We are unmuted.
» Fantastic. Uh, welcome everybody to our
January 14th, 2026 uh, regular council
meeting, first one of the year. I'd like
to respectfully acknowledge the land on
which we're gathered today is the
unseated territory, the Komox First
Nation, the traditional keepers of um,
this land.
Um, we do have an introduction of late
items. Uh, the Courtney Air Park
Association letter of request and uh,
excellent. Any questions or comments?
Seeing none, all those in favor? Any
opposed? And motion carries. Thank you
for that. And we'll move in adoption of
minutes. And we have a regular council
minutes from December 10th to
any errors or omissions? See none, we'll
accept those unanimously and we'll move
into the parks and wreck um meeting
minutes as well.
» Excellent. Any errors or emissions?
Seeing none, uh we'll accept those
unanimously as well. And with that,
we'll move into our first delegation uh
with the mayor, Maryanne Me Ward from
the city of Burlington, Ontario. Uh,
Mayor Ward, it was a pleasure uh
speaking with you uh previously and
thank you so much for joining us today.
Uh the the topic of the discussion uh is
the elect respect uh campaign and uh
with that I'll turn it over to you.
» Well, thank you so much Mayor Wells for
inviting me to be here this evening
virtually and thank you to all members
of council. I had the opportunity uh
with my husband to travel through your
fine city earlier this year. actually
last year um and in and just absolutely
loved being there. So we uh I'm a
British Columbia an honorary BCN I think
if that's the right the way to say it
but thanks for for inviting me to uh
speak a little bit about the elect
respect uh resolution what it is and
what it isn't and I want to uh really
extend my sincere thanks to Mayor Wells
for bringing this forward and for your
support mayor for elect respect. Uh this
began as really a conversation among um
Halton elected representatives who are
women. We have a coffee group that meets
a couple of times a year for support.
And one of our meetings we started
talking about whether we would encourage
uh our friends, our daughters. Uh my
husband and I have two daughters and a
son. Uh would we encourage them to seek
elected office? And um not so long ago,
it wouldn't have I wouldn't have
hesitated to say yes. uh those of us who
do this, it's a public service. We love
what we do and just the ability to see
um our community getting better because
of some of the work we're able to do
together. There's nothing like it. But
uh but there's a butt and in recent
years it has become um uh very toxic uh
to the point of death threats uh for
members of elected office. And so
Electrospect was born. Um we uh everyone
around the table of my coffee group and
this is trustees all the way up to MPs,
cabinet ministers, we had all
experienced it and it was really kind of
a shocking moment for us to hear that
every single person had a story and uh
and then we got to work. Uh what what
could we do about this? And the one
thing that we can always do is lead by
example and commit ourselves to
respectful debate and dialogue. And so
we so the pledge, the electrospect
pledge was born. Uh we commit to uh
being respectful to our colleagues on
council when we disagree. We want to
foster good debate and dialogue about
the issues, but we want to focus on
policy, not people and not personal
attacks. So that's the first part of the
pledge. Uh and in return, we ask the
public and our uh and our colleagues to
treat us with respect. And since uh we
launched the pledge um uh it has gone
across Ontario, across the country uh
major cities including Toronto, Missaga,
Hamilton, uh of course Burlington have
passed this. You would be the first uh
city in British Columbia to pass it. Uh
we have Flintflon Manitoba who passed
it. uh and a number of uh boards and
agencies including chambers of commerce
uh business improvement areas you know
really those public-f facing uh
businesses where they are saying they
also want to uh receive respect from the
their customers and the people they
serve. Uh last year our member of
parliament Karina Gould um presented the
elect respect pledge in the House of
Commons. So we do encourage you to reach
out to your MPs, your members of the
legislative assembly to see if they will
sign and endorse the pledge. So the
momentum is really growing across the
country. And I think there's there's a
good and a and a and a difficult side to
that. The good part is people are saying
we want respectful discourse. The issues
are too important. They're too big and
and there are legitimate views,
different views about them. Uh the
downside is that everyone's got a story
and and we really think that that's why
this has taken off across the country
that people are saying enough. Uh
politics doesn't have to be a blood
sport. It's actually public service. Uh
and we want to encourage good people to
run and stay in politics. Uh and uh I
want to be able to encourage my
daughters and my son uh to choose this
as a career and not fear uh for it. Uh
what it is is respectful debate. What it
isn't is an attempt to silence different
views. In fact, the opposite is true.
And if there is uh toxic civ uh civil
discourse, if you are worried that you
could be threatened with uh with death
in my case, uh I can tell you my story,
but uh it's it's um I've been told not
to go to public meetings. My safety
couldn't be guaranteed. Uh that's what
we're trying to say is unacceptable. uh
but legitimate, respectful disagreement
and debate on the issues we face is
absolutely what we're trying to foster
and create a climate of respect. So,
thank you for the opportunity to say a
few words. Happy to answer any
questions. And again, thank you, Mayor
Wells, and and all of the good people
and council members of Courtney for this
opportunity to speak to you this
evening.
» Oh, thank thank you so much. Really
appreciate it. And again, thanks again
for for starting this campaign again. Uh
I I think you really highlighted the
fact that, you know, this is something
um uh when we look at the betrayal, when
we look at um uh people fearing for
their safety, it's definitely something
that has uh uh exacerbated over the last
five or so years that we we I've noticed
it here. Um and uh and it it's
[clears throat] definitely something
that we see happening a lot online, but
then we can see that spilling over um uh
beyond that. And when I see how um this
uh hits differently for my female
colleagues, um one the types of threats
they get are definitely I would say um
levels multiple levels above what what I
receive. Uh and you know some of the
stuff I receive I think is certainly
unacceptable but um uh people shouldn't
have to fear for their safety, for their
lives or or for their family members.
And and that's just something that uh
Unfortunately, uh, as as you mentioned,
is is some people you we sometimes refer
to them as keyboard warriors, but, uh,
especially online, they're they're
feeling that they have, uh, sort of a
cart blanch to, uh, to attack and to try
to intimidate and instill fear in
people, which is which is simply
bullying and and and not not acceptable.
So, u, I really do appreciate it. Um,
I'll look to my council members if
anybody had any uh, comments uh, or
questions beyond that. I don't see
anything. Um, I really appreciate you
taking the time today uh to do this. I
know we had a member of the public who
thought you might be flying here today.
Uh, this is definitely a lot more uh uh
useful. We do have a counselor on a
train going in the opposite direction
towards you, I think. Uh, but uh really
glad you were able to to pop in today.
Um, and again, a huge thank you for
starting this uh this campaign and
really hope that uh we continue to to
move things forward. I know there's
quite a few BC uh politicians now who
have signed on to this and uh and I
would expect that to continue. Our our
local um association ABICC has asked me
to sort of um uh provide some
information when we have our um uh
conference coming up here uh in in the
near future. So there's definitely a lot
of interest um uh and uh again, thank
you so much. And with that, I'll let you
go back to your regularly scheduled
program and uh appreciate again all your
work on this.
» Thank you so much.
» All right. Um with that, we'll move into
uh internal reports and correspondence.
And first is a resident survey, your
Courtney, your voice. And I'll pass it
over to
Miss Okconor.
