[0:06] We are unmuted.

[0:08] » Fantastic. Uh, welcome everybody to our

[0:11] January 14th, 2026 uh, regular council

[0:14] meeting, first one of the year. I'd like

[0:16] to respectfully acknowledge the land on

[0:18] which we're gathered today is the

[0:20] unseated territory, the Komox First

[0:22] Nation, the traditional keepers of um,

[0:24] this land.

[0:26] Um, we do have an introduction of late

[0:29] items. Uh, the Courtney Air Park

[0:30] Association letter of request and uh,

[0:37] excellent. Any questions or comments?

[0:39] Seeing none, all those in favor? Any

[0:41] opposed? And motion carries. Thank you

[0:43] for that. And we'll move in adoption of

[0:45] minutes. And we have a regular council

[0:47] minutes from December 10th to

[0:50] any errors or omissions? See none, we'll

[0:53] accept those unanimously and we'll move

[0:55] into the parks and wreck um meeting

[0:58] minutes as well.

[1:02] » Excellent. Any errors or emissions?

[1:05] Seeing none, uh we'll accept those

[1:07] unanimously as well. And with that,

[1:10] we'll move into our first delegation uh

[1:12] with the mayor, Maryanne Me Ward from

[1:14] the city of Burlington, Ontario. Uh,

[1:17] Mayor Ward, it was a pleasure uh

[1:19] speaking with you uh previously and

[1:21] thank you so much for joining us today.

[1:23] Uh the the topic of the discussion uh is

[1:26] the elect respect uh campaign and uh

[1:29] with that I'll turn it over to you.

[1:32] » Well, thank you so much Mayor Wells for

[1:34] inviting me to be here this evening

[1:36] virtually and thank you to all members

[1:38] of council. I had the opportunity uh

[1:41] with my husband to travel through your

[1:43] fine city earlier this year. actually

[1:46] last year um and in and just absolutely

[1:49] loved being there. So we uh I'm a

[1:52] British Columbia an honorary BCN I think

[1:54] if that's the right the way to say it

[1:57] but thanks for for inviting me to uh

[2:00] speak a little bit about the elect

[2:01] respect uh resolution what it is and

[2:03] what it isn't and I want to uh really

[2:06] extend my sincere thanks to Mayor Wells

[2:08] for bringing this forward and for your

[2:10] support mayor for elect respect. Uh this

[2:14] began as really a conversation among um

[2:17] Halton elected representatives who are

[2:19] women. We have a coffee group that meets

[2:22] a couple of times a year for support.

[2:24] And one of our meetings we started

[2:26] talking about whether we would encourage

[2:29] uh our friends, our daughters. Uh my

[2:32] husband and I have two daughters and a

[2:33] son. Uh would we encourage them to seek

[2:36] elected office? And um not so long ago,

[2:40] it wouldn't have I wouldn't have

[2:41] hesitated to say yes. uh those of us who

[2:44] do this, it's a public service. We love

[2:46] what we do and just the ability to see

[2:49] um our community getting better because

[2:51] of some of the work we're able to do

[2:53] together. There's nothing like it. But

[2:56] uh but there's a butt and in recent

[2:59] years it has become um uh very toxic uh

[3:03] to the point of death threats uh for

[3:06] members of elected office. And so

[3:09] Electrospect was born. Um we uh everyone

[3:13] around the table of my coffee group and

[3:15] this is trustees all the way up to MPs,

[3:18] cabinet ministers, we had all

[3:20] experienced it and it was really kind of

[3:21] a shocking moment for us to hear that

[3:23] every single person had a story and uh

[3:26] and then we got to work. Uh what what

[3:28] could we do about this? And the one

[3:31] thing that we can always do is lead by

[3:34] example and commit ourselves to

[3:36] respectful debate and dialogue. And so

[3:39] we so the pledge, the electrospect

[3:42] pledge was born. Uh we commit to uh

[3:46] being respectful to our colleagues on

[3:48] council when we disagree. We want to

[3:51] foster good debate and dialogue about

[3:52] the issues, but we want to focus on

[3:54] policy, not people and not personal

[3:57] attacks. So that's the first part of the

[3:59] pledge. Uh and in return, we ask the

[4:01] public and our uh and our colleagues to

[4:04] treat us with respect. And since uh we

[4:08] launched the pledge um uh it has gone

[4:11] across Ontario, across the country uh

[4:16] major cities including Toronto, Missaga,

[4:19] Hamilton, uh of course Burlington have

[4:21] passed this. You would be the first uh

[4:24] city in British Columbia to pass it. Uh

[4:27] we have Flintflon Manitoba who passed

[4:29] it. uh and a number of uh boards and

[4:32] agencies including chambers of commerce

[4:35] uh business improvement areas you know

[4:37] really those public-f facing uh

[4:39] businesses where they are saying they

[4:41] also want to uh receive respect from the

[4:44] their customers and the people they

[4:46] serve. Uh last year our member of

[4:48] parliament Karina Gould um presented the

[4:52] elect respect pledge in the House of

[4:54] Commons. So we do encourage you to reach

[4:56] out to your MPs, your members of the

[4:58] legislative assembly to see if they will

[5:01] sign and endorse the pledge. So the

[5:04] momentum is really growing across the

[5:06] country. And I think there's there's a

[5:08] good and a and a and a difficult side to

[5:11] that. The good part is people are saying

[5:13] we want respectful discourse. The issues

[5:15] are too important. They're too big and

[5:18] and there are legitimate views,

[5:20] different views about them. Uh the

[5:23] downside is that everyone's got a story

[5:24] and and we really think that that's why

[5:26] this has taken off across the country

[5:28] that people are saying enough. Uh

[5:30] politics doesn't have to be a blood

[5:33] sport. It's actually public service. Uh

[5:35] and we want to encourage good people to

[5:37] run and stay in politics. Uh and uh I

[5:41] want to be able to encourage my

[5:42] daughters and my son uh to choose this

[5:44] as a career and not fear uh for it. Uh

[5:48] what it is is respectful debate. What it

[5:50] isn't is an attempt to silence different

[5:52] views. In fact, the opposite is true.

[5:55] And if there is uh toxic civ uh civil

[5:58] discourse, if you are worried that you

[6:00] could be threatened with uh with death

[6:03] in my case, uh I can tell you my story,

[6:05] but uh it's it's um I've been told not

[6:09] to go to public meetings. My safety

[6:11] couldn't be guaranteed. Uh that's what

[6:14] we're trying to say is unacceptable. uh

[6:16] but legitimate, respectful disagreement

[6:19] and debate on the issues we face is

[6:21] absolutely what we're trying to foster

[6:23] and create a climate of respect. So,

[6:26] thank you for the opportunity to say a

[6:28] few words. Happy to answer any

[6:29] questions. And again, thank you, Mayor

[6:31] Wells, and and all of the good people

[6:33] and council members of Courtney for this

[6:35] opportunity to speak to you this

[6:37] evening.

[6:39] » Oh, thank thank you so much. Really

[6:40] appreciate it. And again, thanks again

[6:42] for for starting this campaign again. Uh

[6:45] I I think you really highlighted the

[6:47] fact that, you know, this is something

[6:49] um uh when we look at the betrayal, when

[6:51] we look at um uh people fearing for

[6:54] their safety, it's definitely something

[6:55] that has uh uh exacerbated over the last

[6:59] five or so years that we we I've noticed

[7:01] it here. Um and uh and it it's

[7:05] [clears throat] definitely something

[7:05] that we see happening a lot online, but

[7:08] then we can see that spilling over um uh

[7:11] beyond that. And when I see how um this

[7:15] uh hits differently for my female

[7:17] colleagues, um one the types of threats

[7:21] they get are definitely I would say um

[7:25] levels multiple levels above what what I

[7:28] receive. Uh and you know some of the

[7:30] stuff I receive I think is certainly

[7:32] unacceptable but um uh people shouldn't

[7:35] have to fear for their safety, for their

[7:37] lives or or for their family members.

[7:39] And and that's just something that uh

[7:41] Unfortunately, uh, as as you mentioned,

[7:43] is is some people you we sometimes refer

[7:46] to them as keyboard warriors, but, uh,

[7:48] especially online, they're they're

[7:50] feeling that they have, uh, sort of a

[7:52] cart blanch to, uh, to attack and to try

[7:55] to intimidate and instill fear in

[7:57] people, which is which is simply

[7:59] bullying and and and not not acceptable.

[8:01] So, u, I really do appreciate it. Um,

[8:03] I'll look to my council members if

[8:05] anybody had any uh, comments uh, or

[8:07] questions beyond that. I don't see

[8:09] anything. Um, I really appreciate you

[8:12] taking the time today uh to do this. I

[8:14] know we had a member of the public who

[8:16] thought you might be flying here today.

[8:18] Uh, this is definitely a lot more uh uh

[8:21] useful. We do have a counselor on a

[8:22] train going in the opposite direction

[8:24] towards you, I think. Uh, but uh really

[8:27] glad you were able to to pop in today.

[8:29] Um, and again, a huge thank you for

[8:32] starting this uh this campaign and

[8:34] really hope that uh we continue to to

[8:37] move things forward. I know there's

[8:39] quite a few BC uh politicians now who

[8:42] have signed on to this and uh and I

[8:45] would expect that to continue. Our our

[8:47] local um association ABICC has asked me

[8:51] to sort of um uh provide some

[8:53] information when we have our um uh

[8:56] conference coming up here uh in in the

[8:58] near future. So there's definitely a lot

[9:00] of interest um uh and uh again, thank

[9:03] you so much. And with that, I'll let you

[9:06] go back to your regularly scheduled

[9:08] program and uh appreciate again all your

[9:11] work on this.

[9:13] » Thank you so much.

[9:15] » All right. Um with that, we'll move into

[9:19] uh internal reports and correspondence.

[9:22] And first is a resident survey, your

[9:25] Courtney, your voice. And I'll pass it

[9:28] over to

[9:30] Miss Okconor.

[9:34] Uh, thank you very much, council. So,

[9:37] um, I'm very excited to present this

[9:39] year's findings of the 2025 resident

[9:41] satisfaction survey, your Courtney, your

[9:43] voice. This year marks a significant

[9:45] step in our commitment to community

[9:47] engagement. Building on the feedback

[9:48] gathered from our previous surveys to

[9:50] form a what will be a very valuable

[9:53] 5-year benchmark data set. As in past

[9:55] durations, the survey serves as a

[9:57] crucial platform for residents to

[9:59] express their opinions and influence

[10:01] city policies and services. By utilizing

[10:03] evidence-based decision-making, we can

[10:05] meaningfully evaluate our service

[10:07] delivery and pinpoint areas that need

[10:09] improvement. Notably, the city selected

[10:11] Prairie Research Associates this year to

[10:14] lead the survey. So, bit of a different

[10:15] face online. uh implementing innovative

[10:18] methodologies that diminish bias and

[10:20] enhance data quality, particularly by

[10:22] capturing a more representative sample

[10:24] of our diverse community, including

[10:26] younger residents who are previously who

[10:28] previously had less visibility. Among

[10:31] the meth methodological updates for the

[10:33] 2025 survey was a significant change in

[10:36] the way we approach our municipal

[10:37] comparators. In the past, our

[10:39] comparisons involved municipalities

[10:41] whose populations range broadly from

[10:43] 10,000 to 150,000 residents, which often

[10:46] skewed the accuracy of our benchmarks

[10:48] for Courtney. This year, we refined our

[10:50] selection criteria to focus on

[10:52] municipalities that are more similar in

[10:53] size and characteristics to Courtney,

[10:55] such as Campbell River, Port Moody,

[10:57] Colonus, Smitch, and Swamish and

[11:00] mission. This targeted approach allows

[11:02] for a more relevant context in

[11:03] evaluating Courtney's performance and

[11:05] satisfaction levels, ultimately leading

[11:07] to more effective planning and resource

[11:09] allocation. Through open and transparent

[11:11] communication, our goal is to ensure

[11:12] that the voices of Courtney residents

[11:14] are heard and that their insights

[11:16] directly influence our collective

[11:17] future. With that in mind, I'm very

[11:19] pleased to hand things over uh to well

[11:22] for the presentation component to Derek

[11:24] Berg, who is the senior marketing

[11:25] research manager for P, who will walk us

[11:27] through the detailed findings of the

[11:29] 2025 survey and share his insights and

[11:31] implications for our community. Council,

[11:33] please note the entirety of the report

[11:36] is on uh the presentation deck in the

[11:38] event you want to go back to specific

[11:39] slides, but Derek will likely be

[11:41] focusing on certain slides more than

[11:43] others. Um, so if you see us moving

[11:45] through some quickly, it's really to

[11:47] allow us to go back in the event you

[11:48] wanted to have a specific discussion

[11:50] about some slides we weren't focusing on

[11:52] for this evening. So with that, I'll

[11:54] pass it over to Derek.

[11:57] » Perfect. Thank you very much for that

[11:59] introduction. Uh, yes, as Kate said, I

[12:01] am Derek Berg. I'm a senior uh market

[12:04] research manager at Prairie Research

[12:06] Associates and uh very happy to have uh

[12:10] uh conducted this work for the city of

[12:11] Courtney um this year and happy to uh go

[12:14] into some details about the findings. Uh

[12:18] so we'll start off I'll just do a quick

[12:20] note on just the the methodology um if

[12:23] we go a couple slides forward here. Um

[12:26] so we did a similar methodology um of

[12:29] what's been done in the past. We did a

[12:31] random digit dialing telephone survey of

[12:34] residents of the city of Courtney.

[12:36] Everyone um had to be at least 18 or

[12:38] older to uh participate.

[12:41] Um but this is basically the most um

[12:43] statistically valid way of uh getting

[12:46] respondents to uh complete this type of

[12:48] survey. So it's completely random uh

[12:51] with 300 residents. Um but what we did

[12:54] is implemented quotas to make sure that

[12:56] we were um reaching the appropriate

[12:58] groups in terms of age and uh gender and

[13:02] household income. Uh to make sure that

[13:05] uh this population that we were serving

[13:07] is uh statistically representative of

[13:10] the the city as a whole. And where there

[13:13] were some discrepancies uh we waited the

[13:15] data to make sure that um once again

[13:18] that data is um statistically valid and

[13:21] uh reliable.

[13:23] So I just skip through a few slides here

[13:27] to get to the section on uh quality of

[13:30] life.

[13:33] Uh so this first is uh top of- mind

[13:36] issues. So we started by asking um

[13:38] residents of the city of Courtney what

[13:40] they thought is the most important issue

[13:42] facing their community today. um as it

[13:45] has been in past years. We we looked at

[13:47] um how to compare this to what we saw in

[13:50] uh previous years and homelessness

[13:52] continues to be kind of the key the

[13:56] first top of mind issue that um that

[13:58] comes to residents minds. Um that's

[14:02] certainly not unique to the city of

[14:04] Courtney. um as it's shown here, it's

[14:06] also um when we looked at other um

[14:09] resident surveys in comparable m

[14:11] municipalities

[14:13] um cities like Campbell River, Colona,

[14:15] Cranbook, and Mission, um homelessness

[14:19] was kind of the the the key uh top of-

[14:22] mind issue that uh that came up the most

[14:25] often. Um so for city of Courtney

[14:28] residents, these concerns witho

[14:30] homelessness or at least it being the

[14:32] top of- mind issue um with people tends

[14:34] to increase with age. Um and although

[14:38] not quite in that statistically uh

[14:40] significant realm, but um also prevalent

[14:43] uh among women more so than men. Um this

[14:46] to me it's likely due to a personal

[14:49] safety um issue. you have the older

[14:52] population or women feeling that, you

[14:55] know, maybe it's they're uh it's more

[14:57] they're more vulnerable um seeing um you

[15:01] know, the homeless population

[15:03] um prominent. So um that's kind of our

[15:07] what I uh interpret from the data here.

[15:10] Um yeah, there you know several other

[15:13] issues that like um the lack of

[15:15] affordable housing or uh mental health

[15:18] issues, traffic, road congestion are

[15:21] some of the more top of- mind issues,

[15:22] but it it's definitely homelessness that

[15:24] is the the key uh top of mind um thing

[15:29] for uh city of Courtney residents.

[15:32] So moving on to quality of life. Um so

[15:36] on a four-point scale here from uh very

[15:39] good to very poor residents were asked

[15:41] to rate you know how they felt the

[15:42] quality of life in city of Courtney is

[15:45] um we generally this is fairly similar

[15:48] when we look at overall um satisfaction

[15:51] and those saying very good or good um

[15:53] with quality of life when we compare it

[15:55] to last year although you can see there

[15:57] is has been a little bit of a drop each

[15:59] year over the past couple years. Um, one

[16:03] thing that I thought is interesting to

[16:04] note here is that it's although the top

[16:09] two score kind of goes a little bit

[16:11] down, um, you'll see that the those in

[16:14] the very good side or then those kind of

[16:17] on the poor side. Um, it seems like

[16:20] people tend to skew more to the extreme

[16:22] in this and you have less of those that

[16:24] are kind of just in the middle with

[16:26] that. Um but

[16:30] yeah, with that said, I I do think it's

[16:33] somewhat of a a positive to see that you

[16:35] still have um certainly an increase over

[16:38] last year and those that feel like the

[16:40] quality of life in City of Courtney is

[16:41] very good. Um those that are more likely

[16:45] to to have those positive perceptions

[16:48] are um those who are 65 and older. And

[16:52] it's um it's those in the the mid age

[16:54] range, 30 to 44 years old, that um are

[16:57] least likely to to rate um positively.

[17:04] And uh as um Kate had mentioned, we kind

[17:07] of took a look at some um comparable m

[17:11] municipalities to kind of give some key

[17:14] um benchmark comparisons. And in terms

[17:16] of quality of life, um when we look at

[17:19] the the the good or very good, so the

[17:21] top two rating, Courtney falls um kind

[17:25] of pretty much in the in the middle of,

[17:27] you know, where we um were able to find

[17:30] data on comparable um cities. So,

[17:34] not uh not on the worst end and not uh

[17:37] not really on the on the on the super

[17:40] high high end, but yeah, just kind of

[17:42] there um in the middle to kind of give

[17:44] you some um benchmark context for that.

[17:48] When we look at changes in quality of

[17:50] life over time, um it's not this isn't a

[17:54] uh it's hard to give a direct comparison

[17:58] um to the previous years simply because

[17:59] we changed this question to um ask just

[18:02] about changes over the past year rather

[18:04] than changes over the past 3 years. Um

[18:08] so for that reason it's not really

[18:09] surprising to me that we have um

[18:12] basically about half of people staying

[18:14] that saying that the they feel like the

[18:16] quality of life has stayed the same. Um

[18:19] but certainly a lot less that are saying

[18:22] you know quality of life has become

[18:23] worse over the past year and a bit

[18:26] similar even a little bit higher with

[18:28] that 8% saying that um the quality of

[18:30] life has um has gotten better.

[18:34] So to me that's a bit of a a positive

[18:37] move in the positive direction.

[18:40] Um and then when we look at the net

[18:42] promoter score this is definitely where

[18:44] we see some some positive movement. um

[18:47] in 23 and 24 we saw similar net promoter

[18:51] scores of um of -1617

[18:55] whereas although we're still in the the

[18:57] negative um moving in the positive

[19:00] direction up to um -4 and just uh to

[19:04] clarify for those don't that don't know

[19:06] the net promoter score is um essentially

[19:09] taking the calculation of those who rate

[19:13] their uh recommendation of city of

[19:16] Courtney has a place to live on a scale

[19:17] of 0 to 10. You take those um promoters,

[19:21] so those saying 9 or 10, and uh that is

[19:24] subtracted from the detractors, so those

[19:26] rating anywhere from 0 to six. So that's

[19:29] what gives you that um that so it's a

[19:32] 32% minus 36% which gives you that uh

[19:35] that negative4. Um, one thing that I'll

[19:38] note is, uh, we changed this to a true

[19:42] net promoter score, um, metric. Uh, in

[19:45] the past, um, this was only rated on a 1

[19:48] to 10 scale, although we moved this to

[19:50] what is considered the industry

[19:52] standard, which is a 0 to 10 scale. Um,

[19:55] so you will see obviously there are 11%

[19:58] here who said zero where there hadn't

[20:00] been any in the previous years because

[20:02] that wasn't an option. But despite

[20:05] having that one extra option for people

[20:07] to rate um their recommendation on the

[20:10] lower end, we're actually seeing an

[20:12] increase in um in a high number of

[20:15] promoters. You jumped up from uh from

[20:18] 16% up to 25% in those that um rate

[20:22] coordinates at 10 out of 10 for

[20:23] likelihood to recommend. Um [snorts]

[20:27] and uh yeah, just one one note about

[20:29] that is again um the older population

[20:32] and also home ownership which is kind of

[20:34] tied to um to to age as well. They had

[20:38] the uh they were more likely to rate um

[20:41] City of Courtney as a higher uh more

[20:43] likely to rate it higher in terms of um

[20:46] how they would recommend it.

[20:49] » [snorts]

[20:49] » Um, and then so this is just looking at

[20:52] um for those that did not give a um a

[20:56] positive rating to um recommending the

[20:59] city of Courtney as a place to live.

[21:01] These are reasons why. Um a lot of these

[21:04] are fairly similar to we we tried to

[21:07] compare to last year as much as

[21:09] possible. So some of these are fairly

[21:10] similar. um you'll see a bit uh of an

[21:13] increase in high cost of living, which

[21:16] again it makes sense and that's not

[21:18] exclusive to Courtney. That's that's um

[21:20] being experienced everywhere. Um and

[21:23] then one thing is that what we didn't

[21:26] see from the data last year is people

[21:27] saying um that the city is too crowded.

[21:30] Um that's 19% of people this year said

[21:33] that. So, I don't know if um the the

[21:36] research vendor that did this last year

[21:38] if if maybe that wasn't a a theme that

[21:40] came up uh enough for them to to put it

[21:43] into its own code, but um it was

[21:45] certainly something that um that we saw

[21:47] in the data um this year and and

[21:48] certainly it's it's tied with um the uh

[21:52] the highest proportion for um for

[21:55] reasons not to recommend uh the city of

[21:57] Courtney.

[22:00] Okay. So, uh now moving on to uh

[22:04] satisfaction with city services. Um

[22:08] so when we look at the uh top two box

[22:11] here, we see 62% are either very

[22:14] satisfied or somewhat satisfied um

[22:16] overall with the city services. Um but

[22:20] to me this is also moving in a more

[22:22] positive direction just because you have

[22:24] that increase of those who are um or are

[22:27] saying they're very satisfied. That two

[22:30] top two box like a difference of 4%

[22:32] isn't isn't a huge increase. Um so to

[22:36] see that that very satisfied number jump

[22:39] up a bit more I think is um is more

[22:41] telling. And then you have a a bit more

[22:44] it's it's more so with the people who

[22:46] are moving out of the somewhat satisfied

[22:48] box into kind of that that middle area.

[22:51] So um you're you're certainly not seeing

[22:54] more negative here. Um but you are

[22:56] seeing more positive.

[23:01] Um and then so the next slide here just

[23:04] talks uh shows overall satisfaction with

[23:06] city services um with what we could find

[23:09] um online with um with other comparable

[23:13] m municipalities.

[23:14] Um so this does show that although the

[23:18] the previous slide showed that there

[23:20] were positive sentiments um this might

[23:23] show that city of Courtney ranks more

[23:26] towards the bottom of this. However, um

[23:29] the caveat here is that typically when

[23:32] other m municipalities, actually all

[23:34] four of those that are above city of

[23:35] Courtney here, um they used a fivepoint

[23:38] scale rather or sorry, a four-point

[23:40] scale um to rate um satisfaction versus

[23:45] what we use as a as a fivepoint scale.

[23:48] So, um, those top four, they didn't have

[23:50] the option to kind of go in the in the

[23:52] middle, forcing them to go either one

[23:55] direction or or the other in terms of

[23:56] positive or negative. Um, I would say if

[24:00] if this if the surveys were be to run

[24:02] exactly the same, you would tend to have

[24:05] um a lot of those people who are in the

[24:07] positive category. Um so typically those

[24:10] who are somewhat satisfied kind of move

[24:12] into that mid category where they're in

[24:14] between um satisfied and dissatisfied.

[24:17] So um again although this this does show

[24:20] City of Courtney is more towards the

[24:22] bottom. Um to me I I think this shows

[24:25] more that they're it's kind of more in

[24:28] the middle. Um certainly with Mission

[24:29] with that 69% you would see that drop

[24:31] down. Um but the other top three there I

[24:34] think would would drop down considerably

[24:36] um with the change in scale and uh and

[24:38] yeah you'd have city of Courtney ranking

[24:41] um I would say similar to um what we can

[24:44] see in other uh comparable

[24:46] municipalities.

[24:50] Okay. And so this is just a quick

[24:52] snapshot of individual um city services

[24:55] that we asked about. Um

[24:59] what's was I guess was interesting to me

[25:02] is that although the overall

[25:04] satisfaction we asked when we um you

[25:07] know prefaced with people rating their

[25:09] just overall satisfaction before getting

[25:11] into uh kind of the details here people

[25:13] were generally um positive. Yet here um

[25:18] we don't really see any positive

[25:21] movement compared to last year other

[25:23] than satisfaction with um parks, green

[25:25] spaces, and multi-use trails. Um others

[25:29] other areas are more either kind of just

[25:32] in line with um with last year or saw a

[25:36] little bit of a drop. Um and then to me

[25:39] I think the biggest drop that we see

[25:41] here is is satisfaction with the

[25:44] availability of online services. Um to

[25:47] me this is um is likely due to I mean

[25:53] we're

[25:55] uh ever evolving technological world now

[25:57] and people see how fastpace and changing

[26:01] um technology is and I think people just

[26:06] expect more from um the availability of

[26:09] online services and being able to access

[26:12] more and to be able to do more with

[26:14] online services. So to me um just in

[26:16] terms of that being the biggest drop

[26:18] that would be my um my my guess as to

[26:22] why that is. And I think um we also saw

[26:25] uh with that we saw that um the younger

[26:28] uh age population were uh less satisfied

[26:32] with um that availability of online um

[26:35] services.

[26:39] Okay. And then so now just looking at um

[26:42] a key driver analysis of um overall city

[26:45] services. Um so what this does we ran a

[26:47] regression model to um basically predict

[26:50] what um are most likely in terms of

[26:55] those individual city services what is

[26:57] most likely to predict

[27:00] um the positive overall satisfaction

[27:03] with city services as a whole. Um so

[27:06] you'll see that uh land use and

[27:09] community planning um is actually the

[27:11] biggest predictor of overall

[27:14] satisfaction

[27:16] um followed by uh park screen spaces and

[27:18] multi-use trails. Um so we know that you

[27:21] know park screen spaces, multi-use

[27:23] trails saw a bit of a a higher

[27:25] satisfaction this year than last year.

[27:27] That was ranked second overall in terms

[27:28] of city services. So that's a good sign

[27:31] um in in that regard. And then land use

[27:34] and community planning. To us, this

[27:36] tells us that this is kind of um you

[27:39] know, if you are looking to hopefully

[27:40] have people more satisfied with the

[27:43] service they received from the city,

[27:44] this is kind of one of the ones to focus

[27:46] on. Um I I I can't really say for sure

[27:50] if it's, you know, is it um you know,

[27:53] how people agree with with um you know,

[27:55] the community planning and the use of

[27:57] land or is it that they don't

[27:59] necessarily have um the information

[28:01] available to them to know what's going

[28:03] on. But um you know certainly this is an

[28:06] aspect that um could be explored um and

[28:10] certainly just by the evidence we have

[28:11] here shows that um it is a very big

[28:14] predictor for um how satisfied people

[28:16] are with the overall services they

[28:19] receive.

[28:22] So now looking over to um experience and

[28:27] satisfaction with city staff.

[28:32] So, uh just under uh half residents, 45%

[28:37] said that they've personally been in

[28:38] contact with the city um in the past

[28:40] year in some capacity. Um a little bit

[28:43] higher than what uh has been seen in

[28:46] previous years, but overall um fairly

[28:48] similar. Um it's those in though in the

[28:51] kind of mid age range, the uh anywhere

[28:53] from 30 to 64 years old. Those are the

[28:56] the residents that are more likely to

[28:58] have contacted the city in the past

[29:00] year. those um under 30 or over 65 less

[29:04] likely to have done so.

[29:10] » Um and so uh those who did have

[29:13] experience with contacting the city in

[29:15] the past year were asked about their

[29:17] overall experience um in in dealing with

[29:21] um city staff. Uh again we see fairly

[29:25] positive uh movement here. We've in

[29:29] terms of last year we see movement in

[29:31] both the um top two very satisfied

[29:34] somewhat satisfied group and then uh

[29:36] quite a big jump in um those who say

[29:39] they are very satisfied um overall with

[29:42] with city staff.

[29:47] Uh looking at the individual um aspects

[29:51] we asked about with dealing with city

[29:52] staff.

[29:54] Um quite a few um positive jumps here.

[29:59] Um but the I think the the thing that

[30:01] pops out to me are kind of the the two

[30:04] bottom ones here where we see um so

[30:06] there was a drop in um satisfaction with

[30:10] being able to easily find the right

[30:12] staff to deal with their their

[30:13] questionnaire problem. that dropped from

[30:16] uh 77% satisfied to 69% this year. Um

[30:21] and then conversely, we saw a pretty big

[30:23] jump in um in satisfaction with staff

[30:26] going the extra mile to help them. So

[30:28] that's from uh 58% last year up to 70%

[30:31] this year. Um other aspects kind of

[30:35] fairly in line with uh with what we saw

[30:37] last year. So um those are kind of the

[30:39] big uh the big changes um that we saw

[30:42] last year. And then as we move forward

[30:45] uh we'll also see a key driver analysis

[30:49] that uh we conducted um on this as well.

[30:52] So same idea as the the one before. This

[30:54] is kind of the to predict um what

[30:57] aspects

[30:58] um are most likely to impact people's

[31:01] overall satisfaction with city staff.

[31:04] Um so this is an interesting one. I

[31:07] unfortunately I don't necessarily know

[31:09] how you um would define uh this top one

[31:13] where it's you know staff going the

[31:15] extra mile to help them. Um but this is

[31:17] certainly a um a very strong predictor

[31:22] of what uh satisfaction overall with

[31:25] staff is. Um, I think it's um it's one

[31:29] of those tricky ones where it's it's

[31:31] hard to measure exactly what going the

[31:34] extra mile means to to people who who do

[31:37] get uh you know help from city city

[31:40] staff, but um certainly it's it's those

[31:43] that feel that um that you know they've

[31:47] they've really been heard and really

[31:48] been helped that um are more likely to

[31:52] uh understandably give an overall uh

[31:54] positive satisfaction rating.

