Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal, and welcome to the Town of View Royals Council meeting for Tuesday, October 1st, 2024.

Council recognizes another mayor in the audience, Mayor Alto from the City of Victoria, who's not here on City of Victoria Business.

So welcome, Mayor Alto.

We'll start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Laquanguan speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

For members in the audience, Councilor is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.

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

To provide your comments virtually during the public participation period or to ask questions during question period, you will see a new QR code or a URL on the live webcast stream screen or a URL on the town's website under live webcast.

Microsoft decided to change a feature and does not allow you to unmute yourself.

So we're gonna have to get you to scan the QR code or type the URL.

And through the form that pops up, type in your comment or question to be read aloud at the appropriate time by a member of our webcast team.

If you are speaking in council chambers.

Public participation comments are limited to five minutes for each speaker and must be related to the items on the agenda.

Uh question period is open to any questions and is limited to two minutes each for each speaker.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

You will be timed.

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

Can I get an approval or motion to approve the agenda, please?

Second.

Moved by Councilor Brown, seconded by Councilor Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Can I get a motion to adopt the minutes from uh uh the two items A and B, please?

Move adoption.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Uh motion carries.

Uh just a few comments for the mayor's report.

Um, some of you might have attended uh the South Island powwow.

Uh went over very well, over 11,000 folks there.

Um, and it was very uh very well turned out.

I think it gets bigger every year that it goes on.

So and it was a spectacular day for it.

So thanks all that turned out for it.

As well, happy that View Royal's three uh requests uh to add for UBCM actually made it through this year and were endorsed by the union um uh British Columbia uh municipalities, and they included uh what do we have on this one?

We had a glue trap ban.

Uh we we the RCMP cost share formula for uh for growing municipalities to spread that out more evenly over time so uh areas aren't hit with it.

What was the third one reminded?

Oh, to reduce the hospital well or related to hospital wait times, our our police officers are spending more time in hospitals um escorting or providing escort duties to um folks that they bring in under the Mental Health Act.

Um, and although the province had uh promised to train constables, special constables before when they initially rolled it out that hasn't been done so we see our police officers um in weight rooms sometimes doing turnovers in the weight room because they've uh spent so much time in there and if they're in uh the ward uh then they're not out protecting the streets and doing practice policing.

So very pleased with uh with uh council's performance and representation and the fact that three very important issues got before UBCM and were endorsed.

That brings me to petitions and delegations, and I think we have the chair of the CRD arts commission and the manager for arts and culture.

Uh, and it's related to View Royal's participation in CRD arts.

I won't make my usual comment about height.

Uh, thank you very much for your time this evening.

Indeed, uh, I am Marianne Alter, the mayor of Victoria, but I'm here not with that hat on tonight, uh, but what as has been noted uh was the uh the hat of the chair of the CRD Arts Commission.

Uh I also wanted to thank all of you, uh Mayor Tobias in particular, but all of you council members for the work that you brought to UBCM.

It was well endorsed and well supported, so thank you for that advocacy.

Uh, we're here tonight, actually, and uh Mr.

Gilpin will be doing the presentation in a minute uh to provide some information for you, which we hope you will consider uh later in the evening when you're considering a resolution with regard to your participation in the arts commission.

So I think I'll just leave it at that and let Mr.

Gilpin uh do the presentation, and then I'll have a couple of closing remarks.

Hello, my name is Chris Gilpin.

I'm the manager of the CRD Arts and Culture Support Service, and thank you for the opportunity to provide a little bit more information about the CRD service and its costs and benefits.

I'm just going to run through a little bit more about it.

So the CRD Arts and Culture Support Service started in 2001.

It had six jurisdictions participating at that time.

View Royal was one of the founding participating jurisdictions of the service.

Since 2001, it has grown to nine participating jurisdictions, so more have joined over time.

A little bit about the structure.

There's an arts commission that includes one representative from each of the participating jurisdictions.

Councillor Lemon is View Royal's representative.

There is also an arts advisory council that's made up of community volunteers, 12 of them, who adjudicate the grants, provide funding recommendations, and policy advice from a community perspective if requested.

And then there's three staff, myself and two other CRD staff members.

We have five granting programs.

I'm not going to go through them all in detail, but enough to say that we have a very well designed suite of grant programs to support arts organizations at every stage of their life cycle and for any kind of arts event all across the region.

Well, in 2023, we invested $2.6 million through 93 grants, and that activated almost 9,500 arts events.

And what did those grant programs do?

I can tell you that in 2024, that's now up to 101 grants and around 10,000 arts events across the region.

We're now seeing audience levels, and these are just a couple examples up on the screen here, that are at or exceeding their pandemic levels, their pre-pandemic levels.

And so what that really shows is that the demand for arts events in a growing region is still really growing fast.

Arts funding is very efficient we've seen many studies here but basically every dollar invested in arts funding in BC creates one and a half dollars in economic impact there's a lot of GDP there's a lot of jobs in the region dedicated to arts and culture uh this is just one snapshot of a recipient this is Kaleidoscope Theater they're kind of an interesting organization because not only do they present great plays they tour those plays around the region they take them and they do a show on the peninsula they do a show on the West Shore they do a show in the core and they have mentioned that over 33% of their audience happens to be from View Royal.

Over 4,000 members of View Royal attended audiences, sorry, attended events at the McRoyal Theater or McPherson Playhouse in 2023.

Again, that's just one snapshot of a piece of data with that we do have.

That's about 2% of the total number of people that attended events at those venues.

However, many of those people were actually tourists and from out of town.

So if you look at CRD ticket buyers of CRD ticket buyers at the McPherson Playhouse, View Royal was 4% of the CRD ticket buyers.

And now an update on the performing arts facilities, and I do want to try to make this distinction clearly.

The arts and culture support service is programming.

This is arts events, this is arts activities, this is the artistic content.

But there is a connection to infrastructure and facilities.

So I do want to include one slide on it, and that's basically to let you know that the CRD has relaunched a performing arts Facilities select committee, which is chaired by Mayor Auto, and that is looking at all kinds of different ways in which we can support existing and future facilities, including at the West Shore.

And actually, I was here at the Municipal Hall in View Royal having a meeting with the Intermunicipal Working Group of the JDF Performing Arts Society just a couple of weeks ago.

We had a very fulsome discussion.

I've also had discussions with the Mary Wynn Spear Center up in the peninsula.

So CRD is very active in talking to groups about how to expand support for facilities across the region.

So just to summarize a few of the key benefits for View Royal of the Arts and Culture Support Service, View Royal residents benefit from arts activities which we support again across the region.

And your contributions really do amplify the arts everywhere.

View Royal is a regional leader in supporting the arts by being a Tier 1 participant.

And View Royal, of course, has a seat on the arts commission and a voice in shaping policy for the region.

So by being part of this service, nonprofit organizations in View Royal can apply to our grants.

I think there was some discussion at previous meetings.

Do they do that?

We don't receive a lot of applications from organizations in View Royal.

The one that I think was discussed before was the Hispanic Film Society.

The reason why they show up as a View Royal grant recipient is because their BC Society's registration, their head office is in View Royal.

Now, they happen, their activities happen to be at the most affordable cinema in town, which happens to be Cinecenter at UVIC.

So that's where they do their activities, but they are uh registered in View Royal.

The other thing, of course, that being part of this service does is that other organizations located elsewhere in the region can bring arts activities to View Royal and we can fund those activities.

Currently, we can't fund arts organizations to do activities in Calwood or Langford.

So if a group comes and says, here's our grant application, we're gonna go and do a show and we're gonna do a show in Saanich and Langford and Souk, we literally cross off the show in Langford and say you can apply to us for the show in Saanich and the show in Souk because they're participating jurisdictions.

So that's very important distinction about how the service works.

And of course, the cost, that's very important too.

I realize that that's a big part of the debate here.

Um, approximately the estimate for 2025 will be just around 120,000, and that's about four percent of our uh total budget for this service, which is a very important amount.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Walto for some concluding remarks.

Thanks very much.

As you can see from Chris's presentation, you know, the numbers are very compelling, but I don't actually want to speak to you about the numbers.

I want to speak to you about your impact.

Uh VBroil, despite its small size and population, has an enormous impact on the programming and decision making around arts and culture in the whole region.

And frankly, we'd be a bit lost without you.

Uh, your voices here are maybe small in numbers, but they're very powerful when it comes to the compelling stories of the people that you have here who are creating arts and culture activities.

