Council Meeting

Well, welcome everybody to the meeting of V Royal Council.

Uh as you can see, uh Mayor Tobias is not here in person, but he'll be with us in spirit and on TV as well.

So he's feeling a little under the weather today.

So because month of October is my day on the on the list to fill in, so I'm the acting mayor today.

I did look for the mayor's chains of office.

I couldn't find them anywhere.

I've looked in several offices, but anyways, maybe next time.

Anyways, like to first of all say that we're grateful to live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Esquimalt and Songheese nations.

Um thank you very much for that.

We appreciate it.

And I'd like to call the meeting to order.

And first of all, I'd like to call for um a motion to approve the agenda.

Second.

Yeah, moved by councillor Rogers and seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

Uh all those in favor?

Anyone opposed?

No.

Okay, uh minutes to re receipt of the minutes of the of the meetings.

Move adoption.

I get a motion for that, please.

Councilor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Matson.

All those in favor?

And it's carried unanimously.

And mayor's report, I'll be very brief.

Just to remind people, the provincial election voting is ongoing right now, and you still have one day left to vote in the advanced polls, and they're open from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

tomorrow.

And then of course on voting day on Saturday, uh the polls are open from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

So I understand the already uh some of the advanced polls have had record turnouts.

So hopefully that's continues.

It'll be good everyone to get their voice in and heard.

Okay, we'll move to participation uh I see Mr.

Lloyd here you you you want to say something or no okay and uh and Carl do you have anyone uh any notes from people in the public acting mayor brown we have no messages from the public so far this evening okay thank you very much Carl move to item number n uh eight staff reports the official community plan review and update at request for proposal, draft terms of reference for Leanne you're gonna be speaking on that thank you.

Good evening, Acting Mayor and Members of Council.

The report that you have before you this evening is on the official committee plan review and update, the request for proposal, draft terms of reference.

Last week, uh staff presented at committee of the whole.

Staff presented on the proposed OCP review and update project scope, as well as on the draft communications and engagement strategy.

There were a couple of motions that came out of that meeting, and the two that apply to tonight's report, well, actually, all three do, the are related to the key focus areas for the OCP review and update project.

And as part of the discussion last week at Committee of the Whole, the committee recommended to council that arts, culture, and heritage be added to the request for proposal as one of the key focus areas, as well as safety and well-being.

And those two focus areas have been added to the draft terms of reference that is attached to the report this evening for council's consideration.

I'm not going to go through each section of the terms of reference because I hope the council has had a chance to review them.

And however, I am happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions, members of council?

Councillor Madison?

Uh thank you for your report.

I do do have some questions.

One of them is why is it going to cost 400,000 for the review?

Through the acting mayor, um, we don't know how much it's going to cost.

Council budgeted up to four 400,000.

Uh, we will know more once we get bids.

Okay.

All right.

So I do have a couple of concerns.

One of them was how we're going to use that housing and land economic document in the development of an OCP.

I certainly thought from when we did it it was you know more of a housing advocacy document rather than looking at economic development in the town.

And so I really have concerns that it could turn that focus into how do we get more housing versus how do we get more economic development in town.

So I'm concerned about the use of that document.

And since we've just got the town sort of rezoned by the province for a good portion of it with the small housing units, I'm just wondering how much time and energy we need to spend in the OCP is doing anything with those properties that are already um that have already been rezoned, except when they uh coincide with sort of the the major thoroughfares.

So I I would hate to see us spend a lot of time on doing like what what should we do with all these you know basically areas are full of single family houses when it we already have uh lots of options for people should they want to redevelop those areas and as much as I didn't like a lot of things that were in the OCP the last that last draft we had uh the one that was rejected by council in terms of the densities they had a lot of really good information in there and how and connectiveness and and those types of things and so I'm wondering whether those will just whether the those parts which don't have to do relate to housing that we can incorporate those into the document and so again all I'll back of my my thinking that you know back to my initial question about the 400 000 like how much of the old document can we use and for those for the reasons we canceled the last OCP uh the that works because of the focus on housing all over the community I want to ensure that that stuff isn't included intentionally unless you know the community thinks they want it and it rather than the proponents or you know the people helping draft the document putting it in because they think it's the right thing to do um so through the acting mayor there are numerous questions there so I've um I'll I'll hopefully I I adjust them all my responses but please let me know if I don't so last week we had an extensive conversation at committee of the whole on the OCP project scope um the OCP the proposal is to carry out the OCP reviewed update in three phases the first phase will be looking at all land use designations special planning areas and housing and um there will be substantial communication uh there's a subset there be substantial uh communication and engagement um throughout all the phases.

So we hear from the community in terms of what they value and what's important to them to help inform the OCP, uh the new OCP.

The um also a part of that um phase one, and this also actually goes back to our strategic plan where it's just not about housing, it's all it's about all of our land uses in our community, like our commercial, our light, our um commercial, light in light industrial, um, uh institutional uses.

So it's it's it's it's all of those, uh all of those uses, all those land uses in our OCP.

And in the strategic, in our strategy 2023 to 2026 strategic plan, there is a strategic goal in there that we look at the um Western Corridor, that that that gateway.

And that will be part of phase one.

Um council wants that to be a part of the OCP review, and so that will be incorporated.

The town uh engaged Coriolis to complete a land economic study back in 2021.

And you know, there might be aspects and and results of that study that council might not like, even though that might be the reality, but council might not like.

At the end of the day, council will be vetting the OCP, and it will, you know, be council's decision if you're gonna adopt it or not.

And then with respect to the 2021 OCP that council um decided not to move forward with, uh, there are aspects of that OCP that we can't that could be you know incorporated, and that was mentioned in the council workshops, the especially the second council workshop.

Um, I recall that question coming up in workshop two in last July, um, where are the is there any aspects of the 2021 that we know we we could you know incorporate?

And the answer is no.

We just is it all you know wasted work?

There are aspects of that OCP.

For example, um as part of that OCP review, there's the establishment of a new interface fire hazard development permit area, and a lot of work went into that in developing fire smart design guidelines.

That work has been completed, and so there's an opportunity to to bring that back to council as well.

So, yes, there are things.

The other thing that some work in terms of the old OCP, I'll say the old, but the the 2022 20, the the draft OCP, is that one of the the project's scope as part of that project was to take a climate, make sure we have look have a climate lens throughout the entire OCP document and and that that was done and so there are there are things that we can do and I also want to reiterate that our 2011 OCP there is a lot of um you know really good policies and there's gonna be an option to you know retain just uh revamp um and you know and and develop uh new policies using the 2011 as our as our foundation so we have a lot of good work that has been done already.

Um Leanne, the communications and engagement activities, that's within the scope of the 400,000.

Or or will some of that be done by staff?

The staff will be leading the communications and engagement strategy as part of the OCP.

We have the in house staff um expertise to do that, and that will result in some significant cost savings.

Engagement is one of the most expensive aspects, a consulting fee as any of these types of projects.

So this is something that we can carry, you know, in house, provided that we have the staff capacity to do it.

That's great.

Thank you.

Um, just one one more quick question.

The um the CRD is considering, perhaps more than considering a regional transportation body.

Would that be considered within the OCP within the scope?

Our OCP will have to be referred to our the CRD because we have to we will have to update our our growth our um what do we call it?

Our growth.

I the the word has just escaped me for some our our regional context statement, pardon me.

And uh perhaps they might comment on that.

But we will be the CRD will be one of our stakeholders and we will keep them informed throughout the OCP process.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

And and then thank you for adding the arts, culture, and heritage uh component to it.

That's really great.

One of the um the aspects so that um that I I think you captured most of the points, but uh I think there was also mention about Crapefly Manor.

And remarkably, Crapeflower Manor is not protected.

It may be by you know in lip service by the federal and provincial folks, but uh to have really significant protection, it would we have to have a um uh our own protection, heritage protection bylaw.

That is the protection that the manor requires.

So and I and then that was something that wasn't uh identified in that list, the heritage protection.