[31:56] Um, and then that's also followed by

[31:58] being able to easily find um the right

[32:02] um right staff to uh to answer your

[32:05] problem. Um, so that's to me that that I

[32:10] guess that's a more um kind of concrete

[32:13] um aspect that you're able to um put

[32:15] action towards making sure that um

[32:18] people have um the information available

[32:20] to them or being able to easily contact

[32:23] those who can point them in the right um

[32:26] in the right direction. And especially

[32:27] because that's um that was something

[32:30] that was lower end uh lower on the um on

[32:33] the overall scale when uh comparing to

[32:36] the other um aspects that might be

[32:38] something worth uh worth focusing on.

[32:41] [snorts]

[32:43] Okay. And then looking at um value for

[32:46] tax dollars. I think this is a a key

[32:49] metric that's asked every year asking

[32:51] people um you know how would they um you

[32:55] know how do they feel their um overall

[32:58] value for tax dollars rate. Um again we

[33:02] we see

[33:04] that similar um actually no change in

[33:07] the top two box with 70% 7 and 10

[33:09] residents um believing that they either

[33:12] get good or very good value for their

[33:14] tax dollars and uh a little bit of a

[33:16] bump up in uh those who are at the uh

[33:19] the most positive those that say they

[33:21] get very good value. Um, one key

[33:25] difference here in demographics is that

[33:26] there is a a very strong correlation

[33:29] between um, age and their perceptions of

[33:31] tax dollars in that um, the the youngest

[33:35] group um, 18 to 29 year olds, they're

[33:38] least likely to say they get good value

[33:40] for their tax dollars. Um, well, you

[33:42] keep increasing up in age and uh, more

[33:45] so people feel that they're increasingly

[33:48] more positive about what they receive.

[33:50] And I think that's also that's tied to

[33:52] uh to home ownership here is you know

[33:54] the older you are the more likely you

[33:55] are to um to have a home and also feel

[33:59] that you're um you're receiving services

[34:02] that give you good uh good value for

[34:04] your for your money.

[34:10] Um and then so again this uh we are able

[34:13] to um find comparable um stats on other

[34:18] m municipalities. this was on the same

[34:21] uh four-point scale um across all of

[34:24] these uh surveys that we were able to

[34:26] find. So, I think it's um it's a

[34:29] certainly a positive that you see city

[34:30] of Courtney right up there um near the

[34:33] top of the list uh given that this is a

[34:36] a directly um direct uh comparison to uh

[34:41] how these other mun municipalities ask

[34:43] this question. Sorry.

[34:49] Okay. And then uh here we just have um

[34:53] sentiments on balancing taxation and

[34:57] service delivery levels. Um so similar

[35:01] to um what we've seen in the past years

[35:05] is that um not the majority but the most

[35:08] common um uh answer here is to simply

[35:12] say we want taxes to be maintained. um I

[35:17] don't you know I don't necessarily want

[35:19] to uh receive a lot less for my services

[35:22] but I don't want to pay more um for

[35:24] anything. And then you've got an equal

[35:26] proportion on either side who say they

[35:27] either want to see uh an increase to

[35:29] taxes to um to keep up or enhance uh

[35:33] services versus those that say they want

[35:35] to um to reduce their taxes uh even if

[35:40] it means cutting services.

[35:47] Okay. And then um here we just have some

[35:51] uh quick notes about communication from

[35:53] the city. Um about uh essentially no

[35:58] difference from um what was recorded

[36:00] last year in that um just over a third

[36:04] of residents feel that they receive uh

[36:07] too little information from the city

[36:08] where um just about everyone else says

[36:10] they get the right amount of

[36:12] information.

[36:14] And in terms of what type of information

[36:17] they need from the city uh is um city

[36:21] planning and development is kind of the

[36:23] the the main thing that um is top of

[36:26] mind for people in terms of what they

[36:27] want to receive. And I think that goes

[36:29] um you know fits with um when we looked

[36:32] at the the key drivers for overall

[36:35] satisfaction of city services. there was

[36:37] that land use and and community planning

[36:39] that was um you know what is seen as the

[36:42] biggest driver of satisfaction. I think

[36:44] this this certainly ties into that in

[36:46] that um people generally want um may

[36:51] want more information about city

[36:53] planning and development um in order to

[36:56] um you know feel like they understand

[36:58] what's going on or have a say in um in

[37:01] what's happening.

[37:04] So there so there are a few more slides

[37:08] though, but just because I don't want to

[37:09] take up uh too much of anyone's time, I

[37:11] think I hit on um all of the kind of key

[37:14] um points that I wanted to discuss with

[37:16] this. Um I'm happy to answer any

[37:19] questions now. But also on that note, um

[37:21] if there is anything that um comes out

[37:24] of this, other questions that people

[37:26] have um as they review the report in

[37:29] more detail, um we're we're here and

[37:32] we're uh we're happy to answer any

[37:34] questions uh after the fact as well.

[37:38] » Uh fantastic. Thanks so much for for the

[37:40] presentation and and kind of

[37:42] highlighting th those key uh metrics. Um

[37:45] it it's quite interesting to see how um

[37:48] you know one uh those numbers play out

[37:51] for the city of Courtney and then how

[37:52] they compare with others. Um I guess

[37:55] it's it's it's a challenge to know what

[37:57] scale people are using uh community to

[38:00] community. You like you said when you

[38:02] compare it it might be one out of four

[38:04] uh 0 to 10 like just depending on what

[38:07] that question is. So um really

[38:09] appreciate some of that insight. Um and

[38:11] I'll pass it over to councelor healing.

[38:15] Thanks, mayor. No questions. Uh just one

[38:17] observation. Uh I think it's quite

[38:20] possible that the decline in uh overall

[38:23] satisfaction and recommending Courtney's

[38:26] place to live coincides with perceptions

[38:29] that it's too crowded and um concerns

[38:32] about traffic. And uh I think we have to

[38:35] bear in mind that for nine months of

[38:36] last year, we had a major traffic snarl.

[38:39] Um, I also noted that the uh uh you were

[38:42] more likely to be dissatisfied and not

[38:45] recommend the city if you were employed

[38:46] as opposed to if you weren't employed,

[38:48] which means that it was people who were,

[38:50] you know, having to drive and get around

[38:52] the city to get to work and get to where

[38:53] they were going that were less

[38:55] satisfied. And I think that may have a

[38:57] lot to do with the sewer conveyance

[38:59] project. Uh, but otherwise, there's a

[39:01] lot to uh to learn uh from the survey.

[39:04] And I certainly have heard from people

[39:07] that many people think the city's too

[39:09] crowded. They don't particularly like

[39:10] the scale of development and and the

[39:13] congestion in some parts. Uh that uh um

[39:17] it's something that takes some getting

[39:18] used to. Thanks.

[39:20] » Thanks very much, Councelor Hill and

[39:22] Councelor Moore.

[39:23] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um thanks for it's a

[39:26] lot of work putting this all together.

[39:28] Um I while I appreciated some of the

[39:32] insights that you offered, I think it's

[39:34] good to recognize that this um this

[39:36] survey doesn't include narrative

[39:38] responses. I don't believe um or um

[39:41] qualitative. So I mean we all have

[39:45] theories and they may be accurate or not

[39:47] why people answered a certain way. And I

[39:50] know that we are using the same survey

[39:52] for 5 years I believe. So there's

[39:55] obviously we don't want to we can't

[39:56] change anything at this point, but

[39:58] perhaps down the road it it may be

[40:00] useful to have a bit more of that

[40:02] qualitative information to know, you

[40:05] know, if if [snorts] there's a high

[40:07] percentage in one area, you know, why

[40:10] did that why did that person rate rate

[40:12] it that way? Because really we don't

[40:14] have the analysis of this data to know

[40:18] um to know the answers to those

[40:20] questions. So we can only speculate and

[40:24] so it does give us a good snapshot but I

[40:26] think um in future years it may be maybe

[40:29] good to dig a little bit deeper. I know

[40:31] that you did gloss over this the

[40:34] communication the communication piece a

[40:36] bit because it was running a bit long.

[40:39] Um but I think also another important

[40:41] piece is around how people like to

[40:43] receive their information and most

[40:45] people still do get it from the

[40:47] newspaper whether that's

[40:49] you know paper copy or online and um and

[40:54] uh so I think you know sometimes there's

[40:57] confusion or criticism around how we we

[41:01] do have a an online presence um for sure

[41:05] but and we're we've launched a

[41:07] newsletter but I think that's important

[41:08] to know how how people prefer to receive

[41:11] their information. Thanks.

[41:13] » That's a good point. And I just want to

[41:15] touch on um your first point just about

[41:17] the um the qualitative aspect. Um and so

[41:20] the um although with a survey like this,

[41:23] you're right in that you can't um dive

[41:26] too deep into things um in terms of

[41:29] having people answer um open-ended

[41:32] questions. There are a few in this like

[41:34] the um the question that um starts off

[41:37] with top of- mind issues. Um that's

[41:39] strictly a just an open-ended question

[41:41] for for people to um however answer

[41:45] however uh they want for that. Um, so

[41:47] yeah, there there are a few open-ended

[41:50] questions like that um in this survey

[41:52] that um when you see kind of those um

[41:55] those charts that have like a a lot of

[41:59] different response options, typically

[42:00] those are um generally open-ended

[42:03] questions that people just give their

[42:05] their thoughts. Um and then those are

[42:07] kind of coded into um into data that we

[42:12] can kind of we group them into themes so

[42:14] that you can kind of get a quantitative

[42:16] metric on um on what those themes are.

[42:20] Um but yes, one of the challenges with

[42:23] getting more qualitative data in a

[42:25] survey like this is um is simply uh the

[42:29] cost and to be able to um keep people on

[42:33] the phone. Um, a lot of people don't

[42:35] want to spend uh a ton of time answering

[42:37] a survey that ends up getting long

[42:39] because they keep having to um answer

[42:42] kind of open-ended questions where they

[42:43] have to think on the spot. Um, but yeah,

[42:47] I I agree there's always value in um in

[42:51] digging deeper into some qualitative um

[42:54] aspects when you use the the

[42:56] quantitative um evidence to um kind of

[43:00] decide where you need to focus.

[43:04] and uh followup council.

[43:06] » Yeah, just very quickly. Yeah, I totally

[43:08] get that piece about the open-ended. I

[43:09] think my comment was more around the

[43:11] rationale for for mentioning it in the

[43:14] first place or or um rating the topics

[43:18] like you know what was the reason behind

[43:20] it but but I appreciate that. Thank you.

[43:23] » Right. Yep. Fair.

[43:25] » Excellent. And Mr. Okonnell

[43:27] » Uh thanks very much. So, um, councelor

[43:30] Moren, you may recall we had that, um,

[43:32] come up when we did the first year of

[43:34] the survey with the net promoter score,

[43:36] and there was a lot of speculation as to

[43:38] why we scored so low, and we thought,

[43:40] oh, is it really because people wouldn't

[43:42] want to promote the city for negative

[43:44] reasons, or was it that we don't want

[43:46] any more people coming to the island and

[43:48] to Courtney because it's so great, we

[43:49] want to preserve it that way. Um, so we

[43:51] added that secondary question in order

[43:54] to probe a bit deeper to get a bit more

[43:55] insight on that. At the same time, um,

[43:58] council's been very supportive and has

[44:00] adopted a brand new communication

[44:02] strategy and an engagement strategy

[44:04] which is on the verge of completing with

[44:06] the implementation strategy for that.

[44:09] And really basically this is the

[44:11] statistic benchmarking survey and that's

[44:13] the purpose of it. whereas this is a

[44:16] really good indicator for when we're

[44:17] doing other forms of engagement on

[44:19] specific service areas or initiatives or

[44:22] policy decisions um to probe a little

[44:24] bit deeper into some of these areas at

[44:26] that point and also um benefiting from

[44:29] directly targeting the various user

[44:31] groups as opposed to something that's a

[44:33] bit more general. At the same time, um,

[44:36] if we have these types of items that

[44:38] come up and and we we're not seeing any

[44:40] kind of connection, it's absolutely

[44:42] possible to add on secondary questions.

[44:44] U, it's just a matter of what do we want

[44:46] to come off, what do we want to put on

[44:47] or do we want to expand and what are the

[44:49] impacts of that. But yes, we have

[44:50] learned that lesson from the first one

[44:52] to the third one and uh, we were

[44:54] surprised at the response. So, it was

[44:56] not what we suspected. Thank you for the

[44:58] question though. Well, thanks for that

[45:01] uh that insight and um uh one one um uh

[45:05] sort of comment I wanted to make is

[45:07] maybe if we forward went forward a few

[45:09] slides to the preferred method of

[45:11] contacting uh the city. I think it's a

[45:13] pretty important slide that um actually

[45:17] reflects kind of um uh some of the work

[45:21] that we've done. So, I mean, when we

[45:22] look at um uh uh the fact that there

[45:25] there's a local newspaper, I think there

[45:27] may be one more. It might be one more

[45:30] ahead of this.

[45:32] Uh that's the one. Yeah. So, when you're

[45:34] actually contacting the city uh about

[45:36] your concerns, um the telephone is

[45:38] definitely uh high up there. Email uh

[45:41] and um uh and then in person. And you

[45:45] know, when we look uh the city website's

[45:48] relatively, uh far down there for now,

[45:50] but I hopefully uh with the new website,

[45:53] um that will become more effective and a

[45:55] place for people to go. And and one of

[45:57] the things uh that I've noticed um and

[46:00] I'm not sure if it's just with the new

[46:01] website. Um but, uh what what I've seen

[46:05] when I'm searching for things now is

[46:07] pretty much every page includes a

[46:10] contact on there. And so that's

[46:12] something that again when we look at

[46:13] that that question about being able to

[46:15] find the right person um the fact that

[46:18] you know I mean I I have other ways of

[46:20] finding the right person but the fact

[46:21] that I can uh search for something on

[46:24] the website get to a page and then if I

[46:26] want further information there's

[46:28] actually a a name right there which I I

[46:30] found u like one of the things I really

[46:33] love about the new website. There's many

[46:34] things that I like about it, but I think

[46:36] it really pushes us uh down um uh that

[46:40] path of, you know, when we look at the

[46:42] numbers. It'd be really interesting to

[46:44] see um how these numbers are reflected a

[46:47] year from now considering our first uh

[46:50] newsletter just went out on Monday,

[46:51] which again really excited about uh that

[46:54] newsletter and getting information out

[46:55] to people. And even though it might be

[46:58] uh at this point not uh a way for people

[47:01] to uh contact city belt concerns because

[47:04] we're initiating that contact, people

[47:06] have that as an actual way to get back

[47:08] to the city um and prompt them because

[47:11] sometimes you forget about the things

[47:12] that annoy you. Um and uh and the fact

[47:15] that you have the the city contacting

[47:17] you on a regular basis with the ability

[47:19] to reply, I think is great. Um and then

[47:22] lastly, I just love the fact that social

[47:24] media is so far down on this list. So,

[47:27] um, again, I think that just really

[47:28] reinforces, um, decisions made, uh, by

[47:32] staff and council around, um, our social

[47:34] media interactions. So, uh, with that,

[47:37] um, I don't see any further questions or

[47:39] comments. Um, this is just, uh, for

[47:43] receipt.

[47:45] » All right. And I'll receive that on

[47:48] behalf of council unanimously. Thanks

[47:50] very much for the report. Um, and next

[47:53] we'll move into financial services, the

[47:55] 2026 2030 financial plan taxation

[47:59] scenario, and I'll pass it over to Mr.

[48:01] Garvin.

[48:02] » Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, on the

[48:04] staff on our agenda today, beginning on

[48:06] page 133 of the agenda, is a follow-up

[48:09] staff report as a result of the

[48:10] direction council gave us uh, November

[48:13] 26th and 27th committee the whole

[48:15] meetings on our budget. Council was very

[48:18] specific on uh what some requirements

[48:21] were, some information they wanted to

[48:23] facilitate the creation of our financial

[48:25] plan. [gasps]

[48:26] Uh both our annual financial plan for

[48:28] 2026 and then the uh 5-year financial

[48:31] plan. Uh Mr. Langmire is our finance

[48:32] officer, is going to uh give an overview

[48:35] in response to council direction, and

[48:36] we're looking for um support to uh carry

[48:40] on with the preparation of our financial

[48:42] uh plan um in the next uh little while.

[48:48] Mr. Lagman.

[48:50] » Hello, Mayor and Council. Nice to be

[48:51] here once again. So, as Jeff nicely

[48:54] alluded, I'm here to talk about the

[48:56] financial plan. So, council gave the

[48:59] following direction back on November

[49:00] 27th. What I'm filling even on is the

[49:04] taxation scenarios at 567%

[49:07] with options on using 6 to 8.8 8 million

[49:10] in a minimum surplus balance to be held.

[49:16] This information is included in the

[49:17] report. Now, I was a bit challenged by

[49:19] fitting all this information onto one

[49:20] slide, but it was less informative to

[49:23] look at if you broke it up. So, what

[49:24] we're really seeing is each column is a

[49:28] year of the financial plan and then each

[49:30] horizontal green divider is a percentage

[49:33] change scenario. So council had

[49:35] requested what would the scenarios look

[49:36] like at five, six and 7% and then the

[49:39] impact of smoothing the taxation change

[49:42] over the following years.

[49:44] [gasps] So doing this analysis, I really

[49:46] realized that um

[49:48] if we want to have a very smooth tax

[49:50] change, we're going to be holding a $6

[49:53] million surplus target and require 9%

[49:56] tax change for 2026 and 2027.

[50:02] At the 9% uh change, the impact of the

[50:05] average home is just shy of $200, $197.

[50:09] When doing this uh moving on to the next

[50:12] slide of using that surplus target of

[50:14] $8.8 million, it is substantial

[50:17] substantial impact on the tax change

[50:19] scenarios. If we note in the five and

[50:23] six% change scenarios, those two

[50:24] highlighted yellow cells, um those years

[50:28] we're actually underneath or below our

[50:30] desired surplus balance. So in addition

[50:33] to raising taxes to meet our spending

[50:36] obligations, we're actually raising

[50:38] taxes to to meet our surplus balance

[50:40] obligations, too. So this makes it more

[50:43] challenging that it is not recommended

[50:45] to be in these areas holding that $8.8

[50:47] million surplus balance.

[50:50] looking forward to

[50:53] a higher change. Holding the higher

[50:55] balance makes it more challenging to

[50:57] have additional funds on hand to smooth

[50:59] out the taxation changes in the future

[51:01] years.

[51:04] One thing I wanted to highlight is the

[51:06] change in method of how we determine how

[51:08] much is the reasonable amount of surplus

[51:10] to be held. An item that was brought up

[51:12] is that we shouldn't really be

[51:14] maintaining general surplus uh for

[51:16] spending items that we have specific

[51:18] reserves for. So under the revised

[51:20] method of a target surplus balance, you

[51:22] can see that we've removed uh solid

[51:24] waste, RCMP contract costs, and gaming

[51:27] expenditures from our total general fund

[51:30] spending. So it brings the total general

[51:33] fund spending from 55.9 million down to

[51:36] 42.2 million. This really drives how

[51:40] much cash we should have on hand in the

[51:42] event that something occurs. So on the

[51:46] far right hand side we have the reserved

[51:48] surplus target balances

[51:50] and looking at um one of the driving

[51:54] factors of how much surplus you have on

[51:56] hand. It really comes down to how big is

[52:00] your organization, what other reserves

[52:02] do you have on hand, how often you get

[52:04] paid and what other funding options are

[52:08] out there for you. So this really came

[52:10] into [snorts] consideration in in my

[52:13] recommendation. So in the prior years I

[52:16] took a more conservative approach and

[52:18] these were coming out of likely

[52:20] influence from the co years that the

[52:21] city should be holding about 20% of

[52:24] annual spending on hand. After doing

[52:27] this analysis looking at literature on

[52:30] what surplus balance is I have changed

[52:33] my recommendation to be sitting at that

[52:35] 15% range. I recognize that the city has

[52:38] a number of reserves and we have access

[52:40] to other sources of funding. So it is

[52:43] reasonable to use a different target. So

[52:46] that brings me to the recommendations.

[52:50] So to get future direction on the

[52:53] financial plan, one piece that needs to

[52:56] come first is where does council want to

[52:58] hold a surplus balance because that'll

[53:00] greatly influence our available surplus

[53:02] to adjust future tax changes and the

[53:05] 2026 tax change. So I'm recommending we

[53:08] hold a 15% balance. That's uh $6.3

[53:12] million.

[53:14] Another piece that flows into this is I

[53:16] want to be sure that we're using capital

[53:18] efficiently. Having cash in the bank is

[53:21] not an effic efficient use of capital.

[53:23] Having though a safety net if a expense

[53:27] comes on is good

[53:30] given the recommended surplus balance of

[53:33] 15%. My recommended tax change for 26

[53:37] and 27 is 9% followed by a 9% change in

[53:41] 2026 or in 2027. Well, this really helps

[53:44] it. It smooths the tax change over the

[53:46] two years. It bridges a gap between the

[53:48] election and provides an incoming

[53:51] council one year of relatively stable

[53:54] tax change before having to tackle the

[53:56] projected 17.3% tax change in 2028.

[54:02] And my final note though, although the

[54:04] surplus balance is projected to be below

[54:07] the $6.3 million target in 27, it is

[54:11] reasonable that there will be some

[54:13] variations coming from the completion of

[54:15] the 2026 year. And that target is a

[54:17] target.

[54:20] And with that, that concludes my

[54:21] presentation on the subject looking for

[54:23] direction.

[54:27] Excellent. Thanks very much for for the

[54:28] presentation and and coming back with uh

[54:31] those requested uh uh scenarios so that

[54:34] it gives us a little bit more food for

[54:36] thought. Um it's much appreciated and

[54:38] I'll look to council for any comments,

[54:41] suggestion and direction.

[54:44] Councelor

[54:45] McCall,

[54:46] » I'll start with question.

[54:48] » Um yeah, I I think this is really well

[54:52] laid out and um the rationale makes

[54:54] sense to me. It's also a good reflection

[54:56] of the last discussion that we had

[54:58] around this. So, uh, thanks for that.

[55:01] Uh, the only and this might have been in

[55:05] the last report, but we are chewing on I

[55:07] think more um factors when we had our

[55:09] last discussion, but um just the one

[55:13] assumption on the new taxation revenue.

[55:15] Um, I I assume that that's carried

[55:18] forward in all five years of the

[55:20] financial plan of 250,000

[55:23] per year. Um, and I'm just wondering, is

[55:27] that like based on the lowest year we've

[55:29] had in the last couple years? I I

[55:31] thought we're averaging quite a bit more

[55:33] than that, but I I'm not I'm not

[55:35] certain. So, maybe you could just expand

[55:37] on that a little bit.

[55:38] » Yeah. So, in the report, I identify some

[55:41] of the assumptions that went into this

[55:42] forecast. And the new tax revenue is

[55:45] assumed at $250,000 per year across the

[55:48] five years. This is less than we did in

[55:51] the prior years. However, 250,000 is the

[55:55] is what the 2026

[55:58] new tax revenue is pegged at. And so,

[56:01] you know, looking at what the average

[56:02] was, we had a couple really big years in

[56:05] there. And we've had years that have

[56:06] been close to this 250. So, you know,

[56:09] when projecting out, I don't want to

[56:11] take the average just because it's the

[56:13] average. I want to take what's happening

[56:15] today and sort of forecast that forward.

[56:18] So, given this, it still there is

[56:20] flexibility. you know the the picture

[56:22] could be better in 27 28 or 29 and then

[56:24] the taxation scenarios are changing

[56:26] slightly.

[56:27] » That's helpful. So the 250,000 is the

[56:31] amount that we're projecting for this

[56:32] year based on basically what's in the

[56:35] pipeline of development currently in

[56:37] development services. Okay, that sounds

[56:40] like a reasonable approach. Thanks for

[56:43] that.

[56:44] » Thanks Council McCullum and Mr. Garin.

[56:46] » Thank you uh through the mayor. I just

[56:47] want to add to Mr. Lang's comments. Um

[56:51] if we reflect back you over the last

[56:53] 20-year period, we've had some really

[56:55] big big swings. And so non-market growth

[56:58] is uh especially what we're hearing um

[57:01] you know what may be um in the future.

[57:04] That's also tempered with the fact that

[57:06] we're also understanding very

[57:08] significant growth related to CFP

[57:10] Comach. So it's a it's a very difficult

[57:12] time now to really make that projection.

[57:14] We just want to be conservative and

[57:15] council has asked us to be, you know,

[57:17] kind of conservative in both our revenue

[57:19] projections uh as well as our cost

[57:21] projections. So, at this point, we we're

[57:24] saying uh this is a practice you want to

[57:26] follow.

[57:28] » Thanks for that. Uh uh and we'll pass

[57:30] over to councelor.

[57:32] » Thanks, Mayor. Um

[57:35] first of all, I'm interested in the

[57:36] language. We're using the term tax

[57:38] change. Really, what we're talking about

[57:40] is a tax increase. Is that correct?

[57:47] Yeah, that is correct.

[57:49] » Um I don't know tax change is maybe a

[57:53] little more palatable but uh um how do

[57:55] we rationalize uh

[57:58] um a 9% increase uh which is

[58:02] significantly above inflation. Um, I

[58:05] mean, I know we're a growing city and uh

[58:08] we obviously have uh uh increased costs

[58:12] with that, but um uh you know, we've we

[58:17] didn't see it reflected in our resident

[58:19] survey that was just completed, but

[58:21] affordability certainly is a concern out

[58:23] there. And uh um you know, the a 9%

[58:27] increase is still fairly significant.

[58:28] So, I I I'm just interested to hear how

[58:30] we rationalize that.

[58:36] you know through through the mayor.

[58:37] Thank you for the council council's

[58:38] question. Um the finance plan in front

[58:42] of you reflects the strategic priorities

[58:44] identified with this council as well as

[58:45] the capital program and so through the

[58:48] development of this program we ask

[58:50] council for direction and that's what's

[58:52] the cost to deliver this is now the

[58:55] question and we don't and I'm not taking

[58:56] it and being glib about what the cost is

[58:58] to deliver. Mr. Mr. Langmire is uh in

[59:01] the last 3 years showed council what the

[59:03] cost to deliver our services equal how

[59:05] we have to address the needs of the

[59:07] community and how to fund our capital

[59:09] program and that's the majority of these

[59:10] costs and so council didn't give us

[59:13] direction to change our level of

[59:14] service. What council asked us to do was

[59:16] come forward with a way to utili

[59:20] establish a service uh level

[59:23] make sure that we have adequate reserves

[59:25] and um to understand what our surplus is

[59:29] and to smooth our tax over the next 5

[59:31] years. So this is what's required to do

[59:32] that. Now there may be a discussion and

[59:35] direction from council to not do that

[59:37] but the justification is what's required

[59:40] to deliver our services and the staff

[59:42] report that's attached our previous

[59:44] staff report talked about where we land

[59:46] in taxation and service delivery amongst

[59:48] our comparator communities. Um the

[59:50] community to our left uh has a higher

[59:53] tax rate increase include plus their

[59:56] infrastructure levy. the municipality to

[59:59] our this direction [laughter] has chosen

[1:00:02] to change uh their approach for this

[1:00:04] financial year related to reserve

[1:00:06] contributions. Uh that's that's a

[1:00:08] direction from council. Uh but what's

[1:00:10] been presented in front of you is

[1:00:11] required to deliver our services that

[1:00:13] the community is asking for and I

[1:00:16] acknowledge that in our previous

[1:00:17] discussions there were a series of tax

[1:00:20] rates that were discussed. Um, and then

[1:00:23] this tax rates coming back in order to

[1:00:25] address what council's last direction

[1:00:27] was. So that's why we're looking for

[1:00:29] direction in order to prepare the

[1:00:31] financial plan that would come back for

[1:00:32] council. So it's not the we're not

[1:00:34] preparing the this isn't the financial

[1:00:36] plan as of today, but it's the direction

[1:00:38] to create that financial plan. Hopefully

[1:00:40] that clarifies.

[1:00:43] » Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Garbit. And uh and

[1:00:45] and again there there you know

[1:00:47] [clears throat] are discussions at at

[1:00:48] the federal and provincial levels about

[1:00:50] uh potential grants and things like that

[1:00:52] but again we we can't anticipate what

[1:00:55] those are uh until we actually receive

[1:00:58] them the money's in the bank so to speak

[1:01:00] and uh and I mean that that goes I mean

[1:01:02] we're going to have discussions around

[1:01:04] DCC's as well um you know where the

[1:01:06] federal government is saying that you

[1:01:08] know they're going to have them and then

[1:01:10] somehow make cities whole uh based on on

[1:01:13] that. But again, how how do you make

[1:01:14] those decisions when we're really

[1:01:17] waiting for them to to uh provide that

[1:01:19] leadership and uh and move forward uh

[1:01:22] one way or the other? Uh Council Fish.

[1:01:25] » Yeah, thanks Mayor and thanks for the

[1:01:27] report. Um I'm more inclined. I I do

[1:01:29] like the 6.3 uh million balance in our

[1:01:33] surplus and I think that's probably

[1:01:35] reasonable. Um, but I'm more interested

[1:01:37] in seeing something like a six or 7%

[1:01:40] increase. And the reason for that and

[1:01:41] not say a 9% increase is it does

[1:01:44] acknowledge,

[1:01:46] excuse me, the difficult times that

[1:01:48] we're in right now. And it forces um,

[1:01:51] you know, the next council to make what

[1:01:53] I think are obviously difficult

[1:01:55] decisions, but uh, not to to accept a

[1:01:58] year-over-year 9% increase, which I

[1:02:00] think uh, would be very difficult to

[1:02:03] swallow. That continued on. So, um,

[1:02:06] yeah, I understand that it it looks

[1:02:08] smooth, but it's also just kind of

[1:02:12] softening the fact that we're we just

[1:02:14] keep adding more and more services and

[1:02:16] more and more, which they're great

[1:02:18] services, but um, you know, with our

[1:02:21] recent economic challenges with

[1:02:22] everything that's going on in the world,

[1:02:24] I think it might be just a little bit

[1:02:25] rich. So, that's where I'm landing with

[1:02:28] this year's budget. Thanks.

[1:02:31] Thanks, Councelor FR and uh councelor

[1:02:34] McCull.

[1:02:36] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um

[1:02:39] I had uh similar thinking around um what

[1:02:43] the percentage and how much um surplus

[1:02:46] makes sense to utilize. Uh while what's

[1:02:49] in the recommendation um evens out the

[1:02:53] tax increase year-to-year um the 6%

[1:02:56] actually looks at what we have over and

[1:02:59] above our our surplus target and divides

[1:03:02] that amount between two taxation years.