And so having you withdraw would in fact have a significant impact, not just for you, but for the region as a whole, particularly as Chris mentioned, as we move into the more um substantive discussions about arts facilities, which is upcoming in the next six months to a year.

And we want to be able to make sure that you are included in those conversations and have every opportunity, not just to perhaps be considered and be partners in those potential developments, but to have influence and opinion being able to be at the table.

So the commission, as Chris mentioned, is separate from but is certainly part of the conversation.

So I guess all we're here tonight is to provide you with a little information and also to ask you to consider this information when you do have your matter before you later this evening.

And in fact, our request would be that you reaffirm your participation at your current levels.

And we're happy to take any questions tonight.

Thank you, Chris.

And Marianne, I think there uh did generate some questions.

So we'll start with Councillor Brown, please.

Welcome to our council meeting.

Uh music in the park.

Uh Sydney, Saanich, Callwood, I've all been to them because I'm cheap.

I go to free concerts and they're well attended.

Is that something that someone in View Royal could put a come through you for a grant to put something on in View Royal like that?

Absolutely.

A nonprofit organization could apply for an event like that to the CRD Arts and Culture Support Service.

And the success rate in project grants is very high.

So their chances of being funded would be very, very high.

Um so like when I say very high, we're talking about in our idea grants we have a 95% success rate.

In our project rates, we have an 80% success rate.

So if that kind of uh music in the park event did come to us through a nonprofit organization, its chances of being funded would be very high.

Umfortunately we couldn't fund the one in Sydney because uh they are not a participating jurisdiction.

Alice Hi so I noticed when looking at the recipients of the CRD arts grant that there was only one from View Royal this past year.

And when I looked into it, so that was the Hispanic Film Society and when I looked into it though uh it says it's located at University of Victoria.

So I was just wondering how is it def determined where they're located and that they're from this area.

Through the mayor.

Thank you for that question.

And and it is a bit technical, but really in our application form, we fund nonprofit organizations and we ask them where is their office as registered with BC societies?

So this nonprofit happens to have registered their head office of their nonprofit within View Royal.

And that's why it's listed as a View Royal grant recipient, even though their activities are at Cinecenter on UVIC.

Thank you, Mr.

Gilpin and Mayor Alto.

Were you Royal to consider or if council were to say, yes, we'd we would like to reduce our reduce our involvement and pay a little less to participate in the regional arts program.

How would we go about with that?

What what would the process look like?

Through the mayor, thank you for that question.

So this would come to the CRD and if agreed upon by the board would generate an amending bylaw.

So that amending bylaw would because the participants are written into the bylaw.

So this would be changing, you would need to change the bylaw to change the participants.

And this would mean that there would be an amending bylaw that would be have to be approved, voted on, and approved by the CRD board.

And then it would have to receive council consent from at least two-thirds of existing participants.

We have nine participants, so at least six of the existing councils would have to give consent to the amending bylaw.

And that would be the that would be the key decision points.

Then it's looked at by the inspector of municipalities at the province and adopted by the board.

Let's go to first timers first.

Go ahead, Chuck.

That sounds very difficult, doesn't it?

You know, when um there, I don't recall when uh we joined uh that it would be so difficult to amend or um redis reconsider um and and leave.

When I was on the CRD arts commission, Sydney was on, and then Sydney was off.

And uh I don't recall, yeah, I'm wondering, did CRD Arts Commission go to Sydney and and appeal and beg them to come back?

Uh I'll I'll take a first crack at that.

There was an appeal to Sydney to stay within um the CRD Arts and Culture Support Service.

Uh Sydney leaving the surface was an amending bylaw.

There was an amending bylaw that was created.

Um it actually the way that one was written, it was uh replaced the word Sydney with the word SUK, because SUK was joining at the exact time that Sydney left.

Um so there was an amending bylaw, it was given uh approval by the CRD board and then council consent by at least two thirds of participants.

And I'll I'll just add briefly, there was an appeal actually made to the Sydney Council.

Uh and the Sydney Council, though at the time uh voted to leave.

Um, I've been made aware actually that the current councils prior to the current council, uh is actually reconsidering that decision.

Uh with Sydney, and and uh frankly they thought there was nothing in it for them, you know, because they had their theater, and and you know, that's where we want to be in in West Shore.

Uh when you consider the uh the length of the questions, Councilor Rogers, please.

Just questions.

Just questions.

Here's the question to the two mayors.

Isn't it pout time that we have a regional arts and culture center, just like we have the CRD parks, and everybody, every resident, every household is a member, and then we don't have this divisive, and only seven, only nine are paying the full load, and all the others get to uh jump in as freeloaders.

Not sure I'd put it exactly that way, but thank you for that, Councillor Rogers.

The simple answer is yes.

And in fact, the uh select committee that uh Mr.

Gilpin referenced, which is currently working, is actually looking at exactly that.

Uh, we're expecting a staff report back to the select committee actually in November, which will be providing some options about the possibilities for both a regional and a sub regional service.

And in fact, one of the very important talking points about that is how the region itself comes together to provide a more fair and more distributed number of performing arts facilities.

There is absolutely no doubt that the way the population is changing, uh, it's not viable to consider having only three particular uh large um usable venues, uh, two in Victoria and one in Sydney.

And so one of the most important conversations that will happen at the Select Committee when it returns to the consideration of that in November is in fact what the future looks like across the region.

There's absolutely an intent at that committee to very seriously consider and propose a way forward for a regional service.

And then that will, of course, subject to that recommendation, that will go to the board for consideration.

Sorry, just point for clarification.

So when is that motion going to the charity board?

Should we can all vote on it?

Depending upon what the select committee does with that, it's highly likely it would come back.

I suspect probably not until January.

That's okay.

Sorry, I'll be quick.

I know it's my second turn.

The um Opera Opera Society, they're actually having a bus come from the West Shore, which is great because you know, to travel to to uh uh McPherson or the Royal Royal Theater, it's it's you know, parking and traffic volume, uh, even like the football game, that was a good example.

Are they gonna make the playoffs?

Anyway, uh make it slide.

The um is that something the operatic society made a grant for for that bus, or is that something the other groups are looking at?

Because if if that was a regular thing, I could see a lot more usage from people from Ball View Royal.

I'd call it in Lankford as well.

Uh through the mayor, thank you for that question.

Uh certainly I have had discussions with other large groups about expanding their activities on the West Shore and also helping transportation, but especially about bringing more things to the West Shore.

The Victoria Conservatory of Music now has a special facility on the West Shore, and there's a lot more interest in doing that.

Is there really okay?

Just gonna pose questions there.

Thank you again very much for your presentation and answering our uh questions.

Um and I think that brings us next to public participation period.

Thank you very much.

So is there anybody in the room first that would like to address council on any item related to the agenda at all?

Please feel welcome because it's your only chance aside from a question period at the end, uh, to uh to ask a or to make a comment to council if there's nobody in the room that would like to address council then i'll go to carl do we have any comments that we've received carl uh mayor mayor toias we've received no comments from the public so far this evening thank you i'll turn it over now uh we're on item seven business rising from previous minutes and i'll turn it over to council rogers for his motion to amend uh c or d arts funding.

Um excuse me, sir.

Yes.

Uh no.

Uh so i i i thought it was pretty crystal clear, but go ahead, sir.

Nope.

It's okay.

It's all right.

I tried to make you feel welcome.

So just uh depress the uh the microphone you got about five minutes to uh to inform us okay just start off by your your name and and the street where you're yes yellow uh my name's Chris Smith I'm the uh strata president of our strata council for 2319 Chilco Road uh Stonecliff properties.

It's a 43 unit uh townhouse development at the top of Chilco Road Hill uh we made this submission earlier for the agenda, which is you may have had a chance to have a little preview of it.

Long story short is we hadn't had a decision in June from council that we had requested on the tree replacement situation.

We had appealed that asking for reconsideration given numerous circumstances that are unique to our situation, I believe.

A little bit of a background again we're at the top of Chilco Road at the base of Mill Hill.

It was built 14 years ago on a rock, the edge of a rock uh plateau and it was it was bulldozed and it was clear cut uh the the buildings were were it uh built and the um the tree plant at the time uh appears on reflection to have been extremely generous we have trees right up against houses we have trees that uh exceed or do not meet the minimum root ball uh specifications um it uh not sure sorry excuse me council at the time um again 14 years ago would have appeared had approved a tree plan that did not meet numerous specifications and now we're living with that legacy um again, I'm not we weren't here.