Um so I wonder if we could add that.

Uh the uh absolutely we can look at uh um adding the words uh heritage protection.

Obviously the going through a heritage protection bylaw is obviously a more refined detailed process that would be separate from the OCP review and update.

Yeah.

However, we can touch on um looking at our current OCP already has actually some decent policies around heritage protection and and um and uh and uh what um I'm I'm uh yeah so hair protection, heritage conservation and and aspects like that.

So that that those are policies that we can build on.

And and build a framework in the OCP to uh you know because one if it's not in the OCP then it won't be in uh in the strategic plan and we won't get budget funding and we will never do it.

Yes, and so as part of OCPs there's implementation and uh there's action and implementation.

So i these are things that will come out as part of the whole OCP review in terms of the community's priorities.

Okay, great thanks.

Uh if I may and we can go around and and see go ahead.

Okay, thank you.

I can speak one of the in I appreciate the the phased approach, but um I almost uh feel need need to have uh uh legal assurance 'cause um I I don't want something that's in phase one and we think we can uh then go to phase two, uh reflect on the implications and say, oh my god, we don't want that.

That's that's that's really gonna do our town in.

So we better take that out of phase one.

But if we're locked, so once we've do we pass each phase, and therefore if we pass each phase and we make a particular designation for a particular area that we find is particularly dangerous or problematic for this town, we can't go back and undo it.

Through the acting uh through the acting mayor, the one of the reasons why we're taking the phase approach has to do with the provincial legislature legislative deadline of December 31st, 2025, where we have to update our OCP so that it reflects our interim housing needs report.

And given from experience, given the the amount of you know the work that goes into revisiting, you know, looking at land use designations and housing, that's a real important piece and a big chunk of the OCP.

So that is going to take a significant amount of time.

And so yes, as part of this phase approach, there will be two public hearings.

So one for phase one for those OCP amendments.

And then there would be a second one for phase two, which um uh for to amend for phase two OCP.

Right.

No, I I totally get the full section for so if so I just want to ask so or answer so if if council or or the community or however it comes up if someone you know is not happy with a certain land use designation I mean I guess that's a conversation that could come up in phase two.

However it's probably not ideal because we if given if like a year long work has gone into finalizing phase one.

Yeah.

And if if I may my my concern is this um we will have 46 and 47 um and we will have considerable um possibilities of density and and traffic and so forth and um you know and so hopefully um during this process of phase one we will have concurrent reality checks so that we can tell residents in your neighborhood if you get total build out in the next 10 years of four and six units uh then this is the kind of traffic that you should be expecting and therefore anything that you know what we had might be considered um having FSR two or three in different locations may suddenly tip it so that uh we uh we get gridlock.

So do we uh I'm just we're gonna have to have really good um reality checks so we don't paint this town into a corner or the region into a corner because they have to get through us.

Tobias, you had a question?

There, Tobias?

Online?

Nope.

I thought I saw his hand up.

Thanks, Don.

Sorry I was slow on the uh mic uh there.

Uh you you look very small from up here.

I just wanted to say that.

And Don, thanks for filling in for me.

I much appreciate it.

Um yeah, Leon, I I had uh one question that um uh I I'm looking back at the 2011 OCP, it was the there were numerous contractors involved with supporting the document.

I think there was one for engagement, one for uh kind of land use and other ones.

I'm just wondering uh and I appreciating your deadlines, if you hadn't considered perhaps breaking the RFP up into several ones that way you don't have a controlling interest from one group kind of ruling through the OCP and with the extra staff effort it it might be more supportive of of that.

I'm just wondering your thoughts on that.

Through through the mayor, uh through the acting mayor, uh that is that is one option of of handling the the OCP is uh going out for RFP for phase one and then wrap up phase one and uh and then uh and then move forward with phase two.

I guess it just really depends on if council like to see this OCP review completed during this current term or um down the road.

And so um and so I guess that that's part of it as well and especially when you know we were we have an in a consultant engaged and is gotten to know the community through phase one and build those relationships with the um you know with staff and with council and um and uh and then we um and then we have to sort of go through the whole process again.

It's uh we can absolutely do that, not a um if that's council's wish, uh we can we can do that.

Um it would I think there's there's pros and cons to to to both, and I think councils will just have to to weigh those those pros and cons uh if if that's something that council would like to do.

Just following on from that train of thought, could there be some sort of an evaluation, I guess, after the first phase to see, okay, are is this consultant you know meeting our expectations or their issues?

And if it's fine, then we continue along with them, but it that there would be an opportunity to um potentially switch through the Acting Merit.

We can absolutely draft the terms of reference the way we want to draft it.

And uh if that if we're gonna have a sort of halfway mark like evaluation to see if if this is if this is the right fit and things are going well, absolutely we can we can definitely do that.

Uh and uh and and it has been done in other places where uh municipalities have broken up their the OCP review in phases, and uh one consultant was was engaged for one phase and then another consultant was engaged for the second phase and so forth and so forth.

So that it is a possibility.

Uh there obviously you will we would have to add more you know time to the process, and again.

Counselor Madsen.

Yeah, following up on Allison's comment, I I think that's a great idea.

I'm just wondering if it can be built in after phase one.

We have an option.

Not with that individual and whether we should continue on with them or hire someone else, as long as there's the ability to sort of end the contract after phase one, as long as we don't have it too front end loaded in terms of the money.

Uh through the acting acting mayor, yes, we can draft the terms of reference to reflect that.

You know, council have to p um put a motion on the table to give staff the the the direction to do that, but uh it it can be done.

Council Rogers for second time.

Um on on the shoulder discussion from uh Mayor Tobayas, the um uh I I suppose would this uh increase the cost through the acting mayor, I I don't have that answer.

I I don't know.

And it really depends on what kind of bids come through come through and what you know what we can do is provide a bid for phase one, phase two, and you know what that would cost, and you know, we'd be able to figure it out that way.

Yeah.

Um, and I guess um I I am uh thinking that uh phase two would complete in in September 2026, election year.

So if we miss that deadline, then it's now going to be up to the following council and therefore it could be an interesting election issue.

Force me to run again.

We better get done this term.

Any further questions for for Director Taylor?

I I have one uh acting mayor.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead.

Go ahead, sir.

Um thank you.

Uh Leanne, and uh uh thank you for the RFP and uh the opportunity to review it.

It was very objectively put together.

Um I would be willing to put a motion on the table to um adjust the RFP award with review after phase one, um, with a potential other um consultant coming in for the other phases.

And Leanne, just a suggestion uh as a side, as you review uh RFP candidates, you can um leave them with the question are you willing um to um are you willing to actually um uh partake in in phase two if you don't win phase one?

That would save you some time and effort as well in going through to another RFP.

But I'd I'd if there was a seconder for that motion, Mr.

Ackman there.

Seconded by Counselor Rogers.

And then I think that the motivation uh there is uh just that I think uh there may be concern um that we might have experienced last time with the OCP that it was uh perhaps a voice that wasn't representative of the of the town.

I know the the engagement was a bit of a challenge last time, and this might uh provide council some oversight and better control over the contract for perhaps the most important document that will table uh this term.

Any motivation, Counselor Rogers?

Uh I yeah, I I'm hoping that we'll we'll um that it get it right the first time.

We're gonna have a great uh candidate and uh it'll be easy for us to do um, you know, and we'll stay on target and stay on time.

So uh that's my hope we get it right.

Counselor Lemon?

Yeah, um I I I could support this if we weren't um including words with the potential to continue.

Um I think I would be more comfortable if we simply um say there will be a review at at the end of the first phase, at at which point, you know, you know, un unwritten, you might, you know, you might lose the contract.

Um but I but I think if we kind of break it up so that it's so that it sounds like there's phase one and then we start over at phase two, I think it's going to make it longer and i think we'll also lose some of the some of the thread of the language and and and the personality of the document because you'll have different authors involved different personalities involved different characters uh so i i would hope that we're just going with one person our or one firm so that we have consistency of tone consistency of intent but just with the words um i i i can't support the words with the potential to um have the have is that a friendly amendment?

