Council Meeting

Great, thank you very much.

Good evening, everyone.

We'll call the council meeting to order at 7 o'clock.

And we recognize the Lekwungan speaking people that their historic connections to these lands continue to this day.

This meeting tonight is being held under the auspices of Ministerial Order M192 due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This evening we will hear from the public during the public participation and question period portions of the agenda.

If you wish to provide comments by telephone, the instructions are on the screen.

You call 778-402-9227 and when prompted, enter conference ID 705-725-197 pound.

At the appropriate time in the agenda.

I will then announce the last four digits of your phone number, ask you to mute the live webcast to avoid feedback, ask you not to use speakerphone to ensure sound quality, and ask that you unmute yourself by pressing star 6.

To begin with, please give us your name and address for the record, and then you can give us the benefit of your views.

If you provide any comment through the chat feature, that feature is open during the public participation period and the question period.

And again, we would ask that you provide your name and address.

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.

Thank you.

And public participation will come up pretty quickly tonight, I would say.

So if you're thinking of calling in, you might want to do that fairly soon.

And with that, if I can get him.

Oh, so we're gonna move rearrange the agenda and put the.

Oh, and I should just also point out that councillor Matsen is with us tonight.

While he's not at his seat, he is on the telephone at home.

Welcome, Councillor Mattson.

Um so we work I'm here.

Yeah, good.

Thanks, Ron.

Just checking.

So we're going to move the budget portion of the agenda to basically 11b.

Um the feeling being that we could dispense with the rest of the meeting and then we can gauge how much time we want to devote to the budget.

So with that amendment, if I can get a motion to approve the agenda, so moved second, moved by councillor Lemmon, seconded by Councillor Rogers.

All in favor opposed, that's carried.

So I just hope to get back up.

So we have minutes from February the second, the public hearing, and then also a special council meeting on January 26th.

Move adoption of all A, B, and C.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Rogers.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Levin.

Any comments?

Okay.

All in favor.

Opposed.

That's carried.

Under Mayor's report, I've got a couple of things.

First off, I just want to convey thanks to our contractors and to staff for the snow clearing on the weekend.

As usual, we seem to get glowing reports and our roads were in better shape than neighboring jurisdictions pretty quickly.

So it was good to see.

And the other, I've been asked by a few residents about Thetis Cove.

Um, so I prepared a few words here.

It's not lengthy, but I'm gonna read it so that it forms part of the record and I hope it clears up some confusion.

So I've been asked by a few residents in recent days about the Thetis Cove property and the province's announcement that it has purchased this land.

Many residents, especially those living in Aldersmith, are naturally concerned.

If residents are concerned about the lack of any consultation with them, I encourage them to take that up with the province.

The town of Urowa was not informed of the purchase until well after the closing date.

However, in discussions with the province since and also with Chief Rob Thomas from the Esquimalt Nation, it is clear that discussions will take place in the future.

The land will not be transferred to the nation for approximately three to five years, and during that time, all parties will be involved to see that all interests are protected.

I have received assurance from the nation that they have no interest in industrial uses of the land, but would prefer to see housing for their members along with the possibility of economic development.

Moving forward, we will all benefit from working together with the nation and the province in a collaborative manner.

Our council and our staff will work to ensure that the towns and the residents' interests are protected.

The Esquimalt Nation and the Town of Vie Royal are direct neighbors and friends, and by working together in a mutually respectful and progressive way, we will ensure that both communities' interests are met throughout the upcoming process.

Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you would like to discuss further.

As more information is made available, we will ensure that it is shared with the community.

And there is a letter on tonight's agenda which was put on really just for information purposes more than anything else, but we'll be discussing that when we get to the that on the agenda.

Thank you very much.

So next up is public participation.

Are there any callers on the line staff?

No, your worship.

Currently, we do not have any callers.

We do not have any chat comments, this ED.

Is there anyone on the chat feature?

Thank you, Mayor Speech.

Okay, thank you.

So we'll go right to the committee of the whole resolutions.

I would move one and two.

Okay.

So one and two have been moved by Councillor Rogers.

So secondary.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Kualowich.

Okay, so everyone's good on those two.

All in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.

Okay, and we have number three.

Councilor Lemon, are you prepared to move number three?

Um yes, I will move number three.

Second.

Okay, so it's moved by Councillor Lemmon, seconded by Councillor Mattson.

Obviously, there's going to be some discussion on this, although we did go over it pretty thoroughly last week.

Comments.

Yeah, I was just looking to Councillor Lemon first, but yeah, go ahead.

Yeah.

Oh, that's right.

That's okay.

I don't know.

I'm not sure that's no, no, I you no, I I was I was refreshing my memory on my report at committee as a whole and um I'm fine.

And I do have some comments.

Okay.

Okay go ahead Ron because you were the seconder.

Sure well I understand some of the concerns that it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense right now.

Um in terms of there just being two properties using the uh using the access to the road and and the light um and while I understand we have the uh the option of whether or not we would put in the light, I would certainly support putting it in now because it's uh it's it's all gonna be at uh highways costs.

And one of the things I would like to do in the future though is uh before we actually turn on the lights, uh that we have that discussion on on whether on when it's actually required as opposed to as soon as it's put in.

So with that, I will be supporting the motion.

Okay, thank you.

Counselor Rogers.

Yes, thanks.

Um yeah, I I guess I'd wish that um we'd heard more of um reasons why uh and um how concerns would be mitigated um if and when the light went in, uh particularly with the uh the rapid bus.

Um I I'm still very concerned that um any savings of time um that the the expensive rapid bus, what $4 million dollars worth of work, would um would be minimal or certainly reduced by having an additional traffic light between six mile and the thetis interchange.

And I would have had a lot more comfort if uh we'd seen the traffic studies.

We've been able to confirm with Ministry Highways that they have approved the intersection, you know, that the implications on six mile um would um uh would would not be adverse.

Um and I I guess um my view of um the the rapid bus lanes, particularly that which is going into town, um the rapid bus um you know doesn't is already constrained with the bridge.

There are no bus jumping queues um available because of that constraint.

And with the the risk of a further backup, and while I appreciate what Council Matson is saying is we put the light in and then see what happens, and maybe you maybe not turn it on.

Well, I think once you've got an expensive light in, you really don't have much choice but to turn it on.

And I guess the other concern I have is that uh we know that the transit uh in their previous reports have talked of a um 300-car parking uh parking ride on that site.

Um frankly, I I think this is an ulterior motive to um uh make that access available.

Um that is a a lot of cars probably coming down to sixth mile uh to go to this park and ride um and it it all looks um and to my worry a lot more cumbersome a lot more time consuming and ultimately we do want people to travel easily and quickly to places like the casino and and um and there and back but um I I think there's too many risks and I don't think we've seen we've had the benefit of detailed studies to give us assurance that it's not going to be a problem.

Okay thank you counselor Koralovich I'm not prepared to support this uh this project, particularly the traffic light that's in between the other two traffic control devices within 800 meters of each other.

Quite frankly, I think um this is uh being a bit rushed.

I feel I feel like we're being um this is being kind of rammed down our throat a bit.

Um I I understand the I understand the bigger picture of the BC transit upgrades.

I under I understand the need for rapid transit in the CRD.

Um I'm concerned that this decision is somewhat cavalier.

Really, the only reason why I think this is going in is to uh push the project forward in a timely uh manner.

It appears that it's uh appeasing two businesses.

Um, and I agree with Councilor Rogers that this is probably in the long game of BC Transit and this lacks a little bit of transparency, to be honest with you.

And I think that more deliberations and discussions and studies are needed on before we install the traffic list.

Well, thank you.

So I wasn't going to say a whole lot about it because we did just go through it, but I I really feel forced to.

So first off, council doesn't design roads.

I mean, what is this nonsense that we need to see more detailed design work?

Do you want to make the decision on where traffic signal should go?

Do you want to do the timing on it as well?

I mean, while we're at it, let's be reasonable.

It's it's not up to council.

And I mean, we we write off those two businesses in a really cavalier manner, like their input and and transit assured us that the reason was because those businesses were both so vocal about that access and about how they felt it would affect their business.

And those are our businesses.

The traffic that we're worrying about slowing down with a light that isn't going to be triggered very often isn't some of it's our traffic, but those are our businesses, and they appealed to transit.

So I thank transit.

I I think the idea that this is being done in an underhanded manner is frankly an unfortunate comment.

We approved in principle, gave them carte blanche to go forth and do the Zion and come back to us.