I'm sure many of you weren't weren't there um we have trees that are we've just removed another one where the roadway is is coming up uh we have trees that are impacting foundations.

And so now we're we're being saddled, if you would, with the two for one replacement situation, which we feel is unfair and inappropriate.

What we are requesting, uh given the circumstances, is there are a number of trees that are regenerating, and we're not getting credit for that for the trees that are naturally dying.

In the uh letter um back, it was determined of deemed protected trees.

Well, again, all these trees are 14 years old and they were mature.

Many of them were mature when they were installed, again, installed inappropriately.

So we question the deemed protected nature.

Our proposal is to have somebody come on on and have a look at our situation.

There's numerous trees that are growing regrowing naturally.

So as they die naturally it would just make sense that ones that are growing regrowing naturally should be credited.

We're receiving no credit for that.

Alternative to that would be a one for one situation on replanting elsewhere.

There is the current if we can't replace them ourselves, we can pay $500 a tree elsewhere.

We're looking at 14 trees that need replacing right now.

It's a domino.

We don't, even if we did plant them, we don't have the soil mantle.

And then we're gonna have to do two for one, and it becomes exponential.

They're just gonna die.

Um so alternative to a two for one being a bit of a um hindrance.

We're asking if if the regeneration isn't accepted, a one for one, and uh that we may be able to accommodate some, we may have to to pay for that offsite.

Um, but again, um that's a long and short of it.

So we're living with something in summary as a legacy situation, which probably never should have been approved.

Uh, the developer, it it does look great, but it's just not working.

Um, so we're asking for reconsideration and and and understanding from from uh from council.

No.

Thank you.

I think we we can uh ask the questions when it comes to the correspondence part.

Right, exactly.

So I'm I'm we can bring him up for questions.

Okay, excellent.

If he's if he's not here but I mean we can refer it as well.

I'll be here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the chamber wish to address counsel on any matter seeing nobody here and we already heard on the phone that there's uh we have nobody there we can move to item uh seven uh business residents Councilor rogers councillor rogers please uh thank you uh um i would uh move the recommendation on what is a seconder i would speak to motivate thank you um you know this is um um uh a situation where i'm i'm not um suggesting that we withdraw but um motivate reconsider um and if necessary drop down a level um the the uh the circumstances and and i i'm pleased to hear from from the speakers that um uh they have reached out to uh the west shore and to judith and and talk about that, but that's all theoretical.

There's nothing in black and white, there's no commitment.

There's, you know, um uh and until there is a uh an actual regional initiative, um, I I have uh very little faith that uh the West Shore is is is going to um uh get the kind of um arts infrastructure that uh it desperately needs.

And uh in the correspondence that we've received, you know, people saying $24 a household per year is not a lot.

And I agree.

It's not a lot.

It's not a lot for every single household in the CRD to pay for regional service and uh for VOL to spend and uh, you know, to have been in the situation of uh be it 123 or 150,000, 15,000, where other municipalities in the West Shore don't contribute, and they have twice as much uh participation in the royal and the McPherson, um, and uh where we exceed that of Suk, Michos and the Highlands.

So it's um I'm I'm hoping that um unless the CRD is really going to um uh take a regional approach, both on infrastructure and programming, then um I I think it is time for us to do a review.

And I think the other portions of review is because um our budget in 2025 will have enormous strain.

We have uh police building infrastructure, e-commerce costs from the province, increased recreational library costs, the water bill will go up six to nine percent this this coming year, and we have a stagnant casino.

Our 2024 taxes were artificially low, and we failed to invest in our infrastructure reserves.

We have to act.

Now I hear that Langford is looking at it for 2025, which is encouraging, but we'll see what happens.

And it's unfortunate that COVID remains silent.

So and and you know it's it's nice that um uh V ROA is capable, um, and we have an arts uh group in V Royal, but where do they perform in V Royal?

Nowhere.

So they go to the university or downtown, but it's of of little um significance to us.

The I think um, you know, in our situation of climate concerns and GHG reductions, um uh reduced travel and congestion is um I think very important.

Um we should give the West Shore a reason not to have to drive through V Royal, just like the West Shore is doing um the university and Camosan College, so the students don't have to drive through uh through um our town.

Um while the Bing Plus Pro Blink bus, rapid bus, is under construction, that will certainly be able to help us get to the West Shore.

And I think, you know, back then when we joined 2021, we were core.

We're not anymore.

Our police and fire are um our West Shore.

We have a fabulous West Shore uh parks and wreck uh situation.

We have the Chamber of Commerce, we have the WandaFuca uh Border Commission, all of which uh I think um few of people are telling me very few residents go downtown.

And uh I think that's that's for good reason.

Um we have two years.

Uh when we give notice, I think it takes two years for the um the news to take effect, either to withdraw, which I'm not recommending, or reduce.

And that gives the CRD and all the arts groups who have been writing to us asking us to stay, to go out and lobby those other municipalities who haven't even joined.

I I kind of I'm rather resentful of them telling us to stay and they haven't uh and and I haven't heard of them saying, well, we should go up and canvas those others.

They should be heavily promoting all municipal leaders.

And um I think um I think frankly downtown is a problem.

We have businesses leaving down there.

We have uh even furniture.

But you're almost at the point where your motivation is uh losing us.

Yeah, maybe maybe so.

But I think the there's lots of reasons why people don't go downtown.

And I think there's lots of reasons for the arts commission, and I think even for uh destination Victoria that is now uh providing their regional strategic plan that they will be bringing and focusing on the West Shore.

So let's do the same.

I um I urge uh council to uh support the motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Go to second or yeah, I'd like to see more uh facilities here, like to see uh less traffic on the roads.

I'm very encouraged that they're having a bus to the opera.

Believe it or not, I'm going to the opera.

First time anyway.

Um and I've always thought that the uh that perhaps the casino would be nice for them to finish their theater off there.

And I I think in the past I've mentioned band shells.

Bandshells are not expensive.

You put some power to them, like Sydney has a very nice one.

Um and if we had something like that, it could serve multiple purposes, it could be uh music in the park, like the other municipalities have.

Uh people could rent it for uh weddings, um celebrations of life in the summer and that kind of thing.

So it'd be nice to have uh more money locally.

And I think it's a good idea for us to review this anyway, because I think there's so many items that are coming up on our budget.

Um and and we can't fund everything.

There's only one taxpayer, right?

And um I agree it's it's it's time to review it.

And I I like what Council Rogers said about um, you know, encouraging the other municipalities to join.

Uh certainly there's strength in numbers, but if everybody isn't a member, um there's some unfairness there.

I mean, it looks like we're paying um well, souk.

Mind you, they're quite a ways away, but they're they're paying less than what we're paying, and their population is very similar to ours, really.

So but uh I definitely support the motion because it's it's a review.

It's not we're not saying we're cutting them right out, and it's not saying we're going to step two, it's just saying we're going to review it.

I think during our 2025 budget discussions, that's the time to do it.

Counselor Levin.

I do agree with much of what my colleague said, and um, but uh it's not time.

I don't I don't see this as the time.

A a West Shore facility is still a long way off.

And uh I I also, you know, I I may maybe I misread this, Councillor Rogers, but uh are you suggesting that we the CRD or we ask other municipalities to pay their share?

That is, yes, your your worship, that is uh through the worship.

Um the second part of the motion is at the town request all West Shore municipalities to either join or modify their contributions towards a totally regional funding and for towards infrastructure.

So yes, asking them to step up.

Good.

I you know perhaps that's the CRD's role, but I don't see it as ours.

I I think for us to tell our our neighbors how to spend their money is is very presumptuous and it's it's not it I I would be offended, we would be offended if we got such a letter saying, you know, it's time for you to pony up.

Um but and and to the point of V Royal doesn't have um performing arts groups, but we have a we have a resident population that is very involved in the arts.

They're they're they're employed in the arts, they they volunteer in the arts, they perform in the arts, and it's these funds that keep their their theater groups and their orchestras and their visual arts and their dance troops alive and on stage.

But um you you heard earlier Mr.

Gilpin's um description of how we would go about reducing our membership.

And that's that will be really, really tricky.

As I understand it, it's like an eight, an eight-stage process.

It starts with, it going goes to the CRD board.

CRD says, you know, well, you know, they might say, well, consider this.

Then it goes to the Arts Commission and the members of the Arts Commission of which I'm a member would vote.

And then it would go, the amending bylaw go back goes, I believe, back to the board, and the board votes on it as a whole, I believe.

