Council Meeting

I'd like to uh call the council meeting uh to order this Tuesday, July 4th, 2023, uh, and read a territorial acknowledgement and that we recognize the Lakongan speaking people known today as the Esquanult Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

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

If you wish to provide your comments to council regarding the development permit for 2820 Shoreline Drive, there will be a specific time to speak to this application when it was when it is considered at this meeting.

So there's a separate portion there if you could direct your comments relating to that development per uh permit then.

Uh for members of the audience, the council is a safe, respectable, and inclusive space.

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

When it is your turn to talk, please do not speak disrespectfully about anyone else, including council and staff, or use rude offensive language.

Council wants to hear the views of those participating in the meeting in an open and impartial form.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, call 778 402 9227 and when prompted, enter conference ID four five one nine one four three three pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute yourself until you're asked.

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

Ask you to unmute the live webcast to avoid feedback.

Ask you not to use speaker phone to ensure sound quality.

And ask you to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

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

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

You'll be timed.

Uh this meeting will be recorded by participating in this webcast.

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

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

So moved.

Moved by Councillor Lemon, seconded by Councilor McKenzie.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, the agenda is approved.

Can I get a motion to adopt the minutes and receipt of adoption for the minutes for the last council meeting?

Moved by Councillor Mattson, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Mayor's report.

I'll save the exciting one until last.

Um, but uh thank thank you, everyone who participated and volunteered for the Canada Day event uh that was held at the Craig Fower Manor in the new um Victoria Scottish Cultural Center.

It was adjacent to um the goings on on the gorge for Canada Day.

It was very well attended.

So special thanks to staff, all the volunteers who helped out, including the firefighters for security and touring people around.

And it was a very well attended uh event, and it was the first time in four years that we shrugged off the specter of COVID and were able to get together outside in a social place.

So uh thanks to everybody for making that happen.

Uh, on another point, I may met with the Island Railway Foundation on Friday, and we had a good dialogue about the future of rail on Vancouver Island, including their interest in hydrogen-powered passenger trains to Up Island.

So there may be a bit of convergence from the motion that we passed a little while ago.

So more discussions, but they're seeking to provide us with a letter of support.

And I think it goes before Langford this week or next as well.

Now on to the important things to do as mayor, and they are important.

Uh so I'm gonna take a trip actually down to the podium.

Council, many of you uh might have known and read an article in the paper that uh on around uh the 17th of May uh we had an incident of two people drowning in Thetis Lake.

And I prepared a certificate with the first silver pin all hand out, and with your permission, I would like to present it to Riley Matthews in recognition of her selfless and quick actions and saving the lives of two people at Thetis Lake Regional Park on the 17th of May.

Riley.

So now I think we're uh down to petitions and delegations.

Seeing none, I think we can move right into the public participation period.

And we'll go first in person in the room.

Did anybody wish to address counsel on matters other than the permit for uh shoreline drive?

Seeing nobody wanted to address counsel on this one.

Uh Carla will go to you on the phone.

Is there anybody that wishes to address counsel for the public participation period?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers so far this evening.

Slow night.

Um okay, reports.

We have a staff report for um the development permit for 20231 and 2820 Shoreline Drive.

Staff.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Tobias.

Jeff Chow, Senior Planner.

This is a development permit application for 280 Shoreline Drive.

The purpose is to consider the proposed alterations to land, which is to rebuild a patio, retaining walls, stairs, wooden walkway, and deck on the property.

The property is 2,480 square meters, zone R1, and is currently currently there's a renovation underway, building addition underway, authorized by another development permit.

Next slide please.

And the majority of the property that is between the white dotted line and the yellow line is within the 15 meter natural natural shore of natural water course and shoreline development permit area.

So you can see most of the house is most of the property is actually within the development permit area.

Next slide, please.

And this is the previously approved development permit that allowed addition.

The addition was primarily within the uh permitted footprint of the building with some minor encroachments.

That construction is underway.

This uh site plan shows the proposed alterations to the property and uh includes um replacing the um current asphalt driveway with the permeable grass turf type pavement, uh includes uh replacing a wooden a wooden deck and steps to to the dock on the property with uh smaller footprint uh structure, uh replacing a concrete patio with a smaller patio, um, and uh replacing some retained a number of retaining walls on the property that are starting to fail, and uh and planting some ornamental uh flower flower floor garden in the southwest corner of the building.

Uh on the on the east uh east side of the property is kind of a vegetated area that would be the main restoration area with uh that would be vegetable with um uh where invasive species would be removed and um and mostly native plantings will be planted.

Next slide, please.

Now we'll sort of take a tour around the property that show that show the different elements that I just described.

This is the wooden dock, wooden walkway and and stairs that will be replaced.

Next step.

Next slide.

This is the uh patio that would be replaced with a smaller patio.

And you can sort of see that that uh most of the property is kind of is is kind of exposed bedrock with with um you know a few areas of natural vegetation.

Next slide.

Uh this is kind of the southwest side of the property and it shows there's a series of retaining walls.

The lowest retaining wall here uh that kind of faces um uh faces southwest would be retained.

The upper um the upper retaining walls are kind of mortar rock.

You sort of see in the upper photo there, they are starting to uh fall apart, as well as the wooden stairs that lead you down to the uh to the water line.

Um those would be replaced with uh um with gabians instead, which are a kind of a um a more natural type um uh retaining structure that uses the uses rock, etc.

Uh with uh with growing medium between.

So it would be kind of a more of a living type wall that it's more resilient.

Next slide, please.

And this is the retaining wall along the shared property line that would also be replaced.

In this case, it would be a um kind of a concrete type retaining wall.

Uh the the neighbor, the adjacent neighbor has agreed to it and is authorizing this application for this retaining wall that would be on the uh shared property line.

Next slide.

This is an illustration of what the wall would look like.

So again on the left hand side, those are the Gabians.

On the right hand side, actually it would actually be a segmented uh stone wall and and would have some kind of a little bit of terracing to sort of memorize the impact of height and would have some changes in elevation as it goes up the slope.

Next slide, please.

And finally, this is the uh the restoration area and shows uh um this is an older photo from before the renovation work began, but uh on the right-hand side is kind of the natural vegetated area.

Next slide.

Number of variants is requested, and that is to uh to permit uh retaining walls to be constructed within the natural boundary of the sea.

Uh also also the other accessory structures include the wooden deck.

Um and uh and that that is a um that's a 15 meter setback from natural boundary.

In this case, um the existing kind of uh dock is um is is pushed at the zero meter line for the natural boundary.

Uh but all the work would be done upland of the uh of the natural boundary, so um nothing would be done below the uh below the uh in the foreshore.

Next slide please.

The proposal uh complies with the with the guidelines of the development permit area uh because non non invasive species would be removed with primarily native plants uh development would not uh affect existing habitats in in the uh along the shoreline um the proposal would replace morded rock walls primarily with gabians which is a um high to mid tier on scale of shore stabilization methods identified in the official community plan that would stabilize and protect the property and uh the biologist report that's part of would be incorporated into the development permit uh that would include monitoring and supervision of the works.

Next slide, please.

So that completes the uh presentation.

And the applicant is here if there are any uh questions.

Thank you.

Uh Councillor McKenzie.

Thank you for the report.

So can I just clarify slide two?

That is the previous footprint.

Uh, the house in the image.

I'll just wait for you to.

So that's the previous building that was on the site.

And so anything outside that white dotted line would require a variance, correct?

So and then slide three is the addition, the new addition.

Did that that didn't require variance?

Those required variances and was approved by a previous council about two years ago.

Right.

Okay, perfect.

Um, and then my other question, it's a broader question.

This is the second application that we've had for to go into the 15 meters from the natural boundary.

And at that last for the last application, I I did ask around the impact on our soft shorelines and was actually informed that the change to the Gabeans would help, would improve the shorelines.

So that makes me question the bylaw and the if technology has changed now, that that bylaw continues to be relevant or it doesn't need to be looked at because I hate having bylaws that we just continue to issue variances for.

So I I don't know if you can comment on that or not.

