit more to something more then we I can certainly provide a port report but if counselor McKenzie would like to be entertained with uh with a response now I can certainly do so.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

So, with respect to um trees and boulevards uh what there's two types that Councilor McKenzie has asked for, then the difference between the two.

So, one's if a resident asks for it and one for developer uh asks for it.

If a developer asks for a removal of the boulevard tree, and I guess I'll I'll preface this by saying that we do everything in our power to make sure that trees are protected, and especially on the boulevards, that all protection measures are done, and only in the cases where the tree is dead, disease or dying, causes a hazard, cause safety issues when it gets removed.

So I'll put that well I'll say that outright first.

Uh, when it comes to developers, though, um, if their development is compels them to need to remove a tree, then uh they are responsible for the removal.

They are responsible for the replanting, and that is in accordance with um the servicing agreement or this the the servicing designs that they're supposed to provide to the to the town.

So for example, if a developer is to um install sidewalks or curbs or parking that will remove a tree, then uh the town would rec require them to remove it and to find another place to put that tree.

With a resident, um it depends.

So if a resident wants to have a boulevard tree removed, uh the staff would we have we have a arborist uh as a fee for service that can go and assess a tree.

If it is dead disease design dying or a hazard or safety issue, um, then it could be uh it could be stated for removal.

Um if the resident wishes to have it gone right away, then uh they can go through the process to have that um to pay for it to get removed.

Um however, most of the time residents they uh they usually wait for a staff to remove it.

And staff under they because we have a lot of priorities in their in the town, more trees that are more hazardous than others, it sometimes can be reprioritized and it may take time for that get removed.

So we offer the residents that choice.

Usually money is the is the big thing, and they say, No, we'll just we'll just wait for the town to do it.

Um in terms of the tree replacements, the boulevard, it it really depends.

If there's going to be gravel in air rock, bedrock, and area was not conducive to having trees replaced, um, then they would still uh we would we would plant that tree elsewhere in the neighborhood.

Um the tree uh the the cash and loo or the replacement, because it's a boulevard tree in that case, uh and it's more of operational in nature.

Um the the resident would not be required to pay for the two to one cash and loo.

The town tries to replace with two trees, anyways, just to meet the spirit of the bylaw.

So that in general, that's that is how we operationally deal with things, but there are a lot of other things that go into it.

Uh that's the reason why we have a fee for service arborist to tell us is this species good suitable.

Uh the bylaws explicitly states that um a the replacement tree should be the same species as the tree that was removed.

However, there are times when it is to director's discretion, director of engineering's discretion, because sometimes that tree may not be suitable for that area.

And so what uh staff look at are a few metrics such as, okay, well, the replacement tree is a similar species, does it provide a similar tree canopy, similar tree size?

We go through all those metrics to make sure that the tree that's going to be replaced at maturity should uh be the same-ish to a certain degree, same low degree, uh, same size and tree canopy as the as the existing tree.

Great.

Thank you so much.

That that did answer all my questions.

Um I appreciate it.

If you have any other further questions, uh happy to um take them.

You can email me at engineering at viewworld.ca.

Uh I've got one before I go to Councillor Rogers Ivan, if you don't mind on the same topic.

And Counselor McKenzie, thanks for bringing this forward.

Um one is about the effectiveness and because of our period of rapid growth.

I mean, it's obvious uh it's been um you know discussed by council several times um that there's a concern that we're losing so many mature trees.

Um and and um and partially that is to development.

But if there's a tree on municipal land, somebody's developing a lot behind it, and it's a protected tree.

How do we go about that?

And and you know, it's a it's a nice mature tree.

The best we can hope for is a Charlie Brown Christmas tree planted somewhere else.

Um how effective is our bylaw right now uh protecting um the trees that we've kind of designated.

Uh thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um when it comes to developments, there are a lot of factors at play when it comes to the survivability of a tree in the boulevard.

Um a lot of it has to do, and and I'm I'm taking this from stories and from the knowledge I've I've taken from our arborists, other arborists, and and just through through the grapevine when it comes to to tree protection.