And why would we not accept a completely paid for traffic signal that's going to slow traffic down on what is a high, you know, a high high traffic high speed stretch um i i don't see what the problem is with slowing it down and for signals close together i mean you can look all over town and throughout the region to see that so i really i don't understand the opposition i'm surprised frankly um but at any rate it is what it is so with that i'm gonna call the question all in favor yes generally i wrap up but we can go again i was just um i was just going to um communicate to uh chair and counsel that i'm not an expert with traffic lakes i'm also not an expert with parks, I'm not an expert with finances, I'm not an expert in any of these portfolios, but I've been elected to make decisions on that based on information that's presented to me.

So certainly I'm not questioning any decisions, but I'm I'm feeling uncomfortable with it, so that's why that's why I'm voting that way.

Yeah, although we have been told that for the safety and access and egress that the traffic light is considered necessary there.

Okay, so at any rate, I'm gonna call the question.

All in favor.

Opposed?

Yes, not opposed.

I'm not opposed at all.

Okay, so the motion carries with Councillor Rogers and Kualowich opposed.

So next we have four and five.

I would move both.

Thank you.

Moved by Councillor Rogers.

Seconded by Councillor Kualowicz.

Seconded by second.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Opposed, that's carried.

So next we have correspondence.

Um, so there's A, which is the dogs in Nock and Hill Park.

I I got the impression in this letter that he was talking about the entirety of Nockin' Hill Park, not just the View Royal section.

Yes.

Yeah.

I think he's he's writing to both municipalities.

Yeah, go ahead.

Um, first off, I I would move SAS recommendation to refer it to bylaw.

Okay, but I mean it I don't honestly know what referring to bylaw accomplishes because it is designated in our our animal control bylaw as an off-leash area.

So they're they're fully in compliance with the the the the writer is suggesting that we redesignate the park and have it not as an off-leash area.

Okay, so let me uh let me take that motion back.

Uh in terms of discussion then, um I I think what the writer is also saying is that uh if we don't allow off leash in places like Theaters Park, um why would we have an off-leash in Knockin' Hill?

We've we had, I mean, it's a long historical um distinction.

And um so do we need to have another look at this um and maybe designate certain areas of um of our our park, our portion of I guess it's high street, isn't it?

So why don't we refer it to the parks committee?

Oh that's fine.

Yeah, yep.

I move refer to the something for them to look at.

And I'd even go a little bit further to say that maybe we should, you know, like the the playground area down here is technically an off leash area, and that's just madness now.

Yeah, so we should probably refer this and the issue of dogs off leash areas to the advisory committee.

Yeah.

Good.

I agree.

Okay, so that's moved by councillor Rogers.

Second.

Seconded by Councillor Lemon.

Thank you.

All in favor.

Opposed, that's carried.

Move the C to B and C.

Second.

Comments.

Okay.

All in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.

And then we have the A and B.

So I would Do you want to do them together or no?

Let's do A.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Move your C to B.

Okay.

Okay, second by Councillor Qualowich.

All in favor?

Opposed?

That's carried.

And then B.

I'm reluctant to just receive this.

It's almost um I would be um very interested to see what um who in the districts of Sanich um was willing to keep it just as it is.

Was that mayor and council?

Was that just staff?

I think it was discussed at uh at an in-camera meeting.

But let's let's put it on for receipt and then let's talk about it.

Okay.

Move or state.

So it's moved for receipt by councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kualovich.

So no, I from what I can I can garner, it was discussed at an in-camera meeting, and and this was but I'm I'm curious, staff, and I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion on this, but it's actually really annoys me that they're not even prepared to engage in a discussion about it um and I'm curious about our longstanding informal agreement that we have that we take care of that fairly long stretch in Watkis in exchange for um them taking complete care of the the intersection at Burnside and Helmickon.

And I'm just interested in the you know if we have any idea of what the costs are or whether that's more in our favor or Sanjay's favor, or if it should be formalized potentially.

Um I'm not sure.

Do you have any thoughts on that, Director Rosenberg?

Thank you, Mr.

Screech.

I it's uh I would certainly have to do some research on that uh for sure to to get some background on it.

And cost-wise, that's a tough one because uh something goes wrong with those lights and it's pretty expensive.

But I would say on a day-to-day issue, then the maintenance on the the roadway system is uh is a little more uh time consuming.

But I I I think it would come out in the wash, but that is something we can look into uh if that that w is what you'd like us to see.

Yeah, I don't know.

Councillor Lemmon.

Well the last line Mayor Haynes' letter is if you have any questions, please contact his office.

So perhaps you have questions and you'd like to contact his office, your worship.

Would you be willing to discuss and consult with this?

I I can guarantee you that because of the fact it was in camera.

Um I mean the last yeah.

So I mean we I I I don't understand.

I thought he was pretty clear.

Pardon me?

I thought he was pretty clear in his response.

Yes, not interested.

Yeah, no, very clear and very dismissive, dismissive.

So I suppose that's it for now.

And um You obviously aren't nice and not into him at the C R D meetings.

Yeah.

Yeah, maybe maybe that's so I mean I I would be interested, and I don't want staff to do it as a priority, but I would be interested to know roughly what the costs are of us maintaining that strip of walk because um and doing the litter pickup and all those things as as opposed to that intersection.

And just for clarification, um I'm thinking of the portage linear park where um that that entire parks length is a portion in in sandwich.

Is are we maintaining the entire we are, but they are making a small contribution now to that.

All right.

It took them a while, but they but they did.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So okay.

Thanks, everyone.

So all in favor of receipt, opposed, that's carried.

So next up, we have the bylaws for two nine eight Island Highway.

And I should recuse myself.

Councilor Lemmon is going to recuse herself from this as she lives directly across the street.

We'll let you know when we're done.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so next up we have um amendment.

I'll move third.

Sorry, Councillor Mattson.

I'll move third.

Second.

Okay, so third reading is moved and seconded.

Did you want to speak to it, Councillor Mattson?

Yeah, and I I yes.

I mean I I agree with uh the concerns about the six stories being a bit high for in the area, but it was made really clear to us that uh uh this is what we would be getting.

I mean it's either sort of following up the example.

And I think the benefit of having the the uh the grocery with uh coffee shop, etc.

is uh it's a good amenity.

So if that wasn't part of it, I wouldn't I wouldn't be supporting it.

But for for that particular element, I I will be supporting this.

Okay, thank you, Councillor Kowalovich.

I think it's a great location for this project and uh it's exciting.

Counselor Rogers.

Mm-hmm.

Yes, I'll I will support the bylaws well.

Um you know I've I've certainly heard um uh the community uh as there's uh everyone's known I had great concerns about uh the traffic, traffic on the site, traffic in the community, um, you know, the parking issues.

And um hearing the um the community's concerns, um, you know, first off with with the height of the building, um we've accepted six stories for so many locations now in VOL.

Um I don't think this is uh an exception.

I think if um if if what we see is what we get, uh it is really quite a remarkable building.

Um I am pleased that it is the same height, basically as uh the seniors complex um when you adjust for you know ground levels so um and the fact that the two stories at the top are set back much like uh on Guantana so I I think the the height is is compensated um you know quite nicely um as far as traffic on the site is concerned we've been making comparisons with um um the red barn in Esquimalt and the six mile pub and frankly I don't see uh these these are you know distinctly different from those locations um and you know, quite frankly, I think that this site will have to depend on walkable traffic.

The uh the traffic uh for in and outs of of the back, a hidden um parking lot um will I think be a significant amount of deterrent that we're not really going to be, and the fact that one would have to uh if they're coming from from Damien's place, would have to come around um knock uh you know some some indirect method.

Um so I really don't think it's going to survive uh on traffic, it'll really have to survive on on um on density, and that's why I appreciate they they need this the six doors for the the built-in density to make it happen.

Um in terms of traffic uh in the community, um I agree with the concerns that people have had on Jedberg and probably on Nowood or Stormont, and um I think we have to make a commitment when the time comes that uh the CACs and the DCCs um are funds that will help to mitigate those issues such as speed humps on Jedberg and traffic on Stormont, and maybe even address the Helmican bump, which is the design flow in the Helmican street.

So I think as well as hopefully having a right in, right out, sorry, uh right turn, left turn on Eltham.

Also looking at the shadow concerns that were mentioned, um, really it's only going to be on the south side of Eltham, of which two properties are one for redevelopment and one's a doctor's office.

So I don't see that the the shadow concerns are are that much.

Um and I hope that um when we come down to and as if if if it does come to form and character, uh that we work very very diligently with the neighbors um to address parking concerns which is in that venue.

I did have a question here, but I don't know if it's um can can I try asking the staff this question?

Sure, as long as it's not new information.

Well it might be but we'll see what happens.

On um we've got the um island highway redesign from Helmoken to Stormont.

And I cannot remember if in that design if there was um dedicated left turns for um uh where the the um uh daycare center is and I don't know if Mr.

Rosenberg is that in is that why why don't you maybe ask Director Rosenberg that off offline?

I think he can easily answer.

