Council Meeting

Good evening.

I'd like to call the council meeting for Tuesday, April 4th, 2023, to order.

We recognize the Loquang 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 will hear from the public who telephone in during the public participation period and the question period portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development variants for 305 annual court or the environmental development permit for uh 302 Beesboro Avenue, there will be a specific time to speak to these applications when they are considered during the meeting in the agenda.

So don't feel like you have to rush to the phone during the participation period.

There's ample time when we uh review those in the agenda.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227.

And when prompted, enter conference ID 373-625-561 pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until you are 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, ask you not to use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality, and ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

Speakers will have five minutes each during the public participation and two minutes to ask a question during the 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 have an approval of the agenda, including the blue sheet late items?

Counselor Lemon and uh uh Councillor Brown.

Should I second or should I make my comment first?

You could second and make your comment.

Uh it's on the table, seconded by councillor Brown.

And the just the item 8.1c is on the agenda tonight, and I know in our March Committee of the Whole meeting, we tabled it to for the May committee of the whole meeting for a specific reason.

And now I see it's on the agenda.

So I don't know if we want to proceed and then comment then.

Probably that's the best word to go.

Yeah, I think uh I think staff may have some new information just regarding timelines uh in particular that may advance it if you're comfortable with that.

Counselor Brown, we could uh carry it.

So we've got uh a motion and a seconder to approve the agenda.

Uh all in favor.

None opposed.

Motion carries, and uh, can I get a motion to adopt the minutes uh of the last meeting?

So moved.

Uh moved by councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Brown.

Um, and seeing there was no discussion or problems with the minutes, all in favor of adopting.

Uh none opposed.

Uh mayor's report.

I have a brief one.

Good evening, neighbors.

Welcome to spring.

All the hard work uh town staff and volunteers have done throughout the winter has really paid off on our parks and trails.

Uh a reminder for folks to also ensure as they do their spring cleanup to uh control their invasive species that are prolific in View Royal come spring, such as blackberries, ivy, and broom.

We are experiencing a considerable invasion of rodents, so please ensure you leave nothing out that they could be feeding on whilst you're doing your spring cleanup.

We were reminded today of the value of our protected services who responded to a fire at VGH, Victoria Dental Hospital.

Even more so, the lasting effects of service with the recent passing of Langford's assistant fire chief, Lance Craven.

He passed away recently due to occupational related illness.

His service will be held on April 29th in Langford.

And if you want details, please contact myself or town staff.

As we are all aware, the province has announced tabling legislation in the fall that may significantly affect View Royal and other municipalities.

In particular, the province has announced rezoning of single dwelling areas to allow up to four units on a single lot in the form of condos, row, or townhouses.

In addition, the province also intends to amend zoning to allow ensuites for existing single dwellings and is intended to incentivize this with grants.

Suffice to say, I'm pleased that council has baselines its work on the official community plan so we can deliberate how these changes will affect View Royal in the coming months as we find out the details of this legislation.

In the past few weeks, I've met with a variety of doctors and health specialists seeking partnership with the town to allow new clinics to serve residents under a newly formed charitable society.

As you recall in the past, doctors are treated as businesses, and as they remind me, the one course they didn't get in med school was business.

A number of them have not done well, particularly during the pandemic.

They've formed a charitable society so they could be treated much differently by the town and others when it comes to looking at innovative ways the town could partner with allowing better access to primary care.

These clinics are proposing dental also be included because, as you are aware, under the federal budget, we've just passed significant uh funding for primary care for dental care to be associated with it.

Much more to follow.

I sit as a co-chair of the CRD Environmental Committee, and we have recommended a gasification project to the board of the CRD that would initially focus on the carbonization of biosolids to biochar, which would reduce its volume up to 70%, reduce the forever chemicals that are could be present in biosolids and allow some separation for heavy metals.

I'm in discussions now with the mayor of Logan in Australia, who's recently stood a gasification project up, and they have a 10 megawatt generator uh hooked up to it on biogas that is powering the town.

The chair and the CAO of the CRD are hoping to join us in the near future for a brief overview of what the CRD plans for this year, uh, as well as an opportunity for council to ask questions of uh anything that they would like with the CRD planning.

Um the project for gasification, of course, will go to public engagement.

Uh lastly, I've petitioned CRD for the release of some environmental studies that View Royal was part of, and the data because of the data sharing agreement isn't open.

Uh so I've asked CRD to uh look at their policies and ensure that uh we're making all of our data as public as possible.

The study particularly I was interested in was um two LIDAR studies for canopy, one done in 2013 and one done in 2019, so we can judge the health of our trees.

So hopefully we'll have that data open and available to anybody who wishes to look at it.

And with that, we could move on to petitions and delegations.

And I don't believe we have any, Sarah, for this evening.

No petitions and delegations.

And this will bring us to our public participation period.

So would anybody in the room like to address council?

I think you're here for specific things and hoping for specific outcomes.

So uh we'll go to the phone.

Carl, have we got anybody on the phone that would like to address counsel.

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time.

Okay, we can uh move down to reports, and I think we can start off with staff reports, which is the development variance permit for 305 and your court, please, staff.

Good evening, uh community planner Sterling Scory.

Going to give a presentation to council tonight for 305 and your court for development variance permit, um, the purpose of which is for uh consideration of construction of an accessory building, a garage in the rear yard.

So some site context.

The property zoned R1, detached residential.

It's also designated large flot residential.

The property is not subject to any development variance permit, or sorry, to a development permit area.

But because they are requesting a variance or variances, they are required to have council approval.

Should council approve these variances, the applicant would go ahead with a building permit.

Visited the site a five a few weeks ago.

Some site context.

So here on the left hand side is a view looking from the end of the driveway into the property.

On the right hand side is a hedge that will need to be removed, and we'll we'll get to that in a minute.

But uh just a bit of site context based on the meeting that we had uh in uh committee of the whole back in February.

Uh council wanted to see a bit more site context, so I'm hoping to address that tonight with additional images and additional aerial imageries uh to provide some more context.

The next two images show the uh extent of the covenant uh area.

So on the left hand side is a small uh rock retaining wall and the uh hedge shown in the previous image.

That is kind of the line that is followed where the covenant is on the property.

And it's the image on the right hand side extends that covenant line roughly to the edge of the property.

The covenant extends the width of the property and goes from this portion of the property to the rear yard.

So the development proposal is to build a new accessory building, a garage as part of the single family home.

They're hoping to enclose that space and make that space a new flux space.

The applicants are finding that their existing home is not really conducive to the needs and wants in terms of space.

There's going to be no change to the existing home's external or internal use in terms of adding a sweet or anything.

It's purely just to add that flex space.

The variances that are required are detailed here.

So there's a single variance for the side yard setback, that's for the accessory building that's being proposed.

There's a variance to the separation distance between the buildings, so the actual foundation of the buildings.