No, uh I'm i'm not sure it's a friendly amendment um i'd i'd uh unless unless the motivators would be comfortable with a friendly amendment.

Air Tobias?

Otherwise I'll just vote against it.

Sure.

Councillor Lemon, I think I hear your concern.

If everything's going right, it'd be wonderful if that contractor just carried on.

Uh I think the concern that I have is what if it's not going right?

And we'll know at the end of phase one.

So even though there may be that that continuity thing that you and I both really uh support, what happens if it's continuity in the wrong direction and what recourse do we have to to change it then?

So so i I mean in in most cases, if things were going on all along swimmingly, uh if that's uh a word I could use, then there'll be no change.

But if there wasn't, it would be I think prudent for council to have some recourse um uh halfway through to say we want to go with somebody else.

Or or the phase two would go with someone else.

Council Batza?

Yeah, I d I understand Jerry what you're saying, but I think you need to state it in the document that there will be an evaluation at the midterm, and should council be unhappy with your performance, we would you know go with someone else and following up what staff had said, to make it easier to find that other person, is it you'd put in for people who've applied for the RFP for the whole thing, um, should we need someone to do the second part?

Would you be interested?

I don't think it's wrong.

I mean, that sort of deals with staff's concern and as well as uh ours.

So the person who's gonna get it will do the whole contract unless we're unhappy with them, and then if we're unhappy with them, we would go to potentially to one of the people who'd said, Yeah, I'd be happy to do the second phase if I don't get the first phase.

So so then we're considering a $100,000 contract as opposed to a four hundred thousand dollar contract at the outset.

Is that right?

$100,000 is what we budgeted for phase one.

Through the Acting Mayor Council budget up to $400,000 for the whole thing.

But for phase one, if that's what we're looking at is just the phase one assurance that this person gets, that that's $100,000.

It's $400 for the whole thing.

Would we be doing an RFP for the first phase?

And then you get a chance, an opportunity to continue into the second phase, or you $400,000 for the whole with the possibility we're gonna have to reissue an RFP.

Through the Acting Mayor, currently staff would post the RFP for phase phase one and phase two.

It would be for the whole project.

And depending on you know what council wants to do, we can ask um interested parties to submit bids for the whole project.

Um and they would have to break down the costs for phase one and phase two.

They would have to do that as part of their proposal so we would know how much it's gonna cost for phase one and how much it's going to cost for phase two.

Thank you we have a motion on the floor gonna call the question uh all those in favor any opposed no unanimous and uh can I get a motion to accept director taylor's report okay oh um yeah just ask one more question no well if you get well someone could just pass the uh the motion to accept director taylor's report move receipt second uh move by counselor lehman seconded by counselor McKenzie.

Yeah.

Question?

Go ahead.

Thank you.

So Steph, you've um um, and I appreciate asking uh um got a point about uh seeking developer uh input um or business input on the um gateway project.

So that's the Western Gateway project.

I don't know where that is.

Where is the Western Gateway?

It is the the what the corridor, the Western Corridor.

So that's from six mile all the way up to the Callwood border.

Okay, because I was hoping that that would be from the Theatus Interchange to the Coldwood border, because the Theatus Interchange will have a uh park and ride, could and it's already been identified in the 2011 of having a uh uh commotional node there.

Um so um I I think we should expand that to include the theatus interchange.

Yes, and that can be done.

I mean, this is all gonna be part of the consultation, the engagement, looking at this corridor.

It's yes, I mean if if the community and council and staff, if they feel that no this corridor needs to be expanded, then absolutely uh we can look at that as part of a part of the OCP.

This is what it's all about.

And and again seeking clarification because I'm really gunshot about the RFPs that then we'll tie our hands.

Um so okay now we know uh that we have the flexibility so the the gateway um corridor can also include high density if we were considering having 15 or 20 story towers there, it's possible because it's a rapid bus lane.

The point is that it's only talking about the development, the developer community or the business community, only the business community.

It's not talking about development and and I d I don't want it just to be businesses, I want it to be mixed uh residential high density as well.

Uh focus group on this particular item as identified in the terms of reference.

We will look at the heights, we will look at the densities, we will look at the uses, um, we will test it with the community and the public, and um just you know see if we get that buy-in.

So it's it's it's it's it will be part of it.

We have a motion on the floor.

I'm gonna call a question that to receive Director Taylor's report.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, unopposed, pass unanimate.

Thank you, Director Taylor.

And corporate officer Jones.

Next thank you.

So tonight is the culmination of many months of work, and uh this is a request, and we'll see that when we get to the end of this presentation, uh, to put this draft plan for the public for a period of public feedback.

So accessibility is something we've been talking about for a while, and uh it is a journey, and you probably all have um had issues perhaps over time because everyone's abilities are in a constant state of change, periodic, temporary.

Some people have a permanent disability in their lifetime.

It's estimated that about 25% of our population does have some level of disability or access issues.

And it's predicted to increase over time as our population ages.

And so this piece of work is looking at that.

And it came about because of the Access BC Act that came into place in 2021.

And this report is to focus on the goal of View Royal striving to become a barrier free community.

And a barrier being anything that hinders the full and equal participation in society of a person with an impairment.

And of course, an impairment being a physical, a sensory, mental, intellectual, or cognitive issue.

Next slide, please.

So as I said, the Accessible BC Act coming into play in 2021 and other places in Canada before us.

I'm thinking of Ontario in particular, but also I believe there's a province out east as well.

So the Accessible BC Act describes eight standards, and from these, the province is going to develop regulations over time and is already working on the first two areas, and that is employment and delivery of services.

And so over time it will grow, and the regulations will come down to any of our uh prescribed organizations, and local governments are one of those prescribed organizations.

And there's about 750 organizations that are considered in legislation prescribed and so with the legislation prescribed organizations are to have a plan uh to establish a committee and to have a feedback tool and there was a deadline imposed you may recall um of last year for that so the work the ball got rolling last year and the plan itself and that's tonight's focus is to identify remove and prevent barriers to individuals in or interacting with the organization, so the municipality.

So it's very specific to um well, in this instance, we're one of 750, but you know, the uh the municipality or the town of U Royal.

Next slide, please.

So council began talking about this last year.

And in July of 2023, council approved participation in a group uh initiative called the Capital West Accessibility Advisory Committee, and it was a partnership with other municipalities, and uh the decision was made to focus on employment and service delivery of those eight standards that we reviewed on the prior slide.

That committee has now met five times, four regular meetings and one special meeting, and the city of Langford was the host for the first year, and they did a great amount of work, and we really appreciated that they did that.

And it's been a a good and strong partnership um with everyone really rolling up their sleeves and uh taking taking a lot on.

Um for example, I worked on the RFP for the consultant and worked to set up the public engagement sessions and we'll get to that and as well survey number two and we'll talk about that in a minute.

So on surveys two were conducted by the committee the first being in December 2023 and into January 2024 with over 160 participants and the goal of that the committee wanted to know how did people want to be engaged.

So uh Langford um put that out and they hosted it and we all linked to it and people did participate and provided feedback, which was great and helped form and shape what the committee then did in 2024.

And the second survey that I had mentioned is that we wanted to know help us tell us what barriers to municipal services your experiences experiencing and municipal employment.

And so that went live in March and into April of this year with over 180 participants in that work.

So I did mention that there was an RFP prepared, and I worked closely with Esquimalt and Langford on that piece as well.

And we retained a consulting firm with lived experience named Changing Paces, and they were hired to conduct seven engagement sessions, some virtual, some in person, and create a report with recommendations.

Next slide.

So the draft plan that's before you tonight focuses on the survey feedback we received, the information from those engagement sessions, having the participants come and share their stories and their information with us, and also the changing paces report and recommendations, and as well as staff input.

And all along the this elected body, as the other elected bodies in the partnership have received minutes and have been following along, being informed throughout the past year and a bit by staff.