[1:03:05] So we are kind of splitting you know

[1:03:08] that that money that additional surplus

[1:03:12] that we have um to reduce taxation and

[1:03:16] we could use it to smooth it out

[1:03:18] entirely or or you know so I think you

[1:03:21] know splitting it between this year and

[1:03:24] next year is a is a fair approach. Um, I

[1:03:28] think

[1:03:30] it the the next council that comes in is

[1:03:33] going to see um

[1:03:36] a new fireh hall um coming into play and

[1:03:39] there's there's a cost associated with

[1:03:41] that. And you know, essentially what

[1:03:43] we're doing is um addressing some of

[1:03:47] that by pushing some surplus there. But

[1:03:49] you know, you you just can't get around

[1:03:51] um bringing a new asset with new

[1:03:54] staffing online without um an impact to

[1:03:58] uh what what revenue is required. So,

[1:04:01] um, yeah, we could choose to smooth it

[1:04:04] out now and and take on some of that

[1:04:06] cost currently, but, um, it doesn't

[1:04:09] really change the fact that, you know,

[1:04:11] that service is needed and that

[1:04:13] decision's been made and that is the the

[1:04:16] cost impact to it. So, um I think it is

[1:04:19] a fair approach um to go with the 6% um

[1:04:25] and uh yeah, there are likely decisions

[1:04:28] that will need to be make made around

[1:04:30] maybe other services or or how um that's

[1:04:34] addressed in the years going forward,

[1:04:35] but our decision right now is is on this

[1:04:38] year's tax. And I I think that's a

[1:04:40] responsible approach is um using half of

[1:04:42] the excess

[1:04:44] um to make things a little easier this

[1:04:46] year. Thanks.

[1:04:49] » Thanks, Councilman Cullum and Council

[1:04:51] Warren.

[1:04:52] » Great. Thanks, Mayor. Um yeah, I think

[1:04:55] I'm in fair amount of alignment with the

[1:04:57] comments so far. Um I appreciate the

[1:05:01] work that's been been done and you've

[1:05:03] done what we asked you to do, which is

[1:05:05] great. Um it's always um different when

[1:05:08] you're looking at it all in black and

[1:05:10] white, but I know um I question the

[1:05:14] surplus that we were holding um because

[1:05:17] it's not very palatable to me for people

[1:05:21] to have an increase in taxes and then

[1:05:23] see that we have whacks of money in the

[1:05:25] bank because we were under budget or we

[1:05:28] got grants or whatever. And the surplus

[1:05:31] is, you know, has been consistent. And I

[1:05:35] I would like to see us even um holding

[1:05:40] less surplus and staying at the and um

[1:05:44] and looking at a 6% um because I I mean

[1:05:49] we know that some of the funding is is

[1:05:51] drying up, but then we always seem to

[1:05:55] find or you know be successful with some

[1:05:57] grants. I'm not trying to um do what

[1:06:00] Mayor Wells said and count our chickens

[1:06:02] before they're hatched, but this is why

[1:06:04] we do end up with surpluses because we

[1:06:06] we end up um you know with these with

[1:06:12] these extra funds and I think it would

[1:06:14] be better to alleviate the the tax

[1:06:16] increase for our citizens and have a

[1:06:19] bunch of money in the bank. Thanks.

[1:06:23] aside from what we need, we need to have

[1:06:25] some, but I just don't think we need it

[1:06:27] to the level that that we've been

[1:06:29] carrying. Thanks.

[1:06:31] » Thanks, Councelor Mren. Um, and next

[1:06:33] we'll have Councelor Cole Hamilton who's

[1:06:35] online, and then we have a couple more

[1:06:36] lights uh back in the room here, but uh

[1:06:38] over to you, Councelor Cole Hamilton.

[1:06:41] » Yeah, great. Thanks very much, Mayor. I

[1:06:42] think I'm uh having similar thoughts to

[1:06:45] my colleagues. Um I I think that keeping

[1:06:49] sort of uh the $6 million um unallocated

[1:06:53] surplus uh level at least for now while

[1:06:55] we um I know that over the course of the

[1:06:58] next year we're going to get that uh

[1:07:00] reserves and surplus policy that we've

[1:07:02] been thinking about and that will be uh

[1:07:05] allow us to have a much clearer sense I

[1:07:08] think uh we or whoever sitting around

[1:07:10] this table this time next year of where

[1:07:12] where we stand. I do know that we've

[1:07:14] increased our uh reserves considerably

[1:07:17] uh over the course of this term through

[1:07:19] things like the SIP the strategic

[1:07:22] infrastructure investment program which

[1:07:24] is increased by 1.5% every single year.

[1:07:27] So things that a new council could

[1:07:29] consider are um you know the

[1:07:32] implementation of the SIP whether

[1:07:34] there's any cause at any point for um

[1:07:37] changing the rate of increase or anyway

[1:07:40] so I think there there are uh places

[1:07:42] where a future council can make their

[1:07:44] own decisions as to and we'll have more

[1:07:47] information in front of them and as for

[1:07:49] now I'm comfortable with like like my

[1:07:53] colleagues with the um something in the

[1:07:56] six to 7% % range. Uh I'm not sure

[1:07:59] depending on how soon the vote happens

[1:08:00] whether I'll still be here online with

[1:08:03] you at the end of it, but I appreciate

[1:08:04] being able to share my perspective and

[1:08:06] I'm glad to see that there seems to be a

[1:08:09] fair amount of agreement among council.

[1:08:11] This is a a wise balance that we've

[1:08:13] struck here and appreciate staff

[1:08:15] generating these uh these scenarios so

[1:08:17] we could we could look them all through

[1:08:19] carefully and um and it leaves a

[1:08:26] you know, the numbers we see going

[1:08:28] forward. Um, there are always rough

[1:08:31] guesses and they I note that of course

[1:08:34] that no unallocated surplus is included

[1:08:37] in

[1:08:38] them, but we do seem to consistently

[1:08:41] have one. So that means that often the

[1:08:44] uh the the scale of a future tax change

[1:08:47] is not as um substantial as it might

[1:08:50] initially seem uh when one's trying to

[1:08:52] predict it say two years out. So, uh,

[1:08:55] long long and short of it, I'm I'm

[1:08:58] comfortable with a six to 7% increase,

[1:09:01] uh, over this year. Um, and, uh, keeping

[1:09:05] the six the roughly $6 million, um,

[1:09:09] unallocated surplus for now while we,

[1:09:11] uh, you know, complete that process of

[1:09:13] looking at our reserves. And I know

[1:09:15] there are others on council I think

[1:09:16] particularly director mccll have had uh

[1:09:18] better data on the way in which we've

[1:09:20] increased uh our reserves over uh over

[1:09:23] time but if if staff were maybe able to

[1:09:26] uh answer that as a question like how

[1:09:28] our total reserves have increased over

[1:09:31] the course of this council from 2022 to

[1:09:35] uh to the present if that's if those are

[1:09:37] figures that they happen to have. So

[1:09:39] I'll just pack that question on to the

[1:09:41] end. Thank you.

[1:09:44] Uh, thanks very much, uh, Councelor Cole

[1:09:46] Hamilton, and and we did catch about

[1:09:48] 98.9%

[1:09:50] of that. There was a couple little

[1:09:51] hiccups in there, but I think we

[1:09:53] definitely got the the the full gist of

[1:09:55] of your comments, uh, including the

[1:09:57] question in at the end there. Um, and

[1:10:00] I'll maybe I'll pass it over to Mr.

[1:10:01] Langmire, um, just so uh, either he can

[1:10:04] clarify or I don't have the information

[1:10:07] on the reserve changes over the last

[1:10:09] four years on hand. Those will come back

[1:10:12] with the reserve policy and it'll give a

[1:10:14] nice clear picture that way.

[1:10:18] » All right. Okay. Thanks for that. And

[1:10:20] councelor McCullum.

[1:10:23] » Yeah. Um, and this is something we can

[1:10:26] maybe pick up in the next um,

[1:10:29] discussion, but um, something that I was

[1:10:32] wondering about and just kind of chewing

[1:10:34] on these um, numbers, especially looking

[1:10:36] forward is um, our contribution to the

[1:10:40] SIP um, to address our infrastructure

[1:10:43] gap. We've done some really good work on

[1:10:45] that in the last couple of years and we

[1:10:47] understand what the gap is in our

[1:10:50] reserves and our our obligations to our

[1:10:53] um fixed assets

[1:10:56] and we are increasing that contribution

[1:11:00] by a percentage every financial cycle.

[1:11:04] Um but could you remind me how long it

[1:11:06] will take for us to increase that until

[1:11:09] we've um if anyone reme we can again

[1:11:12] pick this up next time but um until that

[1:11:14] that gap is kind of met with our our tax

[1:11:18] contributions

[1:11:20] » I believe from the um information was

[1:11:23] about 10 or 11 years was the projection

[1:11:25] at the time.

[1:11:28] » Yeah. Based on what we know now. Yeah.

[1:11:30] Um okay that's great. I I just wanted to

[1:11:33] highlight that that is um you know a

[1:11:36] decision that was made. It's it's sound

[1:11:38] financial policy. It's um it's a it's

[1:11:42] responsible decision- making, but um

[1:11:45] it's also, you know, ambitious to make

[1:11:48] up that gap that a lot of um

[1:11:51] organizations are are basically ignoring

[1:11:53] in a 10-year time span. So that is a

[1:11:56] policy decision that future councils

[1:11:58] could revisit and and change the

[1:12:00] approach and lengthen that if if that's

[1:12:03] the desire or um you know addressing

[1:12:07] trying to smooth out some of these ups

[1:12:08] and downs that that are inevitably in

[1:12:11] front of us. Um yeah so I'll just leave

[1:12:15] it at that. I just wanted to bring that

[1:12:16] into the discussion.

[1:12:18] » Thanks Councelor McCullum and Councelor

[1:12:21] Fr.

[1:12:22] » Yeah thanks again mayor. [clears throat]

[1:12:23] Would you accept a motion at this time?

[1:12:26] » Um, I don't see anybody getting any more

[1:12:28] clarification. So, yeah.

[1:12:30] » Thanks, Mayor. I'll I'll move that

[1:12:31] council direct staff to prepare the 2026

[1:12:34] to 2030 financial plan using a surplus

[1:12:37] balance target of 15% of the 2025

[1:12:39] general fund budgeted spending,

[1:12:41] including tax funded capital and

[1:12:43] excluding expenditures with specific

[1:12:45] reserves. And the council directs staff

[1:12:47] to prepare the 2026 to 20 2030 financial

[1:12:51] plan using the 6% tax change scenario

[1:12:55] for 2026 and that additional available

[1:12:58] surplus be applied through 2027 to 2030.

[1:13:02] » Second.

[1:13:05] » Right. That's been moved and seconded.

[1:13:06] Are there any questions or comments on

[1:13:09] the motion on the floor?

[1:13:13] Um, I'll maybe just make make the

[1:13:14] comment that I think I've made uh pretty

[1:13:16] much every year when we've gotten to

[1:13:18] budget time and and that kind of talks

[1:13:21] about that bow wave and um the the fact

[1:13:24] that the less we do this year, the the

[1:13:26] more that's going to be next year and

[1:13:27] and I think we've seen that uh time and

[1:13:30] time again and and so um uh again uh

[1:13:33] looking forward to that reserve and um

[1:13:37] surplus policy coming back uh to give us

[1:13:41] another tool in the toolbox. So, so

[1:13:43] we're able to really contemplate that

[1:13:45] stuff and and make sure that we're

[1:13:47] leaving things as healthy as possible

[1:13:48] for uh the uh the council after the next

[1:13:52] term. So, um that being said, I still

[1:13:55] don't see any further questions or

[1:13:56] comments. So, I'll call the question.

[1:13:58] All those in favor?

[1:14:00] Any opposed?

[1:14:02] And motion carries.

[1:14:05] Um all right, moving on to lease

[1:14:08] renewals for the Courtney Air Park. U

[1:14:10] lease lots 2 to four commercial hangers

[1:14:13] uh 6.12 and I'll pass it over to um Mr.

[1:14:18] Garb

[1:14:20] through the mayor. Um Scott Haynesworth

[1:14:22] is going to give an introduction of this

[1:14:24] report and it's covering um

[1:14:28] four of the five commercial leases,

[1:14:31] sorry, three of the four commercial

[1:14:33] leases at the airport.

[1:14:36] » Thank you, Jeff. uh through the city

[1:14:38] manager, mayor and councel. Uh this

[1:14:40] report is before you to consider the

[1:14:41] renewal of three existing ground leases

[1:14:43] at the Courtney Air Park, specifically

[1:14:45] lease lots 2, three, and four, all of

[1:14:48] which expired on December 31st, 2025.

[1:14:52] The leases relate to existing commercial

[1:14:54] hangers and aviation uses that are

[1:14:56] already uh established on site. In each

[1:14:59] case, the tenant owns the building

[1:15:01] improvements and is requesting to

[1:15:02] exercise the first renewal term provided

[1:15:04] under the original lease agreements. The

[1:15:07] proposed renewals are for a further

[1:15:08] 5-year term from January 1st, 2026, uh,

[1:15:11] running until December 31st, 2030 with

[1:15:14] two additional 5-year renewal options

[1:15:16] remaining, each subject to council

[1:15:18] approval.

[1:15:19] An independent fair market rental

[1:15:21] appraisal was completed in November 2025

[1:15:23] to support the renewals. The appraisal

[1:15:26] confirms that the proposed rents meet or

[1:15:28] exceed minimum market benchmarks based

[1:15:30] on existing zoning, land use controls,

[1:15:33] and aviation related use restrictions

[1:15:36] included in the leases.

[1:15:38] Annual rents will continue to escalate

[1:15:40] at 4 and a.5% consistent with the

[1:15:42] structure in the original lease

[1:15:43] agreements. I'll also note that the

[1:15:44] proposed lease rates are approximately

[1:15:46] 45% higher than the 2025 lease rates. A

[1:15:50] notice that this position was issued in

[1:15:51] accordance with the community charter

[1:15:53] and no public feedback was received. Uh

[1:15:55] staff are therefore recommending

[1:15:56] approval of the lease renewals as

[1:15:58] presented. Be happy to take any

[1:16:00] questions.

[1:16:02] Right. Thanks very much uh for that. Are

[1:16:05] there any questions or comments?

[1:16:09] Right.

[1:16:11] » Any questions, comments on the

[1:16:12] recommendations on the floor? Seeing

[1:16:14] none. All those in favor? Any opposed?

[1:16:17] And motion carries.

[1:16:21] and we'll move on to operational

[1:16:22] services CBRD water south extension

[1:16:25] project uh project approval and pass it

[1:16:29] over to Mr. Garvin again.

[1:16:30] » Thank you through the mayor and council.

[1:16:32] It's a really important uh uh project

[1:16:35] where we're sharing in infrastructure

[1:16:37] with both CVRD

[1:16:40] uh and Komox First Nation Council um

[1:16:43] confirmed the partnership on this

[1:16:45] project uh with a public statement uh in

[1:16:48] a past council meeting and Mr. Shaw is

[1:16:51] going to give an overview and we have

[1:16:53] staff from the CVRD have joined us uh as

[1:16:55] partners in this project. Over to you

[1:16:57] Mr. Shaw.

[1:16:59] » Thank you Mr. Garbot. Uh good evening

[1:17:01] through the mayor to council. I'm

[1:17:02] pleased to present the water south

[1:17:04] extension project project approval

[1:17:06] report. Really a cover report for the

[1:17:08] bylaws that the CBRD has submitted on

[1:17:10] behalf of the service. Uh and before I

[1:17:12] begin as Mr. Garin articulated uh we I'd

[1:17:14] like to acknowledge and introduce u a

[1:17:16] few members from the Comox Valley

[1:17:17] Regional District who played a critical

[1:17:19] role in developing this initiative. So

[1:17:22] please join me in welcoming Mr. Charlie

[1:17:24] Gore the senior manager of capital

[1:17:25] project delivery. Uh Jake Martins the

[1:17:27] general manager of corporate services.

[1:17:29] um their expertise and collaboration has

[1:17:31] been instrumental in bringing this

[1:17:32] project to its current stage and I'm

[1:17:35] glad to see them here today to support

[1:17:37] the discussion. So if council has any

[1:17:38] questions for them feel free to ask. Um

[1:17:40] but just briefly uh the water south

[1:17:43] extension project is a transformative

[1:17:45] regional infrastructure project led by

[1:17:47] the Komox Valley Regional District in

[1:17:49] partnership with Komox First Nation and

[1:17:51] the Royston water local service area

[1:17:54] with the participant being the city of

[1:17:56] Kourtney. Uh the project itself will

[1:17:58] extend water transmission infrastructure

[1:17:59] south of Courtney supporting treaty

[1:18:01] lands uh Royston uh key growth areas in

[1:18:04] South Courtney and this investment is

[1:18:06] foundational to the city's long-term

[1:18:08] growth strategy ensuring reliable water

[1:18:11] services for our future both for

[1:18:13] development and as well as aligning with

[1:18:15] the city's water master plan for future

[1:18:18] growth. Uh governance for this project

[1:18:20] is anchored in two CBRD bylaws that are

[1:18:22] here for you today. both bylaw number

[1:18:24] 897, the establishment bylaw, and 898,

[1:18:28] the loan authorization bylaw, which are

[1:18:30] both here in front of council for

[1:18:32] council consent. Um, council support

[1:18:35] today will enable the timely delivery

[1:18:37] deliver sorry, delivery and advancement

[1:18:39] of the strategic initiative in this

[1:18:41] project as the project aims to support a

[1:18:44] sustainable development, economic

[1:18:46] growth, and regional collaboration while

[1:18:48] positioning the city for future success.

[1:18:51] In terms of timelines and next steps, uh

[1:18:54] timely consent is essential for the

[1:18:56] project to move forward. Uh continue and

[1:18:58] maintain momentum for the project and

[1:19:00] meet grant funding deadlines. So key

[1:19:02] milestones are obviously consent of the

[1:19:05] bylaws today in January. post consent.

[1:19:08] Uh the province uh the submissions to

[1:19:10] the province for the bylaws for

[1:19:11] adoptions will be in March or March at

[1:19:13] the latest with tendering and

[1:19:15] construction phases through the fall of

[1:19:17] 2026 and construction till the end of

[1:19:19] March of 2028.

[1:19:22] So the recommendation before you today

[1:19:24] is to staff recommend that council

[1:19:26] consent to support the bylaws, both

[1:19:27] bylaw number 897 and bylaw 898, and

[1:19:31] authorize the city manager to finalize

[1:19:33] and execute the project agreement

[1:19:35] between the city and the CVRD and direct

[1:19:37] staff to take all necessary steps to

[1:19:39] advance this initiative. With that, I'm

[1:19:42] happy to take any questions.

[1:19:44] » Excellent. Thanks very much for that.

[1:19:45] And looking to council if there's any

[1:19:48] questions or comments. Um,

[1:19:51] council mak.

[1:19:54] » Yeah, the thanks for the report. I It's

[1:19:57] good news um seeing this move ahead. I

[1:20:00] It's very important project for our

[1:20:02] region. Um,

[1:20:05] one question I had just um in the

[1:20:07] financial implications section of the

[1:20:09] report. Um when we've uh reviewed this

[1:20:13] project in the past, we've kind of

[1:20:15] talked about um you know the city's

[1:20:17] benefit um how we are aortioning um our

[1:20:21] financial commitment

[1:20:23] and um but something that we haven't

[1:20:27] discussed is um like how how that how

[1:20:33] those funds are being collected and um

[1:20:37] I I guess my assumption had And a big

[1:20:40] portion of this would be through DCC's

[1:20:43] um because it's my understanding that

[1:20:44] the main driver for this is to support

[1:20:48] new development.

[1:20:50] And um in reading this it it says that

[1:20:53] 75% of this cost will be allocated to

[1:20:56] residential customers. I I'm assuming

[1:20:58] the other 25 is just simply

[1:20:59] non-residential, but there's no

[1:21:02] indication of exactly um how like the

[1:21:05] source of these funds. Is this um a

[1:21:08] straight addition to uh the water

[1:21:11] service requisition or are there DCC's

[1:21:14] um coming in to fund this or um just

[1:21:17] some better information there would be

[1:21:19] helpful.

[1:21:21] » Yeah, thank you for that through the

[1:21:22] mayor to councelor McCullum. Fair

[1:21:23] question. Um ran some very preliminary

[1:21:25] numbers. You'll see that the cost

[1:21:27] estimates are based on a 20-year

[1:21:28] amortization with a 5% over the customer

[1:21:31] base that exists today. No dcc

[1:21:33] considerations for that. um and it it

[1:21:36] would be attributed to the water fee and

[1:21:39] then requisitioned by the CVR through

[1:21:41] the city. So the city would collect

[1:21:42] through fees and charges and then

[1:21:43] requisition the amount for debt

[1:21:45] servicing back to the CVRD over the

[1:21:47] amortization period that was selected.

[1:21:50] So,

[1:21:53] so in terms of that additional cost

[1:21:55] because that's basically an additional

[1:21:56] cost to all the households in the ser

[1:21:59] like in the city of Courtney um to

[1:22:01] receive or to support this project. And

[1:22:04] what is the benefit then to um existing

[1:22:08] users for that additional fee? I think

[1:22:10] that's important for us to understand.

[1:22:12] » That's a great question. So uh the

[1:22:14] transmission project in and of itself um

[1:22:17] transverses uh through the Ardan

[1:22:18] corridor uh and across um the Ministry

[1:22:21] of Jurisdiction all the way to the

[1:22:22] boundary past the ridge development.

[1:22:24] There's a number of tie-in connection

[1:22:26] points within the city and the existing

[1:22:28] zone. So the 87 meter zone on the West

[1:22:31] Courtney side which services a large

[1:22:32] vast majority of our customer base would

[1:22:35] see a fire suppression enhancement

[1:22:37] opportunity through its connection to

[1:22:38] the CVRD main at that particular

[1:22:40] location as well as disconnecting some

[1:22:43] of the existing customers that rely on

[1:22:46] um other systems that the CVRD support.

[1:22:49] uh so local service areas or the Marsden

[1:22:51] zone, disconnect those and put them back

[1:22:53] onto the 87. So they'd be truly serviced

[1:22:55] through the city's infrastructure as

[1:22:57] well as providing secondary support for

[1:22:59] fire and water um to the uh ridge

[1:23:02] subdivision which is currently through

[1:23:04] the temporary booster station. So that

[1:23:06] would provide a singular secondary

[1:23:08] source and primary flow to that existing

[1:23:10] area as well as introduce water an

[1:23:12] opportunity for water at a higher

[1:23:14] velocity and fire flow for the Christy

[1:23:16] Parkway which already uh exists within

[1:23:18] our community. So there's a number of

[1:23:19] connection points and a number of

[1:23:21] benefits to the existing community, but

[1:23:22] also provides the opportunity for the

[1:23:24] continuation of growth within those

[1:23:26] areas that otherwise would be limited

[1:23:28] without

[1:23:30] » That's that's really helpful. Thanks.

[1:23:32] And so just for clarity, 75% of the cost

[1:23:35] is residential and the rest is business

[1:23:37] and industry. Is that is that what the

[1:23:40] implication is?

[1:23:41] » Sorry. Yes. Correct. Yeah. The breakdown

[1:23:42] currently is roughly between 75 just

[1:23:45] over 75% residential to ICI in terms of

[1:23:47] the makeup and so that's what I used to

[1:23:49] build to build the foundation of of this

[1:23:51] cost estimate.

[1:23:53] » Thank you.

[1:23:55] » Thanks councelor McCullum and councelor

[1:23:57] Fr.

[1:23:58] » Yeah, thanks again mayor. Um and in my

[1:24:01] recollection of this project I thought

[1:24:04] there was an opportunity for an active

[1:24:06] transportation corridor but maybe you

[1:24:07] can uh just bring me up to speed. Is the

[1:24:11] transmission line is that going to be

[1:24:12] like fully publicly owned property or is

[1:24:15] is there some other scenario for that

[1:24:17] and is there an opportunity for an

[1:24:18] active transportation corridor along it?

[1:24:21] It's a great question. Thank you to the

[1:24:22] mayor. It's councelor Frish. Um so it

[1:24:24] has been contemplated as a part of this

[1:24:25] project as it runs through the Ardan

[1:24:27] corridor and through the Komox uh

[1:24:29] logging road where practicable and

[1:24:31] ability within the corridor um

[1:24:33] cross-section there's an allowance for

[1:24:35] the road to be constructed in such a way

[1:24:37] that would support active transportation

[1:24:39] or shoulder widening for future

[1:24:40] consideration of active transportation.

[1:24:43] We're seeking to work with the CBRD to

[1:24:45] have those pieces um built into the

[1:24:47] overall delivery of the project. Um, so

[1:24:50] it's not necessarily of a built to a

[1:24:52] completeness, but built it to a place

[1:24:54] where the corridor is then restored to a

[1:24:56] means which would provide the city the

[1:24:58] opportunity to build the active

[1:25:00] transportation corridor uh throughout

[1:25:02] its entirety. As we move past some of

[1:25:04] the undeveloped lands that are beyond um

[1:25:07] the ridge development, as this

[1:25:08] transmission ma main continues on,

[1:25:10] there'll be some clearing and removal of

[1:25:12] materials in order to facilitate the

[1:25:14] installation. And so where again

[1:25:16] practical and opportunity exists for

[1:25:18] active transportation to continue along

[1:25:20] that corridor. Uh the reconstruction of

[1:25:22] the the the earthworks in that area will

[1:25:25] be to suit that of actual transportation

[1:25:27] or a multi-use path under the parameters

[1:25:30] of our existing SDS bylaw.

[1:25:31] » Right. And and the logging the logging

[1:25:33] road that it's using is that is that the

[1:25:35] really old one that's just beyond the

[1:25:37] connector that connects the ridge.

[1:25:38] Right. That the one that's expensive to

[1:25:40] fix and we haven't done

[1:25:41] » Yeah.

[1:25:42] » Yeah. That's the one. Okay. So, that's

[1:25:43] going to be expensive no matter what.

[1:25:45] Um, and then does it cross the um the

[1:25:49] river? I'm I'm totally lost on the name

[1:25:51] of the river. You know the one I mean,

[1:25:52] thank you. The Trent is actually what I

[1:25:54] was thinking. Does it cross Trent?

[1:25:57] » Uh, yes.

[1:25:58] » Yeah. How does it cross the Trent?

[1:26:00] » It'll be in the road crosssection. Okay.

[1:26:03] » Y thanks. Thanks for the

[1:26:05] » Sure.

[1:26:09] recommendations.

[1:26:10] » All right. It's been moved and seconded.

[1:26:12] Any further questions or comments?

[1:26:14] Seeing none, all those in favor? Any

[1:26:17] opposed? And motion carries.

[1:26:20] We'll move into um 6.2.2 solid waste

[1:26:24] contamination uh update. And I'll pass

[1:26:27] it over to

[1:26:30] Chris Thompson. [clears throat]

[1:26:33] Mr. Thompson. Oh, you need the clicker.

[1:26:39] » Oh, and Mr. Garvis got a comment. Yeah,

[1:26:41] thanks. Um, thank you, Mayor Council.

[1:26:44] Uh, we received an update um, from the

[1:26:47] solidway staff at the region. Uh, we

[1:26:49] have a good partnership working towards

[1:26:50] there and I asked operational services

[1:26:53] staff to uh, give uh, council a little

[1:26:55] bit more information. Uh, the launch of

[1:26:57] our uh, cart program, organics diversion

[1:27:01] and recycling has gone really really

[1:27:02] well. And I think it's really important

[1:27:04] for council to understand uh how

[1:27:06] effective this program's been uh as it's

[1:27:08] um you know it's a it's a huge component

[1:27:10] of uh work that happened under council's

[1:27:13] direction uh last year. So thanks Mr.

[1:27:16] Thompson.

[1:27:18] » Thank you the CEO to the mayor and

[1:27:20] council. Um appreciate the preamble. Um

[1:27:24] yeah so in October uh staff from KMAC

[1:27:27] Strath Kona Waste Management um

[1:27:30] presented this solid waste management

[1:27:32] plan update. This plan updates the or

[1:27:35] outlines long-term strategies for

[1:27:37] garbage, recycling, and organics. Uh,

[1:27:40] and it update or it outlines several

[1:27:42] strategies to focus on waste reduction

[1:27:44] and diversion, including supporting

[1:27:46] multif family waste separation, reducing

[1:27:48] industrial and construction waste, and

[1:27:50] equalizing access to services. Uh, a

[1:27:53] significant portion of the solid waste

[1:27:55] management plan is a waste composition

[1:27:58] study, which takes samples of waste from

[1:28:00] different communities. um and provides

[1:28:03] insights into the components as a

[1:28:05] snapshot in time. So it's like a waste

[1:28:06] audit. This report and presentation

[1:28:09] reviews the perform the city's

[1:28:10] performance in comparison to other

[1:28:12] municipalities in the uh CSWM service.

[1:28:16] So uh I believe this is this chart's

[1:28:19] been shown before and it really

[1:28:21] highlights some of the successes of the

[1:28:23] automated uh transition. So in 2024

[1:28:27] along with automated we switched to

[1:28:29] bi-weekly garbage collection and we saw

[1:28:31] 38% reduction in garbage tonnage and a

[1:28:35] 49% increase in organics tonnage. Uh so

[1:28:39] the the ratio of organics tonnage to

[1:28:42] garbage is 2.17

[1:28:44] which makes the city of Courtney a

[1:28:46] regional leader in in diverting waste

[1:28:48] away from the landfill uh specifically

[1:28:51] through the curbside collection service.

[1:28:53] So, uh, we've actually met our, uh, if

[1:28:56] you just look at that curbside

[1:28:57] collection service, we've met our

[1:28:59] obligation, uh, to to to meet that

[1:29:01] provincial target of, uh, 350 kg per

[1:29:04] person annually. Uh, the 2025 numbers

[1:29:08] for tonnage are in, they've arrived and

[1:29:11] we are on the same pace as 2024. So, it

[1:29:14] wasn't just a novelty of uh, the

[1:29:16] automated collection. That's that's

[1:29:18] truly what uh, our residents are doing.

[1:29:20] So, that's fantastic.

[1:29:22] Um this chart here is from the waste

[1:29:24] composition study and in the sample that

[1:29:27] was collected courtney garbage contains

[1:29:30] 20% compostable organics. So that was

[1:29:33] one of the numbers that the staff member

[1:29:34] from the CSWN reported. Uh this is

[1:29:37] significant and provides an area of

[1:29:39] focus for staff to reduce uh to reduce

[1:29:43] in 2026 through education about the

[1:29:45] organics diversion potential. It's

[1:29:47] important to compare us to other

[1:29:49] municipalities. So Komox is at 19%.

[1:29:53] Campbell River is actually at 35% and

[1:29:55] let's say they're pre-automated. So

[1:29:58] that's coming uh in 2026, I believe. And

[1:30:01] Cumberland's at 24%. So we're actually

[1:30:03] we're not doing too bad when we compare

[1:30:05] ourselves. Um however, there is an

[1:30:07] opportunity for targeted reduction

[1:30:09] programs.