Through the mayor, um the I think it comes down to um I guess ensuring that alteration of land within the developed permit area is um is done in a way that kind of minimizes impact or improves the situation.

And there are certainly many places where retaining walls are important to preserve property as well, and that balance between protecting nature and preserving property values.

The nature of the towns in many places.

Is so that people aren't constructing retaining walls kind of willy nilly throughout the area.

And the benefit of having the bylaw is that it allows council sort of control over what is considered to be appropriate in those locations.

The ideal is that is that no retaining walls be built.

There are kind of some other ways to stabilize shorelines without retaining walls.

And that's kind of there's a there's a range of them within the official community plan.

And some do not require bylaw amendments or bylaw unites.

And the ideal is is uh is is called green shores, and that's where you're using um basically natural kind of landscaping approach, uh non structured using plants and and uh the arrangement of earthen materials um to stabilize shores.

But that's not always possible, and this is one of those locations.

Great, thank you for that explanation.

Thank you, Councilman Mackenzie.

We'll go to Councillor Mattson and Councillor Rogers, please.

Yeah, just to follow up into Director Chow's comments.

I mean, the purpose of the bylaws and to keep people from ever building in there, and especially if you look in this lot, there they never would have been able to build if you didn't put anything within that 15-meter setback.

But as he pointed out quite correctly, that this just enables us to make sure that anything that does go in goes in and uh you know under s under the standards that will cause the least damage and be the best for the environment.

Yes, thanks for the uh the report.

Um I I see that we've got a letter from uh the Gorge Waterway Initiative um and uh they've raised a a number of points.

Um uh certainly they're encouraged by uh several features um on page one.

In back, um they've uh there's some additional comments.

Uh staff, have you considered those and and uh determined uh what's applicable and and uh ensuring that uh the recommendations are going to be followed through or can be, or you know, do we need to in you know uh what shall I say um make conditions to ensure that these um requests or comments are followed through?

Uh through the mayor, uh the development permit guidelines are um the development permits have to follow the guidelines, so the conditions have to relate to the guidelines within the official community plan.

So to address several of the comments um from the Gorge Waterway initiatives, which are good and and and well-meaning, uh, develop, but there are some limitations in in what a development permit can do.

So, for example, a development permit is about the alteration of land and it's not about the maintenance of it.

So, we what we're doing here tonight is considering the alteration of land.

The maintenance of it is not something that a permit can do.

It's just like when you build a house, you get a building permit, but that doesn't mean you're forced to paint it every few years or uh or you know check the roof to make sure it's not leaking.

Those are best best practices, but our our authority is limited to the alteration of land.

Um one of the other ones was about um selecting a contractor that that it be some some person that that looks at um you know ensuring that the environmental values are maintained and not just the lowest price.

And that's kind of a practice similar to what the town does in its own work.

But uh in this case, where we um in the development program by by endorsing the recommendations of the um of the registrator professional biologist, they serve as the environmental man monitor to make sure that the works proposed will be uh will be constructed as or installed as as approved here, and and they would contact staff if there's any issue.

And we also have a deposit to ensure that things are planted.

Um and those are the type of so the majority of the comments are have been passed on to the applicant for their consideration.

Uh but the conditions that you impose in a development permit are different from a rezoning.

In a real rezoning, you can register a covenant to ensure a certain type of performance, like a natural state covenant area um that include that does include ongoing maintenance and and preservation in a development permit in this case another another good comment here was um it was a hope that the the applicant in the ornamental garden section of the land they did not plant any um noxious weeds or noxious plants within that um the province has noxious weeds act and actually our property maintenance bylaw references the province's um noxious weed act and the sorry it's the weed control act and the weed control regulations and there is a list of specific plants that are um not permitted anywhere in in in British Columbia and or within a certain region uh so those are already covered by our bylaws so if they plant scotch thistle or not weed yeah then we do have the authority under those bylaws to in to uh to enforce thank you just a follow up if I may uh thank you that's that's very helpful the um the the Gibeon wall um methodology is relatively new here in Bureau isn't it we've we looked at a piece of property in um Squawmot Harbor and and a couple there um and I guess a little bit of my concern is on uh figure six uh where it shows the you know current wall with uh the staircase and you know quite an a remarkable infestation of ivy um that we we see on the north side of the property as well.

Um a bit of my worry, and I guess it's going to be to the contractor and the biologist, is ensuring that the ivy there uh has been removed and is not going to creep back into um the Gibeon wall and and really get a foothold.

Uh is that something that um staff will be following through with um and with the contractors and biologists?

Um food mayor, um the the removal would be supervised or would be inspected by the registered professional biologist, and the expectation is that they wouldn't they would ensure that enough of it is removed that the the new plants will have a better chance to outcompete the English Ivy over the long term.

And again, because you know, although we can't regulate the maintenance of it, uh the whole hope is that the property owner, having invested this amount of um you know money and time into doing these works will ensure that they're um that I'm sure that they would it is in their interest to ensure that English Ivy does not proliferate thank you Councillor Brown thank you for the presentation I'd like to move the staff recommendations I'd like to second it any other comments there's a motion on the table to uh move staff's recommendation on the component?

Yeah, we can definitely do that.

Do we have any comments from or did we do that?

No, we didn't.

Comments from the public.

Anybody in the room wish to comment on the application for Sure Line Drive development permit to zero two three TAC 1 for 2820 Sure Line Drive?

Seeing nobody in the room.

Uh can we go to the phone, Carl?

We are biased.

We have no callers.

No callers.

And uh, was there any comments from the applicant as well that they'd like to provide at this time?

No comments from the applicant.

So we have a motion on the table to move staff's recommendation.

Any other further discussion?

So I'll call the question.

Um unless you wanted to motivate counselor lemon.

No, all I wanted to say was I think this is um a really responsible application.

And that the George Gorge Waterways Initiative is largely on board with some encouragement in other areas, I think, um speaks highly of it.

So well done.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon.

Uh Swallon favor of moving staff's uh recommendation for development permit on two eight two zero shoreline drive.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries for the development permit.

And I think we moved down to View Royal Park Stormwater Management Construction Award.

I knew it was gonna be you, Ivan.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan Leung, Director of Engineering and Parks.

No presentation today.

This is uh staff recommendation to award um the project image excavating in the amount of $189,703 plus GST.

Um initially the project during the bid process was over budget by a significant amount.

So uh what staff decided to do was to engage with the contractor of the lowest bid to find a way to reduce scope and bring it to budget.

So the idea for this project is to uh limit it to the north side of the of the park.

And the reason why is because that is probably the one that gets the highest benefit when it comes to stormwater management and repair and area restoration.

And by doing it, now we're able to optimize the environmental benefits within the budget provided.

And the idea would be to revisit the other legs of the of the park, the stormwater management and see if we can optimize those further as well to keep it within budget.

In addition to that, the proposal is to partner with Greater Victoria Green Teams as part of the tree planting.

They had applied for a TD tree days grant to plant up to 250 trees.

And I've just been told by them that they have achieved that grant in principle.

So the idea would be to get it built, and then uh Greater Victoria Green Teams can uh piggyback on top of that and plant some trees.

Happy to take any questions and uh yeah, recommendations to Ward 2 Mitchell Excavating.

I guess I did have a one related one, and then I'll go to Councillor Mattson.

Um we're hearing for uh liquid waste management through CRD that we've got a challenge with uh stormwater runoff um actually getting into the sewer system.

And just wanted to ask you a general question related but not related to this particular um application is that do we have any known areas?

And the challenge here, council is that um it's expected that there'll be some seepage of stormwater into uh into the sewer.

However, when it gets out of control then we discharge because we're not able to process and that of cause of course causes some problems there so does view royal in general have any challenge areas for the mixture between the two that we know of uh mayor Tobias yeah so in terms of the inflow inflow infiltration report so that's typically where you see a rainwater get into a sanitary sewer system whether it's through the little cracks in the pipes, through the joints or through the manholes over top um the short answer is not that bad, and not as bad as other older municipalities.

And the reason why is because our sanitary sewers are relatively new, and as a result, they're sealed a little better.

Um, we do get a report every year or so every two years uh with respect to INI as it's called.