There's also a variance required for the eaves of the um the uh the the two buildings.

So the pros uh proposed accessory structure and the existing uh existing single family home.

So on this image, you can see um this is the the the point of where two variances are are coming up.

So the uh the image shows there that the eaves are uh overlapping one another but not touching, so they are still treated as two separate buildings, and the uh foundations of the two buildings are separated by 1.3 meters, requiring 1.7 meter uh variance.

From a uh design perspective, the home will be built using similar materials as what is currently constructed for the house, so using cedar uh cedar planking, asphalt shingles, and uh as you can see, the the proposed rendering for the accessory building will share uh a similar design aesthetic as the existing building.

Going back to uh the variance that is requested regarding the the separation of the uh the buildings um and the roof separation.

This image should provide clarity that again the the two buildings are not attached.

There's actually a separation distance between this uh roof line and the per existing roof line of the house, and it's about a uh 0.85 meter uh separation distance.

So once again, clarified they're not they're not connected, just based on the uh the renderings that they're they're offset.

They're just they appear to form one continuous line as a kind of a front facade or rear rear facade.

As I said earlier, there would be a hedge that has to be removed.

So looking from the front yard into the into the property, the hedge at the rear of the property is required to be removed.

This was confirmed by an arborist after she did a site inspection.

The hedge is not bylaw protected so there is no replacement trees required.

And the um there's no uh no uh any type any type of cash and loo that would be provided for the removal of the trees.

That said the applicant has uh considered and has proposed that they would be putting in replacement uh landscaping uh camillas at the rear of the property, and uh based on the uh the site conditions uh believe that these would do well there.

They are uh require uh low shade or partial shade and uh fairly well drained soil.

Um I think this would be uh a good fit for the area, and over time the uh those Camillas would provide uh additional replacement screening for the uh for the hedges that would be removed for this development.

So going back to the covenant, uh I know uh at the committee of the whole meeting there were some questions in terms of uh what does this look like and and and how this uh impacts the site.

So the subject property uh outlined in black uh shown on the map is up on screen, and the area shown in red is the approximate area of the covenant area.

Um so it it extends, like I said, the width of the property and takes up the pretty well the whole rear yard of the property.

The proposed area of building is right here, just below the covenant area.

So the proposed accessory structure is not going to be within the covenant area.

It has to be outside of that covenant area.

The covenant area is quite specific in terms of no alteration, no removal of any vegetation, and no construction or any placement of structures in that area.

This is one of the large reasons, reasons why the applicants have had to place the building in in this specific spot.

The other reason then is actually understanding the site topography.

So, like I said earlier, there's an existing retaining wall that extends the width of the property at the rear yard.

If you go beyond this area, there is a very large and deep kind of water course at the bottom of this slope.

And the lowest point of the contour is five meters.

So a seven meter difference in height between the topmost portion of the property and then the bottom most.

And this extent shown here is what makes up the majority of the applicant's rear property.

With regards to discussion and variances that are being proposed, so the first is a variance for the required setback for the side yard.

And they're proposing that they reduce the minimum required setback for an accessory building from 1.2 meters to 0.9 meters in the side yard.

This can be proposed because it does not negatively impact the neighbor's hedge, and the applicant is proposing to provide replacement screening outside of any bylaw requirement.

The proposal also will comply with the requirements of the BC Building Code as confirmed by our building inspector.

And then the second variance is a two parter.

So the first is that they reduce the minimum separation setback between accessory building and principal building from 3.0 meters to 1.3 meters.

So that's the actual foundations.

And then the minimum separation setbacks between the eaves of the accessory and principal building from three meters to zero meters.

As I said before, eaves are overlapping but not touching.

As I said before, the the replacement screening will reduce any type of apparent increase in size of the home over time.

At writing, at time of writing of this report, March 27th, staff hadn't received no correspondence from the public regarding the application.

I believe that holds true.

I don't believe we've received any uh further correspondence from the public.

The applicants uh did their their uh quite were quite proactive in actually going out to their neighbors and receiving signatures of support back in December, and um they were uh quite clear with what they wanted to do with their application.

Uh so staff are recommending that uh the two variances, the first for the variance to the side yard uh required uh setback for an accessory building from 1.2 meters to 0.9 meters, uh, and the second variance from the or for the accessory building and the principal building separation distances be uh approved as part of the development permit uh or development uh variance permit.

Thank you.

That was uh an excellent report, and I would like to thank staff for working with the applicant.

I'd like to thank the applicant for a very thoughtful consideration for it.

Um before we entertain questions, do we want to hear uh from the public first if there's any comments and then we could direct specific questions?

Uh Carl, have we got anybody that uh would like or actually we'll go to the room first?

Is there anybody in the room that would like to uh provide comment on this?

Um and perhaps starting with the applicant, um, is there any comments the applicant would like to make?

No.

Okay.

Uh any comments from anybody else, the public in the room on this variance okay we'll go to Carl on the phone uh Carl have we got anybody that would like to um make any comments about this at this time uh mayor Tobias we have no callers okay um gonna start with you counselor Masson because I can't see you exactly but I just wanted to uh ask if you had any comments because my eyesight isn't as good as it once was I'm a long ways away.

Uh no, I have no problems at all with the proposal.

I I like the fact that the hedge adjacent to neighbor stays and um even without the uh the plantings behind the um the new garage, it's so far away from the adjacent property owner's home that it it's probably unnoticeable.

So I'm quite happy with that proposal.

Thank you, Councilor Masson.

Uh Counselor Brown, please.

And uh Councilor Rogers, are you seconding?

Yeah, I'll second, but I do have a question.

Sure.

Thank you.

Uh question to the applicants.

Um thank you very much for the I see you have a page of um those uh signatures and individuals that uh approved, and particularly um I'm pleased that and number two eleven on your lane uh voice their support.

I'm wondering about 209 on your lane.

Did you approach them or had they were they what was your situation there?

Like one but either way.

No, I think you have to go.

Just uh press the uh button, you'll see a red light will not.

Oh that one.

Okay.

Um yeah, we we went around to all of our neighbors and uh two oh nine was in the process of selling.

So the current owner or the previous owners were very nice and they said, Well, we would sign, but we think you should talk to the people who you know are gonna be moving in.

So when they came in December to check out the house, we showed them around, we talked about it, uh, explained the process, and I haven't gone back to get them to actually sign the the form, but they seemed they didn't seem to have any issues.

So I just thought I wouldn't, you know, go back.

But you know, I could easily do that.

Yeah, very nice people.

Okay.

Yeah, thank you.

That's helpful.

If if they were conc concerned, they would have sent a letter by now.

Yeah, because they got the the blue piece paper.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you, Council Rogers.

Was there any other questions or comments from Council?

Um, yeah, I I I don't see your um kind of bordering up against a riparian zone there with the stream, more riparian at some times during the year, such as this, I'm sure.

