Council Meeting

Good evening.

I'd like to call the meeting to order and uh start by acknowledging that uh we are um have one regret for our counselors this evening.

Um Damien uh is out of country and unable to attend this meeting.

I'd like to start with a territorial acknowledgement that we recognize the Lakwangwan speaking people known today as the Esquamalt Nation and the Songhees Nation and their historic connections to the lands continued to this day.

This evening we'll hear from the public, many of you in the room, and it's wonderful to see you all and thank you for coming, especially bringing the little ones.

Uh it is a uh issue of importance to all of you, uh I'm sure.

But uh if we could get you all to return on a regular basis, that would be wonderful as well.

Um we're gonna hear from folks on the phone as well.

So the public participation and uh question period portions of the agenda.

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

And when prompted, enter conference IDs 702-399-769 pound.

You will be immediately muted once admitted to the meeting.

Please do not unmute until you're asked.

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

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

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

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

This meeting will be recorded.

By participating in the webcast, you are consenting to being recorded, and the recording will be available on the town's website for future access.

So I would like to start with the approval of the agenda.

And for my colleagues, the approval of the agenda adds some late items, and uh so we're operating on the blue sheet that also includes a late item of correspondence by email.

I would like to thank staff very much for um corralling all of the emails that we got over 20 i note uh uh on the agenda.

So staff uh did a remarkable job of corralling all that correspondence for our reading, and uh and it includes two night new items of business, uh one uh for councillor Lemon, and there's another late edition and um in new business or is it uh notice of motion notice of motion from councillor rogers and one correspondence for action.

Can I get a motion to approve the agenda as described?

Councilor Brown.

I move that the agenda be adopted as printed.

Second and seconded by councilor lemon, all in favor.

Any opposed.

Seeing none opposed, uh motion carries.

And uh can I get a motion to receive the adoption uh of the minutes A to C.

Moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councilor Brown.

All in favor?

Any opposed?

Seeing none opposed, motion carries.

And I have a brief report.

Uh colleagues and residents, the past uh few weeks since our last council meeting has been both busy and productive.

Several members of the council and staff joined me for the treaty and reconciliation briefings, followed by a treaty advisory meeting.

Uh since the last meeting, I've been appointed to two CRD board positions by the chair of the CRD.

I have accepted the position of co-chair for the CRD Environmental Services Committee, as well as a role on the CRD Governance Committee.

This, of course, is an addition to the CRD Director's Board, CRD housing and hospital boards, and I would love to share those boards with my colleagues, but I have found that there is the flick in between the boards so quickly.

It's unfortunate that I couldn't have my colleagues share the load on that one, but I was looking forward to at least trying.

I'm learning a lot about our region and uh View Royal's current and traditional role in it.

I've spent considerable time building new relationships with our neighbors and had the pleasure of spending the afternoon with Mayor Scott Goodmanson, Mayor of Lankford, where we discuss the challenges of rapid growth on transportation, urban disport deforestation, highway noise, strategic planning, including housing needs reports and the official community plans, as well as the increased need to keep our citizens, our residents engaged in the process.

I've also spent the afternoon over the break with uh Barb Desarden, mayor of the Squamal, and who was also my co-chair of the CRD Environmental Services Committee, talking about similar issues that I talked with Scott.

View Royal is not an island, but a connector with more municipal borders, touching on other municipalities and First Nations than any other in the CRD.

I believe strongly that we can provide better services for now and in the future if we work together with our neighbors rather than blaming them.

That starts with building relationships, and that's exactly what I'm intending to do over the coming months.

Last week I met with Minister Dean on the topic of highway noise in Thetis Vale and have secured a meeting with her and the Minister of Transport and Infrastructure for February.

This week I have the pleasure of MCing the opening of the Cragflower Community Center with provincial ministers on Thursday.

I will also tour a co-op in View Royal on Friday and discuss models of affordable housing for the future.

On Sunday, I have the pleasure of assisting the celebration of 50 years of junior hockey in the Western communities at a game of the West Shore Wolves and their nemesis from Saanich.

I am a huge minor hockey fan and played not so well in my youth.

That's why I'm a mayor now and not an NHL hockey player, I guess.

I also acknowledge Canada's recent wins in the world stage for both young men and women.

In the coming weeks, we'll be bringing about our strategic planning for discussion, including committee restructuring, the OCP and foundational documents.

There have been many new realities that affect the future planning for the town.

We have had an election, a change in mayor, we have had uh two new counselors for councillor Brown and Councillor McKenzie, and we have had a change in provincial leadership.

We have uh we have had time to reflect uh on our previous planning decisions, uh, and I believe we're ready to begin a future that honors our past, learns from our lessons, and respect the needs of our youth and their future environment.

I appreciate that tonight's agenda has on it topics that have elicited significant input from residents, particularly parents.

And I would ask us all to be respectful, listen to each other, and acknowledge the courage and time it takes for our residents to add their voice so that council can better understand the issues and benefit from your opinions and your advice.

I want to note, and uh council, you can stand to correct me that I don't think there's a member on council that is opposed to crossing guards.

I think the issue at hand is the issue of funding for the crossing guards and the origin of that.

So please take that into consideration when you're um addressing council.

I think we're all on the same page, narrowing the issue down to uh supporting crossing guards.

I think the issue is uh about the funding and the funding mechanisms behind that.

And so that's what would really would benefit council to hear your opinions on whether the municipality should or somebody else should.

So that's where the concern I think and council's concern certainly is on it.

So noting uh that we get into petitions and delegations and ask Ms.

Booth uh to come to the podium.

Uh and just to remind you, you have 15 minutes to present.

And as it gets uh close to 15 minutes, I'm not sure the exact time.

I think you will see a yellow flash going, and then if you're over time, a red flash going.

So thank you, uh Ms.

Booth, for coming out and uh and providing us some insight.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Moni Booth, and I'm joined this evening by my son Oscar, and we live at 310 V Rural Avenue.

So um this evening we are wearing a couple different hats.

So um we'd really like to share our families's uh take on this particular issue uh of the funding guard services.

Um, but before I do, I'd like to read a short statement on behalf of the V Royal Parent Advisory Committee.

Why can't you read this?

Um, please reconsider the previous council decision to discontinue funding the Crossing Guard service beyond this school year.

We're reaching out to you as both members of the V Rural Parent Advisory Council and concerned parents to ask for your continued support for the service.

We believe that the V Rural Mayor and Council and the V Rural community are all in agreement that the safety of our children is of utmost importance.

This is a clear history of the importance of the crossing guards to maintain the safety, especially given we are seeing near misses even with the crossing guards on a frequent basis.

The need for continued and ongoing funding for the crossing guards service appears to be holding some of our council members back from supporting this initiative.

The V Rural PAC feels that it is essential that the funding continues, as many other municipalities have chosen to do so to in their efforts to keep students in their jurisdiction safe.

This not only supports the safety of the young V Rural community members, but also is in line with the community's desire to keep cars off the road while promoting more environmentally friendly transportation options.

It would be short-sighted for the mayor and council to have these expectations on the community, but then not support the values of safety and sustainability yourself.

We encourage Mayor and Council to think of crossing guards as an extension of View Royal road safety and build the cost into your new active transportation network plan.

We understand funding details will be sorted out through the district's proposed MOU.

Our PAC is committed to help facilitate funding options that work for everyone.

Respectfully, the View Royal Elementary PAC.

Okay, now we're going to shift gears, and Oscar is going to read a letter from a fellow grade two student at View Royal Elementary School for you.

Dear V Royal Town Council, we need a crossing guard to keep us safe.

I like to come to school and I want to get there safely.

She tells us one to cross or not cross one.

She teaches us how to cross the street.

It will be easier to cross the street when we are older.

Please vote to keep the crossing guard from Julene.

Thank you.

Okay, and just to um to wrap up so I live just down the street on Viral Avenue and I'm very fortunate that I get to walk to school with Oscar and Ruby every single day.

It's a really nice part of our day.

And the crossing guard at our school is such a crucial part of that.