And um, my understanding is generally speaking, it's not that bad.

But it is looked at from time to time because uh, like all the other municipalities, we do have a limit as to how much effluent we can release to the CRD treatment plant, and that's one uh reason why uh INI is one item that many municipalities try to limit.

Thank you, Ivan.

Uh Council Matson.

Yes, um, good report.

What I was wondering though is that what I didn't get out of the report, at least in reading it, was what difference is it gonna make in terms of the park and is it gonna stop flooding in the park?

Uh what what will what exactly will the modifications do?

Yeah, through uh through major bias uh this main portion is will drain the north side better uh the reason why i say that is because when we did the survey of the of the swale that's on that on the west side um it kind of rolls and as a result you get these little pockets of low points and that's what's caused puddling and that's what caused water quality issues um and ponding so the idea for this particular project given its limits is to smooth out the slope and to have positive drainage towards Craigflower Creek in a manner that is uh that that is absorbed through native plantings and um slow enough so it doesn't scour the the the banks of Craigfluff Creek.

Just my quick follow-up.

Does that mean that I mean I don't do the dog walking there now, but I I used to, and there's for a number of months we used to basically wear rubber boots to be able to make to walk around the park.

So will that be correct?

Probably in due time once all of the work is done.

Again, this one will probably address the north part.

Uh generally speaking, um, it drains, it spreads over the entire uh the the through the perimeter.

So for most of the park, probably not until and that won't be until the rest of the stormwater works gets done.

Thank you.

Counselor Rogers and Councillor Lemon, please.

Yes, thanks um um reply at figure two um don't know if you have that on hand yeah figure two um i'm just gonna get uh my orientation here so is it just uh the work that's gonna be done in the blue um dotted box or is it gonna be the two lines there's a line that goes uh to the words the creek and then there's a line that goes uh down uh south um towards the bike area yeah uh through mayor toias those arrows were meant to show the direction of drainage.

So the arrows, um the it's uh long story short, just the air the stuff within the the dot dash blue line will be what's done.

Okay.

Does this um uh because one of the one of the concerns um uh for the folks that are living on paddock place it was the lack of drainage um uh along the back of their property and uh there was also you know considerable uh unpleasant smells coming from all that muddy water so is that meaning that uh the the back of those properties are going to drain better I can't really comment on the drainage of private property um but it's in the park what I can comment on is that the the grading of the new swale will provide um positive drainage so it won't sit.

Okay.

So um and is it is draining towards Craig Farr Creek.

Uh would there be need of a settlement pond um you know with heavy rain so that um mud and you know uh what it clouded water, I'm sorry, I can't think of the term.

Um but would we need a settlement pond uh as it goes towards the creek?

So through the the Mayor Tobias, the the ditch or the swale will actually be widened, and that itself would slow the water down.

So that there wouldn't be a uh settlement pond per se or a settlement for bay, because it is expected that the slower speeds plus the addition of native plantings will provide the uh water quality enhancements.

So the twenty two hundred and fifty trees that the greenways is going to plant is actually in that stretch.

Is that right?

I was wondering where they were gonna be able to do that.

Yeah, it's along the stretch and within the banks as well.

Actually, it's more important to have it along the banks because you want to treat the water before it goes into the swell itself, and that's what it does.

Will we uh be realigning the trails as a result of all this work?

Uh so during construction, there'll need to be a realignment just because there's gonna be construction activities there.

And then after that, after that, the idea is to bring it back to where it does, where it was the best possible.

Um, that said, we do know that the the new swell would be um because it's wider, we'll probably need to make some adjustments here or there, but it will be brought back to um town standards.

Okay, and my last question you um is with respect, I know we're not doing the work, but there's a constructed wetland proposed, and it looks awfully close if uh, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like it's right next to the um children's play area.

Am I right that uh constructed wetland uh yeah so the drawing is probably not exactly to scale um and the wetland is expected to be in around that area but not nearly as shown um on the on the drawing there that project is still pending uh federal funding which we have not heard back yet yeah i if i may uh again i'm i'm sorry i know that we're not dealing with that just yet but my worry is my worry is that um uh in the V Wall Master Plan there was uh for a a uh band shelter or a public shelter covered shelter picnic area and I thought that that was going to be in that location so I'm just wondering if there's a conflict between a wetland and a picnic covered shelter uh there will be no conflicts there like I said the drawing is not exactly to scale thank you and it is put in the it's actually put in the best spot that's where actually the discharge point is for the pipe anyway so uh whether there's a um we would not want to enclose it thank you uh thank you councillor rogers councillor lemon well uh my question was the same as as uh councillor rogers uh just to be clear of the area.

I was feeling a little bit geographically challenged, trying to figure out which was north and west, et cetera, but it's it's clear now.

But so you've you've explained it very eloquently.

Ivan.

I I guess I just want to know will the rest of that ditch be less gross?

So staff will continue to assess in the future where the next um priority points are within this swale.

And the intent, while the intent of this project was to do it all in one go, uh budget has deemed that we couldn't.

So staff will continue to look at options as to what to do in the future, and uh staff will continue to bring forward budgets uh for your consideration.

So the work in the north section will not will have some impact on the west section uh a little bit and that's the reason why i say that is because um the design will shift the high points further towards the west and that does provide um additional relief than before okay thank you staff recommendation second we've got a mover and a seconder uh i'm just happier we're doing this kind of incrementally uh ivan because it seems like there's lots of moving parts there and you can better assess uh after this gets done, uh what kind of what's next.

Uh so we've got a motion.

Is there any comments uh further comments or discussion?

Mover want to motivate, second, or want to motivate.

No, uh so let's call the question.

All in favor.

Uh I see none opposed.

So motion carries with staff's recommendation to carry on with the project.

And I think that brings us down to item C, and that's the draft tenant uh assistance policy.

And that um uh thanks staff for the report.

Leanne, please.

Uh thank you, Mary Tobias.

Um, good evening, council.

This presentation is to provide council with background information and analysis regarding a draft tenant assistance policy that was presented at council, the last council meeting on June 20th.

Any bit quicker.

So for just a bit of background, um as per council's direction, staff reached out to some local local municipalities within the region who have currently have TAPS, which include City of Victoria, the District of Saanich, and the town of Sydney.

The City of Callwood is looking at establishing a tenant assistant policy.

Both the City of Victoria and District of Saanich carried out engagement with renters, housing providers, developers, property managers, and landlords to seek input prior to developing their policies.

All three municipalities provided background information, suggestions, and lessons learned for the town's consideration when developing and adopting a tenant assistance policy.

Staff also sent the draft policy to the town's legal council for review and received feedback.

However, there are eight proposed changes that staff are recommending to the existing policy just to further align with our regional other regional policies and to just clarify a couple of consistencies with the Residential Tenancy Act.

So the first proposed amendment is to section 2.1, the applicability section.

And through discussions with neighbors and just looking at the um the purpose of of the policy, staff are recommending that it um uh the applications that are that that would apply would have contain uh an existing pardon me um at least three uh uh existing residential rental dwelling units at the time of rezoning this would allow staff to focus efforts on applications affecting tenants and aging purpose built rental buildings that are likely to be pursued for renovation and redevelopment the second proposed change is that um to the applicability section is we can only apply this policy at rezoning and our legal counsel has provided the advice that we remove anything that speaks to development permits and demolition permits because it does not apply and we can enforce it.

So it it is a policy that we can only exercise at uh for rezoning applications.

The third change is regarding eligible tenants and uh under the section eligible tenants.

And um through through the research and discussions with um colleagues in other municipalities, the residential tenancy act um requires that all necessary permits are in place before a landlord can issue a notice to end tenancy.

So there is a section under there is a paragraph under this section that that basically is saying the same thing as what requires under the Residential tenancy act.

So the recommendation is just to ensure it's clear that we remove the section that is covered by the Residential Tenancy Act because landlord cannot evict tenants for renovations until renovation, demolition, or conversions until all permits are in place.

So that includes building permits, demolition permits, plumbing permits.

Change um is proposed change has to do with the right of first refusal.

And the the draft policy is you know is is stating um a right of first refusal of 25 percent below starting market rent levels.

