Council Meeting

Good evening, View Royal, and uh folks that have come out to join us tonight, both uh in real life and virtually.

I'd like to call the meeting of uh council meeting of June 20th, 2023 uh to order and that we recognize the Lakongwin speaking people known today as the Esquimalt Nation and the Songhees Nation, and that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This evening we're going to hear from the public who telephone in during public participation and question period portions of the agenda for members of the audience and those online.

Council is a safe and respectful, inclusive place.

All members of the audience are asked to behave accordingly.

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

And when prompted, enter conference ID 730999 043 Pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until you're asked.

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

Ask you to mute uh to the live webcast to avoid feedback, and ask you to not use your speaker phone to ensure sound quality.

When it's time, I'll ask you to unmute by pressing star six and to begin.

Please indicate your name and address for the record.

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

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.

Moved by Councillor Browns, seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Uh looking to you, Councilor Matson, if there's uh anything and uh all in favor.

Any opposed seeing none opposed, motion carries for the approval of the agenda minutes and receipt and adoption of the minutes.

Can I get a movement to adopt the minutes of the council meeting on the 6th of June?

Moved by Councillor Rogers, second by Councillor Matson.

All in favor.

Any opposed, seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Mayor's report.

I'll be very brief.

I attended the uh Wandafuca uh rec center in the Westwood Rec Center uh AGM and it went quite well.

It's pretty obvious that uh folks are really utilizing the services um post COVID.

Um, and I know that there have been struggles trying to staff the place up appropriately after COVID as well, and they seem like they're doing a remarkable job at the services.

Managed to see the skate park in use.

A couple of people fell while I was there, but there was no screams, so obviously, it was a uh good to go there.

Quite active, uh, and a good turnout uh for the AGM as well.

Uh, just wanted to comment that uh on the um the agenda this evening.

We have a petition and delegation uh that we're going to go into next.

So this is a segue.

I think I can use that effectively uh by going into Pat and Dell.

So we've got uh a team um uh Stephen Kong, who's a uh innovator from uh from Vancouver, as well as a couple of gentlemen from Penmark who will introduce themselves from the UK.

If you have been watching some of the advantages on ultralight rail, uh, the city of Coventry, England is in its final phases, I believe, of acceptance testing uh for it.

Um and uh it's something that they'll dig into deeper.

What I want to avoid, if we can, uh, when we're discussing this, is anything to do with the island corridor, because that is before um CRD and First Nations uh negotiation for for that level.

However, um I think the potential for multiple uh uses for this this technology uh may be considered.

We're not here to solution, just here to listen to the petendel, and it's one of advocacy.

Um Stephen, are you on the line?

Can you join us for the petition yes i'm here good evening um may to bias uh view royal counselors uh ladies and gentlemen uh my name is steven i am the founder of think eco power and i think my slides are gonna show up in a few seconds um so i'm here to tell you that the future is ultra light rail uh train technology.

And Canada has has got a rich heritage in pioneering uh mobility technology uh many of you may not know, but canada invented the FOSS mobile six months before General Ford Motors did.

We invented the Google car, and this is a chap from uh Waterloo.

And a Canadian runs one of the biggest electric car companies in the world.

I guess everyone knows Tesla.

Elon Musk is half Canadian.

And we have, I guess, by by now, still one of the longest sky train uh uh unmanned line uh in the world.

So today we have an opportunity to put wheel royal on the map to lead the world in testing the ultralight rail system.

The ultralight rail system is still new.

Uh it is it is um there are some ultralight rail systems that have been commercialized, uh, and there are different versions of uh the ultralight rail system.

So there's even different definitions of what the ultralight rail system is.

Uh we we have um several ultralight rail systems that we are intending to test that are already shower ready.

Uh there's some that are still, like what Mayor Tobias has said, and the final stages of testing.

So the version that is being tested in Coventry right now has ability, it is battery powered, firstly, and has ability to be charged within 10 minutes.

In fact, James and Vic are both involved in that project in Coventry.

The rail is so quiet that they have to add a sound mechanism to generate some noise so that people can hear the train coming.

So it's so quiet at 20 miles an hour.

It is fast, it is agile, and it can reach a top speed of 90 kilometers an hour with little wear and tear because there's hardly any any vibrations because of the electric engine.

The smaller version that comes out of Coventry can sit about 56 passengers, but this can go up all the way to 200 passengers.

Next slide, please.

And it and because if it's it's so thin, it doesn't need digging and it can avoid the utilities underground.

It's about 30 centimeters deep.

So this allows the installation to be done within weeks instead of seven several years taken by the uh the SkyTrain in Vancouver.

So traffic disruption will be very minimal, and we can dismantle the slabs, remove the tracks, and shift it to another location if needed.

The cost of this slab is also a lot more affordable.

It's 20 million per kilometer compared to 491 million for the Vancouver SkyTrain extension.

Next slide.

So our aspiration is to build and maintain the train and the track.

We're not running the operations.

And the the reason behind that is that we need two to three kilometers to accelerate the train to top speed and bring it to a complete stop.

So in this way, we can put sensors in place, we can feel the vibration, and we can also allow Mayor Tobias and you counselors to hear it for yourself how quiet and how stable this ultralight rail train system is.

So we we like to hear and get the public engaged to see and sense for themselves.

So we will have um presentation centers throughout the whole um area to allow people to provide their feedback.

And we are not looking for funds.

We have the backing right now from the federal government.

On the contrary, we aim to hand over a solid and durable bike lane and a pedestrian walkway using some of the toughest concrete in the world.

So that's our plan.

If it if this thing doesn't take off, we will hand back a pedestrian and bike lane to View Royal.

Next slide, please.

Or the island corridor as a tight test site.

We would like to respect due process in the spirit with the indigenous community in the spirit in the true spirit of reconciliation.

Next slide, she with this, I'd like to thank all of you, counselors and mayor to buyers, ladies and gentlemen, for your time.

And I'm gonna hand over the uh mic now to uh two of uh the experts who are calling in at 3 a.m.

in the morning from the UK.

Uh Vic Young, who is uh a subject expert in in trains, and uh we have James Winnett, who is uh our safety and track expert.

Thank you very much.

Hello.

Can we turn the slide, please?

So, our proposition currently is to take a feasibility study.

We have done some initial review of an area, particularly galloping goose, and we are also open to identify an alternative area to this.

As has been already stated, we are seeking a relatively short distance of between two and three kilometers in length.

And during the first six months of the project, we would be evaluating various sites and looking at the required standards that are needed to get approval for carrying passengers, and also any technical specifications to allow us to select from a range of available train technologies.

What we're also seeking to offer is a commitment for local job creation to transfer knowledge into the area of how to operate, maintain, repair a track and trains, and to start to put a footprint for future employment through apprenticeship training and to do that in a sustainable way.

Next slide, please.

As it's been said earlier on this presentation, we're seeking to do minimal interrupt interruption to the existing infrastructure.

You can see on the right hand slide there where there's a person with a yellow jacket cycling, it indicates a very small amount of concrete slab that you can place down.

There are tests going on in the UK that have been mentioned, and what that should allow us to do is to minimize the cost and also the disruption to any utilities underneath.

To do that, we would like to be able to consult with the users.

Stephen has explained that we would put up places for consultation with the public as well.

Okay, so final slide, please.

As regards the vehicle, you can see there are some images here of real vehicles that shows some of the ranges of options that can be considered.

They are of different sizes and styles, and what we would seek to do is work with the local community to ensure that the one that's selected best fits the needs, the capacities, and the functionality that brings the best benefit to the expected users.

And that completes our short presentation.

If I could just see the final slide for summary.

Three kilometers in length, and for that to then act as a pilot where we can install some sample track and operate a vehicle.

Um, as regards why we want to do that, is so that we can pick the right solution, and how we're going to do that, and with whom is to use uh as much local uh skill sets as we can in order to start to begin the transition of knowledge and expertise for the long term.

Our first step would be to do a feasibility of approximately six months, and what we are seeking from yourselves is to advocate for us to the CRD for any land that might be used or proposed that is under their control, or if the land identified is under the control um the right of way for View Royal Council to seek your approval to use that for a period.

Thank you thank you i've got some questions well would it be um best if you had a number of sites that you could evaluate and select uh from uh yes that would be preferable okay thank you uh got some questions here if you don't mind um councillor lemon please yes thank you very much for this presentation this is this is uh brilliant proposition and uh good morning to the gentlemen who are calling in from the UK uh I I hope you get to go back to bed.

Um you too.

Um I'm I I'm I know we were warned not to mention this, but I am wondering, did did you speak first to the Island Corridor Foundation?

Stephen, I mean you've got the detail.

We we have spoken to the ICF.

We have also um uh talked to um uh uh the CRD and and we understand and respect that uh talks are ongoing and we want to ensure that we respect uh due process.

It might take two to three years before this this these talks uh are concluded.

Uh and at this point it it uh it might be uh better option for us to look at some other sites where we can carry out some of the groundwork uh and do some of the feasibility study there's no uh reason why we can't go back to the ENN track when these talks are completed.

So I think we're timing it in such a way that uh we would assume that after 18 months we should be able to hear back uh from the um ICF as to whether uh they are the community is willing to allow us to use a section of the track but at this point in time it it seems like um they they want to focus on on the talk on having the talks first and we we we do not want to um be in any way uh shape or form um uh interfering with that process terrific okay thanks and and um another question along that line um uh i do i understand that this would operate as well on a paved surface that tracks could be put on as as with an existing tracked surface or you know theoretically way down the road and I know I'm in territory I shouldn't be in would it require tearing up existing tracks and putting in your own um what whatever you require to make your your vehicles run so the the system can run on either of those solutions it would be very much based on an economic case and the preference excuse me to to meet what the the final users require um we have looked at as has been mentioned initially the use and rejuvenation of existing track but the as it's been said on the call the opportunity to make a low-cost new installation is also being evaluated.

Great.

Last question.

Would they be or are they being built in Vancouver?

The designs are worldwide that are available.