On too many occasions, we've witnessed our wonderful crossing guard, who's here today, Ms.

B.

She's prevented accidents.

So these near miss situations could have had terrible consequences had she not been there.

In addition to ensuring students get across safely, she's also just a really important part of our community, as all crossing guards are.

Her presence there is a reminder to all that we have someone looking out for these young students.

So I know you have received a lot of uh letters and correspondence in the last week highlighting for you just how important the service is for our community members.

And I know it's being framed as a budgetary issue, not a safety issue, but to us it's we can't really separate the two.

So, from a budgetary perspective, we understand that council always needs to ensure that town funds are always being spent in the best way possible, but I can't imagine a better use of tax dollars.

So last week uh Nicole Duncan presented the school district's proposal of an MOU for all municipalities so that a consistent funding model can be applied across the entire school district.

Um I feel like that's a really good approach to make that consistent.

Um, if we try to offload the cost to PACs or rely on grants that may or may not be awarded, there'd be probably inconsistent delivery across the schools of our region.

We know that other municipalities are stepping up and paying for the service to help protect the students in their areas, so we really hope that we were able to do the same.

Uh at the committee meeting last week, there was a brief discussion around the possibility of using students or parent volunteers to fund such a service.

And there's a lot of safety concerns and training required to do that.

So, and I also just want to remind us because some of us haven't been to elementary school in a while, but kindergarten go elementary school is now kindergarten to grade five, not kindergarten to grade seven.

So the oldest students that we have at our school are 10 and 11, which is just much too young to put them in that kind of dangerous situation.

So many of you campaigned on the platform of vibrancy, sustainability, and safety of our town.

So we really hope that you can support this service and encourage students to walk to and from school safely.

You have the ability to keep these, help keep these students safe.

So we're asking you to do that.

Lastly, I'd really like to ask that you value the students who have put in a ton of effort through their letters and their art.

Many of them are here tonight, happily, you know, pushing their bedtime.

And there's many, many, many that aren't here that are hoping for a really positive results.

So we're hoping that you don't defer the matter.

We're hoping you can address it tonight, and we have some really great news to share at school tomorrow.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Ms.

Booth.

Does council have any questions?

Thank you very much.

And it was a great read, Oscar.

You got a history or you've got a future ahead of you as far as uh public speaking goes.

Thank you.

So I think that moves us directly into our public participation period.

And we're going to start for folks that would like to address counsel in the room.

Just a reminder that you have five minutes to speak and just make sure the mic is activated by pressing the button on it.

Is there anybody who would like to go first in the room?

And I would just ask that you state your full name and your address.

Okay.

So you want to say your name first?

My name is Emma.

You tell them your first name, your last name, and then what what street you live on, please?

And my address is 245 Hamulkin Road.

My name is Mindy Alwitz, and I live at the same address.

So tonight, Emma has written a letter that she wanted to share with you all about what crossing guards mean to her.

I have just up the hill from numeral school.

The crossing guard helps me cross Hamulkin Road safely every day.

It's very busy road.

Please vote to keep the crossing guard so me and my friends can stay safe.

Excellent job.

Excellent job, Emma.

And I would just add as a as a as a parent and as a PAC member as well.

I think over the last few years we've seen many, many budget cuts from the school district.

I think we've seen inclusive education be cut.

We've seen custodial staff cut.

We've seen, oh geez, music programs cut.

And I think that the kids have paid the price for all of those gaps.

And I think that there comes a time when we do have to decide that we are in this together and we need to fill the gaps because the school district doesn't have any more money.

So I think we have to decide that it's a priority.

We have to decide that we're willing to put that money out and we'll find a way to find it.

Right?

I mean, those those details come later, but I definitely think that it's very, very important.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good job, Emma.

Is there anybody else in the room that would like to speak?

Yes, sir.

There we go.

Hi everyone.

My name is Clayton Hiles.

I live at number four Stone Ridge Drive, just off of Watkiss Way.

I'm a parent of two children that go to Eagleville View Elementary.

First, I'd just like to thank Council for the automatic road signs that went in on Watkiss Way.

I think that's had a really positive effect on road safety in that area.

And I kind of see the crossing guards as an extension on that road safety program.

They help not the cars but the pedestrians in the area navigate to the school safely.

So I just wanted to voice my my support for council to fund this program.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

And it doesn't have to be on the matter of crossing cards.

Could be another issue too, but I'm assuming that's what you're all here for, but that's okay.

Anybody else?

Uh going to staff is there anybody on the line that would oh sorry uh thank you.

Still on okay hello my name is Addie Simic I live at number 10 Pierce Place and I am a parent of a daughter in V Royal Elementary.

And it just breaks my heart that unfortunately that it would be not funded because it saves lives, and crossing cards are meant to save lives, and she does save lives, and it's a wonderful thing.

And I hope you guys support it in 2023.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the room before we go to the phone?

Going once, twice.

Okay, staff.

Let's uh see if there's anybody on the line that would like to address counsel.

Mayor Tobias, our first caller has the last four digits 5493.

Thank you.

Caller with the digits five four nine three.

Could you unmute and address counsel?

State your name and your address, please.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

I have no comments or questions at this time.

Thank you.

Are there any other callers on the line?

Mayor Tobias, our second caller has the last four digits 5513.

Thank you.

With the number 5513, could you unmute yourself and address council, please?

Hello, yes, I would like to comment.

Hi, can you hear me?

Not sure if I quite heard that.

Hello, can you hear me?

My name is Linda Gironde.

I can now, yes.

Thank you.

If you could speak up.

Okay, great, sorry.

It's Linda Gironde, 254, Ardenlee Place, V Royal.

I've written a couple of letters on this issue.

Well, one was from myself personally.

I did this raise funds for the crossing guard program 30 years ago in V Royal Elementary, and at the time it was difficult enough getting volunteers.

I can't imagine with today's market and the price of everything how hard it would be to be able to do that again.

Cole Wood pays for three guards directly from their operational budget.

They seem to indicate it was less than $40,000, which I think they're getting a deal, but they're working with the school board, and the school board is, I think, incorporating some of the costs, and I'm sure that's what the school district is trying to offer the town of Uroil.

It would be good to hear what the proposal is.

But the HR at SUC was grateful for the streamlined process now because they're getting direct municipal funding.

And they noted that QP was making an exception to the contract to accommodate crossing guards extra hours to avoid paying overtime.

So this shows a real team effort, which is what I hope we can continue to be involved in.

During the declared climate emergency, I'm confused why we would choose now to end funding for an active transportation support when there's no replacement in place.

So on that idea, if this is something a passion of council to change the funding arrangements beyond what has been happening for the last two decades, and also beyond what is happening in neighboring municipalities and school districts, then if there is interest in this in with mayors and councils, then this could be taken to I V I C C whatever it's called.

Sorry, I've lost my note here.

So I can't A V I C C and Garner Municipal Support.

Demand the province pay pay more.

They already keep the school districts on a very short thread.

They have to sell land to be able to pay for improvements and safety upgrades.

So it's not that the school board is ultra rich here, I don't think.

They can't increase their revenues anymore, they can't tax us more.

The municipality can and you do, and we're growing, and we're getting more traffic.

So I think it is a there's it's a municipal road.

The school district has no control over what happens on that road, they can't plant trees along the middle of it if they want.

So I'm asking you to take on the responsibility to change your minds.

If it is a political ideal thing that you want to change, a process, then please do it by joining together with other municipalities, but don't leave this, abandon this project in the meantime.

Pay the funds until there is a replacement.

I do think the final comment here is that with pedestrian vehicle conflict on the rise, as they noted in media all over the place, that it is not a good idea to take away a crossing yard whenever they bring feeders into compliance.

So it's not a good time to do something like this without a replacement in place.

Thank you very much.

Goodbye.

Thank you for your comments.

Uh are there other callers?

Mayor Tobias, our next caller has the last four digits, five zero zero four.

Thank you.

Can I ask uh caller with the last four digits 5004 to unmute themselves and address council?