Staff discussed um looked at other regional municipal regional tenant assistance plans policies and also had conversations with with um with our neighbors uh and in um in the planning department who were responsible for establishing the policies and through through engagement um with the development industry um it's really difficult to achieve 25 percent without other incentives in place, so like um economic incentives related to density.

So um that is something that um staff have concerns about.

And we are, and even in municipal cities like the city of Vancouver, they're also at 20% below starting market rent levels for their right of first refusal.

And they have much higher densities in their projects and their developments.

So that is something I think council needs to consider.

And again, City of Victoria, the development industry feels that it might be too high.

But it's doable.

And so again, this is a policy and it's not a bylaw.

So a developer could come back and say, you know what, we're willing to do a little bit more at you know, 25% or but I there's some caution and um and are and around increasing it above 20%.

Um and then also just as another example, uh Sydney's at 10%.

So 20% seems to be on the higher higher side.

And so in and in the in the draft tenant assistance policy, it states that the report be provided prior to the issuance of building permit or the building permit stage.

However, based on the legal advice, we can't we basically can't require at that stage.

We can't require a report or we can't require items unless they're secured in a legal agreement or if they're provided at the time of rezoning.

So staff revised the policy to state that a tenant relocation report is provided at the rezoning stage.

If for some unforeseen circumstance the developer applicant does not have all the information or their years out in terms of redeveloping the land, we could secure the requirement that they provide a tenant relocation report at prior to issuance of building permit.

But we can again it's a policy.

Staff think that this section should just be clear and concise that all non market housing providers are exempt from the policy.

If they wish to provide a tenant assistance plan, a part of a rezoning application, that's great if they have the administrative support to do that.

But often, and as we um as we can also we can note in the Sanich's engagement summary, that nonprofit housing providers often go above and beyond tenant assistance policies.

And from my experience, they will never leave, never leave someone unhoused.

So I I think by just keeping it short, sweet, concise, that they're exempt, um, I it without creating any unintention unintentional confusion or barriers or I I think that it that wouldn't it it makes more sense just keeping it that way.

The seventh um change proposed change is regarding vacant units.

And again, um our legal council recommended deleting this section because we can it's a policy and we can't apply it retroactively.

It's not a bylaw and there's and there's no bylaw in place, so we actually can't do that.

And then lastly, um it's uh has to do with section six, the freedom of Information and Protect and Protection of privacy act.

So um based on the the uh advice from the legal council, the it is the developer who is collecting the information.

So they are subject to a different act, which is the Personal Information Protection Act.

And so we do have to mention that in our policy.

So to conclude this presentation, there are three recommendations.

So the first one is to council consider adopting the draft tenant assistance policy that is attached to the report with the proposed eight changes.

That the applications received before July 4th not be required to comply with the policy.

And that staff bring back a report in two years, just with a monitoring report on how the tenant assistance policy is working.

And the reason for two years is to do with the sort of the length of time of a rezoning application and also the number of rezoning applications that we receive.

So a shorter time period, we might not get the same type of result or report back that we would within on a year time frame.

However, um council or staff are are um happy to um respond to what council requests with that.

Thanks, Leanne.

Um regarding the two-year, the reason why um I recommend one year is each year your CMHC rates change.

Right?

That table changes with annual rates.

So that's why I had recommended that it be reviewed annually because they could go up or down, right?

So that that that's why the year was in there as opposed to a two-year cycle.

So we've got on one hand the rezoning process and application period, and then we've got the actual numbers that will change on an annual basis.

And so we can only get the 2022 numbers now from CMHC to know what a two-bedroom rented for on average in in View Royal.

So uh so that that's where I'm in a little bit of a quandary.

For uh a question about um number five for non market rental, um there's also co-ops here that could be going under renovations or rebuilding or what have you.

So they're not covered by the normal housing um authorities that like CRD or a social housing program.

Um so that's why I had put in the the specifics on the non housing.

Uh I'm okay with number three, of course, for the Residential Tenancy Act, and just simply put in accordance with the Residential Tenancy Act there for particularly the uh for those evicted early.

But there's some indication that that has occurred in View Royal before, and that's why it was in there.

Right.

So if it's an explanation that calls it out, and then in brackets in accordance with the residential tenancy acts, I'm fine with that.

Um, interesting counselors of we've got two pieces of correspondence.

Uh, one from TAPS, uh, that's together against poverty, that is um in support of a 25% below market, but they say um the average the average is actually uh 33%, and that's the difference of a gap of somebody living currently in a two-bedroom apartment and somebody who's now uh been evicted and they're re-renting uh a two-bedroom apartment.

That delta is 33% right now.

So we've got other municipalities that are are at 20%, some that are at 10.

Um they're saying uh 25 is a reasonable split in the difference.

Um uhwise you've still got people that can't afford it.

My concern here is that our development is causing homelessness.

And you know, until we put this policy in place, then we we don't have much that we have done to ensure the people that are being displaced by our rezoning decisions are given the benefit of uh a first-rater refusal.

So those are some initial points of uh discussion, but staff and I thank you for your report.

There might be some other questions for you, Councillor Brown.

Yeah, I really like the draft and I really like the amendments, other than uh as the mayor's already said, uh I prefer a one-year review as well for the same reasons as the rents.

And also I think that I would like to see it kept at 25%.

Um I know the other municipalities may be at 20.

Um, and as the letter clearly states, I mean, even at 25%, it's not going to be a big help to people.

Um, you're looking at maybe at 25%, it'd be another hundred or $125 a month, which is which is a big deal for some people.

So I would prefer to keep it at 25%.

Thank you, Councillor Brown, Counselor Lemon, then Councillor Mattson, please.

Yeah, quick question.

What a fast turnaround.

Um, Leanne, thank you for this.

Um so really appreciate it.

Uh number six.

Uh the I'm wondering if the Personal Information Protection Act has the same points that are in the freedom of information and protection of privacy act.

Through the mayor, um that revised paragraph was provided by our legal counsel in terms of what we need to cover on that under that section.

We can we can report follow up, but um that was the the minimum, that was the wording that uh they recommended including in this policy.

Okay, great, thank you counselor maps thank you so yeah I did have a a a question specifically on recommendation number two but I'll get that in in a moment first thing I wanted to make a couple comments first off I wanted to comment compliment you on a good report and I noted that last time I was pushing to get this um approve uh the report or the policy as the mayor had sort of put through and and without first sort of getting through staff's comments so I fully admit that I was wrong in that because the staff put some really good comments and good recommendations in here and I um yeah I'm quite happy with them it's all except for number two so far but that's more of just a clarification issue and also I know in some of my comments I was probably staff probably could have taken it that I was upset or or thought something was you know I was upset with them or I didn't like like what they were doing and that's certainly not the case and what I just wanted to comment to my colleagues that in my 26 or seven years on council this is by far the best staff that we've had and so the current compliment of staff I'm really happy with and I think that we're really fortunate to have the the the quality of staff that we have so I just wanted to emphasize that because I didn't want to have any misunderstanding or misconceptions in terms of uh my being grumpy with you guys anyway, a reflection with uh staff and the work they do.

But back but back to application the number recommendation number two.

So I'm curious as to how we when I read that I'm I get the applications.

So I'm assuming that's an application for rezoning before July 23rd and not required to comply with the policy.

But what does that really mean?

Does that mean they actually have to submit, like for example, we have a project down the road that's we've had discussions with and we haven't sort of gotten out of um very sort of initial reviews by him.

So at what point does with that policy take in place after they've already that he submitted a formal application?

Through the mayor, are you referring to um the the proposal next to the fire hall?

Correct.

Right.

So that application is still uh is still an active application.

Uh and um so should the it's not it's we're not closing that application, they're revising the plans and we'll be coming back.

So it's it won't be considered a new application, it is in stream.

And um with that application, uh, and I believe this is probably the only one we actually have in stream right now that would actually be required to provide an active uh tenant assistance plan.

And that app that particular application proposal application is providing um tenant assistance, and that was presented um at committee of the whole.