We've from a as I'm I am the vehicle expert, there is availability to procure one or two first vehicles from an original provider, and then we would look to manufacture the balance in country using local labour in order to establish a long-term capability.

But it does have some dependency on the preferred solution, but the intent is to move the manufacture and long term maintenance to the local community.

Okay, thank you, gentlemen.

Councillor McKenzie.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation.

Vic and James, uh I used to live in the UK, and I often experienced the delays due to someone being struck, an animal or a person by the train.

So my question is around the safety of the vehicles.

In particular, would there be some sort of barrier between the cyclists and pedestrians that are still using the galloping goose?

James.

Ifety case would very much depend on the um planned operation and where that is um if we were looking at a galloping goose, then yes, we would look to segregate that whilst the vehicles um are in motion um and um if it was uh another location obviously we need to look at uh what what people um and how people operate with that um certainly that short term um safety case would would we would want people to be segregated um more to more to understand what how people um respond to it um in the long term um there are obviously opportunities for for having that in a slightly different way um if we look at library schemes around the world that people do interact with those on a daily basis um and again that's just dependent on on on that safety case if we build it up and understand the operational parameters.

Well, I was told as well that um does the electric sound doesn't agitate the animals that much, the wildlife, and they they don't have that tendency to charge or to get agitated.

Um but that's still uh something that needs to be uh proven.

If I can also just add that um the the intention for these lighter systems is to operate in a similar manner to existing uh road based technologies.

So the ability for the train to travel, to stop, and so on would be as as close as possible to replicating an automotive journey, and that implies that you wouldn't need segregation in the future, and and almost all train systems are aiming for that aspiration in the light or ultralight rail sector.

Thank you.

Um I do have a a couple questions that building off of that then.

So is the intention while you're testing to not have ideally not have people or pedestrians and cyclists around while you're testing?

From a testing scenario, yes, we would have to protect the area as you would a building site or construction.

Okay, thank you.

I see Councillor Mattson, you had a question, I believe.

Not so much a question.

I just wanted to compliment them on their presentation.

The idea I think is brilliant.

And I'm wondering, I didn't see anywhere a motion to like a proven principal or to provide our support for asking the CRD or whomever to uh to do a pilot.

So I'm just wondering what was happening that way.

Yeah, we had uh I I had written initially um a motion, but it was galloping goose-centric.

Um uh and and it could be for instance, uh I didn't want to isolate it just to that.

Would love to have it in View Royal, but if the test site was on the lockside trail, that would add some advantage there that they could evaluate, maybe that would be a thing.

So I think uh to to a motion um that this could also run down the old island highway.

Um that's obviously a potential as well.

So I don't I didn't want to state a location for it, just that we would uh have a motion after we're done our questioning to support and principle and advocate that the CRD uh and our neighboring municipalities look for uh potentially suitable locations for for this test and and leave it up to the engineers to kind of evaluate what what might be best.

If that sounds like I'm on the right path, I just don't want to necessarily paint us in the corner already coming up with a solution before we've got evaluated.

Of course, if they're gonna test it and spend a lot of money to lay the track down, it would make sense that we don't rip it up because most of the cost, I think, probably would be in the concrete itself, even though it would make a gorgeous, resilient sidewalk.

Um, it would probably be more sidewalk than we need.

So those are things we can discuss, but I think a starting point would be for us to consider and advocate to our neighbors and CRD uh to give them a laundry list to look at for places.

Does that meet kind of council's thoughts, sir?

Councilor Qualitage, please.

Thank you.

And thank you for communicating um your thoughts, Murray Bias.

I do have a series of questions to the panel.

Uh, I guess anyone can answer it really.

Um, how did you settle on focusing on the town of Vie Royal first?

Should I take that question?

Yeah, we we have been uh talking to different folks um within the uh ENN, and um and I think that uh one of the problems uh with the ICF and ENN is is this situation that we're facing now with the indigenous community.

Uh and we we feel that the alternative would be uh either the gallop galloping goose or the the old island highway.

Um that could be uh potentially a nice place to put uh the train uh either in the center line or at the side, uh and that would allow it to go at uh uh optimal speed.

So I think for me, um the technical and engineering requirements, the the length and the speed that it has to get to, um, there are not too many options uh available.

And I feel that Vill Royal is is uh a great place to start the trial.

Thank you.

You mentioned that you had secured funding from the Canadian federal government earlier uh during your presentation.

Are you able to elaborate on on that?

Not necessarily numbers if there's some kind of an NDA or something, but uh can you please elaborate more on it since you brought it up?

We have the backing of the Canadian Infrastructure Bank.

And their interest is to promote zero any any technology that would have zero emissions and disqualifies.

So we had a series of discussions with uh the senior director, and he has agreed to fund uh the feasibility study up to a certain limit.

Uh I won't mention the amount, uh, and uh that would uh encompass uh a lot of the work that big and uh James uh uh are going to do, uh as well as the work that I intend to to spearhead, which is the public uh engagement part.

So we we we definitely want to set up presentation centers, uh we want to meet with the people, we want to talk to them, and we'd like to see what they uh feel about uh having a train.

I I guess people haven't seen a train for more than 10 years now, so uh it would be uh interesting to know what their their thoughts are.

Uh so this is uh the funding that we have received.

Uh we we do have uh also the possibility of getting uh more funding from the uh ZETF, which is uh uh another part of uh Infrastructure Canada.

So both of these people have been consulted and they agree that a feasibility study for six months would be a good a good idea.

Okay, thank you.

Uh last question, uh and as you could appreciate, as elected officials, we're required to look uh long-term, long-term visioning.

And I realize this is a pilot project, but if I was to ask you, Stephen or James or Vic, what would this look like five years from now?

Uh, because I know the three of you have probably big ideas and you're big picture thinkers.

What would your vision be for the CRD in five years for Penmark and this proposal?

Penmark specifically, uh, we're uh a UK consulting business.

Um, it happens that the uh outline requirements that that Stephen has been spearheading has brought him to the UK uh venture in in the Coventry area because it is uh very novel and it is ticking the boxes, if you will, for an electrically driven solution, and it is also seeking to do autonomous driving and other future state operation, and it has a narrow uh sort of thin slab form that's being evaluated as well.

So our participation is very much at the beginning of the lot of the life cycle to enable uh local companies to get involved and for us to transfer the existing global technology only.

The the long term would not include our business particularly.

We don't intend to operate the network or to attempt to do so as Penmark.

Um and the the history of our businesses that we are on the forefront of innovation in the rail sector, very much mobilized through through research, through development, and then uh handover like a triage process, establish and then withdraw.

On my side, I I love to see the uh COVID crowd problem resolved and people being able to jump on a train from Langford and going all the way downtown, um and to be uh easily without without driving.

So I I like to get rid of vehicles.

And that's my personal ambition to see that the growth of Colwood and Langford can be maintained without a need to add more traffic congestion.

At the same time I'm very keen to set up a training center.

I'm very keen to set up an RD center within the West Shore area.

I mean I've identified a few areas within Langford, Coldwood and and maybe even perhaps View Royal, where we can um I mean, there's not too many uh electric vehicle uh training centers uh at at postgraduate level.

And it would be very interesting to see if we can set up a hub to train uh electric mobility engineers within uh within the West Shore.

Thank you.

Okay, uh that is wonderful.

Uh that that is those aspirations I think we can all support.

Just let me follow up there just so I can get a clear picture of um your vision, uh Steven.

Uh there's some funding secured, you're not comfortable talking about the price, which I understand.

How would that look long term?

Would you anticipate that municipalities would be required um to partner with provincial and federal governments uh to fund future projects after the pilot project is expired?

We are looking at a P3 structure.

This is one of the reasons why I'm here.

Would want to shoulder some of this burden and to make this a private public uh enterprise, a partnership, so that uh it will not be so uh heavy for the municipals to take on the OPEX.

Uh the operation operation cost will be uh quite low because there's not so much wear and tear as well.

Uh that gives us a lot more uh wiggroom compared to uh the older trains that are heavy and there's a lot of maintenance, a lot more work that needs to be done.

Like I say, the vibration is low, and that that would mean that um there's a lot more um uh durability with the electric vehicles.

So we can stretch that uh a bit longer.

And the loans that are given by the the CIB are also very attractive.

Uh some of them can go all the way to 18 years at a very low interest.

So we are also taking advantage of this low interest rate plus private equity investment to take the load off the municipals.

Thank you.

So Councillor Rogers.

Yes I thank you very much for the presentation.

I'll go to the summary page that you've um you've provided um so we need to find a distance of 2.3 kilometers to uh pilot um the track and sort of vehicles.

And I hear you say that we'd have to protect the area so that 2.3 kilometers would uh be closed to any other use.

Yes correct?

Yes.

I think it was a topographical error, it's two to three kilometers.

Um by apologies.

Uh we did correct that on our slide uh yesterday, but um yeah, approximately three kilometers to allow us to accelerate and decelerate.

Um it would be considered a construction site, so we'd operate as as normal practice would be for any construction.

Right.

So it it it would be uh uh an interesting challenge to find um you know uh two to three kilometers that's um that we'd have to pull out of community use for six months.

So that's uh that's just one of those things we have to sort out.

Um uh you say in your why extrapolate the whole route CapEx.

What's CapEx?

Uh that's the abbreviation of capital expenditure.

Uh huh.

Um yes, certainly um uh I think it's really important to have uh the local contractors, experts, and and uh if you like the local crew for for the the uh the trains to get an orientation.

It's um you know it's a it's a heck of a feasibility with uh such so many unknowns.

I I wonder if uh six months would uh be a sufficient feasibility time period.

I think there'd be um very little interruption to the the physical infrastructure in that period.

It'd be very much around evaluation of locations, uh any consideration of business cases for the long term operational cost, and also the the cost benefit analysis for the local community.

Um it may be, and I'm honestly this is very speculative, that the location of the trial may not be an optimal solution for the investment, but it would prove to the community a proof of concept that it is possible to deploy at the cost point and with a vehicle that emulates all of the characteristics that have been discussed on this call.