Anyway, if that is the case, then I think that also helps to mitigate the traffic problems for the community.

Thank you.

Good.

I I will be supporting it as well.

I I think it's a really exciting project.

Um, and and I look forward to seeing it started.

It's we've been hearing for eons that you know we need more and more walkable places in the heart of our community, and that really is in the geographical heart of V Royal.

So um, and I don't think the six stories is too high.

I I think it makes sense for that that island highway frontage that we have that height of building.

So no, I'm happy to support it.

And so I'm gonna call the question.

It sounds like everybody's in favor.

All in favor?

Posed.

So that's carried unanimously, and then we have 1061, which is the OCP.

Yeah.

So move.

Second.

Okay, so moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Kowalovich.

Everybody's good.

So all in favor?

Posed.

That's carried.

We'll get Councillor Lemmon back in, although she's not gonna be too happy with us.

We could always consider McDonald's.

Is it?

Yeah.

No surprise.

They moved actually into town.

What's happening?

You're talking about Indian restaurants?

Yeah.

Yeah, they moved into town.

Oh, did they move into town?

Oh.

Yeah.

So the sign says so.

So next we have adoption of the fees and charges by law amendment bylaw number one zero six eight.

Moved often.

Seconded by Councillor.

Thank you.

Moved by counselor Rogers.

Everyone's good.

All in favor?

Opposed.

That's carried.

Next we have then I put this letter as I said earlier on here.

Just I I thought it was important to get something officially on the record for outgoing correspondence as well.

But I think if any member of council has something anything they want to add or something as, then now's not a bad time to to do that as well.

So but otherwise we just need a move motion to receive it.

Yeah.

I guess the only comment is I really, really hope that the province is sincere.

Um I I don't have any um any doubts with uh the First Nations about the province whether or not they're gonna be sincere.

And and uh I guess I worry about the feds um where they're gonna be on this as well.

Do we have a motion?

No, we don't have a motion yet.

We can.

So basically move received.

Okay, yeah.

So receipts moved by Councillor Rogers, seconded by Councillor Lemmon.

Okay.

Any comments?

Councillor Mattson, do you have any comments?

He's gone to sleep.

We we should have built we should have given it to Weaver sooner, and we'd have a nice development there now.

Right, right.

Yeah, that's definitely the problem.

So okay, we'll call the question on receipt.

All in favor, oppose that's carried.

So now we're gonna go to budget.

So staff, I I'm not sure exactly sort of how far or what you're hoping to accomplish tonight, but um we'll let you go and and um let us know when you'd like questions, whether you'd rather we save them or thank you, your worship.

And and staff, this is could you please let me know when you're changing pages in your uh in the presentation in the presentation i apologize i did not number my slides um so i will try uh you know feel free to jump in uh with a where are we if i forget because i do want to keep you um i would do want to keep you with us so that is important and and my apologies we'll do the best we can and and yeah like I say please feel free to to jump in um I I want just before I start.

I want to ask whether everybody brought their uh binder.

The uh last week we passed out uh a budget binder.

Yeah?

Yes.

Everybody has that?

Okay, that's that's good.

We will be needing that binder later on uh in the evening for sure.

So I'm gonna go ahead and start uh the presentation once I get set up here.

So the purpose of the presentation this evening, and we're gonna start off with this, and and I'm sure council is fully aware that the development of a budget um in a normal year takes months and many hours of staff time to get to this point, and then it takes several hours of council's time to to proceed before we finally end up with an approved budget that we can we can uh see the council's realization of the strategic plan and vision.

But what we want to do with the presentation just this evening is a couple of things.

One is just to review the schedule and the process.

We want to make sure that you're fully comfortable and familiar with the way that the budget binder is organized so that you can get comfortable with it.

You will be spending some time with it.

Then we want to turn our mind to some of the financial plan highlights.

believe stand out in this one.

If time permits, we would like to get to some non core items once we've had a grounding in in kind of the the the the basis of the foundation of the of the budget binder and and information there.

And and uh you know I I would like to get through the presentation and we will make time for questions at the end if that suits you fine.

So you will notice in the budget binder on page eight there is a financial planning calendar that outlines and this is on our website as well that outlines kind of the process for the important dates that are key to the financial planning process.

Of course February we're having our workshops now that will take up the bulk of this week and we'll spill into next week if we need to.

In March we look at grants in aid.

We turn our minds to that.

We also mid-March uh we will offer the online citizen budget uh online engagement as we did last year that was something we started last year and I think it was fairly well received.

In April we will bring back the results from that online engagement.

We will look for approval in principle at that point in time after you've had consideration of the results of that engagement.

We will also consider tax rates based on the financial plan.

And then in May we will bring back bylaws both the tax rate and the financial plan bylaw for adoption by council.

May also we'll send out tax notice with the informational insert that we do every year.

So while we will pause for questions at at opportune times in the way along the way, once we get through this presentation, the rest of the budget workshops, as we have in the past, we would like it to be less presentation and more conversation.

We want to make sure that council is fully armed with all the information that you need to make a good decision.

If we can't answer a question immediately, we'll make sure to make a note of it and to follow up with you at the next session or in the next best way that we can.

If you want to, you know, if a question occurs to you outside of the the budget workshop sessions, please feel free to email or phone and we will bring back that question to the next budget workshop session and make sure that everybody has the same information.

And as we have in the past, formal resolutions are not going to be required, but we do need to make sure that staff has clear direction so that we are all on the same page at the end of the day.

So in the this presentation includes, you know, kind of a highlight of the of the introduction section of the budget binder.

I want to just make sure that you're comfortable with how the budget binder is organized.

The second section, or just past the introduction is a section called Council Initiatives, and you will, if you look at that list, you will recognize them from having considered them in November.

Having council's direction early in the process has allowed staff enough time to prepare project summaries and some estimates of costs, and those are listed with a reference number on the right side of that listing.

The project summaries are found in tab five in alpha numeric order.

You're going to hear me say that phrase a couple of times.

Under tab one, we have the consolidated financial plan, and we're going to spend a little bit of time in this presentation looking at that consolidated financial plan to show you how the various components in this binder kind of fit together in one holistic plan.

Tab two contains the non core requests, and we hope to get to those this evening if I don't talk too long.

And these, of course, are detailed by list by functional service and priority, and includes a listing of how those items are funded.

And again, they're all cross referenced with project summaries that are found under tab five in the alpha numeric order.

Tab three is organized very similarly.

There's a listing of all of the capital projects and with the funding detailed as well.

And again, the projects are cross-referenced with the number of the project, the C number of the project that is is contained in tab five.

Tab four, appendix four, is the service plan budget details.

There is a lot of numbers and rows and columns in this one.

We wanted to show you at the account level in case you needed to look something up, the actual values for 2019 and the 2020 year to date values, which keep in mind that 2020 is not done yet.

We are not finished with year end for 2020, so those numbers are not final.

And for 2021, we split out the core amounts from the non-core and cost to capital amount.

So we're going to talk about that a little bit more.

Tab five, as I've been saying, contains 84 projects.

They are organized alphanumerically, and they start with a C for the capital projects, they start with an N for the non-core projects.

So we will make sure to provide, you know, give you the reference for what project we're going to be talking about so that you can turn to that page in your budget binder and see that you can look at all of the details for the project under discussion at the moment.

Tab six is an important one because it is the reserve projections and it uses the best information to date, assumes 2% interest.

That might be a little bit hopeful, but at this point that's what we've assumed.

The projection of DCC revenue is based on in process development projects, but those dollars, just keep in mind, are not included as financial plan revenue due to the uncertain nature of those projects.

So there are a lot of spreadsheets with columns and rows and numbers, and we appreciate that it is hard to make some real sense of it sometimes, and that's why we are here.

We believe that we have put together a financial plan that supports council's strategic goals.

Over the course of the next day or so, we will be highlighting key differences from last year's budget and implications for constituents.

But before we get through that, to that, though, let's make sure that we have a solid understanding of the components that make up the consolidated financial plan so that we can better focus on those areas where choices will make the biggest difference.

So now, Councillor Mattson, I'm going to slide six.

It's the one that looks like puzzle pieces.

And if you want to look at your we're gonna we're gonna talk a little bit about the material behind tab one.

So let's talk about some of the key pieces that make up the consolidated financial plan.

You may require, you may remember this from last year, but I thought it was was good just to provide a refresher for council as well as our viewing publics on kind of what's involved and what what a municipal budget kind of looks like.

We call the core budget the those components in the budget that is the cost of providing status quo levels of service based on existing level of service delivery models and projected costs per unit of activity.

So this is the keeping the lights on, sweeping the streets, mowing the parks, phone, internet, utilities, labor.

That's what we call our core budget.

For the revenue side, it includes taxation, user fees, sales of services, like development permits, and ticketing.