Uh, thank you very much, council. So,
um, I'm very excited to present this
year's findings of the 2025 resident
satisfaction survey, your Courtney, your
voice. This year marks a significant
step in our commitment to community
engagement. Building on the feedback
gathered from our previous surveys to
form a what will be a very valuable
5-year benchmark data set. As in past
durations, the survey serves as a
crucial platform for residents to
express their opinions and influence
city policies and services. By utilizing
evidence-based decision-making, we can
meaningfully evaluate our service
delivery and pinpoint areas that need
improvement. Notably, the city selected
Prairie Research Associates this year to
lead the survey. So, bit of a different
face online. uh implementing innovative
methodologies that diminish bias and
enhance data quality, particularly by
capturing a more representative sample
of our diverse community, including
younger residents who are previously who
previously had less visibility. Among
the meth methodological updates for the
2025 survey was a significant change in
the way we approach our municipal
comparators. In the past, our
comparisons involved municipalities
whose populations range broadly from
10,000 to 150,000 residents, which often
skewed the accuracy of our benchmarks
for Courtney. This year, we refined our
selection criteria to focus on
municipalities that are more similar in
size and characteristics to Courtney,
such as Campbell River, Port Moody,
Colonus, Smitch, and Swamish and
mission. This targeted approach allows
for a more relevant context in
evaluating Courtney's performance and
satisfaction levels, ultimately leading
to more effective planning and resource
allocation. Through open and transparent
communication, our goal is to ensure
that the voices of Courtney residents
are heard and that their insights
directly influence our collective
future. With that in mind, I'm very
pleased to hand things over uh to well
for the presentation component to Derek
Berg, who is the senior marketing
research manager for P, who will walk us
through the detailed findings of the
2025 survey and share his insights and
implications for our community. Council,
please note the entirety of the report
is on uh the presentation deck in the
event you want to go back to specific
slides, but Derek will likely be
focusing on certain slides more than
others. Um, so if you see us moving
through some quickly, it's really to
allow us to go back in the event you
wanted to have a specific discussion
about some slides we weren't focusing on
for this evening. So with that, I'll
pass it over to Derek.
» Perfect. Thank you very much for that
introduction. Uh, yes, as Kate said, I
am Derek Berg. I'm a senior uh market
research manager at Prairie Research
Associates and uh very happy to have uh
uh conducted this work for the city of
Courtney um this year and happy to uh go
into some details about the findings. Uh
so we'll start off I'll just do a quick
note on just the the methodology um if
we go a couple slides forward here. Um
so we did a similar methodology um of
what's been done in the past. We did a
random digit dialing telephone survey of
residents of the city of Courtney.
Everyone um had to be at least 18 or
older to uh participate.
Um but this is basically the most um
statistically valid way of uh getting
respondents to uh complete this type of
survey. So it's completely random uh
with 300 residents. Um but what we did
is implemented quotas to make sure that
we were um reaching the appropriate
groups in terms of age and uh gender and
household income. Uh to make sure that
uh this population that we were serving
is uh statistically representative of
the the city as a whole. And where there
were some discrepancies uh we waited the
data to make sure that um once again
that data is um statistically valid and
uh reliable.
So I just skip through a few slides here
to get to the section on uh quality of
life.
Uh so this first is uh top of- mind
issues. So we started by asking um
residents of the city of Courtney what
they thought is the most important issue
facing their community today. um as it
has been in past years. We we looked at
um how to compare this to what we saw in
uh previous years and homelessness
continues to be kind of the key the
first top of mind issue that um that
comes to residents minds. Um that's
certainly not unique to the city of
Courtney. um as it's shown here, it's
also um when we looked at other um
resident surveys in comparable m
municipalities
um cities like Campbell River, Colona,
Cranbook, and Mission, um homelessness
was kind of the the the key uh top of-
mind issue that uh that came up the most
often. Um so for city of Courtney
residents, these concerns witho
homelessness or at least it being the
top of- mind issue um with people tends
to increase with age. Um and although
not quite in that statistically uh
significant realm, but um also prevalent
uh among women more so than men. Um this
to me it's likely due to a personal
safety um issue. you have the older
population or women feeling that, you
know, maybe it's they're uh it's more
they're more vulnerable um seeing um you
know, the homeless population
um prominent. So um that's kind of our
what I uh interpret from the data here.
Um yeah, there you know several other
issues that like um the lack of
affordable housing or uh mental health
issues, traffic, road congestion are
some of the more top of- mind issues,
but it it's definitely homelessness that
is the the key uh top of mind um thing
for uh city of Courtney residents.
So moving on to quality of life. Um so
on a four-point scale here from uh very
good to very poor residents were asked
to rate you know how they felt the
quality of life in city of Courtney is
um we generally this is fairly similar
when we look at overall um satisfaction
and those saying very good or good um
with quality of life when we compare it
to last year although you can see there
is has been a little bit of a drop each
year over the past couple years. Um, one
thing that I thought is interesting to
note here is that it's although the top
two score kind of goes a little bit
down, um, you'll see that the those in
the very good side or then those kind of
on the poor side. Um, it seems like
people tend to skew more to the extreme
in this and you have less of those that
are kind of just in the middle with
that. Um but
yeah, with that said, I I do think it's
somewhat of a a positive to see that you
still have um certainly an increase over
last year and those that feel like the
quality of life in City of Courtney is
very good. Um those that are more likely
to to have those positive perceptions
are um those who are 65 and older. And
it's um it's those in the the mid age
range, 30 to 44 years old, that um are
least likely to to rate um positively.
And uh as um Kate had mentioned, we kind
of took a look at some um comparable m
municipalities to kind of give some key
um benchmark comparisons. And in terms
of quality of life, um when we look at
the the the good or very good, so the
top two rating, Courtney falls um kind
of pretty much in the in the middle of,
you know, where we um were able to find
data on comparable um cities. So,
not uh not on the worst end and not uh
not really on the on the on the super
high high end, but yeah, just kind of
there um in the middle to kind of give
you some um benchmark context for that.
When we look at changes in quality of
life over time, um it's not this isn't a
uh it's hard to give a direct comparison
um to the previous years simply because
we changed this question to um ask just
about changes over the past year rather
than changes over the past 3 years. Um
so for that reason it's not really
surprising to me that we have um
basically about half of people staying
that saying that the they feel like the
quality of life has stayed the same. Um
but certainly a lot less that are saying
you know quality of life has become
worse over the past year and a bit
similar even a little bit higher with
that 8% saying that um the quality of
life has um has gotten better.
So to me that's a bit of a a positive
move in the positive direction.
Um and then when we look at the net
promoter score this is definitely where
we see some some positive movement. um
in 23 and 24 we saw similar net promoter
scores of um of -1617
whereas although we're still in the the
negative um moving in the positive
direction up to um -4 and just uh to
clarify for those don't that don't know
the net promoter score is um essentially
taking the calculation of those who rate
their uh recommendation of city of
Courtney has a place to live on a scale
of 0 to 10. You take those um promoters,
so those saying 9 or 10, and uh that is
subtracted from the detractors, so those
rating anywhere from 0 to six. So that's
what gives you that um that so it's a
32% minus 36% which gives you that uh
that negative4. Um, one thing that I'll
note is, uh, we changed this to a true
net promoter score, um, metric. Uh, in
the past, um, this was only rated on a 1
to 10 scale, although we moved this to
what is considered the industry
standard, which is a 0 to 10 scale. Um,
so you will see obviously there are 11%
here who said zero where there hadn't
been any in the previous years because
that wasn't an option. But despite
having that one extra option for people
to rate um their recommendation on the
lower end, we're actually seeing an
increase in um in a high number of
promoters. You jumped up from uh from
16% up to 25% in those that um rate
coordinates at 10 out of 10 for
likelihood to recommend. Um [snorts]
and uh yeah, just one one note about
that is again um the older population
and also home ownership which is kind of
tied to um to to age as well. They had
the uh they were more likely to rate um
City of Courtney as a higher uh more
likely to rate it higher in terms of um
how they would recommend it.
» [snorts]
» Um, and then so this is just looking at
um for those that did not give a um a
positive rating to um recommending the
city of Courtney as a place to live.
These are reasons why. Um a lot of these
are fairly similar to we we tried to
compare to last year as much as
possible. So some of these are fairly
similar. um you'll see a bit uh of an
increase in high cost of living, which
again it makes sense and that's not
exclusive to Courtney. That's that's um
being experienced everywhere. Um and
then one thing is that what we didn't
see from the data last year is people
saying um that the city is too crowded.