Okay.

Um you say you're doing this in in Coventry.

Do you have any um uh any videos um any with that um you know this ERD or other uh interested in parties um uh can look at and see how things are going there?

So um there's a number of videos published by uh the the Coventry Councillor that are on I think YouTube at least um and they're all in the common domain.

They show samples of the vehicle that's been that is being trialed operating and also a short section of track that's being installed and tested for its physical structure.

Mm-hmm.

Okay um uh you give a a cost of um and I guess there's a you know getting into the weeds a little bit but you know at least we have a sense that the 20 kilometers would be about uh 400 million um but you know, that's not including the uh the the trains, the uh the equipment um maintenance sheds and so forth.

So um I guess we'll we'll get to go down that uh that track later on.

Do you know if this um uh would have to comply with the um um federal railway act?

I don't specifically know what's going to be applicable.

Um the reason I'm explaining that from a UK perspective is that there is an uh a big effort uh that that James has been leading to uh I'll I'll use the word I truly mean disrupt the standards that are being applied to road and highway uh as well as rail to try and deregulate from some railway standards that make the whole scheme more affordable and practical, so that there's a higher adoption of automotive technology.

Of course, that is standard uh sorry, challenging UK railway standards and approaches in the case of a euro of a UK solution.

So um whilst it will have to comply with all mandatory uh standards where possible we would seek to make that uh future looking uh and provisioning for a wider rollout of capability.

I hope I've made that clear.

Yeah hey I think if I could just add to that um Vic um vehicles operate uh on the highway um as rail vehicles generally have a slightly different set of standards.

Like for example, American standard, UK standards, they're all slightly different.

And it would be looking at those and make sure they're being um applied in the right way.

And of course um it would be interesting to to see how things in the six months go with the different weather conditions and um uh you know I'd be curious to see what grades um um uh this this whole thing works under you know like Councillor Rogers I just asked you to pull it up a bit because we're talking about approval on principle.

Yes I know.

So anyway um thank you very much um it certainly sounds uh encouraging and I I think it's worthwhile taking to the CRD and and having uh them uh uh assess and consider what options thank you uh councillor Lemmon and then Councillor McKenzie um yeah, quickly to staff um staff, have you been speaking with um this organization with these people?

Mayor Tobias, yes, uh informally with Mayor Tobias.

So just again from a from a fairly high level.

I think what was been discussed then is very similar to what is discussed now, just brought forward to yourselves as counsel.

So it oh well I was I was I was going to uh move that we support this in principle with staff having an initial um um working initially with these gentlemen um to see if what is available in View Royal um perhaps coming back to us in what a month six weeks um with a report of possibilities and then moving on to the CRD does that make sense it does uh council McKenzie I have a question also for staff um what kind of notice would we have to give to residents who would be close to the testing site um especially since I know if it's the galloping goose or something like that.

Like some of the homes are very close to those.

So I I just wondered if staff would know.

Yeah, through the mayor, that's a very good question.

Um I I am hearing that these uh rails are relatively quiet.

And that said, there might be some other things, whether it be the stops themselves that may have crowds, because a lot of people will want to use them.

So um stakeholder management would probably and engagement would be likely an important part of the process as to who it goes to.

Um staff are not quite sure.

It really depends on the interface between um uh the other larger regional transportation um authorities are out there.

So whether it be um the island rail or the goose or the C or D, um at the end of the day, the amount of engagement would probably be collaborated amongst all of us, I would say.

Okay, thank you.

And uh just um I was wondering whether you can speak, I don't know who who would it would be for, but uh about any potential light pollution or disturbance, um, or and if there is any sort of I know it I believe it's electric, or is there any sort of exhaust that comes off these vehicles?

I think uh illumination would be around uh safety, um, so it wouldn't increase beyond what is normal, um, but it has to be adequately lit to allow uh people to anticipate a vehicle moving.

So similar to a highway that you have now.

Obviously, if we introduce a train into an area that currently is pedestrianized or using cycling routes, then there probably would need to be an increase in the amount of ambient light due to the distance needed to be seen for an approaching vehicle at higher speeds.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Rogers.

Three kilometer stretch it is, it would have to be a protected area like a construction zone.

So and I can't think of really anywhere in V Row where we would be able to do this on either the Gallup and Goose or anywhere.

However, there is, and I know that um folks have made it really clear that the ENN is not a good idea, but there is a stretch of the ENN in Langford that has no trail system connected to it.

What's after Jacklin from Jacklin to um Humpback Road.

There is no no use of that line.

So you know we're not solutioning.

I know, but I'm saying that you know the the motion is to work with to find some place in V Royal.

I would suggest that the motion should be generalized broader to working with the CRD to find a stretch that would be uh feasible.

It doesn't have to be in our town.

Uh they've already been in touch with the CRD and the sensitivities was around the island corridor at that time.

So the um Steven and his team have uh already been uh put on to Callwood and Langford Council, so I'm sure that that will be the next stop for them.

So the discussion's kind of in.

And there may be, and again, I'm not solutioning, but there may be a stretch that crosses all three of our borders that we need a bit of a say in and CRD, right?

That would make sense.

So uh the the just doing due diligence and thank you for all your input and comments.

I think they're they're relevant to it.

Uh I think our question is are have we asked enough questions um to come up with what we want to do with it next?

We want to support it in principle to our neighbors and CRD without solutioning necessarily a goose or or anything.

And if there's room for it then we can get another report back on whether they've selected a route and then um and then what the commencement of their trial would look like.

So maybe a report back from them after we support in principle should they be successful then um then we would hear back on what route they've chosen and um and anything else that we could assist in principle with councilor lemon i i was just hovering there.

I think my motion was that we ask staff to come back to us regarding any possibilities within view oil and then immediately after we advocate within the greater region i think those two could be done concurrently and i'd second counselor lemon's approval in principle with the staff report coming back to us uh all I'm gonna suggest is that there's no reason why they shouldn't go out to Calwood and Langford at the same time if it's gonna take us six weeks to have a discussion.

That that that was my only point that uh sure does that sound reasonable?

Certainly.

Any other councillor McKenzie?

I just want to clarify whether um approving that motion would mean that if uh a location in View Royal was identified that we are endorsing that or would they have to come back and seek approval?

The second, okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would see this as if uh the staff report came back with a recommendation of of whether there was a site maybe across borders with Calwood, or maybe there was one uh or or none, um, then we'd hear back at that point.

Uh thank you, my Mayor Tobias.

Just to put a clarification, maybe a question.

Uh, with respect to the staff report, um, are we seeking staff guidance on oh obviously it's feasibility, but uh I guess the what I'm getting at is the level of detail required for this report.

So are we looking at feasibility in certain in the sense of you know clearances, uh you know, clearances away from adjacent trails, uh intersection kind of um challenges, uh how how much detail would you like to see?

I I think if those uh we would probably rely on staff's um assessment of the area if something was unusable, um then there would just be like there was 10 sites investigated and none were usable, but this one uh is usable with potentially these um these challenges noted.

Uh does that sound like enough direction, Steph?

It's enough for us to work with, yeah.

Thank you, Mayor any other thoughts or questions uh council matts so um so the motion is to um asked after work with the west shore municipalities uh to see uh the options no what's the motion again uh the staff is to look at um for um potential two to three kilometer runs within view royal i would be opposed to that okay my my point is that uh that's too limiting.

Um, your worship, your your your motion that we would go to the other municipalities in the CRD and and uh as an in agreement of principle, but to limit it uh with within view all um already considering that we are the bottleneck and challenges of what road surface is is uh going to be conducive to for a full-on objective uh assessment.

I don't think we could achieve that.

So um I don't want to limit this this project right off the bat.

If so, if it appears that there is a um out of all considerations of um you know whatever in view well in the west shore, then fine.

But to limit it right off the bat, if you will, is um is all is presenting unreasonable challenges.

Uh understood the the there's a concurrent action that's going on with the motion.

Staff is going to take a look at View Royal and concurrently we are going to the other municipalities uh as well as advocating for uh them to hear the same brief and and to go through the same process so uh it's concurrent it's not one goes after the other if there are report back that view royal doesn't have any feasible sites that's fine and there may be as I said there may be a point where it's uh two to three kilometer stretch that might cross boundaries whether it's Langford Calwood or View Royal Cullwood or Langford uh but this doesn't limit us we're just gonna do our investigation and then allow uh and encourage the other uh West shore municipalities to do the same that satisfying yes if we're all in it thank you okay so the motion would uh be that uh staff investigate possible two to three kilometer runs um and and approval approval and principle with with staff doing a review and a report so that was my understanding yeah and the and the approval and in principle staff uh presenting a report and uh that we would advocate with our other municipalities and the CRD because certainly the galloping goose is not uh part of our inventory so any other comments on that councillor McKenzie sorry to uh counselor rogers' point, I'm reluctant to ask staff um for staff to spend the time and resources to do a review within V Royal, noting that it's very unlikely that there will be a stretch that we can close for six months.

Um, so I will probably be voting against the motion.

Thank you.

Can I have a moment to can I speak on this?

Yeah, uh Councilor Matson, go ahead.

You know, I just I'm finding some of this discussion hard to believe.

We've been whining about the traffic on the road and not having solutions.

And here's an option that that's being brought to us, and all we're looking at is an is an opportunity to prove in principle for a for a concept to be looked at.

You know, where what on earth is there a can you be opposed to doing this?

It's just totally beyond me how anybody could vote against this.

It's something we've been talking about forever.

We don't want to, we want to get people out of the cars.

You want to get them, and so you've got an uh a non polluting electric, cheap, relatively inexpensive way of doing this.

I don't see why we wouldn't want to look further at this.

Um if I could, I know Councilor McKenzie and Councillor Brown, you have your hands up.

Um I think the issue here is we wouldn't be making any decisions about anything until we get the staff report back.

We're not approving anything uh at all until the staff report comes back, then there'll be another motion.

So what we're asking staff to do a go is go away now, take a look and see if there is an area.