The non-core items are those service level change requests.

These are new initiatives that represent a change to levels of service or are non-recurring or infrequent items.

These are really the same type of expense as core expenses, but they represent a one-time project or a permanent increase if approved.

It is important to note that when a service level change is approved, the future costs will be included in the following year's core budget.

For the current year, these items are identified as non core so that we can understand the future implications of approving each item.

The operating cost of capital is the ongoing cost to maintain new capital assets.

So when we approve capital projects, we are in fact approving the future inspection, maintenance, insurance, eventual replacement or disposal of those assets.

These estimates are included as cost of capital, and they are for the ongoing maintenance only.

We're not talking about the full life cycle costs at this time.

This budget takes a long-term view of capital spending because assets are forever, usually.

Cost of capital includes, like I said, the inspection and maintenance for new capital projects.

And not all capital assets will increase the operational costs.

And until the asset is approved, we may not know exactly what it will cost to maintain.

But just noting these costs signals to council that the future is not free, and this aspect should be factored into capital spending decisions.

And where a capital project is expected to realize cost savings or increased revenue, this is reflected as an incremental cost or reduces the actual cost of that capital as well.

We are on slide 10.

So the capital budget is the acquisition or renewal of infrastructure.

The tangible capital assets are long-lived and impactful.

These are the projects that can be seen and touched.

Capital assets exist in local government for only one purpose, and that's to provide service to constituents and guests.

Reserves include the funds established by bylaw, which are capital reserves or operating reserves.

It includes statutory reserves.

We call them statutory because they're established by legislation, such as DCCs and the parks and Open Space Reserve.

There are also reserve accounts, casino reserve, community works fund or gas tax reserve, and tree replacement.

Depending on the established purpose of the fund, a reserve can support either core, non core, or capital projects.

We do have a reserves and surplus policy that provides guidelines around the management of reserves.

We're on slide 12.

So behind tab one, you will see Schedule 1.1 labeled consolidated financial plan.

This is actually the mathematical sum of the consolidated operating financial plan in Schedule 1.2 and the consolidated capital financial plan in 1.3.

The word consolidated is used to indicate that we're merging all funds together in one set of documents.

If we were to separate out separately the general operating, the sewer operating, the general capital, the sewer capital, and the reserve funds, it would be hard to see the holistic picture of View Royal's overall finances.

So we present the budget on a consolidated basis.

The consolidated operating financial plan or schedule 1.2 breaks down the operating revenue and operating expense totals from Schedule 1.1 into more detail.

So really Schedule 1.2 is the component of Schedule 1.1 that is more detailed.

It includes core, non-core operational cost of capital and related transfers to or from reserves for operational purposes.

Slide 13.

Consolidated capital financial plan includes the details about the capital expenditures from Schedule 1.1.

It includes all the capital projects, both those new proposals and those started in the prior year.

And it includes the related sources of funding, including reserve transfers.

Slide 14.

So provincial legislation requires local governments to adopt a five-year balanced budget bylaw every year.

All expenditures and transfers to other funds must not exceed proposed revenue and transfers from other funds in any given year.

So we're going to look at some of the highlights in the proposed 21 to 2025 consolidated financial plan and its implications for taxpayers.

So we're on slide 15.

And this information is also included on page 9.

I know some of the some of the uh graphics are going to be a little bit hard to read in council chambers, perhaps on the screen, but the information contained uh in the highlight section of my presentation are generally in the introduction to the bind the in the budget binder, starting on page nine.

So it is important to remind council at this point and the viewing public that any discussion of tax increases at this point is only our starting point.

I believe it highly unlikely that many of the numbers discussed today will be the same by the end of the budget workshops.

If if if being here for as long as I have already hasn't told has told me anything, I'm I'm that's one thing I'm pretty sure of.

So so what when we talk about tax rates, this is just our starting point.

What I'm finding this year, and and it has been a struggle for staff, we seem to have a little bit of a perfect storm in the financial plan, and you'll you'll see what I mean before I'm through.

For starters, for the first time in recent memory, the 2021 assessment role includes a net negative non market change of 10.6 million dollars.

That's a decrease from 2020.

So not only did we not have a large non market change increase, but we actually had a decrease.

It's not a large decrease, but it is a it is a decrease.

Overall, so on on the uh on the chart on the left, where you see the solid blue bars and then the thinner uh line going up the thinner line going up indicates that overall assessments are have gone up by about two percent driven by general market conditions and that certainly is no thanks to the non market change the negative non market change means that a zero percent tax increase would result in a loss of about forty three thousand dollars or about a half a percent in tax revenue each and and we're gonna we're gonna revisit this in um before we're done uh the presentation.

Each one percent tax increase will provide about ninety thousand two hundred in tax revenue.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

Okay.

If the financial plan is approved as presented, a 7.3% tax increase would be required to fund it.

Of this, 2.2% is required to fund increases that result resulted from commitments made in the 2020 financial plan.

And we're gonna talk more about that too.

Slide 16.

So what's happening with operating revenue?

Taxation represents about two thirds of total operating revenue.

In 2021, the total predicted total operating revenue is about 15 million, down about 2 million from what you might think of as normal as a result of the closure of elements Casino.

While the future of this facility is still uncertain, this financial plan estimates a gradual return to normal starting in 2022.

Slide 17.

So still sticking with operating revenue, View Royal is somewhat dependent on government grants and casino revenue.

Obviously, normally it's just over 3 million per year, but because of the loss of casino revenue, we're projecting about a million in total government grants in 2021, half of which will come from the Federal Gas Tax Community Works Fund program.

That program hasn't changed.

View Royal's ability to maintain tax rate stability will depend somewhat on the extent that we depend on these grants to fund operations.

Council will be considering the option to start to transition funding for the West Shore Parks and Recreation Service away from casino from casino revenue to taxation.

User fees is a is a significant source of revenue, and these are used to collect the amount needed to fund the cost to operate and maintain both View Royals and the Capital Regional District's portion of the sanitary sewer system.

As of 2020, sewer user fees are 100% consumption based, equitably distributing the costs to connected users.

User fee revenue is expected to increase by 1 to 2% over the course of the five year plan or annually for the over the course of the five year plan, much of which could come from new users as they are added to the system.

Slide 18.

Moving to operating expense.

So keep in mind that total operating expense at the consolidated level includes core, non core, and projected future operational costs of new capital.

Core annual operating expense of $14 million is required to just keep the lights on, just the status quo levels of service.

Over the course of the five-year plan, non-core requests range about a half a million annually.

It is important to note that some non core requests have implications for future years.

The 2021 budget includes about $320,000 as a direct result of the approval of certain non core requests in 2020.

For example, when we approve the addition of a member to the police force, the first year may include costs for half the year, assuming a mid year start of that addition.

The following years must include the full cost as a core operating expense to continue the funding this 2020 commitment.

In total, this financial plan includes $1.6 million to fund commitments made in 2020.

The operating cost of capital is a fairly insignificant proportionally, but it is still an important consideration for capital decisions.

Staying with operating expense, the little graphic here indicates a little bit about where does the money go?

Where do we spend the money?

And quite clearly, the big spend is on police, fire, and transportation, roads, sidewalks, street lighting, that sort of thing.

Together, those make up half, almost half, of the total operating expenses.

And the split between fire and police is close to 50 50.

General government services averages $2.6 million annually, which is about $6% of total operating expenses.

Note that we don't do detailed cost allocations to other services.

All legal advertising, HR, finance, most of IT, maintaining town hall, etc., is not reflected in the costs of other services, with the exception of garbage and sewer, as those are user fee-based services.

Slide 20.

So over the course of the five-year plan, this plan projects $16 million in capital spending.

$12 million of that is in the first three years of the plan.

In 2023, you can see the center graphic there, $3 million of that big spike of the total of $6.6 million is a single project that is contingent on two-thirds funding from senior governments.

That work, the work on our asset management and long term financial plan is going to provide a view of the sufficiency of existing levels of investment in capital renewal.

Something to look forward to.

Nearly one-third of total capital spending is funded from casino revenue or gas tax.

So in the in the five-year financial plan, casino revenue funds just over $2 million and community works funds funds just under $3 million.

I'm sorry, Councillor Manson, we're on slide 21.

So it's not quite 50-50 between casino revenue and gas tax, with gas tax actually taking a larger share of the funding in this plan.

Keep in mind that the COVID BC Safe Restart grant received in 2020, totaling $2.6 million, was added to the casino reserve to replace lost revenue during due to the closure of Elements Casino.

So that money is in the casino revenue reserve.

Now I'm going to go through just a few slides.

Slide 22.

I know this one is terribly busy and it's it's hard to make sense of it, so I'm going to spend just a little bit of time on reserves.

This is slide 22.

