Council Meeting

Call the uh council meeting for January 16, 2024 to order for the town of View Royal.

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

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

As Sarah mentioned, for the folks in house, if you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development variance permit uh for 1450 Glentana Road, there will be a specific time to speak to this application when it is considered uh during the meeting.

Uh, for members of the audience, the council is uh chambers is a safe, respectful, and inclusive space.

Um, so please conduct yourself accordingly.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778-402-9227 and when prompted, enter conference ID 339-914009 pound.

You will be immediately muted.

Uh, once admitted to the meeting, please do not admit unmute yourself until 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 to not use your speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and uh then ask you to unmute yourself uh by pressing star six.

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

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

Uh this meeting will be recorded, and by participating in this webcast, you're consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website forever.

Um so now that I've called it to order, can I get an approval of the agenda?

Moved by Councillor Brown, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

All those in favor?

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Uh, can I get a motion to adopt the minutes of the council meeting and the public hearing for December 5th?

Summit.

Moved by Councillor Lemon.

Seconded by Councillor Uh Rogers.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed uh for the mayor's report.

Given the length of our agenda, I will forego my mayor's report and get into petitions and delegations.

And I think we've got Hari up first.

So I have come here with a petition for a children's playground in that area because of these reasons.

So I'll give the background of this.

I have been on this street for the last 15 years.

And when I bought this home, there were two condominium buildings and 23 homes.

That's all it was.

Now it has gone to eight condominium buildings, 23 homes, approximately 700 to 800 people.

And especially six-mile road is a busy road.

And uh for safety of our kids, we need some play area for them.

And otherwise they will play on the street, and street is unsafe and there is a they are prone to accidents.

So, purpose of that was we met in person with all our residents.

We had a couple of meetings and discussed that we should come to go to town of Veroil with the Rukas that we need a small playground for our kids to play, or it may be having some socialization.

Uh, so that and secondly, uh, as town of Veroil also is allowing the has recently permitted the uh permits uh no permit for uh resident uh town uh landlords to go with, so they are attracting more and more people to come and stay live in Bureau.

As a result, this is one of the factors that if we give a proper place for them to play their kids, they will definitely like to this place, and it is one of the beautiful places in Victoria.

So, objective is when there are around seven seven to eight hundred people uh now there is a shopping complex, there is no playground on that.

There are two uh parks there.

One is uh Gary Og Meadow Park and another is Nursery Hill Park, and both are really very beautiful, very good park.

But unfortunately, we don't have anything where our kids can go and play.

They, they have to play in state, and we have to put a speed bump on the roads so that we are driver doesn't drive too fast.

And uh, if it is prone to area, nobody will like to stay there.

So, with this request, uh 70 plus people signed the petition, and the petition is already in the record of the town of Veroyal, and we request that although this uh particular playground issue has come to uh town of View Royal Council three times.

First, it came in 2021, uh and then it came in uh 2023 January.

Now 2024 January again, and uh it's a simple request from all of us that we need a playground.

It is a very beautiful place to live there.

We are enjoying it.

And we don't want kids to play on the road.

We are there.

Some people are driving with more speed and it is accident-prone.

So this is the request for which I have come here.

I have some slides to show share with you.

Next slide.

Okay.

So this was why we are here with this uh application.

And I have explained it number of residents, initiative taken by the people.

But as the number of people are growing in that area, that is a very small area, so we don't have much place for our kids to grow for people to socialize.

Was added there, and it has a uh almost around 80 feet by 40 feet area where small playground can definitely come in, and some people are coming with pets and all that.

That area is underutilized, and definitely when it comes to if somebody is going to nursery hill drive, uh, that is the area where you can see that uh there is a uh playground, so it it will attract more people to come in that area.

So it that's the one.

So I will like to show the area now.

Next slide.

I think next slide.

Yeah, so this is the buroyal in that particular area.

Next slide.

So this is the area which is highlighted.

I am talking about.

So this area is approximately 80 feet by six almost 45 or 50 feet.

Can definitely come in.

And secondly, behind that, there is a shopping complex.

And it will attract a really a and certainly Cities Park is very near to it.

So there is a likely chance it will beautify our uh town of that particular area.

And secondly, now you know that uh on Nursery Hill Drive also we have a four-way uh drive.

So especially traffic is so much in that particular six-mile road.

Sometime when I came 15 years back, it used to take me two two two to three minutes to be on the old highland highway.

But now sometime when it is a office time, it takes me around 10 to 15 minutes sometime because there is a four-way and then there is a bumper to bumper line.

So we don't want the kids to cross uh that road and go to the other park.

And uh this is one of the areas I'm talking.

Next slide.

These are the two there is a road, two roads going to the Gary Oak Middle Park.

One is near to 23 homes, another is in the middle.

And they both go on the back to the shopping complex.

So this is a very good spot where uh playground can come.

And it is a safe also.

So no, no, not much.

Next slide.

And secondly, while town of Veroil has taken initiatives to attract more and more people joining, coming to Veroil.

We have a place, very beautiful place where it is very scenic and everything, other than small playground, which is a necessity of that area.

And then other than that, socialization for the people who live in Condo, they sometimes come sit there and let their children play and they can socialize themselves.

That is another way.

And uh next slide.

And if I have anybody have a question, I can answer.

Yeah, so that is the request with which I have come.

But my this thing is this is the third time I have put up this application.

Twice it has gone to staff to submit the report.

I I don't know what is the result, but uh it should be taken.

And uh parks and recreation committee as well as CDEC has uh uh referred this to the council to review and initiate the plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Uswaman.

I think there's a couple of questions.

Uh Councillor Lemon.

Hi, Mr.

Sharma.

Um I I was here the other two times you were you you spoke to us, and I'm wondering, is this this proposed site, the site you you you would like to see playground, is that the same one that you brought forward before?

Is it in the same place?

Can you repeat this question again?

So are you would you like the playground to be in the same place that um when you came and spoke as when you came and spoke to us before?

Yeah, we have two spots.

Uh uh I can can you show back.

Uh there are a slot.

Yeah, I'm I'm just I'm just wondering if that's exactly the same thing.

Yeah, that is the only spot where it is a visibil feasibility wise.

Right.

That is a spot where it can come.

It has a good area for the small blaz ground.

Well it seems to me that safety safety and a slope were were the concerns um of this particular site which is you know from safety perspective I find it is okay because uh there is a little bit slope which joined the road yeah but there is a flat area also there.

Yeah so which can take uh can be used.

I th I think we all would like to see a playground for the children you know um and with the growing population, it makes, you know, certainly it makes all kinds of sense but it it has to be in a safe place and and so I would, you know, I would ask staff to to um, you know, take a look at that or even respond now.

Uh let's go to uh councillor Rogers and Councillor Brown.

Uh thank you for coming tonight.

Um is is one of the concerns of um the the residents on uh the east side of Six Mile, um uh are they would they be content just to simply go to uh Choco Park?

You know, it's across Six Mile, it's uh it's a big park.

Uh why not use that one?

Yeah, there has been concern because number one, our six-mile road is a busy road day by day.

And secondly, it has a four-way, and uh uh with the kids, at least it is not safety perspective, it is not recommended to go that way.

So you got you got the sense from the people that signed the petition that they would like to have one in the neighborhood not go to Choco.

Yeah, there is another place where for uh pets and all that, there is this place in near next to that on the west side of Hilco.

Uh there is a dog leash uh place can be there.

Okay, thank you.