Then they would report back at any implications that that might occur.

And at the same time, concurrently, we'd be going to our neighbors and the CRD and asking them to have the same presentation and evaluate for themselves to support in principle.

If that makes sense.

Councilor Brown.

Thank you, gentlemen, for your presentation.

Awesome.

And for you all to be a leader.

So I'll be supporting 100%.

So I think with that, is there any other comments?

My colleagues?

Nothing else.

So the motion is to ask staff to look for a two to three kilometer run as indicated within View Royal.

That we're supporting it in principle, and we'll advocate to our West Shore neighbors and the CRD that they receive the same brief and encourage them to look at a suitable test site as well.

Can I get a motion?

That's my motion.

So I just need a seconder.

That was motion.

Yes.

Now we just need a seconder.

Second.

Second or uh councillor Masson, all in favor.

Any opposed?

See Councillor McKenzie opposed.

Councillor Masson unopposed.

So when opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, gentlemen, for coming out this evening for uh the brief and waking up early from UK time.

Uh, and that brings us to public participation period.

Is there anybody in the room that would like to address council?

Seeing nobody.

Is there Carl?

We got anybody on the phone?

Mayor Tobias, we have no callers at this time.

I even brought in trains and still no callers.

The NHL Stanley Cup is over, and I just don't get it.

Um okay, I think that brings us to reports, and I think we're gonna talk about heat pumps with Ivan.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Ivan the Young, Director of Engineering here to speak on um uh the Town Hall condensing unit replacement.

So uh the condensing units there are uh attached to our furnaces, and so there's a symbiotic relationship between our furnaces which provide heating and our condensers that provide cooling, one for the winter, one for the summer.

Uh the furnaces are relatively new and they're operated with natural gas.

Our condensers are over 25 years old and um have been noted for replacement next year.

And the reason why it was next year is because we were in the midst of doing our uh energy audit, and we wanted to make sure that we had all the information to make the necessary upgrades in the right ones uh as a means of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and being energy efficient.

So the thought was that we could wait until next budget period.

Four of the five were working at the time.

And now what we just realized that one recently, another one has just failed.

So we have three of five working.

And as a result, if we were to average out 20% per condenser is operating and using or is needed for the building, the remaining three are working for 40% over time.

So the purpose of this report is to give you uh some information on what the plan is.

And the plan is to basically do what the audit told us to do, which is to install heat pumps, which can provide both heating and cooling.

And so the impact of that is that it uh requires less usage of our furnaces in the wintertime, which, as you can see in the report, it it uh significantly reduces our greenhouse gas emissions.

Um there is a minor uh reduction in uh uh electric bills as well, um, but given that electricity is a lot cleaner than the natural gas, it's uh it's worthwhile as weight and salt as well.

So um happy to answer any questions you may have.

Recommendation is to have island temperature controls to um do supply and install island traffic controls or island temperature controls.

They were actually the ones that installed it 26 years ago and have a good understanding of our um building, and it's uh under the purchasing policy, it's good best value for the buck.

And given that the summer is coming out pretty quickly and and their commitment to getting us done as soon as they can, it we figured that it was a good it was a good option.

So um there are two options there though for you to look at.

One is to do all at once, and the other one is to do just two this year, uh the ones that have failed, and then do the remaining three as part of next year's budget period.

But there is a cost savings of doing all five at once.

Happy to um take any any questions.

I just have option one to do all.

Say that again, Councillor Ratz.

I'll move option one to do all of them at the same time.

Seconded by Councillor Brown.

Uh, just a question about the temperature uh both summer and winter in here.

Are we able to maintain um in summer and the coldest in winter?

Is it uh consistent even if they were all operating?

And and would it would the heat pump uh help in the summer?

Would it improve the air conditioning from what was there?

What's the thought?

Yeah, Mayor Tobias, yeah.

So with your replacement of all of the condensers to heat pumps, um, that will provide the necessary cooling for the summertime.

Um in addition to that, uh the heat pumps would also provide the necessary heating in the winter time.

Uh the thought is that um heat pumps generally take a little longer in the morning to start up and get the temperature uh to uh to like a proper warm level.

Um the natural gas furnaces do a better job of that at this time.

So the the thought is that the the furnaces will given that they're still you used or still new, that they in the mornings we bump them up for X minutes, wait till it gets a certain ambient temperature, and then the heat pumps would do the rest of the job.

And so that is why there's still a little bit of natural gas usage within our building.

Any other comments, thoughts?

Uh Council Mats.

Um Rogers.

Oh, thanks, Steph.

It's uh great report.

And um I'm uh sorry that they're breaking down, but I'm glad they're breaking down.

It's uh it's really a good news story to go to uh to the heat pumps.

And um um I was wondering how the uh the gas furnace was going to be applicable, um, but you've explained it really well.

Thank you so much for for doing this work.

And uh quick question for staff if we were successful with the rebates that are available for us, how much would that take care of the $110,000 investment?

Uh Mayor Tobias, that's a very good question uh based on my readings of the of the incentive it is for the installation costs.

Um I don't have a number at the top of my head just now.

We can certainly provide that back to you yourselves uh post installation for information.

And I know CleanBC just updated their website with some new municipal kind of commercial things, so there might be some more in central there.

So okay, thank you.

So we got a motion on the table to see no other questions or comments.

Um, and that is to replace all five of the condensing units uh with uh with heat pumps and that be funded through um casino revenue.

Uh all in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing not opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I think up next is the financial planning process calendar.

I think that's you, Don.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Turn on my microphone.

Thank you very much.

Mayor and Council, how excited are we to talk about budget again?

Can you remember all the way back to February when we spent a lot of quality time together talking about the budget?

And here I am talking about budget again.

But today I only have one slide, and you're looking at it.

So I want to keep this very brief.

It's very meta.

We're talking about the process to at that will end at the end of the day with an approved 2024 to 2028 financial plan.

So that's looking all the way ahead to next April and May.

But what I I wanted to talk about is how do we get there?

And I know last February it was a little bit of a different process because we had two additional new counselors and a new mayor, and everything was a little bit new.

We have a luxury a little bit now of time before February.

And this plan outlines a little bit of what I could see we could do, and we're seeking council's approval to go down this path.

Builds all the way through one step at a time, each step building on the previous one.

So, what we have added this year different from what we did last year, but the same as what we did in 2019 is to start with a financial plan review.

Why?

What it does is it allows time for council to get grounded in a little bit of what are the services that we provide, how do we provide them?

This is something that we did last in 2019, and I thought it would be a good time to bring this back and suggested that this would be a good thing to do perhaps after every election cycle, especially if there were new counselors after the election cycle.

So, what we would do is between July and January is bring back basically one basket of services at a time and just identify what this service do?

What are the challenges?

What are the drivers of costs?

And have a look at it.

Not to get into the weeds of the details, but simply at a higher level what you know proportionately, how much does this represent of our total budget and how are the services delivered?

So that would be kind of the first block that we would do when we would start that in July.

Later in the fall, we bring to council, and we have been doing this for many years now, is bring back a kind of a suite of financial policies and encourage council to think about the policy and what implications it might mean for the budget, and just to give council again a really good uh grounding and understanding of the plan of the policies that affect the financial plan.

You can see a couple of them listed there are fleet plans, grants and aid, permissive exemptions, the reserves and surpluses policies, just to again give you that really good grounding.

We ask council for initiatives prior to us, you know, kind of late in the fall.

And these are those initiatives that are not already included in our financial plan.

So don't tell us to do something that we already have in the financial plan, but simply those projects or programs that you have heard from the constituents that we are missing.

What are we missing?

It might also be something that comes out of the strategic planning process that we don't already have in the financial plan.

But these are discrete, you know, kind of um pieces, distinct pieces that you would like staff to go away and research a little bit of feasibility, um, bring back the information about how we could get this done and what it would cost at a high-level estimate back for council's consideration at the budget workshops.

So those are times strategically to give us enough time to tell you what it would take to get those things done.

So we need to be very clear about what those are.

I've got one question, and this is something new, I guess, for us this year, and that was the Growing Community Fund.

And I know we've got the council has some deliberation to think about that.

And I know we have some time as well.

How would you see that fitting into the process?

That is a really good question.

And I have done some thinking about it.

We haven't talked about it much at the staff level.

But when I thought about it, I thought that that program, the Growing Community Fund, is similar to some of the other funding programs that we have, like the community works funds.

And I mean similar in the way that there's some things that are eligible and there's some things that are not eligible.

And there's different, you know, these programs always delivered with a little bit of strings attached that the senior governments want to see come from us as a result of giving us those funds.

I thought that council would be best served.

This is this is you know my own thinking about it, by considering that as yet just another one of the many funding sources that we have to deliver projects, and that in the the council might be best armed to consider everything at once and let staff do the work of matching best matching up the project to the best source of funding for that project, so that we would be recommending to you only those projects that would be eligible, and it's council that decides which projects are the most important to deliver at a certain time along the way, according to strategic plans, asset management plans, safety programs, and etc.

And that information, um, just to just to finish off here quickly, um, would be brought to you as a part of the budget workshops.

Typically, we have completed the budget uh deliberations over three or four sessions.

It would be great if we could achieve that.

I know we we want as staff, we want to make sure that council is comfortable with the decisions that it's making.

And sometimes these things do take more time, and we're happy to support you in that way.

At the same time, I'm I'm sure you can you can remember in February it it was a bit tough in terms of meeting after meeting after meeting.

And I and I can only appreciate the time that you spent on that as well as staff time.

So it's trying to make the best use of our time by bringing the information ahead of time to give to arm you well to be very prepared in Fif in February as needed to make the decisions that you need to make.

And then, of course, the the big uh important part of our budget process is the public engagement part, and that starts uh as as quickly as we can after budget deliberations and is for a couple of weeks.

And then we go on to the more formal part, which is preparing the budget into a bylaw for council's adoption and approval, and then we get to do the work of making it all happen and starting all over with the next budget cycle.

