Council Meeting

Thank you, Sarah.

Good evening, neighbors.

Welcome to the Town of View Royals Council meeting for Tuesday, November 21st, 2023.

And let uh us begin with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lakongwin speaking people today known 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 during uh who telephone in during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

Uh for members of the audience, the council is a safe and respectful, inclusive space, seeing how there's only three of you out there and one of you is presenting.

I'm sure we can keep it all under control.

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

And when prompted, enter conference ID 164-933-049.

You'll be immediately muted and once admitted to the meeting, please do not unmute until you're asked.

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

Ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback and ask you not to use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality and finally ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

Speakers will have five minutes each uh to speak during the public participation and two minutes to ask a question or questions during the question period, and you will be timed.

This meeting will be recorded by participating in the webcast.

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

Um before I call for an approval of the agenda, were those um uh is there anything late to add?

No, I wasn't looking at you specifically, uh uh Councillor Matson.

Who would have phoned you again?

Thank you.

Uh can I get a motion to approve the agenda?

Moved by Councilor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Motion carries.

I'm so used to looking up to see if one of you are online or not, but there's nobody online tonight, so everybody is present.

For the minutes, Councilor Rogers, did you have a request for an amendment that we discussed in these minutes?

Yes.

Item number 13.

I think Sarah, you had alluded to that in your email.

Are you happy to amend that?

Yes, Mayor Tobias, we will have that as we re-watch the video.

And it was Mayor Tobias with the motion and Ron Mattson with the seconding.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Thank you.

And with that amendment, can I get a motion to adopt the minutes?

Moved by Councillor Matson, seconded by Councillor Mackenzie.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Motion carries and mayor's report.

I think uh it's good to make a public announcement that we are having what we're referring to as uh the last um uh opportunity or the the last public hearing uh on the Scottish Cultural Center on Thursday evening.

Uh doors open at six until 8.

We've had an outpouring of support thus far.

I want to thank all the counselors and all the public who helped distribute and distribute pamphlets to over 2,000 approximate residents in the town of U Royal.

I know there's confirmation from the United Party housing critic is going to be there along with another United MLA, along with several counselors from other municipalities as well.

So we're expecting a significant turnout.

If you're planning on driving there, I would encourage you to carpool because parking is limited, or find alternative or public transportation would be a good option to take so you can experience what it's like to get to View Royal from other areas, perhaps.

So that's my plug for that opportunity.

And it's something that we can look at the responses that we're getting from both the public on Thursday night and for the public and council's uh attention.

There's also a survey that's now been released uh as well, uh, directly related to the legislation.

And I want to thank Sarah and the staff and particularly Jennifer for putting it together hastily and getting it up there.

Thank you, staff, for doing that.

So uh great work.

Um that brings us to I think petitions and delegations.

And up first is our regional assurance partner presentation for the 2023 audit service plan.

Over to you, staff.

Thank you.

Welcome to Corey Vanderhorst with MNP.

Uh we know Corey well, and uh Corey is here to present the audit service plan.

We're about to embark on the annual audit process for 2023 year end.

Thank you, Corey.

Over to you.

Thank you, Don.

And thank you to the mayor and council for inviting me here to present today.

Bear with me for a second as I share screen and get you back.

I'm hoping you can now see the presentation.

I'll talk to the document.

You you do have it in your council packages.

It is riveting reading material, so I I promise not to go line by line, page by page.

But just a couple highlights to talk about for the audit process this year.

On the third or fourth page, in uh in the first box there, uh the top bullet point asset retirement obligations is the big uh new item for our audit this year.

Um, we have already had discussions with uh well with uh your staff uh around this new accounting standard uh and the implementation of it.

Um the good news is it is probably not going to be a significant impact uh for the town, um, but there is a process to follow for uh that your staff is going through to make sure that everything that could be out there is identified.

We will be spending the same amount of time in our audit this year, also checking some of the work that was done uh on that asset retirement obligation, that new accounting standard.

In addition, one of the things that's new in how we how we document the audit plan is we're now telling you what are some of the areas we're gonna focus on.

This is something that started last year with some audit standard changes.

So as you can see here, uh we're focusing in on what we call management override of controls.

So really we're looking for is there an individual in the organization, usually the director of finance, who has a high level of control and access.

We look at journal entries, we look at anything that could be repaired.

This is making sure that all that documentation uh is appropriate, all the transactions are recorded appropriately, and that's a standard common thing for all of our audits.

So it's not specific to the town that we're keying in on that area.

Um it's it's common for virtually all the audits that we do.

We look at the property taxes, do a recalculation of your property tax bylaw and the rates times the assessment values, look at supplemental assessment role and any adjustments that are going through to make sure the property taxes are calculated correctly.

We also look specifically at government transfers, so grants coming through from the province or other levels of government, making sure they're being recorded in the proper year or for the corresponding to the expenses that are and expenditures that are happening.

We look specifically at contributed assets.

So if you get an item donated, uh land or other pieces of equipment or things, we look at how did that get valued.

We look for the support behind those values.

And then the bottom of this page here talks about asset or time obligations and what types of things we're gonna do on this new accounting standard to satisfy ourselves that that uh that if there are any AROs out there that they're recorded and they're recorded properly.

Uh we've got our our year-end visit uh coming in in December here and and the um sorry our interim visit in December and our year-end field work planned for April, and we'll be coming back to council in uh late April, early May, uh as we do every year to have that final sign-off and discussion of the audit findings.

The last item I'll I'll highlight here is materiality, which is actually on the middle of the next page.

So materiality is an important number for the audit process, it drives how much audit work we're doing.

If we find something that we disagree with with uh the your finance staff on, that's that magic number that I I can't give you a clean audit opinion.

If there's something that's over materiality, if there's something that's under materiality, I could still provide a clean audit opinion.

The number we're proposing to use this year is $950,000.

Now that is an increase from the prior year.

One of the things that's happened is every uh you know, five to seven years, we do a look out at the market at what the other audit firms are doing, making sure that we're all in the same similar ballpark for materiality and nobody's out of line.

And we determine that our materiality range was a little low.

So we use your your um annual revenues to calculate that.

Um, and we used to use a range of two to four percent, um, and we've now shifted that range up to three to five percent.

So 950,000 would be right close to 5% of your uh anticipated revenues.

When we get your actual financial statements in hand in the spring, we'll revisit this number and make sure that we're on the right track for what that number should be.

But this is the number we're using for our planning.

Um, and as I mentioned, that it does drive the amount of testing that we do and the conversations that we would have with staff of whether there was any items that were identified.

So I'll I'll stop there.

I'm not gonna go through all the rest of the pages.

There's a few appendixes and things that get into more detail and just elaborate on some of those new accounting standards.

Uh, but I'll I'll turn it back or open the floor for for questions.

I'd be happy to answer any questions about our audit plan this year.

Thank you for the uh the presentation.

Perfect.

And um I did have one question before I turn to my colleagues, and that is um, Don, this may be more for you than the audit, but will the asset retirement obligations be interwoven with our asset management plan as as clear procedure, what the auditors are expecting in dovetailing the the procedure in with the the plan and the actual practice of making it happen, or is this a separate thing?

I don't know whether Corey, do you want to take a first stab at that?

I I can say what I know, I think.

Yeah, absolutely.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Good question.

Uh so there's definitely some separation between those those two processes.

Um the asset retirement allegation uh accounting standard and and the process we're going through to to get into the financial statements.

Um it might have some corresponding numbers that can be used for asset management or that can factor into some of that work, but it is very much a reporting function.

Um we're looking at you know what might be out there.

So one of the examples that that you might have is asbestos in in floors or walls, and and you're calculating what would be the potential cleanup cost for that asbestos, uh, and then we record a liability and we estimate when it'll happen.

So those cost estimates and the timing might also factor into the asset management uh function.

But the number that we're going to land on and the number that gets recorded in the financial statements might not always be the same as what the plan is from an asset management perspective.

For example, if you have some asbestos in the walls and it's going to be, you know, remediated in let's say three years' time, it's probably pretty close to what that number would look like from your asset management perspective because of the short time frame.

But if you have asbestos in the walls and you're not going to touch it for 20, 30, 40 years because you don't have to do anything until there's a renovation or something changing.

Um, the accounting standards would require a few calculations to estimate what's the end of useful life, whereas the asset management piece might say we're either not going to record it right now because we don't have a plan to change it, or they might uh record a current cost.

So it's uh there's no clear rule there on the asset management side, whereas the accounting standard would say we have to record something.

Um, so there could be some disconnect there, but there is definitely a bit of overlap in some of the information that will be generated.

Thank you.

Um, colleagues, do you have any questions?

Uh Councilor Rogers, please.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation.

On risk assessment, um uh the um preamble is based on the preliminary risk assessment procedures performed.

Uh is it performed um uh across all municipalities or something specific to View Royal?

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

So we do that risk assessment process in the planning stage of all of our audits.

Um and every uh municipality that we work with, we would look at individually to see if there's any unusual or or sort of non-standard risks for View Royal with the items that were identified there on those risk assessments, those are fairly standard.

We haven't identified anything unusual or or outside of the kind of normal municipal risks um for our audit process.

Thank you.

Further questions.

Um seeing none, can I get a motion to receive?