And then it goes to, or perhaps that's the two thirds of participants.

Anyway, the CRD board votes on it, then it goes to the inspector of of municipalities and so on.

But I I I can't imagine that other municipalities are going to be saying, sure, we'll put it on our residents, you know you you you pay less and our residents will pick up the slack i don't see that vote going in our our direction um you know we we're either involved we're members or or we're not um and also the weighted votes the weighted votes of the larger municipalities it's it is unlikely that we would that that we would um be able to pull back can i see clarification speaker yeah, clarification yeah let's let's just uh go through first time speakers, uh, please.

Uh Alison or was it you, uh ron?

Yeah.

Go ahead, Ron.

Oh.

Yeah, just quite simply, I mean, the motion is just simply for a review.

And there's enough conversation around it sounds as if a review is is warranted.

And the other part is of the motion is uh we we would just like to see all municipalities participate in the funding.

And I don't have a problem with either, and and for that I'm going to be supporting the motion because again, it's just a review.

Thank you.

Allison.

Yeah, I think that being that we're in the middle, you know, we are being torn both ways.

And for that reason, I it does make sense to me that our contribution would fall somewhere in that middle ground, because we it will be expected that we pay towards West Shore um arts as as well as downtown.

So I think somewhere between that level one of Victoria and Sandage and the nothing that Cullwood and Langford uh currently contribute, that's where we should be.

And I also wanted to make note that, you know, we have received communications from arts organizations, but not much from View Royal residents themselves uh, you know, noting their concern with this.

So I just wanted to throw that out there.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alison.

And uh just a couple of questions uh for myself is one is that I've got no problem with reviewing anything at any time because I think that just leads to healthier services when we do that.

However, there the one thing that's unclear to me is if we go through this, how much if Callwood and Langford joined, would it reduce our cost?

And would that whether that would be significant enough or or not?

Um, but I I'd like to see that number as well as I would like to just note that you can't play this game too often with neighbors.

Right?

Uh you lose the capital and in and a commitment.

Uh and we've got to be really firm if we review it and then decide to do it.

It's a long, drawn-out process, but it's also reneging on a commitment that is in place.

And and to Allison's point, the reason why we don't have concerts in the park, uh uh Don, that I would like to see is that it's not for lack of funding.

There's a lack of nonprofit organizers here that would actually host and do that.

That's a big task to do, right?

It's huge.

So it's it's not for lack of other things, um, but but local organizers actually putting in the hard work to do it despite the cost there.

Um I'm not unsupportive of this, but I don't like the uh implications it has that um uh because other people aren't playing, um, that that we're gonna pull um or threaten to pull our money out of it.

I don't think that's a good game to play because I think we set it as founders um and and with the hopes that people might come on board.

We've seen Sydney kind of flip flop soup flip flop as well in the process and they might all come on board but if we start down this road then with the same logic then we lose sight of recreation we lose sight of parks we lose sight of other things that's not just a fiscal bottom line for me the other thing that's not clear is that we're not ready yet for the West Shore to do its thing so what are we saying in this?

What are we actually hoping to achieve if the West Shore arts becomes a thing then obviously our contributions would would change somehow uh with Calwood and Langford coming on uh because we wouldn't do it without them.

Um but is this too early to do anything?

Is the timing right for this?

I think we can review it, but there's still gonna be some questions that come up.

So those are my thoughts.

Any other comments, questions?

Councillor Rogers.

Yes, thank you all all very good points.

And and um uh in in the process of of review um but also in you know the CRD um arts um I think we can work jointly to approach our neighbors uh I think there's enough to sell um the um uh years ago we didn't have uh Judith and and that organization.

And now I I understand that there is momentum.

They are moving towards uh getting an understanding with the CRD.

It's a different ball game.

And I I um I'm encouraged that Langford is now seriously considering of joining in 2025.

And I think the just even if they did at the lower level, it would be equivalent to ours.

That's the power that they have.

And I think if we bring this just like in in terms of uh tourism in the West Shore, has enormous potential.

And this is another way of us supporting our local businesses uh and uh and just really making the West Shore that much stronger and uh just like the the West Shore parts in Rack.

Fabulous, people go to it, we can do it in the arts as well.

Just a question, Councilor Rogers.

Your uh your motion is that we review you're talking about an internal review, not a CRD review, correct?

It's it's a review of our our participation, yes, and and uh as like it's two parts, right?

Okay.

And specifically that review would occur in conjunction with our budget discussions for this year.

Okay.

Okay.

Any other questions, comments?

Councilor Quellarch.

Thanks, yeah.

Really good discussion.

So I just want to make sure before this goes to the vote, um kind of hearing something different than what's on the paper for the motion.

And I and Councilor Rogers, uh if you may please um can you just clarify it?

Sorry.

Just the motion that we're gonna be voting on here uh shortly after, and I do have just some closing comments too after that.

That we're reviewing our group level participation and that we are with a consideration also to fund the West Shore Arts Center, and that the town requests all West Shore municipalities to join or modify their contributions towards a 2D regional funded arts, regional arts.

Okay.

Uh some of the comments I heard earlier was that maybe some of us weren't comfortable with giving direction to the municipalities.

I happen to be one of those counselors as well.

And I think there's probably an opportunity to soften this uh this motion.

Uh I believe um a lot of valid comments, and John, I think you're you are on the right track here.

Uh I have a problem with taking something away when we don't have anything to replace it with quite yet.

Um, I also believe we're stronger together, and I think that the Capitol Regional District Board and Arts and Culture Commission, thank you, Council Lemon, for representing us at such a high level, I think is much stronger to uh build, create, and add arts and culture in the West Shore, to be quite honest with you, than starting something from grassroots.

I really truly believe that.

I think if we stick with them and convince Langford and Colewood to join, the prospects of a build are much higher than a new startup West Shore Arts and Council Commission or group.

I I really believe that.

I mean, I think that's pretty fair to say.

Uh that being said, I'm all open to a review if the language gets uh softened.

If I if you worship um uh through with Damon's comments, um I wondered the second motion then and that the town work with CRD arts.

So the town worked with CRDs to request all West Shore.

Right?

So we're it's a collaborative approach.

I I think one of the parts I don't want to put words in your mouth, Councilor Crawlish, but uh that he was getting at is that you had to town request all West Shore municipalities to join or modify their CRD contributions.

So definitely uh if you had to put review, I think that would be more palatable for other municipalities.

We're not telling them to do something, we're asking them to review the circumstances that uh led SUC and Sydney to change their minds.

And a friendly amendment, as long as you and uh your seconder agreed to that, we could replace to join or modify with review.

This is a a build a build process, and that the town of Hue um work with uh CRD arts um um to work with West Or municipalities to review their CRD contributions or membership.

So are you asking that they would review?

Is that what you're saying?

Okay.

So indeed, so that they we uh asked the uh the westroom municipalities to review their contributions zero or whatever.

Staff, do you have that?

I just wish to clarify that it's uh toward a truly regional funded arts program and infrastructure at the end yes uh the only change was to replace to join or modify uh to review their crd contributions toward a truly and that uh and the first part that the town worked with the CRD architecture good i think if there's no other questions or comments, we could go to vote on the amended uh motion is just under okay with the uh so all those in favor of the motion as amended, uh that's to replace review, uh, would you join our modify all those in favor of that motion?

Any opposed to the motion.

Noting that councillor Lemon is opposed to the motion, motion carries.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Um that brings us to eight, eight point one.

Uh I think Ivan, is this all you?

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan the Young Director of Engineering.

Uh I have before you a staff report requesting the purchase of two trucks, um, EV trucks for parks and engineering department.

Um, half of this report has has uh come to you in September.

Uh and per council direction, uh, we're looking into purchasing an EV truck for our parks truck that um has to be replaced due to an MVI.

And then a second half of this report is for the purchase of a um EV truck for engineering department.

So per our uh fleet plan, one is to be replaced this year, so we're simply um working with council to purchase another EV truck for that matter.

Um it does require a budget amendment, so uh you'll notice that the number 141,000 in that GST trade and allowance insurance payout.

Uh that's on the recommendation, but it that's not additional to the budget.

Uh we already have earmarked um a budget amount for the engineering vehicle, and we did get a a write-off reimbursement from ICBC.

So um that's in the financial implications portion of the report.

Uh the the reports here before you, recommendation from staffs that the council approve up to $141,000 net of GST trade and allowance and insurance payout for the purchase of two Chevrolet Silverado EV work trucks from General Sevrolet Buick to replace the park's 2019 Chevrolet Silverado truck and engineering's 2010 Nissan Frontier truck funded from the machinery and equipment reserve.