But I I don't have an issue with this.

Thanks for your uh thoughtful considerations.

We've got a motion on the floor and it has been seconded for approval.

Uh all in favor of approving this variance.

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Motion carries.

Council.

Uh staff, I really do appreciate the um the work that you did.

Uh addition to this, showing the relationship of the properties on the contour lines, really helpful and put everything into context.

So I thank you for your effort.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

And I think um you're gonna stay up there because you're in the next one on our our list as well.

Uh so that moves us to um uh the environmental development permit with variants uh for 302 Beesboro Avenue.

Yeah, I'm I'm back.

So some site context.

Uh it's accessed via Limkin Cove.

That's zoned R1 detached residential, also designated large lot residential.

The reason this has to come forward to council for approval is that there is work being proposed in the development permanent area guidelines, uh known as the Natural water course and shoreline area.

So staff did a site visit, I believe in early February just to get an idea of what the existing site was and understand kind of some site site conditions.

So the image in the left shows the kind of the very hard to see, but uh kind of the existing dock looking down from a stone gravel pathway that the applicants have on site.

The image on the right-hand side shows the extent of vegetation in this area.

Because the uh the slope is a uh a bedrock, there's very limited opportunity for vegetation to grow in this area, um, including uh trees.

There is one down the in the corner there, but typical of this area is uh small lichens, some small ferns, as you can see, and some grass.

Um, the ability for trees to take root here is is quite quite limited.

Um and the the area as you can see is is pretty well vertical.

Um so the very uh also limited uh surface area for for things to grow.

In terms of what's there, ex uh what's there and what's existing, there is on the uh left hand side an existing stone care staircase.

Uh the applicants won't won't be touching this, that'll remain, but the uh wooden uh decking and and platforms on the uh the the right hand side is what is being proposed for uh demolition and then and then uh replacement with uh a new staircase uh and and decking structure and then uh a a gangway and um or ramp and uh float dock so this uh image shows the existing uh cross section of what's there currently um so the existing stone staircase that we just saw a couple images back and then uh the image uh of the uh wooden stair structure uh that I had taken at the top of the structure uh top of the structure looking down so that will be replaced in its entirety and what will be replaced uh with new construction is a two-tier uh decks and stair structure system, a ramp, and then a float dock.

The float dock will be uh in position with uh four pilings, and the the dock will be allowed to move up and down.

It won't rest on the seabed, but it'll be able to move up and down, uh still allowing water to move uh freely through uh beneath it, uh not disrupting the uh the habitat uh below.

The proposed structure uh actually sees a significant decrease in the amount of area that is being used for uh the uh this the or sorry, the amount of area will be decreased uh from what is there currently to what is being proposed.

Um the applicant has provided uh numbers saying that the landing platform area will be going from 330 square feet to 97 square feet.

That's quite a significant reduction.

Follows the line over here, and then this is the remainder of the decking.

As currently, there's actually a portion down here that will be removed entirely.

For this application are how the proposal meets or addresses the natural water course and shoreland areas development permit guidelines within the official community plan.

Also the zoning bylaw requirements, and if there are requested variances, are they supportable?

And then finally, does the proposal comply with the town's private dock development guidelines?

So respect with respect to the development permit guidelines.

The application retains existing vegetation and there's no impact to trees in the upland area.

The access will maintain and preserve access to the harbor.

And the development while within 50 meters of the boundary of the sea, they have gotten approval from DD, DFO, and they have provided a marine habitat report.

With respect to the variance, there's a single one.

So the variance is for to reduce the minimum required setback from the present natural boundary of the sea from 50 meters to zero meters.

The proposed structure actually lies right on top of the present natural boundary.

But as I highlighted, it's actually a significant reduction in the area.

The proposal should see a uh the existing vegetation there uh hopefully uh improve over time, and the area where the existing structure is should hopefully uh see additional vegetation uh over time as well.

As I said, DND and DFO also uh uh have reviewed this this application and don't note any major concerns uh for these reasons.

The the variants can be uh supported.

And then finally, with respect to the private dock development guidelines, uh the the application staff haven't uh made note of any um uh contraventions of the of the guideline document.

Um the applicant actually revised their application to better align with the with the uh uh the guidelines since the uh the application was presented to committee of the whole back in uh February.

So they've actually uh taken steps to uh improve the design.

So staff have a recommendation that the variants to reduce the minimum required setback from the present natural boundary of the sea for any structure be reduced from 50 meters to zero meters.

Thank you, staff.

Great report.

Um to the applicant, um deal wish to offer anything else, any other comments?

Please, uh just like to thank you for your consideration with this application.

Um it already has an existing permit through um D D uh for the existing structure.

So, what we've tried to do through this proposal is to improve what is already on the upland portion and to provide safe access to the foreshore area through the float.

So that's what we've put forward is a means to enable the property owners to safely access the waterfront area by way of a safe uh walkway through the their property along the ridge.

So that's essentially, what we've tried to do is to provide a safe access for the family, and so that they can utilize primarily uh non-motorised um boats and small crafts.

So that's essentially what they've done.

And they've been very proactive in that they've surveyed the entire neighborhood and got letters of support.

And this is this dock is very environmentally sensitive in that we have met new departments of fisheries and oceans regulations, which are far more stringent than what they were like 10, 5, 10, 15 years ago when many of those docks were constructed.

So this is built to a high environmental standard.

And we'll we'll be using materials that are environmentally sensitive as well and we'll be looking at ways that we can improve on um light penetration because the substrate is um soft so you know we want to encourage any kind of um marine habitat to flourish thank you very much um before we go to any questions let's go to the public if you could stay there if you're the speaking for the proponent just turn off your mic if you don't mind um and we'll go to the public is there anybody in the room that wishes to comment on this variance?

I see nobody here.

How about on the phone, Carl?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers.

Counselors, do you have uh questions or comments regarding this application?

Council number one.

Yeah, thank thank you very much for your really responsible and uh caring initiative.

Um my only question is in in his reports, Sterling said that um, because I I was I thought what you brought in February was great, but I hear it's even more improved.

So what what is the improvement since February?

Um so what we did was we've re reduced the size of the float so it's compliant with the um with the turn of you royals uh dock um guidelines.

Okay, okay, good.

Thanks very much.

Councilor Rogers.

I think it's really innovative.

Uh just a comment.

Uh thank you very much for the report.

I'm pleased that you've remodeled the um uh the the structures that's you know on the shore.

And um I think with the innovative design that stops the uh the the dock if you're like from touching ocean bottom and so forth is really innovative and and it sets a standard for us to consider with the next application that comes along.

Thank you.

Councillor Matson, I'm not seeing movement from you, so I'm assuming you have nothing to add.

I I do have um uh a few questions.

Uh he's waving okay.

I'll go to you next, Councillor Mattson.