So tonight we're just simply asking that council consider and approve the 2024 to 2028 financial planning calendar, and we'll get started right away along this process.

Thank you.

Thank you, Don.

Council McKenzie.

Thank you, Don.

I really appreciate this layout and considering the budget as soon as possible.

I there were two things though, I wondered if there's any way to consider them sooner.

Um, one being the grant and aid.

Um, mainly because we have quite a few last year and you know, to review them and then to potentially ask questions.

It was quite a short amount of time before they had to be approved.

So I was wondering if there's anything that prevents us from requiring those sooner, and so that we can review them sooner.

Thank you for the question.

And through the mayor, the the items shown as grants and aid on this particular slide is to look at the policy for grants and aid that says that grant and aid um applications from the community are due March 1st.

So we wouldn't know ahead of March 1st which community groups are needing a grant and aid or requesting a grant and aid.

Certainly the policy is council's policy and can be amended and changed if we wanted to do that earlier.

However, you know, there might be some considerations of why you may or may not want to do that.

So the answer to your question is it would require a policy change to re to ask the community to apply at a sooner point in time.

Uh, and and we'd have to just do a little bit of thinking about how well how that fits into the rest of the budget process.

Okay, thank you.

That's good to to know, and I would like to review that.

Um, and then the second one was whether it would be possible to obtain the budgets from the West Shore Parks and Rec and the library who have quite a large impact on our on our uh budget then um to get those sooner because again, we had questions this year and there wasn't much opportunity to like go back to them and kind of investigate or push a little bit on on their budgets.

And through the mayor, we of course are not going to have any direct control over the budget processes of those organizations directly uh they are under the same fiscal calendar that we are we typically do see their budgets very late in the fall or in January or you know kind of kind of the January early February point in time certainly we can reach out to those organizations to see what information they would be willing to share in advance and invite them to to present to council um sooner i I mean council can always ask uh its its partner organizations to um come come and present to them at any time great thank you any other questions from our colleagues counselor rogers yeah um councillor mackkenzie raised a good point about uh the grants and aid and and uh if it's our policy that um we we set about it and and initial uh initiate request for um those interested societies or whatever to uh ask for funding it that's you're saying that that date would want um information back by march the first so if we change the policy to February the first um um that that's possible and I guess the only possi the only maybe big issue there is they too may not have information about their own budgets and and what their uh initiatives are and that might be too soon to ask of them.

I was just sharing the same concern with uh councillor McKenzie that uh it it took us quite a bit to get through and but maybe that was just an anomaly um uh for this year but um uh it's it's something to think about if we wanted to move it up two weeks but I I don't want to put any of the um agencies societies at a in a difficult s situation.

That just a comment the and I'm also assuming that we're probably not going to be able to get that much detail to consider the uh police building in 2024 that's probably gonna be a 2025 is is that a sense?

Um am I wrong there are we is there any budget implications of that will in 24?

The last series of meetings we've uh we've been in, uh we've committed of course, just refresh everybody, including me, an IPD process that V Royal is giving some money to get us to the point where we're breaking ground.

Um the IPD process is not your um conventional bid and tender.

Uh it's a new process.

Um the no RCMP building has been built like this before, but it has advantages in in in creating thrifty opportunities, hopefully to save money and increase quality along the way.

So they say.

Um the Langford has been um in our recent meetings about the police building, Langford is saying they're probably not in a position to break ground until late 2024, early 25, anyway.

Um, we had a long discussion about not wanting it to get into another election cycle, so it becomes another election issue because there's some real challenges around um them needing space, especially for a growing police force, not only for us but for our other municipal partners.

Um so yes, it won't be for the next budget.

Uh uh, and I know that Langford is using all of its growing community fund for um for the police station, and I think the YMCA challenge that they have there as well.

Um not trying to shape councils, but I'm just trying to tell you that's what Langford is doing with their money um uh for the growing community fund so it's it's not gonna happen tomorrow plus as soon as we agree for a start for an RFP uh to get the consultant in to lead the IPD process so we haven't even started that yet right and then the IPD process itself is on a life cycle that will take us well into the 2024 uh time frame does that make sense I think I got all that right actually.

Uh Counselor Brown.

Make a motion to accept the staff report.

Second uh I think there's no other questions.

We can call the question uh all in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Thank you, Don.

Uh, and I think that brings us down to the committee of whole resolutions.

And I appreciate um that we were down to bare minimum uh without counselors Lemon and Counselor Qualovich.

So good to have you uh back.

Um so here are those things that we uh discussed.

Um, and we can move them as a group, or if somebody would like to pull one out, we can do that as well.

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, I'd like to move number one uh separately, because I'd like to just make a small um amendment to it to uh CC um the mayor and council of Langford, Callwood, Machosen, uh the Highlands, and also to Inspector Uh Steve Rose, because he looks after the uh first late first uh first nations liaison and he requested the copy.

I know uh Todd can run it down the hall to him, but it'd be nice for him to be CC'd on it as well.

Friendly amendment.

That's a friendly amendment.

Is that what you called it, Counselor Mattson?

Thank you.

Um let's go with Councillor Rogers, please.

So um uh you know it's it's it's good courtesy to um to send to the West Shore um for the RCP, but it's um those are the municipalities for school 62, aren't they?

Yes, um yeah, that's correct.

Um I think by by sending it well, we're gonna send it to uh CC to the chair of the school board, but I think is really important.

Um thinking about I I don't think we want to step on anyone's toes particularly, but the message would would get through by sending it to the uh school board chair rather than sending it to you know the squamel schools and the Victoria schools and of course Sandman schools as well.

Um in terms of the independents which you also sorry, would you also want to send to um the other municipalities that are in 61?

It it doesn't hurt, it's just sending another piece of paper up, but uh yes, that would and and perhaps even the uh to the songhees and and uh squamult nation chiefs as well chief and counsel as well.

Yeah, I would should because some of those uh obviously some of their uh members from those nations go to those schools so i would be happy with that general okay let's do that then i'm happy amendment so i've got um that it's amended to include specifically for this the uh board chair for school district 61 uh first nations chiefs and councils cc mayors of the west shore and uh and uh constable rose and that would include Victoria also Victoria Um Sandish and esquimalt.

Uh the peninsula schools are would be separate and oak bay oh yeah, sorry.

Can't forget Oak Bay.

Counselor Kwowich, please.

Thank you.

And um a note I was away from that meeting uh representing.

However, just to unclear the spirit of this.

Is this a political statement or is this requesting more resources?

Because I'm just I just want to be clear on that, just so um so I know what I'm um voting on.

Counselor Brown.

No, it's uh it's in support of the uh school liaison programs, in particular the uh the West Shore, because uh uh Superintendent Preston was here, made a very good presentation, and uh uh he was certainly supportive and and appreciative of that motion as well.

I think uh yes, indirectly it does set a uh send a political statement, indirectly.

That's not the purpose.

The purpose is just to support the uh police officers in the school, not only presenting crime prevention but safety uh programs and traffic safety programs, personal safety programs, and just the uh the presence there.

And I know the uh the chiefs of the uh First Nations were very interested uh to deal when they spoke to Inspector Steve Rose about it as well.

So uh they wanted to see that we had that support because they deal a lot with the uh young, particularly the younger students in the uh on the First Nations, because um I mean most they go to Craig Flower for the most part or shoreline.

Um but um yeah, they wanted to see that as well, that support.

Uh one of the immediate consequences, Councilor Qualowicz was that um they had a uh a First Nations canoe trip planned for the next day with uh with their um indigenous leader for uh for the First Nations that got canceled because of the announcement.

Counselor Qualitage.

And and certainly that is something that um we're probably all disappointed about that particular one instance.

The uh the language that you see before you hear speaks to crime prevention, traffic safety, personal safety programs.

And I'm just I'm still trying to wrap my head around whether like what exactly is happening here with the town of V Royal far as I'm concerned, we still do support school liaison programs.

We never stopped.

So uh and I'm just being clear and and I've certainly I I encourage school liaison programs with law enforcement um I have some experience with it.

Um I'm just trying to be clear whether to get a clear answer whether this is a political statement or something else?

Because I'm I'm still struggling with that.

Council Brown.

Yeah, and the motion says uh not restricted to.

So that would be any any uh police program.

They could come and uh be chaperones at a dance, they could be uh um leading a club or uh uh coaching some teams, which happens at Belmont High.

I know one of the constables there is helping coach the football team.

So um to me, um it's showing support in particular for um West York attachment, but uh yeah.

My last question about the committee, the whole uh meeting.

Was it ever said that we didn't support school liaison at all at any time or encourage school liaison programs in View Royal?

It's not that's never been brought up.

Um for clarification, I think one of the concerns was that I think um the school board had gone and um made a decision without consulting um other municipalities as well.

So that's where the herd is.

I'm I'm definitely aware of uh some of the decisions made recently by school boards uh across Criter Victoria.

Certainly I am.

Uh okay, thank you.

Was there modifications you wanted to make to it?

No, I'm I'm just trying to figure out if if I'm missing something here.

Like uh clearly we support uh the RCMP and school liaison um programs we we always have here in View Royal, and I just making sure I didn't miss anything.

But uh I think I'm comfortable saying that this is more of a uh a political statement coming from the town of View Royal, stating that we support it and I think I'm clear on that now.

Council Roth.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh it's sorry, you know, when we were just making the discussions here, it wasn't from political, it was from a um um personal experience and seeing the benefits of um the school liaison.

And and one example I gave was the um obviously with the First Nations and and their liaison program, but also with Knights Alive in Shoreline School, where um the uh the um police would uh officers would be there and have an incredible rapport.

So this isn't political.

This is a witnessing the rapport and wanting to see it continue.

And I agree with that.

I guess my point would be why don't we make a motion for everything we support all the time on a regular basis?

If you see what I'm getting at.

Yeah, I think the context around this one, uh, Councillor Qualwich was because of the action taken.

I think that so it is political.

Let's be clear on that.