So um we can and we know we can always encourage the applicant to uh to follow the policy um the applications that are in stream but again i think we only have the one that would really um be eligible for this particular policy okay so my not too fine but I'm just sort of in a legal uh an a legal point uh for example should the rezoning cup come forward and as members of council we say, well, fine, we've got a policy in place, uh, but we're not gonna approve your application unless this policy gets unless you follow this policy.

So that's that's what I mean in terms of having number two in place.

Would that preempt us from you know if we feel strongly enough that it's important that this policy be followed in that application too?

Is there any legal requirement or legal impediment to us requiring it before we rezone?

Well, I mean it it it is a re rezoning application, so council is um able to re request things of the applicant.

Um, but if if it's in the motion that um all applications are um all in-stream applications are um not subject to this policy right now, I mean that's in council motion.

But again, it's something that we can know we can encourage.

But again, because there are there are financial um considerations by implementing this policy.

So when you have an application that's already in stream, and then oh hey, by the way, this now applies, and and it's uh, you know, obviously it's you know it's a it's something that council would, you know, would it's a good, you know, it's a good thing, but it would have some financial implications to an applic to an application.

Um but again, I think in this case here, given our number of active applications we have right now, we only have one rezoning that would would really be eligible for or where would that would be subject to this policy and they're already doing tenant assistance.

So it's um and should council adopt this policy this evening, we can always go back to the applicant and say, hey, this is now in place.

Would you consider um meeting it or revising your tenant assistance plan?

But again, um, if if council does support the staff recommendation that um all rezoning applications that were received prior to July 4th are exempt from this from meeting this policy.

Then again, if you're gonna be asking for it, I think it just sort of contradicts what council already approved.

So okay.

And I guess just my last comment just on this.

I know throughout discussions I continually, you know, wanted uh protection for for tenants to be put, you know, as a requirement before I voted in favor of any sort of rezoning of that property.

So while I like everything else you've had, I just can't support recommendation number two.

But thank you.

Council McKenzie Yes, I'd like to echo the thanks to staff for turning around such a thorough report in such a small amount of time.

I think the feedback that was provided demonstrates the value add of taking the time to do our due diligence in these decisions around policy.

So I have a question and then a comment.

One of the suggestions proposed, or one of the proposals here, is that it would only apply to rezoning applications that would impact a minimum of three residential uh rental units because staff capacity.

So kind of thinking about staff capacity and knowing that we have a few staff members, they're very busy, and increasing our staffing would result in a tax increase.

What do you think is would be the impact of passing the policy in terms of staff and resources and is it feasible?

So I understand your question, Councillor McKenzie.

Are you asking if council passed this existing policy tonight as like the draft with staff's um recommended changes?

I think the the way the policy is drafted, I think it's it's doable.

Um and it's it it is something that um we can yeah, we can administer.

Um I think it would be challenging if we make it that it applies across the board.

So um because obviously that would increase the number of plans.

But again, it is a policy.

We always uh it tell developers, oh, this policy is in place, we can encourage um the developers to to to apply for or to um comply with it.

But I think um there was a lot of um thought that did go into um meeting the minimum of three residential minimum of three residential rental tenure unit, I can't say this residential rental dwelling units as a um yeah, as a as a doable number and would have likely have the impact.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you.

And then my comment is in relation to the uh 25% below market level.

I my preference is to see it in line with best practice.

And by best practice, I'm referring to Victoria, Saanich, and Vancouver, particularly because Sanich is uh we were provided the engagement report, which was very thorough.

So I I I would want to go with the best practice there.

And as per some of the correspondence we received, um any costs like this, so reducing the cost for some, that those costs will have to be taken up by someone else, so probably other residents in the in the complex.

So I just want to, you know, it that cost isn't going to be eaten by a developer.

It's going to be passed along either to other residents or to the town in terms of density.

Council Rogers.

Yes.

Once again, uh it was very uh beneficial for us to have uh staff do this report and thank you for um um doing the research with the other municipalities um that have had uh uh an extraordinary amount of uh lengthy uh discussions and investigation in this, and I know that uh TAPS was involved in both of them and in the engagement process.

So we are obviously benefiting from their work in conjunction with TAPS.

The um I I can appreciate that this is um should not impact directly impact as a policy, maybe as a guidance, maybe as an incentive uh for those that are in stream um right now.

So I I see what you're saying, but um I think we can uh apply the incentive.

And I think um I you know, even though I I read the letter and I know that TAPS is uh is suggesting 25%, um I agree with um uh councillor makenzie that it's um they've done the uh the due diligence the best practice and the the greatest amount of field work um to uh come uh with the uh the suggested 20 percent um my my question is with respect to that table too um with cmhc um uh numbers um cmhc numbers are in flux every single day and um you know we and i'm always hesitant to have a table uh as a reference that's quickly becomes outdated.

You know, it uh it is so should we have that uh a table of that nature in uh this report um if it's going to guide us and give but guide us incorrectly because CMHC numbers um let's say six months from now uh are uh completely irrelevant to what we have in table two so I'm I'm a little bit um concerned about citing historical information as you know if that's going to dictate uh an erroneous uh path comment staff yeah if I if I can that was taken directly from sandwich's policy that table changes annually and because it's 25% of what right so when you're talking, it breaks it down by bedroom that change or by number of units.

So you've got to have that table to start.

Otherwise, how are you gonna get 20% or 25%?

You need that table to do it.

So the common way of doing it now is using the CMHC table.

It's not perfect, and yes, it is in flux, but they use the latest yearly um CMHC data that they have in order to make a decision.

So I'll let staff comment before I go to council ground.

Thank you, Mary Torres.

So the are the policies in the other in Sanish and Victoria also reference um CMHC's average rent.

It does it is updated annually.

It's something that staff will pay attention to, and um, we can update the policy accordingly based on the um the numbers that are provided.

So um, and I again your last recommendation was review every two years.

Um, but you're saying that we would be updating that table in a more current process.

So um the staff recommendation in terms of coming back in two years is uptake of the policy, sort of just a summary of how many tenant assistance plans the um the town has in place um and how they've been implemented.

So it's more in terms of an update on um the implementation of the policy, not so much updating the numbers.

Okay, thank you for clever clarifying that.

Thank you, Council Brown.

Sounds like a motion to approve all these eight items may or may not pass, but I would prefer because there's eight different ones.

Maybe we could vote separately on each one if if uh that's council director.

It was a motion to adopt the whole thing as is I'd vote against it because I'm very set on the 25%.

I'm just wondering if we could just remove the 25% and vote that one separately.

Vote on that item separately.

I think that is and remains the only point of contention here is the percentage.

So um what we could do.

Oh, excuse me.

Could we also want to eat do each of the recommendations separately?

There's three recommendations if we couldn't vote on those, because I think that's important too.

Um, so we could do the first one.

Okay.

Um moving um staff's recommendations with the exception of four, which was the 20 percent.

If uh we could get a motion and a seconder for that, um, we could pull four out.

So I see move by counselor McKenzie, seconded by counselor Mattson.

Uh all in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

So Leanne, so you can follow along.

What we've done is agreed to all of your recommendations except four right now.

Um so um now we can have discussion on four, which is a percentage point.

Council Brown.

Yeah, I appreciate obviously when someone else is paying less, other people are gonna have to pay more, but uh um if they can afford to pay more, um it just makes total sense to me.

In fact, I would prefer to see an even higher percentage, but uh 25% uh to me is is is good.

I don't I don't care.

I personally don't care what Sanatra Victoria does.

We're View Royal, I care what we do.

Anyone else with a comment?

Uh nope, that's just uh a comment on it right now.

Um Council Brown.

Yeah, sure.

Motion that the section uh four, uh the amount change from 20% to 25%.

Seconded by Councilor Lemon.

Um discussion.

And and you had some motivation there already, but you're you're free to carry on there, Councilor Brown.

No, I just it just makes sense.

And that uh you can't really specifically deal with one project, but when you're dealing with a project that we're talking down the road where the rents are averaging 650 to 675 a month, I mean, even at 25 percent, realistically.

Uh realistically, out of the 30 people live I've talked to the people there.

Uh probably none of them are gonna come to that, but I I would prefer to see it twenty-five percent uh across the board.