It's you know, I I appreciate what um Council Lemon is saying is the terrain of the property, but clearly um, you know, we got we're talking about seven, eight hundred residents, you know, on that side of six mile.

That um, and if we consider what the province intends to do to the Chilco side uh for additional housing, because every lot there qualifies, I gather for two, three, four uh units on top of that.

Suddenly Chilco Park, as it stands now, with the provincial expectations, will greatly um be undersized.

And and uh so I think um you know I hear what you're saying, and I think uh staff have have some ideas.

In fact, we've got correspondence, uh other two pieces of correspondence that um uh Morgan uh has a great idea that I don't think has been assessed um uh as well.

So um, and you know, there may be other opportunities of playground development you know in your neighborhood that's quite unexpected.

There are future possibilities, perhaps.

So um, but I I take your point, and and I don't think we can give up on this one, particularly with uh you know the the project.

From a safety perspective, that is not as feasible as in that area which I'm discussing.

And we are asking for a small playground, not a big one as they're in the other side of the road.

So I I think we, you know, the council has to appreciate that um um when we built Choco, we built Choco for that side of the road, way back when uh we acquired the two properties with Lamona and and so forth.

Uh that was for their side.

Then suddenly we put 700 people on the other side.

So uh with the good news is that we have uh nursery hill park.

Uh the bad news is the terrain is challenging.

But when the Chilco was designed, there was a less residents living in that area.

And now there are so many people, and you we we have to change according to the requirement of the public.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you, uh Councilor Rogers.

I I'd ask if there's a motion forthcoming that somebody would like to make rather than just comments.

I'd appreciate that more normally, it's practice for uh receiving uh petitions and delegations that we had to restrict questions on it.

I'll make a motion that this be added to our budget deliberations uh for for more conversation, but uh I I if I can make a quick follow-up.

I just following up on Councilor Rogers' motion.

When when we build parks, it's always nice if someone else pays for it.

So I think that's what he was getting at.

Uh, there's quite a bit of land around there that may or may not be developed in the future, and we always try to get amenities from the developers.

So um, you know, we scrat they scratch our back, we scratch theirs.

Uh so you can build this, but you have to provide a park, that could be, or a sidewalk or those kind of things.

So um I think you have to be patient.

I know the area very well.

I live on Atkins Road, so I walked down there's and some of the shops along there I frequent as well.

So uh and I won't ask you what you think about the roundabout, I won't even go there.

But um so I think be patient.

So if this motion passes, it'll be uh added to a list of not long list of things that we'll be considering at budget time.

But thank you very much for coming.

No, no problem.

Yeah, thank you.

Councillor Brown, you you put a motion on the table.

Did we have a second or second?

Seconded by Counselor Rogers, and I'll go to Councilor McKenzie for final comment.

Yes, the uh lots has happened.

As you mentioned, it went to staff for report and then it went to pre-act.

So I was actually wanting to ask staff if they had recommendations in terms of a motion or um what next steps are.

Thank you, Counselor McKenzie.

Uh, no real motion, but uh I can certainly provide some background as to the previous report that was uh brought forward May 16th, 2023.

Um staff did look at the site, and um based on the fact that uh playgrounds in the town are uh designed to CSA standards, there's not a lot of space to do anything in the space uh requested.

Um a lot of regrading of the land would need to be done to flatten it out, and there are also maintenance uh challenges with it being right next to a very sensitive ecosystem, the Gary Oak Meadows.

Um, there's a need to protect the trees there, and also there's a lot of acorns that fall on the ground that could become tripping hazards on a slope.

So those are the kind of the things that um that staff relayed uh last year.

And um, at that time, it sounded like a uh petition was going to uh be brought forward at a future date by by the applicant, which it is here today.

Um, in terms of options, um there Chilco Park is expected to be uh have a playground replacement in 2025.

That's what's scheduled in the 23 to 2027 uh financial plan.

And that's still on course.

Um otherwise, there may be some other properties should council wish us to look at.

We can certainly look at um other potential areas.

Uh one area could be um the 80 Akins, which is right by the Atkins roundabout.

Um that's currently the uh the overflow parking for Thetis and is used for some residential parking.

It's a lot flatter land, um certainly less environmentally sensitive.

And given that staff already have to maintain that from time to time, although it's not so much required.

Um it's a lot less than having it in uh in nursery hill park.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing nothing else, we've got a motion on the table to refer discussions to our financial deliberations.

And we've got a mover in a seconder.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Not opposed.

Thanks, Mr.

Shaforman.

Thank you.

Our next up for um delegations is Mr.

Brown, the administrator for Westport uh West Shore Parks and Rec for the West Shore Parks and Rec budget.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you for um inviting me to uh come along and present our 2024 um budget and the 2024 to 2028 financial plan.

Uh next slide.

Um just uh so there's quite a bit to try to cover.

I'm gonna try to not speak too quickly.

I apologize if I do.

Definitely catch me if I if I am going too quickly and you need me to repeat anything.

I'm going to go over some program highlights from 2023 and some statistics to show some of the incredible growth.

Well, it's growth, but it's returned to normal, I guess for us.

And looking at it that way, as well as what our projections were for 2023, where they're going through the year-end process now, what led to those major variances, 2024 budget considerations, the major increases that we included in the 2024 budget, the five updated five-year financial plan.

Just waiting for it to come onto the screen.

Uh, summary of the 2024 capital projects, the five-year reserve continuity, um, as well as the requisite, then of course the requisition impact each municipality, which is sort of some of the main thing that you're all wanting to see, and as well as future considerations that we'll be looking at moving into this year.

Yep, we can stay on that on that page.

Um, so some statistics for last year, we saw an incredible increase across the board, um, in particular, swimming lessons.

We saw um went from um nine just shy of uh 1,000 lessons offered in 2022 to just over 1,500 lessons offered in 2023.

Um, certainly, as many of you, I'm sure, have heard, the incredible high demand across the region for swimming lessons.

So we did a good uh our good part in trying to address that, still not meeting all of the needs.

Another tank would probably solve some of those things, but of course, those are big expenses.

Um, but we're able to accommodate 5,400 um adults and mostly children, but adults and children in swimming lessons this past year compared to 3,400 in 2022.

Uh skating lessons, the arenas are majority a rental facility, so there's a lot a lot of growth for adding more.

So we offered the same number of classes in 2023 as previously.

However, demand was higher, and we had um just over 100 more uh skaters go through lessons in 2023.

And facility rentals, we continue to see high demand for all of our spaces, saw increases in field hours, rented ice hours, as well as pool as uh pool lane hours through um through last year.

Next slide.

Uh moving on to some of the other areas, rounds of golf.

Uh, we saw 41,671 rounds of golf played, which was actually the seventh highest number of rounds played since in the statistics we have since 1999.

Um some of that was certainly boosted by having such a warm and mild December, um, where we actually saw uh 1,499 rounds in December, which is the most ever actually.

Um, so that pushed us over the top compared to previous years.

Uh, the single biggest area of improvement we saw was a return.

So any of you who uses our who uses the pool for swamp um fun swims or uh going into the weight room would definitely see this.

The incredible busyness of both saw incredible increases in um fitness and pool admissions, um, which you can see under the statistics up there around single and visit pass admissions as well as annual membership sold.

So we saw 10,000 increased visits between single visits and annual pass or um visit passes, which are punch passes into fitness, uh, 4,000 increase in the pool, and uh 3,500 uh increase in skating drop in.