Uh moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Brown.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

None opposed.

Thank you again for your presentation.

Much appreciated.

Thank you, Ms.

Ray.

And now we have Julie Lawler, the uh Chief Executive Officer of the West Shore Chamber of Commerce, somebody who I've worked with closely over the past uh year.

Uh thanks for coming, Julie.

Thank you.

My pleasure.

Uh, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about the West Shore Chamber.

So I uh have been the executive Director with the chamber since January 2015, and my purpose in coming before you tonight is to talk to you about the work we do in the community, the fee-for-service relationship that we've had with the town of View Royal over a number of years, and the reason why I'm asking Mayor and Council for an increase in 2024.

The West Shore Chamber serves those doing business in what's called the district of the West Shore, namely View Royal, Machosen, Langford, the Highlands, and Calwood.

We acknowledge with respect that these municipalities are on the traditional and ancestral territories of a number of Coast Salish nations, including the Esquimalt, Songhees, Malahat, and Chianu First Nations.

The West Shore Chamber of Commerce has been in operation for 67 years, starting its life as the Calwood and District Chamber in 1956.

We're one of five chambers of commerce on Southern Vancouver Island, and while we liaise and work together on regional advocacy and events with other chambers, each Chamber of Commerce is independently constituted under the Boards of Trade Act.

The West Shore Chamber is governed by a volunteer board of 12 directors and has two full time and one part time staff and one dedicated volunteer chamber ambassador.

We're a nonpartisan, not for profit membership organization that exists to promote business and economic growth, advocate on behalf of local business, and participate in enriching the community.

We are grateful to be part of a vibrant, changing, growing community, and we have aspirations to do much more to be of service.

So at their very heart, chambers are about connection.

And I'd like to speak to this with reference to support we provide to the town of View Royal, View Royal businesses, or initiatives that benefit View Royal.

As we particularly demonstrated during COVID, we are a trusted source of information and share this via our e news and social media channels, as well as direct email to both non members and members as appropriate.

Topics range from training opportunities to funding announcements.

We share news from the town of View Royal, and our e-news and social media are open to all.

We provide an information service to the community, responding to queries via email and phone, providing referrals and contact details, and introducing people to each other.

We like to say if we don't have the answer, we will find someone who does.

We provide opportunities for people to come together to learn, celebrate, do business, support each other, and support charities and nonprofits.

You'll be aware that we collaborated with the town of U Royal on a joint mixer in February and held Vision West Shore to give our West Shore mayors the opportunity to connect with the community and each other.

Two examples of the over 30 events we've provided or co hosted this year.

We provide low cost and reliable support and services to the community.

Businesses and nonprofits can purchase a listing in our online directory or become a member to take advantage of all of our services.

We share business data, concerns, or issues with all levels of government, and communicate out responses, updates, and queries out to the business community.

As members of both the BC and the Canadian Chambers of Commerce, we act as a conduit and advocate for provincial and national issues, and we also do this at a municipal level.

Earlier this year, following the media coverage of the proposed property tax increase in Lankford, we sent a survey on the cost of doing business out to Lankford organizations in our database and shared the 66 responses with the City of Lankford, the BC Chamber, and MLA Mitzi Dean.

I use this as an example of what we could do for View Royal.

We promote businesses and nonprofits through the Best of the West Shore Awards, an annual initiative which we carry out in partnership with the Goldstream News Gazette.

Organizations could be nominated by their clients and customers or self-nominate, and we had over a thousand listings and almost 37,000 votes across 44 categories in 2023 for this Popular People's Choice Awards.

Last but not least, we convene, facilitate, collaborate, or support in a whole range of areas.

For example, when the WandaFuca Performing Arts Center Society was considering its launch event, we provided advice on timing and sponsorship.

Earlier this year, we provided input into a regional tourism strategy.

We are currently working with Royal Roads University on a work-integrated learning project to more closely connect students to businesses and nonprofits.

We are participating in an inaugural meeting on homelessness in Langford next week, and through our connection to our place, we have arranged for their CEO Julian Daly to speak.

All of these are examples of issues that contribute across the West Shore and beyond.

Currently, the West Shore Chamber has 400 members, of which just 20 are View Royal based.

And the town of View Royal has provided us with a $3,000 fee for service payment since 2017, following a $1,500 grant and aid first provided in 2016.

For 2024, we're asking for an increase to $6,000.

Now, as our 20 View Royal members represent less than 5% of the 411 View Royal business license renewals going out this week, I appreciate the query maybe first and foremost.

Why are you providing the View Royal or the Wesher Chamber a fee for service from View Royal at all?

Never mind an increased request.

So I hope the information that I provide to you here and in writing can give an indicator of the value we we provide, and I'll explain the reason for the increased ask next.

The primary reason we're asking for this increase is inflation.

During 2020 and 21, while our events income largely dried up, we were able to access COVID subsidies and so we managed okay.

By early 2022, these subsidies were no longer available to us, and we could not run a full events program due to COVID restrictions.

So we experienced a $10,000 deficit last year in spite of seeking other sources of income.

In 2023, our original budget looked positive and then inflation kicked in and we have had to prepare for another deficit year.

So while the West Shore Chamber has an active and growing membership, membership fees only make up 45% of our budget.

So, for example, event sponsorships, which previously sold out, have been much harder to sell in 2023.

Given inflation, we expect these trends to continue in 2024 and likely beyond.

And in addition, as many of us can say, almost all of our costs have gone up.

So after many years of no changes in our prices or fees, we have had to review everything that we do.

We increased our membership rates in July for the first time in at least five years.

So for Langford, I'm proposing a change from 19,000 to 25,000 and from 12,000 to 16,000 for Calwood.

Both of these requests are based on catching up with inflation after no increase over many years.

Now, in terms of the amount I am asking in each case, it is a balance of working with amounts of money that are historic rather than scientific in terms of population, and asking for an increase that supports our work while acknowledging that increased property taxes are and will continue to be deeply unpopular.

For each of the municipalities with which we have fee-for-service relationships, I'm asking if we can create a multi-year contract with an agreed inflationary benchmark built in, as exists, for example, between the District of SUK and the SUP Chamber of Commerce.

This can then provide consistency and continuity.

But when I put forward this proposal, really, you know, it's potentially a starting point for conversation because what matters is whether the services that we provide represent value for money for the town of View Royal and the businesses in View Royal.

And if not, how can we support your aims in a way that is beneficial for both parties and those whom we represent?

You may have aims in tourism and infrastructure that we may be able to assist you with in our own small way.

My observation, too, is that more than ever, municipal staff are pressed for time and over and above what I'm talking about here at each of the municipalities that I speak to.

I am saying, where are there opportunities for us to collaborate?

Where are there opportunities for us potentially to be able to do something within the West Shore Chamber that perhaps municipalities no longer need to do or no longer need to do in the same sort of way?

So, whatever I learned in one area, I'll certainly be applying to another.

Funding is a challenge for chambers.

While we are nonprofits, we can never be charities because of our constitution under the Boards of Trade Act.

We are ineligible for many grants, and we cannot apply for anything to do with gaming, including 50 50s, raffles, or gaming grants.

At the West Shore Chamber, we are doing more than we have ever before with the same number of staff.

And like everyone else, we continue to adapt and pivot and adjust.

So I hope that this presentation in association with the previously submitted written proposal and our track record sufficiently demonstrates to you that the West Shore Chamber provides reliable and required services at a reasonable cost.

I'm happy to answer any questions and/or continue this conversation.

And thank you again for the opportunity to come before you, Julie.

Counselor Lehmann and Councillor Brown, please.

Hi, Julie.

Nice to see you.

Has View Royal have you lost membership from View Royal?

No, we have not lost membership from View Royal.

In fact, our View Royal membership has grown since I first started putting the paperwork together.

I think part of our challenge, and again, this is something that we can have conversations about in each of our municipalities.

In Langford, we get copies of the business licenses.

In Callwood, we don't, in View Royal, we don't.

In View Royal, there is not an online listing of businesses, for example.

So if we we are trying to reach out to them, we in fact don't necessarily know who they who they are.

And so we we put together what we can with with what information that we have.

And this is part of our challenge, actually, across all five of the municipalities is not always having the data.

The city of Colwood has probably got the most up-to-date information.

City of Lankford had fairly fulsome information, but they never removed uh anyone over time.

So that's been part of the challenge too.

So if you said to me, how many businesses are there currently in the West Shore?

Julie Lawler, I'd say, I don't know.

So that's something for us to continue to work towards.

So so um if if I may, um, with just 20 members, and and I'm assuming, well, there's 400 and some businesses in Bure Oil, which isn't a ton, but it's what we've, you know, it's a lot more than you've got of them.

Um, is it lack of awareness?

Do you think I I you know the Chamber of Commerce has been around so long for so many, but is is it is it missing an uh an an awareness in certain categories or I don't I why aren't people joining?

I would have thought if you're in business, there's benefits to belonging to the chamber.

Of course there are, and of course I would say that there are.

Uh, but also uh you you we do have to be able to demonstrate that to people.

But I think here, uh, you know, this this um this year I've been able to provide some information to businesses to go out with the business licenses.

Okay.

Uh, which I've I've appreciated.