Um that's 19% of people this year said
that. So, I don't know if um the the
research vendor that did this last year
if if maybe that wasn't a a theme that
came up uh enough for them to to put it
into its own code, but um it was
certainly something that um that we saw
in the data um this year and and
certainly it's it's tied with um the uh
the highest proportion for um for
reasons not to recommend uh the city of
Courtney.
Okay. So, uh now moving on to uh
satisfaction with city services. Um
so when we look at the uh top two box
here, we see 62% are either very
satisfied or somewhat satisfied um
overall with the city services. Um but
to me this is also moving in a more
positive direction just because you have
that increase of those who are um or are
saying they're very satisfied. That two
top two box like a difference of 4%
isn't isn't a huge increase. Um so to
see that that very satisfied number jump
up a bit more I think is um is more
telling. And then you have a a bit more
it's it's more so with the people who
are moving out of the somewhat satisfied
box into kind of that that middle area.
So um you're you're certainly not seeing
more negative here. Um but you are
seeing more positive.
Um and then so the next slide here just
talks uh shows overall satisfaction with
city services um with what we could find
um online with um with other comparable
m municipalities.
Um so this does show that although the
the previous slide showed that there
were positive sentiments um this might
show that city of Courtney ranks more
towards the bottom of this. However, um
the caveat here is that typically when
other m municipalities, actually all
four of those that are above city of
Courtney here, um they used a fivepoint
scale rather or sorry, a four-point
scale um to rate um satisfaction versus
what we use as a as a fivepoint scale.
So, um, those top four, they didn't have
the option to kind of go in the in the
middle, forcing them to go either one
direction or or the other in terms of
positive or negative. Um, I would say if
if this if the surveys were be to run
exactly the same, you would tend to have
um a lot of those people who are in the
positive category. Um so typically those
who are somewhat satisfied kind of move
into that mid category where they're in
between um satisfied and dissatisfied.
So um again although this this does show
City of Courtney is more towards the
bottom. Um to me I I think this shows
more that they're it's kind of more in
the middle. Um certainly with Mission
with that 69% you would see that drop
down. Um but the other top three there I
think would would drop down considerably
um with the change in scale and uh and
yeah you'd have city of Courtney ranking
um I would say similar to um what we can
see in other uh comparable
municipalities.
Okay. And so this is just a quick
snapshot of individual um city services
that we asked about. Um
what's was I guess was interesting to me
is that although the overall
satisfaction we asked when we um you
know prefaced with people rating their
just overall satisfaction before getting
into uh kind of the details here people
were generally um positive. Yet here um
we don't really see any positive
movement compared to last year other
than satisfaction with um parks, green
spaces, and multi-use trails. Um others
other areas are more either kind of just
in line with um with last year or saw a
little bit of a drop. Um and then to me
I think the biggest drop that we see
here is is satisfaction with the
availability of online services. Um to
me this is um is likely due to I mean
we're
uh ever evolving technological world now
and people see how fastpace and changing
um technology is and I think people just
expect more from um the availability of
online services and being able to access
more and to be able to do more with
online services. So to me um just in
terms of that being the biggest drop
that would be my um my my guess as to
why that is. And I think um we also saw
uh with that we saw that um the younger
uh age population were uh less satisfied
with um that availability of online um
services.
Okay. And then so now just looking at um
a key driver analysis of um overall city
services. Um so what this does we ran a
regression model to um basically predict
what um are most likely in terms of
those individual city services what is
most likely to predict
um the positive overall satisfaction
with city services as a whole. Um so
you'll see that uh land use and
community planning um is actually the
biggest predictor of overall
satisfaction
um followed by uh park screen spaces and
multi-use trails. Um so we know that you
know park screen spaces, multi-use
trails saw a bit of a a higher
satisfaction this year than last year.
That was ranked second overall in terms
of city services. So that's a good sign
um in in that regard. And then land use
and community planning. To us, this
tells us that this is kind of um you
know, if you are looking to hopefully
have people more satisfied with the
service they received from the city,
this is kind of one of the ones to focus
on. Um I I I can't really say for sure
if it's, you know, is it um you know,
how people agree with with um you know,
the community planning and the use of
land or is it that they don't
necessarily have um the information
available to them to know what's going
on. But um you know certainly this is an
aspect that um could be explored um and
certainly just by the evidence we have
here shows that um it is a very big
predictor for um how satisfied people
are with the overall services they
receive.
So now looking over to um experience and
satisfaction with city staff.
So, uh just under uh half residents, 45%
said that they've personally been in
contact with the city um in the past
year in some capacity. Um a little bit
higher than what uh has been seen in
previous years, but overall um fairly
similar. Um it's those in though in the
kind of mid age range, the uh anywhere
from 30 to 64 years old. Those are the
the residents that are more likely to
have contacted the city in the past
year. those um under 30 or over 65 less
likely to have done so.
» Um and so uh those who did have
experience with contacting the city in
the past year were asked about their
overall experience um in in dealing with
um city staff. Uh again we see fairly
positive uh movement here. We've in
terms of last year we see movement in
both the um top two very satisfied
somewhat satisfied group and then uh
quite a big jump in um those who say
they are very satisfied um overall with
with city staff.
Uh looking at the individual um aspects
we asked about with dealing with city
staff.
Um quite a few um positive jumps here.
Um but the I think the the thing that
pops out to me are kind of the the two
bottom ones here where we see um so
there was a drop in um satisfaction with
being able to easily find the right
staff to deal with their their
questionnaire problem. that dropped from
uh 77% satisfied to 69% this year. Um
and then conversely, we saw a pretty big
jump in um in satisfaction with staff
going the extra mile to help them. So
that's from uh 58% last year up to 70%
this year. Um other aspects kind of
fairly in line with uh with what we saw
last year. So um those are kind of the
big uh the big changes um that we saw
last year. And then as we move forward
uh we'll also see a key driver analysis
that uh we conducted um on this as well.
So same idea as the the one before. This
is kind of the to predict um what
aspects
um are most likely to impact people's
overall satisfaction with city staff.
Um so this is an interesting one. I
unfortunately I don't necessarily know
how you um would define uh this top one
where it's you know staff going the
extra mile to help them. Um but this is
certainly a um a very strong predictor
of what uh satisfaction overall with
staff is. Um, I think it's um it's one
of those tricky ones where it's it's
hard to measure exactly what going the
extra mile means to to people who who do
get uh you know help from city city
staff, but um certainly it's it's those
that feel that um that you know they've
they've really been heard and really
been helped that um are more likely to
uh understandably give an overall uh
positive satisfaction rating.
Um, and then that's also followed by
being able to easily find um the right
um right staff to uh to answer your
problem. Um, so that's to me that that I
guess that's a more um kind of concrete
um aspect that you're able to um put
action towards making sure that um
people have um the information available
to them or being able to easily contact
those who can point them in the right um
in the right direction. And especially
because that's um that was something
that was lower end uh lower on the um on
the overall scale when uh comparing to
the other um aspects that might be
something worth uh worth focusing on.
[snorts]
Okay. And then looking at um value for
tax dollars. I think this is a a key
metric that's asked every year asking
people um you know how would they um you
know how do they feel their um overall
value for tax dollars rate. Um again we
we see
that similar um actually no change in
the top two box with 70% 7 and 10
residents um believing that they either
get good or very good value for their
tax dollars and uh a little bit of a
bump up in uh those who are at the uh
the most positive those that say they
get very good value. Um, one key
difference here in demographics is that
there is a a very strong correlation
between um, age and their perceptions of
tax dollars in that um, the the youngest
group um, 18 to 29 year olds, they're
least likely to say they get good value
for their tax dollars. Um, well, you
keep increasing up in age and uh, more
so people feel that they're increasingly
more positive about what they receive.
And I think that's also that's tied to
uh to home ownership here is you know
the older you are the more likely you
are to um to have a home and also feel
that you're um you're receiving services
that give you good uh good value for
your for your money.