So it really is important to understand what is happening with the reserves over the five-year plan.

Reserves speak directly to financial sustainability and tax stabilization.

If you recall the previous slide just a couple ago that showed the peaks and valleys by year for capital spending, reserves provide the means to ensure that View Royal taxpayers don't experience those same peaks and valley valleys in their tax bill.

I just want to refresh your memory if you if you don't remember how to read what's called a waterfall chart.

So what you're looking at is several waterfall charts.

Keep in mind that the purpose of this type of chart is to understand the net change in data over the stated time frame.

So reading from left to right, the increases are noted in green, decreases are in red, and the component driving the increase or decrease is noted across the bottom axis.

The black bar at the end sums it all up.

If the black bar is below the zero million dollar line, then that reserve is decreasing over the five year plan.

And if the black bar is above the million, the zero line, then the reserve is increasing over the five-year plan.

So let's look at what's happening overall with our reserves.

And I'll remind you that tab six in your budget binder contains the listing of all of the reserves by category as we go through, so you can see which reserves are included in which category.

Plan in reserves as a whole.

And we're going to go through where that's happening.

The decrease is due primary primarily to the reduced estimate of casino revenue and also to the use of DCCs for major capital projects between 2022 and 2024.

There are three main sources of funding for reserves.

The casino revenue obviously.

Normally, uh last year we predicted that the gaming revenue would contribute $10 million to the casino revenue reserve.

This plan projects $3.2 million over the course of the five years.

Contributions from taxation and sewer user fees are contribute $3.1 million.

We have reduced the contributions in 2021 due to the challenges with the financial plan.

DCCs are another main source of contributions to those statutory reserves.

And gas tax grants can have over the five years contribute 2.6 million, which is the same as last year.

That program is continuing with without changes to my knowledge yet.

Slide 24 just looks at the changes in capital reserves.

We're projecting $109,000 net increase.

So I would call that kind of even, Stephen.

We're kind of keeping or we're contributing capital reserves and then we're spending it over the course of the five-year plan and ending up with a little bit of $100,000 at the end of the day.

But that means the reserve is doing its purpose.

It's smoothing out those peaks for capital spending to view royal taxpayers.

Slide 25, and this is the operating reserves.

This is comprised of primarily of future expenditures reserve, and this is one of the purposes listed in the policy for that reserve is tax stabilization and the police operating reserve.

Again, this is another case where we are we are spending it at least on paper and in the budget pretty much as fast as we're contributing it.

However, I do note that the draws from the police reserve fund are used to fund one RCMP member each year, but that would only be required if the RCMP fulfilled 100% of the authorized strength.

So we while we put it in the plan that would authorize the draw from that reserve, we wouldn't use it unless the RCMP fulfilled 100% of the members that they that we have authorized.

So the total uh contribution to funding one RCMP member over five years is 684,000.

So what I'm saying is if we never had to make that draw, this reserve would be in a much healthier position at the end of five years.

Slide 26.

Statutory reserves are mainly DCCs.

We are projecting a decrease of nearly 1.3 million.

That is because over the course of the five years we're sit we're projecting that we would be spending DCC funds on DCC fundable projects.

It is important to remember that most projects that are DCC fundable require a portion of the project, the municipal exist factor, to be funded from non DCC sources.

Something to keep in mind.

Slide 27.

So reserve accounts are going to spend just a little bit of time with this because this is an important one.

This is mainly casino revenue and gas tax or community works funds.

I use those terms interchangeably.

This financial plan projects a decrease of nearly $5 million, primarily because our estimates for future casino revenue are somewhat conservative, admittedly.

We just don't know.

The use of those funds exceed the revenue projections.

Clearly, this is not a sustainable situation, which is why council is considering a transition away from using casino revenue for West Shore Parks and Rec service.

There remains some hope that next year we will have a more certain outlook with respect to casino revenue projections.

While while um you know the use of casino revenue and any reserves for that matter, um to the extent that we use the those reserves for operational funding, we degrade our sustainability just as a general principle, it is good to keep in mind what we are using the operational fund, uh what we're using these reserves for operational funding for.

West Road Parks and Rec over the course of the five years is 3.5 million, and that includes as discussed with council, the move at a half a percent per year added to taxation.

The the draw for non-grew projects from um from the reserve accounts is one million.

Debt uses another million.

Grants and aid we have projected at $300,000 over the course of the five years.

We are projecting at this point, we're we're estimating that that uh council would like to spend 50,000 per uh per year.

I do note that that is out of compliance, and we recognize that that is out of compliance with the policy that requires this number to be limited to five percent of prior year casino revenue.

We'll be talking more about that when we get there for sure.

And then um another core operational uh item that we um are projecting in this budget is we are suggesting that we should use 160,000 in 2021 for extra COVID costs because we're we're still there, we're not we're not done yet.

I'm starting to wrap it up.

Thank you for your patience.

Let's talk about some of the key implications for taxpayers.

Changes to revenue drives an increase to taxes of a total of 4.1%.

For starters, we have the end of the transitional funding for our place.

I know council is aware of that.

Value for that is 152,000 and some or 1.7%.

In 2020, just before the financial plan was adopted or the the um tax rates uh yeah I guess before the financial plan uh finance uh by law and tax rates bylaw was adopted council chose to uh draw from surplus 167500 or or whatever it took to bring the tax rate down to one and a half percent so that it we we have to replace that in 2021 Don on on that one when you say replace you're just meaning we have to transfer it onto the tax roll you're not suggesting that we're gonna repay surplus, right which is correct that is what I mean is is that we haven't added another draw in 2021.

So something has to make up that revenue and that's going on taxes.

Right.

Yeah.

It's all operating costs.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I was just curious on that.

Yes, I thank you for clarifying.

I appreciate that.

Um, so then the the net decrease in other non-tax revenue is is just over 40 or nearly 41,000, um, or about a half a percent.

And most of this is building inspection.

Um, but we did have some increases in revenue that we're expecting for both fire and sewer revenue.

Changes to expenses drive about 3.2% increase in taxation.

As mentioned previously, 2.2% of that is for 2020 commitments for personnel for policing, transportation, and parks.

Other labor costs, including the fire personnel restructuring that was approved by council, is another 2% altogether.

We are now webcasting our council meetings.

We're expecting that cost and we to be about $40,000 over the whole year.

West Shore Parks and Funding, Parks and Recreation Funding transition to taxation, is that half a percent, which is the $45,300.

The non core listing at this point suggests that $72,000 or nearly $73,000 is funded from taxation.

And of course, those items are only those ones that are ongoing, not the one-time items.

All other net increases in expenses, including insurance.

There was a bit of a hike in insurance, that should be no surprise to no one, is about 93,000 or about 1%.

We did introduce reserve cont we have reduced reserved contributions, a total of $334,000.

I'll just list that quickly and we can revisit this.

If you need to, we've we've eliminated the transfer to future expenditure reserve that eliminated $100,000.

We've reviewed reduced the capital renewal reserve contribution in 2021.

Oh, this is only 2021 only, 176,000.

We've eliminated the capital works and land contribution of 60,000.

We did increase the fire equipment reserve contribution by 2,000, but that was strategically to avoid having to fund the capital projects from casino revenue.

So we thought that $2,000 a year increase was worth it to avoid drawing down the casino revenue any more than we already are.

So as presented today, like I said, it's our starting point.

We're talking about a 7.3% increase to total 2021 tax revenue.

Slide 30.

However, remember I mentioned the perfect storm and the assessments?

When we look at the 7.3% tax revenue increase needed to fund the financial plan as presented, we realize this doesn't include the effect of losing $10.6 million in assessed values from the tax roll.

Normally we have new tax revenue coming from additional property assessments added from new developments.

This year we have a $10.6 million loss of assessment value due to non market change, primarily due to a change in ownership of a significant property to the province.

Having a loss instead of a gain in non market change shifts some of the tax burden to the prior year assessed properties.

This effect is a redistrict redistribution of just over $43,000 to the remaining tax base, equivalent to nearly half a percent.

That was slide 30.

Sorry for not letting you know that.

So the consolidated highlights as presented, all told, the tax increase for the budget will be that will be presented during this week's workshops represents an overall 7.3 increase in tax revenue for 2021.

The average residential home in 2021 is about 754,500.

It was 730,000 in 2020, so this is a 3.4% increase in assessed value.

That's why you see our total of assessed values did go up.

The average residential home would pay about $9 for the funding of transition for the West Shore Parks and Rec.

And I would suggest to council that it may be an option to them to include that as a separate line item on the tax notice to communicate to the taxpayer how much they're paying for West Shore Parks and Rec versus the general revenue taxation.

Just a suggestion.

As presented, the tax increase for all other services as presented would cost the average residential home about $164 for the distribution of the tax burden between the assessment classes with no change in the current ratios between any tax classes.