Uh how deep do the pilings go for the uh the dock?

And I'm sure it's you said it wouldn't go below and rest.

Is there a lock on it so that okay?

Okay, so it won't go below that.

Okay, thank you.

And uh uh just the other concerns then this may be for you, Sterling, but um in the act of deconstructing and constructing that close to the water, is there any snow fencing or anything that we require for deconstruction or construction um that there be no spillage or or kind of uh bad things that happen accidentally to the water?

Is there anything in our procedures for construction that close to the water that would help mitigate the chance of or the risk of things going into the water?

I can help out.

Um yeah, uh to the mayor.

Uh the reports from the uh D and the DFO both speak to mitigating uh factors that can be uh carried out for the development of the dock structure in terms of any type of spillage.

Uh I believe there is uh recommendations in there to prevent that.

The other thing that will be reducing any type of uh any major impact of the existing slope is that the dock and the ramp will be constructed off-site and then barged in.

Um, so there's not actually going to be construction of those two large pieces on on site.

And that was a recommendation from DFO that that be done.

And that's that's what the that's what is expected of the of the applicant come moving forward.

Thank you, Sterling.

And that'll probably be easier to build somewhere else than trying to build it on where that is, I'm assuming.

Counselor Mattson, you had a comment or question, sir.

Uh just a comment.

I just wanted to compliment uh staff on the report.

Uh uh both this and the previous report certainly made it easy to follow and certainly made it easy to understand why he was support in support of the proposals.

And I also wanted to say he looks quite sharp in that suit.

So it's good work, Sterling.

Uh Council McKinnon.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Uh Matson.

Um so I don't have any concerns with this application.

I have more of a comment for staff and council.

Um I understand that these kind of applications, when they go when they pertain to the water, that uh there's an option of First Nations uh consultation as well.

This one didn't require it, but I do think for these uh types of projects that it might be good going forward that we do invite uh First Nations to comment on it.

So maybe we can consider that in the future.

Thank you.

I could add to that if sorry, uh the mayor um i understand through uh the department of national defense that they have a working relationship on these types of projects with the songgies so um i that role was deferred to d and d because i i totally agree and that's usually um what happens with many of these applications is that they're referred out to the local first nation so i understand this was done via uh d and D.

Okay, great.

Thank you tax recommendation uh so approval requires secondary.

Uh secondary by councillor lemon.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Councilor Mattson, I'm not seeing you up there.

Maybe are you still with us?

I'm not seeing a hand or any um comments, so I will suggest that goes unanimously.

Um and thank you very much for the application.

And I'm pleased that uh we can approve it this evening.

Good job, Sterling.

And I think this brings us down to um accessible BC Act requirements.

And I think, Sarah, that's over to you.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Yes.

And it is here tonight due to a tight timeline in answer to Councillor Brown's question.

I wanted to give Council an update as to what our potential partner municipalities have done since we last spoke at the March Committee of the Whole with respect to this proposal.

And also uh indicate that what I'm saying by a tight timeline is that by September 1st we need to have an accessibility plan in place.

And um coming back to May Committee of the Whole when some staff, me, will not be here for May, um, will be uh problematic to get a consultant on board and a project launched with other partners and have a plan ready, and it's already pretty tight as it as it is, and it would be tighter to even wait for the second council meeting in May.

So this is why, in part, it's brought to you tonight, is to give you the update and to uh to note to the tight timeline.

So the report proposes inclusion of, and and there was discussion at the March uh Committee the Whole about inclusion of IACT representatives at the citizen reps, and that's might made much more explicit in the recommendation before you in the second part of the recommendation with the addition of that member municipalities with citizen representatives currently listed on IACTI, which is District of Highlands, Machosen, and SUK be encouraged to first offer their seat on the new committee to their IACTI Citizen Representative appointee.

And it is true that the motto or the saying of many disability groups, nothing about us without us, is true.

And so that type of explicit statement or recommendation in the motion is about inclusivity and is about including those citizen reps in in this type of group or encouraging those municipalities with citizen reps.

And you'll hear when we get to the comments from the other part potential partners that that was of interest to them anyhow.

So I don't think that there would be much arm twisting required on that front.

And so before you is the update and a bit of additional information tonight.

So we'll talk a little bit first about Esquimal.

They went to their March 13th committee of the whole.

And I think some of their health partnerships actually point them to the Western communities.

And so it does seem like a good alignment to be with these member municipalities that were discussed in this proposal.

And they appreciate that it will be a rotational administration and that they would be moving ahead with addressing the provincial legislation.

And there was a decision to support V Royals listed because these are listed in date order.

We considered it at the March 14th Committee of the Whole.

The decision at that time was to table to the May 9th Committee of the Whole meeting, and there was a request that I attend the April 20th IACD meeting, which they'll be meeting on a Zoom call coming up in April.

District of Highlands dealt with it at their March 20th council meeting.

Comments at that meeting included that there will be opportunities for the committee to evolve over time, and we're gonna talk a little bit about more about that in a few minutes.

Concern over provincial downloading, and even though this mandate is a very narrow focus, very introspective, concerned that this is perhaps the start of an interesting slope.

But they did appreciate the collective approach in the face of a provincial requirement that we must meet this tight deadline that we would proceed this way.

Their decision was to proceed.

They based their motion on the earlier proposal that we had talked about of 5,000.

City of Langford, they talked about it as well at March 20th.

They considered it, and they appreciated uh carrying out the work, and and also that people would be able to carry out their own local initiatives, even though this was a collective approach.

And they they recognize that I ACT's scope of work is comparatively broad, and they wondered what the synergies could be between the two groups.

They recognize that this is an important point being made by the province that municipalities be asked to look inwards and consider these in aspects of accessibility and removal of barriers to local governments now more formally.

And their decision was to proceed.

Machosen also March 20th, and their comments were that I AFT members can be appointed to the new committee, which would create a good connection between the two groups.

And again, appreciation for a collective approach, decision to proceed, um uh to support proceeding with it.

District of Souk, March 20th, Committee of the Whole meeting.

They considered it.

Again, they talked about, and this is why I said it wouldn't be hard, I don't think, to twist arms, uh, that they would view this as an opportunity to appoint the district citizen rep to uh that they appoint to IACTI, also to this new committee.

And uh they also discussed, as did uh an earlier municipality, we discussed about provincial downloading with a mandate for an accessibility plan to be in place by September 1st.

They did appreciate the partnership.

So you can see the common themes coming out.

There was a decision to support uh at the proceeding with the plan on the condition that everybody join in, and um they wanted to make sure that that would would happen.

And in Callwood on March 27th there was uh some comments made it was discussed at their council meeting uh there was recognition that staff's motion proposed uh offering positions to to the IACTI members um they talked about ongoing costs of the the community of the committee and um that due to a tight timeline the decision was made to allocate the 10 000 supporting the accessibility plan and they too wanted some feedback on IACTI from on the staff report and so you can see as I said the common themes coming forward, and one of those is how should the committee be struck?