So the draft plan in each of the municipalities is following a similar timeline, and that is we all have an opening that's pretty much the same, and then each municipality has their own individual plan embedded within it, and then a conclusion that's all the same.

So, our draft plan, so the view royal specific component is what we've done, what we're doing, and what we may explore.

And we did this for the employment and the service delivery, those two areas that we talked about wanting to delve into at this time.

And under those two areas, we further considered the actions and initiatives into areas of staff and council training, physical space, technological initiatives we could undertake, policy, procedure, and plans.

The tool that the plan is is to help us make improvements over time towards the goal of becoming barrier free.

The plan is going to be updated every three years, and it will consider these other accessibility standards.

So, for example, transportation, procurement, info and communications.

There was a list of the eight, and we're hitting on the employment service delivery.

And you'll notice that the plan and the and the what we've done and what we're doing really probably already hit on some of those things because it is such a good opportunity to talk about the things that we've already done.

And so they may not necessarily be directly service delivery, they may touch more on transportation because there was mention of bus stops.

But again, that that's also a service to our public as well.

So some of them they could they can fit under different categories, but I figured this was a great opportunity to talk about the things that we've already done or we're currently doing and so they don't necessarily fit under a perfect little hat of those two areas because we have been doing um quite a bit of work you'll see in the report over the years and over time.

So as I said the partners that in our partnership are proceeding along the same timeline as well so in the month of October the other six partners in our partnership the other elected officials will be seeing their draft plans putting it out for comment and public feedback and then bringing the comments the feedback back and tightening up the their own sections of the plan.

At the end of it, the plan will be we will get it photos added, some alt text, making it a more accessible document itself.

So if you're thinking, wow, this is rather drab to read, it will get more beautiful over time and uh more accessible to read.

I've tried to make ours a larger font and spreading it out a little bit to help, but it will get uh, I guess, made improv made improvements will be made upon its look.

Uh, but right now the intent is just to have the content out there for the public feedback so they can read it, see it, uh, and process that.

Next slide, please.

And as part of this, we made the commitment when this began last year that we wanted this committee to transition to being a public or community-based committee.

And I've uh mentioned in our recent CAO reports that have gone to the committee of the whole that we are already in process, and you may have seen the ads on our social media, our website, uh whatnot, that uh we are, and each of the other partners as well is in the recruitment process to have a volunteer represent View Royal on the committee.

And it will be transitioning to be a City of Collwood hosted uh group in 2025, and it'll be a rotational basis.

So our turn will be coming, and and our municipality will get to host this committee over time.

And uh moving on to the next slide.

And council, I believe I mentioned recently also we'll be going through what we would normally do with a committee appointment, and that is it will go to an in-camera once the applications come in and the closed date comes for a selection process.

Moving on to this slide, how does this piece of work fit with our strategic plan?

Well, one of the priorities has been through enhancing livability, it's one of our six under goal 2A, and that is develop our plan with our partners.

And so this actually is directly that.

And also under organizational excellence, it's enhancing our customer service.

And I think over time we will see, and the report speaks to more training, customer service training, just how we engage the lens of accessibility, universal design in our projects and in our plans.

And you've already seen in the report how it's speaking to staff attending CNIB workshop and learning.

So I think there is a training component as well.

So I think through those pieces we will be growing and improving as an organization.

And I think that only not only helps our community with accessibility issues, but truly the universal design aspect or principle of what's good for the accessible community is good for really everybody.

Next slide, please.

And the recommendation then before you is that you take this draft and we make it available for public comment.

We'll have copies available at the front counter, it'll be available online, and we really do want to hear feedback from the public so that we can take that and further tailor our section of the report and uh have it have it ready and available and back to this body for final approval.

Any questions.

Counselor Lemma.

Sarah, thank you for this fulsome report and all this work.

Do we as at does the town get many or any um calls or any input on um accessibility concerns throughout the town or in this building itself?

I am glad you asked that question, and yes, we do.

More so the engineering department, um, but I know that one was recently uh acted upon, and it is the island highway at the end of Glen Glentana.

And there you'll recall there's the uh fire gate, and that was moved somewhat to make it wider so people in a wheeled mobility device or even a stroller carriage could uh make passage to Island Highway and not have an obstacle in their way.

So, yes, we do get uh inquiries, um complaints, concerns, and they are acted upon.

Councillor Matson.

Yes, thank you for the report.

Uh a couple of questions.

Is November 15th?

Is that a long enough time period for people to provide responses?

And two, would it be possible to ask those filling in the form for View Royal?

Like, do they have a disability or an issue, an accessibility issue?

And if so, what is it?

Because right now I'm sort of, I got to bend I'm totally ignorant in terms of how big an issue it is.

And it'd be nice if we found out the people requesting things, uh, you know, whether they were they had a disability or or some sort of access issue.

That's it.

So I I I believe a month, four weeks is is a sufficient length of time uh for which to provide feedback.

I think the community that's been interested in this topic has been following all along and the meetings of the committee have been public and they are aware so so that is that is great.

And in terms of your other question, I just wish to clarify is the question as to the application form to be the town's representative on this committee or do you mean when people make requests for the town?

No, when they're we're putting it out to public for comment on the document that they're commenting on.

Could there be a section to just ask people if they have a a disability or an access issue?

And if so, what is it?

It's be nice to know what people are requesting and you know whether whether there's an issue that they want resolved.

The plan that we're putting out isn't asking for specific um asks.

It's not a blank slate saying, you know, what do you want or need?

Um when people make requests of, for example, the engineering department, they will often tell tell staff why they want the change.

And with respect to the application form itself, the legislation speaks to um striving to have at least half of the membership be those with accessibility or disability issues.

And so the form does ask do you have an issue or concern or a barrier?

And what is it?

Or are you were uh do you represent an agency uh working in this field?

Um, because that's something also that the legislation asks, but we don't anticipate necessarily that people will answer that question because there's also a lot of privacy around that issue that we need to be cognizant of.

Okay, so these are anonymous surveys, and people are filling us form out for the town, and it's not an application.

And what I heard you say is you are asking if they have a disability or an accessibility concern issue on the form specifically related to this document that we are going to get public input on.

Not the application that we're for, you know, to get a volunteer for this document is the town's plan.

It's not at it's not a blank slate asking for new ideas.

It's no, but we're asking people to provide comments on our plan.

On the document that they're providing their comments, will there be anything that outlines if they actually have an accessibility issue and if it if so what it is?

I just interject there.

Rather than being sp specific on the form, I know what you're getting at, but it'd be more of a generic question saying, do you have an accessibility issue for yourself or someone you care for or family member?

And putting it that way, then then people don't the privacy issue is doesn't become an issue.

So more of a generic, but I understand what you're getting at, and that I think that would fulfill what you're looking for.

Rogers, of course.

Yeah, um staff, I I I thank you for the report.

And and I see that in survey one and survey two, um, you um um had um you know the municipalities had done a really good job in assessing the uh limitations, the handicaps, the accessibility problems that each of them have, and you were able to provide that information statistically for V Wall on different parts, uh be it transportation or or whatever.

I found that information relevant and um it's all there on um in appendix one and appendix two.

So, you know, that's terrific.

What I what I took from from that information was and and it's uh curious, you know, we've got the um eight components, and what I found challenging myself was not seeing any operational definition for those eight.

So it said employment that may stand uh to reason, but delivery of services was really vague for me.

I don't know if that was delivery of services in the town, or was it uh here in the fire hall, was it here?

Uh so I was really uncertain what that meant.

And maybe um uh because you do, and maybe that helps, maybe that's part of the information that we provide to the public is saying we're gonna work on these two first, and this is the definitions of so that would just clarify.

What concerns me is that um if I'm reading this correctly, that we're gonna spend three years on these three things, and then we're gonna do some other things of those eight.

Because, you know, are we just uh when do we get to the other, you know, six I think that what we will see is that some of the work will it has already happened, is already happening, will continue to happen on the areas of the other six.