Um and then so again this uh we are able
to um find comparable um stats on other
m municipalities. this was on the same
uh four-point scale um across all of
these uh surveys that we were able to
find. So, I think it's um it's a
certainly a positive that you see city
of Courtney right up there um near the
top of the list uh given that this is a
a directly um direct uh comparison to uh
how these other mun municipalities ask
this question. Sorry.
Okay. And then uh here we just have um
sentiments on balancing taxation and
service delivery levels. Um so similar
to um what we've seen in the past years
is that um not the majority but the most
common um uh answer here is to simply
say we want taxes to be maintained. um I
don't you know I don't necessarily want
to uh receive a lot less for my services
but I don't want to pay more um for
anything. And then you've got an equal
proportion on either side who say they
either want to see uh an increase to
taxes to um to keep up or enhance uh
services versus those that say they want
to um to reduce their taxes uh even if
it means cutting services.
Okay. And then um here we just have some
uh quick notes about communication from
the city. Um about uh essentially no
difference from um what was recorded
last year in that um just over a third
of residents feel that they receive uh
too little information from the city
where um just about everyone else says
they get the right amount of
information.
And in terms of what type of information
they need from the city uh is um city
planning and development is kind of the
the the main thing that um is top of
mind for people in terms of what they
want to receive. And I think that goes
um you know fits with um when we looked
at the the key drivers for overall
satisfaction of city services. there was
that land use and and community planning
that was um you know what is seen as the
biggest driver of satisfaction. I think
this this certainly ties into that in
that um people generally want um may
want more information about city
planning and development um in order to
um you know feel like they understand
what's going on or have a say in um in
what's happening.
So there so there are a few more slides
though, but just because I don't want to
take up uh too much of anyone's time, I
think I hit on um all of the kind of key
um points that I wanted to discuss with
this. Um I'm happy to answer any
questions now. But also on that note, um
if there is anything that um comes out
of this, other questions that people
have um as they review the report in
more detail, um we're we're here and
we're uh we're happy to answer any
questions uh after the fact as well.
» Uh fantastic. Thanks so much for for the
presentation and and kind of
highlighting th those key uh metrics. Um
it it's quite interesting to see how um
you know one uh those numbers play out
for the city of Courtney and then how
they compare with others. Um I guess
it's it's it's a challenge to know what
scale people are using uh community to
community. You like you said when you
compare it it might be one out of four
uh 0 to 10 like just depending on what
that question is. So um really
appreciate some of that insight. Um and
I'll pass it over to councelor healing.
Thanks, mayor. No questions. Uh just one
observation. Uh I think it's quite
possible that the decline in uh overall
satisfaction and recommending Courtney's
place to live coincides with perceptions
that it's too crowded and um concerns
about traffic. And uh I think we have to
bear in mind that for nine months of
last year, we had a major traffic snarl.
Um, I also noted that the uh uh you were
more likely to be dissatisfied and not
recommend the city if you were employed
as opposed to if you weren't employed,
which means that it was people who were,
you know, having to drive and get around
the city to get to work and get to where
they were going that were less
satisfied. And I think that may have a
lot to do with the sewer conveyance
project. Uh, but otherwise, there's a
lot to uh to learn uh from the survey.
And I certainly have heard from people
that many people think the city's too
crowded. They don't particularly like
the scale of development and and the
congestion in some parts. Uh that uh um
it's something that takes some getting
used to. Thanks.
» Thanks very much, Councelor Hill and
Councelor Moore.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um thanks for it's a
lot of work putting this all together.
Um I while I appreciated some of the
insights that you offered, I think it's
good to recognize that this um this
survey doesn't include narrative
responses. I don't believe um or um
qualitative. So I mean we all have
theories and they may be accurate or not
why people answered a certain way. And I
know that we are using the same survey
for 5 years I believe. So there's
obviously we don't want to we can't
change anything at this point, but
perhaps down the road it it may be
useful to have a bit more of that
qualitative information to know, you
know, if if [snorts] there's a high
percentage in one area, you know, why
did that why did that person rate rate
it that way? Because really we don't
have the analysis of this data to know
um to know the answers to those
questions. So we can only speculate and
so it does give us a good snapshot but I
think um in future years it may be maybe
good to dig a little bit deeper. I know
that you did gloss over this the
communication the communication piece a
bit because it was running a bit long.
Um but I think also another important
piece is around how people like to
receive their information and most
people still do get it from the
newspaper whether that's
you know paper copy or online and um and
uh so I think you know sometimes there's
confusion or criticism around how we we
do have a an online presence um for sure
but and we're we've launched a
newsletter but I think that's important
to know how how people prefer to receive
their information. Thanks.
» That's a good point. And I just want to
touch on um your first point just about
the um the qualitative aspect. Um and so
the um although with a survey like this,
you're right in that you can't um dive
too deep into things um in terms of
having people answer um open-ended
questions. There are a few in this like
the um the question that um starts off
with top of- mind issues. Um that's
strictly a just an open-ended question
for for people to um however answer
however uh they want for that. Um, so
yeah, there there are a few open-ended
questions like that um in this survey
that um when you see kind of those um
those charts that have like a a lot of
different response options, typically
those are um generally open-ended
questions that people just give their
their thoughts. Um and then those are
kind of coded into um into data that we
can kind of we group them into themes so
that you can kind of get a quantitative
metric on um on what those themes are.
Um but yes, one of the challenges with
getting more qualitative data in a
survey like this is um is simply uh the
cost and to be able to um keep people on
the phone. Um, a lot of people don't
want to spend uh a ton of time answering
a survey that ends up getting long
because they keep having to um answer
kind of open-ended questions where they
have to think on the spot. Um, but yeah,
I I agree there's always value in um in
digging deeper into some qualitative um
aspects when you use the the
quantitative um evidence to um kind of
decide where you need to focus.
and uh followup council.
» Yeah, just very quickly. Yeah, I totally
get that piece about the open-ended. I
think my comment was more around the
rationale for for mentioning it in the
first place or or um rating the topics
like you know what was the reason behind
it but but I appreciate that. Thank you.
» Right. Yep. Fair.
» Excellent. And Mr. Okonnell
» Uh thanks very much. So, um, councelor
Moren, you may recall we had that, um,
come up when we did the first year of
the survey with the net promoter score,
and there was a lot of speculation as to
why we scored so low, and we thought,
oh, is it really because people wouldn't
want to promote the city for negative
reasons, or was it that we don't want
any more people coming to the island and
to Courtney because it's so great, we
want to preserve it that way. Um, so we
added that secondary question in order
to probe a bit deeper to get a bit more
insight on that. At the same time, um,
council's been very supportive and has
adopted a brand new communication
strategy and an engagement strategy
which is on the verge of completing with
the implementation strategy for that.
And really basically this is the
statistic benchmarking survey and that's
the purpose of it. whereas this is a
really good indicator for when we're
doing other forms of engagement on
specific service areas or initiatives or
policy decisions um to probe a little
bit deeper into some of these areas at
that point and also um benefiting from
directly targeting the various user
groups as opposed to something that's a
bit more general. At the same time, um,
if we have these types of items that
come up and and we we're not seeing any
kind of connection, it's absolutely
possible to add on secondary questions.
U, it's just a matter of what do we want
to come off, what do we want to put on
or do we want to expand and what are the
impacts of that. But yes, we have
learned that lesson from the first one
to the third one and uh, we were
surprised at the response. So, it was
not what we suspected. Thank you for the
question though. Well, thanks for that
uh that insight and um uh one one um uh
sort of comment I wanted to make is
maybe if we forward went forward a few
slides to the preferred method of
contacting uh the city. I think it's a
pretty important slide that um actually
reflects kind of um uh some of the work
that we've done. So, I mean, when we
look at um uh uh the fact that there
there's a local newspaper, I think there
may be one more. It might be one more
ahead of this.