[1:30:12] And then uh organic contamination. Um

[1:30:15] the number that was presented was that

[1:30:17] the city's edging towards a 3%

[1:30:19] contamination rate in organics. So 97%

[1:30:23] of the uh organics is actually good

[1:30:26] compostable material. However, there is

[1:30:29] 2.63%

[1:30:30] that's plastic um and other part you

[1:30:34] know other components um that make up

[1:30:36] contamination. Uh when we compare

[1:30:38] ourselves to other municipalities uh

[1:30:40] Komox is at 2.2% 2%. Camel river is at

[1:30:43] 0.19%

[1:30:44] and Cumberland's at 0.52%.

[1:30:47] However, these these latter two, Camel

[1:30:49] River and Cumberland, they're still in

[1:30:50] the manual collection. So, uh there is

[1:30:53] that sort of oversight at the curb uh to

[1:30:55] prevent that contamination from getting

[1:30:57] into the into the trucks. The provincial

[1:31:00] benchmark is around 2 to 5%. So, we're

[1:31:02] we're doing not too bad. However, uh we

[1:31:05] do want to reduce that that plastic

[1:31:07] going into those automated carts.

[1:31:11] And uh finally, recycling contamination.

[1:31:14] So periodically throughout the year,

[1:31:15] Recycle BC uh does audits themselves on

[1:31:19] our recycling waste delivered to their

[1:31:21] sorting facility from the city of

[1:31:22] Courtney. Um and they they really

[1:31:25] analyze it. So there's two

[1:31:27] classifications. Um, one is called not

[1:31:30] accepted material and that's highlighted

[1:31:33] in the it's sort of a gray uh gray uh

[1:31:37] area of that uh line chart there and

[1:31:40] that's anything that's not accepted uh

[1:31:42] for recycling by recycle recycle BC but

[1:31:46] it might be accepted through another

[1:31:47] program or a donation program. So this

[1:31:49] includes books um clothing hazardous

[1:31:54] materials scrap metal as well as garbage

[1:31:56] and organics. So um the other category

[1:31:59] is called incompatible material and

[1:32:00] that's all that non-accepted material

[1:32:04] plus depot recyclables like glass foam

[1:32:06] and and flexible plastics as well as

[1:32:10] nested material. So if you if you get

[1:32:12] home and you you throw that take out the

[1:32:14] takeout cups inside the takeout bag

[1:32:16] without sorting it out that's considered

[1:32:19] incompatible as well as recyclable that

[1:32:21] recyclables that have res too much

[1:32:23] residue to be recycled. So um normally

[1:32:27] um we are at around 5% uh not accepted

[1:32:30] materials. We're actually seeing a

[1:32:32] downward trend right now which is

[1:32:33] excellent. Um however if we do start to

[1:32:36] to to go above that 5% level we we uh

[1:32:40] will be under the eye of

[1:32:43] recycle BC and we could see fines start

[1:32:46] to add up. They can actually find us up

[1:32:47] to $90,000 a year um if they start to

[1:32:50] see above 5% contamination. So, we

[1:32:52] really want to keep an eye on that and

[1:32:54] we do that through the Courtney Collects

[1:32:55] app, pushing out um campaigns. We we are

[1:33:00] constantly updating the waste wizards.

[1:33:01] So, what goes where in the recycling bin

[1:33:03] as well as community outreach. So, one

[1:33:06] issue that we we have been having is

[1:33:08] that our contractor has limitations in

[1:33:10] their contamination management tools

[1:33:11] that are prescribed in the the contract.

[1:33:14] Uh and we're we're working with them

[1:33:16] through um in in our automated

[1:33:19] collection system. So, just to highlight

[1:33:21] that there's been some technology and

[1:33:23] contractor challenges. The the contract

[1:33:25] does specify the use of contamination

[1:33:27] management tools, including the uh

[1:33:29] including location location based

[1:33:31] photographs um showing evidence that

[1:33:34] there's contamination and that links to

[1:33:36] the carts um which is a link to the

[1:33:39] addressing. Um but it is important to

[1:33:41] note that contamination of both

[1:33:42] recycling or and organics has been

[1:33:45] relatively low. However, should

[1:33:47] increases occur, the city will be

[1:33:48] hampered by the contractor's

[1:33:50] limitations. Um,

[1:33:54] so to bring this to a close, I will um

[1:33:57] the staff recommendation here is to

[1:33:59] receive the solid waste man uh

[1:34:01] contamination management 2026 briefing

[1:34:04] note.

[1:34:06] » Thank you very much.

[1:34:07] » Excellent. Thank Thanks very much. and

[1:34:09] and maybe just uh um since the last sort

[1:34:12] of the last part that you talked about

[1:34:13] was was the actual ability and I believe

[1:34:16] it's like camera systems and that kind

[1:34:17] of stuff to be able to actually see

[1:34:19] what's going in so it can be uh detected

[1:34:21] right away. Um and and you know works

[1:34:24] are underway. I mean I think the

[1:34:26] expectation was is with this these new

[1:34:28] uh trucks that uh basically that would

[1:34:31] just kind of be stock um and that

[1:34:33] obviously that hasn't been the way. So,

[1:34:35] do we have uh any idea of like an ETA of

[1:34:37] when um those systems will be uh

[1:34:40] basically online so that we can benefit

[1:34:43] from them? And then maybe you talked

[1:34:44] about a maximum $90,000. Is that

[1:34:47] something that could potentially like

[1:34:49] the the haulers can help with that

[1:34:53] considering we're we're kind of beholden

[1:34:55] to their system?

[1:34:57] » Um yes, Mr. Mayor. Um the so the two

[1:35:01] parts of that question. Uh yes, there's

[1:35:03] a possibility that uh those uh fines

[1:35:06] could be flowing through to the

[1:35:08] contractor. Um we're investigating

[1:35:11] investigating that um possibility. Um to

[1:35:14] the first part of your question, uh

[1:35:16] their operational staff on the island

[1:35:18] here have reached out to me actually

[1:35:19] this week um with some very positive

[1:35:22] news that the cameras are installed and

[1:35:24] they hope to have a couple weeks of

[1:35:27] data, you know, from the new year on um

[1:35:29] available this week. So, I'm really

[1:35:31] looking forward to that and we'll be

[1:35:32] sharing that as information becomes

[1:35:34] available.

[1:35:35] » Awesome. Uh really appreciate

[1:35:37] [clears throat] the update on that. Uh

[1:35:38] and councelor FR.

[1:35:40] » Yeah, thanks Meredith. Thanks for the

[1:35:41] presentation. Um Chris, I wonder if you

[1:35:43] could just off the top of your head give

[1:35:46] a list of organic contaminants that

[1:35:48] you're seeing, you know, that 3% what

[1:35:50] kind of things we're talking about. I'm

[1:35:52] going to [snorts] assume some sort of

[1:35:53] plastic bag that people think is

[1:35:54] recyclable, but you know what else?

[1:35:57] Um,

[1:35:58] yeah. So, um, it's it's plastics. Uh,

[1:36:01] it's, uh, when you clean up your yard,

[1:36:03] it's flip-flops, dog tennis balls. Um,

[1:36:06] we're seeing things like painted picket

[1:36:09] fences. Um, and unfortunately sometimes

[1:36:11] diapers, things like that. Um, one of

[1:36:14] the challenges is, uh, as we go over the

[1:36:16] over the Christmas break, uh, we have

[1:36:19] three stat holidays, so we're all

[1:36:22] stretched in our garbage capacity. And

[1:36:24] so sometimes people um you know it's a

[1:36:26] hard time so they throw their garbage in

[1:36:28] the organics and then we see a spike is

[1:36:29] just in garbage. So

[1:36:31] » Uh it doesn't take much for 3% to add

[1:36:33] up.

[1:36:34] » Yeah. And then when it comes to the

[1:36:35] recycling um improvements that we want

[1:36:38] to see and that that's in the mainstream

[1:36:40] that we pick up obviously what sort of

[1:36:42] stuff are we seeing in there? Like if

[1:36:44] you just top three things that end up in

[1:36:46] the recycling that really shouldn't.

[1:36:48] » Yeah. So um recycling contamination is

[1:36:51] reported by t by weight. So, uh, when

[1:36:53] you when you go to recycle those

[1:36:56] encyclopedias, you know, the

[1:36:58] Encyclopedia Bratannica, that throws us

[1:37:00] off almost for an entire quarter. So,

[1:37:02] we're really encouraging people pay

[1:37:04] attention. Um, books, hardbound books,

[1:37:08] paperback books, unfortunately, are not

[1:37:09] recyclable, but they are donatable. So,

[1:37:11] that's one of our I would say that's our

[1:37:13] biggest challenge.

[1:37:14] » And I wonder if it's worth a social

[1:37:16] media post about these kind of two items

[1:37:18] that were I don't know if people maybe

[1:37:20] just don't know about it. And if they

[1:37:21] did, it might be a different story. So I

[1:37:24] don't know if it's a question or

[1:37:25] comment, but I'll leave it with you.

[1:37:27] » Yep. We absolutely it's a great idea.

[1:37:30] Thank you.

[1:37:30] » Yeah. Thanks.

[1:37:31] » Excellent. Yeah. And if we know that

[1:37:33] there is that sort of increase of

[1:37:35] contamination over the Christmas

[1:37:37] holidays and maybe there's an

[1:37:38] opportunity obviously in a newsletter

[1:37:40] story uh uh but also uh again social

[1:37:44] media etc. And we have you know Rotary

[1:37:46] clubs doing book sales all the time. Um,

[1:37:49] so there's there's definitely probably

[1:37:50] some partnerships as well that could

[1:37:52] happen um along with that. So, uh,

[1:37:55] thanks Councelor Fish and Council Ward.

[1:37:57] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um, yeah, I just

[1:37:59] wanted to bring up a point that we heard

[1:38:01] at our waste management the the the KO

[1:38:04] stress Kona waste management meeting and

[1:38:06] that was around the the stickers on

[1:38:08] fruit and how they they get through and

[1:38:12] just to remind people that those are not

[1:38:15] um compostable. Um, and it would be a

[1:38:18] great little invention for someone to

[1:38:19] come up with something that was because

[1:38:21] uh there's probably a lot of fruit

[1:38:23] stickers going into the organics.

[1:38:27] » Thanks for that, Council Warren and

[1:38:29] Councelor Fishan.

[1:38:30] » Yeah. Well, I just had a I just had a

[1:38:32] thought about books. Um, is the problem

[1:38:34] with books that there's no funding for

[1:38:36] recycling them or is the problem the

[1:38:38] material itself? And uh what I'm

[1:38:40] thinking is if someone took a p a hard a

[1:38:42] hardback paper book or whatever and tore

[1:38:44] it apart, you know, are the pages

[1:38:46] recyclable?

[1:38:48] » Um I I believe that might be the case. I

[1:38:52] don't want to really go on the record

[1:38:53] saying if you took a band saw to it and

[1:38:54] tore everything apart.

[1:38:56] » Yeah. Yeah. Well, then we won't get into

[1:38:58] it, but just came to mind. Thanks.

[1:39:01] » Thanks, K. [clears throat]

[1:39:04] » All right. Um, and we'll um uh receive

[1:39:08] this unanimously by by council and move

[1:39:11] on to uh Komox Valley Regional District

[1:39:14] request for consent for adopting bylaw

[1:39:16] number 900, Komox Valley Economic

[1:39:19] Development Service Conversion bylaw 345

[1:39:29] and so

[1:39:32] [clears throat]

[1:39:32] » Oh, Mr. Garb. No, thank you. Uh through

[1:39:34] the the mayor to council. There's no

[1:39:36] presentation. Uh the the uh bylaws uh on

[1:39:40] the agenda. It's been um it's a

[1:39:43] technical change to address uh the

[1:39:45] purpose of the the [clears throat]

[1:39:48] function. Um we've been uh getting

[1:39:50] regular updates from uh service provider

[1:39:54] on this item and uh we don't have any uh

[1:39:56] anything to add to this uh and uh in

[1:40:01] accordance with our participation in the

[1:40:02] service uh consenting is applicable

[1:40:06] should council take that direction.

[1:40:10] » All right and yeah so basically

[1:40:12] housekeeping item uh thanks for that.

[1:40:14] It's been moved and seconded. Any

[1:40:16] further questions or comments? See none.

[1:40:18] All those in favor?

[1:40:20] Any opposed? And motion carries. Um, and

[1:40:24] we'll move on to the Comox Valley

[1:40:25] Regional District uh, Komox Valley Sewer

[1:40:27] Conveyance Project Water Supply to

[1:40:30] Courtney Pump Station. And I'll pass it

[1:40:32] over to Mr. Garbid as well.

[1:40:33] » Yeah, thanks. Uh, just to facilitate the

[1:40:35] discussion, we don't have a staff report

[1:40:36] on this. It's a it's a a quirk in our

[1:40:39] bylaw that we now have a property that

[1:40:41] is outside our municipal boundary that

[1:40:43] requires uh, servicing and staff support

[1:40:46] the request. Right.

[1:40:51] It's been moved and seconded. I don't

[1:40:52] see any questions or comments. All those

[1:40:54] in favor and motion carries and we'll

[1:40:57] move into Komox Valley uh airport YQ BC

[1:41:02] air access program grant request for

[1:41:04] letter of support.

[1:41:05] » Recommendation.

[1:41:08] » Excellent. Been moved and seconded. Any

[1:41:10] questions or comments? Seeing none. All

[1:41:13] those in favor?

[1:41:15] Any opposed? And motion carries and uh

[1:41:20] that letter is required by the end of

[1:41:22] the week. So it's good to see that

[1:41:23] happening. Uh 7.4 Courtney Air Park

[1:41:26] Association BC Air Access Program sounds

[1:41:29] very familiar. Uh request for a letter

[1:41:31] of support.

[1:41:33] » Second.

[1:41:34] » It's been moved and seconded. And

[1:41:36] councelor Moore. Um yeah, just very

[1:41:38] briefly, both of these um support

[1:41:40] letters are it's good news story that um

[1:41:43] that the air park is looking to

[1:41:46] electrify and solarize or whatever the

[1:41:48] the verb is for that um the facilities

[1:41:51] down there. Thank you.

[1:41:54] » Thanks for that, Council Min. And uh

[1:41:56] with that, uh all those in favor? Any

[1:41:59] opposed? And that motion carries as

[1:42:01] well. and we'll move into uh item 8.1

[1:42:06] community and social development

[1:42:07] framework in action plan update and I'll

[1:42:10] pass it over to Miss Ba or Mr. Garvin.

[1:42:15] [snorts] Thank you mayor. Uh through you

[1:42:17] and council Joan Bay our community

[1:42:19] development coordinators can introduce a

[1:42:21] report and recommendation for staff's or

[1:42:23] sorry for council's consideration which

[1:42:25] is to receive the action plan update.

[1:42:30] » [clears throat]

[1:42:30] » Thank you through Mayor and Council. I'm

[1:42:33] really uh delighted to pres present an

[1:42:35] update on the progress with the uh

[1:42:38] community social development plan. Um

[1:42:41] and I'm going to focus on what's

[1:42:42] happened since the last presentation,

[1:42:45] specifically the two strategies that

[1:42:47] were approved to inform the plan. And

[1:42:50] those strategies, one was

[1:42:52] [clears throat] a neighborhood network

[1:42:54] strategy which was focused on uh

[1:42:57] place-based community development to

[1:42:59] strengthen neighborhood connections,

[1:43:01] resilience, and cohesion. And the other

[1:43:03] was a better together strategy was which

[1:43:06] was essentially focusing on

[1:43:08] partnerships, coordination and capacity

[1:43:10] among service organizations and

[1:43:13] collaborative tables who are working in

[1:43:15] the social uh development and area with

[1:43:19] an emphasis this collaboration with an

[1:43:22] emphasis on upstream and preventive uh

[1:43:25] action. So trying to move our work a bit

[1:43:27] upstream.

[1:43:28] » [clears throat]

[1:43:29] » I'm really happy to say that we have uh

[1:43:32] had some considerable progress over our

[1:43:35] this past few months. We've moved from a

[1:43:38] discovery phase to planning and we're

[1:43:40] well into activation

[1:43:43] uh in the key milestones in this period

[1:43:46] uh included uh hiring uh retaining uh

[1:43:49] consultant teams to help uh move roll

[1:43:52] out these two strategies. uh one team uh

[1:43:56] is the urban matters

[1:43:58] sorry [clears throat] I've got a frog in

[1:44:00] my throat uh urban matters and they're

[1:44:02] primarily responsible for the roll out

[1:44:04] of the better together uh strategy uh

[1:44:07] the planning and the activation of that

[1:44:09] they are also taking on responsibility

[1:44:11] for the overall evaluation of the whole

[1:44:14] CSDA initiative um our CSD initiative um

[1:44:18] and then we have pollinate and that team

[1:44:20] is responsible primarily for the

[1:44:23] activation

[1:44:24] of the um uh nebrite network strategy um

[1:44:28] and supporting the evaluation efforts

[1:44:30] during this team. This term we also

[1:44:32] developed a communications strategy and

[1:44:35] have started implementing that. We

[1:44:37] actually have a new website uh pages

[1:44:40] that were just went up yesterday. Um and

[1:44:43] postcards and a number of other things.

[1:44:44] We've also um started the evaluation. We

[1:44:47] have an evaluation plan and tools

[1:44:49] developed and underway. And finally, we

[1:44:54] are I guess in we've developed the

[1:44:57] strategy, the actual roadmap to move

[1:44:59] these things forward.

[1:45:01] I'm um pretty excited about um both of

[1:45:04] these pieces. The neighborhood uh

[1:45:07] network strategy in particular um we've

[1:45:10] established criteria. We're going to

[1:45:12] have a um a pilot of four different

[1:45:15] neighborhoods, a minimum of four

[1:45:17] different different neighborhoods who

[1:45:18] will be engaged in the strategy. And uh

[1:45:21] the focus is to build uh as I said uh

[1:45:24] social cohesion to support community

[1:45:27] resilience, identity and communications

[1:45:30] uh amongst uh neighbors and um so we've

[1:45:34] developed criteria for participation.

[1:45:38] We've um we've the animator has

[1:45:40] conducted outreach using a snowball

[1:45:43] technique and following criteria to

[1:45:46] establish the neighborhoods which ones

[1:45:48] are we're going to move with and some of

[1:45:51] some people have asked about what is

[1:45:52] that criteria and basically we're

[1:45:54] looking a big piece is do we have

[1:45:56] champions who are ready to move it

[1:45:58] forward. uh this isn't going to be

[1:46:00] community led, it's neighborhoodled and

[1:46:03] uh geographic representation of course

[1:46:05] following the cardinal directions of the

[1:46:07] OCP and um so we've got four

[1:46:11] neighborhoods coming into view. Two that

[1:46:13] are firmly going to move forward. One is

[1:46:15] the old orchard slash uh downtown uh

[1:46:19] network is a huge boundaries

[1:46:22] uh taking all of sort of Anderson flats,

[1:46:25] the historic district which we tend to

[1:46:27] call old orchard, a little piece up by

[1:46:30] the railroad track and even up to Fifth

[1:46:32] Street. So including some of the

[1:46:34] downtown businesses and then um and

[1:46:37] they're very focused on uh social uh

[1:46:40] engagement uh activities uh to bring

[1:46:43] people together to actually form norm

[1:46:46] and storm and form this larger more

[1:46:48] diverse network. And then there is the

[1:46:50] um Urkheart Lake Trail uh neighborhood

[1:46:54] network, a little tiny funky group

[1:46:56] that's between Fifth and 15th along

[1:46:59] Urkart and they're very much into skill

[1:47:02] building. Um and they want to do a

[1:47:04] placemaking project. So Laneway perhaps.

[1:47:08] Um so anyway, we've got a couple going.

[1:47:09] We've got a couple more uh on the way.

[1:47:12] Um perhaps even three something perhaps

[1:47:14] in apartments. Uh I also wanted to point

[1:47:17] out that Sandwick said Sandwick and

[1:47:20] Braidwood neighborhood has been engaged

[1:47:22] and will probably be a third. So we're

[1:47:25] trying to get the geographic

[1:47:26] representation as well. So the

[1:47:28] neighborhood network stuff is working

[1:47:30] well. The animators out there pulling

[1:47:32] together groups. Um we've developed some

[1:47:35] grants uh that we were providing

[1:47:37] specifically to these participating

[1:47:40] neighborhoods. And in order to qualify

[1:47:41] for the grants, they have to agree to be

[1:47:43] in the pilot, agree to be, you know,

[1:47:46] part of the evaluation, agree to take on

[1:47:49] uh circle talks, agree to take on

[1:47:52] projects. So, it's a big agreement for

[1:47:54] just a tiny little bit of funds, uh

[1:47:56] maximum $3,000, and it would be these

[1:47:59] projects would have to happen between

[1:48:01] now and the end of June, seed projects,

[1:48:03] and the end of uh September for larger

[1:48:07] placemaking projects. So far we've only

[1:48:09] had two proposals or one proposal sorry

[1:48:11] and another on the way and they're very

[1:48:13] small. Um so that's going as we

[1:48:17] expected. Uh and then the better

[1:48:19] together which is the larger broader uh

[1:48:22] piece of this which is bringing together

[1:48:24] uh these uh leads of these different

[1:48:26] organizations who are championing work

[1:48:29] in the all of the determined all of the

[1:48:31] areas um determined areas of health. we

[1:48:34] had and and we're helping them to first

[1:48:37] of all look at the landscape and try to

[1:48:40] think try to see uh where we have uh uh

[1:48:46] services gaps in services duplications

[1:48:49] of services places we might come

[1:48:51] together and coales and get priority

[1:48:54] actions done and also to figure out what

[1:48:56] our role is. So this is a huge piece and

[1:48:59] this ter and in this period we have uh

[1:49:03] the urban matters team has initiated

[1:49:06] research to uh look at the plans of all

[1:49:09] these organizations to pull out where

[1:49:12] they are at in a continuum of work that

[1:49:15] might be done to advance advance social

[1:49:18] development. So from the crisis work

[1:49:21] that we find that we're in involved in

[1:49:23] mostly to um creating parallel systems

[1:49:27] alternatives to what we're already doing

[1:49:29] to policy. So they'll be looking at

[1:49:32] these plans and um we had a big soft

[1:49:36] launch inviting everybody to develop the

[1:49:38] vision and the values and so now the

[1:49:41] next step is to bring the bring those um

[1:49:43] that research back to the large group

[1:49:46] and spend a couple of uh workshops

[1:49:49] together where we'll we'll validate our

[1:49:52] findings. Do we have it right? Um you

[1:49:55] know have we missed it? Anything? uh is

[1:49:57] there a place where we might work

[1:49:59] together and really coordinate and co

[1:50:02] efforts one or two priority areas and

[1:50:04] what would be each of our roles in that

[1:50:07] and so those are the next steps uh all

[1:50:10] is going well and I'm open for questions

[1:50:13] and the recommendation is yes just to

[1:50:15] receive the report.

[1:50:18] » Excellent. Thanks very much. And uh

[1:50:20] yeah, I was uh uh following along the

[1:50:22] the acronym. There's only really one

[1:50:24] acronym, the the CSD one, but uh in the

[1:50:27] um uh the project timeline graph, it

[1:50:30] does uh uh adjust those letters a little

[1:50:33] bit. So in one of the things it actually

[1:50:35] says uh um uh what was it? Um citys

[1:50:39] instead. So and then I was looking for

[1:50:41] what that stood for, but I'm pretty sure

[1:50:42] it's just a a justosition of letters

[1:50:47] » Probably. Sorry, I'm getting dyslexic or

[1:50:49] something.

[1:50:50] » Community and social development.

[1:50:52] » It was probably spelled better.

[1:50:53] » It was probably Yeah,

[1:50:55] » Fair enough. Uh but other than that, um

[1:50:57] I'll pass it over to um Council Hel.

[1:51:02] » Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Joanne. Um I I

[1:51:04] think that uh the the work you're doing

[1:51:07] uh will become more tangible once we

[1:51:09] actually have the neighborhood groups

[1:51:12] identifying projects that we can

[1:51:13] actually describe. And um but I just

[1:51:16] want to acknowledge that I've been to

[1:51:18] two events that you've coordinated. Uh

[1:51:20] one was a presentation to the social

[1:51:22] planning society with over 30

[1:51:24] representatives of local agencies. The

[1:51:27] other was a larger event with probably

[1:51:30] over 100 people. and and I thought you

[1:51:32] did an excellent job of presenting at

[1:51:34] both and I thought that both events that

[1:51:37] I attended showed evidence of community

[1:51:39] being receptive to uh this work which is

[1:51:42] really about um where finding this this

[1:51:46] the appropriate place for the city to

[1:51:48] intervene in the in the many uh social

[1:51:51] challenges in our community that we

[1:51:53] often get called upon to respond to. So

[1:51:55] thanks for your work uh in this regard.

[1:52:00] Thanks uh councelor Helian and councelor

[1:52:02] Fr and thanks mayor and thanks for the

[1:52:04] presentation. I had a question about the

[1:52:07] uh the better together strategy and who

[1:52:10] sort of the main players are right now

[1:52:13] in that strategy. The main I guess it's

[1:52:16] organizations that you're targeting

[1:52:18] existing ones I would assume.

[1:52:20] » Uh it's primarily the leads of

[1:52:24] organizations who are championing work

[1:52:27] in each of the determinant areas. So

[1:52:32] primarily I want to be clear that we

[1:52:34] also have uh leads in local government

[1:52:38] uh who surround us uh who are working in

[1:52:40] this area. We also have invited uh

[1:52:44] people with lived and living experience

[1:52:46] to those groups and also KFN and uh

[1:52:50] Matei. So quite a diverse group. I was

[1:52:55] really hoping because the answer won't

[1:52:58] be with service providers actually at

[1:53:00] the end of the day. Uh I think the

[1:53:02] answer is going to be answer is going to

[1:53:04] be part of that of course but we want to

[1:53:07] move to a a place where we don't have to

[1:53:10] providing hook so many services and we

[1:53:12] want to bring some of the people in who

[1:53:15] are change agents right uh so I can

[1:53:19] foresee these two workshops where we're

[1:53:23] identifying possibilities followed by a

[1:53:25] larger

[1:53:28] citywide event pending my ability to

[1:53:31] secure resources for that a larger

[1:53:33] citywide event which would bring in

[1:53:36] these neighborhood network leads, the

[1:53:38] capacity that's out there to help us

[1:53:41] move our work a little further upstream.

[1:53:44] » Sounds good. And and how are we

[1:53:46] advertising the neighborhood network

[1:53:48] strategy work that you're doing? You

[1:53:50] said you were looking for neighborhoods

[1:53:52] and you had a couple already apply for

[1:53:54] some projects. How are we kind of

[1:53:56] reaching out and getting those people

[1:53:58] interested that might want to do

[1:53:59] something like that in their

[1:54:00] neighborhood?

[1:54:01] » Yeah, kind of using a a snowball

[1:54:03] technique. Uh we were a little bit

[1:54:06] afraid of, you know, putting it up on a

[1:54:08] website and getting like a ton. So, it's

[1:54:11] the one person recommends somebody else

[1:54:14] and somebody else hears about it and

[1:54:16] we're just kind of weighing what we're

[1:54:18] getting in terms of are we getting the

[1:54:20] spread we want? Are we getting the

[1:54:21] diversity we want? And basically if the

[1:54:24] if they're ready um if they've got a

[1:54:26] proven track record in this that really

[1:54:29] helps the champions who want to do it

[1:54:31] but do we have a diverse neighborhood uh

[1:54:34] are we you know yeah so some those are

[1:54:37] some of the criteria but how we're doing

[1:54:38] it is that way and um presentations I

[1:54:42] had a couple come to me from the uh

[1:54:45] library presentation recently and yeah

[1:54:48] so we're using that for this

[1:54:50] » Yeah kind of like a slow play is what it

[1:54:52] Sounds like not just a throw it out

[1:54:54] there request for proposal in a post.

[1:54:57] » No, cuz if I had put up these proposals,

[1:54:59] I'm sure we would have had way more than

[1:55:02] we could handle.

[1:55:04] » Thank you.

[1:55:06] Thanks, Councelor Fr and Council Warren.

[1:55:12] » Didn't realize my light was on.

[1:55:14] » Well, it's and and the microphones are

[1:55:15] going on and off, so maybe uh you can

[1:55:18] leave your microphone on next time as

[1:55:19] well. Um

[1:55:22] » Um thank you so much for the

[1:55:23] presentation. Of course um some of us

[1:55:25] already had the the pleasure of of

[1:55:28] seeing um the presentation at social

[1:55:30] planning. Um and you know that you're

[1:55:34] starting with four pilot neighborhoods

[1:55:36] and then you'll do all the evaluation

[1:55:39] and see what comes out of that. Um, do

[1:55:41] you is there a goal for down the road,

[1:55:46] you know, is there a target per year to

[1:55:50] or in terms of the neighborhoods or you

[1:55:52] just going to start with the four and

[1:55:53] see how that all goes and how it rolls

[1:55:55] out?

[1:55:57] » Yeah, I think we're just starting with

[1:55:59] the four. I mean, I wish I could have a

[1:56:01] target so to know that we're going to do

[1:56:03] this year after year after year, but uh

[1:56:05] we're going to start with the four. But

[1:56:06] I can say already uh it's really about

[1:56:09] the capacity of the neighborhoods that

[1:56:11] we bring on and the animator uh and and

[1:56:15] my own like how many um so what that

[1:56:19] that'll come through the evaluation what

[1:56:21] we're thinking per year four seem to be

[1:56:24] but you know the old orchard one for

[1:56:26] instance I should call old orchard

[1:56:28] downtown it's probably four

[1:56:30] neighborhoods

[1:56:32] » So that's we're calling one and then you

[1:56:35] know so We'll find those numbers as we

[1:56:38] It's organic that way,

[1:56:40] » Right? Um I don't know if Susie wanted

[1:56:43] to answer something.

[1:56:44] » Do you want to jump in? Yeah.

[1:56:47] » Thank you to the mayor to council more

[1:56:48] just to build on uh what Miss Ba said.

[1:56:51] uh once we're complete well this phase

[1:56:54] of work and the evaluation we'll be

[1:56:56] coming back to council with uh what

[1:56:58] we've learned what the outcomes of the

[1:57:00] evaluation were and through that then

[1:57:02] looking for direction from council on

[1:57:04] what a future program could look like.

[1:57:06] So, uh, at this point, we wouldn't be

[1:57:08] able to identify how many we should

[1:57:10] have. But through this process, uh, even

[1:57:12] just the process of identifying

[1:57:14] neighborhoods, we're capturing what

[1:57:16] we're learning from that, the

[1:57:17] experience, what's successful, what's

[1:57:18] not. Uh, and that'll all be built into a

[1:57:21] future proposal for council's

[1:57:22] consideration. And then, uh, that's

[1:57:24] where we would set some of those

[1:57:25] targets, whether it's funding or

[1:57:27] numbers, etc. Uh, so we'd be back to

[1:57:29] council for looking for that direction

[1:57:31] based on recommendations from this

[1:57:33] experience.