The 2021 assessments have shifted about 2% of the tax burden from the business class to the residential class.

So we'll be talking more about that and seeing more about that when we bring back our proposals scenarios for taxation.

So overall, the financial plan supports a total of $576,000 in non core requests in 2021, which is $2.5 million over five years.

It funds investments in new or renewal of capital infrastructure, totaling $2.6 million in 2021 and nearly $16 million over the five-year plan.

This plan begins the transition of funding for West Shore Parks and Rec away from dependence on casino revenue and improves the future sustainability and tax stabilization.

We've paused or reduced some reserve contributions in 2021 for the purpose of tax stabilization.

It does project a gradual return to normal for casino revenue starting in 2022.

Slide 32.

So that essentially takes you through our schedule, our process, our budget binder, financial plan highlights.

It is up to council what we would do next is to start looking specifically at the list of non core items and do that as as time permits.

But certainly I want to pause now for questions from council.

Okay, thank you, Don.

I think Councillor Lemon had one a while back she might have forgotten it by now yeah I kind of it was it was way way back and and really Don I was I was it was a it was just an explanation I was looking for on for you know if anyone's listening um on oh gosh it was uh hold on um I'm sorry.

It was a lot of information, I realize I don't know it was the non-market.

Um non-market change.

That was it.

So can you could you explain what non-market means?

So uh I get I I can do my best.

I'm not the expert when it comes to assessments.

Um certainly I'm sure BC Assessment could do a much better job than than I can.

But uh in my mind, if we start with a market change, that's that's where I I own a home and the price of housing goes up.

It's just because of supply and demand.

Um the the my the price of my house, I can ask more for it now than when I bought it 10 years ago because of changes in the market and in supply and demand.

Non-market change means a change in our assessment role that is not related to market.

So it it'll it'll be where new development adds improvements to land a new apartment or strata complex or some even single family homes it's a it's a brand new addition.

That's the way that we normally see our assessments going with with a non market change and and that's why we you know we love to see development because that means that we have more taxpayers to spread the tax dollar to and that's a brand new addition uh to our tax role.

In in this the case of this year, where we had a significant property, ten million dollars worth go from paying taxes because it was owned by a taxpayer, a non-exempt taxpayer, and that property was purchased by an exempt taxpayer of the province.

Um we aren't getting taxes from the province for that property.

So and it had nothing to do with market.

So we call that a non-market change because it was a change to our assessment role that happened because of something, something happened um with the property, with ownership, with the status, with improvements on the property, or if there was a demolition, that would that would eliminate um the value associated with the improvements and that would make the assessment go down.

Thank you.

Does that help?

That's very helpful.

Did Dawn, do we think that both properties, I mean the the therapeutic recovery center and Thetis Cove, do we think that we're taking the double whammy of both of those, or would we even the Thetis Cove, would that even be in the latest round of assessments?

The fact that that's changed hands to the province.

Yes, that was the Thetis Cove property was uh in the assessment role.

That change happened in December.

Okay.

Um the the our place um that property went to supportive housing uh two years ago, or was it just last year?

I can't remember but not not this not for twenty twenty one that that had already happened right but we've been getting the because we negotiated with the province that they would continue the Grant and Lou right for three years and this is the the first year without that as well.

That is correct yes right so it's kind of it's a double whammy in some ways caused by the province a lot of it but anyhow questions.

Counselor Rod, has one question?

Go ahead councillor Matson.

So yeah, this was just on the um page twenty-one, I think, of our plan.

Um transfer to reserves and surplus.

It's gone down by about two point three million.

So that just jumped out at me, if you could just explain why the big decrease.

Mm-hmm.

The e the easy quick answer to that is that two million dollars we normally contribute from Elements Casino um gaming revenue.

So that's two million of two point three.

And the three hundred thousand is as I described uh earlier, the the um we have chosen to pause some of the reserve contributions.

Um it didn't make any sense to me to have a tax stabilization reserve for the purpose of seeing us through tough times and then contribute to that reserve in tough times.

So um that reserve uh contribution has been paused.

I got that one now.

Thanks a lot.

You're welcome.

Councillor Rogers.

Yeah, thanks.

Um yeah, you know, when um you know, I prefer to call a spade a spade when you know on page nine, when we talk about a single significant property becoming exempt from property taxes, let's just call it.

I think we're talking about CS COVID, right?

Uh yes, yes, we are um at at the time I wasn't sure that was public knowledge.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, I know um yeah thank you for the uh the the the uh description of the various actions of the binder organization tabs one through six um you know you gave some really good definitions and it would be really helpful to have that printed um you know in each of the tabs so that you know you can if I need to be refreshed of what non core requests are but you know the definition you gave then I could just go to that tab and you know then I've got the definition.

So if you could print that out for each of the tabs that would be really great.

Thank you for that I'm always looking at ways to make this better and easier for you and the general public.

So uh thank you you.

You we do always do include a glossary with our uh the the final budget book but having it here would be helpful as well so I appreciate that thank you.

Yeah um and I guess just a nagging question in um in the project summaries um I could never figure out the lettering no where it starts C4 C04 why doesn't it start zero C01 and you know the N section which I think is non non what non core non core that's it yeah so non core starts at N12 one and one so I get I really get confused um with the the numbering system.

I appreciate that thank you for that question.

Um and and it's it actually is a pretty easy answer.

The the answer is because some projects, both capital and non-core, survive more than one year.

I can't reuse numbers.

And uh although it it may span a couple of years, so I don't necessarily know which ones are going to be done and which ones I might reuse.

So I've just said we're not gonna re new reuse numbers.

But you should you should look at the listing um behind tab two and behind tab three, and those list the project cross-reference numbers, and you can just go directly to the number for the project that you're interested in.

They are they are filed numerically, it's just that you're right.

They are not they're not uh sequential.

Yeah, so that thank you.

That's that's very helpful.

Um and perhaps maybe yeah from N1 to 11 you can give us some clue as what uh you know what those might be just a they are completed projects that were completed in a prior year.

Completed interesting yes.

Okay yeah that's um and so if if I understand things then we're gonna estimate our casino loss for about three million uh I'm sorry could you could you say that question again are we estimating the casino loss since it closed to be about and and when it reopens, um, that it might be about three million of loss.

Actually, more than that.

Uh-huh.

Um in the five-year plan, you know, we we normally get about or just over around two million dollars a year.

So in a five-year plan, you would think you would get $10 million.

This plan projects $3.2.

Okay.

So you can see if you turn to appendix six and the casino revenue on page 215, the casino revenue reserve, you can see exactly what I'm predicting for gaming revenue.

And you know, we have a lot of discussion about this.

Um, and I've talked to uh the you know the neighboring municipalities who also benefit from casino revenue.

And the the general consensus was we have no assurance to to my knowledge, to the best of our knowledge, that the casino will reopen in 2021.

Maybe it will, and that's great if it does, um, but we don't know for sure.

And so we we are projecting.

So if you can just look up kind of right in the middle of the page where you see reserve accounts and then casino revenue, there's an opening balance, and the next line is gaming revenue.

And you can see that in 2020 we got 394,000 of the expected two million.

In 2021.

We're projecting zero.

But but we did, of course, also receive the other 2.6 million.

Yes, absolutely.

And you can see that on the next line, yes.

Yeah.

Um and so it in 2022 and 2023, you can see what the revenue projections are for casino revenue.

And and we're gonna revise this again next year.

That's the lucky thing about a five-year plan is you get another shot at it next year.

Okay, thank you.

And and uh real speculation and um maybe this is grapevine stuff.

Um if the province was um giving us the uh the boost for the pandemic in 2020.

Uh do we have any sense?

Has the province given an indication that they'll give another boost for 2021?

You haven't heard.

I I I've heard rumors that they will consider that again.

The province's finances.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah, but who knows, right?

I mean, we think we're facing uh a challenge when you when you think of what the province's budget must be um must be like.

Well, I look forward to the conversation for uh TS Cove.

Yeah.

Yeah, this is right.

Don, I I don't know if you're gonna explain more later, but I I struggle a little bit with the 2020 commitments, policing, transportation, and parks personnel, the you've got at 2.2.

And is it is it possible to because we didn't add any police officers last year, we did add, I think a staff member, right, at the RCMP station.

Uh your worship, we added one, we we increased the RCMP membership by one full-time member, and we also incl increased municipal employee by a manager.

Of course, it's just the View Royal Share, a manager, and I believe another full time position.

But but the full time RCMP officer shouldn't be funded out of this at all, right?

That is coming out of the reserve.

Yes.

Well, we are funding one full-time RCMP member uh from the reserve, um, operationally, yes.

Uh but of course, in 2020, we had only budgeted for I think a September start for that RCMP member.