Uh that's the one. Yeah. So, when you're
actually contacting the city uh about
your concerns, um the telephone is
definitely uh high up there. Email uh
and um uh and then in person. And you
know, when we look uh the city website's
relatively, uh far down there for now,
but I hopefully uh with the new website,
um that will become more effective and a
place for people to go. And and one of
the things uh that I've noticed um and
I'm not sure if it's just with the new
website. Um but, uh what what I've seen
when I'm searching for things now is
pretty much every page includes a
contact on there. And so that's
something that again when we look at
that that question about being able to
find the right person um the fact that
you know I mean I I have other ways of
finding the right person but the fact
that I can uh search for something on
the website get to a page and then if I
want further information there's
actually a a name right there which I I
found u like one of the things I really
love about the new website. There's many
things that I like about it, but I think
it really pushes us uh down um uh that
path of, you know, when we look at the
numbers. It'd be really interesting to
see um how these numbers are reflected a
year from now considering our first uh
newsletter just went out on Monday,
which again really excited about uh that
newsletter and getting information out
to people. And even though it might be
uh at this point not uh a way for people
to uh contact city belt concerns because
we're initiating that contact, people
have that as an actual way to get back
to the city um and prompt them because
sometimes you forget about the things
that annoy you. Um and uh and the fact
that you have the the city contacting
you on a regular basis with the ability
to reply, I think is great. Um and then
lastly, I just love the fact that social
media is so far down on this list. So,
um, again, I think that just really
reinforces, um, decisions made, uh, by
staff and council around, um, our social
media interactions. So, uh, with that,
um, I don't see any further questions or
comments. Um, this is just, uh, for
receipt.
» All right. And I'll receive that on
behalf of council unanimously. Thanks
very much for the report. Um, and next
we'll move into financial services, the
2026 2030 financial plan taxation
scenario, and I'll pass it over to Mr.
Garvin.
» Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, on the
staff on our agenda today, beginning on
page 133 of the agenda, is a follow-up
staff report as a result of the
direction council gave us uh, November
26th and 27th committee the whole
meetings on our budget. Council was very
specific on uh what some requirements
were, some information they wanted to
facilitate the creation of our financial
plan. [gasps]
Uh both our annual financial plan for
2026 and then the uh 5-year financial
plan. Uh Mr. Langmire is our finance
officer, is going to uh give an overview
in response to council direction, and
we're looking for um support to uh carry
on with the preparation of our financial
uh plan um in the next uh little while.
Mr. Lagman.
» Hello, Mayor and Council. Nice to be
here once again. So, as Jeff nicely
alluded, I'm here to talk about the
financial plan. So, council gave the
following direction back on November
27th. What I'm filling even on is the
taxation scenarios at 567%
with options on using 6 to 8.8 8 million
in a minimum surplus balance to be held.
This information is included in the
report. Now, I was a bit challenged by
fitting all this information onto one
slide, but it was less informative to
look at if you broke it up. So, what
we're really seeing is each column is a
year of the financial plan and then each
horizontal green divider is a percentage
change scenario. So council had
requested what would the scenarios look
like at five, six and 7% and then the
impact of smoothing the taxation change
over the following years.
[gasps] So doing this analysis, I really
realized that um
if we want to have a very smooth tax
change, we're going to be holding a $6
million surplus target and require 9%
tax change for 2026 and 2027.
At the 9% uh change, the impact of the
average home is just shy of $200, $197.
When doing this uh moving on to the next
slide of using that surplus target of
$8.8 million, it is substantial
substantial impact on the tax change
scenarios. If we note in the five and
six% change scenarios, those two
highlighted yellow cells, um those years
we're actually underneath or below our
desired surplus balance. So in addition
to raising taxes to meet our spending
obligations, we're actually raising
taxes to to meet our surplus balance
obligations, too. So this makes it more
challenging that it is not recommended
to be in these areas holding that $8.8
million surplus balance.
looking forward to
a higher change. Holding the higher
balance makes it more challenging to
have additional funds on hand to smooth
out the taxation changes in the future
years.
One thing I wanted to highlight is the
change in method of how we determine how
much is the reasonable amount of surplus
to be held. An item that was brought up
is that we shouldn't really be
maintaining general surplus uh for
spending items that we have specific
reserves for. So under the revised
method of a target surplus balance, you
can see that we've removed uh solid
waste, RCMP contract costs, and gaming
expenditures from our total general fund
spending. So it brings the total general
fund spending from 55.9 million down to
42.2 million. This really drives how
much cash we should have on hand in the
event that something occurs. So on the
far right hand side we have the reserved
surplus target balances
and looking at um one of the driving
factors of how much surplus you have on
hand. It really comes down to how big is
your organization, what other reserves
do you have on hand, how often you get
paid and what other funding options are
out there for you. So this really came
into [snorts] consideration in in my
recommendation. So in the prior years I
took a more conservative approach and
these were coming out of likely
influence from the co years that the
city should be holding about 20% of
annual spending on hand. After doing
this analysis looking at literature on
what surplus balance is I have changed
my recommendation to be sitting at that
15% range. I recognize that the city has
a number of reserves and we have access
to other sources of funding. So it is
reasonable to use a different target. So
that brings me to the recommendations.
So to get future direction on the
financial plan, one piece that needs to
come first is where does council want to
hold a surplus balance because that'll
greatly influence our available surplus
to adjust future tax changes and the
2026 tax change. So I'm recommending we
hold a 15% balance. That's uh $6.3
million.
Another piece that flows into this is I
want to be sure that we're using capital
efficiently. Having cash in the bank is
not an effic efficient use of capital.
Having though a safety net if a expense
comes on is good
given the recommended surplus balance of
15%. My recommended tax change for 26
and 27 is 9% followed by a 9% change in
2026 or in 2027. Well, this really helps
it. It smooths the tax change over the
two years. It bridges a gap between the
election and provides an incoming
council one year of relatively stable
tax change before having to tackle the
projected 17.3% tax change in 2028.
And my final note though, although the
surplus balance is projected to be below
the $6.3 million target in 27, it is
reasonable that there will be some
variations coming from the completion of
the 2026 year. And that target is a
target.
And with that, that concludes my
presentation on the subject looking for
direction.
Excellent. Thanks very much for for the
presentation and and coming back with uh
those requested uh uh scenarios so that
it gives us a little bit more food for
thought. Um it's much appreciated and
I'll look to council for any comments,
suggestion and direction.
Councelor
McCall,
» I'll start with question.
» Um yeah, I I think this is really well
laid out and um the rationale makes
sense to me. It's also a good reflection
of the last discussion that we had
around this. So, uh, thanks for that.
Uh, the only and this might have been in
the last report, but we are chewing on I
think more um factors when we had our
last discussion, but um just the one
assumption on the new taxation revenue.
Um, I I assume that that's carried
forward in all five years of the
financial plan of 250,000
per year. Um, and I'm just wondering, is
that like based on the lowest year we've
had in the last couple years? I I
thought we're averaging quite a bit more
than that, but I I'm not I'm not
certain. So, maybe you could just expand
on that a little bit.
» Yeah. So, in the report, I identify some
of the assumptions that went into this
forecast. And the new tax revenue is
assumed at $250,000 per year across the
five years. This is less than we did in
the prior years. However, 250,000 is the
is what the 2026
new tax revenue is pegged at. And so,
you know, looking at what the average
was, we had a couple really big years in
there. And we've had years that have
been close to this 250. So, you know,
when projecting out, I don't want to
take the average just because it's the
average. I want to take what's happening
today and sort of forecast that forward.
So, given this, it still there is
flexibility. you know the the picture
could be better in 27 28 or 29 and then
the taxation scenarios are changing
slightly.
» That's helpful. So the 250,000 is the
amount that we're projecting for this
year based on basically what's in the
pipeline of development currently in
development services. Okay, that sounds
like a reasonable approach. Thanks for
that.