And I mentioned transportation because that's a really big and important one.

And so I don't think that work will stop.

I think the issue is that the focus for three years will be on employment and service delivery, and then it will shift to be other areas that we can look at.

And I think some of them will be so small that it may be that we do more than two in a three-year window, um, like information and communications, but I, you know, I I don't know because we're already touching on some that are information and communications related.

I think in one of the suggestions that's listed as to what we may explore, for example, is a website, but that's also service delivery.

So as I'd mentioned, many of the initiatives can kind of fall under one more than one umbrella.

And as to your other point, um you you may want to turn to um, and for me it's page 17 of the report, but I don't know what will be on your devices.

Clarity of employment is defined, and as well the priority area of service delivery is defined.

So it it talks about goods and services provided by the municipality and how residents, users, and or customers interact with them, including but not limited to communications and technology, engaging with staff and council, municipal events, policies, bylaws, and procedures, navigating municipal facilities and spaces.

So they've tried to to uh we've tried to capture there what service delivery looks like.

Right, thank you.

Thanks for that clarity.

So you know what I see on on you write that uh that page, yeah, that does define um uh employment and service delivery, but it seems like it's already identified the things that we're we've done.

What parts do we have to do?

In service delivery, for example.

This is all the stuff that we've done, created, implemented.

So, how will we then moving forward um and focusing in on um service delivery and employment?

What more can we do?

The report speaks to, and this is what we're aiming to receive public feedback on page 25.

Well, it begins on 24, what we may explore.

So there's a section on employment, and then there's a section the focus too on service delivery.

So staff and council training, and um various areas are are listed here.

So um creating documents, uh, electronic forms, alternate text, like teaching staff how to do that so that we are become better at it, so that people when they use our website or when they're they're looking at things online, um, our staff and not just one person on staff, but staff have have a better idea of how to create what we need to create so that people perhaps with vision issues can use our documents online more readily.

And so there's training we can provide, uh technological things that we may wish to explore.

Um that may be useful if people are using that space, getting training or learning, talking about project summary for our website.

I mentioned that, refreshing that.

Um physical space, so looking at our exterior of our building and how we can improve that.

I think about things like those three trees that slap you in the face.

And so if you actually have a vision issue, you stumble into a pit of rocks and you're hit in the face with three tree branches.

So there's many things we can improve.

The 400 pound doors, the fact that the auto door openers are too far away on the inside from the door.

There's many changes we need to make.

So I can ask me, I can tell you, I've taken the Rick Hansen training.

I know what we need to do, and we're not without work for three years.

I can spend our money.

We were good.

And so to list it here is useful because I've I'm also under the understanding that listing things and the what we may explore makes it also easier to be making grant applications over time.

And so that's why some of these things are listed here, and they're all going to be budget dependent.

They're all going to be perhaps grant dependent.

Like any budget process that we go through every year for projects and initiatives.

Sure.

Go ahead.

Okay, I'd like to make a motion that we accept uh staff's recommendation.

Second.

As a motion made by Councillor McKenzie and seconded by Counselor Lemmon.

I'd like to move an amendment.

Go ahead, Councillor.

Simply that we add a question.

Do you or someone who's close to you have an excessability issue?

And whenever your wording was, I liked.

Can you uh staff work with that?

Second a seconder for counselor Madsen's motion.

I think we we I think staff heard what we said and I I assume that it'll be incorporated.

No unless it's second well for the purpose of discussion I'll second the motion.

So seconded move by Councilor Matson seconded by myself for the wording to um on the um uh when people make com issues about accessibility that they they be identified or not identified saying they have an accessibility issue for themselves or for a family member or someone they care for.

Is that how's that sound?

And that's fine.

And and in terms of motivation, we're getting people to fill out these forms and provide comments, and it'd be nice to know if they or someone they care about has an accessibility issue, because then at the end of the day, you'd at least know if how if the people we're trying to reach are actually getting back to us.

You got a motion on the floor.

Uh all those in favor, uh all those opposed.

So it's a 3-three.

So oh Sid.

We need to we need your vote, Mayor Tobias.

Yeah, I'm uh if you don't hear from me, then I'm voting in the positive, so I support the motion.

Okay, so the motion uh passes then four to three.

I'd like my clerk hat on to know who again was opposed to that, please.

Uh councillor McKenzie, Councillor Kwalich, and Councillor uh Rogers.

Um acting mayor brown, point of order.

Um I actually had my hand up but didn't get a chance to talk that time.

So in the future, um I would like to be able to provide comments.

Thank you.

Noted.

Thank you, Acting Mayor Brown.

Glad to see you at the center of the stage here.

I have before you here an application to apply for a few grants.

So one is the Vision Zero Grant, and the recommendation is that Council directs staff to apply to the province of BC's grant in support of the speed reduction and strategy program.

And then the second grant is the British Columbia's Active Transportation Infrastructure Grant and staff recommending that we apply the grant in support of the Atkins Road Sidewalk Project and the Hunkin Road at Walkersway intersection improvements.

Um, just a quick note with respect to the Atkins Road uh sidewalk Project uh to get some correspondence from um a certain member of council, and um to be honest, I'm glad that question was asked.

Uh there was quite a bit of uh deliberation and lengthy and lively discussion that happened during budget deliberations February of this year.

And so, as I say in Hockey Night in Canada, we gotta go upstairs with some video.

So uh basically what happened at the end of the budget deliberations, there were two resolutions that was made on Atkins Road.

One was to change the priority level from uh strategic to required, and then the second resolution was to have the works done in 2025-2026, in doing so, bumping Burnside Road to 2026-2027.

So that does put the priority on to Atkins Road.

Um, however, there wasn't any many mention of changing the funding structure, which is why what you see in the project summary that it has to be grant dependent still stayed.

I mentioned the lengthy discussion part because there was a discussion about how we can do the work without grant funding.

And so staff relayed a few options on the table for council to take a look at.

Staff mentioned that there wouldn't be enough casino revenue to fund the project.

And then a question was posed to council.

Does council think that community amenity contributions would be a good way to fund this project?

And at the end of the day, uh what was left on the table essentially was uh staff to come up with a plan to see what can be done.

Um this is basically it.

The idea is that uh staff would recommend this funding to take the blow off of CAC contributions.

Um and that said, uh staff did understand that uh council wishes to have this work done in 2025, 2026.

So um what council will see in future project summary is just that, likely with the help of our director of finance incorporating a little bit of CAC in there.

And at the same time, we want to alleviate the pressure on that by applying for this grant.

So just want to provide that clarification in there before we go into the question period.

But aside from the acting mayor, um the floor is open to you for questions.

I'll move staff recommendations.

Second.

Moved by councilor Manson, second by counselor Lemon.

Uh questions?

No, just so yeah, I guess my question would be so what this motion, this is almost one of those anyways, what this motion does is just simply gives permission for staff to submit two applications, and one of them being Atkins Road.

And it doesn't mean that if we don't get the grant, that we won't be doing Atkins Road.

All it means is for this particular motion is that we are putting in an application for a grant.

Acting mayor, that is correct.

Um staff will be changing the project summary for next budget deliberations to get away from that grant and more into using um reserves.

I just got a quick question in uh what if they uh approve one and not the other?

Which one has priority?

Which one has priority over the there's two different ones, so I don't know, does one have a priority over the other one?

Maybe just the way it's presented to the government.

I don't know.

Uh yeah, it's a good question.

Acting Mayor Brown.

I I there is an order, and so what staff would be doing is we're putting Atkins Road as the top priority, and then the helm can walk us to the second priority.

Councilor Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

Do we know when um have we done the uh shelf ready uh design to go in and when will those be done, or if not uh through acomare brown?

The designs are not quite done yet.

Shelf ready, what we're trying to do, and I hope the province isn't listening, but uh uh basically uh what we're doing is representing a basic 90 design or set 75 70 design to uh to the province um and also calling it issued for shelf ready you know construction but there is going to be a little bit of work to be done uh for Atkins Row we have completed our engagement with the residents there is one resident that we're we're speaking to um as we speak right now so it's um after that that's when we're able to finalize design for our island highway or sorry uh helmkin at waukas.