And I and I had thought I'd done it prior, but that was it was several years ago.

Um, but we don't we don't have a conduit in terms of providing information out to businesses other than what we glean and put in our database and then go out to.

So yeah, it it's probably a combination of yes, lack of awareness.

And we're always questioning too well, are we relevant?

For some we are, for some we won't be.

And we can never rest on our laurel laurels on that because we have to continue to develop to provide services that people need and that represent value for money.

One more quick question.

This this uh survey set you're proposing.

What what what would it hit?

What kind of questions would Devil's always in the detail?

So uh so really it was something it would be something that I would look at putting together in association with the town of View Royal staff.

Are these on uh members of of council, depending on what it is that you're interested in.

And you know, I am not a statistician, I'm not going to indicate to you that this will be the all singing and the all dancing, but just given the response that we had when we put something together earlier this year for the city of Langford, which was was kind of on the cuff, uh, indicates that we can put together something fairly short and to the point that I think we'll get some data that would be useful to you.

Um, but we also have to beef up some of our database information for View Royal.

Okay.

Thank you, Julie.

Uh I'm just gonna go to staff first.

I think they had something.

Uh Councillor Brown, before I go to you.

Uh Leon.

Thank you, Mary Tobias.

I I just wanted to mention actually, just for in for information purposes, that we do have a list of all the businesses on our website.

We do, yeah.

My apologies.

All that information is there.

I did not know that that was on there.

Thank you, Leanne.

You're welcome.

I'm gonna look it up tomorrow.

Thanks, uh Leanne.

Counselor Brown.

Thank you, Julie, for your work for several years now.

Uh this is the 12th community I've lived in at BC.

So I know the chamber is always one of the go-to, and hopefully that is for anyone moving to the towns.

Uh big challenge for small municipalities.

Uh uh, uh uh we we have a good base for residential, and uh, we knew we really need to increase our our our businesses, keeping the business we we have and attracting more businesses because uh we want people to be able to work and and and live in the community.

It keeps people off the roads commuting back and forth um and keeping our young people in the town.

That'd be great.

But certainly uh uh revenue-wise, it's it's important to uh to maintain and increase.

So um hopefully whatever you can do to promote uh businesses moving here.

I see City of Victoria just posted uh an RFP for people to apply to um um take over empty storefronts, which I thought was really unique and a really cool thing.

I don't know if we're in the same situation here, I don't think so, but it's certainly uh another uh thinking outside the box.

I think it's a great idea.

But thank you again for your presentation.

Thank you, Council Runcilor Brown, Councillor McKenzie, and then Councillor uh Rogers.

Yes, thank you.

I kind of had a question similar to what Councillor Brown was just saying.

I was wondering if you could speak a little bit to what you could possibly do or what you currently do to attract businesses to View Royal.

Absolutely.

I will be completely up front and say that we as a West Shore Chamber support existing businesses.

I'm not going to pretend for a second that we uh are a conduit to bring businesses to the West Shore or to View Royal.

We have uh, in fact, before I came here, I was at uh the South Island Prosperity Partnership Leadership Day that they had on, in which they in their role are looking to bring people to the region in a way that I know a number have been involved in.

When you get down into the details of the individual municipalities, I think you kind of have to look at some of the micro opportunities that you are interested in attracting here.

So certainly we can assist in terms of the promotion of that, but I will be honest and say that our reach is going to be pretty hyper-local.

So I think it would be more in the case of if you are trying to bring particular businesses into this municipality from other parts of the region or further up island rather than much more than that.

Thank you.

And my second question: so let's say us or one of the other municipalities don't agree to the service fee.

Worst case scenario.

What services or what impact would it have on the services that you provide currently?

Yeah, thank you for that question.

I think I will uh we'll keep going back and asking questions and seeing where it's it's possible.

I think the challenge for us, as for many other nonprofits, is that the the needs for our services have not diminished, but the funding is more challenging given that the costs have gone up in the way that they have.

So I would never say, well, that's it, I'm I'm pulling all my services.

That that's not useful, that's not collaborative.

And I'd like to be able to see what we can do within the parameters and the and the budget that we have.

But certainly if we did not receive fee for service from any of the municipalities that currently provide it, it would be really challenging for us to make that up because we are still recovering as many are uh after the the COVID restrictions.

Councilor Rodgers.

Yes, thank you.

Uh for all you know the many years of um being an association with uh the chamber, you know, 2015.

Um uh I'm really appreciated that you did come to us uh then.

And uh attending the mixers um with uh your business, uh variety of businesses that exist on the West Shore.

Um it's uh it's really an eye-opener.

It's almost like riding along with the cops.

We get to appreciate um the businesses that are there.

You get to uh really see what it's like on the grassroots, hear what the uh the issues are, and and I really am um I think it's wonderful that the chamber and and the town come together to invite uh businesses locally to uh come and speak to us directly.

And I think uh the chamber is like a bit of a business bureau.

If I was a business, I'd go to the chamber to see what municipalities support the chamber.

Uh and I think that um, you know, because I think I'd want to be there, knowing that the the municipalities would be behind me.

And um I really have to thank Langford because Langford has given you the 33-year lease that $33 a year with tax exemptions.

So, you know, with that enormous support, our fees are really rock bottom.

Um, and I think the uh if if we were to go with the core, the fees would probably be a heck of a lot more.

And um, so with the um the value, grassroots value, um, I I uh and I've I've seen the chamber in action with uh when the destination Victoria came to with the mandate that we want to broaden uh tourism to the West Shore with the um the fast bus, with the arts and culture that's coming here, with the casino hotel that we hopefully get.

You know, it it all is predicated on our credibility with the businesses that uh that are here and we want to see more of.

So I'm I'm double it, cheap at twice the price, as far as I'm concerned.

So uh thank you, and I would certainly support the uh the the discussion at uh at the in our next budget.

Thank you.

Uh Councilor Rogers, any other questions, comments?

Um thank you, Julie.

Great to see you again.

I I'd move that uh this become a budget consideration, not only for the increase, but also uh contractual arrangement.

Do we have a seconder?

Seconded.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing non opposed, motion carries.

Uh I think this uh brings us to a public participation period, if I'm not mistaken.

And anybody in the room.

Nobody.

Anyone on the phone, Carl?

Mayor Tobias.

We have no callers so far this evening.

Really quiet.

Making me suspicious now.

Staff reports.

We've got uh some request for uh funding for UBCM FireSmart community funding.

And I think that might be you, Paul.

Good evening, Mayor.

Members of council.

Uh, before I am here on behalf of uh Troy Mullen, who authored the report?

Um, the recommendations the town of your role make application from the 2023 UBCM Fire Smart Community Funding and Supports for a Fire Smart Coordinator and Community Wildfire Resiliency Plan in the amount of $144,785.

This particular uh grant application has already been submitted.

We had a deadline that we had to submit for.

Um we've all been given approval.

I need a council resolution though authorizing the application of the grant.

So it's a bit of a uh the barn door is open, it the horse is out, and I'm asking for forgiveness instead of permission.

And my colleagues at um at UBCM have indicated that it's pretty well a done deal.

We just have to uh tidy up a few things, the resolution and and one other piece.

Uh, there's a hundred and about 112,000 for the program itself and the staff person, and then there's about 33,000, 32,000 for uh an updated community wildfire plan.

Um, lots of work went into it.

It's broken into two parts.

So it's a one-year uh term position that we would advertise and hire from the community or from the fire department, and this person would be responsible for uh everything fire smart in the community.

Currently, uh City of Langford, Machosen, Suk, and Central Saanich have staff positions funded uh under this program, and that group of people have already met and Troy's met with them already.

So we're just waiting for the the thumbs up, and then um this will also make us eligible for a second year of funding as well that uh we're pretty well green lighted for.

So I need a resolution from our our council staff recommendation.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Uh just a question.

We've got a um uh I know some of this work is probably gonna dovetail into an urban forest strategy um that that I think Ivan was heading up.

And it was basically about uh also data about brush, you know, the conditions and and and the whole purpose here is just controlling um standing dead brush, anything that that we can mitigate those things.

So um the the only question I had is uh could there be some data exchange between those two studies because you're really talking about trees fire resiliency i would think so so we've been working with ivan and dominique and gis so ivan's been a part of this as well i i don't see why not we can't combine these two you know for a for a synergy work together um i'll talk to ivan when he gets back but yeah i mean that that's a no brainer i think i i think it'll dovetail nicely any other questions uh go to counselor mattson um McKenzie and then uh rogers please i just wanted to uh compliment you chief just uh over the years i've noticed that you always come to us with uh requests that mainly are are are funded from some of somewhere else UBCM or somewhere and that that's always good to see it you know if you could only find a a funding organization for all the vehicles you come for us I'd even be happier but uh anyways I just want to express my appreciation for the good job you do at getting the funding that you do.

No I appreciate that the the work that you know Troy Troy is kind of the the grant guy um I I I I should do a total it's got to be hundreds of thousands of dollars that he's achieved from UBCM whether it's ESS, the emergency program.

This is a big chunk.

Municipalities are eligible for up to 400 000 over two years.

So we'll be like I say, we'll be making another application next year.

There's also another program.