» Thanks Council McCullum and Mr. Garin.
» Thank you uh through the mayor. I just
want to add to Mr. Lang's comments. Um
if we reflect back you over the last
20-year period, we've had some really
big big swings. And so non-market growth
is uh especially what we're hearing um
you know what may be um in the future.
That's also tempered with the fact that
we're also understanding very
significant growth related to CFP
Comach. So it's a it's a very difficult
time now to really make that projection.
We just want to be conservative and
council has asked us to be, you know,
kind of conservative in both our revenue
projections uh as well as our cost
projections. So, at this point, we we're
saying uh this is a practice you want to
follow.
» Thanks for that. Uh uh and we'll pass
over to councelor.
» Thanks, Mayor. Um
first of all, I'm interested in the
language. We're using the term tax
change. Really, what we're talking about
is a tax increase. Is that correct?
Yeah, that is correct.
» Um I don't know tax change is maybe a
little more palatable but uh um how do
we rationalize uh
um a 9% increase uh which is
significantly above inflation. Um, I
mean, I know we're a growing city and uh
we obviously have uh uh increased costs
with that, but um uh you know, we've we
didn't see it reflected in our resident
survey that was just completed, but
affordability certainly is a concern out
there. And uh um you know, the a 9%
increase is still fairly significant.
So, I I I'm just interested to hear how
we rationalize that.
you know through through the mayor.
Thank you for the council council's
question. Um the finance plan in front
of you reflects the strategic priorities
identified with this council as well as
the capital program and so through the
development of this program we ask
council for direction and that's what's
the cost to deliver this is now the
question and we don't and I'm not taking
it and being glib about what the cost is
to deliver. Mr. Mr. Langmire is uh in
the last 3 years showed council what the
cost to deliver our services equal how
we have to address the needs of the
community and how to fund our capital
program and that's the majority of these
costs and so council didn't give us
direction to change our level of
service. What council asked us to do was
come forward with a way to utili
establish a service uh level
make sure that we have adequate reserves
and um to understand what our surplus is
and to smooth our tax over the next 5
years. So this is what's required to do
that. Now there may be a discussion and
direction from council to not do that
but the justification is what's required
to deliver our services and the staff
report that's attached our previous
staff report talked about where we land
in taxation and service delivery amongst
our comparator communities. Um the
community to our left uh has a higher
tax rate increase include plus their
infrastructure levy. the municipality to
our this direction [laughter] has chosen
to change uh their approach for this
financial year related to reserve
contributions. Uh that's that's a
direction from council. Uh but what's
been presented in front of you is
required to deliver our services that
the community is asking for and I
acknowledge that in our previous
discussions there were a series of tax
rates that were discussed. Um, and then
this tax rates coming back in order to
address what council's last direction
was. So that's why we're looking for
direction in order to prepare the
financial plan that would come back for
council. So it's not the we're not
preparing the this isn't the financial
plan as of today, but it's the direction
to create that financial plan. Hopefully
that clarifies.
» Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Garbit. And uh and
and again there there you know
[clears throat] are discussions at at
the federal and provincial levels about
uh potential grants and things like that
but again we we can't anticipate what
those are uh until we actually receive
them the money's in the bank so to speak
and uh and I mean that that goes I mean
we're going to have discussions around
DCC's as well um you know where the
federal government is saying that you
know they're going to have them and then
somehow make cities whole uh based on on
that. But again, how how do you make
those decisions when we're really
waiting for them to to uh provide that
leadership and uh and move forward uh
one way or the other? Uh Council Fish.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor and thanks for the
report. Um I'm more inclined. I I do
like the 6.3 uh million balance in our
surplus and I think that's probably
reasonable. Um, but I'm more interested
in seeing something like a six or 7%
increase. And the reason for that and
not say a 9% increase is it does
acknowledge,
excuse me, the difficult times that
we're in right now. And it forces um,
you know, the next council to make what
I think are obviously difficult
decisions, but uh, not to to accept a
year-over-year 9% increase, which I
think uh, would be very difficult to
swallow. That continued on. So, um,
yeah, I understand that it it looks
smooth, but it's also just kind of
softening the fact that we're we just
keep adding more and more services and
more and more, which they're great
services, but um, you know, with our
recent economic challenges with
everything that's going on in the world,
I think it might be just a little bit
rich. So, that's where I'm landing with
this year's budget. Thanks.
Thanks, Councelor FR and uh councelor
McCull.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um
I had uh similar thinking around um what
the percentage and how much um surplus
makes sense to utilize. Uh while what's
in the recommendation um evens out the
tax increase year-to-year um the 6%
actually looks at what we have over and
above our our surplus target and divides
that amount between two taxation years.
So we are kind of splitting you know
that that money that additional surplus
that we have um to reduce taxation and
we could use it to smooth it out
entirely or or you know so I think you
know splitting it between this year and
next year is a is a fair approach. Um, I
think
it the the next council that comes in is
going to see um
a new fireh hall um coming into play and
there's there's a cost associated with
that. And you know, essentially what
we're doing is um addressing some of
that by pushing some surplus there. But
you know, you you just can't get around
um bringing a new asset with new
staffing online without um an impact to
uh what what revenue is required. So,
um, yeah, we could choose to smooth it
out now and and take on some of that
cost currently, but, um, it doesn't
really change the fact that, you know,
that service is needed and that
decision's been made and that is the the
cost impact to it. So, um I think it is
a fair approach um to go with the 6% um
and uh yeah, there are likely decisions
that will need to be make made around
maybe other services or or how um that's
addressed in the years going forward,
but our decision right now is is on this
year's tax. And I I think that's a
responsible approach is um using half of
the excess
um to make things a little easier this
year. Thanks.
» Thanks, Councilman Cullum and Council
Warren.
» Great. Thanks, Mayor. Um yeah, I think
I'm in fair amount of alignment with the
comments so far. Um I appreciate the
work that's been been done and you've
done what we asked you to do, which is
great. Um it's always um different when
you're looking at it all in black and
white, but I know um I question the
surplus that we were holding um because
it's not very palatable to me for people
to have an increase in taxes and then
see that we have whacks of money in the
bank because we were under budget or we
got grants or whatever. And the surplus
is, you know, has been consistent. And I
I would like to see us even um holding
less surplus and staying at the and um
and looking at a 6% um because I I mean
we know that some of the funding is is
drying up, but then we always seem to
find or you know be successful with some
grants. I'm not trying to um do what
Mayor Wells said and count our chickens
before they're hatched, but this is why
we do end up with surpluses because we
we end up um you know with these with
these extra funds and I think it would
be better to alleviate the the tax
increase for our citizens and have a
bunch of money in the bank. Thanks.
aside from what we need, we need to have
some, but I just don't think we need it
to the level that that we've been
carrying. Thanks.
» Thanks, Councelor Mren. Um, and next
we'll have Councelor Cole Hamilton who's
online, and then we have a couple more
lights uh back in the room here, but uh
over to you, Councelor Cole Hamilton.
» Yeah, great. Thanks very much, Mayor. I
think I'm uh having similar thoughts to
my colleagues. Um I I think that keeping
sort of uh the $6 million um unallocated
surplus uh level at least for now while
we um I know that over the course of the
next year we're going to get that uh
reserves and surplus policy that we've
been thinking about and that will be uh
allow us to have a much clearer sense I
think uh we or whoever sitting around
this table this time next year of where
where we stand. I do know that we've
increased our uh reserves considerably
uh over the course of this term through
things like the SIP the strategic
infrastructure investment program which
is increased by 1.5% every single year.
So things that a new council could
consider are um you know the
implementation of the SIP whether
there's any cause at any point for um
changing the rate of increase or anyway
so I think there there are uh places
where a future council can make their
own decisions as to and we'll have more
information in front of them and as for
now I'm comfortable with like like my
colleagues with the um something in the
six to 7% % range. Uh I'm not sure
depending on how soon the vote happens
whether I'll still be here online with
you at the end of it, but I appreciate
being able to share my perspective and
I'm glad to see that there seems to be a
fair amount of agreement among council.