There uh once once the this one's a little more agile because there's a considerable amount of analysis required in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation.

So we're a little bit behind, but we want to still apply for this grant because it's a substantial project and we don't want to miss this grant.

Um that said, in the future we will be uh engaging with Island Health and with the Eagle Creek and with the nearby homeowners uh on the intersection.

Mr.

Rogers, go ahead.

Yeah, sure.

Thank you.

Uh so the um so we're almost done, the um Atkins.

Uh when will we know that uh if we're successful or not?

Usually it's in the new year, probably around the spring.

That's good.

So right around budget time.

So uh, you know, if if all the stars align, the idea is that we come forward to council and say, hey, look, we just got this.

Um, thank you very much for allowing us to apply for it.

Uh, that is our plan, and uh we do ask inquire once in a while, and a lot of other municipalities actually inquire for that same reason.

They're they need to know their budgets.

Thank you.

And and um now on to my other topic, which is the uh Helmogan Road Watkins Way.

I I don't know what this is.

I don't there's no drawing.

Um, you know, you know, it is the intersection, but what are we going to do in that intersection for 1.6 million or 1.1 million?

It's uh it's a pretty staggering sum.

Yeah, thank you.

Um through Acting Mayor Brown, Council recalled that uh staff presented the presentation to council May, mid-May twenty twenty-four.

Uh with respect to options on what could be done to that intersection, uh, what council has directed staff to do was to uh follow, I believe it's called um option C02, which is to basically take out um the southbound um pinch point, uh change the merge lane for the northbound intersection, and then applying uh is called a supportive bike network.

So it's a buffer bike lanes um along the corridor.

And so that has been generally uh been accepted by the Ministry of Transportation.

They do have a say in this.

Um, but yeah, that's what council has directed staff to do.

Thank you.

Councillor Qualwage, did you have a comment?

Okay, thank you.

So we have a motion on the floor.

Uh, can I see uh all those in favor, please?

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Uh thank you, Director.

Thanking, thank you, Acting Mayor Brown.

So this is uh recommendation for the award to construct the sidewalks on Jetberg Road, um, basically to complete that gap uh so that allows full accessibility from Helmkin Road to the Island Highway.

Uh we received five bids for the project, and uh generally speaking they were fairly competitive.

The top three low bids are about five percent of each other.

Um our consultant Westbrook Consulting has uh done a review and is recommending that RawMex as a low bid be awarded the project.

So staff recommendation here is that council approved the award of the Jagberg Road Sidewalk Project to ROMex contracting limited in the amount of $317, $172 in NFGST and that the budget be amended accordingly.

The budget is has to be amended because the uh the bids are over our allotted budget.

But if you look at the uh attachments, there is enough uh budget in our reserves to accommodate this.

Move by councilor rogers, second by counselor Madsen and question?

Counselor Madsen.

Yeah, uh if we retender this, it's we're not gonna get any lower bids, are we?

Like this isn't a bad time of year where everybody's really busy and later on uh it'll be less expensive.

So through uh Actor Mayor Brown, there's two things about that.

That's a good good question, Counselor Matson.

One is likely not with uh we did ask that same question and we tried to tender at a at a later date when there's less business.

Turns out that when you reduce your interest rates, um sometimes demand goes up, and that's what happened.

The second thing is that uh it's it is generally kind of illegal to uh retender for the purposes of trying to get a lower bid.

Um there are other mechanisms to do that, uh, but at this time, yeah, it's uh staff's recommendations to do it now because it's just gonna get more expensive later.

Counselor Lemon and Councillor McKenzie.

Yeah.

Um, um I mean do we typically issue a uh well we'll higher, so I guess it's a con I don't know if they're all part of the same contract, but do we hire somebody from outside to administer capital projects?

Uh Acting Mayor Brown, yes, we do, quite simply because we don't have the resources to do contract administration.

Uh it's uh it requires a lot of staff time and it requires us to be very thorough because um if it if we're tied on another project and miss out on our thing, that could that could uh cost the town.

Thank you.

Counselor McKenzie.

Hi.

Uh for this procurement process, is there any other than just the financial aspect, is there any, you know, like references or like checks of previous work?

Just I I suspect there's not much deviance in terms of a sidewalk, but perhaps how they conduct the the work and um so that there's no issues.

Uh yeah, it's a good question.

So through Act Mayor Brown, they they do provide um pass work and staff are able to review that uh as a condition of award.

Um with respect to what ROMAX Contracting Limited does, they do a lot of similar work in the region.

Um I think they just did the sidewalks on the BC Transit Handy Art site as an example.

And so uh they are very capable of doing the work.

Good comment go ahead thank you.

Um so the uh the distance of the sidewalk is about 115 meters so uh that works out to about three thousand dollars a meter uh is that um the going rate now for sidewalks or or is this uh extra special cost for rock or whatever it's about the going rate yeah and it's is indicative of three bids being about five percent of each other we would ask questions if that was a low bid and everyone else was uh quite a bit higher um or alternatively if uh if they were extremely low but uh uh at this time given that uh the assessment and our and our discussion with with the consultant, it is indicative of a competitive bid.

Sorry, we couldn't wait for a land assembly of though all those properties uh so it would come free.

Unfortunately, no, and it's within our financial plan, but it's a it's a wonderful question and you never know, right?

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Acting Mayor Brown.

So the purpose of um the purpose of this report or presentation, excuse me, is to introduce the findings of the feasibility analysis for the deconstruction and or demolition waste management bylaw.

So council may recall that at the committee meeting, committee of the whole meeting on May 9th, 2023, the committee received a presentation from the City of Victoria's uh on their demolition and deconstruction bylaw.

And on October 3rd, 2023, council passed a motion that a report be prepared on the consideration and implications of a potential demolition and deconstruction bylaw for the town.

So in we're gonna start in regards to the Capital Regional District and their plan currently.

So in 2022, the CRD commissioned a waste composition study for the Heartland Landfill.

The study found that 13.8 of all waste landfilled at the Heartland Landfill was from construction and demolition.

And the CRD has been looking for ways to divert construction and demolition materials from Heartland.

At the beginning of the year, the CRD took steps towards accomplishing this through a creation of a program banning clean wood, treated wood, and asphalt singles shingles, excuse me, from general refuse.

The CRD Heartland Landfill Tonnage Report from September has indicated that data suggests a 14% decrease in general refuse done to the landfill over the same period since 2020 in 2023.

However, it is important to note that at this time, no direct correlation between the program and a reduction in general refuse can be made.

So further studies are required.

Municipalities that currently have deconstruction and demolition waste bylaws.

There are only a handful within BC, and the majority of which are located within the Lower Mainland and have much larger populations and organizational capacities than the town of U Royal.

For the purpose of this report, staff met with the city of Victoria, City of Vancouver, and the District of North Vancouver to discuss their municipalities' bylaws.

So each of these municipalities took a slightly different approach when creating their bylaws as they have different goals and targets for their applicants.

Attachment one in the report provides a summary of discussion with these municipalities and information regarding their bylaws as well.

Staff also met with the CRD to determine if adopting a similar bylaw would be beneficial to the CRD in assisting them in implementing their program.

The CRD has stated that they do not require municipalities within the regional district to harmonize their policies and/or bylaws.

They did, however, state that adopting similar bylaws will allow for an increased level of success.

Closing stock.

So municipalities with deconstruction and or demolition waste management bylaws have been focused primarily on single family dwellings or duplexes built from 1950 and before, or 1960 and before, if it was the city of Victoria.

Single family dwellings and duplexes have been focused on for these bylaws because they are more likely to be demolished and replaced either with higher density buildings andor other single family dwellings.

And there's two reasons for the 1950 cutoff period.

One, uh, the old growth wood building materials stopped being used around the 1940s, and hazardous materials such as asbestos became more commonplace in construction materials.