[1:57:35] » Yeah. I just I think the potential is

[1:57:37] amazing. I it really um dubtales with

[1:57:40] what the regional well the whole

[1:57:42] region's doing around emergency

[1:57:44] management and emergency preparedness

[1:57:46] and and like you say the neighborhoods

[1:57:48] are all um diverse and have their own

[1:57:51] focuses and and needs and ideas and

[1:57:54] it'll be really interesting to see what

[1:57:57] everybody comes out out with. Then I

[1:57:59] think you know it's there's funding for

[1:58:02] projects and projects is is a big piece

[1:58:04] of it but as you say really the ultimate

[1:58:08] goal is to have that capacity building

[1:58:10] in neighborhood and and to to really

[1:58:13] address things like isolation and

[1:58:15] loneliness and and um you know all all

[1:58:19] the things you know food security and

[1:58:21] helping neighbors and and people feeling

[1:58:24] more of a sense of belonging. So, um, I

[1:58:27] thank you for your work and it's great

[1:58:28] to see the start of, um, some of those

[1:58:31] tangibles coming forward. Thank you.

[1:58:36] » Excellent. Uh, I think, uh, that that's

[1:58:38] the the discussion. If somebody would

[1:58:40] like to move receipt.

[1:58:43] » Excellent. And we'll receive that on

[1:58:45] behalf of, uh, council unanimously.

[1:58:47] Thanks very much. And then we'll jump

[1:58:49] right into our regional sports field

[1:58:51] allocation policy project update, and

[1:58:53] I'll pass it back over to Miss Sunders.

[1:58:55] Thank you. Uh through the mayor council,

[1:58:57] the report provides council with an

[1:58:59] update on the regional sports field

[1:59:01] allocation policy project. Uh the city's

[1:59:04] leading this project on behalf of the

[1:59:06] region based on the recommendations from

[1:59:07] the 2023 Komox Valley sports field

[1:59:09] strategy and with the support of our

[1:59:11] local uh governments in the school

[1:59:13] district. The purpose of the project is

[1:59:15] to develop a consistent approach to

[1:59:17] allocating fields across the region as

[1:59:19] well as an consistent approach to field

[1:59:21] fees as also sorry and also developing

[1:59:24] recommendations for implementation of a

[1:59:26] central booking agency for all fields in

[1:59:29] the valley uh which is currently

[1:59:30] proposed to be the city of Courtney. In

[1:59:32] 2025, the project team completed uh

[1:59:35] research and data analysis, significant

[1:59:37] engagement with field user groups and

[1:59:39] established and continues to work with a

[1:59:41] staff working group from the region as

[1:59:42] well as a user advisory

[1:59:44] uh committee uh based of field sport

[1:59:47] users. Uh and they've we've presented

[1:59:50] our initial findings to the staff and

[1:59:52] advisory committee. So we're now

[1:59:54] shifting into drafting uh allocation fee

[1:59:56] and booking guiding policies and

[1:59:59] principles uh which once finalized would

[2:00:01] form the development of the final

[2:00:02] policies.

[2:00:04] The draft guiding principles being

[2:00:06] reviewed uh are outlined in the report

[2:00:09] and just to summarize uh there's guiding

[2:00:11] principles being uh considered around

[2:00:13] allocation which is really focused on

[2:00:15] balancing both uh tenur uh and emerging

[2:00:19] emerging sport groups in an equitable

[2:00:21] manner uh and focusing on aligning the

[2:00:24] right sports with the right field with

[2:00:25] the right amount of time. Um it sounds

[2:00:28] uh simple but it's quite complex and

[2:00:30] difficult. Um but that's a key priority

[2:00:32] for us is to make sure that there is

[2:00:34] equitable access uh to sport field um

[2:00:37] and that we're what we're proposing

[2:00:39] isn't so disruptive as to sort of um

[2:00:43] impact current sports groups as well. In

[2:00:46] terms of fees, uh a new fee schedule for

[2:00:48] all sports fields and users in the Komox

[2:00:50] Valley is being considered. One that is

[2:00:53] hopefully consistent across the valley.

[2:00:56] uh it is being reviewed in line with the

[2:00:58] city's recreation fees and charges

[2:00:59] framework. So uh considering how we

[2:01:01] apply a benefits-based approach to

[2:01:03] setting the fees and the subsidy levels.

[2:01:05] Uh [snorts] to date the user groups have

[2:01:07] indicated general support for fees uh

[2:01:10] including youth fees if they result in

[2:01:11] improved service levels andor feal and

[2:01:14] amenities

[2:01:16] for booking. Courtney acting as the

[2:01:18] single booking office is being proposed

[2:01:20] uh along with a regional committee

[2:01:22] reflective of our partner organizations

[2:01:24] to support the implementation of

[2:01:25] allocation policies. We expect the draft

[2:01:28] policies to be complete in early spring

[2:01:30] this year following which uh each

[2:01:33] jurisdiction will have to review and

[2:01:35] approve the recommended policies

[2:01:36] including any fee bylaws respectively.

[2:01:39] All of this requires significant

[2:01:41] coordination and collaboration uh not

[2:01:43] just at the staff level but also at the

[2:01:44] elected officials level. As such uh

[2:01:47] staff and consultants will be presenting

[2:01:49] the findings and recommendations uh to

[2:01:51] date at an upcoming elected officials

[2:01:53] forum and that will include the school

[2:01:55] district as well. If we're able to

[2:01:58] proceed with the timeline as outlined,

[2:02:00] uh we would be looking to initiate

[2:02:01] implementation as early as September

[2:02:03] 2026,

[2:02:05] uh with a priority on the artificial

[2:02:07] turf that there's a new artificial turf

[2:02:09] expected to come online later uh later

[2:02:12] this spring, early this summer. Uh and

[2:02:14] so we'd want to look at the allocation

[2:02:15] policy for the what would be the two

[2:02:17] turfs as our first priority. uh and then

[2:02:19] followed by the remaining fields uh

[2:02:21] being uh using the allocation policy and

[2:02:24] fees likely for January 2028. Uh we've

[2:02:28] been very clear with the user groups

[2:02:29] that we want to make sure we give them

[2:02:31] enough time uh to be aware of the fees

[2:02:33] and the allocation policy to adjust

[2:02:36] their registration timelines,

[2:02:37] expectations, etc. And so that's why

[2:02:39] there's such a long lead time between a

[2:02:41] policy decision and implementation. And

[2:02:44] I'm happy to answer any questions.

[2:02:47] » Uh excellent. Thanks so much. Uh it it's

[2:02:50] it's somewhat exciting to hear that

[2:02:52] we're like this close to the finish

[2:02:53] line. Uh you know, it has been a

[2:02:56] discussion that that seems to be uh

[2:02:58] ongoing for for some time. So, it's

[2:03:00] great to get this update and and see

[2:03:02] that uh we're we're pretty close to uh

[2:03:05] pulling the trigger and and uh this

[2:03:07] thing kind of uh launching into uh

[2:03:10] actual implementation. So, with that,

[2:03:13] I'll pass it over to Council McCulla.

[2:03:16] » Yeah, similar comments. It's u great to

[2:03:18] see this moving ahead and um that it

[2:03:22] seems like it's been fairly wellreceived

[2:03:24] by those that we've engaged with. Um I

[2:03:28] think that willingness to um take take

[2:03:31] on these changes and um the relatively

[2:03:35] um good acceptance of the possibility of

[2:03:38] the changes probably reflects that

[2:03:41] there's a real recognition that um

[2:03:43] fields are a finite resource and having

[2:03:45] good policy in place that makes it clear

[2:03:47] and fair on on who gets what when is

[2:03:51] probably overdue. Um, and I do have a

[2:03:56] question and it's not necessarily

[2:03:58] related to the next steps here, but um,

[2:04:02] we have other sport um, shared resources

[2:04:06] that aren't necessarily fields that um,

[2:04:09] you know, one of them came up um, at the

[2:04:11] recreation commission meeting yesterday

[2:04:13] around um, gym space, which you know is

[2:04:15] very sim similar to um, fields in terms

[2:04:18] of usage and and um, how it's spread out

[2:04:21] in the community and I'm wondering if in

[2:04:24] this um process that there has been an

[2:04:27] any discussion or identification on um

[2:04:30] whether or not we would kind of expand

[2:04:32] this whole process to other types of

[2:04:35] facilities in the community or if um or

[2:04:38] if we're going to take a pause when we

[2:04:41] get to completion on this.

[2:04:44] [clears throat]

[2:04:44] Thank you through the mayor to councelor

[2:04:45] McCullum. Um

[2:04:48] I would suggest uh that we will p I

[2:04:52] don't I don't want to say pause but we

[2:04:53] will focus on the implementation of the

[2:04:55] uh sport field allocation policy. That

[2:04:58] will take a number of seasons uh to work

[2:05:01] through to a place where everyone's

[2:05:03] feeling comfortable and confident with

[2:05:04] it and give us time to also tweak it in

[2:05:06] case there's I'm sure there'll be things

[2:05:08] we'll want to improve. uh there hasn't

[2:05:10] been discussion uh at the regional sort

[2:05:13] of staff advisory group around

[2:05:16] considering a similar regional policy

[2:05:19] allocation policy for indoor space and I

[2:05:22] would offer it at this point that that's

[2:05:24] probably not something I as a staff I

[2:05:27] would recommend because the demands on

[2:05:28] indoor space are quite different than

[2:05:31] sport fields. uh for sports fields,

[2:05:34] we're we're basically balancing the need

[2:05:37] of just public access with uh permitted

[2:05:40] time. Uh we're not they're not

[2:05:43] facilities where we also have um sort of

[2:05:46] the city programming spaces, other

[2:05:49] private interest, other social sort of

[2:05:51] and you're you're managing all these

[2:05:52] complex bookings. Um and so I I don't

[2:05:56] think that would come up. I do know and

[2:05:58] and we had this conversation with the

[2:06:00] parks and recreation advisory commission

[2:06:03] uh that from this work uh the city of

[2:06:05] Courtney for instance would look to use

[2:06:06] some of the allocation principles and

[2:06:08] policies for some of our other outdoor

[2:06:10] sport facilities like tennis courts uh

[2:06:13] pickle ball courts uh we have a lacrosse

[2:06:15] box uh those types of things we our our

[2:06:18] allocation policies are um not refined

[2:06:21] I'd say for those areas and so we would

[2:06:23] apply those after we finish the field uh

[2:06:26] work. Yeah, that makes good sense. Yeah,

[2:06:29] thanks for pointing that out. Um that

[2:06:31] yeah, there's a lot more pressures on

[2:06:33] our indoor spaces, so not as easy to

[2:06:36] take on the same framework. Uh the other

[2:06:39] question I had too was just whether or

[2:06:41] not in this process of engaging with our

[2:06:43] various groups if there was

[2:06:45] any changes identified or anything that

[2:06:47] came out of those groups or if it was

[2:06:50] mostly an exercise and just um you know

[2:06:54] explaining the framework and getting um

[2:06:57] people on side or if we made any changes

[2:07:01] um based on anything that came came out

[2:07:04] of those sessions.

[2:07:06] Uh thank you S council McCullum. Um I

[2:07:10] think the group's feedback to date has

[2:07:12] been mostly focused on implementation

[2:07:14] and how it will be implemented and

[2:07:16] that's where I think uh they've you know

[2:07:19] for example when we start to talk about

[2:07:21] a single allocate or booking agency we

[2:07:23] start to talk about seasonal uh booking

[2:07:25] timelines and allocation and

[2:07:27] understanding from all these sports with

[2:07:30] a variety of seasons and timings when

[2:07:33] those best moments are during the year

[2:07:35] to plan uh for their future allocations

[2:07:37] and how the interaction between the

[2:07:40] allocation and their registration happen

[2:07:42] and the timing of those two things. So

[2:07:44] really wanting to make sure that

[2:07:46] whichever processes we put in place will

[2:07:48] also work for the sports groups as they

[2:07:50] do their registration communication with

[2:07:52] families etc. Um I think understanding

[2:07:56] the implementation of fees and how we go

[2:07:59] about doing that in a way that um is

[2:08:01] both around uh equity and sustainability

[2:08:05] but also understanding that fees are a

[2:08:07] way to prevent some of the block booking

[2:08:10] um not prevent but reduce uh block

[2:08:12] booking where now if there's no fee

[2:08:14] involved uh sports groups are holding

[2:08:17] entire fields and whether they use it or

[2:08:19] not there's no financial impact to the

[2:08:20] club to do that. So um those are some of

[2:08:24] the conversations I think where there's

[2:08:25] a lot of value. The other one we're

[2:08:28] having is around how we

[2:08:30] manage the historical tenure of large

[2:08:33] sports and the amount of field time they

[2:08:36] need while also trying to create space

[2:08:39] for new sports as they come forward. And

[2:08:41] that's really difficult because

[2:08:43] sometimes it could result in folks um

[2:08:45] having to give up time. Uh so we've

[2:08:47] proposed some ways of managing the

[2:08:49] growth of large sports. so that they

[2:08:51] have limits to the amount of field time

[2:08:53] they can grow in a single year um based

[2:08:56] on a percentage of what they already

[2:08:58] have. Um otherwise they kind of grow

[2:09:00] exponentially and it's really hard for

[2:09:02] small groups to get space. So we've been

[2:09:04] testing some of those really kind of

[2:09:06] detailed specific things with the groups

[2:09:08] um as well as how we establish their

[2:09:10] baselines. So, how do we do an audit at

[2:09:12] the beginning of this process to make

[2:09:14] sure everyone has the appropriate amount

[2:09:16] based on the standards of play for their

[2:09:17] sport and use that as our baseline and

[2:09:19] what an audit process might look like,

[2:09:21] you know, every 5 years. So, I think

[2:09:23] it's in those level of details where the

[2:09:25] sports groups are particularly

[2:09:26] interested and we're particularly

[2:09:28] interested in making sure we don't do

[2:09:29] something that uh throws a wrench in

[2:09:31] their registration plans, timelines,

[2:09:33] etc.

[2:09:34] » Yeah, that's really interesting. It's

[2:09:36] good understanding of how complex the

[2:09:38] whole thing is when you really get down

[2:09:40] to the nuts and bolts of um having it

[2:09:43] get down to various club levels. So,

[2:09:45] thanks for that.

[2:09:48] » Uh thanks uh councelor McCullum uh for

[2:09:51] your comments and uh

[2:09:55] » Excellent. Thank you very much. and

[2:09:56] we'll receive that unanimously uh uh for

[2:09:59] council and we'll move into council uh

[2:10:02] resolutions and um and uh as mayor I do

[2:10:07] have uh the elect respect uh support uh

[2:10:11] motion in front of us um and uh okay

[2:10:18] » Okay it's been moved and seconded we did

[2:10:19] have a discussion uh during the

[2:10:22] delegation portion of this so I think we

[2:10:24] covered most of the topics I'm not sure

[2:10:26] if anybody has any further comments

[2:10:28] they'd like to make and I'll pass over

[2:10:30] to Council Mort.

[2:10:31] » Thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I think it's

[2:10:33] all outlined in the motion in terms of

[2:10:35] next steps. Obviously, this is um this

[2:10:38] is, you know, symbolic. We hope that

[2:10:40] people will put it into practice,

[2:10:42] obviously. Um,

[2:10:44] but I know you're going to be sending it

[2:10:47] to UBCM and all those organizations. And

[2:10:51] I'm just looking is it it's going out to

[2:10:54] the other local governments is it or

[2:10:56] » I don't believe the other local

[2:10:57] governments are on this list but that

[2:11:00] could be something that I think would be

[2:11:02] relatively easy to to add uh local

[2:11:05] governments in Komox First Nation

[2:11:06] posture.

[2:11:07] » Yeah. I mean, I know it it means them

[2:11:09] putting it on an agenda and, you know,

[2:11:11] some of the same people looking at it

[2:11:13] again, but I think it would be good to

[2:11:15] have a regional approach. And I I

[2:11:18] thought the comments earlier were were

[2:11:20] good around how this is not about

[2:11:22] shutting down um commentary. It's really

[2:11:25] about um the stuff that crosses the

[2:11:28] line. Um and uh there's a lot of it. And

[2:11:32] um and we've had some local examples.

[2:11:35] We've had some particularly female um uh

[2:11:39] leaders who have uh who've had to um uh

[2:11:44] file police reports etc. Um actually

[2:11:47] we've we've got kind of a um pro um per

[2:11:51] capita I think we have a fairly high

[2:11:53] number for for the limited number of

[2:11:55] elected officials we have um in terms of

[2:11:58] police investigations and things like

[2:12:00] that for harassment. So, um you know, a

[2:12:03] lot of a lot of the stuff that goes on

[2:12:05] people don't don't even hear about, but

[2:12:07] it does happen. So, um I think it'd be

[2:12:09] good to have a united front and I'm

[2:12:11] really hoping that that um although this

[2:12:14] is symbolic and it's a statement that

[2:12:16] people put it into practice because we

[2:12:18] know that words on a screen do does turn

[2:12:21] into behavior, the behaviors that we see

[2:12:23] don't they start somewhere and it's

[2:12:25] usually with those uh uh those uh

[2:12:28] comments. Thanks.

[2:12:29] » Thanks very much. Yeah, I you know the

[2:12:31] idea that um you know the what we really

[2:12:34] want to have as an outcome here is more

[2:12:37] people involved from across the spectrum

[2:12:40] of of all perspectives um but feeling

[2:12:43] comfortable they can they can speak uh

[2:12:45] their mind without uh fear of being

[2:12:48] bullied or intimidated. Uh uh thanks um

[2:12:52] and I don't see any other comments. So

[2:12:54] uh

[2:12:57] » Sorry can I clarify was that a friendly

[2:12:59] amendment or are we leaving the motion

[2:13:01] as is

[2:13:03] » I think a friendly amendment to add

[2:13:05] local governments

[2:13:06] » To add regional local governments and

[2:13:08] comox first nation and the distribution.

[2:13:12] » Thanks for that council morren um and I

[2:13:14] think that that is absolutely

[2:13:16] appropriate. Um and with that uh all

[2:13:20] those in favor? Any opposed? And motion

[2:13:24] carries. And that gets us into uh

[2:13:26] unfinished business. We are at about 12

[2:13:30] after 6. Uh we're at a point where

[2:13:32] there's a potential we could kind of

[2:13:34] power through this and and then have

[2:13:36] dinner. That that's kind of my uh my

[2:13:38] hope. Um and we'll go from there.

[2:13:41] Councelor,

[2:13:44] » I'm just wondering if we want to

[2:13:46] contemplate um varying the agenda just

[2:13:48] for the um first item in the bylaws

[2:13:50] because I think that's mainly what um

[2:13:53] people are here for and then maybe we

[2:13:55] could see from there. I'm not sure if

[2:13:57] that works for staff,

[2:14:00] » Right? Okay. Um yeah, we we have I think

[2:14:04] a couple different groups here. Uh

[2:14:05] » Oh, okay. In that case, maybe we'll just

[2:14:08] leave it as is. These other items are

[2:14:10] pretty small, too. So, the unfinished

[2:14:12] business. So, probably won't take long.

[2:14:15] We can maybe just

[2:14:16] » All right. Well, we'll jump on to 10.1

[2:14:18] and try to move through this fairly

[2:14:19] quickly. That's the Komalt Valley Food

[2:14:21] Policy Council uh from the December 10th

[2:14:23] delegation. Um and there was request for

[2:14:27] $15,000 financial assistance and I'll

[2:14:30] pass it over to Council Morn.

[2:14:32] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um I don't think

[2:14:35] we're just basically responding to this

[2:14:37] delegation. Um,

[2:14:39] unfortunately, we didn't really get

[2:14:41] clarification from the group about what

[2:14:43] happened with the funding um through the

[2:14:46] regional district because like, you

[2:14:48] know, I would think this group would be

[2:14:49] able to apply for one of the grants. So,

[2:14:52] um, I'm not quite sure what happened

[2:14:54] there. Um, I know that it's um it's I

[2:15:00] think the I think the presentation

[2:15:02] really outlined some of the some of the

[2:15:05] um the work that that the group would

[2:15:08] like to do with the city in terms of um

[2:15:11] advancing the food systems

[2:15:13] recommendations and the OCP as well as

[2:15:15] some other things that that fit into

[2:15:18] what we're doing. Um they talk about um

[2:15:21] you know the emergency preparedness

[2:15:23] piece which I think also really fits in

[2:15:25] with the with the strategy that Miss Bae

[2:15:28] was talking about earlier um and things

[2:15:32] like the ecosystem resilience and and

[2:15:35] promoting you know pollinator habitat

[2:15:37] and we know that Komox is has a

[2:15:40] designation now and I really don't like

[2:15:41] it when Komox gets a designation before

[2:15:44] we do on these things but um so I guess

[2:15:47] I'm I'm proposing that we do provide a

[2:15:50] little bit of funding. I I recognize

[2:15:52] that um we shouldn't be paying the the

[2:15:55] whole bit and that other local

[2:15:57] governments should step up, but I would

[2:16:00] propose that we

[2:16:02] um I'd like to move that the Komox

[2:16:04] Valley Food Policy Council's request um

[2:16:08] uh be granted for half of that amount,

[2:16:12] not to be included in the motion, but

[2:16:13] $7,500

[2:16:15] to be allocated from the council

[2:16:17] initiatives fund and further that staff

[2:16:19] meet with food policy council members

[2:16:21] for an initial discussion to explore

[2:16:23] potential collaboration to advance

[2:16:25] recommendations in the food systems

[2:16:27] chapter of Courtney's official community

[2:16:30] plan.

[2:16:32] And that's the motion if someone's

[2:16:34] » Okay and I know that that is already in

[2:16:37] our strategic priorities engaging with

[2:16:39] the food policy council to identify

[2:16:42] needs and and I don't anticipate this to

[2:16:44] be a big workload item and recognizing

[2:16:47] we are going to go into a new term but I

[2:16:50] think it would be helpful to start

[2:16:52] having some of those conversations

[2:16:54] before the end of the term just to um

[2:16:58] yeah just to to get that going. um

[2:17:02] recognizing that staff I know is in

[2:17:04] contact with with this council um and

[2:17:08] hoping that other local governments

[2:17:10] maybe come on to to help support some of

[2:17:13] the initiatives that uh the food policy

[2:17:16] council is they actually are doing a lot

[2:17:18] of stuff but it's not that well known

[2:17:22] » And to that end would you want to have

[2:17:24] other local governments included to on

[2:17:27] the um motion if if it passes just so

[2:17:30] that there's um they get that

[2:17:32] information and know

[2:17:33] » I I I'd rather have the Food Policy

[2:17:36] Council leave that up to them to present

[2:17:38] to the other local governments and work

[2:17:41] that out.

[2:17:42] » Okay.

[2:17:42] » Um I did uh I did check quite a while

[2:17:45] ago now with um Mr. Lagmire around um

[2:17:49] what was in the council initiatives

[2:17:51] fund. There is a little bit of money

[2:17:52] still there I believe. So I'm pretty

[2:17:55] sure that's what the answer was before.

[2:17:57] Anyway, that's what I propose and leave

[2:18:00] it open to other comments. Thanks.

[2:18:02] » All right. And Mr. Garby,

[2:18:04] » Uh, sorry, if I may, uh, just want to

[2:18:07] insert myself in this discussion.

[2:18:08] Council, just for council's reference,

[2:18:10] when we did our strategic plan update,

[2:18:12] we did remove working on the FU

[2:18:15] initiatives from the 2026 work. So, we

[2:18:18] don't have staff time dedicated towards

[2:18:20] that. Council may have some monies

[2:18:22] available. I just want to remind council

[2:18:24] of the direction that we had.

[2:18:27] » Sorry, I was thinking that that was

[2:18:28] 2025, not 2026. Thanks.

[2:18:33] » Thanks, Councelor Morren and councelor

[2:18:34] F.

[2:18:36] » Yes, generally in favor of the first

[2:18:38] half of the motion on the money. Um, but

[2:18:40] I was going to ask um where we are with

[2:18:42] our count council initiatives um budget

[2:18:46] slash balance.

[2:18:48] » Mr. Legire.

[2:18:50] » Well, being a new year, we have the full

[2:18:52] budget again and the normal budget is

[2:18:54] $75,000

[2:18:57] and the initial

[2:18:59] financial plan committee the whole work

[2:19:01] in November. There's been no changes to

[2:19:02] that number for 26.

[2:19:04] » Okay. Thank you for that. So, that's

[2:19:05] 10%. And I I did have a concern about um

[2:19:10] moving to ask staff to to h have more

[2:19:14] discussions with them if it's not on our

[2:19:16] our our current

[2:19:18] priority list. Um so if we're going to

[2:19:21] move forward with this motion, maybe we

[2:19:22] just sever it or I don't know if other

[2:19:24] counselors would support just removing

[2:19:26] that part from the motion and just

[2:19:28] support the first half from now.

[2:19:31] » There's no request to sever it. We we

[2:19:33] can just separate it. Well, I'll see

[2:19:35] what happens.

[2:19:37] Yeah, I I would say let's sever it and

[2:19:40] and and then we can call questions and

[2:19:42] and move through it. Um

[2:19:45] yeah, council horn, did you want to

[2:19:47] speak to it?

[2:19:49] » I just want to send it to

[2:19:53] » Okay.

[2:19:55] » All right. And

[2:19:58] Miss

[2:20:01] Councelor McCullum,

[2:20:02] » You can call me Miss McCullum if you

[2:20:04] want. There were other lights on so but

[2:20:06] they've gone off now.

[2:20:07] » Um yeah, I think that this is reasonable

[2:20:10] to um [clears throat] provide uh the

[2:20:13] funding that's been put forward by

[2:20:15] councelor Morren. Um I I am supportive

[2:20:18] of the work that this um food policy

[2:20:22] council is looking to do, but um I also

[2:20:26] recognize that you know we're being

[2:20:29] asked as far as I can tell from the

[2:20:31] budget that they provided to um

[2:20:35] fund um all of their um financial ask.

[2:20:38] um as the rest of the slide is um in

[2:20:42] kind at least that's my understanding

[2:20:44] from what they provided but I am filling

[2:20:46] in some blanks there. So um much of the

[2:20:50] work that they're doing is is for the

[2:20:51] whole region and of course um city of

[2:20:54] Courtney benefits from that but um we

[2:20:56] are not uh the only organization that

[2:20:59] exists um to support this work. So I

[2:21:01] think this is a good compromise. Um, so

[2:21:04] I'm happy to support that and I am in

[2:21:06] agreement um that that second piece of

[2:21:10] organizing a council meeting um between

[2:21:12] council and the food policy is it's a it

[2:21:17] it's often not recognized or not obvious

[2:21:20] to us um how much work that creates for

[2:21:22] staff when we set those up and we are in

[2:21:24] the um final months of the term. So, I

[2:21:27] think if that's like a coordinated

[2:21:28] effort that the next council wants to do

[2:21:30] with this uh with the food policy

[2:21:33] council, that would make good sense to

[2:21:35] do at a later date. So, um that's my

[2:21:39] thinking when we vote on the two

[2:21:40] motions. Thanks.

[2:21:42] » Great. Thanks for that. And back to you,

[2:21:44] Council Moore.

[2:21:45] » Thanks. Um could I just clarify whether

[2:21:48] staff is devoting any time at all in

[2:21:51] meeting with the council around I mean

[2:21:54] informal I don't know I guess I'm just

[2:21:57] curious whether any of this these

[2:22:00] conversations are already happening. I'm

[2:22:02] fine to have the the motion severed um

[2:22:04] and just provide the funding and then

[2:22:06] ask the food policy council to go to the

[2:22:08] other local governments

[2:22:11] » Through the mayor councelor Morin. Uh

[2:22:13] the food policy council also has been

[2:22:16] invited as a part of the better together

[2:22:17] strategy. So we do have staff engagement

[2:22:20] with the food policy council and we

[2:22:22] engage on certain topics as they come

[2:22:24] up. um but there isn't a concerted

[2:22:26] effort to coordinate particular pieces

[2:22:29] of work or advance particular pieces of

[2:22:31] work uh since the strategic priorities

[2:22:34] were adjusted. So our priority uh prior

[2:22:37] to that was the community garden and

[2:22:38] making sure that that service agreement

[2:22:40] was in place and that we had uh renewed

[2:22:43] that agreement and then planning uh for

[2:22:45] the future of the community garden uh

[2:22:47] which of course is part of some

[2:22:49] recommendations in the OCP but not

[2:22:50] necessarily specific to the food policy

[2:22:52] council but we do engage with them sort

[2:22:54] of intermittently and on other sort of

[2:22:56] broader initiatives and I don't know if

[2:22:58] um

[2:22:59] » Yeah I just wanted to to just clarify

[2:23:01] that the community garden is lush and

[2:23:03] food policy council is different because

[2:23:04] that's been very confusing over the

[2:23:07] years. Okay. Thank you.

[2:23:10] » All right. Uh that being said, uh the

[2:23:12] motions are severed. So we'll start with

[2:23:14] motion the first motion for the $7,500.

[2:23:17] Uh I think that's clear for everybody.

[2:23:19] All those in favor.

[2:23:21] Any opposed? And that motion uh carries.

[2:23:27] Yeah. Well, we'll just vote on the

[2:23:29] second motion uh directing staff to meet

[2:23:31] with food policy. Uh, all those in

[2:23:34] favor?

[2:23:35] » Any opposed? And there we go. We've

[2:23:38] deleted it now. So,

[2:23:40] I know I know.

[2:23:42] » Yes.

[2:23:44] » Did you Did Council vote in favor or

[2:23:46] were you opposed?

[2:23:48] » Well, I would have rather vote on it.

[2:23:50] So,

[2:23:52] » Yeah,

[2:23:53] » I think it was unanimously opposed.

[2:23:55] Yeah, Mr. Garin.

[2:23:56] » Thank you, Mayor.

[2:23:58] In the materials that was provided us,

[2:24:00] there's an indication that the the CVD

[2:24:02] was going to reduce the budget. I I

[2:24:04] don't I not wish the CVD was the budget

[2:24:06] reduced and does council support

[2:24:09] spending this money subject to the CVRD

[2:24:11] and and my apologies. I was trying to

[2:24:13] just get clarification as we have done

[2:24:17] that in the past with with other

[2:24:19] funding. So I I'm sorry if if that

[2:24:21] matter has gone forward that I know.

[2:24:25] » Yeah.

[2:24:27] I I I think I think that uh yeah, I

[2:24:30] think we passed that point, but uh

[2:24:32] definitely it's you know, I'll look to

[2:24:34] our uh directors at the regional

[2:24:36] district who can um if something changed

[2:24:38] there, then they they can let us know as

[2:24:40] well. Um moving on to 10.2 2 um endure

[2:24:44] projects palace place um and there is

[2:24:48] the request um about the tax exemption

[2:24:52] um and so there was a another followup

[2:24:55] uh from before and so I'll pass it over

[2:24:58] to any council members that would like

[2:25:00] to speak to this matter and councelor

[2:25:02] Helen.