And that's the uh 24 to 28 financial plan be amended accordingly.

Happy to take questions.

Thank you, Ivan.

Counselor Matson and Councillor Rogers, please.

Yes, thank you, staff.

Uh two questions.

One of them, so between what we saw a few weeks ago or however long it was, and now, what's the difference in the budget?

What's different in the budget or through the mayor, what's different in the budget would be the engineering truck replacement.

So uh in the um financial implications, we have a current budget of $55,000 for that truck.

And what is being recommended is a budget of $80,000, so $25,000 more.

So that would be the inherent increase in the budget since the last time you saw this report.

Okay, so fine.

So $25,000.

The other question is, will the EV truck meet your needs?

And it's are the are they comparable to the gas-powered one in terms of meeting the needs for the town.

Yeah through the mayor, yeah we had a quite discussion on this in September.

Staff will do its best to maintain existing level of service.

It will be impacted um in the short term and the long term one thing that we'll be working on is to make sure that the long term impacts are mitigated.

Uh we staff as they mentioned about truck box volume being being in um a mitigating factor in uh providing storage level service and the ability to do their day to day work.

Um, that said staff are also looking at other alternatives, creating storage.

So um instead of looking just at the square area of the box, looking further up, more 3D, putting in a basket in the back of the truck.

So all of those are items that will look to uh mitigate the storage issue that uh parks has assessed.

Um so uh in the report, I think what I've mentioned in report is that uh level service will be slightly decreased due to the reduced truck box size, but again, we're trying to mitigate that as much as possible, and it is doable, I think.

Um the other uh limiting factor is charging stations, and uh we've realized that uh a little more work is required there.

But we've also done research with other municipalities, they don't have a one-for-one charger to vehicle ratio.

Sometimes they do swap and share.

Uh so that is another item that we'll be uh be looking at as well.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers.

Uh thank you.

Um I'm sorry, some I can't find it, but it I think somewhere you mentioned that um the reserve fund that this is coming from uh can withstand the hit.

Uh through the mayor, yeah, I won't speak on behalf of a director of finance, but based on our chats and what we've and the fact that we put this in the report, um, it doesn't impact uh the fund in the short term.

We'll have to look at ideas on how we can look forward to doing a whole fee replacement in the long term.

Um like I said, it's doesn't, it's not a not a short-term issue, and it's something that could be that could be addressed.

And do uh thank you for that.

Um looking at your attachment to the draft revisions um there.

Yeah, I can I can see how it's going from 55 to 80,000 for uh for the for the one vehicle.

Um so my concern, however, is that glaring red bit uh at the bottom, major electrical upgrade.

And um yeah, thank you for mentioning it uh back on September the third, and here we are again uh as a uh placeholder.

Um and I'm assuming it's a placeholder for 2025.

The mayor, through the mayor, yes, that would be a placeholder for 2025.

Staff will be presenting that the council.

It's an unforeseen, it was a it was a half foreseen in the sense that we knew it was going to happen, but based on the uh analysis that was done, it is gonna be a significant impact one where we'll probably need a a brand new BC hydro drop for it.

So the numbers there are fairly cursory in nature.

Um staff will be uh trying to hone that number down or to get it a little more accurate for council deliberation during budget.

And I assume it's something that we're we're gonna have to have to do sooner or later.

Um but uh that'll that'll and do we have any sense of what reserve that um 100,000 or whatever might come from uh through the mayor, we do not at this time that'll be something that staff will work with finance on as part of budget deliberations.

Councilor Brown.

I'd like to move the staff recommendation.

Second.

So moved by councillor Brown, seconded by uh Council Matson.

Uh Ivan, I've just got one question for uh unless anybody else does, and that is uh what's the percentage of our fleet now?

How many other units do we have that are gas powered just for the time ball part estimates we have probably four around there for engineering parks there is uh bylaws a fuel vehicle as well uh building is a fuel vehicle um but in terms of parks most all of them are gas, unless we do one there.

So yeah I I would say that's by we have three, so it will almost be 50 percent give or take 10, 15%, 20%, 25%.

I can't really do the math right now.

Uh appreciate that.

Don't ask an engineer, right?

Thank you, Ivan.

So we're gonna uh uh motion on the floor.

It's moves to the staff's report.

Uh any other questions or comments?

Seeing none?

Just a comment.

Um I will we'll be voting against the motion.

Uh the uh the placeholder and requirement for electrical upgrades is such an uncertainty and a requirement uh that in all good risk conscience we should be addressing that first before we purchase uh too many electric vehicles.

Thank you for the comment.

Uh councilor McKenzie.

Just in response to Councillor Rogers' comment, um, I I feel pretty confident that we'll be able to manage it.

I spoke with a counselor from Esquimalt um at our climate task force, and they assured me that they manage perfectly well uh with the chargers that they have, and actually it was way less than they originally suspected.

So that's why I'll be voting for it.

Thank you, Council McKenzie.

And uh Ivan, if you would like a tour of the um the uh solar trailer and uh F-150 Lightning that powered my cooking contest against the mayor of uh Callwood, which I won just saying, um uh that thing was self-sufficient.

It had a full mower in it, all of the things that you'd need, plus batteries.

So instead of looking at your uh auxiliary equipment as kind of a a challenge, it could actually be a good method to charge both vehicles if you needed to.

But that's just uh outside the box.

So we got a motion on the floor.

It's been seconded to move staff recommendation to buy not one but two uh Chevy Silverado uh EV work trucks.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Noting that councillor Rogers is opposed.

Um and I think that brings us down to is this still you, Ivan, for the asset management plan and grant?

Uh yes, I'll move staff recommendation.

Any further discussion or comments?

Well, all those in favor.

There you go, Ivan.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh Committee of the Whole resolutions.

We're on 8.2 and permissive tax exemptions.

We discussed that quite a bit at uh council of the whole.

I would move it.

Uh moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor McKenzie.

Uh all those in favor or oh, question.

Question, uh, Councilor Lemon.

Go ahead.

Would this be to Director Christensen?

My question?

Yeah, okay.

Um Don, can you just clarify?

We we had a presentation or a request at the Committee of the Whole meeting from uh a representative of the community community hall asking that we consider the daycare and and its role in keeping the community center alive and vibrant.

Is that re is is a break for the daycare reflected in what we're considering here?

Through the mayor, yes.

The bylaws are designed and worded uh to reflect council's intention to exempt 100% of all three properties, including the daycare at the community center, to the extent, of course, that it is not illegal.

Great.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions on the permissive tax exemption?

Seeing none, all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

Um, and we have some other reports to receive.

Uh we could do them as a block if somebody wanted to move that.

Uh moved as a block by counselor Mattson.

Seconded.

Seconded by Councillor McKenzie.

All those in favor.

I have a question.

Uh that would mean you'd pull one out.

Sure, please.

The West Shore Parks.

Okay, so uh all those in favor of moving A or B.

And all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed?

Uh motion to receive A and B and Councilor Rogers with a question on West Shore Parks and Rec.

Actually, comments.

Um uh first off, uh going to the um youth Friday night programs.

Um I'm really impressed that it's been new new additions to the inventory.

Um I think what a 20 by 20, 10 climbing wall and a 30-foot um bungee running course.

That that's really amazing.

How are the the kids enjoying that?

Uh thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Yes, uh, I'm representing West Shore Parks and Rec as the chair uh for those in the gallery.

Um it's actually very timely that you bring up the youth nights because we just had this on our discussion and right now we're going through a review of funding.

Uh we had received federal grants for those evenings.

Uh, you may know that we provide uh pizza uh and extra staff security uh with thousands of children and youth that have attended to those evenings.

It has been a great success.

Uh we are currently reviewing the funding model for that as it is set to expire.

So thank you for laying that groundwork, John.

Getting everybody interested in the kind words.

But we may be coming back um for for an ask uh to keep that going.

Uh part of the reason I might as well uh explain it now is that uh there really is nowhere for a lot of youth to go, in particular in View Royal, the Highlands, Machosen, and at this point, really even Callwood, to be honest with you.

Uh Lankford has some recreation centers.

Uh, they don't host a youth night.

Uh they're looking into it.

Uh, but right now that is the uh that's the top billing for youth in the community, uh, and it is thriving.

We are very happy with our climbing wall.

Uh, I haven't used it uh just because of my age.