It is a political statement because somebody made a this uh a decision that uh didn't consult with the local governments, and it was something that I think the majority council was in support of and were kind of caught uh unawares that it was going to occur.

Council McKenzie.

Yeah, the only uh thing that was still uh unclear to me, and I I thought we had perhaps changed that committee of the whole was who it was addressed to.

In my mind, it should go to the chair as opposed to um Superintendent Preston since he's aware that of our support.

Yeah he will be uh will be to the chair through the modification and he will be of course at the CC as will the other mayors now this is asking to set a by baseline.

So the current state of those school districts that are not approving the school liaison this is my clarification my education.

So 61 has said they're not in favor of it, but 62 has not made a comment yet.

Have they?

Is that am I saying that right?

Yep.

District 62 has always supported the programs.

In fact, uh when I was on school trustee, we actually paid out of our budget, which we're not asking VRL to pay.

It's just part of our police budget.

But they actually paid for full-time school liaison officer out of the school board budget.

So and uh I know Ravi and and the and the current uh board fully supports it, and and and so they should.

Yeah.

Okay.

Uh councillor Mattson, I didn't get to you.

Uh I couldn't see if you were waving your hands and wanting to speak.

No, I well earlier I just thought that the adding the additional CCs was just a friendly motion, and we would be fine in approving one to four altogether.

And I'm happy to make that motion.

Okay, we've got uh a motion on the table.

But if everybody if somebody says that they want to pull something and discuss it more, but uh counselor Metz.

So I I think we need to do Don's because it was he's making a friendly amendment, so I'd make everyone first.

You're good.

That's good point of order.

So all in favor of moving uh uh item eight to eight point two a one, which is councillor brown's uh school liaison programs.

So we're doing a letter in support.

All in favor, any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

Now we could come up with a omnibus for councilor rogers to suggest for to move the rest.

Yeah, move the uh the block two, three, and four.

I'll call the question.

Second uh seeing no discussion.

All in favor of moving two, three, and four of item eight point two.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries other reports and just refer to your the council sheet as well for the other um letters.

So we've got a municipal consent uh for bylaw, and that's uh number four five four one.

I would move that council consent to CRD adopting bylaw four five one four one water supply local services area established in bylaw number one 1997 amendment bylaw number five 2023.

I'll second it.

Any discussion?

Uh just uh in in terms of background, um this is um a very old document back in 1997, and there's a lot of history, a lot of water under the bridge, but at the time um there was a specific decision uh not uh to have the sale of logs.

Um the uh this is uh had come to the regional water Supply commission with uh staff's report that um in the process of uh climate action and fire prevention, um, they will be thinning the the forests to ensure the viability of those forests that will result in in uh surplus logs.

And um, I had talked to staff, and there can be two options: one the sale of logs, but also the reuse of logs um to communities with uh municipalities for um other uh you know uh value added purposes like band shelters, bus shelters, and the like, playground equipment.

So there's there's lots of options, but um basically it's just you know asking support to uh to consenting to that bylaw.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Any other questions, comments?

Seeing none, I'll call the question.

All in favor.

Any opposed, seeing not opposed, motion carries, and we've got uh a letter from Ms.

Ezri.

Um for uh I can never pronounce this acronym.

I don't know why.

ICAD.

ICAD.

I act D, I act.

Okay, there's uh there's one.

Uh Councilor Brown, did you have any comments on this?

I believe Councilor Rogers might have a motion that it would second.

Um I would move that uh IACDI be the designated, if you will, uh uh accessibility committee, and that staff continue to work with this committee on the on their terms of reference to ensure compliance with the BC Accessibility Act, in addition to the council representative.

Uh and sorry, in addition, the the council representative and alternative council will advertise for and appoint a community member to serve on this committee.

So in speaking to it, I have uh great confidence in this um uh this group and I also uh believe that uh staff will be able to work with um uh this committee uh ensure the the compliance and um whatever the accessibility act is is requiring.

Um but um I would hope that um this committee continue on its work.

Thank you council brown yeah i know city of victoria has their uh they've had it for two or three years now and and kind of a similar setup but the um they have two two counselors on their committee but they're non-voting members which I think is important because they'll be referring stuff to us and uh they also can't be the chair or vice chair so I think that be it's kind of understood um but we need to have uh by to be to be in compliance we have to have a community member so we'd have to advertise for we don't currently have a community member from Veroyal on this committee.

Thank you, Councilor Brown.

Council Quillage.

Thank you for the motion.

Are we able to hear from staff to see what they think of that uh recommendation?

Staff, please.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh yes, I uh met, as you know, on April 20th with IACTE and um did provide a report back to this group.

And from that, we did meet uh the group of corporate officers from the seven municipalities.

Five of those municipalities have agreed to strike um the Capitol West group uh for a committee.

And um it's just Callwood and View Royal that have not yet made a decision to that end.

And uh so we did meet on May 30th with an agreement that we would meet again.

So we haven't yet had that second meeting.

I think there's multiple options for committee formation.

And five that I can think of off the off the top of my head.

And the proposal before you tonight is one of those, but it is only one of those because the issue is is very broad in that it's about accessibility and not necessarily disabilities, and it does impact municipal operations for all of us for all seven municipalities.

And so the um I did meet last week with uh somebody from Disability Alliance BC and um described, you know, perhaps what options could we look at in that's why the options grew from what we thought was a limited number to a larger number because they asked that we meet and speak with the accessibility directorate the director of policy from the accessibility directorate so we did meet and do that and um we did talk uh a little bit later in the week about various options that that um we could explore more fully and yet also have that second meeting uh that we wanted to with IACTI which hasn't happened yet we've been trying to schedule that.

I understand IACTI is meeting this week.

Um, and we had hoped to do that meeting prior to their meeting on June, it was supposed to be the 15th, but became June 22nd.

Um, but they've asked that we do it afterwards.

And so um I would ask that perhaps council not make that decision tonight, but hold off on making that decision because I think there's many options that we could look at.

And we've been told by uh the province that there is no rush, even though they have talked about September 1st, there is no penalty yet for not having it, and that if you have a plan to have a plan and are showing being uh you're showing to make good progress, that that's sufficient at this time.

Thank you, staff.

I see two different things going on here before we get really caught up in what's the right choice.

We've got a body of work to address the legislative requirements.

That's not going to be done by that committee for each one of our councils.

I see that committee reviewing the work that's been done, but I don't see that committee writing it.

I really don't.

I would see maybe a separate subworking group or whatever we would call it that is informal because it's a bunch of municipalities getting together that are tasked with the same job.

And it just makes sense that they work together.

So I was hoping that that work that's done by those those other groups could be reviewed by ICD and have a their lens on it.

But the lens that the provincial legislation has on um on accessibility transcends a lot more than ICD does.

And so there is a way to get it done, but I think that there's a stream of a work to produce it.

That's not saying that they would be divergent groups.

I would see that there would be a limited time staff could get together from different municipalities, find the best way to cooperatively forge ahead, and then have IacD review that work.

Because we've got we've got some legislative timelines that we've got to meet.

IACD is is a thing that exists, but I don't think it's the thing that's going to write a policy for all our municipalities.

That's not its role.

Council Brown.

Yeah, the committee's discussed it in length and there, and the committee definitely wants to keep working with with staff from the all of municipalities that want to take part.

Now I didn't watch the Callwood council meeting on Monday, but the last time I heard they were gonna they were gonna go scroll with the the current committee, period.

And if anyone wanted to join, fine.

If they didn't, you're on your own.

So um yeah, so uh yeah, what you're saying is great.

I mean you have to get that input.

We want definitely want to be uh comply with the new uh accessibility legislation, definitely.

Uh and the pr and the c committee's 100% in favor of doing that.

So I just don't see the need to create another separate committee when we have one that's been going for almost 30 years.

Uh again, we're missing the community member from V Royal on that committee.

And they I think uh I believe the the chair's already sent you a letter you know requesting.

So I mean we could table it, we could, but you know we've been put it's but putting this off, putting this off, putting this off and to me it's uh I don't understand um the reason to spin the wheels so much.

So we got a couple actions.

One is we've got to um if we think it's a good idea we've got to advertise for that position because we're talking about two separate things again the legislative plan and the committee.

So let's break it down.

So I I think it's a good idea, and I think we've already agreed that it was a good idea that we participate in IAD for a disability committee that um would have council representation and hopefully somebody from our neighborhood, or more than one, hopefully, uh, that would be able to join uh on on that committee.

Um, because it's uh it's a hard thing to to address, and it's probably better done as a group until somebody tells me there's a better idea or another group out there to do that.

So there's that.

Um so we if we agree that that's where we want to go, then we could um have staff uh open up that notification uh to our residents for somebody who wants to be on that committee.

The other thing is um in the corporate officers kind of uh uh uh approach in there.

I would see that those two groups would be working together, but somebody enlighten me why they don't have to be all in the same group.

There's two streams of work.

And I think the C the corporate officers isn't a committee, it's a working group.

You're producing something.

Thank you.

And I think you actually have touched on one of the ideas that the accessibility directorate provided last week, and that is that even for the first um period or the they viewed as three-year increments, that the accessibility committee for either our own municipality or this group of seven could be a staff working group.

So a joint working committee of staff.

It could be separate staff committees, and all seven of us just have, you know, Ivan and myself would be our group, for example, because that will be where a lot of it is, or Ivan Jen Cochran and myself working on HR issues sometimes, or working on curb led so different issues, right?

Um or everyone could have their own separate public committee, and that's really why we try to talk about or think about why we would we have seven separate public committees with you know 49 people that we're looking for from the community.

There could be something, for example, where um I I ACTI does become this new accessibility group, and yet that would mean a lot of changes to IACTI where the advocacy rule falls away and they may lose quite a bit of their autonomy that they currently have.

And how would that impact the work that they do and the people that that that impacts?

Because this is really an inwardly focused group.

And so that would change for them.

And what is the impact of that?

Or is it something that IACTI remains status quo?

The municipalities that don't have uh representation on IACTI go go ahead and appoint people, whether it's council members or community members, if they so choose to go ahead and do that.