Um, we also wanted to point out on youth nights, which I mentioned last year, um, incredible success in 2022, and that continued on through last year with actually an average increase of 11 more uh youth attending those uh sessions as we went, and that still includes the the uh Friday swims for two dollar drop in on these, which is the swim.

You have access to the indoor sports complex as well as the youth room, and then Wednesdays, which is um a skating drop-in as well as the um the youth room.

Um, one of the big areas we saw increase, which 2022 is a large increase over 2021, of course, um, but in annual memberships, we saw a 90% increase in annual memberships sold, which resulted in 40,000 more scans.

Um, that was as a result of um new people, but a lot of it was shorter term passes being converted into annual passes of people committing to uh greater length of time, which is more cost effective for them, which of course then that translated into usage.

And as mentioned, if you're the about 70% of annual pass holders, the majority of the use is in the weight room.

And if you actually were one of our weight room users, you would certainly experience that.

That also saw an incredible increase in youth use as well.

So if you're in there between about four o'clock till 5 30, it's quite packed with Brooke School students and other um students from around the region, which has been great.

So we had a total of adding that all together of roughly 260,000 visits to our drop-in programs in 2023.

Next slide.

So that all pulls together with an expected performance improvement last year as compared to budget of 445,000, as we saw a significant increase in operational revenue related to those items, as I mentioned.

And of course, some of that does lead to increased expenses as we have higher staffing costs, programs, supply costs, and so on, and utilities and whatnot is more people in the building.

So we expecting to come in roughly 8% improvement over budget expectations.

Next slide.

The breakdown of those variances into the major variances, we see an aquatics improvement versus budget of just over 130,000, which is mostly related to admissions, as mentioned.

116,000 related to increased facility booking usage.

We had a savings of vacant positions in parks and maintenance, which is never a great thing.

But if you recall from last year, we had a $300,000 savings related to that.

So we've done a far better job this year of being able to recruit and fill positions.

It's still a bit of a challenge.

Child care, rent date.

The daycare is full, and after school's been running at 95% full.

Neither of those we budget to be at those numbers is due to rate licensing ratios.

And so just for um being conservative, we don't budget to those levels.

If we happen to drop kids, we can't drop staff.

Um, improve admissions and fitness, and then reducing that is in finance where credit card charges, of course.

Doing that much more revenue leads to higher credit card fees.

Is this a percentage of the revenue as well as we continue to see our insurance costs uh climb beyond what is expected budgetary-wise?

Next slide.

So moving into 2024, some of the areas that we um that had to be considered and looked after were collective agreement negotiations.

So our current um collective agreement expired at the end of last year.

Um we had done, we had uh negotiated our agreement outside of the rest of the region in 2021, which had us come to a three-year agreement that was before inflation went uh went so high.

And so we were able to have lower, we had lower wage increases, which then benefited us and allowed us to operate to operate without any concerns.

However, that's put us quite a bit behind the region.

Um we were currently 4% and with 3% average increase this year for our regional counterparts.

It puts us roughly percent, it's roughly 7% behind the region.

Uh we had 10% insurance premium increase compared to what um actual came in, is what we were advised by our broker.

Uh 5 to 10% utility rate increases.

Um, as mentioned, hiring and recruitment continues to be a major focus as we're growing and trying to meet the demand and and keep and recruit staff.

So there's increased workload at our human resources department.

We currently only have two staff for 200, two human resources staff or a staff team of 280, which is quite a challenge on them.

And as well as continuing to increase our annual contributions to our capital asset reserve so that we can maintain maintain our sustainability moving forward.

Next slide.

Which is made up of those before said utility increases as well as insurance premium increases moving into 2024.

And then 702,000 in discretionary increases, which the majority of that is related to a contingency for negotiations for wages.

Happy to say that that agreement was actually we came to and was ratified last week and matched what we budgeted, so that we won't have any shortfalls there.

As well as continuing those increased transfers to capital reserves, which is the 60,000 per year that was agreed upon a number of years ago with the owners to keep growing, as well as various increases to fitness, skate skate park improvements, bus replacements, and so on, as we see costs go increase year over year, as well as adding in a new HR specialist position to help us with the recruitment process and ensure we're successful there.

Overall total expenditure increased by just over a million dollars.

We increased our fees and program offerings and performance expectations by 834,000, which leaves a difference of 232,000 or 4% 4% to compensate the difference through the requisition.

This matches the five-year financial plan that was presented last year.

So we're still staying in line with that, which is a decrease from 2023, which was 5%, which is our goal is to work our way back to eventually the goal is our historical two to three percent lifts on an annual basis.

So we're well staying well with on that plan for revenue, as mentioned, we see 11.9% increase in 2024 revenue expectations over budget of 2023.

This is in line with the projections that we're experiencing and expect and expecting to see over 2020, what we saw for 2023, which is a 12% improvement.

It includes an average fee increase of 4% on programs, rentals, and admissions, and then three a conservative 3.5% increase year over year moving forward.

Next slide.

And then as well, taking that conservative 3.5% increase year over year moving forward.

Next slide.

Just a quick graph um explanation or um view of how that works.

You can see as we move forward 27.

If you recall, um, for those of you who are here to between 2017 and 2019, there were no budgetary increases.

That's why you see sort of that flatlining.

Uh 2021 was the year that we budgeted with expecting some various forms of restrictions, which we did have most of that year.

And then you'll see we're just progressing moving forward on a steady increase, maintaining the um having our expenses and and revenue move lock and step as we move forward through 2028.

Next slide.

Uh capital projects, uh, quick summary.

We're looking at doing 1.9 million in projects next year.

Um, some of the big items on there is the Q Center Chiller is due for replacement.

We're also adding air conditioning into the Q Center, which the uh any of the lacrosse fans will be extremely happy about to add some comfort into that space over the summer.

Um, and as well, the other piece I wanted various equipment and I wanted just to point out is was brought up a little bit last year.

We did a um had a consultant work with us through 2023 and presented to the board, and um we brought that forward to the ownership.

And so down on the bottom we've got the pickleball court construction um project in there, but as was um approved through the ownership, as we've included that that project will only move forward once funding is secured.

So staff are currently right now there's a few grants we're applying for and we'll continue to pursue infrastructure grants as they start to come I expect to see the provincial and federal runs start to show up March April is usually when they start to come so we're well aware of that getting ready to apply for those and hope to come back with some good news moving into the spring so that work can begin at the early if we're successful this year earliest probably in the fall to be ready for uh 2025.

Next slide just a snapshot of the reserve continuity and we like to always share this as um when I first moved into uh came to work for West Shore back in 2017.

Unfortunately, we had falling into the red in the future where we weren't uh fully funded for our um capital asset improvements.

And and just like to point out, we're moving through staying in the black all the way through.

Um, that has been as a result of having some um uh profitable, or not profitable, but um successful years compared to budgeted expectations over the last couple of years, as well as that steady increased contribution to the reserve.

So we're able to maintain what is it, what is 118 million dollars in assets, which are all of your assets, all of the ownership's assets.

So um there some of those pieces are very pricey, including the $1 million roof that's being worked on right now.

And so this is our way of able to uh stay on top of that.

And we're moving out, and uh, it's actually growing as we move into 2028.

We'll continue to try to increase that on an annual basis to stay ahead of cost increases so we can continue to maintain and operate all of those programs.

Next slide.