State your name and your address, please.

Please.

Mayor Tobias 5004 is no longer on the board, but we have one additional caller.

Last four digits 3345.

Thank you.

Can I ask more Mayor?

I need to update uh caller 3345 has just uh gone off the board.

And we have no additional callers.

Okay, thank you.

Um so I see no more comments for the room or online.

I think we can um move to the next item of business, which is business uh rising from previous minutes and the crossing guard services funding.

Um so noting that uh historically that there was uh from September 6, 2022 with the last council, um that the letter was sent to School District 61, Board of Education informing them that the town of U Royal will fund crossing guard services in the amount of 37,600 for the 2022 2023 school year, and that the letter also provided notice that that would be the last year that the town will fund the crossing guard services.

We also have uh, and that letter was dated 14th December September 2022.

Councilor Brown.

Uh Mayor Tobias, I would prep prepare to make a motion at this time of some seconds that we could have some discussion.

The motion is I move that the town of View Royal enter into a memorandum of understanding with School District 61 for the ongoing provision of school crossing guards at View Royal and Eagle View Elementary Schools.

School District 61 will be responsible for all administration of the program, and the town of Uroyal will fund $41,000 but not exceed that amount for the school year 2023 2024.

How the program is operated and funded will be negotiated in the memorandum of understanding.

Second.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Seconded by Councillor Rogers.

Discussion.

And I'd ask that everybody have their speak, and before somebody speaks twice, that uh we make sure everybody's had a chance to chat first.

I saw your hand up uh first, Councilor Matson.

Yeah, I I think this is an important issue and it should be discussed by the entirety of council.

And since we have one member who's absent and wanted to participate, I would like to see this item tabled until there's the full council.

And staff has actually had an opportunity to provide us information on what this really means.

We've heard information today that we hadn't heard before.

We've gone from 37 to 45 in in one year, and so there's a lot of financial things that I just don't know enough about what the implications are.

And I would like to see it tabled until staff can do a report and to resolve members of council.

So that's my motion to table.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Now with the motion to table, what we have to do is process it first before we move on.

Because if there's not it's not a motion to table, it was a motion to table.

No, there was a motion to table.

I already made a motion, I already read a motion out and was seconded.

So we can've got to vote on that motion on the table after until the rights.

Are you sure?

Yeah.

I thought we could table.

Well uh but I sorry, I was gonna seek clarity from uh staff because I believe you can raise an amendment to a motion.

You can't right now we've got a motion from councillor Brown and then a seconder, and uh and then we've got a motion to table.

So point of order.

Um we'd have to deal with the motion that I made first, and then we could deal.

Uh you could make an amendment.

Certainly make an amendment, but uh you have to deal with that motion before you can have another motion.

We could get clarification from staff on how a tabling motion fits in with what's happened.

I think the motion to table has to come first.

Staff, your opinion.

Tabling motion can is a subsidiary motion.

It would require someone to second it.

It would not be debatable though, after that.

I second it.

We'd need seconded it and we need to vote on it and we need majority to pass so it would have to go to vote so we've got a motion to table and we've got a seconder all in favor of the motion to table all opposed so the motion to table is defeated and um councillors mattson and councillor McKenzie voted in favor, and the rest of council did not.

Now we can go ahead with other discussion.

There is um a uh a motion on the floor, and it has a second.

Council that thank you.

That we um that we support this coming year wholly and in the meantime um petition the provincial government to retrieve its road safety obligations and fund crossing guards.

Um however one of the callers made the suggestion and it makes perfect sense to me that it's that we work with through the um association of vancouver island coastal communities and there and then given opportunity UBCM'd so that there is a uh across the island and even across the province um um agreement and and um consistency on how crossing guards are funded.

So I'm I'm reluctant to support either of them because i you know i and i don't and i and i don't want to be this you know throw this into stalemate um it's important but i i i am not comfortable with an mou that would have our little town and it is a little town um funding a qp negotiated agreements in perpetuity thank you counselor lemon and we'll go with councillor uh brown first, and then rogers and then McKenzie.

Councillor Brown.

Typically, if I made the motion, I would talk first and and last.

And the motion clearly states that it's for the school year 2023, 24, because this school year has already been covered.

And also it says that they limit it to $41,000.

So if there was a pay raise between now and then, it wouldn't go up.

And then of course it'd be up to the uh uh negotiation of the MOU.

I mean, we could put it could be anything.

I mean, depends on what the I know the school district when the uh uh chair came to uh council, uh she mentioned that uh an MOU would be in order.

And obviously, uh if I was looking at an MOU, I'd be looking at the MOU's from the other school just side Oak Bay and uh Esquimal they're also looking at one for school bearers.

So um this motion again would extend it to the 2023 24, limited at $41,000, and then beyond that, yes they uh they may have to come back and ask us again depending on how the negotiations go with the MOU.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Yes, uh I think the critical point is that um uh and I think uh councillor Lemon is saying the same thing is that uh we need to give assurances to the school district and to the to the parents and the PACs that uh we are going to continue the funding in this budget.

So we need to uh that's that's priority one.

We've got to resolve that.

Um and I I think with uh the the motion to work on an MOU doesn't commit us in terms of I mean you can have MOUs with a with a finite time frame, five years, four years.

Um you can also define the funding mechanisms on how those monies could be distributed.

You could talk about you know rates of increase.

So the MOU is is the um uh I think the ideal situation.

It doesn't commit us because we haven't entered into the negotiations yet.

So let's um let's take a care of issue one, let's give the assurance um uh for the funding in this budget because that's one of the things we we need to do with the budget's coming up in February, and um then uh work on the MOU and and work diligently and and respectfully to um to the region, the whole, all the municipalities collectively.

Um just one other point.

Um to Council Lemon's point, yes, wouldn't it be lovely if the province were to step up and sure, let's let's get uh some motions to ABICC and onwards.

But um uh knowing the province and and uh how difficult and um firm they are with school boards and holding their feet to the fire on budgets and telling the school boards that they've got to make the decisions.

It's their decisions to cut music, art, whatever.

Crossing guards are expendable as far as they're concerned.

If they if it wasn't, then they would have picked that up long ago.

And you know, quite frankly, I think um Linda uh John made an excellent point.

This is part of active transportation.

This is why we're doing an active transportation study.

This is why we have um the um uh safe routes to school as the strategic plan for last council.

We had incorporated that, and uh we we value that.

Roads, municipal roads are our responsibility.

That's why we have all the signage, the the speed limits and so forth.

But the the beautiful benefit of a crossing guard is not only to get the kids across the road, they also do a wonderful job in slowing drivers.

They also do a wonderful job in alerting me as that I have the comfort of knowing that there's a crossing guard in that intersection or in that area, and I can rely on them that there isn't going to be a kid, a child running and across the road, that there's a there is my safety and and um and everyone's safety involved.

So I it's it's a win, win, win.

We just have to negotiate, and I'm confident that this council can get a uh the best deal possible.

Thanks, counselor.

Thank you.

I just want to find a clarification on what the motion was.

The amount for this next or 23, 24 was $41,000.

Uh Counselor McKenzie.

Yes.

So the normal process for approving funding for programs and initiatives that aren't already included in our budget is to discuss it at the budget budgeting that happens in February.

So if I if I was to raise the motion, I would have said to add it to the list of initiatives and programs that we're gonna consider in early February for um and see you know we have to look at the big picture of our budget, see how it fits in.

And in the in term we can seek to understand more from PAC what is being proposed in the MOU because we have yet to see what's included.

And also it would give the opportunity for staff to provide a report to us outlining some of the possible funding model options because it's not black or white you know if we don't fund it it shouldn't be that the program doesn't exist.

We have a keen interest in the safety of the students.

That's why we invest heavily in your sidewalks, our active transportation network, but the province also has an interest, the school boards also has an interest, and so does PAC.

So I think we need to work a little bit more and come up with a more collaborative approach and put our heads together to get a solution that's good for everyone.

Thank you, Councillor McKenzie.