And that IACT could be consulted on different issues or from time to time, because there are multiple types of groups out there that municipalities need to hear from.

So they could continue in their current operations and approach.

And it could be that they eventually, if it moves away from being a joint staff committee, that it could be uh something where the community or citizen reps to IACTI form this this new group, like in its second term, so year four to seven type of thing.

So after the first accessibility plan so there's some options that we're we've been thinking about or talking about with the accessibility directorate to try and get this this moving um yeah so so that's kind of where we're at but you're right and you've nailed it uh I think mayor to bias with with what you say is that there are two different things and one is much more broad and one is much more focused.

Thank you staff and I think there's uh and the the relationship I would see as being more effective instead of waiting until you had that policy done that may be intermunicipal that when you get the table of contents done, you ship it over.

Have we left anything out from your perspective?

Be try to be inclusive uh as you build as opposed to um here it's all done and signed, and we just looking for your approval for it kind of at the end.

And I would also see this as a growing document.

I don't think we're gonna get right the first time.

This is stuff we're gonna learn from along the way, and it's okay that we don't have all the answers or all the people on the committees right now.

Um, but um, I'd ask council to reach out to folks that they know that might be a good fit for the committee uh and and bring forth names, and we'll do it.

I I think the same way we do most commit committees.

And I'm sure if we had uh I'm not sure how many candidates we will get.

Uh, but if we get a few, I'm not sure if there's a limit.

They're asking for one, Don, but maybe that's uh a question you can ask.

Maybe we've got two or three.

Excellent.

Are they gonna turn them away?

Or is it just one they're looking for us to make a decision?

They're very accepting of uh yeah.

If there's more than one, we definitely take more than one.

I don't think that'll happen, but that's okay.

I got some people of mind to ask myself if they're interested.

Thank you.

Councilor Rogers, please.

Yes, thanks.

So um thank you um uh for uh the discussion.

I will withdraw the motion and um hear the how the rescue process goes.

Um I I think the uh the letter speaks to um um a variety of uh concerns that uh they have.

They call them this, let's call them misunderstandings, um, and uh particularly, you know, whether you know I don't think this committee is just about disabilities.

I think they have a broader perspective uh that would be very useful.

Um so uh let's try to be inclusive as this job goes along.

Uh perhaps a motion to table, maybe rather than withdrawing it.

Yeah, but I'll table it.

Okay, thank you.

Uh table and the understanding that staff will come with those other options.

Is that the yeah?

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

Is there anything else we need to discuss on that one?

Fine with that.

And we've got uh District of sanit referral for 50 Creed Road.

Uh and I think there were some questions about it.

Staff, did you want to make any comment?

So uh through the mayor, staff um don't have any comments at this time.

Uh we have reached out to our counterparts in Sanich for a bit more information on the referral.

We do have some questions on the purpose of the rezoning and um some questions related to stormwater management, things like that, which um we are happy to deal at the staff level um because it it gets into some of the technical details of the application, um, but we are wanting that information first before we send a for uh formal referral comments back to Sanich.

Thank you, Councilor Rogers.

You had one, do you have one?

Yes.

You know, this this um and uh Council Matson, you may remember, um, but I have a sense that this is uh come in in a variety of themes.

Um first off, there was an idea that there would be a property um along Burnside in Saanich, not not necessarily uh, but I think associated with this uh family where they would uh be storing um RVs.

Um and now it seems like it's uh evolved to actually being part of the golf course.

Um certainly um m the biggest concern is whether access to this um RV storage site would be through Creed Road, which is in Vie Royal.

Um or are they thinking of making another road through one of those other properties along Burnside?

So that that's really the biggest question.

The traffic flows on Creed and whether enhance other enhancements we may have to make to uh consider traffic and speed of vehicles and so forth.

So thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Through the mayor, yes, and those are some additional questions that we do have for the District of Stanish in terms of access to the site.

Off of Burnside and through easement across the other two properties into the site.

There are some couple of implications that we do we would like to look into further, but that is something that staff would be recommending to Sanich.

Thank you, Leanne.

And can you do two things for me?

One is thank them very much for forwarding it.

I think that that is a practice I really like to see.

So anything that'll affect us across the border, it's not always done.

And the second one is is that whole area ALR the whole golf course, uh, agricultural land reserve?

Most golf courses are.

That is a very good question.

Um, it wouldn't be part of our mapping system because it's in the District of Sanich.

So I that is another question we could ask.

Thank you, because that seems like a weird use of agricultural land reserve to put up an RV storage site, but maybe that's just me.

Thank you.

So, staff, I think that's in your capable hands.

And if anything changes, please report back.

But I don't think council just had a couple of questions about uh it with traffic and and and as you did stormwater.

Um motion to receive item B.

Uh I move actually move a sheet of A and B.

All in gonna get a seconder.

Uh seconded by Councillor Brown.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed.

Uh new business.

We've got an appointment to the West Shore Arts and Culture Center Interpret Intermunicipal Advisory Ad hoc committee.

Uh that a council uh representative be appointed to the West Shore Arts and Culture Center, Intermunicipal Advisory Ad hoc committee, uh until December 31st, 2023.

And that was just to keep it on our same cycle as the rest of our appointments go.

Did I have any volunteers for that?

Perhaps?

I appoint uh Council Lemmon.

I move Council Lemon, pardon me.

Uh could uh Council McKenzie would you be interested in uh being the second for that?

Yeah, I will accept.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh and uh seems like they're doing great work.

So um so we need we've got a motion, we've got a secondary.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, then counselor uh Lemmon uh is the primary, and counselor McKenzie is secondary for the ad hoc committee on uh the arts and culture center.

Uh next we have a tenant assistance policy, and I think that's over to me.

Hopefully, you've had a chance to review.

Um the a bit of the history behind this is one uh exists and it's a policy, not a bylaw.

The policy is our policy, it's a council policy, and I know we don't have many.

It directs how we um how we make a choice about being consistent.

In this case, it comes with uh with tenant assistance.

Again, it's a policy, not a bylaw, and sandaged it.

Uh about 18 months ago, Victoria instituted one.

They look very similar to the one I've done.

So, why did I do it now?

Um our last development at Aspire, we evicted folks, or we didn't evict, we approved a rezoning, which in turn evicted folks out of an apartment.

Um, having talked to at least one of them, um, that happened twice.

It happened when they rezoned, and they got another group of tenants in there when the rezoning took too long, and they were elected as well.

Right, so there were there was inconsistency in what council was asking and maybe what we're being told.

But unless we're guided with a clear expectation that we're the same in each circumstance we come to, we find ourselves now in a similar circumstance on Old Island Highway developments, but we don't have a policy to guide us to maintain consistency to see what's fair.

The folks in both locations, um, we tore down some very low income rentals, which will be replaced with a place that they will never afford to be ever ever be able to afford to be in.

And we have no way of kind of tracking at least that we're doing our own due diligence and saying it as a condition for our rezoning that they're given due course.

So this doesn't require readings, it's our policy.

We can amend it at any time.

The policy itself is embedded for its rates of return on the CMHC changes in average rental income that come up once a year.

So it'll have to be updated once a year anyway and on a cycle.

My concern is that you know, are we leaving ourselves open for legal recourse if we have this policy?

No, it's our policy, not their policy.

And we could, I would argue, even uh making ourselves more liable by not being consistent in the delivery of our policy when it comes to this.

Because it's always a concern.

And I watched the recording when Aspire came up, and it was a question about what was being done with the residents of the apartment building, and council did not have a policy to lean back on.

And this is a gray area that cuts right to the chase of uh the difference between provincial and municipal responsibilities over rentals.

Municipal has really no responsibility over the rental part, especially between um uh landlord and tenant, it's all provincial.

However, we do have control over rezoning and the effects of that rezoning, which is a gray area in a black hole.

So that is my motion.

The reason why I thought it was urgent was the development deposit proposal that was ahead of us.

Even though they said some words, uh, in their rezoning, there was no way for us to be consistent on what they're asking them to do or what we think is fair.

So I would open it up to either a seconder or questions.

I'll second your motion.

Thank you, Councillor Mattsons.

It's seconded, so it's on the table.

Councilor Brown, please.

Yeah, I like the motion.

I think it's very important to uh compensate people and also first rate of refer refusal because you can't assume that everybody can't afford, and they might you could have millionaires in that problem.

I don't I have no idea.

Um when they talk about reimbursement uh by month, it has to be uh um at market rate at the new places, not the current rent.

I know that people in the Cambridge are averaging about six hundred and fifty dollars uh a month rent so to give them four months rent it it wouldn't even cover one month rent at the new places so uh it's very timely that's very important um and by having the consistency we don't have to negotiate every time I know when Christy Point they were talking about tearing that place down building that's not a goal right now I know that took a lot of time and effort to negotiate that but at least there a consistent policy the developers know and we know and the tenants know you, Councillor Kwalitage and then Lemon, please.

Thank you.

And I think it's quite an easy uh position to support in principle.

Uh, we can all agree that rents across Canada are skyrocketing, in particular Greater Victoria.

Uh, there are news articles that come out regularly, which uh show the high cost of living, including rent and when new developments come about.

Uh, people that have been living with manageable monthly rental uh prices, um, yes, they are squeezed out and they're faced to go uh elsewhere.

I guess my question for staff is, and I do know the answer to some of some of these questions, but bear with me.

Staff, are you able to tell us uh about how provincial legislation works for the Residential Tenancy Act when things like this happen and if there's compensation set out uh provincially?

And how would our policy affect anything at all uh whatsoever and would it be enforceable?

Uh through the mayor, um that is something uh that staff is hoping that perhaps this um motion could be referred back to staff to to investigate those things because um it is a lot of legislation, and um I do know that um both Sanish and Victoria had um had substantial engagement in developing their um policies.

And um so that is something that um staff would recommend um for counselors to consider.