So contamination is a problem.

Determining how many residents fall within the targeted period of construction, so houses built pre-1950s within View Royal is the first step.

The 2021 census can provide some information as to the whole number of occupied dwellings constructed in 1960 or before.

However, this data was only recorded based on 25% of the Census respondents as part of the long form census.

So that's 25% of the sample data answered the question.

From that 25%, it was determined that 670 homes were constructed in 1960s or before.

The town does have some information back in uh 2012 from the community energy and greenhouse gas emissions plan.

So in that document, um you can kind of see on the map that the majority of these buildings can be found in the Harbor, Wilfret, and hospital neighborhoods.

And it should be noted that the plan did not differentiate whether these were commercial or residential buildings.

However, since the data came from the 2006 census, it is more likely residential.

However, that cannot be confirmed.

Further information on View Royal's housing is required in order to analyze how many homes within the town would be affected by a potential bylaw.

For example, if there's not very many homes were constructed before 1950 or 1960, depending on which we choose, a demolition waste management bylaw may be the better option by comparison to a deconstruction bylaw.

Within the town of View Royal, all demolition work must be completed under an approved demolition permit.

As part of the demolition application review process, the building inspector must take the building's age into consideration.

If hazardous materials, such as asbestos, are suspected within a home, hazardous material assessment is required to be submitted as part of the application.

If the assessment comes back clean, the permit is issued.

No problem.

However, if in the event asbestos is located, a plan to safely dispose of the hazardous materials is required, and the process to remove asbestos safely into a specific landfill can be really costly.

The heartland landfill, for example, does not take asbestos containing materials.

The town of U Royal currently processes an average of three demolition permits for single family homes per year.

However, it is difficult to confirm whether these homes would meet the pre 1950s cutoff date, as this information was not recorded and requires staff to conduct more research into these permits.

Furthermore, it is difficult to confirm how much waste from these demolitions would have ended up in the heartland Landfill, as contractors and homeowners are not required to take their construction waste to that location.

They can barge it off island if they so choose.

BC municipalities with deconstruction and or demolition waste bylaws have taken into consideration the size of their municipality, being their housing stock, projections on how many demolition permits they can anticipate each year.

Furthermore, these municipalities have dedicated staff responsible for administrating their programs.

And by comparison to these municipalities, View Royal has a much smaller housing stock, staff capacity, and resources.

The data the town currently has is limited and dated, and in order to obtain a better understanding of the town's housing stock, extensive research would be required to determine how many homes would fall between 1950s and 1960s or before.

So there is an alignment with the town's strategic plan, specifically goal 2E to review implications of potential demolition and deconstruction bylaw.

The official community plans, policy IS 2.9 waste reuse, and policy IS 4.4 construction waste, as well as the community climate action strategy policy 5.1.4.

So staff is recommending that council does not proceed with the new deconstruction and/or demolition waste management bylaw until a review of the official community plan and the town's existing housing stock are completed and instruct staff to prepare a project summary for the 2025 budget deliberation and that staff continue to work with the CRD to raise awareness and educate the public about waste diversion efforts.

Within the report, uh you can find alternative recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you for your report.

Uh any questions, Counselor McKenzie?

Thank you for the report.

My question um it relates to those service companies that provide like salvage.

Um and I'm aware that the CRD and the city of Victoria both have a list of those companies that they refer anyone who's undertaking this kind of work, they refer that at them to that list.

I was wondering whether we also have that list and whether we share it.

Perfect.

So I actually have it, so I can share it with you.

And then kind of leading on for that, if if we were to want to start doing that, which I would hope we would, would um a an amendment be needed to the motion, or would that be considered that last sentence that we would continue to you know raise awareness and educate the public.

Essentially I I'm wondering if I need to amend the motion or if that could be considered covered.

Are you are you making a motion to pass the three recommendations?

Second councillor Rogers?

Um sorry um uh councillor McKenzie can you give us more detail about uh this list and how that works?

Absolutely so since I raised or asked for for this um report, I did meet with a number of local um developers and and builders, and actually walked through one that was being redeveloped and met one of these um individuals who salvage uh stuff, go into these homes and salvage whatever they can.

They look at the countertops, any wood, but also potentially bathroom fixtures, lighting fixtures, whatever they can take, they actually do.

There's not a huge number of people who do this, but um there is that option.

So in in speaking um with developers, they they said this is a very useful uh service, but I don't think everyone knows that that's available.

And uh so the city, yeah, the city of Victoria has a list that they maintain and that they share with people who are going to do this.

So uh sorry, um again, how would you amend the motion and where would you um you know is it and further that staff would provide this list?

Is that what you're suggesting?

Okay.

Sounds that if staff gets it, they'll pass it out to people.

We got a motion on the floor.

Um Councilor Roger, do you think that's that further questions if I may?

Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, thanks.

Um, thanks very much for the uh the report.

It's um it was enlightening, particularly the breakdown of um, you know, what homes and and what decade uh you know between the 40s and so forth.

Um and it it seemed like a a trigger uh on the list was how many homes get demolished each year.

That was that was useful.

Um and I wonder to um um to this point and and what uh your motions uh that you proposed would it also be that if there's a trigger that we suddenly are now seeing 10 homes a year being demolished that that would be a trigger saying okay it's going up any any thoughts on that so through the mayor um I don't believe the number of demolitions would go up if we were to put in a deconstruction bylaw for example we're more likely to see less demolitions potentially, and that's simply because the price of deconstruction can be quite extensive.

Um to give a comparison, we currently receive three applications on average.

However, the city of Victoria has approximately 20 demolition applications they receive per year.

City of Vancouver receives over 400 per year.

The district of North Vancouver only had two, three similar to what we would have.

So I don't necessarily think we'd see an increase in demolitions as a result of this bylaw.

And I also wonder about Bill 44 um particularly.

So now there might be since we uh had put forward this motion, suddenly now we have a great incentive for people to rip that damn house down and and uh put something else up.

Um is so that seems like it would be a real challenge for uh the landf landfall and uh landfill and and um or even it taking being all shipped to uh to the low man line if they don't want to dump it at or cannot dump it at uh crd so will bill 44 facilitate or accelerate this issue i'll i'll take that question um uh through the active mayor um i wish i had a crystal ball to give you that answer but i don't uh we've had since the council has um adopted um the zoning amendment the we've uh we have we've just actually received our first uh development permit application for small scale multi-unit housing so that's just we've just received one application so far there hasn't been significant uptake yeah again i i think um it went maybe not yet and we've got one but that might be something to watch um um and uh we'll see after the ocp I guess um but uh yeah i do wonder that um the the spirit of the at the um um of the motion is uh is still worthy to hang on to thank you so just for clarification that's the motion that's okay we've got a motion on the floor to adopt all three staff recommendations so all those in favor any opposed non opposed it's passing sorry, Mayor Tobias, you had a comment but but we'll we'll back.

No, no that that that's fine.

I was in support of it.

I just wanted to um make the comment that uh uh as councillor McKenzie addressed, there's a growing uh group of businesses around uh harvesting a lot of the um uh reclaimed uh not only wood, but as she mentioned, uh fixtures and anything that can be salvaged.

And there's definitely a growing market for it.

Um and I think you know waiting will align it.

Uh just my comment to uh my colleagues is that uh the more we add on to staff, there there is a cost there, uh both of their time and and energy.

So uh as we go through and add things onto her plate, um just just uh be cognizant that this um this will have a cost to us as well on on things that we may not do uh and council will require some priority around those things so very supportive of the move um uh but I think uh we can bring the conversation up more fulsomely around the OCP and budget deliberations as well thank you but just for clarification we recommended not doing this council does not proceed well and then we'll make up our mind at once we have our review.

Yeah, well, there's three parts, three parts, and we we voted uh well unanimously for all three.

So yeah.

Yeah.

Item 8.2 committee of the whole resolutions.

Does that somebody want to pass all three or do you want to make three separate motions?