Councillor Levin.

I yeah, I agree.

I I think that um if if depending when you know these units of the price uh you know the the price of uh one bedroom could be up to two thousand by then.

Um and which would mean that you know an existing tenant is paying fifteen hundred dollars, it's still difficult to manage.

Uh so I I um s certainly I'm comfortable with twenty-five percent.

And I think as far as it passes on, this only affects really rezoning for me.

Right?

So th this is you to get a business plan together and you figure out if I'm going to be buying these lots and I've got a tenant relocation uh package to uh to go through, it's whether you do it or whether you don't do it.

And if maybe that's too expensive for them to do it, um, then that's okay.

We've got our chance to wait for another rezoning application for another housing type that we want in there.

Um and and I I appreciate that, you know, developers are in it to make dollars.

But the whole thing that you're gonna make somebody else pay more than market value because you're paying this doesn't wash with me at all.

Because it's our choice to rezone that in the first place.

Meanwhile, we have displaced lots of people that don't have anywhere else to go, that their likelihood of homelessness is very high.

So the belief that they somebody can't do it because uh uh of uh a profit margin uh is what it boils down to.

But it's us as council who approves that rezoning.

So that's all I'm gonna say about it.

But does anybody else want to say anything um about it being higher, lower?

Council Rogers.

Yeah.

Uh no, I I I appreciate where where folks are coming from, but um um the one thing that I really admire with with SANS is they've done ex in extreme due diligence and in assessing and they're getting all the um uh the input.

It's a it's uh very and they only did theirs in in in june very recent so it's not like it was six months ago they have very recent assessments of it and and they would they weighed it uh obviously and um with with um um the the greatest of considerations um and uh still came up with the the 20 percent so um uh you know with all due respect to uh tap's point of view and and um position um i do think it's the um certainly a lot uh I'd like to take a higher road than than um Sydney, but um when you I I think it's uh best to stay at the 20 percent.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

So I'll call the question.

So the question is um 25 percent, uh and then we'll take another um uh look at if that fails at uh 20 percent.

Maybe we'll split it.

I don't know.

Um so all in favor of uh the section for uh at 25 percent below starting market value rents.

All in favor.

So that's uh four uh all those opposed and two.

Uh so councillor McKenzie, counselor rogers were not in favor.

Motion passes at 25% below starting market rent levels.

Caught that, Leanne.

Okay.

Uh and uh Councillor Mattson, you wanted to go through the other two points.

One was that and uh that applications received before July 4th, 2023 not be required to comply with the policy.

Yeah, I I don't support that.

I think it I think the existing project should.

It's again, it's a it's a rezoning.

Um and in terms of a rezoning member, it's a privilege, it's not a right.

So I think that it's important especially for the individuals who are there we need to be sending a message that they'll be protected and if we don't do this I don't think they they will have that protection.

Staff did you want to make a comment?

Yeah I just um one point of clarification and I do think it's something that council needs to consider is that after rezoning has gone has gone through public hearing and waiting for final adoption we cannot ask for new information.

You're going back to committee of the whole so um it's just important that council's mindful of that.

Um, I think it really just depends on where the application is in the process, or you couldn't so so just just for clarification though there there is no app.

I mean we haven't had first reading the it so we're we're way we're really premature.

I don't even think they've come with a a final any sort of plan to us a final plan.

So I'm I'm not sure how how that lasts.

I think there's there is a point here who where in the process have they absolutely submitted an application knowing that and and it's been approved.

So through the mayor, an application that hasn't been to committee of the whole, perhaps it's something that the staff can discuss, discuss the tenant assistance um policy um with with the applicant.

However, if an application has been through committee of the whole and there were we're working on getting to public hearing and it's it's you know throwing this at an applicant that late in the game is you know there's there is a fairness question that needs to be considered.

Um but an application that has not been to committee of the whole yet, I you know it's something we can have those discussions, um, however staff feel in terms of the um the level playing field that um anything's received um before July 4th, that's that is in stream because there's a lot of things that go in that are involved with respect to um developing an application.

And um and so from a fairness perspective, um that's why staff um recommended that any application that it's um received before July 4th is it is not required to comply with policy, and developer could apply, but um and it's probably in their best interest that they do, um but it's something that um staff feel that may want to be considered here.

Just just to follow up on my other comments, just in terms of my colleagues, this thing is so that project is so far from ever getting any approval in terms of even the design number of units and uh and everything else.

I don't feel that I have an obligation not to require this policy to be put in place because as I certainly pointed out before in our discussions, I was not gonna vote for anything that came through the any sort of rezoning unless there was uh protections for tenants.

So counselor Brandon I I'm feeling a little uncomfortable because I think we're getting almost talking about a specific project, and I think we have to discuss whether that applies or not.

Because I agree with Counselor Matson, and I think I'm feeling quite uncomfortable as I think we are kind of honing in on one specific project, and we're in public meeting right now.

No, I I completely uh agree and support that.

So separated from that, uh I know Councillor McKenzie, you've got a point, but I would I would recommend before I go to your counselor McKenzie, maybe we um change that to that and that applications received before July 4th, 2023 um be um encouraged to comply with the policy.

Councilor McKenzie.

Yes I was I was just going to say the something similar was that I think we need to look at this decision regardless of how our feelings on the that development itself.

We need to look at it like staff said from a fairness perspective.

People have um you know purchased, made big investments into uh a property based or into our town based on the current policies and by laws, etc., that are in place.

And I think it would be unfair again to spring on them uh something uh because they have also invested in terms of archite architects, things like that to determine you know how many units they would need in terms of uh to make up for the costs.

So yeah, definitely understood.

Counselor Rogers.

Yeah, I I support the um uh the position um encouraged maybe, and uh and I'd be uh curious to see staff's response um how is uh not required or encouraged.

Is that um weighing terms of um a fairness perspective in any way uh through the mayor i believe the language is on the screen is um um being proposed from a a fairness um perspective and also um uh we do again um we need to look at this holistically big picture not just what like specific targeting specific applications that we have in stream so i think that um that that is something that um needs to be considered.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So in in speaking of that, um uh any time i see in a town where we have um the applicant has placed put up signage saying it announcing to the public that it's ongoing, you know, here we go.

Um this is for the consideration of the public, it's noticed to the public.

And um uh yeah, from that point on, um introducing policy um as even as as as great as this is, um there is um there's so many different variables that um uh that the applicant is already faced with.

So um I think the the fairness aspect is is you know quite uh quite important uh um and so I would be supporting the wording as proposed by staff.

Council Lemon.

I agree.

I think as staff said, we need to take a we're talking about the whole town here.

We're not talking about a property, we're talking about futures, we're talking about a town policy, and uh we have to put a date on it.

And uh we however this language would be at whatever suggestion suggested alterations are to the language, it still narrows it down to one.

And that's uh that's just it's not fair.

The optics are terrible.

Thank you.

Further comments.

So we've got, I think the main, if I'm feeling everybody's uh people are uh split on this, but we'll see how split they are shortly.

Um so that that uh we've got let's vote on the um and that applications received before July 4th, 2023 uh not be required to comply with the policy.

So can I get a mover for that?

Sorry, what is it?

Okay, I move that.

So we've got a mover and a secondary councillor McKenzie and Councilor Rogers, all in favor.

So we've got a split decision, and I think that fails if we're split.

So uh Councilor Brown, myself, Councilor Mattson were not supportive.

We had a split decision, so that did not pass.

Um actually since we want to have a date I could change it, be encouraged to rather not to reply, be be encouraged, or whatever the wording you use.

Be encouraged.

So and that applications received before July 4th, 2023 be encouraged to comply with the policy.

So I've got a mover and a seconder all in favor of that.

And we're split again, I'm assuming, with uh counselors McKenzie, Rogers, and Lemon not in support of that.

Councilor Rogers.

So I would suggest that this um particular component be brought back with when we have a full council.

Yeah.

Okay, so we've um put a motion on the table to table uh this part and that applications received before July 4th, 2023.

Um not required to comply with policy, that question to be tabled for the next uh meeting.

Uh, all in favor of that.