Um it is a council member motion to to bring to bring this forward um however and so staff have has not had sufficient time to do a um a thorough review of it all council rogers please and council mackenzie yes so um i found this with the um the sanach uh policy they what they've just adopted in uh this month and um sanitage had indeed consulted very heavily with my daughter, Emily rogers uh who is a manager at um Together against Poverty.

She was um um front and center working with the city of Victoria in January 2020, last year, and they've uh in that policy.

So she's um works on the whole aspects of uh tenants' rights.

Um she's extremely familiar with the provincial legislation, and with that knowledge of the provincial legislation, we work with the city of Victoria and Sanich uh to uh come up with um uh the the policy that basically you see now.

So Emily saw this over the weekend, and she has no problem with it.

She recommends that um uh just to cover the one's bases that one should um get a legal opinion on it.

But from her perspectives it uh uh jives nicely with the provincial uh tenancy act um it uh puts uh no one at um at risk but it puts every precaution uh for the uh for the tenants and and I think that's the the biggest aspect here the biggest win.

Um just in in hindsight um with uh our experiences in in View Royal um we didn't do a good job with um Christie Point.

We didn't have, and I don't think uh there was any municipality, maybe not even Burnaby, who is the in really in the forefront um of uh tenants advocacy and assistance.

And we basically worked with the developers and with the uh the best hopes possible.

None of us had that.

And that was, I think we did pretty good, but can compared to this, we didn't do a good job.

We didn't do a good job at Thieves Campground either, where we didn't have a policy like Langford for the protection of mobile homes and those individuals.

So if it were not for the fact that um uh an expert like Emily and the uh the staff at TAPS had not had the uh the insight experience um uh to uh assist the other two municipalities of which we are founded on this I wouldn't be supporting this but I'm I'm I'm happy and and um um and if Emily had said no it's just don't do it I wouldn't support that either so um uh I think this is worthwhile to to go forward um we uh it is the policy we don't have any uh immediate uh circumstances that are gonna happen next week we can get our legal review we can um have time to uh for staff to to um make any further comments they wish, but I think it's about as good as you're gonna get.

So I would be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councillor McKenzie, please.

I I would definitely appreciate staff looking into the matter more.

Thank you.

I did read, you know, it would be on the developer to hire a tenant relocation coordinator, but I also imagine there might be some work for staff as well, like um in terms of questions from that individual.

So that would be something I'd also like to see if staff could ask the Sanich and Victoria to see whether there's a staff um implication that way.

Council McClellan.

Did you for see my hand?

Well, we'll go you that we'll go there next, Councillor Mattson, uh right after Counselor Lemon.

Counselor Qualit.

Sorry, I didn't see it.

First of all, I would like to commend Mayor Tobias for the amount of work that you've put into this.

This is a great initiative, and it's important to protect renters' rights in View Royal.

Um with that said, we need to get it right.

And um I too uh desire this to be reviewed by staff prior to uh approval.

Thank you.

Counselor Lemon.

Um a part of part of what um I was going to say I think has been addressed, and I I had a question for the um for the counselors who were on council during the Christie Point um rezoning, and I had I had an understanding or a hunch that there was a it it it in in the rezoning process there were to be um there was a package for tenants is that correct?

Yes there was yeah yeah yeah but it was it wasn't um I you know it was it was an interesting discussion but because I don't know how much um uh folks experts like Together Against Poverty uh were involved.

Um hopefully they were, but it was really seeming uh between staff and and the developer and and um and we kept driving it was quite a bargaining process um because we didn't have this policy.

So we were never in a good position to fall back on any any policy and I think that's um you know one of the um gaps that we're trying to fill here.

Got it got it and uh I think this is really laudable.

Um I I think it's you know it behooves us and it it um it's it's important work.

So thank you for that.

I do however believe that that staff needs to be brought into this they need to know what they're what they're working to and and you know have it have it have it lawyered to the town's satisfaction.

So I would be most comfortable if that were to happen first and I would support um that as well my concern is don't I get a turn oh yeah you do sorry counselor Madison you do geez if you hadn't been in here in person I wouldn't been able to ignore you so as easily one of the benefits of this being a policy is if we approve it tonight and staff and our lawyers then review it and they find out that there are issues then it's a policy we can make it make the change fairly simply I just don't want us to you know I mean one of my one of my concerns has certainly been, for example, a year and a half ago, or maybe two years ago now, uh council asked staff to prepare a bylaw for a requirement for 10% of all suites to be uh affordable.

And we're still waiting for that policy to come back to us.

And I know I'm sure staff would be a lot quicker uh on on this one, but uh this is a really good document.

It's got everything we've included, or everything that I think we need, and certainly way better than we had with Christie Point.

And by approving it tonight, we just we set set it out for individuals who are coming to develop in our community, they'll know what expected of them.

And if on a review by staff and a review by our lawyers, there are some changes we need to make, it's a simple matter of changing a policy.

I want it to approve this evening.

I don't want to delay this.

So I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Councillor Matson, Councillor Crowley.

Thank you.

And I think we can all agree it's quite well written.

In the interest of public administration, a good governance and due process, I think it's important that uh mayor and council do not write policy that be adopted without staff's uh review and uh recommendation, whatever that may be.

Uh I I just think it's uh it's it's the right thing to do uh and that the public expects that of us.

Any other debate questions?

Councilor Brown, just a question we got a letter on our agenda tonight from a resident of Christie Point and you know I wasn't on council then but the the the redevelopment of that or rezoning that property obviously drove the price way up and that and that ended up being sold so I mean eventually it's gonna be torn down eventually but right now it's their rental properties and they're paying $2300 $2400 a month and every time they're allowed to increase the rent I whether it's 2.3% or whatever it's gone up every single time.

So it's just a just a point.

I mean, if if um we have this in place, at least developers know that or they want to sell that property, the the new person will know that yeah, if they're gonna tear it down, they're gonna have to pay some compensation to all the tenants rather than negotiating each and every time.

Council Rudd.

Yeah.

Um you know, I I understand um uh the concerns um you know about um members of council writing policy.

Um we didn't.

We took it.

So it's a uh it's a case where um again with that expert who knows the the tenancy act forwards and backwards, who knows how uh uh uh with the discussions and how staff operate and go to municipalities, Santa Cent Victoria.

Um you know, I don't think there's anything more that staff can advise in terms of this policy without having to spend a very long time researching it themselves.

And you know, I'm I'm cognizant of staff workload and um you know the challenges that they we already place on them with other policies that are outstanding.

Um I've um I certainly would encourage the uh professionals that Together Against Poverty and other organizations work with staff and in that review and and establish the confidence.

And I know that there is supporting documentation that again other municipalities have done, uh like the tenants package and um even uh Burnaby's got an extraordinary uh video to help developers with their checklist.

Uh but I don't think we uh that is work at a at a future time.

The the essence here is to ensure that we have the policy in place um and a clear message to to developers that are coming on stream uh that this is one of the things we we really expect that tenants are a valued um group in our community counselor McKinson.

I think we're we're not talking about a huge amount of time here for staff to review.

I mean I won't speak for them, but I I don't think it would be more than a few weeks.

We can also defer any rezoning decisions until after we have the policy.

That would be my preference as opposed to kind of what feels like rushing through something.

It would make more sense to me to defer any rezoning decisions until it's in place.

Question for staff would you be able to conduct a review prior to council meeting in July.

Uh Susan Mary, yes, we can make that happen.

Okay.

Then what we've got staff or councilor Matson.

Just want to call the question.

Leanne?

Yeah, uh through the mayor for clarification, would you like this to come back to council or committee of the whole?

Uh council.

Council, okay, because it's uh it's a council policy, and we put it on the committee of the whole and we won't see it again until September at a council meeting to adopt.

Right, okay.

Is that possible to be uh is staff saying that they would have time to okay?

Yeah, so I'm I'm I'm happy with uh that and would it be possible to start, it doesn't have to finish uh a legal review, Kim, at the same time.

A legal review for the purpose of for the purpose of a legal review.

Well, that's when staff completes um their review of it.

We can certainly do that.

Thank you, Kim.

Okay, so I'm I I would be happy if that was the timeline, but if we were going to a council the whole in July and then off for August and not being able to approve for September, that would be a little bit too long for me.

So I'll I'll friendly amend my own motion uh if my colleagues are happy with that to um to have staff reviewed to report back at the next council meeting first council meeting in July um and um and that will be the motion I'll second that although I think council councillor mattson had a motion on the floor he did and we should we have so we shouldn't gang up our correct did he have a second you didn't have a second on your motion Ron I'm okay with it uh I think going uh to to the next one for the July council meeting this is policy uh and I probably skirted the ridges.

But however, for those that may criticize me for writing policy, we approve policy and rewrite policy, and that's what we do.

So regardless of what it comes from, we have to do no you made the motion and I seconded it.

Okay.

So it's on the table, so I can withdraw the motion.

So the consider the motion redraw and uh we'll uh vote for um uh staff uh referring the policy to staff to report back at the first council meeting in July.

You happy with that?

Happy enough to second it?

I know you are.

I'll take that as a yes.

I second.

I'd second.

Counselor Rogers or Councillor Lemon, second it.

All in favor.

Any opposed?

Being not opposed.

Uh motion carries.

So that brings us down to notices and uh motions and notices and motions, Councilor Rogers.

Yes, and um uh I think you've all had a chance to read it and and um I'm recommending there be a new report section uh when we consider uh OCP amendments and new developments.

Um and um I would um move that uh this be um I think staff's got it that the proposed um addition um of impact mitigation on surrounding neighborhoods in staff staff reports may be referred to staff uh for comment and uh hopefully uh by the next council meeting in July.

I'm just kidding.

Thank you.

Um we don't need a seconder for that do we no actually sorry we do um the second goes and that's uh seconded by councillor uh mattson any discussion are you seconding um council matts oh you second it okay yeah it's it no it's it's good.

I'm um i'm happy to have uh uh this is to get the ball rolling and and um um and it's not only um you know for future um uh staff reports as a as a standard clause, but also i think an important aspect to consider uh when we're looking to review the sustainability checklist.