And I'm going to have a word if you don't mind, because I haven't spoken.

It appears that we all agree that crossing guards are essential to both the active transportation plan and uh further safety.

There's more benefit than that.

I think having eyes that are bondable at those positions that are uh liable, that know the children, know the parents, know the circumstances are essential.

And that in this day and age, it's an added benefit to have them out there.

I have done a lot of reading over the weekend, not only the correspondence that interested residents have put in, but historically as much as possible and consulted other mayors.

If this is a larger issue than funding or a precedent to be set, I see no reason if there's an agreement that we've just had by the majority of that last vote for something that would provide funding for 2023 and an MOU that would be constructed while concurrently seeking to petition AVIC, other municipalities to try to petition the province for it.

I think one of the things that I uncovered in my research was that we're having challenges because the town has not provided stable funding.

We've not provided stable funding, and that's caused some challenges in the past, both when there was a volunteer organization and for now.

So if we provide stable funding, that does not limit us to pursue other means to create partnerships.

What it does do is eliminate the concern of our residents and their children to the fact that it might not be here tomorrow.

I think we can do both, and I think we can do better as a council, approve long-term funding whilst we seek other mechanisms in order to offset the town costs and responsibility.

I'm not saying that the town solely should be responsible for this, but certainly our neighbors have invested, invested heavily and have invested for decades for a crossing guard program.

So I think instead of making this a situation that we can commit to while we try to resolve other sources is not a bad path to follow.

That is my comment.

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, I agree.

Uh there's certainly many things that as a former police officer, having the crossing guards uh uh they they are eyes and ears out there, they can see other things, uh uh child abductions, uh, be on the lookout for uh lost and found, uh helping handicapped people, physical handicaps crossing the road, elderly people.

So I can go on and on and on, but I think ever all of us agree there's a value to it.

Uh being a former school trustee for many many years, six years in the Naimo and uh six years in District 62, I know at one time we used to have the ability to go to the public for taxation for more dollars.

That was taken away a long time ago.

Budgeting for school boards is based on a per pupil basis, it's around sixty two hundred dollars,200.

And you have to work within that budget.

I know when I was a trust trustee, I tried to get the our council to uh we did a needs budget, uh not an official budget, but if you actually did that as your actual budget, they would fire you.

They did that up in the uh up in northern uh up in Qualicum.

They fired this trustees.

So they have no means to increase their funds.

And if they were to add a program or fund the crossing guard program, they'd have to cut something else.

So what do you cut?

I know they already cut music.

Someone mentioned that, some of the music programs and other programs.

Also, because we only have the funding in place to the end of June, uh, and that that that'll come quickly.

I know it's mid-January, but before you know it, it'll be then.

And if we don't fund it, and if this if they don't find money somewhere else, uh those school crossing cards will have to be laid off.

They some if they've been around for a long time, they may bump someone else.

And then you have the bumping procedures.

But that takes time, and it causes a lot of stress and uh uh uh for their whole system to do to that.

You're dealing with multiple multiple people.

So um the reason for this motion was to limit it to $41,000 to cover for 2023, 2024, and then beyond that, it's not committing us to that.

Uh be nice to meet with the uh school board and get some MU's from other boards and and use that as a as a template and and work from there.

Thank you, Councillor Brown, Councillor Lemon.

I see you have your microphone on, so you're ready to speak.

Oh, thank you.

Um, I could support that as with the understanding that there is a limit to the MOU, that it is not an open-ended MOU.

Are you proposing uh for a limit suggesting?

I'm I'm I'm believing that in that in his in his motion, Councillor Brown said um a negotiated MOU.

So in negotiating that, I I'm that's the intent, yeah.

That it not be open-ended.

That's the intent, yes.

Thank you, Councillor Lemon.

Counselor Matz.

Yeah.

So if the decision was just simply to fund them for next year, and then you you don't need an MOU.

Let's I mean that's kind of irrelevant.

You need to have some sort of agreement.

You shouldn't be even talking about signing an MOU.

Between last year and this year, we've had about a I don't know, eight or nine percent increase.

No like really explanation of why there was a, you know, pretty soon 10% this year, 10% next year, pretty soon you're talking about real money, as they say.

Um I'm really unhappy with just the fact that we don't have a real good understanding of what what was being proposed.

We had just it came to us, there's been the we haven't got information, we haven't got a staff report, and it's not part of our funding process that would normally come up as Allison had mentioned.

We would come up and we would just uh you know, if you want to put a placeholder, if this was changed to a placeholder for 41,000 in the budget, and then we would have a discussion at the budget.

I'm I'm happy with that, because then we'd still have the opportunity to have a discussion as well as have ever all members of council.

I just have a problem the way we're going about this.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Counselor Ruther.

Yes, thanks.

Uh just historical perspective.

Um uh let's not forget that um in the long ago is is uh command council Brown is saying, school boards had the ability to raise taxes.

That got taken away.

Then um we had uh parents, um, as Linda Drawn said, um, where they were selling wrapping paper and cupcakes and doing bottle drives, trying to raise funds.

They tried to take it upon themselves.

Then fortunately, um beacon Services came along from 2006 to 2018.

But what an uphill battle to get an organized volunteers.

And their budget was quite considerable, what they um what they were taking on as a society.

Um they eventually folded, and then we had the Greater Victoria Crossing Guards Association.

Basically, one person, one parent, taking this momentous task on across the region, again, struggling night and day, trying to get volunteers to commit themselves.

So, you know, any idea that uh we might be able to rely on faithfully, that we uh on PACs and on school boards and so forth, really is uh on sadly not um not uh uh the grim reality is is historically shown to us.

VROL has been consistent in its support for uh crossing guards back to 2018.

You know it was three 3100 31,029 and the last one being 37500.

No now we're asking for information from staff.

We never asked for that information uh when this matter was discussed in Canberra in September.

We didn't ask for any staff report.

So um and and yet we were quite willing to uh make this decision.

Maryor Helps uh did not um uh take the same position.

They she does feel that you know a municipality should um be committed to uh doing their part for their taxpayers and their children so it's um uh I I think uh and you know Colwood Cole and uh Langford have got their arrangements in the 62 and and the budget amount comes right out of the operational uh funding it's not grants and aid it's not capital so they've um they've given their assurances to their school districts um so um to say that we need to get more information we're gonna get that as we have our representatives negotiate with uh the MOU with this the uh the trustees the school board um and PAX can jump in as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Counselor Rogers.

Counselor McKay.

Thank you um another reason I think that it would be only due diligence for us to await a staff report.

I believe, based on the advice I've received in that experience, that paying for unionized school employees, their salaries and benefits on a variable and cost recovery basis would risk us potentially creating an employer-employee relationship that would make us more liable or more likely to be found liable by a court if something were to happen due to their actions.

So that's why I would like to see a report with risks, uh, potentially previous legal advice included as well.

Thank you.

anybody else was the week?

Counselor Rogers.

The MOU will sort that out.

We don't need a staff report to to delay this.

We can give our assurances to the public now.

The MOU can can sort out the terms.

There are some creative options where we may not have to, and I don't think that we're going to have to uh you know go down that thorny road.

Let's, you know, if indeed the MOU f puts us in that position, then we can debate that and and consider the implications.

But for now, let's give the assurances to the parents.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Counselor Matson.

So I think we could probably provide some assurance by just simply putting it as a placeholder and have it as a budget discussion, but that's not the point I wanted to make.

I just wanted to confirm what what Allison had said because for many years council just provided a grant and we wouldn't pay for salaries.

We are really clear about that because we had legal advice saying that by paying for the salaries of individuals we could be taking on a liability.

I mean, that's certainly something we'd heard for years.

And so as it stands, I mean I can't support this motion.

I'm happy to support a placeholder and have a budget discussion.

Thank you, Councilor Matson.

Counselor Brown.

Okay, all in all due respect.

Um we're providing the work we would provide the funds to school district sixty-two.

We're just giving them the money.

They're clearly their employees, not our employees.

They even in the motion says they administer all aspects of the uh so I don't see where that's even an issue.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

Further discussion.