So it's two different issues, right?

One is the accessibility plan, one is how should the committee be struck or struck or formed.

And the proposal before you sees it as a separate or individual committee, much like BC Ferries or BC Transit has a very introspective committee.

And in fact, I ACTE has a representative that sits on those two committees to deal with just specific issues of accessibility and removing barriers to those organizations.

And so this would be similar, and in fact, we would be the BC Ferries or we would be the BC Transit.

And we would seek that in our motion that the three citizen representatives, we would ask those member municipalities to please consider appointing your IACTI person so we can have some synergies between the two groups through that appointment.

In speaking this afternoon with Dr.

Mike Prescott of the Disability Alliance of BC, he's the project manager working with the provincial government on the accessible organization project.

He talked about, and this is where I said we would talk about this later, start slowly, walk and then run, and then the scope or the mandate you could look to consider changes or evolving over time.

Look to make it manageable.

You want your work to be successful.

Look carefully to ensure that you do incorporate success into what you undertake.

Don't make it overwhelming.

And that he did suggest that perhaps elected officials be at arm's length.

And the mandate right now, or the terms of reference that are structured right now, do structure it so that each member municipality appoint a citizen representative rather than elected officials, because it's elected officials that get involved later when projects come forward and decisions are made based on funding and budgets to implement.

And so keeping an arm's length involvement and basically the nothing nothing about us without us, having the disability community be the committee rather than elected officials on the committee uh dealing with addressing or or clarifying what the uh barrier issues might be and helping to identify ways to to tear down barriers and um IACTI does do great work and it would be great to see that group uh continue in that good work they do uh referral and advocacy work they host online community and music events they remove barriers for people participating in community events by providing reimbursement and transportation as well as registry registration they support local businesses by paying for event musicians and attendee gift cards and door prizes far outside of the scope of what is proposed for this advisory committee, but that is great work and great work that should continue.

On the advocate advocacy front, as I mentioned, IACTI does have a representative that does sit on other agencies' committees, the BC Transit Accessible Transportation Advisory Committee and the BC Ferries Group.

And in fact, IACTE's current chair is a co-chair of the BC Ferries Committee.

And so those two organizations are doing the work that is proposed to be done by this new inwardly focused group that's proposed tonight.

Another issue that I wanted to talk about before we we close is and it came up at our uh March Committee the whole, which is how do we uh make sure that we have uh an accessibility committee where we're not asking people what their disability may be?

And in fact, it's it's been great that the Disability Alliance has a guide, and in the guide they have talked about a draft form, and it's fabulous.

In talking with Dr.

Prescott this afternoon, he and I talked about it uh a little bit.

I appreciated his work and let him know it was great work, which is the form says what is your target group that you may represent?

It's not specific, it just asks, what is your group?

Are you physically disabled?

Uh are you perhaps an ally group member?

Um, and and do you need accommodation?

And if so, what type of accommodation?

Why are you interested, and what are your skills and experience you would bring to the committee?

So it's very generic, so I wanted to uh to let council know about that.

And I think that was really all the update information that I wanted to provide before you.

The recommendation is before you.

It's uh changed somewhat since the count uh the committee saw this in mid-March, and it is an ask before you with a bit of urgency tied to it, so that we can join our uh partners and in moving forward.

I am pleased to still uh want to attend the IACTE meeting and talk to them as well.

Um the report does note that of the 13 members, 10 are elected officials and three are citizen reps.

And it would be those three citizen reps I would hope we could engage through um they're appointing municipalities onto this new committee and then seek the additional four seats to fill it.

Thank you Sarah let's go with counselor Lemon Brown and then who's ever next thank you Sarah um and I think you answered some of my questions as you worked your way through and that my my interest and concern was are we going to have uh duplication of of responsibilities would would we have a counselor?

You know at the the mayor appointed counselor brown to one of those two IACTI is not how we say it IACTI.

And uh, but what I'm hearing from you now is that this new organization, this new committee, would have citizen reps that we would appoint to represent the town, correct?

Each of the partner municipalities would appoint one citizen rep.

And there's the province speaks about uh, you know, uh a wishful list of of who you know what type of people that they'd like you to have on it.

And what it is is a very narrow mandate in comparison to IACTI.

And what I described in the report and and tonight to you is that IACTI's mandate is significantly broader than what this committee would look at.

What this committee would look at is very specific and inwardly focused, and that is what is it, what are the barriers to accessing the municipality, or in our case, the seven municipalities?

What are uh suggestions or ideas that can be undertaken to break down or remove those barriers?

Okay, that that is it.

It's it's not about advocacy, it's not about community events, it's not about referral, it's not about any of those things.

It's strictly um like BC Ferries and BC Transit.

How do we improve service as an organization, just us to uh people who may have access issues?

Okay, that's helpful.

And and therefore, membership and involvement in IACTA is still relevant because it is a it's a different cat.

Got it.

Okay.

Counselor Brown.

Yeah, well, the reason um in April or in my March that I um tabled the motion was because of the April 20th meeting of the group or the committee I'm on to get their input.

And I don't know how much input they've actually had it, and I know they've already rewritten the terms of reference.

We have an item coming up that was added to our agenda from a counselor in in um Callwood, who's also on the same committee that has expressed her concerns.

She's involved in writing the terms of reference, rewriting them.

They've worked with uh Dr.

Prescott, they've been in contact with Dr.

Prescott, and he agrees with the way they're moving.

And I think the intention of the provincial government by enacting this new act was to hit those communities that don't have any committees.

And this committee's been running well for decades, basically.

And um, my fear is you've got people that have volunteered their time.

Uh, I've been on there a very short time, only five months, but um uh some of them are gonna say, Well, we were we not appreciated?

Were we not doing a good job?

Um, do they even want to be?

I I appreciate the fact that they're gonna ask them to take one of those spots on a on a new committee, but I think there is duplication of effort of what's going on because items can be brought up at that committee from town of Uroyal, definitely.

And it would be no different than this new committee because you've got seven different municipalities.

And to fulfill what the provincial government wants.

And one of the things we don't have right now is that we don't have a citizen member on that particular committee, a citizen member from town of U.

Royal.

So I did try to pass the motion, no one seconded at the last meeting to appoint someone from the town of Uroyal.

And also to have that new email for each municipality so people can express any concerns or issues from the public and they can send it to a specific email.

And that's one of the proposals for this new committee.

To me, um it would have been nice rather than pushing this because we do have a committee.

What's the province going to do?

Say we don't have a committee yet fully in place in September, they're gonna fire us.

I don't think so.

If we're working towards it, and this committee's dedicated to do what needs to be done, and I think it's we're rushing it, and we could have two committees, and and again, they're doing they're doing the same thing.