That was unanimous.

Um, and finally, and further that, uh, a two-yearly review of the tenant assistance policy uh be prepared in 2025.

The only challenge I've got with that is a CMHC table that's that bases the 25% on or the 20% on, right?

So that what we could do to get around that while staff is um making uh the changes to the policy.

If we could simply put in the policy that it would be reviewed um biannually, but annually those tables, if they're not updated, um the the valid um data for the tables is found in CMHC for View Royal.

I'd be happy with that.

Just as long as when somebody goes to calculate the percentage, we are consistent.

And to be clear, the reason why I thought this policy and not a bylaw was important is to keep us consistent to what we're asking and what we're expecting, right?

For for particularly when it comes to rezoning, so that we could be fair to both developers and tenants to say if you're going to do these things, these are the things council's going to expect if you come in with rezoning, particularly if that rezoning is going to affect current renters that are there.

So I'll move that we may amend number three to say uh and the CMHC table be updated on an annual basis.

Or maybe better wording by staff.

Staff, what do you propose?

Uh through the mayor, uh yes, we can definitely do that and we can monitor that.

And that's something that we can do in-house and I it's not really I'm not sure if it's something we need to bring back to council every year.

I think it's it's something that we can do.

And when we receive an application we can also we can always just double check the CMHC um the uh the the the average rents that's at um on their portal uh to make sure that um our our policy is uh is aligned but it's something that we can just administer in-house.

That's even better so i don't think we need a change then okay council McKenzie just a question why it needs to be in the policy itself um I know with the policies I've written it we always refer to the source so per you know the CMHC table or you instead of because then it results in having to update it.

So is that an option as well?

Uh through the mayor absolutely I I I think the these policies began with that table, and I think it sort of carried on um in in subsequent policies.

So if um council's wish is to amend the policy by referring to the CMHC's um rent portal.

I I don't think I got the the title correct there, but um you know what I mean.

Uh we can we can definitely do that as well.

Um sometimes um folks like to see reference to that.

Uh we can go either way.

That that sounds a lot more dynamic and and easier to follow.

If you know we're making constant reference to it, so that's always searched and and referred to at the time.

I think that's um that adheres to uh your the mayor's position and um and review every two years.

Yeah, again, it's a policy, not a bylaw.

So as long as they know the link uh and are using the right link to in the right year to go through uh then i'm i'm happy with that and and staff can take that away for sure so um i get a mover in a seconder to uh support staff's policy as written and further that two yearly uh review of the tenant assistance policy be prepared in 2025 for the next update uh move by councilor rogers second by councillor brown all in favor any opposed seeing none opposed motion carries thanks Leanne and I think we're over to Don's moment of the evening with the draft annual year end report.

No, sorry, it's Kim.

Good evening.

The um the purpose of the annual report on this agenda is to place it in the public realm.

What we ask Council to do is spend the next two weeks reviewing the annual report and provide comments to the um to Ms.

Cochran.

Uh at the same time, the general public will have an opportunity to view the annual report here at Town Hall and are also invited to make comment.

And so the motion is to receive the report.

Quick question.

Who should we make comments to?

Yourself, Kim?

You can you can send me comments or or Lynn Cochran.

Any other questions or discussion?

Just a comment.

Councilor Matson.

Yeah, uh, whenever whenever I review our look at our annual reports, it just amazes me how gorgeous our town is.

So very kudos to those who are taking the pictures.

And uh you you make us look really good.

And I'm just wondering if we couldn't somehow get the information up there further on what a gorgeous place we have.

Just the commercial businesses.

Counselor Mattson.

Um so can I get a uh councillor Lemon moves for a seat?

Secondary.

Second, secondary by counselor uh McKenzie and uh all in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing not opposed, motion carries.

Uh other reports.

Uh can I get a motion to receive the minutes uh West Shore Parks and Rec for Virtual's meeting and annual or AGM?

Uh moved and seconded uh by councillor Matson.

Uh Counselor Brown seconded.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Um and I think for action, we've got a district of Sanich draft official community plan.

Sorry, question number uh with respect to that letter.

Question to staff.

Yes.

So staff, will you be um reviewing the stance draft OCP and making comments?

Through the mayor, uh we will be looking at the OC, yeah, at the OCP.

I do understand that they're hoping to get a referral comments by July 14th.

Um I'm not sure if that will be possible at this time given the number of um uh just given the current workload.

Um, but yes, we will be reviewing um the the land use designations and um aspects that are along the borders with View Royal.

I'll move overseeing a second.

Seeing non opposed.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

And so Leanne, just to carry on with that, if we have some comments, do you want us to come to you with those comments uh on that to help uh feed into your report to Santage?

Uh this is yeah, yeah.

So um if you could call um copy Kim as well on those emails.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh and uh of course this one I forwarded, this was a letter to me and um uh counselors who have been here for the last one.

I I'm not sure if they had one for a while.

Uh this was um uh truth and reconciliation day ceremonial event.

I think last time uh talking with Sarah, we were a bronze sponsor and gave uh I think two thousand dollars um uh two to it.

What was it?

Twenty five hundred.

Yeah.

Sorry, the bronze is twenty five hundred.

I'll move the table.

I'll move that we a bronze sponsor again.

Uh now that we got the any other discussion, all in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, that's a twenty-five hundred dollar bronze um donation to uh Songhe's nation for the uh truth and Reconciliation day ceremonial event.

It's it's really worth attending.

And it's quite a nice day.

I think most of council was at the last one.

And uh I think we've already discussed most of these.

There was uh except for uh the letters for municipal speed limits, uh, and there was to there a response letter from Mayor Desjardin.

Uh basically um it was about the 30 kilometer uh speed limit.

Uh, and then um a homes for people action plan from Mayor uh Little as well as the email that was referenced before.

So can I get a I'll remove A, B, and C for information.

Uh receive for information, A, B, and C got a mover, Counselor uh Matson seconded by Councillor Lemon.

All in favor.

Any opposed, saying non opposed and bylaws financial plan bylaw amendment.

Now it's your turn to I am much shorter than Leanne.

I don't know if anybody else noticed that.

Look at how far I had to put that down.

Thank you very much, Mayor and Council.

This is a attached to your report is a financial plan bylaw that amends the bylaw that we that council adopted in May.

I must say this is a little bit unusual to be back before you again talking about budget.

My apologies just for that.

But what we have, what we are looking at today is that there are some items, and I'm going to put them in an additions category, that are brought forward because they've either already been considered by council or and approved by council, or they are deemed critical to deliver the associated services.

So there, I'm not going to go through each project because there is rationale and details in the report in front of you.

Certainly give you time for questions in a few minutes.

This is a very short presentation.

The other category that I might suggest that the items are in, I'm calling a timing difference.

I'm going to talk about that in a minute.

Basically, it happens because when we are preparing budget, we're doing it at a time when not all of the information is in front of us pertaining to the prior year.

So we're going to talk about that in a minute.

So on the slide right now, you see all of the projects that are that are recommended for approval in this financial plan amendment.

In summary, they are funded from revenue for $55,000, casino revenue for $180,000, and capital reserves are $42,900.

The total of all the projects is $277,900.

So just keep in mind that in your report there is a table that refers to the amount from the casino revenue, and it shows on the bylaw as transfers from surplus for operating and transfers from surplus for capital.

That is talking about casino revenue.

It just shows up that way in the bylaw because of the nature of the casino revenue as a reserve account.

That's kind of how it's categorized in account accounting ease.

There are no implications for taxation or for user fees, and the amount certainly does not significantly change future plans.

So I just want to expound just a little bit, if you will allow me a little bit of just a few minutes of time to help explain what I mean by timing difference.

So if you have a project in fiscal year one and you have a good estimate of the costs, and you have a reasonable estimate for the time to complete it, and you believe it will be done in fiscal year one, we're going to start the project as soon as possible.

Remember, we don't get the budget approved until May, so that's already a good part of the year gone.

But if we if we request a budget for this project and get it approved with 100% of the costs in fiscal year one, we we have one number for the whole year.

We don't chop it up into a different number for different, you know, over a spread over appropriate over a certain number of months.