Call the question.

So those in favor of Councillor Brown's um recommendation for motion was that the town would enter into a memorandum of understanding with school district sixty-one for the uh ongoing provision of school guard or school crossing guards at View Royal and Eagle View Elementary Schools, School District 61 will be responsible for all administration of the program.

Uh uh the town of View Royal will fund $41,000 but not exceed that amount for the school year 20 uh 23-2024.

How the program is operated and funding it funded will be negotiated in the memorandum of understanding.

So all in favor, all opposed.

So uh opposed are councilor Rogers and Councillor McKenzie.

Uh motion passed, or so counselor Mattson and Councilor McKenzie.

Um and uh further discussion or motions on this topic.

Councilor Rogers.

Okay.

To um facilitate the process.

I wonder if um I could make a motion to um nominate uh Councilor Brown and Councilor McKenzie uh as um our council reps uh to facilitate that and mo you with the school district sixty one.

I've moved that motion.

Counselor Brown and Councilor McKenzie.

Uh before we move to uh a second, are you willing to accept that task?

Yeah, certainly.

I'd be proud to, yeah.

Counselor McKenzie.

Uh I would definitely be willing.

I just don't know if because I'm on the pack, um committee, whether okay, yeah.

No, that's good.

So could you read that motion again so we all comprehend that unless you had a question, Councilor?

I was curious as what the motion means.

Like what does facilitate mean?

And that would the committee have to would the two of them have to come back to council before to I mean they can't negotiate an agreement and then bring it back to us is what I'm saying.

As a feta compli would have to somehow have some sort of a relationship and linkage between councils.

Are are you proposing something, Councilor Matson?

I I can't vote on this because I really don't know what it means.

Counselor Rogers.

What if we give maybe get a seconder so I can seconder?

Uh so counselor Rogers has a motion on the table.

It's to appoint counselors uh Brown and McKenzie to negotiate the memorandum of understanding uh with uh school district sixty-one on behalf of the town town royal doesn't give them approval powers.

I don't think Miss Councilor Matson gives them negotiating powers to bring us back something.

Um and uh all in so if we need a second or yeah I'll second.

I don't know if that's the same thing.

Councilor Brown's second seconds for the court just so we have discussion.

And if I may clarify for uh councillor Matson, so um clearly we um we want to be able to negotiate that the MOU uh quickly and it's just we're asking these two counselors to um work with negotiate, but they're not going to conclude.

They're going to work out the terms and and uh on the issues that we're we're concerned about, get those the funding options and so forth, and negotiate all that out.

Um and then they would bring back a a draft for for council's consideration.

Sure, but I'm just I mean you've already decided to fund them.

Why for the year why s why they're rushing an MOU?

Uh to keep the momentum going, yeah, you worship uh staff.

Yeah, I think I think the issue is to to actually come with more than a year-to-year um funding and with for stability.

That's the intent there.

Staff when the motion was was passed, I was assuming that staff would be negotiating with the staff in the school district as opposed to counselors negotiating with the staff in the school district.

And I think staff it could be both.

We'd have counselors assigned uh to to assist in that for on behalf of council.

Yeah, the the the certainly I'm not uh discounting, and I would really want staff to be involved, but I would also um ask that uh we have the because it is a political thing, uh the the issues are coming from this this uh table is that if we have two counselors, uh then they can uh really make sure that all the concerns and issues are dealt with along with the staff.

That's certainly what I would expect is to have a staff member there by all means counselor lemon i i trust staff to to understand um our intent here and to negotiate on our behalf and bring back a report um to us so i i i don't think we have a place at the same table as the staff of the i'm sure i'm sure the school this if the school district has has um has trustees at the table, fine, but as it is at this point, I would just leave it staff to staff.

Yeah, I think the the intent is for for council's awareness in the process, and it's not trusting staff at all.

I don't think counselor lemon.

I think it's more of an issue of uh it being um a significant issue for our residents and having um a counselor appointed there would be representing council's best interest as well as just the MOU.

And it's not uh again, it's not an issue of of trust and staff, but we'll also give some insight for council into the process um directly and ongoing.

Um I'm gonna go with counselor Rogers and then Counselor Moore.

Yeah.

Um staff to TAF and council to school board.

School board are elected trustees, and we are elected municipal representatives.

So there are two planes.

I don't think um one is exclusive to the other or disrespects the other.

This is something that I think is fair and reasonable to have a negotiated, you know, it was Chair Duncan that brought the idea of an MOU before us.

So I would uh really expect that um uh the the board school board and uh municipality needs to work on this politically and as well.

Thank you, Councillor Rogers.

Counselor Brown.

Yeah, I would expect that uh uh uh Chair Duncan would come or she was send another trustee, perhaps the trustee assigned to View Royal and Eagle View School.

The I can't remember her name off the top of my head, but I know they've assigned uh trustees to subsist schools, so that would be that would be very appropriate.

Plus, uh obviously a staff member from school board as well.

Thank you, Councillor Brown, Councilor Matt.

Following up on what Councillor Lemmon said, I mean, historically, when we've had an MOU, staff have done the negotiation and simply brought it to us that and they come back to us on a regular basis, say here's where we are, and we provide input.

Yeah.

And so they would do this on our behalf.

It just makes sense.

They're the experts.

Um, that's why we hire them and pay them the big bucks.

And I think they should be doing that as opposed to members of council.

Thank you, Councillor Matson.

Counselor Roger.

Yeah, um, there's lots of instances where um MOUs and negotiations are going on between uh with political uh representation as well.

Um we have that um, you know, with uh the West Shore Parks and Recon and the members' meetings and and there's lots of other negotiations.

We could um I suppose, yeah.

So I I would really feel that a council representative is is um um is important.

So that's the motion.

Um got the motion, counselor brand.

Sorry to take so many times, but uh just in my background as a school trustee, 12 years, uh RCMP member for 32 years.

Uh I've done multiple MOUs, particularly when I work for the Capitol Regional District.

Uh I think that uh I'm happy that uh Council Rogers is has suggested I be on that group, and I'd be happy to, even as an observer, as a person that can provide provide input, I'm quite happy with that.

Because obviously we're gonna have to bring it back to council to discuss.

Thank you.

Councilman.

I just think we're putting staff in a really uncomfortable situation.

Um this is this would be unusual, extraordinary.

Um staff are extremely confident.

They are the professionals, and no matter what your past experience is, it's not it's it it's it's not the subject of anyway.

It's it's it's not relevant to this.

Um I I I'm I will be voting against this.

Okay, thank you.

So we've got a motion on the table council of Kenzie.

Um I would I agree with uh counselor Lemmon.

I feel like that mo you is very operational and it doesn't need um political oversight at that point it's when it comes to us that we'll we'll have a look at it but um i don't think we need to be involved in the the the really nitty gritty uh operation operations of it thank you counselor mackenzie so we got a motion on the table you initially agreed just to remind you that you no i agreed to be um one of potentially one of the people but not to the motion okay thank you.

So we've got a motion on the table now for um to say it again.

Uh please, counselor Rogers.

Yeah um vo uh i moved that uh councillors uh brown and makense uh be council reps on in the negotiation for the MU along with staff.

I'll add that in.

Thank you.

And uh was seconded by or did you second it, Councilor Brown?

Okay, reluctantly.

Okay.

Uh and we'll call the question on the representation because we've already said that in our first motion that they uh we'd seek a memorandum of understanding be negotiated.

Uh the motion on the floor was to include uh counselors in the negotiation.

Um so call the question.

All in favor of counselor Rogers' suggestion of having counselors Brown and Mackenzie uh on the memorandum of understanding negotiation all in favor i'll be abstaining with that i'll be abstaining okay and all opposed so councillors lemon and mattson and uh McKenzie opposed and counselor Brown abstained and we have counselor Rogers and Mayor Tobias uh voting in favor so that motion does not pass and die so I think staff's gonna tell us she can't abstain.

Steph.

Just a point of order, Mayor Tobias.

Abstaining is is not an option.