So as we move forward into taking all of that information and how that works out to how it um affects taxes and and requisition um through our agreements, we've got the converted assessment, which is the information we provide on uh values for or is provided to us from all of the ownership financial officers.

Um the average increase on the West Shore was 171.14%, of which town view royals was actually 4.46% below the average, which has resulted in when it's been a couple years of that, and my understanding is because there's some property exchange hands as far as um federally, or I think it was federally or provincially, which has led to some of that value change, which has dropped the ownership percentage of View Royal to 12.71% from 13.2 on the previous year.

Next slide.

So as far as the 4% requisition and how that shakes out, as mentioned, that's a 232,000 or 4% increase, which matches the five year plan from last year.

Um, that turns out to be a $286 or 0.04% increase for View Royal.

So the view royal requisition for 2024 is in essence the same as it was for 2023.

Um 2.33% of that increase of the increase is related to operating um increases, which is um in this as as as costs have been rising for the last couple of years, is we're quite proud of being able to stay with that.

1.67% or 97,000 is related to that to additional um capital reserve contributions.

And as mentioned, the requisition is in line with the approved five-year plan from last year.

And we're continuing to move forward with looking at try at aiming at decreasing that year over year.

Next slide.

So an estimate, an estimation how that affects individual taxes, looking at V Roll in particular.

And we use this looking at your financial plans and what the proposal as what was included for 2023 taxation, population statistics from the Canadian census, and this works out to roughly a two cent increase per capita for V Rural for 2024.

Next slide.

This takes us from 2016 through 2028 budgetary.

Another graph just to show what we've seen.

This is just to show sort of where we've gone and the improvements we've made.

So in 2016 the cost recovery, so the percentage of expense that's covered by user fees was 54.56, whereas our 2024 budget is a 1.93% increase which of to 56.49%, which I'm happy to say is now the highest cost recovery in the region.

Depending on how you evaluate the programs, not everyone's goal is to have a high cost recovery on the different parts in the region, but it's certainly an area that we feel that we're spreading the cost of recreation between the users and the tax taxpayers and that's why we try to map we always ensure that we're matching our fee increase with whatever the requisition increases.

And just to point out during 2021 it was 38.69 percent as we as we were battling to uh under to operate during the restrictions and lastly um future outlook um moving into 2024 some of the areas of focus that will be on on board for us outside of just our offering our services um those before mentioned governance agreements expire in February 2025 so it's a strategic priority for the board so those meetings will start shortly um to look at reviewing the agreements to make recommendations to the ownership of any potential changes um looking towards into the fall of having those discussions with the ownership so that we um can move smooth smoothly through into 2025.

There's the two agreements that addresses, which is the recreation and community services agreement, which is the agreement between the owners, and the operating maintenance and management agreement, which is um what uh provides the direction for the staff, the operation of the facility and and services.

And then the other part is the pool.

Um, we've got we're gonna be looking to hire a consultant to provide options and suggestions around the pool.

It's a 32-year-old or sorry, 23-year-old facility, um, which for most pools isn't that old.

For this pool is it's a it's a um Mirtha liner system, which is a liner versus a concrete basin.

Um, it has to be replaced every 15 years.

At the last time it was replaced was $400,000 in two thousand nineteen um in my time at west shore, we have leaks almost every year, um, which unfortunately they're not big leaks, so they take a while to find.

So, all of these fantastic energy recovery and and energy efficient systems we keep putting in, keep getting eaten up by leaks in the excess water chemicals to treat the water um natural gas to heat the water that ends up going out the window um so that's going to need to be looked at at some point besides the demand that is on the West Shore so that's something we're gonna look at so that we can bring that forward to the ownership for planning because this these aren't inexpensive items and so we want to be able to give the ownership as much lead time as possible to look at what um plans are there so those are worked into the budget and next slide oops.

Sorry, there is one more.

View royal Overview.

So View rural's ownership currently sits at 12.71 percent um 10.88 percent of our clients are um are reside in View Royal.

11% of our memberships are made up of View Royal residents, 10.26% of our registrations, 13.2% of our admissions, 12% of our life clients, and 12.4% of our overall transactions.

So it's fairly in line, and which is what we find each year.

There's somewhat of a discussion at the ownership on ownership percentage, payment percentage versus usage.

And it's amazingly close for everybody.

So we try to share this each year just to help with some of those uh discussions that may occur.

Slide.

Overall, we continue to offer varied recreational and sporting opportunities for the West Shore community in what we believe is a very cost-effective way compared to count compared to counterparts, but also based on the value that we see.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Can I get uh before you get into questions?

Thank you.

Can I get a motion to receive the report first and then a seconder?

Counselor Brown.

Second, or counselor Matson.

Thank you.

Go ahead, Counselor Brown.

First of all, I like well, I'll I'll do disclaimer, we're not related.

I didn't know how to say him last night, but I'd like to thank you for the tour you gave me and some of the other counselors last year.

That was great.

Uh what an amazing place.

That the variety.

Um my family and myself have used the facility since 1975.

And I think the only one I haven't used is probably the skateboard park, but I'm not dead yet, so maybe I'll get out there.

Uh but thanks again.

And your staff is excellent.

And Counselor Kowal, which gives us an excellent updates all the time, is being the chair.

So we certainly appreciate that.

And thank you.

Councilor Rogers, did you have a question?

Again, yeah, thank you very much for the report.

Just a um uh a request.

You know, you had the 2004 requisition, and would have been helpful to see the call in 2003, 2000, sorry, 2023, you know, so I could compare it to 23, 24.

Yeah, get that comparison.

Um the uh you know, the pool was um aging pool is one of the things that uh that it does uh concern me.

And I don't know how we're, you know, I guess we'll see what happens with a consultant report, but it could be pretty obvious it might be a costly venture to um you know replace that.

And I uh wonder if uh either through um uh counselor Kowalovich or yourself, um, you know, are there other projects in the next five years that uh are of similar magnitude that we should be considering and being aware of?

Um thank you for the question through the chair.

Um not at this point.

The other piece that we were looking at that we've had um more so on demand requests was uh arena facilities as well.

Um looking into that on as as far as the West Shore site goes, um, the only place it could really go would displace parking.

Um we do a lot of events, a lot of those other pieces.

We'd actually we'd need to find a replacement for that parking, and in that process, speaking with um a consultant, the cost to replace the parking is nearly as much as it would be to build the arena.

So as much as there there is a there I don't think we're quite there yet based on the statistics that are used usually around minor hockey registrations, but it's going to be fairly close for the West Shore as a whole, but ours but the society's site is probably not the best location as it's not there's probably more cost effective places.

You're suggesting a parkade that's what we were looking at because it's about the only and it's incredibly expensive.

Right.

Yeah I appreciate that.

I guess one of the other things too that um what really does concern me is the the province's uh uh decree across all municipalities that single family dwellings are outlawed and um you know, we're we are facing a a requirement.

And I don't know, my numbers may be different from anyone else's, but I have a hunch that uh we we're gonna be looking at uh another 15,000 doubling our population in in a very short time.

And that has an interesting replicate uh repercussions on on the West Shore.

The good news is that the province is allowing us to have a DCC for recreational facilities.

So if we're able to do that and consistently across the five core, then I think we can expect those new builds, those new residents, those new developers, you know, will take their share in in the future.

Thank you.

That's great.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Council McKenzie, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Brown, for your presentation.

My question was going to be about the usage, because to make sure like we're getting value for our money and that folks from View Royal are using the service.

So can you remind me again?