[2:25:04] Yeah, thanks Mayor. I I just wanted to

[2:25:06] ask staff if uh if we did look at option

[2:25:10] two, what's the significance of

[2:25:12] specifying u retroactive versus going

[2:25:15] forward from 2026?

[2:25:22] » Uh

[2:25:28] uh thanks very much. So sorry, I'm just

[2:25:30] pulling up the correspondence again.

[2:25:35] So essentially there were the the

[2:25:39] the request was essentially to

[2:25:40] reconsider the uh level of the t the tax

[2:25:43] exemption itself. Um in order to for

[2:25:46] council to reconsider it, you would have

[2:25:48] to rescend your previous motions or

[2:25:50] reconsider your previous motions through

[2:25:52] a rule to suspend a motion to suspend

[2:25:55] the rule which would require um more

[2:25:58] than the majority of council to support.

[2:26:00] Even then, I would prefer to get a bit

[2:26:02] more direction from council to explore

[2:26:04] the legal options as far as how we could

[2:26:07] go about that. Essentially, the

[2:26:09] information that I have around whether

[2:26:11] or not council has the ability to

[2:26:12] reconsider it right now is that you

[2:26:15] really don't. Um that said, if you want

[2:26:18] me to see whether or not there's

[2:26:20] opportunities to um pass that motion to

[2:26:23] suspend the rules, which is not the

[2:26:26] question I had asked of our our legal

[2:26:28] counsel at the beginning, um that's

[2:26:30] something I could definitely go ahead

[2:26:32] and do. However, the effect we're able

[2:26:34] to undertake that would be the same

[2:26:36] where the previous tax exemptions would

[2:26:38] be removed. the developer would be

[2:26:40] required to repay the taxes that had

[2:26:43] been previously exempted and the new

[2:26:45] exemption would only apply to future tax

[2:26:48] years. So the question still is council

[2:26:50] would not really have an opportunity to

[2:26:52] make the taxes whole or the exemption

[2:26:54] whole in that case. Um and that option

[2:26:58] as well has not been explored with the

[2:27:00] requester as to whether or not that

[2:27:01] would be an acceptable resolution at the

[2:27:03] end of it. So if council would like to

[2:27:06] explore all potential options within um

[2:27:09] our our authorities, I would need

[2:27:11] direction to undertake that work.

[2:27:14] » Yeah, my inclination is is to uh

[2:27:18] ask for a report with options going

[2:27:20] forward rather than retroactively, but

[2:27:22] I'll see what other people think.

[2:27:24] Thanks.

[2:27:26] » Uh thanks Councelor Alen and Councelor

[2:27:30] Brush.

[2:27:31] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um, as I stated at

[2:27:33] the last meeting, uh, I'm also inclined

[2:27:36] to ask [clears throat] staff to report

[2:27:38] back with options to provide, um, the

[2:27:41] revitaliz revitalization tax exemption.

[2:27:45] And, um, my reasoning for that was

[2:27:47] stated last time that we put this bylaw

[2:27:50] through to get this exact development,

[2:27:51] we got this development, and somewhere

[2:27:53] along the line it didn't work out uh, to

[2:27:56] fit the bylaw. So, um, and I am also

[2:28:00] inclined to just move forward and do the

[2:28:02] best we can. Um, so my apologies. I

[2:28:04] don't think I'm going to support

[2:28:05] retroactively, but, um, I'd like to get

[2:28:09] staff to report back on 100% tax

[2:28:11] revitalization exemption to Palace Place

[2:28:14] um, from or for 2026, I believe, would

[2:28:18] be the right wording for that.

[2:28:21] » Okay. And is are you making a movement?

[2:28:24] » Sure. I'll make that a motion if that's

[2:28:25] okay.

[2:28:26] » Okay. So that's motion now. Okay. And do

[2:28:29] you want to speak any further to

[2:28:30] » No, that's fine. Thanks. I'll leave it

[2:28:31] up.

[2:28:32] » And

[2:28:34] Councilman,

[2:28:37] » Yeah. Um

[2:28:40] my recollection is we had a pretty

[2:28:42] detailed discussion around this um once

[2:28:44] already. um I received information that

[2:28:49] um you know there was maybe a different

[2:28:52] way to have calculated it and perhaps

[2:28:56] our bylaw should look at other things. I

[2:28:58] I think we are doing a review of it

[2:29:00] through the downtown local area plan

[2:29:02] currently. So I don't see a need to

[2:29:05] provide further direction on that right

[2:29:07] now. We we have already directed uh

[2:29:10] staff to come back on that and uh I

[2:29:12] don't have an appetite to review this

[2:29:14] again. um this is not the not the first

[2:29:17] time it's come here and um I think that

[2:29:20] it was handled as fairly with um the

[2:29:23] information that we had at the time and

[2:29:26] my inclination is that um we focus on

[2:29:31] providing

[2:29:33] fast turnaround with applications for

[2:29:36] downtown development and that um we get

[2:29:39] we get rid of this or adjust it in some

[2:29:41] way because um I don't I don't think

[2:29:43] it's actually done what we've wanted it

[2:29:45] to in the 8 years I've been on council

[2:29:47] and I'm inclined to take a different

[2:29:49] approach and I think we'll be getting

[2:29:51] some more information around that at

[2:29:53] some point and I'm happy to discuss that

[2:29:56] then. Thanks.

[2:29:59] » Thanks. Thanks for that comment. Um I

[2:30:01] don't see any further questions or

[2:30:03] comments at this point. Um I saw a

[2:30:05] movement there but uh uh seeing that

[2:30:08] there's no further questions or

[2:30:09] comments, I'll call the question. All

[2:30:11] those in favor of the motion on the

[2:30:13] screen. Any opposed?

[2:30:16] And motion carries with councelor Moore

[2:30:19] and councelor McCollum opposed.

[2:30:22] And um

[2:30:26] uh next we have uh item 11.1.1 amenity

[2:30:30] cost charges bylaw number 3207.

[2:30:34] And um I'll pass over to Miss Okcon.

[2:30:38] » Uh thanks very much. So, as you may

[2:30:40] recall, at the last meeting, council

[2:30:41] provided direction to staff to bring

[2:30:43] forward the bylaw to um undertake and

[2:30:45] authorize the ECC uh charges. So, that

[2:30:49] is the bylaw that is before council

[2:30:50] based on the the decisions made at the

[2:30:52] previous meeting. Um I have support from

[2:30:55] Nancy Henderson here who from urban

[2:30:57] systems who has substantially been who's

[2:30:59] been substantially involved in this

[2:31:00] project in order to help answer any

[2:31:02] technical questions that council may

[2:31:04] have. The cover report really just

[2:31:06] outlines some of the background. um is a

[2:31:08] reminder of some of the options that

[2:31:09] were considered in the policy discussion

[2:31:11] and essentially sums it up into where we

[2:31:13] are today and then includes uh we're

[2:31:16] seeking direction from council to twin

[2:31:17] the timing of the ACC bylaw final

[2:31:20] adoption reading with the DCC bylaw

[2:31:22] final adoption reading upon its return

[2:31:25] from uh the minister's office and or

[2:31:28] sorry the inspector's office and

[2:31:30] essentially the intent of that twinning

[2:31:32] or that combined time is to provide some

[2:31:35] anticipatable and an ease of

[2:31:36] implementation So we're not having to

[2:31:38] phase in different cost charges at

[2:31:40] different times, but actually aligning

[2:31:41] them together to have one calculation

[2:31:43] and one impact at at the same time.

[2:31:47] » Okay.

[2:31:48] » All right. Uh thanks very much for that.

[2:31:50] I'll look to council and I have

[2:31:52] councelor Helian.

[2:31:56] » I suppose I have one technical question.

[2:31:58] If this uh was passed, how long would it

[2:32:01] take for it actually to be implemented?

[2:32:09] through the chair. I mean, in terms of

[2:32:11] the implementation of the bylaw, as soon

[2:32:13] as it's adopted, it could come into

[2:32:15] effect. Council has the option to have a

[2:32:17] grace period if you wish. Um, however,

[2:32:20] the intention, as noted by Miss

[2:32:22] Okonnell, was to bring it in alignment

[2:32:24] with the DCC adoption. So, that's

[2:32:27] currently with the ministry. So, when we

[2:32:29] hear back from them, the idea would be

[2:32:31] the adoption would happen at the same

[2:32:33] time. That being said, in terms of the

[2:32:35] implementation of the charges, there is

[2:32:38] an instream protection for applications

[2:32:41] that are instream with the city. So the

[2:32:43] first year of the bylaw, um the inflow

[2:32:46] of charges would be relatively slow. Um

[2:32:49] and then that would over time uh

[2:32:51] increase. So there's a bit of a there's

[2:32:53] a couple doublegged approach to that

[2:32:55] answer, if you will. and and that one

[2:32:57] year sorry uh that one year because

[2:33:00] that's what I remember from the DCC is

[2:33:01] there would be I don't know if it was a

[2:33:03] one-year grace period but there would be

[2:33:04] that one-year buffer so just so we're

[2:33:07] because what I heard was almost a a

[2:33:09] little bit of this and a little bit of

[2:33:10] that. Uh so just to be crystal clear is

[2:33:14] that one-year buffer going to be applied

[2:33:16] to DCC the new DCC's and the new ACC is

[2:33:20] that how it would be looked at?

[2:33:23] » Yeah, Mr. Mayor. So the there's actually

[2:33:25] a difference in terminology between

[2:33:28] grace period and the instream protection

[2:33:30] just to be clear. So grace period would

[2:33:33] be and you could do this with your DCC

[2:33:35] VA if you wish is you could adopt it on

[2:33:38] February 1st and say it's going to come

[2:33:40] into effect on April 1st.

[2:33:42] » Uh the instream protection is from the

[2:33:44] date of the adoption of the bylaw. So

[2:33:46] even if you have that grace period that

[2:33:48] instream uh protection would take place

[2:33:51] from the adoption of the bylaw. If you

[2:33:52] have those complete precursor

[2:33:54] applications in, they uh would have the

[2:33:57] one year to get their building permit

[2:33:59] essentially issued and then if they can

[2:34:02] do that in the one year, then they would

[2:34:04] not be subjected to the ACC.

[2:34:07] » Okay. So, I think that clarifies for me.

[2:34:10] Sorry, Councelor Hillian. Does it do you

[2:34:12] have a follow-up or

[2:34:14] » I I wanted to make some comments. Uh Mr.

[2:34:16] Mayor, people will recall that uh when

[2:34:20] we dealt with this in December, we had a

[2:34:22] lot of uh um letters that were received

[2:34:25] from members of the development

[2:34:26] community expressing concern about the

[2:34:29] direction council was going and um there

[2:34:33] was a also a view expressed that there

[2:34:36] hadn't been adequate uh engagement with

[2:34:40] the development community. Um some of us

[2:34:43] did have the opportunity to meet with

[2:34:45] representatives of the development

[2:34:46] community um since then and I just

[2:34:49] wanted to share some of the uh um

[2:34:51] feedback that uh was received and ask

[2:34:54] staff to to comment on it to help us uh

[2:34:58] uh come to a decision on this. Um um so

[2:35:02] first of all, one of the assertions was

[2:35:04] that the growth pro projections that uh

[2:35:07] we're we're working with are unlikely to

[2:35:10] be met due to the slowdown in both in

[2:35:14] migration and other economic factors. um

[2:35:18] that that the smallcale multi-unit uh uh

[2:35:22] legislation and and uh process won't

[2:35:25] provide the housing projected u as uh

[2:35:29] many local builders don't see it as

[2:35:30] economical to build. Uh there's a view

[2:35:33] that the market can't absorb the uh $200

[2:35:36] million project cost that uh that we've

[2:35:39] uh identified. Um there's a view that um

[2:35:44] our staff reports didn't accurately uh

[2:35:47] portray developer feedback. Um and um

[2:35:52] there is um

[2:35:55] I think a desire for more robust

[2:35:57] engagement on an ongoing basis. Um

[2:36:00] there's also a concern that um some of

[2:36:03] the consultants might not have um uh

[2:36:07] have as sufficient local knowledge of

[2:36:10] market conditions and such. Um and that

[2:36:13] the benefit of our local builder

[2:36:14] knowledge hasn't been realized in uh

[2:36:17] staff and council deliberations on this

[2:36:20] uh on these bylaws.

[2:36:23] Um there's a view that the fees really

[2:36:25] do need to reflect what the market can

[2:36:27] bear. Um and that developers are dealing

[2:36:30] with not just these uh proposals but um

[2:36:34] a 25% increase uh related to seismic

[2:36:37] upgrades, step code increases, other uh

[2:36:41] regulations and fees that uh that make

[2:36:44] development more challenging. Uh it was

[2:36:47] expressed that um there there at least a

[2:36:50] couple of projects in town that wouldn't

[2:36:52] have been built um if in fact uh these

[2:36:55] rates had been in effect. Um and uh one

[2:37:00] of the primary reasons is that the banks

[2:37:02] simply won't finance

[2:37:04] um some of the costs that are involved.

[2:37:07] And um questions were asked about

[2:37:09] whether we can trim the project list. Um

[2:37:12] to what extent uh members of the de

[2:37:14] development community can be at the

[2:37:16] table and uh are there ways to make the

[2:37:19] rates dynamic to react to market

[2:37:21] conditions. Um, those are some of the

[2:37:24] primary uh messages that that uh that I

[2:37:27] heard and and I'd just be really

[2:37:29] interested in uh other counselor's

[2:37:32] comments and what staff might respond.

[2:37:34] Thanks.

[2:37:37] » Um, Miss Okonnell,

[2:37:40] » Uh, thanks very much. So, um, for

[2:37:42] councelor Hillian, there's, uh, the

[2:37:46] items that you've just spoken to, and

[2:37:47] I've done my best to try and jot them

[2:37:49] all down, so I I understand. Um, some of

[2:37:53] the comments that you're relaying, um,

[2:37:56] actually speak to the professional

[2:37:58] capabilities of both staff and the

[2:38:00] consultants. If council would like us to

[2:38:03] look into those accusations that are

[2:38:05] being made, uh, we could absolutely do

[2:38:08] that. Uh I'm not interested in getting

[2:38:10] into a debate at this point and I'm not

[2:38:13] sure if that was the intent. However,

[2:38:15] components like um that staff reports

[2:38:18] didn't accurately portray developer

[2:38:20] feedback. It would be nice to know where

[2:38:21] specifically where that concern is

[2:38:23] raised from relative to the many

[2:38:26] examples and opportunities where we did

[2:38:28] engage specifically the development

[2:38:30] community in a very intentional and

[2:38:31] comprehensive way with a plan that was

[2:38:34] endorsed by council. um the desire for a

[2:38:36] ro more robust engagement um that is

[2:38:40] always an option. The uh engagement can

[2:38:43] be enhanced with the understanding that

[2:38:45] that is a service level increase and

[2:38:47] would require the resources in order to

[2:38:49] provide that service level increase. So

[2:38:52] in the future, if council wants us to go

[2:38:54] back on this one, we can definitely do

[2:38:56] that, but it will require rep

[2:38:57] prioritization of 2026 work plan items

[2:38:59] as well as the resources necessary to

[2:39:01] undertake that work as a priority item.

[2:39:04] In regard to consultants not having

[2:39:05] sufficient local knowledge on market

[2:39:07] conditions, again, that is a significant

[2:39:10] uh comment and commentary on

[2:39:11] professional firms that we rely on in

[2:39:13] order to inform these policy decisions.

[2:39:15] So council can make the informed

[2:39:17] decision. If council would like us to

[2:39:19] look into a separate validation process,

[2:39:22] um that is something that we would

[2:39:23] require direction on and that is

[2:39:25] absolutely something that we could

[2:39:26] undertake if council shares those

[2:39:28] concerns. As far as the technical

[2:39:30] questions in regards to um whether or

[2:39:33] not we can trim the project list, um I

[2:39:36] have projects in town that would not

[2:39:37] have been built if rates had been cut.

[2:39:38] Um that is a very hard thing to cast

[2:39:40] back on and to validate those kinds of

[2:39:43] comments. Uh, so I'm not sure if we're

[2:39:44] going to be able to answer that for

[2:39:46] council in regards to the shoo and the

[2:39:49] legislation not providing the housing

[2:39:50] projected. That's very challenging

[2:39:52] because really that is what the

[2:39:54] provincial government and their policy

[2:39:56] analysts have deemed as one of the main

[2:39:58] ways or primary ways of increasing

[2:40:00] housing availability and dealing with

[2:40:01] the housing crisis we're experiencing on

[2:40:03] a province level. So I wonder where that

[2:40:05] information is coming from and whether

[2:40:07] or not the information has been shared

[2:40:08] with the province. If that is really the

[2:40:09] reality, it means the provincial policy

[2:40:11] approach to this is not effective on

[2:40:13] whole, or at least that's what the

[2:40:15] assertion is in a comment like that. Um,

[2:40:17] with that, I will pass it over to Nancy

[2:40:20] Henderson to talk about some of the

[2:40:21] technical aspects, but if council would

[2:40:24] like to provide direction on those other

[2:40:25] items to conduct investigations into the

[2:40:27] professional conduct and information of

[2:40:29] our staff and third party consultants,

[2:40:31] please go ahead and do so.

[2:40:37] uh through the chair. I guess it's in

[2:40:38] terms of the growth projections. Uh we

[2:40:41] use the 2024 BC stats data to form uh

[2:40:45] the basis of our projections. Uh we did

[2:40:48] review this project's been going on

[2:40:50] since then. Um we did review the 25 uh

[2:40:53] BC stats projections for the city which

[2:40:56] have actually decreased slightly because

[2:40:58] of the immigration policy as as noted.

[2:41:02] Um however the impact of changing the

[2:41:05] projections to the 2025 projections

[2:41:07] would have actually increased the amount

[2:41:09] of the ACC. So we elected to stick with

[2:41:12] the 2024 uh projections for that

[2:41:15] purpose. Um they are fairly conservative

[2:41:18] projections. We certainly weren't using

[2:41:20] like the housing need reports or

[2:41:21] something that's a little more

[2:41:22] aspirational at a higher housing rate.

[2:41:25] Um when we went through uh for each land

[2:41:28] use category, we need to allocate the

[2:41:30] different type of development we project

[2:41:32] to see over 20 the next 20 years. Um the

[2:41:35] amount that was allocated to the low

[2:41:38] density amount where you know that's

[2:41:41] most of the shoo housing falls into that

[2:41:43] um is actually a very low number. Uh so

[2:41:46] it wasn't using uh the province's shoo

[2:41:50] projections that we've used in other

[2:41:53] studies and aspects. So I know sometimes

[2:41:55] there might be a bit of confusion there

[2:41:57] because we have uh used those

[2:41:59] projections in in other work but it was

[2:42:01] a I think about a 10% allocation to the

[2:42:04] low density charge. Um once you get into

[2:42:07] like duplexes and plexes they do fit

[2:42:09] that townhouse charge but as do uh

[2:42:12] larger townhouse developments. Uh so I

[2:42:14] hope that helps with the understanding

[2:42:16] of the decision- making because we're

[2:42:18] balancing the count the developer

[2:42:20] feedback of not wanting to increase

[2:42:22] rates with the decision- making

[2:42:23] regarding the projections and as we know

[2:42:27] markets do change and with those market

[2:42:29] changes like so does population

[2:42:31] projections change and it is a 20-year

[2:42:34] study. So if you're to look backwards uh

[2:42:36] 20 years we're you know we're kind of in

[2:42:38] line. We're a very um high growth high

[2:42:41] demand area as well. Uh so we wanted to

[2:42:45] not increase the rates anymore because

[2:42:46] the the land use economist that did do

[2:42:49] the analysis was very clear uh to keep

[2:42:52] the rates no higher than where they were

[2:42:54] when we did the engagement back in the

[2:42:56] summer. Um, so we've really focused on

[2:42:59] that uh and keeping them sort of at that

[2:43:02] consistent rate.

[2:43:08] » And uh, yeah,

[2:43:13] » Thanks, Mayor. I I just want to clarify,

[2:43:15] thanks to staff for those responses. It

[2:43:18] certainly wasn't my intent to uh attack

[2:43:21] or challenge the qualifications uh of

[2:43:24] staff or or consultants, but merely to

[2:43:27] to share opinions that had been

[2:43:29] expressed um in in um the consultations

[2:43:33] that took place uh where primarily the

[2:43:36] feeling was that uh uh these changes are

[2:43:39] going to have a significant impact on

[2:43:42] the uh um the housing targets that we

[2:43:45] have and and the ability of our local

[2:43:48] builders to achieve them. Thanks.

[2:43:52] » Thanks for that clarification, Councelor

[2:43:54] Hill and Mr. Gar.

[2:43:56] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through to council

[2:43:57] as a whole. Um, you know, we and our

[2:44:00] professional work that we do are acting

[2:44:02] on council's direction and as you heard

[2:44:04] earlier today about the desires to

[2:44:06] manage the costs to the community. We

[2:44:09] have a limited number of opportunities

[2:44:11] and the province has significantly

[2:44:14] altered what's accessible to

[2:44:15] municipalities. And in the past, a

[2:44:17] number of these amenities would actually

[2:44:19] been levered out of uh development

[2:44:22] applications. And so we only have a we

[2:44:25] actually have a limited tools now that

[2:44:29] we can work through on this. And these

[2:44:31] what's come forward is what council has

[2:44:33] identified as these sort of priorities

[2:44:34] for us. Um

[2:44:38] we can appreciate there's entrepreneurs

[2:44:39] that are investing in this community and

[2:44:41] have for many years. uh and we wouldn't

[2:44:44] be in a position to have any kind of

[2:44:45] housing unless people built those

[2:44:46] houses. So it's it's a really ch it's a

[2:44:48] very very difficult challenge in front

[2:44:50] of us. Um

[2:44:54] I would say that uh particularly with

[2:44:56] the ACC's our our director of

[2:44:58] development services uh our previous

[2:45:00] director of development services

[2:45:01] insisted that we have an economic

[2:45:03] analysis as it relates to these ACCs.

[2:45:06] uh other communities in the valley that

[2:45:08] have brought forward ECC's have not

[2:45:10] undertaken that work and so we we

[2:45:12] actually took that extra step and so

[2:45:14] again if this if the outcome of the work

[2:45:17] um from third party consultants is is

[2:45:19] actually insufficient um it's a step

[2:45:21] that we actually took recognizing how

[2:45:23] impactful these could be and council may

[2:45:25] recall that um the uh levies that we

[2:45:28] were trying to do around other amenities

[2:45:31] you know have been have been also very

[2:45:32] challenging in the community

[2:45:35] so So I I [clears throat] offer that we

[2:45:37] find ourselves in a situation um where

[2:45:40] is growth going to proceed? Is this

[2:45:42] going to impact growth? We also am now

[2:45:45] absorbing the concept and the shared

[2:45:48] understanding that CFP Comox and its

[2:45:51] expansion is actually going to now have

[2:45:54] actually known pressure inside the

[2:45:55] community. So we most of our development

[2:45:57] growth is was kind of unknown and we

[2:45:59] react but um and lots of discussions

[2:46:02] have been happening and we know at a

[2:46:03] minimum you know these kinds of this

[2:46:05] kind of job growth is going to be there

[2:46:06] which will require the housing and so um

[2:46:10] you know I offer that having projections

[2:46:13] are extremely challenging at the best of

[2:46:15] times and now we have this combination

[2:46:17] of potential economic changes but at the

[2:46:19] same time we know there's going to be

[2:46:21] direct investment in a jurisdiction

[2:46:23] that's going to directly impact the city

[2:46:24] of Courtney and needed housing. And so

[2:46:26] we're working as best we can with the

[2:46:28] development community balancing the

[2:46:30] costs and needs uh to address this new

[2:46:34] growth in the community. And uh at this

[2:46:36] point, you know, your staff have

[2:46:38] provided to you and and I've endorsed a

[2:46:40] report to take forward. Council can

[2:46:43] provide us with political direction in

[2:46:44] this regard and we'll respond. And I

[2:46:47] would say the timing of this work

[2:46:49] relative to what's about to happen in

[2:46:51] November. And I will say that if we get

[2:46:54] alternative direction to do significant

[2:46:56] amount of work, we are butdding up right

[2:46:57] up against the next coming changes. And

[2:47:00] so with the uh issues at hand, it would

[2:47:04] be um important work that we would have

[2:47:07] to prioritize uh in the next very short

[2:47:10] period of time and it would be likely

[2:47:12] very difficult uh to adjust that. Having

[2:47:15] said that though,

[2:47:17] clear direction has been given to

[2:47:18] council to stay on top of these things

[2:47:20] to make that make sure they're accurate,

[2:47:22] timely, um and um at the cutting edge of

[2:47:26] what development is needed. Um we have

[2:47:29] uh a number of needs inside the

[2:47:31] community that primarily this amenity

[2:47:33] cost charges um related to the outdoor

[2:47:36] pool if uh what has been presented to

[2:47:39] council has been adjusted because of the

[2:47:42] cost of the pool. And so we will have to

[2:47:44] re-engage uh and understand those things

[2:47:46] because there are important community

[2:47:48] growth impacted amenities um that are

[2:47:51] not included in this recognizing the

[2:47:53] fact that there is this you know big

[2:47:54] priority project. So this is a

[2:47:56] long-winded way of saying that what's in

[2:47:59] front of council reflects what council

[2:48:00] has asked us to do. It's consistent with

[2:48:03] our capital projects. It's consistent

[2:48:05] with our strategic priorities. It's

[2:48:06] consistent with what the community plan

[2:48:08] has asked us for. and it responds to

[2:48:10] what the provincial direction has been

[2:48:11] and our staff serve at your direction

[2:48:14] and uh we will ultimately take that.

[2:48:19] Thanks Mr. Garvid and I think one of the

[2:48:21] other comments was if it's not on the

[2:48:22] list we also can't apply for grants for

[2:48:24] it either. So um that's one of the one

[2:48:27] of the challenges if it goes off the

[2:48:28] list then I believe that that was

[2:48:30] another um thing Mr. Garbett

[2:48:33] sorry Mr. Uh we uh typically any grants

[2:48:38] require you know matching budget funds

[2:48:40] but no it does would not have to be in

[2:48:42] an ACC list for us to apply for a grant

[2:48:45] and staff could correct me if I've

[2:48:47] answered incorrectly.

[2:48:50] » All right.

[2:48:51] » I think Mr. Mayor what you're referring

[2:48:52] to is the promise from the federal

[2:48:54] government to provide um relief around

[2:48:58] DCC and ACC costs to developers. Yeah.

[2:49:01] the policy approach or the policy

[2:49:02] options as to how that money will flow,

[2:49:04] who it'll flow to, what it will cover,

[2:49:07] and whether or not a cost sharing

[2:49:09] approach will be included has not been

[2:49:10] announced. We don't have any early

[2:49:12] indications at this time. However, if

[2:49:15] the plan, if the federal government, as

[2:49:16] they've stated, is to offset the cost of

[2:49:19] DCC's. Not having a project on the list

[2:49:21] would likely make that project

[2:49:23] ineligible to access that federal

[2:49:25] funding.

[2:49:26] » Yeah. And and that's kind of how I'm

[2:49:27] interpreting it as well. So, you know,

[2:49:29] again, it's a bit of an unknown, but uh

[2:49:32] definitely uh big moves coming uh later

[2:49:35] this year. So, uh Oh, yeah. No, Mr.

[2:49:38] Garin, also want to clarify, the topic

[2:49:40] of discussion is amenity cost charges,

[2:49:43] not development cost charges, and the

[2:49:45] federal government didn't talk about

[2:49:46] funding ACC's. So, just to keep keep us

[2:49:49] on uh on the uh matter on the agenda.

[2:49:52] » Thanks. Thanks for that clarification,

[2:49:55] Council Moore.

[2:49:56] » Great. Thanks, Mayor. Um my question is

[2:49:59] around the grace period not the instream

[2:50:01] protection. Um so I heard you say that

[2:50:04] when when and if it comes back um the

[2:50:10] bylaw would be enacted but we could

[2:50:13] delay the when it's enacted. Is that is

[2:50:18] that correct?

[2:50:20] » Through the chair. Uh it is possible for

[2:50:23] a council to adopt a bylaw and set a

[2:50:26] date for when it becomes uh the charges

[2:50:29] become in effect.

[2:50:31] » Uh that could be beyond the date of

[2:50:33] adoption. Okay.

[2:50:34] » And that's an option for council. Uh

[2:50:36] just keeping in mind the instream

[2:50:37] protection is from the date of adoption,

[2:50:39] not the date of the great grace period.

[2:50:43] » The date Oh, from the date of adoption.

[2:50:45] » Okay.

[2:50:47] All right. I just was trying to think of

[2:50:50] a way that we could maybe extend the the

[2:50:53] grace period, but doesn't look like

[2:50:54] that'll fit. Thanks.

[2:50:56] » Thanks, Council Warren and Councelor Fr.

[2:51:00] » Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I'll just

[2:51:03] highlight that. Um,

[2:51:05] I mean, this issue

[2:51:08] has input from so many different

[2:51:09] perspectives. You know, us at the table,

[2:51:11] we see it differently than um the

[2:51:14] construction industry. We see it

[2:51:15] differently than staff. we see it

[2:51:16] differently than people who already own

[2:51:19] a house versus people who want to buy a

[2:51:21] house. So, uh, our job obviously is to

[2:51:24] balance that all out. And, um, yeah,

[2:51:27] there's I don't think anyone's pointing

[2:51:29] fingers. It's just everyone has a

[2:51:30] different perspective and we all have to

[2:51:32] figure out what the solution is. Um

[2:51:35] I'm wondering if we have an ACC project

[2:51:38] and um we don't collect enough money for

[2:51:44] it and then you know down the road we go

[2:51:47] well maybe we're just not going to do

[2:51:49] that. What what happens to that money

[2:51:53] through the chair? I mean the money the

[2:51:54] money would just stay in the ACC reserve

[2:51:57] and be directed to other projects. Uh it

[2:52:01] is possible to advance a project before

[2:52:03] you have money to pay for it all, but

[2:52:06] then that project would stay on the ACC

[2:52:09] list until the funds were received. So a

[2:52:12] project could be on the list for 20 or

[2:52:14] or longer years uh if growth was slower

[2:52:17] than anticipated and then once it that

[2:52:19] project's been paid for then it would

[2:52:21] come off the list, right? Um, I think

[2:52:23] it's also important to note that like

[2:52:25] should the city receive funding, grant

[2:52:27] funding for example, you should be doing

[2:52:29] an amendment to the bylaw to reflect

[2:52:31] that funding uh because that could also

[2:52:34] decrease the cost would decrease the

[2:52:36] cost of the ACC and it's something that

[2:52:39] is a best practice and it's not always

[2:52:41] followed. So, you know, considering the

[2:52:43] market conditions that are in right now,

[2:52:45] if there's a commitment to apply for

[2:52:47] funding and you get that funding, you

[2:52:49] know, committing to make sure that that

[2:52:50] administrative work is done, I'm sure it

[2:52:53] would be also important to the

[2:52:54] development community.