This is a a wise balance that we've
struck here and appreciate staff
generating these uh these scenarios so
we could we could look them all through
carefully and um and it leaves a
you know, the numbers we see going
forward. Um, there are always rough
guesses and they I note that of course
that no unallocated surplus is included
in
them, but we do seem to consistently
have one. So that means that often the
uh the the scale of a future tax change
is not as um substantial as it might
initially seem uh when one's trying to
predict it say two years out. So, uh,
long long and short of it, I'm I'm
comfortable with a six to 7% increase,
uh, over this year. Um, and, uh, keeping
the six the roughly $6 million, um,
unallocated surplus for now while we,
uh, you know, complete that process of
looking at our reserves. And I know
there are others on council I think
particularly director mccll have had uh
better data on the way in which we've
increased uh our reserves over uh over
time but if if staff were maybe able to
uh answer that as a question like how
our total reserves have increased over
the course of this council from 2022 to
uh to the present if that's if those are
figures that they happen to have. So
I'll just pack that question on to the
end. Thank you.
Uh, thanks very much, uh, Councelor Cole
Hamilton, and and we did catch about
98.9%
of that. There was a couple little
hiccups in there, but I think we
definitely got the the the full gist of
of your comments, uh, including the
question in at the end there. Um, and
I'll maybe I'll pass it over to Mr.
Langmire, um, just so uh, either he can
clarify or I don't have the information
on the reserve changes over the last
four years on hand. Those will come back
with the reserve policy and it'll give a
nice clear picture that way.
» All right. Okay. Thanks for that. And
councelor McCullum.
» Yeah. Um, and this is something we can
maybe pick up in the next um,
discussion, but um, something that I was
wondering about and just kind of chewing
on these um, numbers, especially looking
forward is um, our contribution to the
SIP um, to address our infrastructure
gap. We've done some really good work on
that in the last couple of years and we
understand what the gap is in our
reserves and our our obligations to our
um fixed assets
and we are increasing that contribution
by a percentage every financial cycle.
Um but could you remind me how long it
will take for us to increase that until
we've um if anyone reme we can again
pick this up next time but um until that
that gap is kind of met with our our tax
contributions
» I believe from the um information was
about 10 or 11 years was the projection
at the time.
» Yeah. Based on what we know now. Yeah.
Um okay that's great. I I just wanted to
highlight that that is um you know a
decision that was made. It's it's sound
financial policy. It's um it's a it's
responsible decision- making, but um
it's also, you know, ambitious to make
up that gap that a lot of um
organizations are are basically ignoring
in a 10-year time span. So that is a
policy decision that future councils
could revisit and and change the
approach and lengthen that if if that's
the desire or um you know addressing
trying to smooth out some of these ups
and downs that that are inevitably in
front of us. Um yeah so I'll just leave
it at that. I just wanted to bring that
into the discussion.
» Thanks Councelor McCullum and Councelor
Fr.
» Yeah thanks again mayor. [clears throat]
Would you accept a motion at this time?
» Um, I don't see anybody getting any more
clarification. So, yeah.
» Thanks, Mayor. I'll I'll move that
council direct staff to prepare the 2026
to 2030 financial plan using a surplus
balance target of 15% of the 2025
general fund budgeted spending,
including tax funded capital and
excluding expenditures with specific
reserves. And the council directs staff
to prepare the 2026 to 20 2030 financial
plan using the 6% tax change scenario
for 2026 and that additional available
surplus be applied through 2027 to 2030.
» Second.
» Right. That's been moved and seconded.
Are there any questions or comments on
the motion on the floor?
Um, I'll maybe just make make the
comment that I think I've made uh pretty
much every year when we've gotten to
budget time and and that kind of talks
about that bow wave and um the the fact
that the less we do this year, the the
more that's going to be next year and
and I think we've seen that uh time and
time again and and so um uh again uh
looking forward to that reserve and um
surplus policy coming back uh to give us
another tool in the toolbox. So, so
we're able to really contemplate that
stuff and and make sure that we're
leaving things as healthy as possible
for uh the uh the council after the next
term. So, um that being said, I still
don't see any further questions or
comments. So, I'll call the question.
All those in favor?
Any opposed?
And motion carries.
Um all right, moving on to lease
renewals for the Courtney Air Park. U
lease lots 2 to four commercial hangers
uh 6.12 and I'll pass it over to um Mr.
Garb
through the mayor. Um Scott Haynesworth
is going to give an introduction of this
report and it's covering um
four of the five commercial leases,
sorry, three of the four commercial
leases at the airport.
» Thank you, Jeff. uh through the city
manager, mayor and councel. Uh this
report is before you to consider the
renewal of three existing ground leases
at the Courtney Air Park, specifically
lease lots 2, three, and four, all of
which expired on December 31st, 2025.
The leases relate to existing commercial
hangers and aviation uses that are
already uh established on site. In each
case, the tenant owns the building
improvements and is requesting to
exercise the first renewal term provided
under the original lease agreements. The
proposed renewals are for a further
5-year term from January 1st, 2026, uh,
running until December 31st, 2030 with
two additional 5-year renewal options
remaining, each subject to council
approval.
An independent fair market rental
appraisal was completed in November 2025
to support the renewals. The appraisal
confirms that the proposed rents meet or
exceed minimum market benchmarks based
on existing zoning, land use controls,
and aviation related use restrictions
included in the leases.
Annual rents will continue to escalate
at 4 and a.5% consistent with the
structure in the original lease
agreements. I'll also note that the
proposed lease rates are approximately
45% higher than the 2025 lease rates. A
notice that this position was issued in
accordance with the community charter
and no public feedback was received. Uh
staff are therefore recommending
approval of the lease renewals as
presented. Be happy to take any
questions.
Right. Thanks very much uh for that. Are
there any questions or comments?
Right.
» Any questions, comments on the
recommendations on the floor? Seeing
none. All those in favor? Any opposed?
And motion carries.
and we'll move on to operational
services CBRD water south extension
project uh project approval and pass it
over to Mr. Garvin again.
» Thank you through the mayor and council.
It's a really important uh uh project
where we're sharing in infrastructure
with both CVRD
uh and Komox First Nation Council um
confirmed the partnership on this
project uh with a public statement uh in
a past council meeting and Mr. Shaw is
going to give an overview and we have
staff from the CVRD have joined us uh as
partners in this project. Over to you
Mr. Shaw.
» Thank you Mr. Garbot. Uh good evening
through the mayor to council. I'm
pleased to present the water south
extension project project approval
report. Really a cover report for the
bylaws that the CBRD has submitted on
behalf of the service. Uh and before I
begin as Mr. Garin articulated uh we I'd
like to acknowledge and introduce u a
few members from the Comox Valley
Regional District who played a critical
role in developing this initiative. So
please join me in welcoming Mr. Charlie
Gore the senior manager of capital
project delivery. Uh Jake Martins the
general manager of corporate services.
um their expertise and collaboration has
been instrumental in bringing this
project to its current stage and I'm
glad to see them here today to support
the discussion. So if council has any
questions for them feel free to ask. Um
but just briefly uh the water south
extension project is a transformative
regional infrastructure project led by
the Komox Valley Regional District in
partnership with Komox First Nation and
the Royston water local service area
with the participant being the city of
Kourtney. Uh the project itself will
extend water transmission infrastructure
south of Courtney supporting treaty
lands uh Royston uh key growth areas in
South Courtney and this investment is
foundational to the city's long-term
growth strategy ensuring reliable water
services for our future both for
development and as well as aligning with
the city's water master plan for future
growth. Uh governance for this project
is anchored in two CBRD bylaws that are
here for you today. both bylaw number
897, the establishment bylaw, and 898,
the loan authorization bylaw, which are
both here in front of council for
council consent. Um, council support
today will enable the timely delivery
deliver sorry, delivery and advancement
of the strategic initiative in this
project as the project aims to support a
sustainable development, economic
growth, and regional collaboration while
positioning the city for future success.