Members outside of the contributing municipalities, they can also attend.

Yes.

Correct.

Okay.

And uh is there a trend in terms of the other municipalities that's similar to ours, where our ownership is similar to the usage percentage, or does that is it different?

Um for the rest of the West Shore municipalities, they're all very close.

Yeah, for example, a few weeks ago I was at um Callwood and they own 33% and it's 34% is the usage.

So it's that's incredibly close.

Okay, excellent.

And then my last question, and I think I know the answer to this, but uh, there's not any discounted rate for those contributing municipalities.

Um, I won't know the history on that.

There isn't.

I'm aware of other jurisdictions such as um uh the Couch and Regional Vision uh Couch and Regional District as well as up in um the Comox Regional District who do that.

Um there, I think my view on it is A, we work very closely with the region.

Um so once that starts, it would become quite an interesting task to be um part of and probably create animosity between the departments as we do, for example, our Life the Leisure Involvement for Everyone program, where we have um people on low income can get 52 free visits or half-off passes and so on.

That's all regional.

And if we went to a uh a payment structure that was different for different areas of the region, I think a lot of that would unfortunately fall apart.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

I think we got a motion or counselor Munster.

I'm glad to see things are in good hands after I unceremoniously left the board many years ago.

Um but I do have a bean bean counter question.

So you've got a 445,000 revenue over expected revenue.

Was that what does that translate to in terms of surplus?

Um so it's the $445,000 surplus that we're expecting.

And so um and the way that works, that goes into the reserve.

So that's built into our S to our predictions for the um uh reserve continuity.

And so whenever there's any kind of operating surplus, it goes off into reserve for the maintenance of the capital.

Okay.

So my question is if you have a $445,000 surplus uh last year, why do you need $200 and some odd thousand dollars?

I know you explained why, but uh in terms of the surplus, how is that gonna if you had a surplus last year, you expect having the same surplus this year?

And we're not expecting the same surplus last year.

A lot of our surpluses because we were still um enjoying the benefit of incredible growth as compared to what was expected based on the restrictions as we're working our way out.

Moving into this year, the majority of that 445,000 is related to admission increases.

Our pool, we have no more water, we can't add it anymore.

They're running at capacity with 50 people waiting in the in the lobby to get in.

So there is no our only increase we're looking at that is basically fee increases.

Uh and the weight room right now, we're not expecting upwards of 80 to see that kind of growth again that we've seen over the last few years.

Okay.

Well you've answered my question now.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thanks, folks.

So we got a motion on the floor uh to receive.

Uh and uh unless it's really pertinent, Councilor Rogerson.

Brief.

Well, staff have also uh provided a motion to recommend approval.

So maybe we receive and then do the motion to uh approve.

Okay.

So that's so we got a motion on the floor to receive.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

No, we move staff recommendation.

That move staff's recommendation to approve the uh budget for GVPL.

Uh moved by councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

Um all those in favor.

Seeing none opposed.

There you go.

Thank you.

Thanks for catching that, Councilor Roger.

Uh I think that moves us along to the public participation period.

So anybody in uh the room would like to address council, please approach the mic and if you activate it, uh so you've got five minutes to present.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor Tobias and members of council.

My name is Sarah Herring, and I'm the government relations officer for the BCSPCA.

I also live on Ptolemy Avenue in Saanich.

I want to thank you for considering Agenda Item 7A tonight, the glue trap resolution, and I am here to speak in support of that resolution.

Last January, a provincial government ban on most use of the three most deadly second-generation anti-coagulant rodenticides, came into effect.

This change will prevent the slow, cruel death of millions of animals in British Columbia, including rodents, raptors, owls, cougars, and household pets.

However, other cruel forms of rodent control are still legal and commonly used in households and businesses across British Columbia today.

Glue traps, also known as glue boards or sticky traps, are intended to catch rodents, not kill them.

Unfortunately, most people who use these traps leave them unattended for long periods of time and aren't prepared to humanely kill the animals that are trapped on them.

The sad reality is that most of these animals suffer and slowly die from injuries, exposure, suffocation, dehydration, and starvation.

And this is a fate that no animal, not even the rodents that we refer to as pests, deserves.

Unfortunately, there are also many other unintended victims of glue traps.

Birds, bats, small rips, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and even household pets, can also get stuck on these traps.

And even with the expert help of a veterinarian or a wildlife rehabilitator, it is very difficult to be able to save them.

The resolution before you tonight asks the provincial government through AVICC and UBCM to take the same progressive stance as they did on rodenticides by banning the sale, purchase, and use of glue traps in British Columbia.

And incidentally, the or not incidentally, the uh the ban on glue traps was also initiated by municipal governments in British Columbia.

We understand at the BCSPCA that sometimes rodent control is necessary to protect our health and safety.

However, the best way to control rodents is to prevent a problem before it occurs.

Using glue traps without addressing the root causes of a rodent infestation, including the access to food and shelter in our homes, our cars, and our businesses, will only result in an endless cycle of trapping, suffering, and inhumane death.

For people and local governments that want to humanely address rodent control, the BCSPCA and our animal kind program provide rodent proofing checklists, mouse and rat best practices, and key questions to ask rodent control companies to determine if they use humane practices.

I encourage you to join the BCSPCA, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, and many international governments in declaring group glue traps inhumane and urging the provincial government to ban them.

Thank you very much for your time.

And I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them.

Thank you for your presentation.

So aside from information, because usually people are beyond frustration at the point where they're going to go to Canadian Tire or wherever and buy a glue trap, not picking a Canadian tire here.

But is live trapping something that the SPCA, like we we've got to give people another option as opposed to education, because yeah, that's what they're out there for.

So what would you suggest?

Uh so prevention and exclusion are obviously the first two methods.

Uh so making sure that there is an access to food or resources or other attractants around the home.

Uh, so inside a home or a vehicle or a business, keeping food in rodent proof containers, making sure that any spills or crumbs or things like that are cleaned up outside the house, keeping compost contained, cleaning up fruit trees, pet food, making sure that any spilled bird seed is cleaned up, those things will reduce the attraction for rodents.

And then exclusion is also important.

So for mice, I believe it's blocking holes.

Anything larger than a dime will allow a mouse to access.

Anything larger than a quarter will allow a rat to access.

So making sure those are blocked.

And there are a number of products available, including like door sweeps that go under doors to keep them from getting in under doors, blocking the areas around pipes, any holes, things like that.

If rodent control is necessary, if prevention and exclusion haven't happened, humane trapping isn't our live trapping, is an option, but relocating animals large distances has its own inhumane issues.

They will have to struggle for food, resources, shelter in a territory that is not their own, and maybe where they don't know where the food or shelter is.

It could also separate uh infants from mothers, so those infants will die fairly cruel deaths.

Um, if lethal control, if all of those other options haven't worked and lethal control is necessary for public health and safety, then appropriately sized and powered snap traps are the best options because if they are the appropriate size and power, they should kill almost instantaneously.

The issue with glue traps is that length of time to death.

Thank you.

Normally we don't ask a whole lot of questions from traditions and delegations, particularly with a tight agenda, folks.

So if they're really brief and they're not comments, please go ahead.

So I'm wondering if other any other municipality has said, yes, we're going to put this forward.

In that case, we could just, you know, support it at UBCM.

Has has have any municipalities already said yes, we're going to submit this as a resolution?

Uh no one has submitted it to IV AVICC yet.

I believe that the District of Sanich is going to be considering this resolution at their next meeting as well.