So those are my concerns.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Counselor Rogers, then Councillor McKenzie, please.

Yeah, I see where Councillor Brown is uh coming from.

Do we rush it or do we get it right?

Um so we're not uh write to the province and saying uh explain where we are, that the um that we are fully intending on um meeting the province's requirements.

But why September?

Let's ask for an extension.

Let's see what happens, and let's see, and ask them what the consequences if we don't meet that time frame.

Um, I agree that if we had a municipality that uh was owned by itself and it didn't have anything at all, um, then yeah, I think there would be uh some concerns.

But I would be really interested in seeing what the San Is Peninsula achieves into a plan.

And uh if they can, if that plan is general enough involving three or four municipalities, then I would be very interested in plagiarizing and stealing their content.

Uh so we don't have to spend 10,000 or 70,000 with three miss uh you know seven municipalities.

So it's um um, you know, because we're all rushing to do our own different plans and and um um uh I I agree with uh Don.

We've got the plan here, they've got guidelines.

Um, and I I guess the other thing too is that with the province, I'm still a little vague about what do they want to do.

If you know, uh I'm not sure if the consultant's gonna understand what are the barriers specifically that uh they want to address because it seems like it's also dealing with race, religion, those kind of barriers as well.

If we're talking about inclusion and diversity.

So, really, is that it?

What do the what does the province want?

I don't think it's very clear.

So I would uh even ask for further clarification from the province and see what um and so with that indeed get it right.

We don't have to get a consultant back and do a rewrite.

Thanks.

And before I go to counselor McKenzie, just as a point of information, tomorrow I will discuss because CRD is now also setting up an accessibility committee.

Right.

So um I I I think, you know, in in discussion and reviewing the legislation and the requirements for it, it's, you know, to to both Sarah and Councillor Brown's point, it's to we look inside of View Royal to see our own accessibility needs, whether our municipal buildings are accessible, whether our websites are accessible.

It's not necessarily stating a policy for everybody in there.

What I would see would be a good outcome of maybe uh a consultant in there would be like here's the things you should consider for municipalities that you should have some thought around or policy around.

Um so yeah, just to say that uh before I go to Councillor McKenzie is that now CRD is talking about it, and what I would look to CRD for is maybe the exact thing we're trying to do of getting things together.

But I'll see how that unfolds tomorrow.

Councilor McKenzie.

Thank you.

And I I do appreciate um staff trying to make sure that we are uh meeting our legislative requirements.

Um but I do agree with counselors uh Brown and Rogers.

Um I think one of my biggest concerns is managing that relationship with IACT given that they're such a useful and effective resource and noting that our proposals could negatively impact IACTI in terms of there being redundancy in terms of their committee potentially taking members and resources away from them.

So I just think it's um it's the courteous thing to do is to discuss this with them.

Um I don't know if there have if staff have had conversations with the the chair.

Callwood staff have.

They have a close, it began as a Callwood committee, so uh Callwood staff um had been in contact with the chair of of IACTI, so she was aware through uh Callwood staff.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Matson, did you have a point, comment, question?

Um actually would I I'd like uh Councillor Brown to come up with a recommendation we could endorse in terms of how to utilize that other committee better.

Anyways, I support what he was saying.

We some option to vote on would be nice.

Okay.

Um and just to add, if I could, um if I could turn your attention, it's available on the HTML if you haven't seen a late edition.

There is a um an email from a counselor in Callwood that goes through and and um talks about what Callwood has approved.

So if you click that link, it will take you to that email that you might have been received late.

Uh Sarah.

Callwood really only approved the expenditure of ten thousand dollars to undertake the plan and the referral of the staff report to IACD that's all they did at their meeting so the long email is not what they approved so they approved the um ten thousand dollars from Callwood as a um which each municipality is going to submit uh and that then then it would be brought to IACD for further discussion is that correct they approved Callwood approved the expenditure of 10 000 towards the group accessibility plan and they approved the um that the staff report that went forward to the 27th of March meeting be forwarded to IACTI on their April 20th meeting.

So yes that's all basically it was a two part motion that council of Callwood approved.

Would that meet your needs, Counselor Brown?

The the yeah that's basically I'm sure once the April 20th meeting has come and gone and the EGM's come and gone and we continue to go with that group, the group is likely going to come back looking for some funding.

It may be 10,000, maybe I don't know what it's going to be, but um to to set those um parameters.

So yeah, because the motions have been passed, but they're not saying uh let's go whole hog into creating a new committee.

It kind of looks like that when you read it, but it's not.

So I I like Councillor Rogers' idea of asking the provincial government saying we're we're we're trying to do this right.

Uh, can we extend the deadline to uh October 1st or November 1st or I I I think we're we're okay with where we're at.

We're we're moving in a direction and the province will of course correct us if required.

I don't think we have to go back to the province at this point, my own personal opinion, to ask for more time.

I think as long as they see we're we're we're formulating even better, I think they would be um happy that we're working together as groups of municipalities as opposed to singular.

Um, however, I would be very much in favor of charging back the 10,000 plus all our municipalities back to the provincial government.

Um and uh uh if you're going to download the responsibilities without guidelines for us, then here's the cost of doing so.

So uh maybe we can include that in our motion.

But I would see potentially a three part motion, Counselor Brown.

That would be um approval of the funding for a consultant because somebody's gonna have to do stuff to generate the report that we need that we can all use as a baseline.

I don't see this as an end state, right?

I see this as um a short, concentrated period of work that staff are gonna be involved, ICD is gonna come and go.

You you've changed the terms of reference for IECD already to be more adaptive, or that's coming up, I think on the 20th, and including the name.

So I I I think that meeting on the April 20th is it needs to happen.

Right?

It it that's the first time we brought it to councils, but that's the first interface between the staff kind of committee and and ICD.

So I think good things will come out of that with us prescribing an outcome.

I think everybody's on the same page trying to get the same goal line, right?

Um we just need to let that happen and um be open to some thoughts on a recommendation for a motion.

Yeah, I would recommend the um that we put aside the potential funding, and it it could be for the current committee or the new committee.

Um whatever that funding would be.

I guess it's ten thousand dollars because that's seems to be what everyone else is putting in.

But I I do like your idea of going back to the provincial government to get reimbursed for that because it's that's the only reason why we're doing it.

Yeah, I think it's valuable that um that we've hit a number of things that have been a bone of contention this year.

Number one was the crossing guard thing that was again funding for the provincial government.

It's this, it's um other things that we've discussed, and it's really caused um some extra challenges for us.

So um, you know, if they don't um agree to pay, then that's fine.

We've made a point that um it's a struggle for us to get together, but we're doing the good things.

So we need a motion to um do some things here, Sarah.

Remind me, so I think there's general support for um sir for some money.

Um how can we whittle this down to um say that you're going to have the meeting?