So there's really no indication of timing that comes with the budget, but the project world, if everything goes as planned, the project starts shortly after the budget approval, Mayish, the project is 100% complete before the end of the year, and the project total costs don't exceed the total budget.

Everything is perfect.

When we get to fiscal year two, and now imagine yourself in you know January or February of the following year, we're not even going to talk about that project.

It's a done deal, it's over and said and done.

It doesn't involve the next year's budget at all.

However, not everything goes as planned.

So sometimes things don't go as planned because of supply chain issues, because of staffing turnover, perhaps, because of delays in awarding RFPs.

So in this case, if the same project is budgeted for in fiscal year one, same total cost, not associated with any particular timing scenario, but we believe we can get it all done in fiscal year one.

So we budget for 100% of the project to happen in fiscal year one.

But because of the issues that I mentioned a minute ago, supply chain issues and so on, the project is not complete at December 31.

What do we do then?

In January and February, how are we going to figure out how much of the budget do we need to carry forward?

You've heard that term before, in fiscal year two.

So, what we're going to do is we're going to look at how much of the work got done in fiscal year one.

So, in this case, I've put, I know it's a little bit small type up there.

In this case, we're going to look back at fiscal year one and we're going to say, well, we think about 60% of the work got done.

However, keep in mind that not all of the invoices may be in.

We're talking January and February.

So sometimes invoices get delayed.

Maybe they're not processed yet at the time that finance is asking us for the number to put into the budget for fiscal year two, right?

And sometimes estimates and quotes are not exactly right.

So we're going to just make our best guess that 60% of the costs are going to be attributed to fiscal year one.

So that means that in fiscal year two, we have 40% of the budget remaining.

And that's what we're going to put into fiscal year two budget.

Notice that if you were to add the two budget numbers from the two years, it looks like our budget is 140%.

Not the case.

What we've done is we've taken 100% of the budget, subtracted what we think is going to be attributed to the prior year, and budget the remaining amount in fiscal year two.

So when you want to refer to the original budget for the project, you have to look at the first year that it was budgeted for to find out what was what's the total cost?

What did we think it was going to be if we were to do it all in one year?

So what happens when we get to the project being finished in fiscal year two, and we see that the costs are larger than we had planned in fiscal year two.

So in this case, we thought that 40% of the costs were going to be in fiscal year two, and now all of a sudden we finished the project and we're at 50%.

Why would that be?

What we're going to do is we're going to look back at fiscal year one and we're going to see that our guess was wrong.

It wasn't 60% in fiscal year one, it was 50%.

If we had known that, if all the bills were in, we would have budgeted 50% in fiscal year two.

This budget is about making that correction.

This amendment is about making that correction any time that a project has a timing difference.

So we just fiscal year end came at a time when we were developing the budget.

We made our best guess for fiscal year two.

We weren't exactly right.

We now need to do a budget amendment to correct the budget in fiscal year two.

That is simply what is meant by a timing difference.

And again, when you're looking at the total budget, you're not going to add the budgets together.

What you're going to do is you're going to look at fiscal that the first year of the budget.

Say how much was the total cost of that project?

And then how much do we spend when we add the two actual spending together?

So the recommendation is simply to receive the report and to consider bylaw one one eight for first, second, and third readings.

Certainly happy to answer any questions if you have any about the specific projects.

And I'm hoping staff will help me for projects that don't pertain to your finance or IT.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go with Councillor Mattson.

Counselor Brown, please.

Yeah.

Thank you for your report.

I was a little bit confused when I was reading the report only on a couple of items.

Uh just to confirm though, there's no operational cost that we'll these are all for capital projects, and once we've provided this funding, there's no nothing that's gonna be ongoing.

There's no no change to our operational budget at all that's gonna be ongoing.

Certain uh I I want to make sure I'm clear on your question.

Certainly, some of the amendments do affect operational expenses, but not for future years, just for 2023.

Yeah, okay, thanks.

And the other question I have is that I I noticed the 277,900 number, but when you go to the conclusion page on your report, you've got a number of increases there, and it's in excess of that amount.

And I just wondered why.

Certainly, fair question.

I think you may notice that in the conclusion, the first three lines talk about um I'm sorry, the it I I have mixed expenses and revenues together.

Certainly, if you were to add all of the expenses, they would total the 277,900, and then the other lines relate to the funding.

All right.

Is that fair?

That's fair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Councillor Brown, please.

Probably most people wouldn't find budgeting interesting, but it's it is very interesting.

You got an interesting juggling job.

I think I asked this question before, I'm not sure.

I know because we pay 70% of the cost for the police officers.

And and typically I I'd be amazed if it was ever uh we ever spent the total amount.

I think he explained that would go into uh the following year's surpluses, correct?

I know I know Superintendent Preston's uh he he he he's I don't know he's a very optimistic guy, but he said that uh I think he said uh he's up to 100% for this year.

But if if he ever got through a whole year at 100%, uh I'd be really surprised if he if if if he did, he's the best detachment commander in all of Canada.

But anyway, I'm just saying if I think you asked that four I think the money just goes to the surplus for the next year.

Yeah, isn't that the case right isn't that the case that he's the best he might be I'd I'd vote for sorry through the mayor uh you certainly are right the the difference or if there is a surplus between the amount of taxation uh received for policing services uh against the expenditures for the same purpose if there is a surplus um that is actually going to the police reserve right specifically for police not just general surplus.

I'll move receipt.

Second.

Any other comments or questions for staff?

Seeing none, I think we're ready to call the question.

So this will advance us first, second.

Or sorry, we just got to receive the um the report first.

So all in favor of receiving the report.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

And uh our next item of business is Can I make a comment that is sort of related?

And it's just did um did you see our dimension of Veroyal in a third or half-page ad in the Times columnists this morning uh from BCLC?

Uh say it was a did you know ad that um did you know uh $780,000 from casino revenues in the town of Rook Vure Oil went to um projects like completion of the West Shore Skate Park?

I'll move first second and third.

Second.

Uh discussion.

Any questions for staff?

Nothing.

Uh all those in favor.

Just in terms of a question.

Uh I just wanted to compliment Don on some of the reports she puts out.

She makes it so easy for us to understand.

Uh so all in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries done.

So that's uh amended to first, second, and third, and I guess we'll get final uh at the next council meeting.

In September, correct.

No, it's a little later this week or later this month.

Okay.

Great.

New business.

I don't think we have any new business.

Question period.

Donna, have you got any questions?

I know.

Don't I fruit if you are all having you?

It won't be very coherent because I'm sort of upset about this draft tenant assistant policy.

It sounded more like we were worried about the developer and being fair to the developer when there's a lot of very um marginalized people that can be displaced by developments, and nobody seemed to be concerned about them.

And I look around the room and I see people, probably everybody here lives in a house that they own, and they probably many of them probably own it outright.

And um I think we have to think about people who are less fortunate than ourselves, and I only heard a few members of council give that consideration when they voted tonight.

So I I hope that uh people uh will remember what this said.

Can can you put that in the form of a question, Donna Well why is it called the draft tenant policy when we are all concerned about the developer?

That's my question.

It's a good question, Donna.

I think that um the the issue uh before us was more of timing and I I was not motivated to um draft the bylaw for the town for this particular development at all.

My motivation was for um a previous development that we didn't have a policy to remain consistent on um but um your your point is taken I think in this case it was more or less timing and balance and now that we have a policy um that's in place we can try to make it better if that helps thank you thank you Donna Carl we got everybody on the phone with a question for council mayor Tobias, we've had no callers this evening.

Carl, you got to work on up in our game a bit um so that ends question period.

We've got uh no motions or notices of motion, but we do have a closed meeting resolution.

Do you want me to read this, Kim?

I don't mind reading it.

The motion reads that there's a need to have a meeting closed to the public and persons other than the immediate members of council, officers and employees of the town, and those identified under section 912 of the community charter shall be excluded on the basis of section 91c personnel and 91F by law enforcement.

Thank you.

Uh so can I get a motion to terminate this meeting, please?

Uh all in favor?

Any opposed?

None opposed.

So meeting is terminated.