Um, but the survivability is dependent on you know what changes in the environment has has has been caused, what changes to the uh the soils, what's changes to the surrounding trees around it so even though there might be a lot of trees on private property that may be removed as part of development what impacts does that have on the tree in the boulevard it could have some some trees like to have to be part of the crowd and some don't so uh in terms of the effectiveness that really depends on the development itself uh as soon as you have an underground parkade or you get a a zero lot line foundation um that creeps within a critical root zone there could be impacts and we do rely on um the ISA uh certified arborist to provide that assessment for us so at that point that is when we present the council here are the trees that would be if uh impacted uh for consideration in terms of additional that is the whole reason why we want to um establish an urban forest strategy so uh the good news is that the RFP has closed uh for that and I wish I could have whipped up a a quick um you know uh approval for council to to have a um a consultant do it because we have uh we have a good consultant lined up but that we'll have to wait um it closed on Friday I couldn't get a couldn't get a report in on time um but a lot of we're hoping that a um the details in that urban forest strategy will help identify uh better means and methods to protect trees and boulevards um and around developments.

Thanks, Ivan.

Uh related question is that we we just got the access to the heat uh study by CRD and a lot of it um is challenged now.

And I note some uh cities are going through massive urban planting next to boulevards to try to contain uh the heat mainly drawn in by asphalt and cement.

Um so will the urban forest strategy address um the issues of heat, or if it wasn't in the RFP, can we add it in?

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Um we can chat with the uh the consultants uh after we award it to see what the delta is with respect to what they're supposed to provide, and if they if that's gonna be an extra, uh we can certainly come back to council to see if they are uh if you're willing.

Um looking at I won't get into too much detail because I want to say before the report, um, but we can certainly talk about that as part of the that process.

Thank you.

It would be interesting for me and perhaps the rest of council to see um some modeling around if we did this with this many trees of this type in this neighborhood, potentially we'd see a decrease in heat sink from um from uh the areas noting that some trees lose leaves in the winter, but that's we don't usually concern ourselves with heat during the winter.

Um other questions?

Councilor Rogers, Councillor Mattson, Councilor Rogers for Yes, uh I thank you.

Thanks for the opportunity.

So we can uh kind of get back on the uh on the wavelengths for this.

So um do we have a specific uh reserve fund for um all the um replacement cash and loo that um residents and developers contribute to?

Uh Mayor Tobias, yes, we do have.

Um it is used to help fund the uh resident tree planting program that we have.

Uh actually is a it's a is a very good plug right now because um the first event of the year is happening fairly soon.

It usually happens on the Earth Day, or I think the first one happened on Earth Day, but that um it kind of is on the weekend and uh we wanted to make sure that we have the opportunity for our residents to to come and pick it up.

So the first one is coming up soon um and then there's gonna be another one in the fall.

And the idea is that uh the uh staff we purchased trees with that reserve fund um for residents to pick up and plant on their property.

So how much how much have we gotten how many trees do you think we can buy per yeah I don't replant in a given year?

We have about 45,000 in the reserve right now and the ability to plant is dependent on staffing.

One of the things um I I'm thinking of the the Choco neighborhoods and and the trees there.

And uh they look to be in pretty rough shape.

And I don't know if uh that was um because of lack of irrigation or lack of um neighborhood um care and attention um is is that an avenue where uh we need to revisit and remind people that um you know replant whatever but to get those things re-established if they've failed uh mayor toias I'm unaware of um trees failing or in poor shape but uh what staff can do is we can assess and see what's going on there operationally counselor Matson, I I can't see your your yellow hand indicator because my eyesight is failing me.

Did you have a comment?

I'm still here.

Yes.

No, I took took my hand down because staff told me you'd already seen it.

So I I do have a concern or a question.

You know, in prior years, council used to get a lot of used to come to council about uh requests for cutting down trees.

And so we used to make you know, we used to make the decision on council.

And you know, there were numbers of number of times that we we even were had contrary opinions to the the arborist because um we felt that the tree was was survivable even even though it you know it might take a number of years for it to fail.

And so what what I wanted to know was uh in terms of even on people's property, you know, why don't we get these brought to council anymore?

And uh I I would like to use an example in the new development going on Island Highway and and Helmakin.

There was a a whole row of trees in between that and the the strata next the adjacent strata and the strata gave permission for to have these trees cut down but it never came to council to cut down all these perfectly healthy trees.

And so I I'm just wondering in terms of teeth in our bylaw when would request come back to council or or somewhere along the line did we change our policy so that um can't they they they no longer come to council.

Yeah thank you mayor toias the the the change happened with the bylaw change and that happened a couple of years ago the reason being is that we get around 130 to 150 applications and um staffing upkeep to to administer these permits took a bit of time so the uh the the tree protection bylaw was uh revised partly to provide additional protections and also it was to um help staff with administering these permits so post um uh revision of the of the tree protection bylaw uh the there are two times when um council and macey uh requests removal of trees.

One is during the development process uh through development permitting.