Once this uh coordinator gets into place, there's another pot of money for equipment and and more wildfire stuff.

So we'll be tapping into that well.

But thanks, Counselor.

I appreciate that.

Counselor Mattson, Counselor McKenzie, please.

Uh thank you.

Um, I just wanted to double check that there this doesn't commit us to any ongoing costs that once the grant is expended.

Um absolutely not.

So once the some of the neat features of this grant is so I'll give you an example.

The the person would do a fire a fire smart assessment of, say, Northview Royal, up above uh Thetis Lake.

He meets with the residents, and then there's money available through the grant program that the residents are eligible.

I believe it's up to a thousand dollars to fire smart their homes.

And then that money can be used to buy equipment to protect their homes.

So it's supervised by that person.

So it's it's quite a program.

So there's there's lots of money available once the once the program's over after a year the funding's over there's there's no additional cost to the municipality.

Thank you, Councilor McKenzie.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah, uh I I really like the uh the report it it lays out the uh the rationale uh very strongly and and uh it is curious because I I certainly was aware of The S Lake and Mill Hill, but uh not the other areas of Porter's Park and and Yontana as being areas that require the same kind of consideration.

Um there seems to be an educational program mostly, educating the people and an opportunities for yard cleanup and so on, which I wonder uh as previously mentioned, if that was would um evolve into a regular um maintenance program because we we always get deadfalls and and uh fuel material uh that we would probably need to carry on beyond this.

So the the program will establish sort of the base for the community, and then it's it's anticipated that once people sort of get into that mode every couple of years they'll keep fire smarting their property and and getting rid of that.

I mean, obviously the big concern is the the north fetus, um, where it borders the highlands and Langford.

But um, yeah, no, I I think this can continue on, and uh it it it'll just create a trying to think of the right word here, but it'll it it'll be in people's minds.

And I think once we sort of plant the seed people will just organically keep doing it on their own.

Yeah the um you know I I do worry a little bit that there um this may be um uh I don't know shall we say a catalyst for a lot more tree removal um from properties.

Um is there a risk that we would be losing uh tree canopy no so the whole premise of the FireSmart program is not the removal of trees, it's the removal of the fuel going up the trees.

Giving it my on my property, I'm I'm taking off dead branches up 12 feet and it it takes away that ladder fuel.

So this will be an opportunity for people to um to reduce the fuel load on their property.

If any trees are identified in the program that they're dangerous, you have to be removed, then they'll have to still go through the same process that anyone else in the town.

This isn't to encourage people to cut down trees.

So the trees aren't the issue.

It's it's actually the the homes that aren't fire smarted that catch fire that spread to the trees.

So if we can if we can fire smart the homes, then the trees will look after themselves.

But we won't be we won't be on a uh program of of cutting down trees, that's for sure.

Yeah, it'd be cost $2,000 a tree.

Well, it could be a funding source.

We could do like a fifty thousand dollars a tree and we'd authorize the cutting of the tree and then find them.

How's that work?

Yeah, there you go.

Um, again, um, really I really like yesterday, the fact that the the program was uh 2007, way out of date, so excellent time to renew it.

And the fact that we're going for the 200,000 uh check box, uh if it were anything lower, I'd be asking the CRD to chip in uh for the lake.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, comments?

Yeah, looking forward to any baseline data this can give us too, Paul, out of it.

Um uh if if that's at all possible.

I know CRD is working in the park, supposedly this year.

Um looking at baseline data for standing dead.

Uh I asked them they they have nothing.

They don't have any inventory whatsoever.

So anything we can we can get to to help that baseline, that that's awesome.

So we've got a mover and a second, or all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, you got your motion.

So that this is the permission you were seeking.

Uh to to make the application.

So thank you.

I'll make the application.

I'm pretty sure I'll get approved pretty quick.

Carry on, Chief.

Thank you for that.

I'll see you in camera.

And I think that brings us to a brief just on an update on the West Shore RCMP detachment expansion uh project funding.

Everybody's aware that um going back some months ago we approved um the uh the uh initial uh outlay to to uh carry on with the study, and this is just an update from uh from Don, who's been sitting on a lot of the update meetings.

So, Don, over to you.

This is when I miss our C Ao because this was his file.

So uh I'll be happy to turn this file back over to the new CAO once he arrives.

So appreciate that introduction, Mayor Don Christensen, Director of Finance and Technology.

And yes, I have been sitting in on the last few meetings uh with the uh joint steering committee.

As you know, this project is uh call cooperation, collaboration between Langford, Callwood, and View Royal for the expansion of the West Shore RCMP detachment.

It is the most significant project in your budget, as I'm sure you already know.

So we are recommending that we being the recommendation from the joint committee, is let me just back up one moment.

All three municipalities have determined that we will be borrowing for this project.

We don't have enough cash in on hand to do this uh $82.5 million dollar project.

So we need to borrow.

How are we going to finance?

How are we going to structure that financing?

So of all of the options considered, the one that quickly rose to the top and is recommended in this report is to create a sub-regional CRD service that comprises the three municipalities, Calwood, Langford, and View Royal, and have the CRD hold or uh you know create that financing from Municipal Finance Authority, our preferred lender, as one borrowing for all three municipalities.

There are a few really good reasons for this.

One is that, as you likely already know, to borrow any money, every municipality has to do an electoral approval process.

We have to ask for permission to borrow, and it has a certain threshold that must pass before we can borrow.

If each three of the municipalities do their own approval processes on their own individually and borrow individually, we have to do the electoral approval process individually.

What would happen if two municipalities approve it and one doesn't?

So by creating a sub regional service with a CRD, we eliminate that potential, and yet each of the taxpayers, property owners, constituents in each of the municipality has the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want to allow the subregional service to borrow.

So we we achieve that electoral threshold in a much more simple and understandable way, and it eliminates the risk that the project fails just simply on the fact that we have a separate approval processes of our electorate.

So that hurdle is overcome by creating the subregional service with CRD.

The other one is, you know, what I would say is a really good argument for why we should create a subregional service, and that is that if you think about uh all three municipalities borrowing separately or borrowing an amount established at the beginning of the term, the very next year that we have to make the payment on the debt, all of the municipality constituents are going to pay roughly the same amount, let's just call it rate per thousand on their assessments.

It everything's going to be pretty well equal because we're going to be cost shared on the agreed-on basis.

But fast forward 15 years from now, if one municipality has grown more than another municipality, you can put names to whichever one you're thinking of as is appropriate, and the cost apportionment is based on, let's say, assessed values, then the you the municipality that grew the most has the greater values of assessment to spread the cost over if the proportions stay the same for the borrowing.

So if right, so if, for example, if View Royal's proportion of the debt right now is 15%, and we don't grow as much as another municipality, our 15% will is going to be like a static number that we then have to distribute among whatever whatever assessment values we have, whether we grow or not over time.

But basically, by creating a sub-regional service, then you only have one group of taxpayers.

However, we decide to apportion the cost, the basis should accommodate any future growth relative to the different municipalities.

So if, for example, we agree that the cost is going to be shared based on assessment values, then however assessment values shift between municipalities, the payments are going to shift between municipalities.

The payments are not fixed.

We pull it, View Royal pulls a debt today.

That payment is fixed at about, we estimated at about a million dollars for the term.

But by creating one service and creating a basis of apportionment that accommodates shifts and assessments between municipalities, we allow for that to be more equitable over the full 20-year term of the debt or whatever term we choose.

Hopefully that's that hasn't confused you at all.

And then of course, the other consideration is that currently in our budget, we have put the amount that was the um uh the amount to validate the the the cost of the project.

We we scheduled that for 2022, I think we we we scheduled that for 2023, and then we put the cost of the borrowing, the cost of construction, our share in 2024, and for every year after that we put on our budget a million dollars a year for debt service costs that's in our budget today and it forms a part of the projected taxation on the municipal general uh tax line on the property tax notices for our taxpayers that's where it would land if we individually borrowed each in each municipality borrowed individually by creating a CRD regional service the CRD will uh create the financing and recover the money, the debt, principal and interest payments via the CRD requisition in the future.

So it it at the at the end of the day, it doesn't make a difference to the taxpayer.

I want to be clear about that.

Bottom line on the tax notice, it isn't going to change.

However, when we are discussing percent tax increases from the municipal point of view, it makes a big difference.

Because that debt repayment is no longer on the municipal line of the tax notice, it's on the CRD requisition line of the notice.

That pretty much is the summary of my report.

There's a lot of information in and indeed attached to it is the project summary that was in the your budget this year.

I was so happy to hear about this last week.

Council Brown, go ahead.

Thanks, Don.

And I know even at the start when we we met all CEOs met and we all met at the detachment up there, and they were talking about referendums and everything.

So I mean I there would be a little bit of savings because we wouldn't have to have a referendum, right?

So that's good.

Um perhaps because of the amounts larger, uh, maybe it might be a better rate, maybe.

I don't know.

Is that possible?

Instead of borrowing 14 million or borrowing 85 million, maybe it's a slightly smaller interest rate.

I don't know, is that is that the case or not?

Or is it could be exactly the same?

I'm not prepared to confirm that.

Um you you would think so.