So some of the reserve funding uh went to core, which of course, now that our total uh amount is increased, doesn't go as far.

But that RCMP member shouldn't be reflected in this 2.2% at all.

Right?

Because when we made the decision to add that officer, we made it on the condition that that would be funded from the reserve and until such a time as the RCMP actually.

So I didn't I mean I guess what I'm asking is I'd like to see a breakdown of that 2.2 because that's a 180, 210,000 or something there.

Yes, yes, your worship.

Um I I think what you're seeing is is it's the annualization of those costs and and reserve funds that were going for because we funded a whole person uh R CMP member in 2020 from the reserve, but only uh a part of that was for the addition.

Um you know, in 2021, the annualization of that addition is is driving the costs up.

But but but it was supposed to, yeah, I don't I don't really understand why you're saying it would the the it was supposed to continue out of reserve, right?

None of that was supposed to go to taxation until such a time as they actually billed us for all that we receive.

And and we are still funding one member from reserve.

It's true, but we have increased a member.

Right?

So so you know, we that so would it be possible just to get a breakdown on that 2.2?

Because I'm lost.

I I don't understand.

I don't understand how if we're funding our new member from reserve, and we we put X number of dollars in the budget last year to pay for the support staff, how we still require another 210,000.

And and not all of that is related to the RCM RCMP member.

It is also related to the other policing employee costs as well as the other personnel changes that were made.

Okay.

So I think if we could see a breakdown on that, that would be really helpful, please.

Okay.

Thank you.

David, I have a policing cost.

Yeah, go ahead.

Did we actually use or were they did they actually provide our full contingent of officers last year?

Not even close.

So wh why are we paying for an extra one?

Well, I mean, we agreed to fund an extra officer, but we but we agreed to on the basis of um we agreed to fund it from reserve until such a time as they did provide us with what the the number that we paid for.

So we're not adding an officer now, but I that's what I'm confused about on this 2.2 that's there.

But we're not having earlier Don had mentioned that these costs for the new person wouldn't we wouldn't start incurring that until they'd actually provided us of a full contingent that we're currently paying for, or supposed to be paying for, but I gather if we if they don't provide it, we don't pay the full cost, right?

That is correct.

No.

And last year the the the year end statement was actually they billed less, I think, than they had the year before.

I mean the surplus last year for what we paid is is is actually pretty significant.

Um but it yeah, I mean it would just help.

I don't completely understand this 2.2 percent.

So I'm just looking for clarification on it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

We will provide that.

I just didn't have a I do have go ahead.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um so I guess uh yeah the um changes to revenue where the replace of the 2020 pandemic relief draw from surplus with whatever that is, um 180,000.

Isn't that uh that amount would be a um appropriate to take from uh the BC's safe restart the 2.6 million?

Because it seems like the the safe restart was all about COVID and um you know protecting the the impact of of COVID and and here's you know directly related to the pandemic relief.

So I I don't see where it would be a tax component because it seems a perfect match for the BC restart.

So I don't, I'll let you have that, but I mean I I can partially answer it.

I mean, when COVID all started last year, we we had agreed on a tax increase of X percent.

Um and Council decided that given the circumstances that we had to cut it.

So we we funded that from surplus.

So they're not really COVID specific items, they were operating costs that we chose to lower the tax increase by funding them from surplus.

So I mean at some point, I mean, absolutely, if if council wanted to, you you could again say we're gonna fund 200,000 from surplus, but at some point it's gonna catch up.

Yeah, no, and but I'm I'm saying that, you know, this uh it does really seem such a I know that we did this relief because we were in that lockdown situation and and uh it was you know pretty darn bleak, as if it isn't now.

And um, but it does seem like a perfect fit.

You know, where we took it from surplus because we didn't know where our funds were coming from.

And now here we have uh the BC uh government uh giving 2.6 million, which it seems like it was to assist a province, uh sorry, the municipalities.

Um, and it may be not capital, but it was uh certainly essential operating.

Well, I mean, that's certainly an option available to us if we want to keep the tax increase down, but it is one of those decisions that comes back to bite you because at some point you're gonna have to pay for it.

So, but certainly, you know, if that is one option that would be available.

Don, did you did you want to add anything to that?

Uh your worship, I think you you've uh you know said it quite quite correctly, is that any time we draw from reserves for operations, this is going to happen that the day that you decide that you don't want to do that any longer, something has to replace that revenue.

And in this case, we've said, well, taxation it's operations.

Taxation taxation is the right place to pay for operations.

Um, I would have to check, you know, if if if you're suggesting, and I'm not clear whether or you're suggesting this or not, um, that we take BC safe restart money, which is now in the casino revenue and repay it to surplus or or just simply uh um you know reduce taxation uh yet again like we did last year um by using surplus uh sorry by using safe restart funds out of the casino revenue to basically reduce the tax rate.

But but you your worship you uh I I would agree with your statement that that this will come back um would be in this exact same position next year.

Well that yeah, this is money that I never expected that uh we would get from the province.

So um yeah, and it but it does seem appropriate.

Let's have that discussion when we're gonna do that.

Yeah, no, I think that everything later can be on the table for how to yeah.

Thanks.

Counselor Matson, are you good?

So d did you want us I mean no, no, I know you're not I know you're not good, but I meant question wise.

I I understand what's happened so far, yes.

Okay, good.

So do we wanna start on the non core and maybe go till we still have to go in camera.

Um maybe go until nine o'clock and then go in camera and then carry on tomorrow night.

Yeah.

So my question is are we gonna be actually just going over these things to get a better understanding of what they are?

Or are we going to be talking about whether to cancel them or or not at this point this is I think the non-core requests we're going to be talking about whether to cancel them.

Right?

They they represent a 0.8% tax increase so we're going to go through them and see what they are and either suggest other funding models or say we're not doing them.

So which tab are they under Steph?

Under tab two the the non-core listing is under tab two.

You will see that um the first two pages lists all five years of the plan going through each division in priority order.

The next page, page 33, lists where the money is coming from one year at a time.

So you see the funding across the top and and it goes through year by year.

However, so that you don't have to keep jumping between the two, my recommendation, and you you'll do it how how you like, is as we start with, you know, let's say we're going to start with the electronic access to archives repository.

Um that project summary is number N033 or N thirty three.

If you just flip to N thirty th in the project summary in tab five.

Right.

So if you keep keep your finger on tab two, but if you go to N33 project summary, you will see that one of the things the project summary tells you is where the money is coming from.

If you go down the left-hand column, one of the items is proposed sources of funding.

It gives you a full description of the project, what are the risks, what is being proposed, the scope, and and of course the five year plan for what is to be spent, uh the benefits that are tangible and intangible, and make a recommendation at the bottom from staff.

So I I do have um the listing that I can put up on the screen so that we can walk through these one at a time.

Okay.

So I bet you're just going to focus on the 2021, right?

Well, you know, it's it's um up to you, council and your worship.

Um if you want to just focus on 2021, that's fine.

Um if there are no comments or cancellation of projects for future years, then we will assume that you're okay with us leaving them in the financial plan.

Yeah.

Well, I mean, that may not always be the case, of course.

We do normally go through each one of the items, even if just briefly.

Okay, well, let's do that.

So we're so where are we starting then?

Okay, I am about to bring up um a listing, the the listing where you can see.

Oh, David.

Yes.

Given that a lot of these things we'd have to go back to the tab five.

I'm just wondering if it'd be easier just to stick with the descriptions on tab five and go over them one at a time.

Because they're hard to figure out.

Let's see what Don is going to suggest here.

Yeah, the um on uh that's that's a great suggestion.

However, my concern is that um they they're they're in maybe not quite as sensical order by number in the back in tab five.

It might, it might, you know, just so that uh the same staff can maybe speak, you know, in in general government services, it's generally Sarah and myself to speak to those items.

Um and so if those are all lumped together, the numbers aren't uh necessarily rational to the divisions.

So you you'll see up on the screen now, I'm not sure how how um you know readable that is from you.

I I noticed in council chambers earlier today that the side screen perhaps it's more readable, but um I'm I'm suggesting and and I apologize, uh Councilor Matson, that you can't see this.

But we we if uh my suggestion is that we clearly identify the project that we're speaking about and refer to it by its project summary number.

So in this case, the first one on the list is electronic access to archives repository, um, which is project summary number N thirty-three.

So Ron and then we can see what that what the funding is from.

So Ron, are you able to look on your computer at home and see this?

I'm not sure.

I don't think we can.

I can't see that.

Well, this should this would be the public would be able to see this now, would they not?

This go ahead, Don.

Sorry.

Sorry, we we weren't gonna broadcast um necessarily the uh I mean we certainly can.

It's not a very interesting graphic for the viewers at home, but we certainly can show it to the viewers at home.