And then the other one is if the resident um should the resident wish to dispute the director of engineering or uh staff's uh denial of a tree permit, um then they can go to council to petition to have that changed.

Okay, so just back to the example I just gave.

I'm I'm just wondering why you know totally healthy trees were were cut down without uh though those with that request coming to council.

You know, we may have agreed because the adjacent property needed it, but um it was just sort of a decision by the strata.

And I I I'm assuming staff must have approved that.

So uh when does something become a significant an an issue that you know that should from staff's perspective it should be brought to council.

So for never never it just sounds like um those decisions are I mean the staff just makes the decision and uh we aren't informed even if it is what we feel are significant trees.

So for non-development related uh tree permits, um they generally do not go to council.

Uh it is uh um delegated to staff to administer uh for protected trees.

Uh tree permits are required for the removal of protected trees, not for unprotected trees.

And there are metrics in the bylaw that does state what's a protected tree and what's not.

Those are more often than not.

They do go to council when it when it's required for a development permit rezoning subdivision.

Staff would uh administer that as well.

And then I'm not per particularly aware or uh sure what which area Councillor Matson is speaking to.

But if there is a illegal removal of a tree, then that goes through bylaw and municipal ticketing and the the tickets can be substantial.

Yeah, and then and I'm not debating that or disputing whether staff gave permission or not, but there just have been a number of occasions where significant trees have been cut down and didn't come to the councils for a decision.

So my assumption is that staff felt it was appropriate.

And I don't know, maybe I'll talk to some of my colleagues offline to see if uh they feel that you know we we need greater uh input and you know, especially when it's uh significant tree, one of the you know, large some very large trees I thought were cut down, but which were perfectly healthy, but uh that's probably it for now.

But I again it's just a concern I have, so I'll I'll chat with my colleagues.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

I wonder if uh we could help staff with a bit of um direction if we get more information.

So I'd I'd like to raise a motion that we ask staff to report back on how we retain more mature trees.

Um give it to staff.

Obviously, there's been a change in our mature uh tree bylaw, and I think everybody's witnessed in it's it's by onesies and twosies that we're losing the war of attrition here.

And if we want to seriously address things like heat and and the environment, uh the maintaining what we have as best as possible, as well as probably planting is the only way we can kind of do that.

But if we're losing them faster than we can replant them right now, is is our current state.

So hoping you would support me that we ask staff to report back on how we retain uh mature trees.

Can I get a seconder for that?

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing an opposed motion carries.

And Ivan, that gives you some flexibility to look at some innovative ways and uh, you know, hoping for a kind of a quick look as opposed to the urban forest strategy, just to say what can we do in the interim until we get the report back that that might help us out and uh in retaining what we have, because once they're down, uh it's another 75 years before we get to see them shade our foreheads again.

Um turn it over to Councillor Lemon now for police officers accompanying patients to hospitals.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Yeah, I have a motion, um, and that is that Mayor Tobias read a letter to Premier Eby on behalf of council asking that section 28 of the Mental Health Act be changed so that trained hospital staff or commissioners relieve police officers of the responsibility of staying with apprehended individuals, waiting to see a physician in a hospital abert in hospital emergency departments.

Ellen, I got a mover and a seconder for discussion.

Thank you, Counselor.

Counselor Brown.

Being a police officer for 32 years, I've been in that situation many, many times.

And of course, you have to deal with policies as well for the RCP and municipal police, they have to stay with them.

Minister Malcolm responded to our letter from 2021 suggesting they have a committee that's looking into it.

But this is from 2021, we're in 2024.

My suggestion would be if you make the C the security people that work at the hotel at the hospitals, and there's quite a variety of training and experience.

And it varies quite a bit from hospital to hospital.

They suggest about special provincial constable status.

And to me, that's the ideal way to go.

SBCA, for example, we did animal, I did animal patrol with my crew for many, many years as well.

And they were they were bile officers and there's they were they're also peace officers.

But dealing with um abuse of animals, we had to call the SBCA because they had special constable status.

And I think giving that special constable status that would allow the police departments to change their policy to turn them over to a well-trained, because that person's gonna need more security clearance, higher security clearance, uh tools and training.

Um, because right now uh it's quite a mismatch out there, but yeah, you can spend hours and hours and hours waiting, and again, that's partly because of policy.

But it's interesting reading the uh um Malcolmson's letter here from 2021 saying they were looking into it, but now we're three almost four years difference on uh you know what's happened.

I think Councillor Lemon wanted to motivate, but we'll allow a couple of questions, uh comments first uh before you we actually get ready for the vote.