However, I I will qualify that by saying the municipal finance authority gives uh is is you cannot compete and no institution will be able to compete with what municipal finance authority provides do they get a better deal because of this additional hundred million dollar borrowing perhaps perhaps they can get cheaper money uh at the same time and of course because m fa is not for profit it is m all of all of the municipal um participants in bc uh, you know, that would be passed on, obviously, yes.

Just a quick follow-up.

Uh I hate to pick on the highlands and Machosen, but they use the service and i understand they pay a rent or something.

So uh i don't know, is that potentially going to increase?

Because they're getting free, they're getting it for free, basically.

I I don't know how that works.

Um, because the Highlands and Machosen, that's the RCMP.

I mean, they pay them, but um how are we how are somehow they got to be paying part of that?

I don't know how that works.

I think it's a rental basis, but I'm not 100% how that works.

Nor am I, sir.

Okay.

However, I am sure that that um whenever those agreements come up for renewal, that will be a discussion.

And certainly it would make sense to me that if we have increased costs, that will be passed on to those uh that share in the benefit of those facilities for sure.

Hopefully, John Rands, my good friend, former mayor of Machosen will still talk to me.

But anyway, yeah, thank you for that.

I I think Councillor Brown, just uh uh from what I've learned uh is that um the three municipalities own the building right and and then you're right the the others play rent as well as the province has as spots in there for that um I think there's a threshold of machosen just hit five thousand or whatever will they be I I don't think that's on in consideration right now at all so unless they grow uh in great spurts by the time this is done which I don't think they will but who knows um then it'll remain the same.

Counselor lemon, I think you had a question.

Thank you.

Thank you, Don um for carrying the the mantle here.

If we were to put our growing community funds toward this, how would I, you know, maybe you don't know.

Could view, you know, if Bureau put five million there and said, okay, we're we're we're ahead, would Vroyal benefit would it would there be any how do you know how that could work?

Could it work?

My uh my cohorts at at uh Langford and Callwood did broach that topic with each other.

And the conclusion that we came to at this early stage of the game is that yes, it would be it would certainly be possible to contribute our growing communities fund or any other cash we find laying around to reduce the amount of debt that we would have to borrow.

However, to make it equitable, we came to the conclusion that if one municipality did it, then all should do the same.

All you know, call it a down payment, right?

To reduce the amount that you have to borrow.

If you have multiple partners to make it equitable, you really should be all contributing on the same basis.

So my answer is yes, but everybody would have to agree that that's what we want to do.

What occurred to me and and the others at the same time was when we create a CRD sub regional service, the establishment bylaw has to state an amount that will be the maximum, in this case, the maximum that can be borrowed under this service.

And the reason why that there is a dollar amount of 103 million in the resolution is for that reason.

Because you can't ask the electorate, can we borrow money, with not also saying what is the maximum that you're going to give us permission to borrow up to?

So that dollar amount is in there.

And we uh the other CFOs and I discussed this at length about what is the right number.

Our our estimates for this project are very preliminary at this point.

And yet we are sensitive to you don't ask for a billion dollars when what you really need is only a million, right?

So, so what is the right number?

So the conclusion that we kind of came to was well, we'll go with what the report that council and the community has seen, and that was the 82.4 million plus 25 percent for the fact that it is a very, very preliminary estimate, class D or C.

However, what we did say was that should by some stretch of the imagination, we don't know what's going on in the market for construction and we don't know when shovels are going to be in the ground, right?

There's a lot of unknowns to this yet.

If we have a sub-regional service with a maximum of 103 million, what will happen if that project goes to 110 million?

And it's at that point in time when we said that might be a good use for the the communities fund, the growing communities fund, or some other windfall money that we have laying around, because we can only borrow up to 103 million.

And at a certain point in time, if we want to borrow more than that, we're gonna have to go back to the re to the electorate and get an approval process, get through an approval process again, which would delay the project.

And what are we going to do?

Right.

So what we said was we might be smarter to hold on to whatever cash until we know for certainty what the project will end up being and whether or not our borrowing authority will be sufficient.

Because if it's not sufficient, we may have to throw some cash in to complete the project.

That was just our discussion at the time uh you know this this is not nothing nothing is in stone.

Nobody committed anything to any uh, you know, any amount to anybody.

But that was just what occurred to us in that we we have to have a maximum.

What will happen if at some point in time because there's a long time period that's going to happen from when we get approval from the electorate at 103 million say and when the project is done there's there's and this is not a you know there's not it there's some volatility in in that time period appreciate that and uh that makes sense i yeah um in in bo in getting permission from the electorate to borrow would there be would and and you you might not know this yet would would it be um would there be able to tell who which area voted how and and i guess what i'm thinking would it be one great group um a a or or would it be divided by the you'd separated out by the municipalities and and you know if if if the people of your royal said no we we don't really like that um but the people at Callwood and Langford said yes would it it it's your am I making sense?

I don't think I am, but I I let me try.

Let me okay I I think I understand.

Thank you.

I think your concern is if any one municipality says they don't want this, will all of the yes votes, let's just imagine, from the other municipalities outweigh the smaller number from a single municipality.

You said it so much better.

The answer to that is yes, and actually is is why if we want this project to succeed in terms of getting approval to borrow, uh we would need to do it as a as a CRD sub-regional service, because indeed the other option is to seek borrowing authority independently, each municipality independent of each other, and then the risk is that one municipality's electorate says no and unless you have 82 million dollars that I don't know about we would be in trouble in that case council right and uh and that's to get it on the table and then did you want to say something?

Yeah um I just want to say also that um uh thank you, Don.

Excellent report.

Uh the options uh provided and the descriptions, pros and cons, uh risk manifest are clearly stated.

Thank you.

That's great.

Go to Councillor Brown to proposed date for or a possible date for a referendum.

Any idea what that's not prepared to project that at this point in time?

We would the very next step would be for us to get together with the capital regional district um uh and and map out a timeline.

They have to create the service, and that will be at the CRD board table, as I understand it.

There's bylaws that have to be passed to create the service, and then the very next order of business in general terms would be to start that approval process.

And I would expect a lot of information coming forward about that in the future.

Great, thanks.

And I'll go with Councillor McKenzie and then Councillor Mattson, please.

Thank you.

Um I was wondering have the do we know when or if they have already considered this, Langford and and Cole Wood.

Indeed, I do.

I believe Langford looked at it at their council meeting yesterday, and Culwood will be considering it at their council meeting next week.

So we coordinated this to try to do it kind of all at the same time.

Okay, thank you.

And just in terms of this is more of a comment.

I I do see there's administrative efficiencies for sure.

My only fear is um to do with the proportion and view royal having less of a say in the vote, as you explained.

Uh I just don't, yeah, I'm kind of that I find a little tricky, but I understand why it's needed.

So thanks, Councillor McKenzie.

Counselor Matson, please.

Yeah, probably the biggest advantage I see in this is um the five million dollars that we're gonna get from or have what we're getting or have gotten received from the province is we'll actually be able to spend it on items that the public can actually see as opposed to putting it into the budget or you know, putting it into the building because uh they're just gonna have to pay that five million over the course of 20 years or whatever it is.

But we'll actually be able to do some things that'll be a benefit to the public in the next year or so rather than uh having losing it in into the building budget or building building cost.

So I'd certainly support this.

Uh Councilor McKenzie.

Thank you.

Just on the back of Counselor Mapson's comment there, I think too, we we will still have to be conscious that the taxpayer will still be paying that, right?

So although our taxes may appear to be less, the individuals will be paying more.

So I think it's just we have to keep that in the back of our mind, too.

Yeah, and this isn't the first um sub-regional uh service that the CRD um has stood up, like it's often done um uh for recreation centers, for instance, um other relationships for uh sewers.

Um so so it's not an uncommon thing, but it's it's probably the fairest thing.

And thanks for coming up with uh with this, uh Don, and and your thoughts as well on um sagely thoughts on on expenditure of uh potentially the growing communities fund and whatnot.

That's very well put together.

So we got a motion on the floor.

If there's no other questions or comments, we could move to a vote.

Uh all those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing not opposed, uh motion carries.

And I think this brings us now to committee of the whole resolutions.

We could uh treat this uh one through four because we've already dealt them with them uh before.

We could uh I would move it to block one to one and four, one, two, four.

One through four.

Seconded, uh all those in favor.

Second.

I was slow on the mark.

Um can I ask a question?

Sure.

Relating to one of it?

Absolutely.

Okay.

Um I just had a question around uh number three, the sharps container in Portage uh park.

Uh for staff, uh first I assume there's gonna be additional um equipment or for those staff, park staff that are going to be handling the the box, but also where does it ultimately get disposed of?

Is there a fee for that as well then he can answer these questions I believe and if not he'll let us know that as well hi good evening Ben Lubert's here uh acting director of engineering and parks uh to my knowledge uh handling of the sharps is done under regular work safe um protocols um there are measures that they'll take to make sure that they're safe and um but other than that I am I'm not aware of any special disposal um however, if that's a requirement, we'll make sure that that's taken care of.

And the same thing would apply if we just picked the needles up off of the ground, I'm sure um whether they're in a container or not.

Thank you.

So ultimately, though, to empty the container, where does that how is that dealt with?