Uh but it is it's getting used uh very regularly, and we installed uh a climbing wall in the pool and in uh the dry floor court.

So uh if you if you don't mind falling, then use the one in the pool.

Well, you're speaking to that, and uh I know v royal had been a very and and council match can speak to this uh we were a very strong uh supporter of uh youth uh shoreline school working with the first nations and and um it's it's an essential program so come along and ask and just and just to add that we also held uh gang gang life uh information seminar at west shore so it's really becoming kind of the hub for for youth activities and a gathering point for youth in the west shore we're very proud of it uh we do provide security there as well which has really improved.

You may recall sitting at this council table uh many months ago when some concerns were brought up about the safety uh there and it has drastically improved.

So thank you very much.

My next point is the uh equality inclusion.

And um again, uh congratulations for the workshop with respect to accessibility for deaf individuals.

That's amazing.

And my my thanks to staff and to putting this on, doing the work.

Thank you.

And of course, you uh this is a great plug for Allison and I because as you know, we brought forward a motion here with the town of V Royal to enhance and increase our diversity, equity, inclusion in all areas.

But in respects to the West Shore Parks and Rec, we also have been uh adding accessible washrooms, uh gender neutral washrooms, and we receive an update every single month from uh the chief administrative officer on the um the successes that we've made with diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Uh, and I'm proud to be uh to be a part of that.

And uh thank you very much for noticing it, John.

Next question.

Would you care to receive the report?

That's an easy one, yes.

And I'd just add that uh if we're looking for cash to fund those, if they don't mind uh associating themselves with some improv or interpretive dance, maybe there's an arts fund that has uh some funding available for it.

Uh so all those in favor is receiving uh C, the Minnesota West Shore Parks around.

Uh any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Now we're down to correspondence item nine for action.

We've got uh um an email for Island Highway and Six Mile Road.

I move that we refer uh a I'm sorry, I remove, we we remove, move.

Um A item A to staff.

Second.

All those in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh and then we've got uh the backpack project again.

I move that we participate second.

Uh council McKenzie.

Uh I have a question for staff.

I know uh previously when this has come, there was some concern, and which I think related to, you know, we can't promote one charity uh versus another.

Is that still a concern or I believe the issue historically has been that it's a non-registered group.

It's a a a not registered society or group.

Um that was primarily the issue that council had at the time decided that they would not.

Last year they did, as I believe the first year or second year that they did it, and it was fine, and the they came and collected their items periodically, so it didn't accumulate uh quite a bit in the FWA.

Council Rath.

Yeah.

Some I reckon historically the issue wasn't that they were registered, not registered, it was that we'd have all this stuff piling up, and it would we just couldn't accommodate it.

And I gather from staff that wasn't a problem, so I certainly have no problem supporting it again.

There's no other questions or comments.

Uh that uh that uh we approve the back PAC project for this fiscal year.

All those in favor, any opposed?

See none opposed, motion carries unanimously, and then we have the item that was spoken uh to by Mr.

Smith reconsidering of tree planting for council's consideration.

The bylaw requires replanting of two to one, and the request is for one to one as I understood it.

Uh it has to be about uh space and uh soil quality.

Just wondering, Ivan, um is have you been on site?

Question to you is the concerns um uh of land availability and the replanting ratio uh valid and do we need to um rethink the the um to bylaw for this application?

Uh Mayor Tobias, I myself personally have been on site.

Um maybe staff has, and we do hire an arborist to do check from time to time.

But at the end of the day, uh for situations like this, administratively, we do uh require the applicants to provide an arbor support that does help us provide an understanding.

Um administratively speaking, if staff deem that the area is uh not good enough to plant more trees or replacing trees in the area, then we would recommend a cash and loo in the amount of a two to one replacement in accordance to the bylaw.

And those two trees would be put into our uh reserve funds to be planted elsewhere or used for other initiatives like the um like the uh resident tree program and and and other means.

Thank you.

Uh then perhaps uh uh motion to refer to staff.

Um counselor matzer.

Well actually I wanted to support the instead of two to one, one for one in in this situation as i that's my motion i've already made a motion on the floor do do we have a seconder and that's to go with a uh requested one to one to a two to or uh request for one to one by student one motion i understood but anyways i um can i make a comment or or do we have i'll second it.

Just second or before we can.

There was no second, it would just be finished.

Yeah.

So now that we do have a seconder before we get to another motion, um, then this motion is considering the request for a one-to-one replacement.

Um, would you like to motivate?

Right.

As staff just pointed out, there's doesn't seem to be any flexibility in in terms of the bylaw, the way it's written.

And that was one of my concerns when this tree bylaw came up before there's there should be the opportunity for exemptions for individuals.

Um, and and this is a perfect example where there's uh a number of trees, and if the trees don't all fit on the site, then the residents, through no fault of their own, are out potentially thousands of dollars to pay for trees that should have never been planted in the first place.

And so I'll bring that up later in terms of uh the need for an example.

But in this situation, uh I certainly don't see that it's warranted for them, as staff pointed out, to put in half the trees if they if they'll fit and then pay seven, I think we're now up to $700 a tree.

Council McKenzie, did you want to?

Ivan, go ahead.

Thanks, Council McKenzie.

Through the mayor, um the purpose of the replacement trees is half of it is to replace it on site, but the other half of it is the purpose of the replacement tree ratio two to one is to um prepare the the lands in the Bureau Royal to reestablish its tree canopy.

So by doing a one to one replacement, what was what would happen is that there would be a deficit in canopy cover.

And so the idea is that the two to one is meant to improve or uh regrow that uh canopy as soon as possible.

So when it comes to the cash and loo, um a two to one is the recommendation and that's how staff has administratively done it.

It has been referred to staff already.

If a variance is requested then that's the reason why it's going to to council before you sure can I can I continue on given what staff said that's my point.

Because I certainly am aware of that was the rationale but I just think it's blatantly unfair that what is the town's responsibility is replacing trees throughout the community in a situation through the person's whether it's a strata or an individual through no fault of their own if they can't accommodate a tree why they should have to pay $700 for the town to plant a tree somewhere else so I anyways I I don't support staff's rationale.

Thank you uh council McKenzie thanks.

Yeah, I obviously I'm very pro-tree uh however, I don't think when it comes at the you know detriment of of our residents.

The reason we want trees is to improve well-being of our residents.

When there's to put them through financial and other hardships to accommodate that, I just don't think is is fair.

I don't think our bylaw should be that restrictive that it negatively impacts those people with the best of intention.

It's really there to mitigate against uh those situations where people don't care and and to avoid the worst case scenario.

But in this case, I think it would only be fair to um uh do the the one for one as opposed to what staff has recommended.

Thank you.

Uh let's go with Councillor Quowitz and Councilor Brown.

Thank you.

Uh it's a beautiful neighborhood that uh the speaker lives in.

But um may and while I applaud the efforts to expediate bureaucracy, uh I have to say uh I'm not prepared to make a decision without hearing what staff has to say about the the site itself.

They they have no clue uh about the site.

It is dangerous uh precedence setting territory by just making decisions about uh the tree byla ourselves.

We're not arborists, we're not experts, and unfortunately I think that's just good governance.

Counselor Brown.

But of course there should be ex exceptions to the rule.

But I agree with uh Counselor Kolowich about you know having staff check the site out first or the arborist report.

We don't have an arborist report, but certainly there has to be uh cases uh one-offs where people can come back and get the exemption.

But personally, the two for one.

I I hope that's not the intent of the motion is to get rid of the two for one but in the bylaw, which I don't think it was.

Scott.

Uh thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh just to be clear, the the proponents have appealed staff's decision.

So staff have weighed in and made a decision already, and to expect staff to maybe make a different decision puts us in a bit of a circular situation.

So ideally, council could make the determination tonight.

Um if council requires more information about the site, we could certainly pull that forward and bring a report back to council, maybe defer the decision for that.

But uh we do have provisions in the bylaw for appeal situations just like this.

Thank you.

That that clarifies things uh quite well.

And if um Ivan would that staff report include some site visit in information that you know, or an arborist report or something, an assessment.

Very empathetic where uh the residents are on this.

Yeah, through the mayor, I I'll have to talk to staff about what has been presented to them.

I thought that uh Arbor's report has already been provided to staff, which has and staff has already reviewed on that basis.

Go ahead, sir.