[2:52:56] » And then that applies to DCC's all

[2:52:58] everything you just said.

[2:53:00] » Yeah, the chair. Yes, it does.

[2:53:02] » Okay, great. Um, I guess I'm interested

[2:53:05] in maybe looking at the assist factor

[2:53:07] and what what that could mean. Um I

[2:53:11] don't know the numbers off the top of my

[2:53:12] head but um you know could we say well

[2:53:15] for the next two years uh considering

[2:53:18] the you know economic climate we'd like

[2:53:20] to provide a 20% assist factor which

[2:53:23] would essentially lower what we bringing

[2:53:25] in in for ACC's is is that something we

[2:53:28] need to would that be a lot of work to

[2:53:30] figure out what those numbers are

[2:53:32] » Uh through the chair the assist factor

[2:53:34] is council's tool you know to reduce the

[2:53:37] impact of ACC's you know The effect is

[2:53:40] the assist factor amount that it would

[2:53:42] lower the ACC ends up being a burden on

[2:53:45] the existing tax base. So as long as you

[2:53:47] recognize that that is a a tool council

[2:53:50] has and you could phase it in um you

[2:53:53] could say in year one it's a 20%, year

[2:53:55] two it's 15% you know and so on. Um and

[2:53:58] then the cost of that uh you know staff

[2:54:01] could potentially report back on the

[2:54:03] impacts. So we don't have to do mental

[2:54:05] math tonight but just in terms of uh you

[2:54:08] know looking at the impact to that would

[2:54:10] be put on the municipal responsibility.

[2:54:13] Uh that is an option to council.

[2:54:15] » Yeah. And if and if we did something

[2:54:17] like that and it turns out that this was

[2:54:19] a great boon for development and would

[2:54:22] we could we in essence collect more in

[2:54:24] ACC's than we plan to um or does the

[2:54:27] number just I mean do we reach our 80%

[2:54:31] of their allotted responsibility

[2:54:34] knowing that we're covering 20 and then

[2:54:36] we just stop we just take it off the

[2:54:37] list and say we've collected money or I

[2:54:40] assume it wouldn't be down to the

[2:54:41] project like that anyways would it?

[2:54:43] Yeah, through the chair. I mean, this is

[2:54:44] why it's important to update these

[2:54:46] charges regularly and look at what

[2:54:48] you're collecting and do development

[2:54:50] projections and as you do cost estimates

[2:54:52] on these projects to also update the

[2:54:55] costs because these are basically

[2:54:56] highlevel cost estimates. Once they get

[2:54:59] accurate, the project costs might go up,

[2:55:01] it might go down, but that does impact

[2:55:03] uh the charge overall. So these should

[2:55:05] be like living you should be paying

[2:55:07] attention uh to the cost to the

[2:55:10] development projections and making

[2:55:12] adjustments um often the DCC uh because

[2:55:17] you're going to the inspector

[2:55:18] municipalities and it's quite a process

[2:55:21] uh they tend to be you know a little bit

[2:55:24] longer. years got a little bit too long

[2:55:26] in all honesty, but like in that sort of

[2:55:28] 3 to four year timeline for a major

[2:55:29] review, if you get a huge grant, you

[2:55:32] should you should do that minor

[2:55:33] amendment and the ministry deals with

[2:55:35] that differently. But when you're

[2:55:37] talking about an ACC bylaw, it's just

[2:55:39] like all the other CDs bylaws, and you

[2:55:41] don't need that um approval from the

[2:55:44] inspector, but you do need to do some

[2:55:46] consultation. But I expect if you're

[2:55:48] bringing forward a grant to reduce the

[2:55:50] cost of the ACC, you know, the level of

[2:55:53] engagement for something like that

[2:55:55] should be quite minor.

[2:55:57] » Yeah. I guess my thinking then back back

[2:56:00] to the assist factor is that um our

[2:56:03] development community is telling us that

[2:56:06] uh projects might not be financially

[2:56:10] possible or won't be funded by banks.

[2:56:13] Banks will see the projects as

[2:56:16] unfundable.

[2:56:18] » [clears throat]

[2:56:18] » And um yeah, it's hard it's hard to

[2:56:21] know. I mean, I would assume they know

[2:56:24] or they feel like they know. And um

[2:56:25] yeah, it's hard to to decide how much

[2:56:28] support to give to that industry. Um but

[2:56:32] I'd be interested in in in getting some

[2:56:34] numbers back on assist factors for ACC.

[2:56:37] And I guess my next question would be um

[2:56:40] is that possible to do for DCC's if we

[2:56:42] want to look at if we want to look at

[2:56:44] that. I know we sent did we send that

[2:56:45] off already because we gave it three

[2:56:47] ratings, but is that an option that

[2:56:49] council still has on that because I know

[2:56:52] ACC's are a rather small part of this

[2:56:53] whole thing.

[2:56:57] » Right, Miss uh Okono. Um so just as u

[2:57:02] NY's reference kind of the trade-off so

[2:57:04] it's a bit like if you uh increase the

[2:57:07] assist factor here um because the

[2:57:10] development community would be paying

[2:57:11] less you see an increase that would

[2:57:12] correspond on the taxpayer side as far

[2:57:14] as funding the plan that the city has

[2:57:16] made in the capital program that council

[2:57:19] has identified as important through the

[2:57:20] engagement processes that we undertake.

[2:57:23] My I would recommend to council if you

[2:57:25] want to look at those considerations

[2:57:27] that you do them in context with the

[2:57:28] overall financial planning process and

[2:57:31] really look first at the projects

[2:57:33] themselves and then consider the funding

[2:57:36] mechanism that you would prefer in order

[2:57:38] to make those projects come to fruition.

[2:57:41] It's very hard because the ACC bylaw

[2:57:43] itself, similarly to the DCC bylaw, is a

[2:57:46] mechanism to pay for the infrastructure

[2:57:48] we need and the priorities that we have

[2:57:51] been um provided direction from council

[2:57:53] on. Really the big changes would stem

[2:57:56] from changing priorities or changing the

[2:57:59] plan the time horizon and things like

[2:58:02] that. So really this isn't a

[2:58:04] conversation that happens in isolation

[2:58:05] related to this one mechanism. is part

[2:58:08] of a bigger consideration planning

[2:58:10] process and perspectives when it comes

[2:58:12] to whether or not the projects are

[2:58:15] necessary and who pays for those

[2:58:17] projects based on who benefits the most

[2:58:19] and where the burden can be borne. So,

[2:58:23] um, happy to do the work, but I would

[2:58:25] say out of the context of the longer

[2:58:27] financial plan and the capital plans,

[2:58:30] um, it's very problematic to see how an

[2:58:32] action over here may cause challenges

[2:58:34] for what council has already identified

[2:58:36] around tax rates and sustainability in

[2:58:38] the future, especially based on

[2:58:39] conversations that have happened earlier

[2:58:40] tonight and uh, previously in committees

[2:58:43] as a whole when we were talking about

[2:58:44] the budget.

[2:58:44] » Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. Thanks for

[2:58:46] that. I'll I'll digress and let others

[2:58:48] speak. Thanks, Councelor F and Mr.

[2:58:51] Corbett.

[2:58:51] » Yeah. Thanks. Uh I just would to weigh

[2:58:54] in ultimately we've done significant

[2:58:56] amount of work. If if the issue is a cis

[2:58:58] factor, we've actually asked council for

[2:59:00] direction on that. That's that's not a

[2:59:02] significant change. If it's removing

[2:59:04] projects, there's there's significant

[2:59:06] amount of work to do that. And then

[2:59:07] there also is implications because some

[2:59:09] of those projects may or may not

[2:59:11] actually be directly related to

[2:59:13] development that has frontage there. And

[2:59:15] so sometimes we have development uh uh

[2:59:18] development that has uh dcc credits

[2:59:20] towards that. So I guess it would

[2:59:22] suggest that council has given us

[2:59:23] direction to go down a route. Uh if

[2:59:25] we're talking about assist factor that's

[2:59:28] a type of work talking about what is a

[2:59:31] dcc project that's that's also important

[2:59:34] work but at this time um you know we

[2:59:36] we're looking for some really clear

[2:59:37] direction from council in here to come

[2:59:39] back on items. Uh remind council that we

[2:59:42] worked regionally to try and coordinate

[2:59:44] this as well. I understand actually

[2:59:46] though the CVRD has adopted their sewer

[2:59:48] DCC. Uh the intention was to kind of

[2:59:52] coordinate this so it would all be

[2:59:53] landing at the same time. So developers

[2:59:55] would be um responding to um you know in

[2:59:59] a comprehensive way but uh we we're just

[3:00:02] already starting dcc calculations or

[3:00:04] sorry there are they will be impacting

[3:00:07] at a different time from a year from

[3:00:09] now. We are not doing any different

[3:00:11] calculations right at this point. My

[3:00:13] apologies. Um so if if council can uh

[3:00:16] let us know where you want to go, we the

[3:00:17] staff can respond. Um, yeah, this is, as

[3:00:20] I said in my long-winded discussion

[3:00:22] around ACC's, it's not easy at this

[3:00:24] point. And, uh, council, we're here to

[3:00:27] get council direction on on this matter.

[3:00:31] » Thanks, Mr. Garbett and Council

[3:00:33] McCullen.

[3:00:36] » Yeah, I mean, adding charges and

[3:00:40] updating DCC's, I it's a major impact.

[3:00:44] It's a major change. Um, as has been

[3:00:47] highlighted already tonight, our DCC

[3:00:50] bylaw was more than a decade out of date

[3:00:53] and it really hasn't been adjusted to

[3:00:55] meet the rising costs of what

[3:00:59] what our capital demands are. Um, and

[3:01:03] then I I don't know if we've lost sight

[3:01:06] of this to a degree and in kind of

[3:01:08] getting into the details of this, but

[3:01:10] the ACC's were brought on by the

[3:01:13] province to provide certainty around

[3:01:15] development costs in order to get rid of

[3:01:17] what was um, you know, amenity

[3:01:22] contribution negotiations at resoning.

[3:01:25] And what we've done instead is um

[3:01:30] implemented a major change to our zoning

[3:01:33] bylaw that allows for much more

[3:01:35] development to occur on development

[3:01:37] lots. And and this is the trade-off. And

[3:01:41] unless we proceed with that trade-off,

[3:01:42] we don't really understand the impact.

[3:01:44] There has been um a benefit provided.

[3:01:48] We've we've reduced parking requirements

[3:01:50] on just about every type of residential

[3:01:53] development that can occur in the city.

[3:01:55] We are allowing more to happen on on

[3:01:58] single family lots all the way up to um

[3:02:00] you know our highdensity areas and we've

[3:02:04] given up the ability to negotiate um

[3:02:06] amenities to come from those. So this

[3:02:09] this is the tool that we have and um

[3:02:12] this is the process that we've followed

[3:02:14] um very thoroughly um with some very um

[3:02:20] detailed reports and discussion that's

[3:02:23] led up to this point. So um I'm I'm

[3:02:26] fairly comfortable with where that is

[3:02:28] and yeah it I mean it doesn't need to go

[3:02:31] to the inspector of municipalities um

[3:02:35] in the same way that the DCC's are. So

[3:02:38] perhaps there will be changes to it. But

[3:02:41] I would also remind that um I'm sure

[3:02:43] that if we didn't change any of our

[3:02:46] property taxes and did it all in one go,

[3:02:48] it would be a major sticker shock too,

[3:02:50] which is essentially what we have done

[3:02:52] here. Um

[3:02:55] and I mean our our previous discussion

[3:02:58] tonight around um what we're grappling

[3:03:01] with in terms of property taxation

[3:03:03] increases. We we have a lot of

[3:03:05] downloaded costs from higher levels of

[3:03:08] government that used to get, you know,

[3:03:10] 66% of our capital. Um projects were

[3:03:14] being funded and now we're being asked

[3:03:15] to do, you know, at at our sewer

[3:03:18] commission committee yesterday. We're

[3:03:20] looking at a hund00 million project with

[3:03:22] basically no funding from higher levels

[3:03:25] of government. And the end result is

[3:03:27] that we have to increase things um

[3:03:29] faster than inflation as we're not

[3:03:31] getting that support. So, the money has

[3:03:33] to come from somewhere and I'm not

[3:03:36] comfortable um asking our taxpayers to

[3:03:40] take a bigger piece of that pie than

[3:03:42] what's fair. So, um this is the the best

[3:03:46] solution that we have at this point. And

[3:03:49] yes, there are going to be impacts from

[3:03:50] it. And um you know, if those impacts

[3:03:53] end up being more than than what makes

[3:03:55] sense, they they can be revisited. and

[3:03:58] um I'm I'm comfortable proceeding with

[3:04:00] what's in front of us um tonight. Thank

[3:04:03] you.

[3:04:06] » Thanks uh Councelor McCullum. Maybe I'll

[3:04:09] just ask a clarifying question um uh

[3:04:12] just because what keeps coming back to

[3:04:16] us and again hopefully things don't

[3:04:18] don't get delayed so long but um back in

[3:04:21] 2016 and then when we visit DCC's again

[3:04:25] uh I know I asked the question around

[3:04:26] CPI and whether or not CPI is

[3:04:28] automatically um included in those

[3:04:31] calculations. So going forward again we

[3:04:33] can sit down and and re-evaluate those

[3:04:37] projects. But just in the absence of

[3:04:39] that uh happening um uh is there some

[3:04:44] mechanism like CPI that keeps those

[3:04:47] amounts going up so that we're not doing

[3:04:50] this catch up like we are with with

[3:04:52] DCC's right now.

[3:04:54] » Uh Mr. Mayor, the best practice is to do

[3:04:56] your dcc amendment every year to capture

[3:04:59] that CPI amount. That that does not need

[3:05:03] to go to the inspector of

[3:05:04] municipalities, right?

[3:05:05] » And I think what happened is the the

[3:05:07] city also was not doing that until very

[3:05:09] recently. So it really fell behind. Uh

[3:05:12] so that would be a recommended best

[3:05:14] practice for uh both bylaws.

[3:05:17] » Okay. Um

[3:05:20] um All right. I appreciate that uh

[3:05:22] clarification. and councelor Brish.

[3:05:25] » Yeah, thanks. I have two two more

[3:05:27] questions. Um, one is around the sort of

[3:05:31] all-in DCC and ACC costs per per unit

[3:05:35] per square meter. I guess we have the

[3:05:36] three different densities and um, do we

[3:05:40] have that number that includes the

[3:05:41] regional district and the Courtney's

[3:05:43] proposed numbers?

[3:05:45] And I'm sorry I'm trying to dig up the

[3:05:47] dcc's from the last discussion and add

[3:05:49] them into the ACC's but is that

[3:05:51] something that is possible to share with

[3:05:53] me at this time like what is it let's

[3:05:55] just talk about a house simple house

[3:05:57] like what is the full number?

[3:05:59] » Yeah through the chair I mean that

[3:06:01] information has been presented to

[3:06:03] council previously. Uh you know I want

[3:06:06] to look at the exact bylaw that the CVRD

[3:06:09] uh did adopt. Uh we could probably find

[3:06:12] it pretty quickly. I think there the low

[3:06:15] density charge was roughly $18,000 a lot

[3:06:18] for the sewer and um Miss Okonnell might

[3:06:22] be pulling it up uh for the other

[3:06:24] charges that you know significantly

[3:06:26] decrease decrease from there.

[3:06:28] » Yeah. Yeah. I did get the dcc's um that

[3:06:33] we had for the RD and Courtney

[3:06:36] and then I guess um is he RD doing ACC's

[3:06:40] or

[3:06:47] » Oh, sorry Saunders.

[3:06:50] » I was that close.

[3:06:51] » Thank you. The mayor of councelor Fr. Uh

[3:06:54] the regional district has given staff

[3:06:56] direction to uh look into an ACC, but

[3:06:59] they have not uh they were staff were

[3:07:01] waiting for direction from the

[3:07:03] recreation commission on the uh new

[3:07:05] arena or the additional arena. Now that

[3:07:08] they've received that direction and they

[3:07:09] know what type of arena they're planning

[3:07:10] for, uh they expect to start working on

[3:07:13] uh ECC's this year. So they have not

[3:07:16] started that process. Um but they will

[3:07:18] be starting it this year.

[3:07:20] » Great. Thanks for that. I guess I guess

[3:07:22] my my interest is in looking into um an

[3:07:24] assist factor on both. And it doesn't

[3:07:26] maybe it doesn't have to be huge. I'm

[3:07:27] actually um not exactly clear on what

[3:07:30] the old numbers are were to what the new

[3:07:32] numbers will be. And um I don't know if

[3:07:36] I've had enough time to contemplate what

[3:07:38] kind of assist factor I'd even be

[3:07:39] willing to give um let alone the rest of

[3:07:42] council. So um yeah, I'd love Sorry, go

[3:07:46] ahead. If you have more information, I'

[3:07:48] I'd take it. It sounded like someone was

[3:07:50] going to speak there. Nope, not yet. And

[3:07:53] so I'm I'm I'm inclined to ask for that

[3:07:55] information um for ACC's at least. And

[3:07:58] then knowing that I'll probably ask the

[3:08:00] same thing when the DCC bylaw comes

[3:08:02] back.

[3:08:15] So maybe while we're waiting, we can

[3:08:17] move on to the council more.

[3:08:20] » Yeah. I mean, uh, councelor McCollum

[3:08:25] gave some examples of how we're trying

[3:08:28] to help developers

[3:08:31] with costs like the parking and things

[3:08:33] like that. And I know that um our city

[3:08:36] manager had uh had mentioned this before

[3:08:39] around some of those other policy

[3:08:41] changes um in terms of of helping to

[3:08:47] alleviate some of the costs. So I'm just

[3:08:49] curious whether um Mr. but feels

[3:08:52] comfortable with talking about some

[3:08:54] other things that are in the pipeline to

[3:08:56] offset you know some of the

[3:09:00] some of this uh

[3:09:05] » And if you don't you know through the

[3:09:07] mayor it's just I I don't want to

[3:09:09] overstate I mean we we're working uh

[3:09:12] with council direction on a number of

[3:09:14] adjustments and we had talked about

[3:09:15] adjustments uh council column talked

[3:09:18] about that um we're uh with the

[3:09:21] direction of our acting director. We're

[3:09:23] working on our processes. Um

[3:09:27] we've had uh improvements in the return

[3:09:31] of uh bonding and costing. That's that's

[3:09:36] an impact for developers. I I don't have

[3:09:39] a detailed list right in front of me

[3:09:40] right now. However, um uh you know,

[3:09:45] forming uh good working groups to try

[3:09:48] and engage uh uh grant resources. Um we

[3:09:54] mentioned CFP Comox as a bit of a

[3:09:56] catalyzing factor right now. Um a lot of

[3:09:58] that is going to impact all forms of

[3:10:00] infrastructure in the community. uh

[3:10:02] forming a a you know a working group or

[3:10:05] task force on uh trying to uh both speed

[3:10:09] development applications, raise the

[3:10:11] priority of our community for um grant

[3:10:14] applications which

[3:10:17] our uh colleague has talked about how we

[3:10:19] would amend development cost charges for

[3:10:21] that. Um speeding our uh processes uh

[3:10:26] ultimately uh amending zoning in areas.

[3:10:30] Um, one of our large, well, basically

[3:10:32] the largest developer in our community

[3:10:33] has pre-zoneed land that staff are

[3:10:36] working right now with great development

[3:10:38] consultants that are working on behalf

[3:10:39] of that development to, um, fine-tune

[3:10:42] and and address the market.

[3:10:45] » These are some of the things that we're

[3:10:46] doing. Um

[3:10:48] uh sorry that that that the complaint.

[3:10:51] Um likewise um you know um making sure

[3:10:55] that we have uh better uh and more um

[3:11:00] effective customer service in place to

[3:11:02] move applications through um is a is a

[3:11:05] critical component because time is

[3:11:06] money. And then uh just as as recently

[3:11:09] as yesterday, I know that elected

[3:11:11] officials met with uh development

[3:11:12] community, but we talked about the city

[3:11:14] trying to engage with the other

[3:11:16] regulatory agencies um that affect the

[3:11:18] development process. But the these are

[3:11:20] just examples and and and we've we've

[3:11:22] all heard about timelines uh very

[3:11:25] extended timelines. Council dealt with

[3:11:27] an extended timeline uh expeditiously uh

[3:11:30] once uh we uh received some really clear

[3:11:34] direction. Um but those are examples.

[3:11:36] Um, and I I know my head colleagues are

[3:11:39] doing some uh additional work. Feel like

[3:11:41] I might be holding airspace. [laughter]

[3:11:45] » All right, I see Miss Okonnell's

[3:11:46] microphone's ready.

[3:11:48] » So, the quickest place I could find the

[3:11:50] majority of the information of all the

[3:11:52] different pieces was actually on the

[3:11:55] engage page where we provided all the

[3:11:58] materials and if this was directly from

[3:12:00] one of the presentations. Um so as an uh

[3:12:04] an example the um DCC's or the draft

[3:12:08] rates for Courtney at the time well were

[3:12:10] 21 for sorry for a low density

[3:12:12] residential as an example were 21,337

[3:12:15] for the town of Komox for the same it

[3:12:18] was uh 30,792

[3:12:22] um for

[3:12:26] » Okay

[3:12:28] » And then for the um CBRD So for the

[3:12:32] sewer it's for low density residential

[3:12:34] it's $18,042.

[3:12:36] For medium residential it's uh 9,800 and

[3:12:39] change. Um so when you combine those

[3:12:43] rates there's like five different

[3:12:45] categories. You'd have to add each of

[3:12:47] them up. But we're consistent with our

[3:12:50] municipal comparators across both um

[3:12:52] ACC's and DCC's and or below.

[3:12:56] » If I could just thanks for that. I know

[3:12:59] we're sort of mixing two discussions

[3:13:00] here.

[3:13:01] » Um,

[3:13:02] one of the reasons I bring that up is

[3:13:04] because, you know, we also heard from

[3:13:06] the development community that, you

[3:13:08] know, time is money as well. And I know

[3:13:12] this would have been probably at least a

[3:13:14] couple years ago now. Um the regional

[3:13:16] district was getting a a lot of grief

[3:13:18] around um their delayed timelines and

[3:13:22] the electoral areas services committee

[3:13:25] um gave some really clear direction um

[3:13:29] to deal with that. And so what resulted

[3:13:32] was um they gave direction for you know

[3:13:36] additional resources and staff to get

[3:13:38] through that backlog of applications and

[3:13:43] they went from I think 3 or 4 months to

[3:13:45] like 2 or 3 weeks or something and that

[3:13:48] was a couple years ago now. So I think

[3:13:51] you know I guess this speaks to the

[3:13:53] whole engagement piece as well. Um, I

[3:13:56] think whatever we can do to act on those

[3:14:00] other things that are costing

[3:14:03] costing money and and responding to that

[3:14:06] in a in a really clear direct way I

[3:14:08] think um I think is important like it

[3:14:11] can be done. I think, you know, staff

[3:14:14] couldn't, you know, decide that on their

[3:14:15] own. That needed to come from the

[3:14:18] electoral directors. But it's just one

[3:14:20] example of um I think just being more

[3:14:24] um I guess just having a better read on

[3:14:28] on how those costs um

[3:14:33] uh yeah those additional costs um

[3:14:36] acknowledging that you know that's not

[3:14:39] necessarily part of this discussion but

[3:14:41] just part of the whole picture. Thanks.

[3:14:44] Thanks, Councelor Morren. And yeah, and

[3:14:46] I and I think that there was definitely

[3:14:47] a commitment uh uh uh probably from

[3:14:50] across mo most of the counselors to to

[3:14:53] uh put some energy um and to make sure

[3:14:56] that we're having those ongoing

[3:14:57] conversations, but also uh when when

[3:15:00] it's appropriate and and it's possible

[3:15:01] that we're advocating for other things

[3:15:03] that are uh causing these um projects to

[3:15:07] lose their viability. And so Cichi um

[3:15:10] fees which have doubled and and other

[3:15:12] things are are places where we can be

[3:15:14] advocating um not just uh within

[3:15:17] ourselves and within the the Komox

[3:15:19] Valley but with the provincial and and

[3:15:22] federal counterparts uh that are um

[3:15:25] having a deep impact on on the viability

[3:15:28] of a lot of these projects as well

[3:15:30] beyond um ACC's and DCC's. Um and with

[3:15:34] that I'll pass over to councelor Fresh.

[3:15:36] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. So, um I just

[3:15:39] quickly added up the numbers that you

[3:15:41] gave me. Thanks very much. And so for a

[3:15:43] single family unit, it looks to be

[3:15:45] around $46,000

[3:15:47] per door. Um that's seven coming from

[3:15:50] our ECC's, 18 from the regional 18,000

[3:15:54] from the regional district and um and 21

[3:15:57] from Courtney.

[3:15:59] And then the um medium density is

[3:16:01] $25,000 a door which is three and a half

[3:16:04] from our ECC's and 10,000 from the RDS

[3:16:07] dcc and 12 from our DCC's. And then

[3:16:10] finally the um high density is around

[3:16:14] $260 per square meter. Um which I always

[3:16:20] think about a thousand uh like square

[3:16:22] foot unit, but maybe that's even big.

[3:16:25] Maybe they're building 750s. I don't

[3:16:27] know. But um that puts it in a similar

[3:16:29] range to the medium density depending on

[3:16:31] how big of a unit you build. So um I

[3:16:36] guess that's where we're at and I just

[3:16:37] wanted like that's kind of the all-in

[3:16:39] number and it's worth looking at because

[3:16:40] if we piece it out into little bits,

[3:16:42] it's kind of hard to fathom what what um

[3:16:44] the industry is up against. And so I

[3:16:47] just want to share that I that we're

[3:16:49] hearing those numbers um aren't possible

[3:16:53] and it's going to scare away development

[3:16:54] or or just make it not possible. So, in

[3:16:57] light of that, I I would be interested

[3:16:58] in hearing about what an assist factor

[3:17:01] of say 5 and 10% might mean for us and

[3:17:04] how that would change the numbers

[3:17:07] compared to the old numbers. Um, and

[3:17:09] wonder if we can do that for just, you

[3:17:12] know, a year or two like to ease to ease

[3:17:14] the development community into this idea

[3:17:16] of these new fees. Uh, is that possible

[3:17:18] to say we want to do an assist factor

[3:17:20] for one year and then review it or two

[3:17:23] years or whatever?

[3:17:27] Thank you chair. It's absolutely

[3:17:29] possible. That's council's discretion

[3:17:31] and it's just as staff has noted it will

[3:17:33] impact uh cost to the taxpayer by that

[3:17:36] amount. But it's absolutely possible for

[3:17:39] council to provide that direction. Um

[3:17:42] and you could do that solely for the ACC

[3:17:45] program. Uh if you wish you could apply

[3:17:47] it the same as this factor to the DCC

[3:17:50] program as a whole or you could also

[3:17:52] apply it just to say transportation for

[3:17:55] example um that would be at council's

[3:17:58] discretion.

[3:17:59] » The one thing I would note though if

[3:18:01] you're if council wishes to direct

[3:18:03] changes um to the assist factor to the

[3:18:07] development cost charge uh we do have

[3:18:10] that in at the inspector of

[3:18:12] municipalities. So, we I can't imagine

[3:18:14] it influencing um their approval of the

[3:18:17] bylaws, but they do sign off on the

[3:18:19] bylaws. So, we'd want to do that

[3:18:20] amendment and provide that update to

[3:18:22] them uh while they're in their review.

[3:18:27] » Well, we would basically put them on

[3:18:28] hold. Yeah. And would would it make

[3:18:31] mathematical sense to assume that if

[3:18:33] we're giving a 5% assist factor that it

[3:18:36] would decrease those per door costs by

[3:18:39] about 5% for for our portion for our DCC

[3:18:42] or our ACC or is it am I missing missing

[3:18:46] the calculation a bit

[3:18:48] » Through the chair? Yeah, the 5% would be

[3:18:50] based on the developer's portion and

[3:18:54] then that savings just or that savings

[3:18:57] that the developer has just gets

[3:18:58] transferred to the municipal

[3:19:00] responsibility,

[3:19:01] » Right?

[3:19:01] » Um but we could illustrate how that

[3:19:03] assist factor um is impact in a in a

[3:19:06] separate column essentially for

[3:19:08] council's consideration at a future

[3:19:09] time. Yeah, I I mean I'm having a hard

[3:19:14] time understanding what is going to make

[3:19:15] and what's going to break development

[3:19:17] and um but it has been argued that of

[3:19:20] course if you get far less development

[3:19:23] then you're going to get far less DCC's

[3:19:25] and ACC's as well. So that's what I'm

[3:19:28] contemplating. Um I see one more light

[3:19:30] two more lights so I'm going to let go.

[3:19:32] Thanks.

[3:19:33] Thanks, Councelor Fish and uh Council

[3:19:35] Helen. And I just want to acknowledge

[3:19:37] that we're way past the 6:30 deadline

[3:19:39] that I thought we would have for dinner.

[3:19:40] So, I do I'm just going to apologize

[3:19:42] right now. I know we're uh probably

[3:19:45] starving, so I just want to acknowledge,

[3:19:46] but councelor, floor is yours.

[3:19:50] » Yes, decisions made when uh hungry and

[3:19:54] tired. Um

[3:19:56] so there's there's one part of this that

[3:19:59] still confuses me and and um when I

[3:20:01] asked the question earlier about the

[3:20:03] time um it would take for the uh

[3:20:06] implementation

[3:20:08] um part of what I was mindful of was in

[3:20:11] the um the guide for elected officials

[3:20:13] that uh we were provided with which was

[3:20:16] referenced in the staff report there's a

[3:20:19] section that um talks about um assessing

[3:20:22] potential development impact act and it

[3:20:26] says staff will evaluate and advise

[3:20:28] elected officials whether proposed ACC's

[3:20:30] will deter development or discourage the

[3:20:32] construction of reasonably priced

[3:20:34] housing adjustments by elected officials

[3:20:37] to the assist factor or providing a

[3:20:40] grace period or phasing in of ACC's

[3:20:44] rates could be considered at this stage.

[3:20:47] So,

[3:20:49] forgive me if I missed it, but have we

[3:20:50] have we considered the possibility of

[3:20:52] phasing in and what that would involve

[3:20:54] and what the pros and cons of that

[3:20:58] » Mr. Gman?

[3:20:58] » Yeah, thank you.