So through the mayor, we will develop a uh a program of monitoring the container and uh and then we'll dispose of it in in the way that I so I don't know exactly how they're disposed of, but we'll make sure that that's done uh in accordance with you know whatever um hazardous waste disposal requirements are out there.

Um if if uh if you're alluding to you know additional costs and what have you, yes, there will be probably some nominal um increase in uh effort in order to monitor the sharps container and also to take care of it when we empty it um but I don't foresee that being anything of a significant amount okay thank you councilor Rogers uh yeah uh thank you staff since you're here um is the motion uh limited uh too limited or uh for you or um you know that I I'm just a little concerned that it was specifying that it'd be uh fixed inside the protocol toilet um uh as opposed to just somewhere around uh within the the structure as a whole on the are you recommending the specific uh um description yeah thank you through the mayor um I I appreciate that you bring that up counselor rogers um it it it is best to make it as flexible as we can or non non-prescriptive as we can if if it's a sharps container that you're looking at so a service that the town will provide to uh to have a sharps container in the vicinity of the toilet um it it would be advantageous for staff to to provide us with the the latitude to be able to decide where's the best appropriate place to put that um just considering um uh some of the details that go into uh when you have a container outside of a portable uh toilet, uh it's going to be potentially more susceptible or it will be susceptible to vandalism.

So the type of container might be a little bit different than if it was in the um and it was in the structure.

But then there's also things to consider if it was in the structure.

So the the more uh flexible you can make that resolution, uh the the better it is for us to kind of get creative to provide that the actual solution that we're looking for.

So you you're your worship um having moved in.

I hope your seconder might uh agree that uh we give um some general direction to have a needle deposit container um in the portable toilet uh porge park, but uh keep it flexible enough for staff to work with.

And not be so prescriptive as to uh say it must be inside the portable toilet.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

Is the second or amenable.

Yeah, that makes uh total sense, especially if it's a um people have to dispose uh dispose of the waste in the in the toilet.

I mean, it makes sense too.

There may be may not be the best to have it inside the toilet, but it's certainly in close proximity for sure.

The staff know what we um staff.

Sir Thank you.

Um currently uh Jerry was uh counselor lemon was the seconder of of this motion this evening, um, just to to let the group know.

Um the other is that as written, uh the direction from the meeting last week was that the container be affixed to the to the surround, not inside the actual unit itself.

So the motion reads based on what that was last week.

If you're seeking something more generic, and if that is what the decision is, and and the two parties agree tonight, we can change that to be that the committee recommend to council that a needle deposit container be fixed in the area near the toilets at Portage Park.

So something a little less specific if that would be useful.

Council Lemon.

Question to staff.

In discussing this, we spoke of View Royal Park 2.

Do you really recall in your your notes or minutes where we landed on that?

We did not well, yes, there was only this one.

And so if there's a program required, there will be more costs.

So my understanding last week was that there was only this one at Portage Park and not View Royal Park.

So a program can be developed.

It will come with more costs.

There will be more checking, more regular servicing than required, and then the hazardous waste disposal costs.

So you will see an increase of costs if the program is expand.

Well, A for the program and B to double it.

Got it.

Thank you.

Councillor Brown, then Councillor Matzon.

If I recall, I think we said if if more complaints came forward from the public, we would consider it at that time, if I recall.

Yeah.

Counselor Matson.

And I recall us agreeing that it'd be it made sense that if there's two toilets, there should be one in each park.

It just makes sense.

So that's I'm agreeing with you, Councillor Matson, but that's not what this motion says.

Okay, so I'd like to amend it so it includes both parts in a place that staff finds suitable.

My concern is that we might be putting a solution before there's a problem.

And you know, I'm I'm aware uh of the issue, but I don't think we've got really we've had a staff recommendation that was uh almost saying do you really need it here?

Uh because there were there was only a few over uh several years that were collected.

And I don't know, staff, do we do we have an issue at View Royal Park?

Ben, answered to that question.

I realized that there were I think four in the past year at this location.

Uh we can turn the floor to Ben.

I did see that he had his hand up earlier.

Yeah, go ahead, Ben.

Thank you through the mayor.

Uh nothing that we have heard of.

Um I also wanted to just mention that there are uh the same portable toilet with the surround structure at Portage Park, uh Helmkin Centennial, and View Royal Park.

So there's three in total.

And I I guess my point in here is that this is it was the response, and I mean we got feedback from staff that um that that wasn't so much of an issue.

We've had zero at View Royal Park.

So I I guess my thinking is then um we could we could do it in in both places and incur um extra effort and cost in doing it, or just do it at one, see how it works out, and then if there's a complaint, do it at the other one.

Yeah, for the minimal cost involved.

I mean I you know if we have three toilets, put it in all three parks.

I mean, all we need is one child in any park to get stabbed by a needle, and we will be raked over the coals justifiably for not providing a sharps container.

Councilor Matson.

Council Rogers.

Well as the motion stands I think um it's it's defensible.

I we have a need um we can um let staff work it out and I don't think if there's any other issues uh elsewhere then the the staff will um take that unilateral action and install as needed.

So it's um I we're we're starting up the program, we're dealing with an immediate issue.

And as long as the uh needle deposit container is um somewhere around that structure um and I know there's issues maybe inside, then we've we've dealt with the uh the uh immediate issue, and um the rest of it can be handled by the staff, I'm sure.

In terms of risk management, it's just a bad decision not to do all three.

Counselor Metzen.

Any other thoughts on it?

So we had um we've got a motion that we came up uh from Council the Hole that we spent a fair amount of time talking about.

Um that motion right now, um, as it stands, we've had a request from staff that we make it uh and uh support or counselor Rogers brought it up to uh make it more flexible.

Uh staff concurred.

Um so right now I think that sits with you, Councilor Lemon.

That's also an amending motion.

Um councillor Lemon, uh, I think was a seconder at that one.

Maybe finish, please.

Do you agree with the wording for that?

Okay.

So that uh Sarah, could you read that back again for uh number three?

Thank you.

The modified one would be that the committee recommend to council that a needle deposit container be fixed near the portable toilet area at Portage Park.

Thank you.

Uh Sarah sir.

Counselor Matson, you had a point.

Uh Councilor Matson had uh put an amending motion to amend it to all um uh three parks with toilets.

Um is there a seconder?

Second already discussed it, so I uh it makes sense if you're gonna put a needle box in in one to put them in all, it's very minimal costs.

Uh, I do agree with uh the principle that if we're going to do this, uh this wouldn't really qualify for a pilot project if there's reports of needles in the community.

There's a ports of needles.

If we have three port bodies, uh perhaps three needle boxes uh would be sufficient.

And I also agree with whoever said it that really we shouldn't be directing staff, particularly on specifics.

Uh and I think this uh conversation could probably be concluded fairly soon, hopefully.

Thank you, Councillor Qualitage.

Comments.

Council Rowley.

So staff, uh if uh with the amended uh motion is proposed, um uh any sense of um cost to do this.

I mean we we do have a contractor that goes routinely to um uh you know empty the facilities, but um uh that's not their job to do the sharp.

So that's uh that would be uh staff to include in their uh duties, and it might who knows what kind of frequency that would be would be involved.

Through the mayor.

Um so uh uh the the to call it capital costs of uh purchasing uh sharps containers.

Um I think a ballpark we could, you know, for a municipal grade, outdoor grade uh box, probably a couple hundred dollars each.

Um I'd imagine less than a thousand dollars for three boxes in that range, let's say, and then in the actual servicing of the box would be taken care of under our um you know our salaried employees, um, so there's no necessarily additional costs.

What it is is just an additional expectation of work burden on them, you know, albeit nominal um but still um we do need to uh take into account um the total effort that staff are expected to do when they visit a park at any given time but being a new program we would uh we would monitor those boxes and see how they fill up if they do and and service them as need be and take care of the disposal uh you know at the cost that it is I think we can call the question on number three now um as uh for all three parks so we've got a move mover and a seconder on the amendment to the amendment all those in favor any opposed and i see councilor makenzie is opposed so that's number three that got pulled out we have uh numbers councilor makenzie sorry i if it's not too late i would like to pull out number four as well yeah we can definitely do that so for one and two, can i get a mover or a seconder?

Yeah, already moved.

Already moved and seconded.

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Councilor makenzie, go ahead.

Yes, I I would like to change or modify the motion in number four to suggest that we allow the membership to expire as opposed to immediately terminate it.

I believe it's expiring in December or January, January.

Um and yeah, so that's my motion, I guess, to modify it so that we just allow it to expire as opposed to immediately terminate.

Second.

We got a mover and a seconder for it.

And I'm happy to speak to why.

Um, I think just like having our membership and our logo on there uh sends the message.

I think also immediately terminating it also sends the message.

And I don't think either way that we should, I think we should be a little bit more uh neutral in our approach and uh just allow it to expire, especially since we've already paid the fee, might as well uh just allow it to.

Councillor Rogers.

Uh yeah, uh thank you.

Um I I appreciate the the the motion to variance.

It's um I recall with the CRD when um uh we were concerned about a program that wasn't being used and and wanted to be terminated, that the CRD made the same approach, just simply let it lapse.

So it's reasonable.

Happy with that other thoughts, comments.

Uh all those in favor to the amendment name amendment would read that uh that the committee recommend to council uh uh that the town uh not renew its urban development institute membership.