Uh Councilor Rod.

Yes, thanks.

Um yes, I I obviously we need to uh to do something and and um like um uh counselor brown is saying, we have the tools already provided to us and and the specifics in in the uh um minister's uh letter of uh uh 2021.

Um we but we were told at A V I C C that um uh if you want to get motions directly to UBCM, we have until June the 15th.

And I think this is um really we've got the whereas is here, um we've got the um the failings, if you like, of uh uh the province not being able to get these things uh achieved.

So um let's let's get that resolution into UBCM because I'm sure that uh we're not the only ones and as as when we were at U ABICC, we were hearing from uh Tafino and Nanaimo how their um fire departments, you know, doing emergency uh uh medical response calls and all their time and equipment um uh being there at the hospitals.

Well, this is the same sort of thing with ongoing medical assistance through Section 28 um and and assisting um um the the hospitals obviously they need assistance we just it's not gonna be our place they they need to start um uh addressing that uh insight so um uh if the mover and secondary would uh would be interested uh let's let's absolutely get a resolution to ubcm by june the fifteenth thank you go ahead go ahead councilor matzon no it seems like a friendly amendment to me did you have questions and comments as well, Councillor Matson?

I fully support sending off a uh uh a resolution off to UBCM.

Yeah, we can we can definitely do that as well as the letter, and I think we've also got some ABIC resolutions as well.

We can lean on um uh to to reference.

Uh but Councillor Lemon, I'll over to you for motivation.

Yeah, I I probably don't need to, but I've got you know, but I've got stuff here.

Uh and and I had a conversation today.

So you know, the opiate crisis, the mental health crisis, primary care crisis, homelessness have all compounded to change policing in our towns and cities.

Every day RCMP and municipal police officers apprehend individuals experiencing mental health and substance abuse crises, and must stay by their sides in emergency departments until they're seen by a physician.

At Victoria General Hospital, our CMP officers are sidelined for their responsibilities to the greater community and are off their beat daily, sometimes mental health day, sometimes multiple times daily, while they stay with individuals apprehended under under the act.

Um, as I don't need to um repeat that in April 2021, there's a letter came went from the mayor.

We got a response from from um minister uh Malcolmson uh that there was no plan, no plan to change the act, but there was a toolkit.

Um the situation's not improved, and as a lack of primary care providers results in overload situations in emergency rooms, police wait times continue to be long, and it's a terrible waste of expensive resources.

I spoke today to uh Superintendent Preston who said not only is languishing in hospital waiting rooms wasteful, it's embarrassing for the apprehended person to be so publicly in the custody of police officers for what could be hours.

And it shows a distinct distinct lack of compassion by the system.

The act states that police stay with individuals until they are seen by a physician.

Perhaps there are circumstances he suggested where another health professional, such as a nurse, could provide the necessary help.

So the act needs to be changed so that individuals apprehended and accompanied to hospital can be handed over to other trained, qualified, and authorized persons so police officers officers can be back on the beat and on the and on the job.

Would the uh mover entertain a friendly amendment to um have write a letter to the province as well as uh uh submit a resolution to UBCM absolutely yes okay I think wrong and secondary you agree I already did oh sorry sorry whoever it is yeah yeah okay I'm gonna uh write a letter uh all those in favor.

Council Rogers.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed motion carries.

And I think the the next letter was just for reference.

Uh Sarah, was it the that was the ad uh two?

Uh I think that brings us to question period.

Any questions in the room.

Seeing no questions, Carl, we got any questions on the phone.

Mayor Tobias, we have one caller, last four digits two two seven four.

Thank you, Carl.

Um caller with the last uh four digits two two seven four.

Um please press star six to unmute yourself and start by stating your name and your street name to address a question for council, please.

There we are.

Sorry, no question.

Just could not get the video feed going.

So just try to listen on the phone.

Don, do you want to uh have him contact the town or yeah?

Uh which way um just by phoning or uh emailing uh for or are contacting us on the uh live webcast.

There's a support ticket uh request uh form on that uh uh which which is the agendas and video and where where you'd go to watch the videos, there's a support ticket request you can file there as well where we can contact you and see if we can help.

So, yeah, if you want to reach out to us or on the um on the web page, there's uh a ticket that you can fill out and we can help you troubleshoot your live webcast.

Sorry, it's not working out for you.

Um so with that, I think that brings us down to termination.

Gonna motion to terminate, please.

Seconded.

Move by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor.

And uh look forward to seeing you back later this week, uh, Councilor Mattson.