No, I just thought it might help counselor Mattson know where we're at, but but um he keeps it.

We just mentioned the N, whichever number I can just go to the on tab five and I can just go back and forth.

N 033.

Right.

Which my recollection is it doesn't have any taxation implications for this year.

No, no, but it's following years.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Go ahead.

Yeah, I would uh uh suggest we postpone this until 2023.

Um one because it gives us some room on the uh the uh the surplus, and two, it would um uh 2022 would be a taxation.

Um, and knowing that 2022 is an eight percent tax increase, um, I think we should anticipate uh not starting this because I think the following years are three or five percent.

Um so um you know what are what are we hearing?

Um Paul's got a call.

Oh, is that what it is?

Sorry, okay.

I just said I know he's got he's got C FAX on.

So anyway, um it's not an essential, it's nice to have.

I really like archives, but um you know, to um spend the time with resources at this point getting it on the screen, leave it for a couple years.

Councillor Kwalovich.

Well, I just want to uh kick off the deliberations with a little bit of a preamble here.

Um I I must say I think this could be this could be a challenging uh challenging couple of days here weeks.

Uh I'm I'm pretty torn to be honest with you.

I just want my colleagues to know that.

Uh we certainly have responsibility to our residents to keep things low uh tax-wise and provide adequate services and continue to improve things.

Um yeah, I mean it we're gonna you know N33 is a kind of like a bit of a prime example of how far we want to get down through and I'm you know and I'm struggling to be honest.

Yeah, I agree.

You know, um, because part of me is just gonna say, absolutely, you know, not needed right now, not critical.

Um, would the average constituent say, yeah, we don't need that if I'm gonna have a tax increase, probably.

On the other hand, you know, big picture thinking, and uh yeah, this is probably like point zero something of the budget, right?

So, you know, I I I don't know how long this this could this could take a really long time if we do this.

Um yeah, I'm not sure.

I'm I'm kind of torn.

Well, I don't, yeah, I mean, I don't disagree with you at all on something.

And I think the flip side of it is too, is is how much the archives people would like to see this happen, right?

And how long they've been waiting for it to happen, and and many of them volunteer their time, et cetera, et cetera.

But on the bigger picture, I mean, we're gonna get there, but it's gonna take a while to get there, and then we'll figure out.

But we did make probably a mistake last year by you know, trying to we brought it down to that 1.5 percent, which at the time seemed like a good move, but now we're paying the part of the price this year and trying to keep it forward.

Counselor Lemmon?

Because this is such a small item, and we're going, you know, to start off here, it's it's it we don't have any kind of full picture.

So I'm wondering if we could if it could consider starting with those that need serious consideration, like the criticals and the required.

Well, I mean the non-core requests only end up at 0.8% of the tax increase, right?

So we can.

We can change the order, but the reality is we just need to go through the list.

I mean, you can always come back if we make a decision that you later think should be revisited, we can always come back.

I mean, I tend to think there's no tax increase at all this year.

And next year it's negligible.

And if it keeps the archivist happy, I think we should probably do it.

But I I don't feel hugely strongly about it, like Councillor Kualowicz.

Councillor Mattson, do you have any thoughts on this one?

Well, I agree with Councillor Rogers, except the numbers so small, I'm just wondering if not doing it will actually cost us in terms of the uh the volunteers.

Yeah, I I think that's probably true.

You know, especially given that I mean, you know, we can even say if we choose to, we can say that 2021 and 2022 be funded by surplus and then it go on to taxation if it makes anyone feel better.

We can uh support that.

Okay.

So it's small, I'm okay with that.

Okay.

So we're I hope each one's not gonna take this long.

So we're gonna leave it in um and do 2021 and 2022 from surplus before it goes on to taxation in 2023.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um so the energy audit of municipal buildings, that's in 2022.

So what's the number?

15,000.

Oh sorry, the N what?

Oh sorry, N069.

Your worship certainly easier to support budget items that are going to be in the future because we can always, as Christensen's pointed out, we can always you know change the game plan at that point, right?

Yeah.

So I think in principle everybody's probably okay with the idea that we should be doing that, and we can discuss it in in greater detail next year.

Okay.

So next is N06.

So what page is that that on in our tabs?

Oh, is it?

Thank you.

So are we only looking at ones that have uh an implication, budget implication this year?

Is that what I just heard?

Well, basically, although staff would like us to sort of give a uh a nod or a shake to um to the ones that are in there so spending 30 000 on uh study of our building it seems pretty silly so you're on the investment program development oh this is the last one okay so you're not sure about the building audit no that makes no sense to me at all okay so which one are we on now I'm sorry I'd lost again we don't have a six we don't have an N six so we're on N sixty six, which is is the investment Oh N66 okay yeah.

Investment program development.

So I do have a question about this worship.

Maybe Director Christensen could talk about is this um is this kind of like a like a wealth manager?

Yeah, go ahead.

Is this a um like a um one of the big five bank experts giving advice to the town's uh portfolio or recommending a portfolio or what exactly is this yes uh through your worship uh this one is uh uh in an area that we do not have internal expertise and strength but rather than just you know seeking uh you know like a one-time you know advice what this uh project proposes to do is develop a policy we don't actually have an investment or or you know we haven't you know kind of reviewed our investment portfolio and and we've left it with municipal finance um authority which is which is great and safe and and you know it's all about you know reducing risk um you know so so this will actually develop a policy and as well as um find uh you know kind of the you know what options we have for developing a relationship with a broker and finding you know the right broker if that's if that's the direction that we go this is just to get some outside expertise in an area where we don't have internal help counselor rogers uh okay so we're spending $25 thousand dollars to um to create a policy uh it it would be more than just creating a policy.

It would be actually developing a program and putting the program into place.

Okay.

But it does sound like if we're going to do this program, it's going to be a broker and we're going to have um ongoing brokerage fees.

So there seems like there would be a fiscal impact thereafter.

Yes.

And to my limited knowledge, my understanding is that those brokerage fees normally come out of the revenue that is earned, and the revenue that is earned exceeds the brokerage fees.

Yeah.

So you know it would when when you have something like this, you know, it would be really useful to know uh what we're gonna make on this.

See if we're going to invest $25,000, but because we're going to have the brokerage fees in the policy, we're going to make you know twice that you know we're we're gonna come out ahead.

I think that's that would be valuable information.

Except they probably don't know that information until we do the plan and see but it you Don you have it as strategic.

I mean is there any harm at all in in bumping it to next year seeing as it is casino revenue and we should probably be protecting casino revenue pretty carefully.

Yeah certainly your worship there there there is no harm only you know the the extent to which you believe um we could be doing better with our investments.

Thank you.

Counselor Qualwich.

I was wondering what other municipalities do once so other municipalities just leave it with MFA?

You know, I haven't done a survey of you know a dozen or more municipalities.

I have seen a mix of some who say MFA's got uh has has got us, um, and you know, as we do, um, but others also have an active uh portfolio, um, and and they you know they they kind of take a more um active approach.

So this would be does it help us determine what what is right for us.

Counselor Qualwich.

Thank you.

Uh I I really actually think this is a great initiative.

Um I really do.

Um I'd be interested to defer it to 2022 as well, but I and I'm interested to know, for example, like how much how many fees do we pay towards the MFA?

And kind of what is there, what's been their typical return on investment versus a private uh wealth manager.

Um and of course, there's plenty of wealth managers in in this city who have experience with large portfolios like this.

And I think honestly, for the long term, this is something that is really important and we could really benefit from potentially financially for our constituents.

Counselor Lemmon.

I I concur, and actually I would like to see us do it this year.

I think there's never have we needed some a program like this more than we do right now.

Um given what we've heard tonight.

Because we're gonna have less money to invest.

Okay, so just to move this along, who's in favor of leaving it in for this year funded by casino.

It's councillor Kwalowich.

Yeah.

Councilor Lemmon.

Okay, so who's in favor of bumping it to next year funded by casino revenue?

Myself.

Okay.

So that's moved to twenty twenty-two.

Okay, so next we have the IT strategic plan update, which is N zero two eight, Councillor Mattson.

Your worship, this is a project that was deferred.

It was scheduled for 2020, but we deferred it um the minute the COVID hit, um, knowing that that's something that that could could go.

So it has been delayed one year already.

I would suggest that it should go ahead as to make sure that we don't spend money where we shouldn't, um, and and make sure that all of our IT investment is in the right place.

Okay, thank you.

And then you're suggesting casino revenue for that.

Correct.

As well.

Yes.

But of course, if if council chose to, I mean, not that it makes any difference, but really, but we could we could do it out of surplus.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay, thoughts on that?

Councillor Rogers?

So did uh we uh this is an update, and was that planned by around 2017?

So it's time for an update.

Is that what you're saying?