I usually don't allow it, but um it's what are rules if we can't bend them a little bit go ahead thank you very much uh for continued consideration of this we submitted uh at our own expense uh an arborist report um with our initial application which was rejected my understanding is that nobody from council came on site to your point to your point sorry, uh, to check out um the property.

Um, so we would certainly welcome that uh type of review to have somebody come on and in essence counter our arborist report with uh with a uh a view royal report.

Um so just to be clear so I understand it, hope maybe my colleagues are struggling too.

Um, but you you went through a tree planting program at a two to one, some of those trees have died, correct?

Yes, we have replaced, we have replaced uh seven or eight, and we're now looking at 14 because they died.

Um as I mentioned in my earlier comments, um what was approved at the time 14 years ago and never should have been approved.

Um, the two to one comment that was made um is punitive to us, and and it's almost uh the logic is a little uh biased, in my opinion, in that uh a tree plan being approved 14 years ago where they're not sustainable is a revenue generation situation because they're they are dying and we're not able to to keep up with it, um, which is the other part of the appeal.

So our first I know it went for one for one.

Our first request would be regeneration acceptance, meaning what is growing naturally, regenerate on our property.

We get credit for that for what is dying, and no financial or or um uh or one for one uh, but first primarily acceptance for what is regenerating, which was which was denied.

I I still feel like there's some things I don't know from the staff side.

Um Ivan.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

I can probably provide a little background on context as well as to how staff administer the bylaw, because what we what staff do is for all intents and purposes, administers the bylaw as it is written.

And so staff agreed per the Arborist report that's to stack twice as many trees on the site that has been that's needed for removal would not be practical given the ground conditions.

So as a result, the next part of the bylaw says that if that cannot be done, then replacement trees in the cash in room can be done.

And how staff administer that is that bylaw stipulates that is a two to one replacement tree ratio, no more, no less.

And so that's how staff have interpreted it, and that's what's been related to the strata.

Um there's also an item in the bylaw that uh that um CEO Somerville has stated is that should the applicant wish to dispute the uh requirements of the permit that they can petition to council, and that's why they're here before you.

Um at the end of the day, staff have been administering the bylaw as is written.

That said, if council wishes to proceed with an alternate method, then this is the avenue that I think at the core of the issue here is is given credit for the amount of trees that have survived.

Is there a different interpretation that staff has?

Are you looking for all of them?

Uh that's I I think that's the the part that I yeah, that that's a good question.

So the tree the tree protection bylaw stipulates the requirements of what can be considered a replacement tree, and it does it by tree height or tree diameter.

So if I remember the top of my head, it's got to be over two meters tall to be considered a replacement tree or five centimeter caliper.

And so what staff have received in the past from not from this applicant, but from other applications is that they that's uh some app some have said, well, we have saplings that are growing in the ground.

Are those considered replacement trees?

And we say no because they don't meet the height or size requirements.

And so to vary from what's in the bylaw can be precedent setting in a sense that uh varying from two to one to one to one would likely request would likely result in more applications coming to council for reconsideration.

And also when it comes to the idea of having regrowth in saplings that are under two meters or under five centimeter centimeters caliper, that those would also be being brought forward because they vary from the bylaw.

Yeah I'm still um if we're in a difficult area that we're dealing with rock here.

Um I I'd like some options of a tree type or some remediation that can be done because in the end it's not to penalize residents, it's just to keep you royal with some trees.

Because believe it or not, there are some developers that don't like trees at all.

Um and so we're trying to keep a few of them around because we think they're cool.

And uh that's where we'd like to go to it.

But I don't think I have enough to make um uh a decision, having not seen the site right now, on some options that we might have to balance some things out.

And we're reasonable folks here, and we want to understand both, but I'm just not understanding uh how we can't come to some kind of compromise.

It might not be might meet somewhere in the middle uh between two or two to one or one to one, depending on the soil type and and where they are.

Ivan?

Uh yeah, merit to bias.

Uh, there's nothing in the bylaw that provides such variances, so we'd have to be come forward through council.

That said we are in the midst of developing urban forest strategy and also um council has directed staff to look at other ways to protect uh mature trees as a condition of development.

So in the future there might be some additional information that can be used to address situations like this.

To give you an example um the city of Victoria now they do have a lot more staff and they have a lot more student requirements but they do have different tree replacement ratios depending on the tree been replaced whether it's a one to one or two to one or three, even three to one as well.

Uh the town is not there yet because we haven't established our our canopy targets.

Well, that said, it is upcoming.

So that is just a plug for council to know that you know there might be something in the future.

Could we, Scott, just defer this decision down the road?

I don't think any but anything's gonna um, you know, no harm is gonna come to anybody if we defer this until we find out a little bit more, come up with our other strategies and bring that before council without action taken uh as part of the uh the the folks that uh are residents there.

Mayor Tobias, I don't see any uh any danger in waiting.

Um we are further on in this agenda, we have some uh uh an amendment to our tree protection bylaw.

Uh we do have the canopy study happening, but uh perhaps staff can bring back their rationale for uh for the decision that was made um and the Arborist report that was presented to us and council can make the decision at that point.

Uh questions, Councillor Rogers.

I thought Councilor Brown first.

We have a program here that people can apply to get f uh trees for free.

I just wonder if there's some way of uh uh you know, maybe individuals all applying and getting a tree that the town parks staff could could could uh plant or or donate to uh I don't know, to um maybe the green team could turn around and and plant those trees.

I mean that might be a way around it.

I I think our broader problem is we just don't have the soil mantle.

Uh even if if getting the free tree was great, um likelihood that will die and then we'll be needing to replace that two to one in five or six years.

I'm suggesting people get the free trees and then donate them back to the town or or or have friends or family or someone that could plant the trees in their yards or or somewhere else.

Or get credit for it.

First is the I see I see sorry thank you.

Can you turn your mic off and just activate it when you're asked a question because if not then the camera's gonna swivel to you.

Unless you want to be recorded and then it's a great technique of dominating the film.

Counselor Rod.

Surely I I support uh the the idea that they've come back to us.

Um I appreciate the letter um uh from the Strata Council but I've got no idea.

I don't have a site plan.

I don't see the aerial I don't have any idea where the trees are I don't know which trees are gone which way and where you want them.

I'm looking at the elephant in the room which is the last page page four or four you know and seeing this ridiculous tree right next to the building.

You know that's a pretty good example of uh some really um uh poor planting and and an aggravation uh both to staff and and to council and to to the strata so uh yes, I would love to have new information so that we can get this right and and the whole point, I get why there's two to one, because we have tree mortality.

They die.

And so we want to make sure that they know at least one survives.

Thank you for coming and sharing this.

So we do have a motion on the floor.

The motion on the floor was to uh push for the um for the residence request of one to one.

Um and that motion is on the floor.

You're still happy with the motion, mover and secretor.

No, the the that that was the motion, but um we the discussion was about deferment.

Um information.

So uh so there bubbles up.

Does somebody want to move deferring the decision for um you just moved to table um okay so we've actually you're you're withdrew and you moved to table and you get a seconder which is counselor McKenzie all those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries um and i think that brings us down to pickleball court funding who wants to pick this one up counselor quali i'm happy to support certainly i can speak to it.

Uh and Mary Tobias, I think you'll probably be able to supplement this as well.

As we have spoken about in the past, we are now moving forward with building pickleball courts at the West Shore Parks and Recreation Grounds.

Uh we will be replacing the volleyball courts with pickleball courts.

Pickleball is one of the fastest growing sports in the world.

And with an aging population in Canada, high demand, and placing it in a non-residential area.

We are very confident we will have a high level of success and many, many pickleball players there.

Uh this will not affect the budget and is from pre-existing uh reserve funds.

And the owners uh or you may know as the mayors of the municipalities have approved it.

And I will hand the floor to Mr.

Tobias.

Yeah, there's a couple of things.

I'd I'd walk a mile around.

One is off lead laugh leash dog parks, and the other one is pickleball courts.

Um so uh when the owners discuss this thing, basically they they pay for themselves over time.

Uh they're constantly booked.

Uh and they're one of the things that uh is the first thing that's trendy in an adult and lasting and enduring uh recreational sport activities.

So um uh there there may also be, as I understand, opportunities for uh grants along the way too, but those haven't been realized.

But uh there's money sitting there, space made available.

Um so I think we're looking for council's support in that.

So I would definitely second uh the motion for Council Qualitage.

Council Quillettes.

Thanks, and I just wanted to uh say I think we are breaking the news uh because the media release hasn't gone out yet.

So you heard it here first.

Town of you royal will be announcing the pickleball courts are being built.