Is that okay, sir?

All those in favor?

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Um so that's all those taken care of.

And then we had a uh other report, which was the minutes of the West Shore Parks and Wreck.

Did you want to speak to it?

Councillor Qualitage.

I don't have to speak to it in particular, but I know Councillor Rogers uh said he had uh enjoyed it.

Or maybe I'm putting words in your mouth.

You want to ask questions?

Uh no, it was it was really, really good, really informative.

But I I'm a little um I uh appreciate it.

This is number eight, and it's the uh site security um report.

And the uh the gates are being locked during the daytime as well.

So it I'm when I went to the uh library, I found that I couldn't go down to the to the field from that that point.

It was that just a one-off or help me with that.

Yeah, uh, you know, that could have appeared to be in concert with these minutes, but it's not the case.

I can assure you, we're not locking gates during the day.

We have ongoing uh roof replacement happening at the pool, if you recall.

And that is causing us to shut down the access point uh near the library for a portion of the day uh while the roofers uh are completing their duties.

It's a safety thing.

But at night, you're correct.

We have had some robust discussions without getting into the details.

We've had some you know fairly significant incidents happen.

Uh it's it's a very large property, as you know, uh, very public.

And we've we have had some security concerns raised by staff.

We've taken steps to remedy those.

Uh, a lot of staff have taken de-escalation training through some private uh security companies that are taught by law enforcement officials.

Uh they've been educated on how to deal with things.

So we've opt our commissioners' uh presence there.

We have started to lock particular gates at night.

Uh and from from what I hear, there there's been uh uh moderate improvement so far, John.

Councilor Matson and then Councillor McKenzie.

Yes, thank you.

Two questions.

First, uh, what is sheepdog training in terms of that is uh private company that teaches uh de-escalation training, among other techniques uh for private bylaw officers.

Yeah.

Uh it's a very uh broad company, and this is this is the training I re was referring to, Ron?

Okay, thanks.

And my other question is uh in in terms of the number of View Royal youth attending Youth Night, I'm just wondering if you know how many are attending, if you differentiate between municipalities, and is there any way we can increase the numbers or the access by View Royal youth?

Great question.

As far as I know, we're not recording the municipality of the the youth when they arrive.

I can tell you that the numbers are up for youth.

And I can also share with you that during the last meeting uh we were presented with uh some some of the new uh programming that's coming out for uh the West Shore Parks and Rec, and a lot of it's focusing on youth.

There's actually going to be a refresh done uh in the in the dry floor area, uh particularly um uh focusing on youth.

And uh there's gonna be some significant press on that.

We're planning a media release uh in concert with some local media, and uh they're working very hard on it.

It's gonna have an element of diversity, equity, and inclusion to it, and we're very proud of it.

So stay tuned for that.

We're not launching it yet, but it's certainly not a secret.

And is there still a bus that the West Shore has that they could, you know, go and collect kids on a basis, or has that been looked at?

We we do have a bus that that picks up uh elementary school children primarily uh from Monday to Friday as part of after school care and programming uh right now there is no bus that drives through the West Shore picking up teenagers on weekends that's not something uh that uh we've ever done while I'm there um certainly our numbers are up Braun I promise you we're we are very busy when it comes to youth night um yeah Council McKenzie, please.

Yes um my question isn't about the report necessarily.

It's more just thinking ahead to budgets uh and I know last year the library and the West Shore Parks and Rec had quite a big budget increase.

And I was wondering if there's been any talk around that yet or indication of what might be coming.

Certainly, I think any uh anybody's perception of a big budget increase is really up to them.

Um, but uh we work diligently to uh to make sure that it's in line with uh with inflation and cost of living.

And I can tell you that this year, um I'm I'm hoping you in particular don't think it's big, um, but um it is very manageable.

Um and that should be coming actually, matter of fact, I think Merito Bias was at the owner's meeting and might might have uh um feel that it's reasonable as well.

Uh the pickleball courts that we're gonna build, that won't create any more of a tax increase.

And I can tell you business is very good.

We had a record year this this year so far.

Our numbers are are way up and we are really trending in the right direction and looking at ways to keep to keep costs down.

I promise you, we're always doing that, uh, looking at different rev revenue streams.

Um so I can assure you, uh in particular, uh I can speak for Lankford, Allison.

They are very budget conscious right now as well, and they're they're a huge contributor, um, as is Callwood.

So it is it is always um it's at the forefront, I promise you.

Great, thank you.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie, Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, on on that note, um, I uh I read with interest on page eight um where the uh uh Senate's just taken the region by surprise in the uh life uh leisure involvement for everyone program and uh the substantial um um increase of uh program features uh uh is uh I think going to be a consideration and I I appreciate also that the West Shore staff are looking at this uh the impact of what the financial impact may be if other um rec centers are feeling compelled uh to upgrade their program.

Uh so if I'm hearing you correctly, you're uh you're advocating just to make sure that costs don't rise or fees don't rise too quickly for constituents or yes, I'm I'm uh similar having similar concerns as uh Council McKenzie with respect to uh budget implications.

Um, Sanit's uh has set the uh set an interesting goalpost um uh by uh having such an elaborate program and increase of costs in their program.

I can I can tell you right now there has been no discussions surrounding unlimited drop-in access uh on a lack of better term, complementary basis if you reside in the West Shore.

That's not something we're entertaining right now.

Uh people are still required for annual annual fees, drop-in fees.

Um this is not something that's been proposed to the board from from a West Shore perspective, John.

Yeah.

Those those details um as San is doing is uh would be uh quite a concern quite a cost.

Okay can I get a motion to receive if there's no other question moved by Councilor Rogers second by Councilor McKenzie.

All those in favor any opposed seeing none opposed that brings us to correspondence we've got um uh one email from uh for free youth bus pass um move receipt second receipt.

Seconded uh now that it's on the table.

Councilor brown.

Like to make an amendment to that motion to add this as a consideration in our budget deliberations.

Yeah, so we're gonna go through the first one motion to receive, and then we can get to your motion, Councilor Brown, if that's okay.

Uh uh, it's a we got a movement to receipt.

All those in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed.

Councilor Brown, please.

I make a motion that uh this be considered as a budget item in our budget uh deliberations.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Discussion.

Uh it's well, everything's expensive, but uh, I think it's it's worthwhile of consideration for sure because uh uh for people to get to things like West Shore Parks and Rec uh means to get there with the bus pass.

And and even some of the students uh uh not all of them have the access to school buses either.

So um I think it's just the way of getting people more involved, youth more involved.

And I think it's a good uh good thing to consider.

I mean, obviously, if it's sky high the price, well then we kibosh it, but I think it's certainly worthwhile considering.

Staff provided a report or notes about 87,000 to 100,000 a year.

Sarah, go ahead.

Thank you.

Uh, to to counselor Mattson's point on the um information provided at your desk.

There is information about the costing um with an estimate of about 100,000 per year or 1% tax increase.

Council Brown?

Yeah, that can be that can be changed.

It could be uh a certain age range that would reduce the cost or certain criteria.

I don't know how we would go about doing that, but uh um I don't I recall Victoria not being anywhere uh I don't think it was even that much.

I think it was less than half that amount, but again, it you you'd have to set a certain criteria, and it could be uh um uh wage based, you know, on the family or family need a request.

I know in Victoria had a not even everybody applied.

So uh that's assuming that everybody over up to the age of 18 applies for the pass and uses it all the time that's not going to be the case I can assure you of that so um that that number that number is not firm and fast that's for sure it's a to me it's a matter of discussion and there's a lot of needs for people to get their children to and from their events whether it's sporting events to the part of Parks American or to school so I think again it's worthwhile I don't see it being anywhere near $100,000.

Maybe we could hire another staff to do the income based testing.

Sarah go ahead.

Thank you.

I did speak with BC Transit, the person who administers this program on behalf of of them today and um there would be an opportunity potentially to they weren't 100% clear about it to differentiate.

The Victoria program is 13 to 18 year olds.

I asked, you know, in terms of the question that you point to Councillor Brown of changing that.

She said it could be considered.

She wasn't 100% sure.

But if you if you would regardless of your program, uh you can't differentiate.

So you have to make it available to all.

You can't you can't set up a set of rules that that wouldn't um it it just has to apply equally within the range.

Um and and the other thing is is that the municipalities are required for assigning people up to it, uh testing for location, testing for age, and then um communicating communications with the the service provider.

So there is an administrative component as well.

So I think one of you just mentioned hiring staff.

So yes, yes, there is staff um involved in this.

Thank you, Sarah.

Councilor Lemon, please.

And Councillor McKenzie.

I seconded to get us to get it out there.

Again, the Victoria experience, certainly not every single child page 13 and 18 even applied for it.

So thank you, Councillor Brown.

But can Councillor Lemon had the floor.

Thank you.

Um this came to council a few years ago, and uh it was quite alarming how expensive it was we it wasn't because we don't love children, and it wasn't because we you know we uh wanted them to struggle finding a way to school.

It was it was quite alarming.

However, I I still would be in favor of it coming to budget for us to just take a look at and uh and and give consideration in light of all the other factors that we have facing us.

Councillor Lemon, Councillor McKenzie.