And the AVCC, AVICC has advised us that if that happens, then it will go forward as a resolution from two municipalities.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Councillor Lennon, Councillor Ron.

Just quick couple quick questions.

Uh if the province uh star starts a statute, first of all, who would enforce that?

That is a very good question.

Um I know that there the rodenta sides are regulated through the provincial government, and I would have to get back to you to answer that how the enforcement would work.

Okay, and the second question is is there any municipalities that have put it in their animal control bylaw?

I know ours has a section for feeding wildlife.

Uh I know there's I'm not sure if it's in the community charter, whether it'd be allowed or not.

Maybe perhaps staff might better know that.

But uh to me, if you added a simple addition to a bylaw, that might be a solution.

I'm not sure.

But um, and of course in that case, our bio officer would enforce or or the people that do our animal control by contract.

Uh I don't know if any have included it in a wildlife feeding or attractant bylaw, which is a a really great place to start for all species of wildlife, not just rodents.

Uh, but the District of North Vancouver has included it in their policies.

So the District of North Van does not use glue traps on any of their municipal properties.

And I don't believe they use contractors who use glue traps either.

Thank you.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

And uh uh if council has extra comments, there's a whole agenda item on this coming up, so we can hit it then.

Thank you.

Uh anybody else in the house wish to address council.

If you could just start off by giving your name and your street uh name, not your numbered address.

Hello.

Um, my name is Patty German, and I live on Nursery Hill Drive.

You received a letter from me yesterday, and I wrote this letter um in response to um thinking about um Mr.

Sharmer's petition that you just heard.

Um and I would like to say that I would like to uh express very much goodwill uh towards him and his very hard work over the years, it appears, uh, to have a playground um placed on Nursery Hill.

Um but I am in opposition to this idea.

Um I have some hope uh from hearing what's being said tonight by you and the staff that perhaps this has already been an idea that is seen not to be in the interest of View Royale.

And so I would just like to, or what my letter does is remind you, I'm sure, of things that you are already very much aware of, and that is why it's good to keep spaces natural.

And the main points I have in this letter is that of course the access to nature is a key reason why Victoria was chosen as the most livable city in Canada.

And I have noticed in looking at other municipalities that View Royal over the years has always kept natural spaces and natural parks in the developments.

And this isn't true across the board.

So I know that past councils had this vision already.

And I trust that this council too will not make a decision lightly to develop natural space.

And I can I also want to make the point that natural space is really good for kids.

They don't need a playground that's developed.

And it would be useful to hire a naturalist, for example, to develop a mini guide to playing in the forest, which would suggest activities, games, explorations for infants and upwards.

And we mustn't be afraid to take our young kids exploring, picnicking, playing in natural environments.

And such a space fosters creativity, curiosity, and perhaps even a sense of stewardship among the young, who, like Dr.

Seuss's Lorax, will one day speak for the trees.

The decision you make about this, of course, would be modeling to kids the preservation of a green corridor.

The decision to forestall the development will send kids a clear message.

This natural space deserves protecting with its abundance of plants and animals.

It is a fun and interesting place for kids, just as it is.

Because that's already uh the nature has already been destroyed there.

So a natural playground does not replace nature itself.

Um, I worked as an early childhood educator, and I have been involved in committees that created natural playgrounds, and the idea of natural playgrounds came about to change the type of playgrounds already in existence on school grounds and in public parks, which were previously developed.

And I can assure you that destroying nature to create a natural playground is contrary to the goals of the movement.

More than just introducing natural materials into pre-existing playgrounds, early childhood educators think about the bigger question of how to have children and families experience and engage with real nature in wild spaces, just like the one that we have on Nursery Hill Drive.

And I also want to make the point that we already have access to a playground two blocks away.

And I see many young families walking to Chilco Park Playground from Nursery Hill.

And they go various times a day during all the seasons, kids of all ages, some in strollers with parents, caregivers, grandparents, sometimes accompanied by their dog.

And it's a three minute walk.

And that's an accessible distance for most.

So if you were not to develop a playground in Nursery Hill, you haven't really taken anything away from the kids.

And in keeping Gary Meadows Park wild, there's much to be gained for the kids of Nursery Hill and beyond.

I have met families walking up from Thetis Vale from Chilco Road, coming up our way to Nursery Hill to walk in Gary Meadows Park and Nursery Hill Park.

So they're coming up our way for the nature.

So I'm just here to encourage you to keep it natural.

The kids deserve a natural space to be invited into.

Let them meet the bugs and rabbits and mice and birds and let them develop and rearrange the park, move sticks around, build their own little forts with the sticks and fallen leaves.

And it's out of this kind of play that arise the future engineers, scientists, artists, and with the help of parental guidance, future citizens with knowledge and respect for nature and for its fragility.

And there's so many resources, apps, and otherwise that I'm gonna have to catch you up.

Okay.

But thank you.

Your point is well received.

Thank you.

I yes, thank you.

Much appreciated.

And is there anybody else uh that would like to address council?

Good evening.

Doug Wilson uh from V Royal Avenue.

Um I'd just like to make a couple of comments on the uh housing bill work plan that's on on tonight's agenda.

And the first point is uh relates to um a shortcoming in the in the legislation that I I feel like is kind of uh leaving leaving municipalities kind of out hanging out to dry.

In Canada, we're we're lucky enough to have a highly accurate land survey that clearly identifies where each parcel of land begins and ends.

The local survey began with uh George Vancouver and the Dominion Land Survey arrived with the railway.

Sub centimeter surveys were achievable in the 1800s.

And a century later, the integrated cadastral fabric was established.

The latest iteration is part parcel map BC.

About 230 years of increasingly accurate land surveying.

The precision is what prevents land disputes.

Now Bill 44 introduces land decisions based on bus stops.

They're not fixed locations.

They wander around, they move with construction, new sidewalks, the whim of BC transit.

And yet Bill 47 requires rezoning of land parcels if they are wholly or partly within a prescribed distance from a bus stop.

If we don't know where the bus stop truly is, we don't know where the prescribed lands are.

If a land parcel is found to be one millimeter in, it is wholly in.

It is all in.

At least Bill 47 provided a latitude and longitude position for the VGH bus exchange.

It's given to six decimal places.

That's not even a 10-centimeter precision.

Accurate enough for a transit map, not precise enough to prevent a land dispute.

And bus stops are going to move in the future.

Does this trigger a whole new round of rezoning?

Write a new OCP.

For instance, there's already a near-term potential for change at the Integra tire and Atkins transit location.

The solution may be to precisely identify each location now.

Create a view royal policy that precisely identifies the starting point for each instance of the prescribed distance where you measure from.

Then make a decision on how a change to a bus stop location will or will not trigger a an OCP change or a zoning or OCP change.

Is it one meter?

Is it five meters?

Is it 50 meters?

100 meters.

This needs to go into a View Royal policy document now, ahead of time before the disputes arise.

Establishing an initial level of precision along with a predetermined amount of acceptable change right now will reduce the likelihood of future cost, conflict, and impact from the decisions made outside View Royal.

And we need to select the right bus stops.

The preliminary mapping in the work plan uses the number 14 bus stop on Helmkin on the south side of Highway 1.

The number 95 bus stop is actually 13 meters northwest of that location.

I'd also like to comment on the on step eight in the work plan that deals with capacity analysis and post-change tracking.

I realize this is all quite preliminary, and it might just be how I'm reading that step in the work plan.