And I'll second that.

And any other comments, questions, discussion?

Deep thoughts.

Sorry, very quick.

My friends from North Sash will be very happy, and I'm sure they'll come to Ronald.

Okay, so uh mover seconder.

Uh no more questions or comments.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries, and I think information uh just for information, we've got uh if I can get a motion to receive our minister at housing glitter denying our A through F.

No, that's fine.

Uh A through F if that's what you want to move.

So there's Mo you got a seconder?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

That brings us down to bylaws.

Um this was a rezoning application for 296 Eltham Road uh and 242 Helmkin Road, and this is being brought back for reconsideration.

That a couple of counselors had discussed with me that they would like to see it brought back.

So we're bringing it back.

We do have a staff report to refresh uh people's uh because I think there's quite a time lag uh in between uh the reading and when we saw it last for adoption.

Uh so Leanne, is this over to you?

Or Jeff.

Do I get to pick or do you guys decide?

Oh, okay.

Uh thank you, Mayor Council.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

Um, the the report before you basically just summarizes that the um the intent of the rezoning bylaw.

Uh just to refresh that uh it is for a um for it is a bylaw that is in accordance with the official community plan in terms of um the mixed the official official community plan um mixed residential land use was designation, which supports townhouses up to three stories and a maximum floor space ratio of 1.25 to one.

Um there are a couple policies that support um a range of housing, including townhouses that would meet the housing needs of current and future residents, with special consideration be given to the provision of ground-oriented units in order to accommodate a continued demand for family housing.

Policy LU 4.2 also encourages higher density and mixed-use development in neighborhood centers along major transit corridors to promote walkability, cycling, and transit use.

And so in this case, this this um this pro this development site is on Route 11, which is one of the major routes in the town.

It's family-oriented housing, and uh it also is just over two blocks from an access to the uh ENN uh rail trail.

Yeah.

And the policy LU 4.5 encourages uh street-oriented building.

Uh this application uh just uh to go back further, uh an application was originally originally introduced uh two years ago for um 20 townhouse units on two lots.

That application was rejected.

Uh one of the key reasons was uh it would have left a third property on Eltham Street as an kind of orphan site would be difficult to um to build on.

And so the applicant has acquired that site and um due to economics can only have enough space to develop 20 units, which is the same number of units that was originally proposed um um yeah and so that's why the uh the applications we submitted with uh with uh with 20 units proposed um yeah those were kind of the key kind of issues um engineering studies were done in terms of making you know evaluating the traffic in the area and the safety of left turn on to helmkin and um it was considered to be uh that study was accepted by by staff okay uh scott or Sarah, I'll go to you with this question um uh where are we sitting on this?

Because we brought it, we we voted it down uh at the last committee meeting at adoption.

So where are we sitting right now?

We have brought it back for reconsideration.

Uh so if uh you know if there was a motion to approve what is here, uh does this just carry on or like well, what is the status?

Would we have to start the readings back over again?

Uh no.

Thank you for the question.

The reconsideration is of final adoption.

So if it's reconsidered uh and positive vote happens, it would be adopted.

Thank you.

That should make it clear for everybody.

So that that is what we're discussing.

There's not a discussion of modifying what is here.

It is just simply a vote for or against it.

Uh and I'll go to Councillor Mattson first, then Councilor Brown.

So my understanding is once we've gone to third, third reading, we can't hear anything from residents or or anyone else about uh about a motion.

So once this was failed at fourth reading, I heard long and shroud, long and strong from a number of residents who were very un were very pleased that this thing got rejected and we're not happy about the potential of this coming back for a number of reasons.

Specifically, is it's gonna ruin their ruin their view and the traffic issues.

So so this was sort of like new information that came after the public hearing.

And so my question is given we're not supposed to hear anything before fourth reading, does this have an would that have an impact?

Thank you, Counselor Matson.

I I wasn't around at this time um but I don't believe there was a public hearing because it this development would be uh cohesive with our official community plan.

So no public hearing was required.

Is that correct?

Go ahead, uh Leanne or Jeff, you guys fight it out the plenty of you though.

Yeah.

I should the comment I would like to add is public um the uh actually uh there was no public hearing for it because of provincial legislation.

However, um there was still a notification requirement, so residents were notified for um first tweeting for this bylaw.

Council Brent.

Like to move the uh bylaw be adopted as presented.

Okay, do you have a second or second seconded by counselor rogers uh comments counselor rogers and or question right after counselor rogers?

Yes, thank you.

Um I note that the uh the bylaw first and third was on February the sixth.

And do you have record of uh the minutes and uh uh of that meeting when first and second, uh first and third took place February 6th?

Or yeah, February 6th, 2024.

No.

There were um only four members of council here at that time.

So um uh Mayor Tobias, Councilor Lemon, and Councillor Mattson were not here.

So it did, however, pass.

Yes, of course it did.

Nobody is disputing it passed.

It passed.

Because uh and then uh when council It was carried, no uh no uh opposition.

Right, but you didn't have full counsel either.

But that yeah, it did pass.

It did pass.

There's no question about it.

We had a quantum, it passed.

Yeah.

Uh councillor Lemon and then Council McKenzie.

Question to to staff.

Uh at first reading, given that there was no public hearing at first reading procedurally, uh public can still present their opinions and through the grounding mics on.

Through the mayor, as uh Mr.

Chow mentioned, notices were mailed out to all residents within 400 meters of the subject property, notifying them of first, second and third reading of the bylaw.

They could have come out and provide uh submitted written correspondence, or they could have come and asked a question during question period or during public participation?

We have received we haven't received correspondence on this application.

Okay, and and no one presented no okay, good to know.

Thank you.

Council McKinnon.

Just wanted to clarify um the response to Mayor Tobias's first question around uh I know I understand it obviously if it's a positive um vote for the bylaw, what happens?

But what happens if the bylaw is not um passed?

Does it just get dropped entirely or does it go back to the start or um that bylaw would not be adopted and yeah that would be the end of the application?

And as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff, but uh then the applicant has an opportunity whether he wants to uh revisit his plan and resubmit.

And I think through uh there's a permission every six months to uh resubmit a plan after council might reject a plan.

Is that correct?

Uh through the mayor, uh the yeah, and what that's what happened last time the application was ejected.

Um they did not have to wait the six-month periods because they applied for something different, because they acquired a third property.

Thank you.

Councilor Matson.

Yeah, I I understand that the property owner went and purchased another piece of property to come back because it was clear that council would not even consider it if there was only two.

But the fact that he brought a third property doesn't mean council promised.

There's no promises made, and there's no requirement of council to approve the rezoning because the developer went out and purchased another piece of property.

So I just wanted to make that really clear.

Um, and certainly no moral obligation to do so because until fourth reading, no promises are made.

Relax.

Not finished, John.

Um, so there's that.

The other part is too big, too dense, too many units.

It's gonna destroy Little Eltham Road.

You've got traffic coming off an island highway in Helmlikan.

You have a commercial development with people trying to sort of get in and out of it.

It's going to be ugly.

Property owner has another option in terms of our small housing rezoning.

Um, and again, big and position to the residents, very little benefit to the town.

All it's gonna do is cause us problems.

So I will not be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Mattson.

Go to Councillor Brown and then Councillor Rogers or Councillor Lemon and then Councillor Rogers.

So all the way along, we've approved everything, all the way along.

And then to turn it down at the bylaw stage to me makes absolutely no sense.

And Councillor Rogers, right?

We only had four people here at that one meeting.

That that's that's the way it is.

It was a quorum.

But to make the development, I know we didn't make any promises.

There's never any promises for the final thing, but in a sense, we've encouraged them to carry on, and we do need uh for townhouses developments on the one development for sure.

Uh I'm a big supporter of anything building more townhouses.

I think we need those types of units, even the province and their directions, so the number of units you have to build, they want more townhouses, they want more um multi-bedroom um uh buildings.

So um to me, uh all the way along we've approved it.

Well why would we turn it down at the byla state?

So that's and I think when we turned it down, it was it was near the end of the meeting.

I think people were getting tired, and I think it went through so quickly.

I think I'm glad it was it's being reconsidered, and I'll maybe be voting for the motion.

Councillor Brown, Councilor Lemon.

Uh I know that street very well um and I know the residents that will be impacted by this and are concerned about it.

They are very concerned about the traffic they're concerned about the the views from their kitchen and bedroom windows.

That said um twenty units over three single family lots vis-a-vis over two is much more palliative.