We encourage the meeting to take place uh between ICD and um the West or the Capitol West Accessibility Advisory Committee.

Um what else do you need from that?

Well, at this point, there is not yet formed an accessibility, Capitol West Accessibility Committee.

So perhaps your motion is similar to what Callwood did on March 27th, and that is approval of the funding so that the accessibility plan work can begin and that we can work with the partner municipalities in that work.

And that I will go to the April 20th meeting.

And I believe the corporate officer from Callwood will also be in attendance and we can talk about um synergies and where we go from here uh that will require afterwards depending on how that uh the results of that meeting uh further discussion with the five other municipalities because they have approved pretty much the motion that went to the uh committee of the whole on March 14th so they are supportive of the uh capital West advisory committee forming and that we advertise for members for that and and and proceeding but we would then follow up with those um based on that discussion at April 20th and of course both let V Royal and Callwood councils know um if if things do change or move or the outcome of that April 20th meeting.

So it would be a motion perhaps not unlike COLWAD did on March 27th.

So the 10,000, and then proceed to the April 20th IACTI meeting.

Okay, and the um and that the advisory committee ad be placed seeking members for this committee, would that be a cooperative one or would we be spelling out specifically people from View Royal on it?

Like it could be a cooperative venture, but we're like those representatives are going to come from hopefully get some from View Royal to participate in this as well.

Each uh depending on the outcome of discussions, potentially, uh, it would be one citizen rep from each municipality.

It may be that IACD changes its if it becomes uh an IACTI group, um, and IACTI changes how it's structured, it would perhaps be that Esquimal gets added to IACTI, they'd have to agree to that, and each member municipality appoints a citizen rep, and it would be a joint ad describing what would be required.

I think this is too far in advance to decide that in a motion at this point.

So, really what you need is is approval for funds at this point to secure it, and there's going to be stuff that comes out of the meeting on the 20th.

Am I saying that right?

Okay.

Uh Councilor Brown, just for interest, if anybody wants to participate, it's open to anybody to attend.

I'll send out an email to the council members to let them know the Zoom login.

Uh it's April 20th, uh, 6 30 to 7 30.

Uh sorry, that's the AGM first, and then the regular meeting, 7 30 to 8 30.

And I I gave some misinformation in the last meeting.

I said it was bi-monthly they met, but actually you need seven months of the year.

And it may be that we require an exhilarated process to do stuff, right?

And and I'm just hoping that that discussion between the two groups will say, okay, maybe it's a subworking group or there's some loose affiliation or however you want to call it.

But I think everybody is like I say heading for the same goal line.

We just need to figure out um that that we're on the same course.

That's all.

And counselor McKenzie said a politeness because you don't want people who volunteer for years and years.

They feel unappreciated and it may be they say oh no let's just all just jump in on this new committee and do it deal with it that way.

And I'm fine with that but it to me it's politeness that's and and decorum so would uh counselor entertain a motion that would look like and it's written down there and that each member municipality of the joint sub-regional uh accessibility advisory committee contribute an equal share of the costs of up to ten thousand dollars each to retain a consultant to prepare an accessibility plan which member municipalities will may apply to their own accessibility initiatives.

I think if we give the funding for that to get the person that's actually going to pull this together, that's all we probably have to look at tonight and look back to Sarah and uh counselor Brown for feedback from the meeting on the 20th.

Thoughts, comments about that.

It's well worded.

Um if you want to repeat it or if you look at your sheet, it's the third paragraph down.

I'm not that eloquent, sir.

Second it uh so uh councillor Rogers.

So um we've got we've got staff recommendations, there are a number of them.

I have no problems with the um establishing advisory committee, the citizen reps.

I have no problems with the the um normal operating funds, nor the terms of reference, nor replacing the ads, nor um emails.

I have a problem with spending ten thousand dollars that every municipality in BC is gonna do they're all gonna do with the plans are all going to be the same.

The City Victoria, the CRD, we're all gonna be spending umpteen thousand dollars doing the same damn plan.

So um you know I think this is an incredible rate of duplication and um um I would love to table this thing in in the plan get everyone getting together let them talk about it then wait for somebody else to come with a great plan.

If that's a motion to table, I would second that.

I well, I don't mind doing everything else, but you know, I I I really have a problem with you know all these um team municipalities doing uh spending 10 grand or 70 grand or whatever it is on a on a plan that um I mean if the Parliament thought it was just a fabulous thing and it was going to be so generic, then they could do a damn plan and put it out for us.

Well, I was hoping they could at least provide guidelines of things to consider, but I guess that that is what they kind of want us to do.

Um it does say up to.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Um so again, is there support for the last four paragraphs underneath of that?

So it's uh um and that each member municipality of the joint sub regional accessibility and advisory committee allocate nominal operating funds, which we'll have to do anyway, uh for committee expenses and then the three underneath of that which is just the ads and uh terms of reference I'm good with that but the issue is of course for you with money councilor uh mattson what do you say on this I was even okay with the 10K but the the direction that councilor rogers is taking it I'm happy with that well I I think I'm I'm trying to judge where where the council wants to go before that because it's a complicated seven-part motion here.

So uh I'd be okay as well.

Uh I I could go one way or the other.

One is spend the money and uh send her bill to the province uh times how many other municipalities, or I am okay with not funding that, but that means we don't get any work done and we then wait for somebody else to do it so we can hopefully copy it.

But even at that point, we'd need somebody to make it v royal at that point.

Um counselor Lemon.

Yeah, I note that uh is it which municipality was it?

Callwood um is allocating five thousand dollars.

Um no, the uh ten.

Um but there is one that has indicated five and that's one yeah one has indicated five yeah so the ten thousand is it is that government is that prop pro province mandated or is that just uh been picked out of there thank you the five came from an earlier estimate in the fall.

The ten came from when I heard what was happening in the Sainwich Peninsula, when in fact each municipality in the Sainwich Peninsula.

One is spending 30, one is spending 40, and one is spending 50.

And I thought, wow, okay, we better we better look to increase one for a group of one planned for a group of seven.

Uh maybe up our number a little bit.

So that's where that came from.

Yeah, in that case, I'd be okay with uh 10,000 with the provision that that uh would be built back to our senior government.

So let's throw that on the table.

Let's see how that flies.

We'll go for a uh we've got a motion of Councilor Mattson.

The problems just gave us 4.7 million dollars.

We're gonna look pretty stupid asking for 10 back on an expenditure for something.

That's okay, Councilor Matson.

I wear I wear stupid well, so I'll take that.

They likely won't, but it'll be a point.

Um but so that will be a four-part, five part motion.

Um so they're not gonna give it to us.

So take off the last two paragraphs, and it would be the motion from uh the bottom on down from each member municipality, uh which was ten thousand dollars to the rest.

And I think we had some discussion on that.

There was a motion.

We've got a motion.