Uh counselor who chooses not to vote is voting in the affirmative.

Thanks, Steph.

That's a good reminder.

So now we have a split vote, and the motion is defeated based on the split vote.

Uh, but good point of order.

Oh, make a suggestion.

Maybe we could tell everyone who is at the school issue that it's all over and they can go home now.

Yes, yeah.

Invite those uh who are there for um for the issues arising from uh the uh crossing guard funding that that has been passed with a motion to fund for school year 23 to 24 and a member of understanding be negotiated uh with the school board.

So you are free to stay if you so choose, but uh I know you've got young ones if you uh choose to leave.

And I want to thank you for coming out this evening.

Counselor Lemon.

Yeah, I've I have a question to staff regarding um procedures.

Uh when there's when there's an even number at the table here and there's a three-two split between counselors.

Does that not the mayor typically wouldn't cast a vote?

Am I correct?

Mayor Temaras for Councillor Lemon.

The uh the mayor always votes.

The mayor is not there to make a deciding vote, rather, he participates in every vote.

But okay.

And so if there's equal numbers, uh the motion dies.

If that's a split decision, then there's not a majority, so it just dies.

Councilor Brown.

Yeah, on the point of order.

Uh in future, if I want to abstain, I'll simply declare potential conflict of interest, leave the room and get called back in.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Brown.

So I think we've had a lot of discussion about um crossing guards.

And uh we can move to reports, perhaps something a little bit less contentious and more entertaining.

Uh invite staff to uh to start with uh provincial infrastructure planning grant uh for strategic asset management plan.

Uh, I've been the young director of engineering here.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Uh yeah, this is one of two um grants that we want to bring to the table here.

Uh no presentation, but both of these are based on um asset management, and we did uh provide a um a presentation to yourselves on December 13th, and this is kind of dovetails into that discussion.

So uh open to any questions uh from you, and the recommendation is for us to allow to apply for this grant.

Move staff's recommendation.

Second.

All in favor.

That was carried unanimously.

Next.

Second thing, same thing.

Move staff recommendation, staff recommendation, same thing.

Perfect.

All in favor, any opposed.

All in favor.

Any opposed.

Uh none none opposed.

Motion carries.

Feel free to carry on with that one as well, staff.

Um apparent apparently council is an appetite to spend other people's money.

And we have uh another one, and I'm not sure if that's going online or not for the coastal adaptation plan seeking uh grant application from the uh university or union of British Columbia municipalities.

Thank you, worship.

Jeff Chelsea planner.

Um I'm again no presentation, but I'm here if there's any questions about the report.

I do have a question.

What what is the end state of the report that we're hoping for?

Is it a map as well of uh areas potentially of risk given climate change, global warming?

Is that what we're after here?

Uh through your worship, um that's that's part the first there's two phases to the uh to the grant.

The first one is for collecting the data information.

So that does give you information on on the areas that are more susceptible susceptible to uh sea level rise.

The second part of it is how do we address it through policy?

Thank you.

Other questions?

Uh Councilor Matson.

Yeah, I mean I mean one of my concerns is when I see a price tag of $110,000 on this one, and I don't know how this fits in with what might be done by the CRD.

And from the best of my recollection, this is sort of the first time we've seen this.

So I want to know is there a rush to like is there a need to have this done now before we sort of discuss further exactly what what's going to happen with in terms of this?

Thanks.

Uh through your worship.

Uh so the this the capital regional district did do a study at a regional level uh in 2019, and uh and this is uh a more detailed look for our municipality to look at um specific uh areas where there may be more um that may be more at risk.

Uh the city of Calwood did a study, uh did a similar just the exact same level of detail that we're requesting now.

They're more municipal level.

Uh and they conducted that one about uh I think 2021.

Uh and the reason we are coming to you now, the uh the project was actually uh in our financial plan um previously, uh but we're bringing it forward to you now because there's a grant opportunity that would pay for it.

Otherwise, we have to seek other sorts of of funding to make this happen.

So this helps expedite this project.

Okay, so I I'm gonna just thanks.

So the main main thing was why we're doing this now, but since it's a grant funding opportunity, I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Just uh quickly um Jeff what's what's the breakdown for towns cost vice grant costs hundred percent eighty percent uh pretty share that the grant actually covers would cover the consultant fees and uh the staff sort of management side of things would be covered by the town so that's part of our uh everyday kind of business but the the grants would cover all the consulting work so in my simple uh big bills in one pocket uh small bills in the other pocket level of accounting what you're saying is that it would be absorbed by town costs that it wouldn't be a capital cost necessarily associated with it, that it would be the grant would pay the consultants and then processing time would go to uh normal staff time.

Thank you for helping me understand that.

And Councilor Roger.

Yes, thank you.

I I think this is a you know really important.

Thank you very much for doing this work.

Um, I certainly agree with Council Mattson that um uh this is a holistic issue, um, particularly when we talk about um uh the um inlet, the portage inlet.

Uh we um and I've seen the CRD report 2021.

Um I think it's mandatory reading for everybody who lives uh in View Oil and to understand uh what those projections are and what the implications are for our roads and our infrastructure.

Uh, I note that um the sewer master plan has identified storm um both storm surges and atmospheric rivers and um uh sea level rise as critical issues because we have the Midwood um pump station, we have the CRD pump station both at precarious sea levels, and what the heck are we going to do about protecting that infrastructure?

So this is a mitigation and adaption plan that has to happen.

We have other municipalities that are way ahead of us on this one.

But the point still remains.

We have Esquammel, Victoria, Sanit all playing a part in this where the the the waters are going to rise.

You know, we lose our parks, we have to build roads to um uh to Christie Point, we have to elevate um, you know, the island highway.

We put the ENN at risk.

There's all those possibilities that we have to plan for and how we're going to address, you know, and uh it will take big dollars and it'd be a regional coordination.

So I guess the question is will this report help us work with other municipalities in that coordination and the funding sharing and identify for grants uh provincially and federally.

Uh through your ship, that's a big question.

Uh I think this project focused on on the actual physical impacts to to the town in terms of how you address it.

Uh, that certainly the second phase of the project can open that question.

Uh the capital regional district does have the CR radar on their radar, and that's it's been something they've been working with for many years.

And so we're actually building on the work that they did, but focusing on things that impact the town itself.

Great.

I think this counselor rogers, this this is just a simple let's get it, and then we can see the report and ask questions then.

So if we if we could just weave it a lot on the agenda still, so if we could sum up, thank you.

Yeah, please.

It's got it all there.

You know, as far as I could tell, we know what the problem is, but thank you.

Let's uh let's get it into action.

I'm Rustaf's recommendation.

Thank you.

Uh all in favor?

None opposed.

Motion carries unanimously.

Um, can I ask my colleagues' indulgence in whilst we are um looking at grants for staff to investigate any low-lying fruit for urban forestation and View Royal?

I know there's been a CRD LIDAR study that I'm still trying to get access to, even though we paid for.

Would uh council entertain uh directing staff to seek opportunities that might be available for us for funding to study the effect of climate change on our urban forests and parks.

I'd need a seconder for that.

All in favor?

None opposed.

Uh staff, if you could just include that in.

So while you're looking for low-hanging fruit, if anybody's coming around with a pocket of dollars wanting to study climate change and effects on urban forest, I would very much appreciate that.

Thank you.

And now we've got a moving down to item D, uh place uh policing facilities expansion project.

I think I covered everything there.

Sage Lee Nodge from Staff and over to staff for uh that.

There's a staff recommendation uh um from the CAO.

Do you want to address that, Kim?

Ken, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor Tobias.

Um this is the first occasion for this subject to be in front of council and the public.

Um Colwid presented to their council a week ago, and I expect that Langford will be presenting in uh the near future.

So the issue um comes up probably in in 2018.

Uh we recognize that uh as our communities grow, we will need more RCP to maintain current levels of service.

Um there will be increased specialized police services, more need for technology, more need for modern facilities.

In uh July 2019, the superintendent did a preliminary space and needs assessment of the facility using a model provided by the RCMP.