Part of the step calls for build-out modeling and tracking to take place after the changes have all been implemented in 2020 up to 2026.

That is rec and that tracking the changes is recommended in the policy manual for the for the legislation.

That'll tell View Royal about the accuracy of the planning.

It'll identify where and how fast development may be outstripping in infrastructure resources.

And that part of it meshes really well with the asset man, the asset management asset lifecycle planning that is planned.

However, the assessment of increased housing capacity needs to take place at the start of this work plan.

The policy identifies two kinds of build-out analysis, maximum build-out, which will can be done simply as a function of the GIS study that identifies the land.

It's just inserting another column in a table.

It's more complex.

And then the incremental build-out analysis predicts the pace of development.

Considerations such as land price and age of existing buildings can help predict how fast the infill housing will occur.

And we're going to need that in order to do a good housing needs assessment and a good OCP in the future.

I think we need to start at the beginning of this project, do the capacity assessment, and we'll learn a lot more about where we're going.

Otherwise, we're just kind of flying blind.

And maybe that's intended in the work plan already.

I don't know.

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr.

Wilson.

Anyone else in the room wish to address council?

Seeing nobody in the room.

Carl, we got anybody on the line that wants to address council this evening.

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

Thank you, Carl.

And I think up next for us is the business arriving rising from previous minutes.

It's about the uh rodent uh glue board traps.

Uh we've got a proposed recommendation.

I'll move the recommendation.

Second.

Uh moved by counselor mattson, seconded by counselor Rogers.

Do you want to motivate Councilor Mattson?

Councilor Rogers?

Yes, I I want to thank um uh the SPCA and and um working with both um uh myself and um the uh counselor from Sanit, so um counselor Bonoff, I think it is.

And um so indeed um um Sanitz is waiting to see how things progress and in free will, and is I think anxious to be a co-sponsor uh of this this uh motion that's before us.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Uh any other comments?

Are we ready to vote?

Getting a sense that we're ready to vote.

Um all those in favor of the proposed recommendation.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries unanimously.

I don't know if we need a motion, but I would also like to move that we don't use those.

That's that our staff don't use those traps in view roll either.

But that's probably just so your motion would read something like that.

Um uh from from this time forward.

They got a seconder for that.

Ivan.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um staff uh no longer use those traps on parks premises or town premises at all.

Um Director Jones actually let me know that uh we do have a policy with respect to traps and it is uh policy model primarily on the district of North Vancouver's, which is what was mentioned on the stand uh earlier today.

So uh it's currently not used and probably won't be used.

So given it's not allowed, I'll it's redundant, so I'll remove my motion.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

So uh we'll consider seven complete and we'll move into eight, which is a development variance permit application for 2023 oh three or fourteen fifty Glentana Road.

This is something that we've heard before.

Uh I think for a council of the whole.

So is Leanne, is this over to you?

Is it Mary Tobias?

Oh, Jeff has been a good one.

Hello, we see you now.

We have Jeff Chow on the line who will be able to do that.

Go ahead, Jeff.

Take it away.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

Jeff Chelsea, your planner here.

This is a development variance permit for 1450 Glentana Road.

The purpose of it is to consider variances to increase the permitted fence height at this development due to site security issues.

It has a 50 unit condominium apartment that was built in 2021.

It is a site the department has an underground parking that's accessed by a driveway on the side of the building.

There is a driveway gate and a uh uh parking lot um that uh that act with the underground parking uh there have been issues with uh break-ins in the parking area and uh storage lockers on the site um and in the first six months there were over 10 uh break-ins as a result uh the West Tour RCMP prepared a uh crime prevention through environmental environmental design uh report a septed report that um that lists the number of actions that can improve better site security.

The Strata Corporation has been enacting a number of them over the past year and a half, from um you know improving the locks on doors to supporting a slob system.

And one of those actions is increasing the height of fencing to prevent people from accessing the parking lot.

So there are two variances that are requested.

So one is the variance to the fence height from 2.5 meter to 5.3 meters abiding the commercial zone.

And that's the initial proposal from the Strata Corporation.

And that's for the side property line adjacent to the Rexall parking lot.

The second variance is to the height of a fence from two meters to 5.3 meters.

Two meters is a standard uh height of a fence in View Royal.

And that would be at the rear of the parking lot.

5.3 meters is um is um you know almost almost 20 feet, 18 feet.

The variances sound pretty high.

Uh, but that's due to the way height is measured.

Uh the variance would permit um uh existing guardrails on top of retaining walls to that range from 1.1 to 1.4 meters to uh fence fences that are up to two meters on top of 3.3 meter existing high retaining walls that surround the parking lot.

So that 5.3 meters is a two-meter fence on top of a 3.3 meter fence.

I'll show a couple photos that illustrate the situation.

This is the uh view of property from the east from the Rexall uh site on Guantana Road, and there is a there is a railing on top of retaining wall along the property line.

The area in question would be uh starting around the start of the gate uh to the rear of the property.

This is just the existing height, uh, and those those rails are 1.4 meters.

This shows the rear of the site uh where um where the height is 1.1 meters, which is just over the average height of a a doorknob, uh door handle.

Uh so it's fairly low, and people could still so the initial proposal is to increase the height on the Rexhall side of the property.

Uh longer term, uh this variance would permit this fence to be raised because uh right now somebody could conceivably um you know hop over this fence, shimmy along and along the retaining wall down to the uh down to the parking level.

Uh this opaque fence that you see here is almost six feet high, and that gives you an idea of what the of what the height might be uh in this this location.

So the uh not quite double the 1.1 meter fence that you see here.

This is an interior view of the parking area and shows the three point 3.3 meter retaining wall and again that shows how on the right hand side uh somebody could hop over and just kind of climb along the uh the inside of the retaining wall and to access the uh the secure part of the site staff supports the variables for a couple of reasons first of all this is one of the actions recommended by a proper septe uh review done by the Westcore RCMP it's not just somebody saying they want a taller fence uh and secondly in this case uh the location of those taller fences are uh are visually permeable, burden permeable, uh, so they're not solid walls or fences, and they're also in locations that are not highly visible from the street.

Um so uh overall it's pretty straightforward for a proposal, and the staff recommendation is to support the proposal as uh as presented in this in the report.

Uh I believe the members of the strata corporation are also um present if there's any questions from council or from the public.

Uh, but uh this is the recommendation that conclates the presentation.

Thank you.

Uh Jeff, um that's the staff plan.

Did you want to hold your questions for the the point in time for applicant, Councilor McKenzie?

Or was there a question to staff?

A motion?

Okay.

Council Quellish, please.

Thank you.

Yeah, easy to support, certainly.

Not uh not a huge issue.

The only question I guess would be to staff for future development.

Uh and it would really be up to the developer and anyone who moved in.

But could Rexel ever sell part of that parking lot?

Like I know we've talked about their overabundance of parking in the past.

Would would any of that lot ever be able to be subdivided and have is it what is it zoned and what does that look like?

What are the options?

Um through you, your worship.

Um this is a um it's a different property.

Uh it is a commercial zone property.

Uh different but for the same building uh different types of uses may have higher parking demands than others um it's the function of this particular business is that the the uh parking lot made off may not always be full so longer term there's always potential for for change to happen this building is fairly new in its it's uh in it that it's less than fifteen years old um but uh but you know given the right circumstances um there could be redevelopment on site.

But uh in terms of subdivision, um the a variance would have to occur to allow subdivision on this property.