Let's vote on the motion.

And I think the motion uh included all of that.

So we've got a motion, and I think we got a seconder.

Uh Sarah?

I just want to be really clear so that your 10,000 nominal annual operating costs for a committee.

Yep.

Terms of reference D.

Terms of reference D apply to the first item, which is this new committee.

So if you're not approving the first item, you shouldn't be approving D.

Well we'll remove that.

And that a joint accessibility committee ad be placed.

So we're advertising for volunteer uh members of the public, and that uh and further that member municipalities each establish an email address to receive public comments instead of legislation.

Council Brown.

Well, yeah, you can't really advertise if you don't have the committee, so that's one.

Um well the email address is great.

I mean, even if we don't have a new committee, I think the email address is awesome.

That'd be great for the current committee.

I think that's beautiful.

So I'm certainly, but I think we should strike the uh the second one from the bottom.

Uh oh no, sorry.

Yeah, that one there.

The third one you mean.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, exactly.

The third one.

So that we would be approving every all the ones from the uh the 10,000 down, except for the second to last one.

That is the motion.

If I read that out, that would be uh till 10 o'clock.

Um I would be happy to just summarize so that we're all on the same page.

Yes, please is very complicated complex.

That there uh each municipality, well, in this case, others are already on board, so we could simplify this to be that View Royal um provide uh an equal share of costs up to 10,000 to retain a consultant working with our sub regional partners to prepare an accessibility plan that to apply to our own accessibility initiatives, that each uh member municipality of a and we won't say this, it's uh because we don't know what it looks like yet, of a joint sub regional accessibility committee allocate nominal annual operating funds for ex uh committee expenses, and further we each establish an email address to receive public comments as set out in the legislation.

So three points funding for the plan, funding for ongoing costs for the committee, whatever that looks like, and that we have an email address.

That's if we have a committee, so uh it's kind of redundant.

Let's call the question.

So we've got a motion on the table.

We need because just for clarity, let's I get a um a mover and a seconder because there was lots of verbiage in between.

Can I get a motion as presented by Sarah for the last four paragraphs minus the second one from the bottom or the third one from the bottom?

I'll move staff's new recommendation.

Move but moved by counselor McKenzie, seconder.

You need to vote on that.

And that one was without the original one, it was just for the the ten thousand dollars.

Yeah.

And I think I sorry if I can speak on it.

Yeah.

I think that's the best way to go because well, first of all, you can't make a bunch of recommendations on a committee we don't even have.

And I think we just have to to do that, which is some of the other municipalities have already done, and then revisit this again.

I think uh I I agree with uh counselor Rogers, you know, we don't rush into it, let's do it right.

But there's no point creating whole uh terms of reference for a new committee that we don't even have.

The same thing with advertising that.

Um Councilor Rogers likely gave me a nice card for a young lady that would l likely be willing to be a volunteer on a committee, whether it's the the AyACE committee or the or the new one.

So I think we just stick with the ten thousand, which is my original motion, I believe.

We had a motion on the floor, my mistake.

So we had a mover and a seconder for that motion.

I know that some counselors disagreed with the monetary amount, but um uh with explanations.

So we're to be clear, we're voting on the amount of money uh to fund um a the retention of a consultant that would be divvied up between municipalities um to to create a plan for each one of us to apply to their own accessibility initiatives all in favor uh don't know if counselor matsen went to bed or not and uh all opposed i see counselor rogers opposed counselor matsen were you voting in the affirmative or the negative.

I'm in the negative.

Okay.

So we've got uh two opposed, Counselor mattson and uh rogers and uh four uh for it.

Um so the motion carries.

Councilor Rogers, did you have a comment?

Yeah, you know, I guess just speaking, um, you know, given my reasons.

First off, um, I don't know really what the uh what we're achieving here.

I don't know what the 10,000 will be going for because we really haven't defined our our willingness in principle to participate in a joint accessibility committee.

So um, and it worries me that um uh you know if we it advertise how we advertise for individuals, if we don't have a terms of reference, you know, it it just, you know, hi, would you like to join?

Um so it it there's I I appreciate staff's complete recommendation that they had provided, um, but unfortunately it's um you know we don't even have an an agreement in principle to participate in a joint uh accessibility advisory committee.

Councilor Brown Yeah we're we're just voting on the money and the money it may not have to be spent or it may be spent with the uh current committee.

So we're not advertising for uh members on on either committee at this point.

All we've done is reserve the funds so they can carry on their discussion on the 20th and hopefully figure out some synergy on how the two groups are going to work together and give us some recommendations coming back.

Uh so I think let's call that one done and closed and correspondence.

I think we've already directed uh to the blue sheet, which was a late item that was in hyperlink.

Uh and um we're moving down to bylaws, which is 10, and that's the growing uh communities fund reserve establishment that we had to kind of do in order to receive the money, didn't we, Don?

Yeah, I put machine in the portion.

Oh, thank you.

Uh seconder.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

None.

Motion carries, and over to you, Don.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias and Council.

Uh, this should be much simpler, I'm hoping.

Uh, attached to the report are three documents.

One is the letter from the ministry announcing uh View Royals award for under the uh Growing Communities Um Fund.

That uh sent me to study what the requirements of this money are, and there certainly are some, and we're only getting started understanding what all of those are.

But the first one that became very apparent to me was that the province requires us to put it in a segregated statutory reserve fund.

So the bylaw in front of you is that reserve establishment bylaw.

We're asking for three readings this evening.

Um I apologize, I neglected to add to the recommendation that we would also like you to amend the policy, and that is the third um document attached to this report and so I ask that in addition to receiving the report that council amend the uh that the amend the resolution to include and that the reserves and surplus policy be amended as indicated in the March 20 Growing Communities Fund Reserve Establishment report so really before council is to receive the report to amend the policy and to give the first three readings to the bylaw as proposed.

If you have any questions about the reserve establishment, I can certainly help you there.

Well especially my memory I moved to a recommendation.

Second.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Nobody's got a problem with receiving 4.66 million dollars.

So that's uh uh issue.

You did you get everything you needed done?

Except for the credit.

Uh okay, I think that brings us down to uh a question period.

Uh no, you wish you're um I would move first through third on bylaw one one one six.

Uh no, we just uh approved status recommendations on the polls.

Okay, yeah.

Now we're doing the bylaws.

Seconded by Councillor Masson.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Uh now uh we can move to question period.

Anybody in the room with a question?

Anybody on the phone, Carl, with a question?

Nobody.

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers this evening.

All night for the phone, Carl.

Sorry about that.

We'll work on up in our uh up in our participation on the phone.

So I think now we move to a um a closed meeting resolution.

You do.

There is a need to have a meeting closed to the public in persons other than the immediate members of council, officers and employees of the town, and those identified under section 91, subsection two of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 90, subsection 1F enforcement, and I legal advice