Over time, a preliminary site survey was done for redevelopment of the site.

Redevelopment concepts were developed and a feasibility study done.

The 1960s facility is featured on the left hand side of the presentation.

The building itself is a total of 37,000 square feet.

The property is owned by the city of Calwood, the City of Langford, and the town of Vill Royal.

It's occupied by the RCMP, Crest, the Capital Regional Emergency Services Telecommunications, Canadian Firearms Safety Program, and of course provincially funded RCMP.

The ownership is cost short on the basis of a formula including 1997, our share was 18.4% assessments.

In 2021, our share became 15.56%.

And that's because our growth in population and our growth in assessments is less than our partners.

So how much space do we need?

How far in the future do we project to understand that space requirement?

What are the population projections for preferred planning horizon?

How many members will be required to support our communities?

And how much space do we need to accommodate those members and the support staff?

So when we looked at the planning horizon, we looked at 15, 20, and 25 year population estimates.

The estimates varied by community.

The Town of View Royal made use of BC stats with the assistance of the Capital Regional District.

We recognized in our projections that the green space for developable land is reduced, and the town of View Royal is mostly going to be doing redevelopment in our future.

Colwood took a 2.5% estimate for the term, and Langford had a more detailed approach to estimating their growth.

So, how many RCMP to serve our population in 2045?

Currently, the ratio of police to population is one policeman for every 827 persons.

For the municipally funded populations, the ratio for larger communities is one policeman for 750 people, and for the smaller communities, one policeman for 875.

The administrative support required for the RCMP is one admin support person for every three RCMP.

So in terms of the 20-year 2045 population, based on the population and those ratios, we will have 19 RCMP in 2045, and we will have a total of 210 RCMP with 70 support staff and a total of 281 full-time equivalents.

How much space do we need?

The space requirements are established using the RCMP requirements.

Our police unit agreement with the province in Canada says that we are required to provide accommodation to their satisfaction, their respects.

And so the space requirements include 39,000 square feet for general units, 138 for common units, major crimes, serious crimes, and 7,250 square feet for special units.

Parking requirements are a significant part of this cost estimate.

There are 393 stalls anticipated.

We recognize that the not all the members are at the facility at the same time, and hence the 75% occupancy.

We compared our projections with the current state in the West Shore and the estimates that Kelowna recently went through, and we concluded that our numbers are in the ballpark.

In summary, we require a building of 92,500 square feet.

It translates to demolishing the 1960s structure, building a new building on the 1960s footprint, retaining the existing 1999 facility, but spending 25% of redevelopment to meet program needs, and it incorporates 0.7 acres of adjacent Langford-owned residential property to increase parking capacity.

So, in this outcome, the um the new building replacing the 1960s structure becomes an eight-story building with a um an additional storage for service.

The future parking requirements are significant, and the drawing depicts parking stalls along the ENN rail for a significant distance.

The additional stalls required are likely to be addressed with revised site plans, additional lease land, additional land acquisition on the east side to Winster, or future transport modal shifts reducing the requirements.

We looked at three different locations: Western Speedway, the Ridley family land on Allendale Road, and Woodsmere Holdings.

The RCMP expresses strong preference for the current location with easy access to Highway One.

And looking at the capital cost, the bottom line for redevelopment is $82.4 million.

To build new, the cost is $98.3 million.

The redevelopment does include $6 million in seismic upgrading costs regarding the 1999 facility.

The operating cost and capital maintenance of the redevelopment is considerably more expensive on an annual basis.

However, the whole life cost still demonstrates on a net present value basis that the redevelopment option is the better option from a cost perspective only.

So 15, 20, 25 year population estimates.

C sizes and costs are considerably different.

The 15-year option shows a complement of 250 members and support staff, while the 25-year option requires 315 members and support staff.

Why bill it to 2045?

I expect that the minimum finance term is likely 20 years.

And so we don't want to be outgrowing our building and still be paying for the capital cost or the debt payments associated with the capital cost.

The capacity of the building would ideally meet community requirements to mirror the financing term.

Construction begins earliest, 23-24, with earliest completion in 25-26.

The building to 2045 coincides with the 20-year term.

15 to 20% of the space could be leased on 10 to 15 year terms until required by the RCMP.

Of course, that occupancy would likely require a use that's compatible with the RCMP use.

Construction costs are only increasing since June 2021.

The Class D estimate has increased approximately 2.7% from or $1.65 million for the 2045 bill.

So there is a sense of urgency in terms of that cost increase, albeit you know, when we look at the news recession, uh, we do see that the construction activity is still doing very well in both Caulwood, Langford, and NP Royal.

So the recommendations then are to redevelop the existing site, build to a 2045 requirement.

The total gross place would be 92,417 square feet.

The capital cost to redevelopment is 82.4 million.

And so when we look at the cost share, again on the basis of 50% population and 50% assessment, Langford will be paying 60.13 percent, View Royal 15.56%, and COVID 24.31%.

But we should note that these are all 2021 numbers.

And so when we start looking at that growth, and um the fact that Langford and Collwood will be growing at a faster rate than does View Royal, our share in 2025 should not be 15.5 percent.

So if I go back a couple slides, when we look at these population estimates, the 2040 estimate is 15,006.

So roughly 10 percent.

2045, our population is 16 compared to 167,000, again, roughly 10 percent.

And in 2050, 17,007, definitely less than 10%.

And when you consider the other half of the equation, the assessment process, my my um my conclusion is that based on the growth estimates for Langford, their assessments are going to increase substantially more than will be royal.

And that does mean that our share will not be the um 15.56% near the end of the term of the debt.

And so I think it's important that we keep that in mind when we start looking at how a project like this will be financed.

Um if, for example, each community finances its own share.

We finance 12.8, we pay it off in 20 years based on today's number, that makes sense.

But if we all share the debt finance through the capital regional district and cost share that debt on the basis of our cost sharing formula, we will be expanding less, it will be far less.

In um in June, this timeline was was projected in terms of how we might conclude this project.

We had a meeting in the very early part of last year with all of the mayors.

And at that time, the mayor has said, well, this is something that's that's a debt finance, and so the electorate will be looking at um the cost and voting to proceed or not.

We need to make sure that our costs are accurate.

And so the mission for staff, the assignment that we got last year was to uh nail down that cost.

And so over the last six, eight months, we we concluded that the best process to procure the building was an IPD process, an integrated project delivery.

And so we intended that we would go through a validation exercise.

We would procure an IPD team.

The IPD team would begin the process of validation.

Validation involves enhancing the design from a class D to something more certain and then establishing a cost associated with that more designed building.

And so the ask today is to fund $1.2 million shared between the three municipalities to do the procure the advisor, procure the IPD team.

The IPD team will begin the validation phase, and then the validation report will be the basis for a approval by the electorate, whether it's a referendum or an alternate approval process.

And so the intention would be that having introduced this project to the public today, we now need to get on a program to promote the project.

Well, promote educate our public, engage them to make sure that they understand what the ask is, what the objective is, why we need a new building, what the cost of that building is, and who's going to pay for it.

And so the report speaks to both the $1.2 million to fund the next phase.

Our share of that is $186,720, which is 15.56% of the $1.2 million.

And it is also a part of that $84 million that we end up spending ultimately.

Now, I've covered a lot of material.

I'm sure you have some questions.

Certainly, Council Rogers will have some questions.

I'm not sure what I can answer, but I'll do my best.

I'm gonna go first, so I'm gonna take that liberty.

And uh Kim, I I appreciate that there's been considerable time put into this, and I want to recognize the work um that's been done.

And it's there is a formula just so that council and the public is is aware of if we need this many police resources, this is the type of office space that they need.

It's not a, well, couldn't we lease some space from them?

Other it has to be secure and and whatnot.

And unfortunately, that costs a great deal of money.

I have a question about order, uh, in that we're doing things from my perspective out of order.