[3:21:00] Are we had responded that we council

[3:21:03] gave direction on the cis factor, give

[3:21:05] direction on those timing? We we have

[3:21:09] responded to that. So I what I have not

[3:21:10] heard is any actual direction from

[3:21:12] council in terms of would you like to

[3:21:14] consider this for send it back for some

[3:21:17] more information you know we do need

[3:21:19] some some direction you have received uh

[3:21:21] with respect to ACC specifically we

[3:21:24] engaged net it was not missenderson's

[3:21:27] firm we had a secondary firm do an

[3:21:29] economic analysis that was included in

[3:21:31] the original information that was

[3:21:33] provided to council that we were

[3:21:35] referencing that u that was a step that

[3:21:37] we did specifically um in accordance

[3:21:39] with the best practice guide. Um, and

[3:21:42] you've received information from

[3:21:44] developers that it will impede and so we

[3:21:46] have a difference of opinion. Uh,

[3:21:48] ultimately you could ask you give us

[3:21:51] direction to get some more information

[3:21:52] on the impact of assist factors um about

[3:21:56] the timeline and etc. And so that I mean

[3:21:58] we we can't really give you any guidance

[3:22:00] about that uh in terms of what but it is

[3:22:02] in fact possible yes to do that um and

[3:22:05] uh um we we would take council's

[3:22:08] direction in that regard.

[3:22:12] » Thanks Mr. Urban and um Council McCullum

[3:22:19] » At the risk of lengthening this

[3:22:21] discussion. Um just I I I found the

[3:22:24] summary of the calculation of all these

[3:22:27] different fees coming in helpful. I

[3:22:29] think we did see some of that way back

[3:22:32] in this discussion but um I think it's

[3:22:35] good to revisit. But then the other

[3:22:37] piece that I just wanted staff to

[3:22:39] clarify on record with the largest one

[3:22:42] being what we call a single family lot,

[3:22:45] which is of course no longer a single

[3:22:47] family lot at all and that um you could

[3:22:51] do a lot more than single family.

[3:22:53] What is the maximum number of units that

[3:22:56] can fit on um a lot under that um 40

[3:23:01] some odd thousand dcc?

[3:23:04] » Do the chair. Um just a point of

[3:23:06] clarification on the low density charge

[3:23:08] from your old bylaw. So your old bylaw

[3:23:11] you would require the single detached

[3:23:13] house and then there would be a fee for

[3:23:15] both the city and the regional district

[3:23:17] for carriage homes where the new

[3:23:19] lowdensity charge includes a carriage

[3:23:21] home, a suite and a um and this the main

[3:23:26] dwelling. And then if you were to do a

[3:23:28] duplex, you would essentially charge two

[3:23:31] medium density uh charges, which isn't

[3:23:34] that all that different from just a

[3:23:37] little bit more uh than the single low

[3:23:39] density charge. So that's why comparing

[3:23:43] the old rates to the new rates is apples

[3:23:45] to oranges because there's more that's

[3:23:47] allowed under under that first rate and

[3:23:49] then the uh carriage home if you had a

[3:23:52] second carriage home would go to the

[3:23:53] apartment rate. I think it's also

[3:23:56] important to note and I can't speak for

[3:23:58] them but the city squared work uh that

[3:24:00] was done also was looking at

[3:24:02] inclusionary zoning uh which was another

[3:24:05] tool that council could have used um and

[3:24:08] it and it's basically recognized that

[3:24:10] you couldn't have the increased DCC's

[3:24:13] the ACC's and inclusionary zoning. So my

[3:24:15] understanding was that council did um

[3:24:18] sort of move away from the requirement

[3:24:19] of inclusionary zoning. So that's like

[3:24:22] another example that that council

[3:24:25] already considered uh when looking at

[3:24:27] the rates. Like I think there's been a

[3:24:28] number of concessions over the course of

[3:24:31] this um study, including the reduction

[3:24:34] of the number of projects on the ACC

[3:24:36] list and the parks list um to try to fit

[3:24:40] it in to what would be uh financially

[3:24:43] viable for certain uh types of

[3:24:46] development. right now in this market. I

[3:24:49] mean, there's people in the room that

[3:24:50] could clearly tell you that there's a

[3:24:52] lot of development that just clearly

[3:24:54] isn't viable under the existing DCC or a

[3:24:57] future DCC. But the uh land use

[3:25:00] economics work that I believe city

[3:25:01] square did did illustrate um with some

[3:25:04] upzoning and other things that the city

[3:25:06] is looking at that there were some

[3:25:08] developments based on the charges not

[3:25:10] getting any higher than they are that

[3:25:12] were marginal.

[3:25:16] Thanks for that and councelor FR.

[3:25:19] » Yeah, well [clears throat] I remember

[3:25:21] you mentioning that before the single

[3:25:23] family home includes up to three units

[3:25:25] and it does seem like a steal of a deal

[3:25:27] in a lot of ways and it makes me think

[3:25:29] maybe we really need to be looking at

[3:25:32] the high density and are we discouraging

[3:25:34] high density you know 700 square foot

[3:25:36] units,000 square foot units um which I

[3:25:40] think we really want for a lot of

[3:25:42] reasons. One is the obvious need to

[3:25:44] densify if we're not going to sprawl,

[3:25:45] but otherwise

[3:25:47] um the value to our community and

[3:25:50] getting and using our infrastructure

[3:25:52] more efficiently. Like there's a lot of

[3:25:54] advantages to having um condominiums and

[3:25:57] and rental apartments. And is this price

[3:26:01] um is this price the right one to

[3:26:03] incentivize that versus

[3:26:06] um trying to do more single family lots

[3:26:09] where you know if you get three units on

[3:26:11] a lot it's it it does seem quite

[3:26:14] affordable that way

[3:26:16] » To the chair just to answer that

[3:26:18] question. So it's not possible to do a

[3:26:20] assist factor for a specific land use

[3:26:23] category. uh so it has to be by DCC

[3:26:27] program type uh transportation sewer

[3:26:29] water drainage for example you can't say

[3:26:32] we want to assist apartment um and then

[3:26:35] when you go back to like why is the

[3:26:37] apartment that way why does it come out

[3:26:39] I mean it's a very um well somewhat of a

[3:26:42] complicated model that you how you

[3:26:45] calculate the dcc charges but you know

[3:26:47] we're looking at you know the population

[3:26:49] projections we're looking at per

[3:26:51] household data um and So that's just

[3:26:54] sort of how it computes out you know

[3:26:56] based on the best practice approach to

[3:26:58] calculating DCC's. So to tinker with the

[3:27:02] apartment um one specifically like you'd

[3:27:05] essentially be uh sort of tinkering with

[3:27:09] like people per households or like

[3:27:11] equivalency factors which are like

[3:27:13] technically based engineering uh

[3:27:15] requirements. So it's really difficult

[3:27:17] to kind of look at that one land use

[3:27:20] category and say I really wish that

[3:27:21] would be lower.

[3:27:22] » Okay. Thank you for that. Makes sense.

[3:27:24] Um so in view in light of that I' I'd be

[3:27:27] interested in having staff come back

[3:27:28] with a little um a little more not

[3:27:31] information actually just some option

[3:27:33] around um some grace periods you know

[3:27:35] maybe 3 months 6 months um and some

[3:27:39] assist factor you know five and 10% and

[3:27:42] I can put that into the form of a motion

[3:27:44] if that's okay with you mayor. So, I'll

[3:27:46] move that staff uh come back to council

[3:27:48] with options for a grace period and for

[3:27:51] [snorts] assist fact an assist factor

[3:27:53] for the ACC bylaw.

[3:27:56] » And Mr. Garbett need a little bit more

[3:27:59] on what type of grace period and

[3:28:01] timeline just if we can assist that

[3:28:03] because uh we need to we need to be more

[3:28:06] more specific there

[3:28:10] » For phasing.

[3:28:12] » Sure. Um, would you like me to restate a

[3:28:15] motion?

[3:28:15] » I think so.

[3:28:16] » Okay.

[3:28:17] » I know it's getting late and we're at

[3:28:18] [clears throat] that point, but

[3:28:19] » I'll do my best. I'll move that staff

[3:28:21] come back to council with options for

[3:28:24] phasing in the ACC bylaw for three and

[3:28:28] six months and also for an assist factor

[3:28:32] of five and 10% and well and one's

[3:28:35] already provided. So,

[3:28:43] Um, we don't have a secondary yet.

[3:28:48] » Okay. And do you want to speak to it

[3:28:50] further?

[3:28:50] » Well, yeah. Just I'll just just to

[3:28:52] clarify like I'm interested in the grace

[3:28:54] period like if we if we do end up

[3:28:56] passing this this uh winter, you know,

[3:28:58] maybe we do push it off for a few months

[3:29:00] just to give a bit more time. And then

[3:29:03] um also the assist factor for a period

[3:29:06] of time whether it's a year or two years

[3:29:08] um to be reassessed later on. You know

[3:29:10] maybe the market conditions change.

[3:29:12] Maybe we find that uh it's not such a

[3:29:14] big scary thing after all or maybe we

[3:29:17] find everything's dropped off the map

[3:29:19] and it's we need to reconsider how how

[3:29:21] we're the projects [clears throat] we're

[3:29:23] looking at basically I guess. And so

[3:29:25] that's why I suggested the five and the

[3:29:27] 10%. [gasps]

[3:29:30] Okay. Is that is that clear to anyone?

[3:29:33] » Well, I think it's getting written up

[3:29:34] right now and then

[3:29:36] once it's up on the screen, you can just

[3:29:39] confirm that that uh reflects

[3:29:42] your intent.

[3:29:47] » That's perfect. Um and after factors of

[3:29:49] 5 to 10%

[3:29:51] or

[3:29:54] say two years, I don't know. I guess we

[3:29:57] can change that when it comes back to

[3:29:58] see what those dollars look like. But

[3:30:01] » And and it might be rather than dashes

[3:30:04] the word and just because

[3:30:07] that that that just kind of articulates

[3:30:09] the

[3:30:10] » Yeah, I just five and 10%. You're right.

[3:30:12] It's we don't want we don't want

[3:30:13] everything in between. Thanks. That's

[3:30:15] perfect. Thank you.

[3:30:17] » See? Yeah. Okay. Um and councelor

[3:30:20] McCullum, um is this to the motion on

[3:30:22] the floor now or?

[3:30:23] » Yeah, it's just a clarifying question.

[3:30:25] Um so if we provide this direction to

[3:30:28] staff um I mean this is around the

[3:30:31] implementation of the amenity cost

[3:30:34] charge bylaw could we proceed with first

[3:30:37] second and third reading and then um

[3:30:40] this would inform adoption or um would

[3:30:43] this have to delay the readings of the

[3:30:45] bylaw as well?

[3:30:46] » Mr. Con? Um, so it depends. Um, if the

[3:30:51] intent or the belief is that the report

[3:30:54] coming back would result in council's

[3:30:55] desire to amend the bylaw, um, for

[3:30:58] tonight, you I would recommend you

[3:30:59] consider first and second. That way,

[3:31:01] we're not considering the having to

[3:31:02] resend third reading. At the same time,

[3:31:06] um, having the bylaw split and now

[3:31:09] potentially moving out of sync with the

[3:31:11] DCC bylaw, that will also have kind of

[3:31:14] some implications as well. So um yes, we

[3:31:18] can def you can consider first and

[3:31:20] second reading, provide the direction

[3:31:23] based on this and then essentially I

[3:31:25] wouldn't um bring the the bylaw back for

[3:31:28] third reading consideration until we've

[3:31:29] had a chance to undertake this work and

[3:31:31] report back to council. And whether or

[3:31:33] not the dcc bylaw comes back from the

[3:31:37] province before then or not, it's the

[3:31:40] timing may be off, which will impact our

[3:31:42] current work because we're actually

[3:31:44] preparing to implement some of these

[3:31:46] fees and and get all of our ducks in a

[3:31:48] row for when that time comes. So, we'll

[3:31:50] just have to do some some tweaks on the

[3:31:52] work plan as well.

[3:31:54] » Okay. Thanks for that clarity.

[3:31:57] » Right. Thanks for that that that

[3:31:58] clarification. Um and councelor Mo.

[3:32:02] Thanks, Mayor. Um, so just um reflecting

[3:32:05] on what Miss Okonnell said earlier

[3:32:08] around how um there, you know, there's a

[3:32:12] domino effect with um the tax rates,

[3:32:16] etc.

[3:32:17] I'm not sure if um councelor Fr had

[3:32:20] intended to have that as part of the

[3:32:24] information that comes back. Um I mean

[3:32:27] we've we've approved the the increase

[3:32:30] for this year but

[3:32:33] adjusting this would impact you know

[3:32:35] future

[3:32:37] tax rates. So I I don't know how full

[3:32:40] wholesome of information

[3:32:42] you're expecting like do we want to know

[3:32:46] um how that's going to impact the the

[3:32:48] numbers next year and beyond?

[3:32:53] » And [clears throat]

[3:32:54] uh Mr. department.

[3:32:57] » The chair, we're we're having a a good

[3:33:00] engaged discussion. I I had asked our

[3:33:02] finance officer what the if we did not

[3:33:05] proceed in in this current year, what

[3:33:07] does that do for our taxation?

[3:33:10] » Maybe ask Adam to recount the

[3:33:13] conversation we had.

[3:33:15] » Yeah. So if there is a delay in the

[3:33:17] adoption of the ACC or DCC bylaw, there

[3:33:20] will not be a direct impact on the

[3:33:23] financial plan that council has been

[3:33:25] presented with so far. What that

[3:33:27] financial plan does not have though is

[3:33:30] any of these projects in it.

[3:33:32] Um, there are a handful of items that

[3:33:35] would receive additional funding if the

[3:33:39] ACC and DCC bylaws are adopted, which

[3:33:42] would actually reduce the tax increases

[3:33:45] required in the current year in

[3:33:50] the financial plan is presented. So,

[3:33:52] it's kind of a blend.

[3:33:55] There's

[3:33:57] not a big influence of DCC projects

[3:34:01] because we I was working from an old DCC

[3:34:03] bylaw, but there were projects that were

[3:34:07] preceding and were included in the

[3:34:09] financial plan that had not had DCC

[3:34:14] money allocated to it yet. And I can't

[3:34:17] allocate it until the new bylaws in. So,

[3:34:23] » So it doesn't affect this year.

[3:34:26] » It will not increase taxation for 2026.

[3:34:31] It will not allow for decreases

[3:34:37] in projects that are on the proposed

[3:34:39] list.

[3:34:41] » Okay. Thank you. But it will definitely

[3:34:46] impact future years.

[3:34:49] So that 14% or whatever is indicated for

[3:34:52] 2027 would be substantially higher for a

[3:34:56] new council to have to figure out.

[3:35:00] Sounds light.

[3:35:04] The delay of this DCC or ACC will not

[3:35:08] impact the 2027 tax change as I haven't

[3:35:12] factored in the impacts from this

[3:35:15] proposed.

[3:35:16] Um, if all other things stay the same

[3:35:19] for the financial plan next year and

[3:35:21] this DCC bylaw comes in as presented, we

[3:35:24] will see a decrease in taxation as there

[3:35:26] is new funding sources eligible for

[3:35:28] projects already in the financial plan.

[3:35:33] » Right. Thanks for uh articulating that

[3:35:35] and councelor.

[3:35:38] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Two points. First of

[3:35:39] all, I wonder um if it would make sense

[3:35:42] to uh add the word

[3:35:46] and implications

[3:35:48] um that the report back with options and

[3:35:51] implications.

[3:35:54] Um because I I'm assuming that the

[3:35:56] report will do that anyway and that it

[3:35:58] will if it gives us options, it'll also

[3:36:00] let us know uh what the implications of

[3:36:03] those options are. But I'm just

[3:36:05] wondering if we should be clear about

[3:36:06] giving that direction. Yeah. Um,

[3:36:11] so that would be a friendly suggestion

[3:36:13] or a friendly amendment. Then my

[3:36:15] question procedurally is uh whether or

[3:36:18] not it makes sense to defer the um the

[3:36:22] motion the recommendation related to the

[3:36:25] bylaw um to when that report comes back

[3:36:30] you know if that would be procedurally a

[3:36:33] a sensible way to to go or not.

[3:36:36] Mr.

[3:36:37] Um,

[3:36:39] it it wouldn't actually make a

[3:36:41] difference because it's an ACC bylaw.

[3:36:43] You can do three readings at once. The

[3:36:46] option to pursue or to consider first

[3:36:48] and second at this point would be more

[3:36:50] of a indication of council's intent to

[3:36:52] continue to seriously consider the

[3:36:54] application of the ACC's by delaying or

[3:36:57] deferring the bylaw in its entirety. um

[3:37:00] that is a different u approach but both

[3:37:04] ultimately um as far as timeline for

[3:37:07] consideration

[3:37:09] it it's the same.

[3:37:10] » Okay, thanks

[3:37:13] and council last word.

[3:37:15] » Yeah, sure. I'm happy to um move first

[3:37:17] and second when it comes up and I'll

[3:37:19] just hold off on third till we get this

[3:37:20] information. And then I would I would

[3:37:23] wonder if um just asking for the same

[3:37:25] information on the DCC's um if it would

[3:37:28] make sense to do it at the same time if

[3:37:30] or maybe I should make a a subsequent

[3:37:33] motion if we're interested in seeing

[3:37:35] that same scenario laid out for that.

[3:37:39] » Probably recommend waiting just it might

[3:37:42] get severed anyway. So I I probably it's

[3:37:44] a lot

[3:37:44] » It would be a subsequent for sure but I

[3:37:46] was I'm just throwing a little little

[3:37:48] warning out.

[3:37:49] » Yep.

[3:37:49] » Okay,

[3:37:51] » Fair enough. Uh so we do have a motion

[3:37:53] on the floor. I don't see any further

[3:37:56] questions or comments at this point in

[3:37:57] time. All those in favor of the motion

[3:37:59] on the screen

[3:38:01] and motion carries.

[3:38:05] Any subsequence before we move on? Okay.

[3:38:07] Councelor FR I'd make the same motion

[3:38:10] for the DCC bylaw. So we have the

[3:38:12] information as soon as possible to

[3:38:14] consider

[3:38:16] and you know what I'm sure you would

[3:38:18] come back with the uh implications of

[3:38:21] how to move forward with that bylaw if

[3:38:22] we wanted to make similar change or make

[3:38:25] a change around the assist factor or the

[3:38:27] um the implementation strategy on it.

[3:38:37] I don't see a seconder for your motion.

[3:38:39] So I don't believe that's going to move

[3:38:40] forward.

[3:38:42] Okay,

[3:38:47] » I can read it if if that wakes you up.

[3:38:50] » It's been seconded. Uh I do see Miss

[3:38:53] Okonnell has her as well as Council

[3:38:55] Mcllum. I'll go to Council McCullum

[3:38:57] first.

[3:38:59] » Uh thanks. I just uh want to say that I

[3:39:02] am not in favor of um revisiting this.

[3:39:06] Um I I think we've gotten far enough in

[3:39:09] this process that this doesn't serve us

[3:39:12] at this point in time and there has been

[3:39:15] a fair amount of work both um with our

[3:39:18] staff and other um and our municipal

[3:39:20] partners to align this process and we've

[3:39:24] passed third reading. It's gone to the

[3:39:26] inspector of municipalities and this

[3:39:28] will have a major impact on the cost of

[3:39:31] property taxes for our residents if

[3:39:33] we're going to wind this back. This is

[3:39:34] work we have been asking for and

[3:39:37] desperately needed to do 5 years ago and

[3:39:39] I'm not in favor of slowing that down at

[3:39:41] this point. So I'm not in favor of this

[3:39:43] motion.

[3:39:45] » Thanks Councelor Cullum and um Miss

[3:39:49] Okonnell.

[3:39:50] » Uh thank you to the mayor to council. Um

[3:39:53] as council knows I'm currently the

[3:39:56] acting director of Dolman services. We

[3:39:58] are in active recruitment for the

[3:40:00] replacement. Um part of me coming into

[3:40:04] development services department over the

[3:40:06] period of time was um very specifically

[3:40:09] to work on internal systems in order to

[3:40:11] improve service provision and service

[3:40:14] level specifically looking at the KPIs

[3:40:18] the systems um and the structure itself.

[3:40:21] I will say that undertaking this work I

[3:40:25] it will have a capacity impact on that

[3:40:27] and I do have a finite timeline for the

[3:40:30] amount of time I can be in development

[3:40:31] services is with the election coming up

[3:40:33] in the fall. Um it was not my intent to

[3:40:36] stay in this position longer term than

[3:40:39] that. So, in the event of um we can come

[3:40:42] back with this information, but I I do

[3:40:44] want you to know it's not likely not

[3:40:47] feasible to do both in tandem without

[3:40:50] one impacting the service processes

[3:40:53] internally. I just don't have the staff

[3:40:56] that are able to help and support and

[3:40:58] manage a project like that. Um, as you

[3:41:01] know, we're currently working on the OCP

[3:41:03] update. We're working on repeal and

[3:41:05] replacing the zoning bylaw. Um there's a

[3:41:08] lot of work going on in the building

[3:41:09] services division. Um it we are

[3:41:12] challenged to resource this. So it will

[3:41:16] be a bit of a trade-off for council to

[3:41:18] determine where those resources need to

[3:41:20] be allocated at the staff level.

[3:41:23] Alternatively, if council would like to

[3:41:26] um I could bring back some cost

[3:41:27] estimates to completely outsource this

[3:41:29] work and then council can make the

[3:41:31] decision as to whether or not you want

[3:41:33] to fund the service improvements through

[3:41:34] third parties or if you would like to

[3:41:36] increase the budget or the resources

[3:41:38] available to development services to

[3:41:40] undertake this work that is not part of

[3:41:41] the work plan. Um so I I just I just

[3:41:45] kind of eyes wide open. um every action

[3:41:48] there's a reaction including on a

[3:41:50] department that currently in its current

[3:41:53] state

[3:41:55] » Right thanks for that and Mr. regard it.

[3:41:56] » Yeah. Thanks. Uh um I I want to be I

[3:42:00] want to be I want to clearly acknowledge

[3:42:02] that this is in response to feedback

[3:42:04] that you've received. We had a process.

[3:42:06] Um

[3:42:08] I think getting information directly on

[3:42:11] what what the implications are is is we

[3:42:14] can do that and then council needs to

[3:42:17] ultimately decide what they want to do.

[3:42:19] Uh Ms. Okonnell uh spoke to this. We've

[3:42:22] been working at this at council's

[3:42:24] direction uh stretching back to the 2018

[3:42:27] um uh council. Uh this was all intended

[3:42:31] work to go. We were impacted by COVID.

[3:42:33] So we're now

[3:42:35] two terms past the conversation. Uh and

[3:42:38] I only offer I don't offer that as as

[3:42:40] any kind of a sort of ultimatum type of

[3:42:43] thing. And I I know that how that will

[3:42:45] sound. Council just needs to determine

[3:42:47] if they want to proceed or not. And it

[3:42:48] may not may not be the right time. uh

[3:42:50] and and we we serve there. Um we do know

[3:42:53] that there's been a call to update these

[3:42:55] things because there are implications

[3:42:57] for uh the development committee and

[3:42:59] then we have the development committee

[3:43:00] identifying that these costs in light of

[3:43:02] the current conditions have impacts and

[3:43:04] so ultimately council will determine

[3:43:06] they want to proceed or not. There's no

[3:43:07] obligation to do this. Uh it doesn't

[3:43:11] matter how much uh time and effort or

[3:43:13] direction or whatever. We have to do

[3:43:15] what council would like to see. So I

[3:43:16] just I offer that it's a real factor and

[3:43:19] we are coming to the close of the second

[3:43:22] term who wanted to work on this and so

[3:43:24] you know we will come back these are

[3:43:27] these are number these are number

[3:43:29] factors there's tables that go along

[3:43:30] with that and then council does have to

[3:43:31] be take a serious look at what uh what

[3:43:33] they want to do given all of their

[3:43:35] priorities between now and the end of

[3:43:37] the term in 2026. So just just offer

[3:43:39] that and there's been good input uh

[3:43:41] received by by many parties um and uh

[3:43:45] and ultimately it's a decision the

[3:43:46] council needs to take forward. So thank

[3:43:48] you.

[3:43:50] » Thanks Mr. Garvet and uh councelor

[3:43:52] Fresh. Uh last word again.

[3:43:54] » Okay. Thank you. Well well thanks to

[3:43:56] staff for the the input about um what

[3:43:59] it's going to take to get these numbers.

[3:44:02] Um

[3:44:04] yeah I'm just looking I'm just looking

[3:44:05] at the two requests. So, one's about

[3:44:07] phasing the implementation.

[3:44:09] I would assume that means changing the

[3:44:11] date and then the other one's the five

[3:44:13] and 10%.

[3:44:15] Um, and I guess the implications of that

[3:44:18] is that we won't be collecting 5 to 10%

[3:44:21] of the DCC's

[3:44:24] for two years and up to two years. And

[3:44:26] that's going to have an effect on our

[3:44:28] [clears throat] funding for certain

[3:44:29] projects and obviously taxation

[3:44:31] implications.

[3:44:33] Um, but I'm also guessing these aren't

[3:44:36] massive numbers. So, um, I mean, I'd

[3:44:39] like to get it right.

[3:44:42] So, I'm going to support the motion.

[3:44:44] Thanks.

[3:44:46] » All right. Uh, Council McCullum, last

[3:44:48] word.

[3:44:49] » Um, can staff clarify if we were to make

[3:44:52] this change whether or not the DCC's

[3:44:54] would have to go a second time back to

[3:44:56] the inspector of municipalities because

[3:44:58] that seems to be a point of confusion

[3:45:00] here.

[3:45:03] through the chair. Um the inspectors had

[3:45:06] the blaw for about four weeks. I'm going

[3:45:09] to say three or four weeks. Uh their

[3:45:11] turnaround time right now is two to

[3:45:12] three months. Um so there's a couple

[3:45:14] different options like we could ask them

[3:45:16] to pause the review until we get this

[3:45:18] report to council. Um we could let them

[3:45:22] know that this is what you're

[3:45:23] considering. Um, if council, if the

[3:45:26] inspector did sign the bylaw in the

[3:45:28] meantime, uh, we would have to bring the

[3:45:31] new bylaw back through the ministry and

[3:45:34] the inspector would have to resign. I

[3:45:36] don't expect that would take as much

[3:45:38] time as a complete review would because

[3:45:41] especially when you're like decreasing

[3:45:43] and using an assist factor, which is

[3:45:44] council's tool, but it may be it's just

[3:45:47] a little bit more of an administrative

[3:45:48] cost and sort of a bit of a hiccup that

[3:45:51] we need to manage. Uh, so the answer is

[3:45:53] if they sign the bylaw and it arrives

[3:45:54] tomorrow, it has to go back. Um, we will

[3:45:57] need another signature.

[3:46:00] » Okay. All right. Thanks for that

[3:46:01] clarification. I don't see any other

[3:46:03] lights, so I'm going to ask the question

[3:46:04] right now. Um, all those in favor of the

[3:46:07] motion on the floor.

[3:46:09] Any opposed?

[3:46:11] And motion uh, fails.

[3:46:15] Uh,

[3:46:16] uh, thanks for the lengthy conversation

[3:46:18] on that. I know I know it's much later

[3:46:20] than I think I anticipated possibly some

[3:46:23] others as well. We have one last item uh

[3:46:26] before we can break and that's the

[3:46:27] development procedure bylaw. third.

[3:46:30] » Yeah.

[3:46:42] » Yeah. Are they giving you

[3:46:59] Uh I'll I'll move that. Um

[3:47:05] I'm just making sure that I am not

[3:47:07] missing anything here. Um I think the

[3:47:10] only change. Okay. So I'll move the

[3:47:12] recommended motion. Um with the the

[3:47:16] change being that council give first and

[3:47:18] second reading to the amenity cost bar

[3:47:21] cost charges bylaw 3207 as amended.

[3:47:26] » Okay. So that's been moved and seconded.

[3:47:28] It's just first and second reading only.

[3:47:30] Um all those [clears throat] in favor?

[3:47:34] Any opposed? And motion carries. Sorry

[3:47:37] for jumping the gun on that one. And Mr.

[3:47:38] regard.

[3:47:40] » Uh

[3:47:45] so uh giving person second and then we

[3:47:49] would have it back for third reading at

[3:47:52] the with the report

[3:47:55] about amenities because that resolution

[3:47:58] passed. Thank you. Just want to make

[3:48:01] sure we're on the same page. Yeah. And

[3:48:03] what I had heard is that we could do

[3:48:05] this for first and second or do first,

[3:48:07] second, and third because it's an ACC.

[3:48:09] So that's why I was less concerned about

[3:48:11] that.

[3:48:18] » Yeah.

[3:48:21] » If there were changes though, we we

[3:48:22] couldn't. My understanding is that you

[3:48:25] said that.

[3:48:26] » Yeah. Yeah.

[3:48:29] » But first, second, and third could

[3:48:30] happen in the future is what I said. It

[3:48:32] didn't first and second didn't have to

[3:48:34] happen tonight as far as I understood

[3:48:35] but maybe I but it yeah I think we can

[3:48:39] move on Miss Okonnell though you look

[3:48:41] like

[3:48:42] » Um no I just want to clarify so the

[3:48:44] motion that was passed has to do with

[3:48:45] the DCC's

[3:48:47] » The or before that the one typed um no

[3:48:51] it said DCC's the one that was shown

[3:48:53] » That failed

[3:48:54] » That failed and then there was one

[3:48:55] before about the ACC's which is the

[3:48:57] referral and that passed and now you've

[3:48:59] done first and second Okay. And then

[3:49:02] you're still because that motion as

[3:49:04] recommended included the twinning with

[3:49:06] the DCC's,

[3:49:09] right? Because the only change that was

[3:49:10] made was the number of reasons like the

[3:49:13] number of readings.

[3:49:16] It'll depend on the timing and what

[3:49:18] council decides to do and where we are

[3:49:20] in that.

[3:49:21] » So we don't have to take it out then.

[3:49:23] » No, no, you can just leave it for now.

[3:49:24] Yeah. But just just to clarify so

[3:49:27] resolution 11.11

[3:49:29] had the second thing which the desire

[3:49:32] which is in the interest of everybody's

[3:49:34] calculations to twin whatever happens

[3:49:36] with ACC and whatever happens with the

[3:49:38] DCC to have the timing coincidental.

[3:49:42] Okay. Thanks. Thank you.

[3:49:44] » All right. Much appreciated. On to uh

[3:49:47] the last item development procedure

[3:49:49] bylaw 320.

[3:49:52] Any questions or comments? Uh it's just

[3:49:55] housekeeping. All those in favor and any

[3:49:58] opposed and motion carries. Uh and we

[3:50:02] have our encampment resolution.

[3:50:05] Uh is everyone okay if I count cancel or

[3:50:09] skip the uh council reports?

[3:50:12] » All right. So we have a first and second

[3:50:14] for in camera. All those in favor? Any

[3:50:18] opposed? Motion carries and we are

[3:50:20] adjourned.

[3:50:26] All right.

Council Meeting

Transcript