Move we all pass.

Second.

Move by counselor Madison, second by Councillor Rogers.

All those.

Oh, any questions, any comments?

No.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Unanimous.

Items of correspondence.

Yeah, I I just wanted to compliment staff that I think there was a two-day turnaround in terms of uh the individual writing to town and you writing back to her in a very appropriate polite letter and so i just wanted to thank you for that thank you can i get a motion to appreciate moved by counselor rogers can i have a second here counselor madsen any comments all those in favor any opposed number 10 bylaws um item a is we got staff subs talking on this i'll move adoption second uh move by counselor madsen second by counselor rogers any comments this is for item one correct yeah all those in favor any opposed passed I'll move adoption councilor madsen second by counselor rogers and comment counselor rogers my concern about uh the the bylaw here is that um um we're not seeing the whole bylaw you know it it's we're saying you know what's what's being deleted what's being replaced but the whole unless that is the whole bylaw but I don't think it is is it This is the amending bylaw.

So when an amending bylaw is brought forward, it's simply the amending bylaw.

When the report was first considered and when it was on the agenda for first, second and third, the background report, the original bylaw, the amended bylaw and red line was provided.

This is the and the amending bylaw itself.

And then this is the amending bylaw before you for adoption.

And so it's describing the changes that are being put forward.

So changing it for the um electronic delivery and adding in the timing of notice, and that there is a an ability to have an additional notice.

Yeah, thank you.

And then as per most bylaws, the separability clause.

So you know, maybe you can educate me later and we can figure out a way on that.

Um my concern, uh, members is that um I'm I'm still feeling um nervous about uh being able to provide um uh full I understand the situation with giving notice on on uh exemptions, tax exemptions, but the rest of it uh makes me particularly nervous and and whether we're going to be missing any opportunities for that people know what uh what's going on in this town.

So I will be voting against it motion on the floor all those in favor any opposed uh uh councilor rogers opposed move adopted up uh second uh move by councilor rogers second by counselor lemmon any uh comments exactly that's hearing anything anyways, any any comments on the motion?

Well, Councilor Lynn with your lights on.

No.

No.

No comment i i I think this is all the follow question then.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

None.

To the agenda, but uh uh it's got the box ticked off for committee of the whole, so I don't know if it's uh oh sorry, uh oh, it was meant to be on last week's, but due to the shortening of the meeting, it got pushed today.

So that's why.

You'd like to speak on it then uh uh so I would like to make a motion that council directs staff to prepare a report on the feasibility and the best location for a pride or rainbow colored crosswalk in the town.

Second.

I'm moving amendment.

Go ahead, Council Rogers.

Staff staff provide um uh report on the feasibility, cost, and best location.

I accept that.

Uh okay.

Um yeah, let's vote on the amendment.

Uh any comments on that?

All those in favor of the amendment?

Sure.

Any opposed?

Okay.

So that's it.

So now we'll okay just on the amended motion.

Like I don't really want to see a staff report.

I have no problems.

I support putting crosswalk.

Just tell us where it's a good crosswalk.

I mean, I I don't want to see staff going to a bunch of work and do a report.

Just let us know.

Okay, we got a motion on the floor.

Um comments, any more comments?

Uh Council Rogers, go ahead.

Well, you know, I I guess I'm just wondering, um, there may be um, you know, some residents that have a a preference of where, you know, we've got one idea about to view all elementary, but maybe other people want um the crosswalk in their neighborhood.

So it's um unless we're gonna have multiple crosswalks, is that an idea?

Um so I I don't know if if if we can leave it up to staff to um second guess the the residents on this project.

I'm not saying it do with the report but um you know it it um I I'm just thinking that some people would uh you know really maybe uh the folks in Clantana warrant so it's um I'm just saying that uh sometimes we put staff in a difficult position uh trying to guess the best location and and uh there might be probably not might be ramifications.

Okay you got the motion on the floor council I I I don't I don't need a personally I don't need a report and I think there's a recommendation here from the PAC um saying you know we'd love it outside our school outside of Uroyal Elementary.

So if that comes up for renewal.

I think you have our blessings.

If that's an amendment to the motion, I'll be happy to second it.

Just a quick comment.

Uh I I agree that it'd be nice to have it at Uroyal Elementary.

You know, it goes along with our mural and everything there too, so it's kind of ties in.

I think that'd be an ideal spot anyway.

That's just my comment.

Go ahead, Councillor McKenzie.

I was wondering if we could hear from staff what uh they suggest we do or how we amend the motion.

I'll weigh in on this one.

Um I I think you know staff can certainly uh you know read through the letter we weren't we weren't prepared to comment on tonight we were expecting uh to be commissioned to write a report on the the matter but certainly we can go have a look at the elementary school um see what's appropriate see what crosswalk is there now and we could come back to council with a a cost estimate and you know uh a visual of what it might look like perfect um counselor roger not not to believe it, but if we could just simply contact um the school pack parent um advisory committee just to make sure that you know they're aware and and uh garner their support, I think that would be worthwhile.

I can uh I can confirm this came up at a PAC meeting and they were in support.

But um if you would like something more formal, then I can get that.

Yeah.

Okay, all those in favor of the amendment motion.

Anyone opposed?

I didn't have questions when I came in, but after hearing the OCP uh discussion, I have many.

Um, my background is I I have been a um member of a citizens advisory committee in Oak Bay when they reviewed their um official communication.

And and that group, the intent, as you know, is to uh uh to draw citizen involvement and input into the shape of the community to come.

It's it's uh an aspirational document, so to speak, that at the end of the day, council will ratify or not, or modify or not.

And in the discussion I saw earlier, there seemed to be a um some unease on part of council, some twitchiness about what an OCP committee is going to come up with.

You know, if you want to pull a contract at the end of the first phase and such.

And I would suggest that you need to define uh council's relationship with the OCP committee.

Presumably you're going to have one.

Oak Bay, when they had theirs, there was a council member as a member of the committee.

There was a staff member.

So council was in that's in that municipality, council was involved all the way along.

And so it wasn't a it's an us and them kind of thing, but it was very much an an instrument of council.

And uh it seems like um this council hasn't defined the relationship with this body that you're you're setting in in motion and so uh my question is what is the structure of the OCP committee going to be um yeah uh director taylor do you want to respond to that I don't need an answer tonight, but I want to leave the question there as a rhetorical or something to be.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Thank you very much.

And Carl, do we have any questions from the public?

Acting Mayor brown, we've had no caller or sorry, no messengers this evening.

Thank you, Carl.

Item is uh motions, notice of the motion.

And this is uh put on by me.

And this is to get just um get someone to uh approve moving this to the next meeting, which would be November the fourth.

Um just a coles note version.

Um we had 30 people running for district sixty-one school trustee last election, uh, one from the town of V Royal, uh, which was the one only one and only person I voted for because I didn't recognize any of the names.

Uh District 62 is divided up into two zones, Belmont zone and the Millen's Landing Zone.

Um and uh it's just uh asking the school district to to consider having a award system for lack of a better term.

And it could be you know simply two zones.

You know, you got a you got a squamalt, you got the Songies Esquimalt Nation, you got V Royal, you got Sanitz, you got Victoria, you got Oak Bay, and that council uh trust currently the school board is dominated by Victoria and uh Oak Bay and some few sprinkling of Sanit people.

So that that's that's the reason for it.

So just to give you a heads up and if I get a motion I'll make the motion to move to move this to our November fourth meeting for discussion.

I'll second that.

Seconded by Councilor Lemon.

Councillor McKenzie comment.

Sorry, uh just a piggy comment.

Um we can probably remove Township of Esquay Mall because they wrote to us, I believe.

Yeah, correct.

You are they it it's actually a mirror of their motion that they pass.

So yeah, friendly amendment then to that.

Uh any comments for all those in favor?

Any opposed passed motion to terminate.

Uh moved by Councillor Matson seconded by Counselor Lemmon.

All those in favor?

Any opposed demon no thank you