Uh, now that there's been an election, we need an engagement page up with all the information on it for some time to gather uh you know comments from the public before we even invest $186,000, or it could be concurrent, but right now we need to get that project information out for three municipalities, well, actually more Highlands and Machosen as well, and the rest of the district, you know, so that they uh everybody's aware uh and it's transparent.

Here's why we need it, here's the cost of it, and and here's the uh here's the benefit of it.

It's it's it's gonna come at a cost.

And this to remind everybody like switching to a a regional police force does not um you know take us out of an obligation uh to to fund a police building.

There's a lot of money, right?

Um, and uh there's a couple other concerns that I have.

One is that I looked at the model from Fort St.

John, and they got a significant amount of money from the federal government for lead construction.

And I don't see any grants or requests for other fundings from other levels of government within our formula.

And by seeking other opportunities for a long term plan.

And maybe that comes in with this next scoping exercise.

So I'll stop there, Kim.

So my first one was order, get the message out to the public by a website that they could engage with and provide feedback, and if not feedback initially, then at least information for the public.

But your thoughts.

Um well, I'd like I said, this is the first opportunity for the public to hear about this requirement.

And um public information is is paramount.

Um I would I would hope that the um the process because there's a significant concern about the escalation of the cost of this building.

Um the the estimate initially was in the high 60s, and now we're at at over 80.

If that trend continues, you know, we're going to be behind the eight ball even more.

Um, I would hope that we could do both concurrently.

The 186,000 is a big bill, but we also have to recognize that the police unit agreement requires that we provide the building.

And so if we don't, the consequences are one where Canada provides the building at a greater cost to us.

Um definitely uh a page common for all of our West Shore communities to share so that all of the information is out there for all three of our communities makes a lot of sense.

Thank you.

Um yeah, any other comments, Councillor Brown.

Thank you, Kim.

Excellent uh presentation, and you answered about 15 of the questions I had written down.

Uh just a question, because other than the three municipalities, obviously Machosen and Highlands.

I hate to pick on our small neighbors, but uh I know Machosen it just went over the 5,000 marks, so they're in the same group as us, the 5,000 to 15,000.

So I know it would be a small share.

Uh I think our population is about 40% of the size of ours.

Um so why wouldn't they be included in in some of those costs?

We anticipate that Machosen will still be policed out of the West Shore detachment.

The um the issue of Machosen being a partner in ownership of the building is something that was discussed extensively, and and the conclusion was that it would be to Machosen's advantage and ours if they were more tenant.

So they will be there, but um rather than P part owner, they would be tenants.

So that would help offset some of the costs, obviously, just like some of the things you mentioned.

And I just want to echo what Sid has just or Mayor Tobias just said about grants too.

I mean, uh, we're also they're also policing uh the multiple First Nations as well.

So uh I would hope there'd be some grants available from uh the federal government and provincial government.

Yes, we we did um we did speak with um um cowchan, we spoke with Fort St.

John, we spoke with Kelowna.

Fort St.

John is unique in that that detachment has a larger contingent of provincial Canada RCMP than than municipal.

And so their petition or their participation by the provincial federal jurisdictions is also more significant.

Kelowna um they they built their building and they um projected a significant excess space and find themselves moving into that excess excess space before it was scheduled to be used.

And so it's it's um it it's very contingent on on accurate uh estimates in terms of population, that sort of thing.

Thank you, uh Counselor Metz.

Yes, thank you.

Uh so Kim, thank you.

Uh again.

I know this has been something you've been working on for years with your colleagues uh in other municipalities, and so I just want to thank you for for the work you've done.

One of the questions I did have was you mentioned that uh Colwood chose uh a way of calculating their population.

For the population calculations for projections, was there like a single source, or did each municipality just sort of make up what they think they were going to get to?

Well, I can't speak for the municipalities.

We started out with a blanket approach of okay, if our growth was one percent, this is what it would look like over time, and we considered that to be a low growth situation.

Then we looked at a 3% growth rate and decided, okay, well, that's a medium growth rate, and this is the outcome over time.

And then we looked at a high growth rate.

And after considering those options for a bit, we threw that out.

Um Langford definitely has a good handle on growth objectives, and um have done more work in terms of what's happening in their community, hence their estimates include a variety of different growth rates that diminish over time, you know, based on the um perhaps the level of certainty, you know, the farther forward you project, the less certain you can be.

Um, Colin chose two and a half percent, and that was after they introduced these low, medium, and high growth rates.

I don't know the criteria for getting there.

We decided to make use of the CRD, the BC stats, which looks at things like um migration, births, deaths.

We considered their numbers, and then we considered the fact that we don't have a lot of green space left for development.

It's mostly redevelopment, and so that will influence the numbers over time.

The other question I had was in terms of the overall funding, uh yeah, assessed value will have an impact and as well as population.

So I'm wondering as these things change over time and you have better numbers, will the amount required for each municipality in terms of funding change, or will we be sort of just setting it at a certain point in time and this is how much you will fund, irrespective of what happens with those other uh issues.

So I'm just curious how that works.

Well, the um since 1997, we have had this formula of 50% population and 50% assessments, and that's worked well for us for the last 20 years.

Um that agreement um also suggests that in future we should work on a similar order to that formula.

Um just for clarification.

In terms of debt, though, yeah.

Yeah, just okay with the formula, but when all those things change, will the debt change over time if there's a if the percentages differ?

Oh, that definitely.

Our growth rate is different than than Caldwood and Langford.

So our population is going to be growing at a lesser rate than will Caldwood and Langford.

Similarly, the construction in our town compared to Caldwood and View Royal or Caldwood and Langford are much different.

Langford is growing exponentially compared to what we're doing.

And so the assessments for those communities will grow at a larger rate than will our assessments.

And that means that our share will become smaller while there is increase.

So I guess my question is there a point in time where you set what the amounts each municipality is is to pay or is it just over time you just keep reassessing based on population and assess value and that'll change.

So we could in theory start at like you mentioned 15% and drop down to seven percent then annually we share costs on the basis of that formula.

And annually our assessments change and our population changes at different rates.

And I just note that some of our projections, I think, and I agree with the formula, but we've done something in the past couple of years that we haven't done in 20 years.

And we have five major holes in the ground that are going to welcome new res residents for View Royal within the next two years.

And by just those predictions alone, we're going to grow.

In talking with the mayor of Langford, they have five 25-story towers that have already been approved and under construction.

And most of their zoning is zoned unlimited.

So anything you want to build anywhere, any height, they can go ahead and do it.

So it's very difficult in those circumstances to judge what your population is going to be like in the next little while.

So just looking at um, you know, our CRD population growth from 2006 to 21, View Royals at 32%, SUK is at 55.5%, Langford is at 107.4%, Cowwood's at 29.1%, and uh Machosen's at 5.7.

But uh, you know, it in what you have said, Kim, there's there's a bit of a boom that hasn't slowed down despite everything right now.

So I don't think it's gonna start to back off.

But I think the the point here is that we're all growing.

I think we're probably going to be growing at about the same level, therefore the percentages uh are gonna grow the same.

But there's a magic hour when we hit 15,000 population, Kim.

What's the impact to residents at 15,000 in respect to RCMP?

Ooh, well, the projections that we've used today without considering what's been happening the last couple of years is that we will reach 15,000 by at least 2038.

Um that point in time we move out of the pooled costs of RCMP operations, sharing those costs with all other municipalities with a population of less than 15,000, to outside that pool where we pay 90% of actual.

And so we will experience a significant increase in costs.

If I were to pull a number out of the air, it's probably close to a couple million bucks.

And we have been setting aside funds on an annual basis in anticipation of that.

But in addition to that, we can expect to see a greater volatility in costs for RCMP.

We have the benefit of a pool, which means our costs will be relatively smooth.

We will see them become lumpy based on the events that actually occur within our RCMP operations.

So I think the pennies drop for me, just in terms of what I was referring to.

So once the building is built, we'll end up with a for lack of a better term, a mortgage that we pay off every year of say two million dollars, and the percentage of that, whatever that amount is every year, will likely drop for us and increase for Collwood and Lankford.