Thanks.

Yeah just just thinking ahead I mean certainly that area is developing and and growing and beautifying which is great.

So just thinking long term but um what's presented in front of me today is uh is an easy decision so cross that bridge when it comes and uh before we go to comments from the applicant over Christmas it was actually full but I had to preck in Canadian tire to drop off a parcel so it does frequently get uh full so uh are there any comments from the applicant for this and bearing in mind counsel uh it's fresh in our memory, um, the in-depth conversation we've had previously.

And I just wanted to chat about what uh counselor McKenzie suggested because last time I was here, you had a really good point where if someone were to scale it near where the gate is, you proposed similar to I guess Ogden Point, when they there's storms, they kind of close up that door and they have that prevention so people can't scale it.

Uh at this stage, would we be allowed to consider having again where the um gate meets the fence, just again a little bit of protrusion to prevent that scaling to occur at the lowest point of the fence.

Jeff, I'll put that to you because uh that um uh is that included in the um the variances or is this something new?

This this is something new, just want to yeah.

Yeah, um Jeff here, through you, your worship.

Um I suppose there's potential as long as like I'm not I don't have um uh a strong idea of what that protrusion kind of looks like, but uh but conceivably if it's within the height limit imposed by this uh by this variance, um that that may work.

It's um we're not bound to the uh specific look of what that fence is like.

Council McKinsey.

Sorry, just to follow up on that.

Um Jeff, so the variance would apply to the whole side, that whole side, regardless of whether it's in front of or behind the gate into the parking lot.

Um I think based on the previous uh discussion for at the committee of the whole meeting, uh there was some discussion and with the Strator Corporation, there was some um interest in uh having the the height would be kind of a little bit beyond the front of the gate.

So so in this, I don't think it's my mouse here, but uh but yes, the thought is that um is that it would begin before the gate if you're if you're approaching from the street.

So it's not beyond behind the gate because in front of the gate you can still climb all over.

So um, thank you.

So just to add to that, I'm just gonna approach the television so I can show you the consideration would start where the uh teal color is.

And so at the beginning of the actual uh concrete apron, it would remain the same.

It would just be where the actual uh gate starts, again, preventing the scaling um because again of the rocks next to the actual uh fence fence line.

And it would then again I'm just trying to think uh about the future, right?

Because we're already up to bat now.

I don't want to have to come back I just want to have that option available because of the again we've had all those break ins occur um it makes sense to do it now and I really appreciate Jeff just considering the back end because uh when the funds allow the strata corporation to move forward we would then continue that along um and he made a good point again it's only visible from Rexall's side the neighbors uh on the other side cannot see the fence because of the tree line and just to confirm Jeff um given the description as provided, or if you need greater detail, would we have to amend what we have in front of us right now for variances, or would that be sufficient?

Um for you Your worship I think um I think we can word it to accommodate it in the future as part of this as part of this approval through uh consultation with the director of development services.

So thanks, Jeff.

Leah?

Um through the mayor, the development, so the plans that are so council's approving the plans that are attached to the development variance permit.

So if there's any deviation to those plans, then essentially it could potentially be considered like another new variance.

So I think it would be helpful that um the motion provides a bit of description so that we can um clearly insert that into the development variance permit, um, which is a notice that's registered on title.

So if there is a desire to extend the fence, I just want to make sure that the plans correspond to the actual wording of the variants.

So perhaps Jeff can um chime in on that.

Yeah, uh through your worship, um, what we could do is in part of the as part of the motion, um uh consider kind of a variation to what's been presented here and we can finalize that in the uh in the permit itself.

But as we can get some wording in from council where uh it would support additional uh augmentation at the uh driveway gate.

Um we can sort of have some general wording to that effect.

So I think uh I think we we need another drawing of you've got a couple of choices here.

We can pass this, but I think if they've got to do more work for planning uh and get a good sense of that, then we could take another look at this in in February.

But we could start with this and maybe add a variance on in February.

But I think we'd be struggling over a long meeting and a long evening to try to come up with words to actually picture this.

So if you're happy with it, I know it's a new idea, but what I would recommend we consider is we pass what's in front of us.

And then if that's not sufficient or or you want to admite that, that you go away and we can actually amend that then.

Council Rogers.

Um if I may, if I could try this, um we move staff's recommendation and uh allow uh additional obstacles at the driveway location as approved by staff.

So that would be um that would take care of what they want.

We would permit it and and uh whatever staff uh again, if Leanne thinks that that's reasonable in enough um direction.

Um so th through through the mayor, the um council has to has to approve the variants.

So I think if um it's a bit challenging when something like this is brought last minute, but um if we can um if if as part of the motion, um if council can just um include that the the the fence may extend past the gate.

And so that um and then in that case and what we can do is have the applicant just up update the plan that's attached to the development variance permit.

So it's clear in terms of where that fence is going to be.

Um sorry, Jesse oglough glentana um so what i would propose is is um would there be availability to say um that we're able to go in front of the gate up to let's say two meters or 2.5 meters so because i think that uh council is looking for you know a definitive distance so that there's just no wiggle room and if we say you know two and a half or three meters from the gate um then we can move forward with the approval and should we need an additional variance and of course we can present that and in February.

Thank you.

Um Councilor McKenzie, Councillor Madsen you had your hands up.

Yeah, I was just concerned about approving this variance and then he'd have to go through the whole variance permit again.

So we should fix it tonight or delay it until they can have the right words or but I think we'd have to redo this whole process again.

So maybe we need if staff thinks that um adding the words of the fence may extend past the gate and then they can play with you know if if that'll do it in terms of the development permit then that that's probably the easiest thing to do.

So I think um we don't have a motion on the floor right now.

We could add exactly that part where the fence may extend past the gate and let's call it up to three meters.

Um uh to be added, sorry, I threw the mirror.

Um, just be clear, it's do you mean it's three meters in front of the gate?

Okay, not height, height wise, just in front extension.

Uh may uh extend what do we call laterally in front of the gate or in front of the gate uh up to 2.5 meters.

Um the yeah, so the variance is to increase the height from 2.5 meters to five point three meters, because that's the retaining wall plus plus the fence on top of that.

Uh Jeff, would you like to chime in here?

And so I was just suggesting we add another bullet at the end of that last one that you just read off that the fence may extend past the gate uh up to two point five meters.

In front of the gate, yes.

Does that work for everybody, Jeff?

Applicant, counsel.

Thank you.

Just for certainly I I'm supporting of the fence going on past the the gate.

Are you wanting the gate height itself increased in height?

I'm extremely happy with uh what he has proposed.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so I'm good.

That's it's just i it'll just to be very clear, it would just be in that one section where the uh gate meets the fence where it would protrude out um to where our property line would be.

So again, I just want to thank you for your support, Mayor and Council.

Really appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

Um and I think we move now to comments from the public before we make uh a decision.

So um aside from the applicants, is there anybody that wishes to address counsel in the room?

Seeing none here, um Carl, we've got anybody on the line?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers.

Uh okay.

So I think we've got one correspondent, so it was a uh can I get a motion to receive the email moved by Council Rogers, second by Council Lemon.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, that motion carries.

So I think we're at a place now where we could look at looking to staff.

We can vote on this now to approve the variants, which I'm getting a sense of.

Staff recommendation along with the additional wording we just spoke about.

Yeah, uh that uh staff recommendation plus the bullet uh fence may uh uh um progress past the or in front of the gate up to 2.5 meters.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.