Thank you.

Uh these bus passes would mean that the majority of you royal residents are subsidizing for a much smaller group, which I understand why those residents without kids who would use this would think it would be unfair to use their tax dollars to go towards something that they wouldn't be able to benefit from.

And especially if you look at our demographic, so our biggest cohort is over 65, well 65 to 85.

And so is it fair to have bus passes for youth but not for seniors?

How do we then make the distinction of who deserves these subsidized bus passes, not to mention the administrative costs?

Thank you.

I think the well, we can discuss it at large.

The motion on the floor is just to refer it to budget at this point, not to make a decision about it.

But Council Qualers.

Well, it's it's hard for me not to express why I don't want it to go to budget.

So I guess this will be my opportunity still, but um certainly it it's it's a wonderful idea.

It is, and in principle, it it makes, you know, it would make sense.

Uh I cannot support it, unfortunately, for a few reasons.

Actually, I'm okay with, you know, there's lots of services that go to people that don't pay for them.

That's fine, but that's a good point.

Uh I mean, I really think we need to um it seems like everything's being downloaded to uh local government here.

And you know, the last time I checked, giving people bus passes is not the responsibility of municipal government.

So this would benefit me.

And believe me, I have kids who take the bus.

But unfortunately, the the amount of staff time, the amount of statistical data that you'd have to compile, um, never mind the I mean, once you once you implement this, you can't take it away either.

It's gonna be in perpetuity and costs will always rise.

And unfortunately, I just can't support it going to budget.

And with it with us looking at a double digit tax increase, it's there's no way I can I can ever get behind this right now.

Thank you, Council Quells.

Uh Councillor Lemon and Councillor Brown, or did you have something, Councillor?

I'll go to Councillor Mattson, then Councillor Brown.

Yeah, and in terms of this again, just following up at my colleagues' comments, we're already looking at you know we could be at 15% by the time we we get the final the first crack at the budget.

And this is a a full percentage increase.

Could be.

Uh Council Brown.

Sorry, I'll be quick.

Uh well, using the analogy of usage, uh perhaps people that don't drive cars shouldn't have to pay for roads.

I mean, there's tons of services that people don't use.

So, I mean, that that's a weak analogy.

Thank you.

Uh Councilor Roger.

You know, it would uh I I also will not support uh this going to budget, but uh you know, having the discussion, um maybe one of the things that we want to think about is making a motion to transit to uh increase the uh age that children uh under uh it says under 12 ride free.

Why do we make a motion that children under thirteen ride free?

So, you know, if we've increased that a year, it's holistic across the board um it you know then then it's not with um uh our tax uh you know ma I don't think that would be a tax issue for us it would be um um something that um probably through the ridership fees and so on so I think that um is is much more holistic and much more inclusive uh and uh easier to uh manage you're not amending things you're just that was a comment not sure what it was we'll clear this will matter first, and then I'll make a motion.

Okay, so we've got a motion on the floor.

If there's no other comments, we'll put it to vote, and that is to refer it to um uh budget discussion.

Got a mover, got a seconder, I believe.

All those in favor of moving the discussion for free use bus passes to um to budget.

All those in favor, all those opposed.

So the uh so yeah, so we've got four.

Yeah, so motion on does not pass so that uh it will not be going to budget.

Those uh against were counselors McKenzie, uh Councillor Qualowich, and Councillor Mattson, and Councillor Rogers.

Um so councillor Rogers.

Yes, I um I would move that uh we write to uh BC Transit uh uh asking that they amend the policy uh so that children under 13 arrive for freight.

Seconded by uh Councillor Brown.

Uh discussion.

You know, I I I think I've made my point.

It's um um uh I I think this is something that um is about time that we did evolve.

Um I understand the the principles that uh the uh the letter writer wrote and may not include um um you know the age group that she's particularly interested in, but it does um you know increase the uh the options um you yeah and I think the moving it up gradually is is uh a logical thing to do for in supporting transit as an active transportation mode thank you council call i i actually i really like the principle of this idea and i think we could probably even make it more uh open ended like you know if you look at bc transit providing free buses free free transit to people who are six to twelve well i don't know many six year olds who can ride the bus by themselves oh yeah granted you're you're with your parent i get it but the whole spirit of it behind it was to groom these young you know canadians uh riding the bus and getting used to it but uh you know, there's a lot of parents that aren't comfortable with their 11-year old riding the bus, right?

So um i would i like it, John.

Uh I would i don't even know how we would kind of broaden it, but um i mean sure i'm prepared to do that.

I'd even go further if you want to.

I mean, saying that you know, but baby steps.

I I would support it, Councilor Rogers, but not capital at 13.

Yeah.

I would I would say 17 at least and below, because one of the problems that we're getting right now is that view royal residents who are able to walk to an elementary school because we got three of them, and then they're in Spectrum or Belmont.

And so they need a bus there.

So the real issue isn't 13 and below, it's kind of 13 to to 17.

So that that's some of the issues I've got.

So if that's for advocacy, I would get the amendment.

You made an amendment to increase it to 17.

I'll second the amendment.

So we've got an amendment for the amendment.

Um that council Rogers motion for advocacy would read to 17.

Um comments on that.

And then speaking to Council Rogers.

Yep, thank you.

In and speaking to that, I understand that.

And and um for further thought, um, if we said up to 17, if we evolve the program over five years, so you know that that might be our a real hit to hit it all at once uh to 17, but uh encouraging the transit to do it uh uh over five years um then allows the budget process um, but that's just a thought.

I don't think we have to dictate.

We do we just have to tell them what we want.

We don't have to tell them how to do it.

Are you suggesting that that would be a reasonable amendment?

Um I'd like to hear from the rest.

Council Lennon.

I like it, but I think it is easier for the board, the transit board to um decline than if we go for just one year and perhaps you know, year by year.

And and and also, you know, we're not on the transit commission.

So I don't know even know how relevant we would be to them if we come with a big ask.

But I think a smaller ask, like 13, um, we might stand a chance.

Not sure where to go where we're at right now.

You know, I I think what um it may be that the um an idea is just off the cuff, but um maybe we need to do a little bit more research um on this thing.

You know, I'm happy to bring it back to motion uh uh at next council meeting, and then we can see um um you know what what data there might be and what interest there might be of other municipalities, because I would want to send this off to other municipalities for their support.

But I I think I need a little more evidence uh ammunition to to make it forward.

If you don't mind, uh then we'll bring this back.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Oh, you guys second or the table, all those in favor any opposed none opposed uh next is for information an email from mla ashton can I get a motion to receive moved seconded seconded by councillor McKenzie all those in favor any opposed seeing not opposed motion carries and highway dedication 80 atkins road i think to engineering good evening mayor and council uh so ben luberts acting Director of Engineering and parks while ivan is away uh so bringing forth uh before you is a report um on a bylaw that is required to dedicate a portion of land for the purpose of building the roundabout on Six Mile Road at Atkins.

So this is 80 Atkins Road, which the town purchased in 2006.

It is a hooked parcel, so it comprises the what's known as the Thetis Lake Overflow parking lot area, and also a hooked area of land on the opposite side of Six Mile Road.

The portion of the parcel to be dedicated to road allowance is on the uh parking lot side, so on the east side, and there is a sketch uh in attached to the report, and um this is a formality that we must go through to under the community charter um to pass a bylaw.

So the report today is I believe for a first, second, and third reading, if I'm not mistaken, or possibly that's the next item for the bylaw.

Um, anyways, I I leave this with you to uh to consider.

Thank you, staff.

Any questions for staff?

Council Lemon.

Staff, the the park, the overflow parking area is going to be closed during construction, is it not?

So okay.

So we no no one's going to immediately miss this little bit.

Councillor Rogers, you had a question.

Uh got a mover seconder by Councillor Matson.

Yeah, um staff I've seen the lines, the um and how much um you know has been sketched out on the road for um uh for the roundabout.

So it's it is it just to um for that particular portion of uh the roundabout that uh we're talking about, not the entire uh lot.

I mean I see it's on both sides, but uh you know what's um what are the remaining pieces?

They're still town-owned, right?

So through the mayor, there's still a significant portion of 80 Atkins that remains as fee simple.

Um the portion that needs to be closed and dedicated as road allowance is I suppose you'd call that the northeast quadrant of the roundabout.

So the roundabout is more or less uh well it's actually not centered on the existing um intersection uh because of the Galloping Goose Trail Bridge to the south.

So the roundabouts actually offset slightly north um from the existing uh intersection, and so that's why it encroaches just onto the corner uh which would which would be the the s western kind of southwest corner of that section of eighty atkins uh that you can see on the attached sketch in the report.

Any other questions?

Uh Councilor Brown.

I'll be voting against it just on a matter of principle, because I've always opposed the roundabout from day one.

So I'll just it's on principle.

I understand why you have to do it, but just on principle, I'll be voting against.

Any other questions or comments for staff?

Got a mover in a second to receive the report.

All those in favor?

All those opposed.

See a noting councillor Brown uh opposes.

And down to highway dedication uh byline number one one two nine uh for a first, second, and third reading.

Second.

Moved by Councillor Mattson, the seconded by Counselor Rogers.

And it is the essentially the same nutshell for the subject area.