In terms of timelines and next steps, uh
timely consent is essential for the
project to move forward. Uh continue and
maintain momentum for the project and
meet grant funding deadlines. So key
milestones are obviously consent of the
bylaws today in January. post consent.
Uh the province uh the submissions to
the province for the bylaws for
adoptions will be in March or March at
the latest with tendering and
construction phases through the fall of
2026 and construction till the end of
March of 2028.
So the recommendation before you today
is to staff recommend that council
consent to support the bylaws, both
bylaw number 897 and bylaw 898, and
authorize the city manager to finalize
and execute the project agreement
between the city and the CVRD and direct
staff to take all necessary steps to
advance this initiative. With that, I'm
happy to take any questions.
» Excellent. Thanks very much for that.
And looking to council if there's any
questions or comments. Um,
council mak.
» Yeah, the thanks for the report. I It's
good news um seeing this move ahead. I
It's very important project for our
region. Um,
one question I had just um in the
financial implications section of the
report. Um when we've uh reviewed this
project in the past, we've kind of
talked about um you know the city's
benefit um how we are aortioning um our
financial commitment
and um but something that we haven't
discussed is um like how how that how
those funds are being collected and um
I I guess my assumption had And a big
portion of this would be through DCC's
um because it's my understanding that
the main driver for this is to support
new development.
And um in reading this it it says that
75% of this cost will be allocated to
residential customers. I I'm assuming
the other 25 is just simply
non-residential, but there's no
indication of exactly um how like the
source of these funds. Is this um a
straight addition to uh the water
service requisition or are there DCC's
um coming in to fund this or um just
some better information there would be
helpful.
» Yeah, thank you for that through the
mayor to councelor McCullum. Fair
question. Um ran some very preliminary
numbers. You'll see that the cost
estimates are based on a 20-year
amortization with a 5% over the customer
base that exists today. No dcc
considerations for that. um and it it
would be attributed to the water fee and
then requisitioned by the CVR through
the city. So the city would collect
through fees and charges and then
requisition the amount for debt
servicing back to the CVRD over the
amortization period that was selected.
So,
so in terms of that additional cost
because that's basically an additional
cost to all the households in the ser
like in the city of Courtney um to
receive or to support this project. And
what is the benefit then to um existing
users for that additional fee? I think
that's important for us to understand.
» That's a great question. So uh the
transmission project in and of itself um
transverses uh through the Ardan
corridor uh and across um the Ministry
of Jurisdiction all the way to the
boundary past the ridge development.
There's a number of tie-in connection
points within the city and the existing
zone. So the 87 meter zone on the West
Courtney side which services a large
vast majority of our customer base would
see a fire suppression enhancement
opportunity through its connection to
the CVRD main at that particular
location as well as disconnecting some
of the existing customers that rely on
um other systems that the CVRD support.
uh so local service areas or the Marsden
zone, disconnect those and put them back
onto the 87. So they'd be truly serviced
through the city's infrastructure as
well as providing secondary support for
fire and water um to the uh ridge
subdivision which is currently through
the temporary booster station. So that
would provide a singular secondary
source and primary flow to that existing
area as well as introduce water an
opportunity for water at a higher
velocity and fire flow for the Christy
Parkway which already uh exists within
our community. So there's a number of
connection points and a number of
benefits to the existing community, but
also provides the opportunity for the
continuation of growth within those
areas that otherwise would be limited
without
» That's that's really helpful. Thanks.
And so just for clarity, 75% of the cost
is residential and the rest is business
and industry. Is that is that what the
implication is?
» Sorry. Yes. Correct. Yeah. The breakdown
currently is roughly between 75 just
over 75% residential to ICI in terms of
the makeup and so that's what I used to
build to build the foundation of of this
cost estimate.
» Thank you.
» Thanks councelor McCullum and councelor
Fr.
» Yeah, thanks again mayor. Um and in my
recollection of this project I thought
there was an opportunity for an active
transportation corridor but maybe you
can uh just bring me up to speed. Is the
transmission line is that going to be
like fully publicly owned property or is
is there some other scenario for that
and is there an opportunity for an
active transportation corridor along it?
It's a great question. Thank you to the
mayor. It's councelor Frish. Um so it
has been contemplated as a part of this
project as it runs through the Ardan
corridor and through the Komox uh
logging road where practicable and
ability within the corridor um
cross-section there's an allowance for
the road to be constructed in such a way
that would support active transportation
or shoulder widening for future
consideration of active transportation.
We're seeking to work with the CBRD to
have those pieces um built into the
overall delivery of the project. Um, so
it's not necessarily of a built to a
completeness, but built it to a place
where the corridor is then restored to a
means which would provide the city the
opportunity to build the active
transportation corridor uh throughout
its entirety. As we move past some of
the undeveloped lands that are beyond um
the ridge development, as this
transmission ma main continues on,
there'll be some clearing and removal of
materials in order to facilitate the
installation. And so where again
practical and opportunity exists for
active transportation to continue along
that corridor. Uh the reconstruction of
the the the earthworks in that area will
be to suit that of actual transportation
or a multi-use path under the parameters
of our existing SDS bylaw.
» Right. And and the logging the logging
road that it's using is that is that the
really old one that's just beyond the
connector that connects the ridge.
Right. That the one that's expensive to
fix and we haven't done
» Yeah.
» Yeah. That's the one. Okay. So, that's
going to be expensive no matter what.
Um, and then does it cross the um the
river? I'm I'm totally lost on the name
of the river. You know the one I mean,
thank you. The Trent is actually what I
was thinking. Does it cross Trent?
» Uh, yes.
» Yeah. How does it cross the Trent?
» It'll be in the road crosssection. Okay.
» Y thanks. Thanks for the
» Sure.
recommendations.
» All right. It's been moved and seconded.
Any further questions or comments?
Seeing none, all those in favor? Any
opposed? And motion carries.
We'll move into um 6.2.2 solid waste
contamination uh update. And I'll pass
it over to
Chris Thompson. [clears throat]
Mr. Thompson. Oh, you need the clicker.
» Oh, and Mr. Garvis got a comment. Yeah,
thanks. Um, thank you, Mayor Council.
Uh, we received an update um, from the
solidway staff at the region. Uh, we
have a good partnership working towards
there and I asked operational services
staff to uh, give uh, council a little
bit more information. Uh, the launch of
our uh, cart program, organics diversion
and recycling has gone really really
well. And I think it's really important
for council to understand uh how
effective this program's been uh as it's
um you know it's a it's a huge component
of uh work that happened under council's
direction uh last year. So thanks Mr.
Thompson.
» Thank you the CEO to the mayor and
council. Um appreciate the preamble. Um
yeah so in October uh staff from KMAC
Strath Kona Waste Management um
presented this solid waste management
plan update. This plan updates the or
outlines long-term strategies for
garbage, recycling, and organics. Uh,
and it update or it outlines several
strategies to focus on waste reduction
and diversion, including supporting
multif family waste separation, reducing
industrial and construction waste, and
equalizing access to services. Uh, a
significant portion of the solid waste
management plan is a waste composition
study, which takes samples of waste from
different communities. um and provides
insights into the components as a
snapshot in time. So it's like a waste
audit. This report and presentation
reviews the perform the city's
performance in comparison to other
municipalities in the uh CSWM service.
So uh I believe this is this chart's
been shown before and it really
highlights some of the successes of the
automated uh transition. So in 2024
along with automated we switched to
bi-weekly garbage collection and we saw
38% reduction in garbage tonnage and a
49% increase in organics tonnage. Uh so
the the ratio of organics tonnage to
garbage is 2.17
which makes the city of Courtney a
regional leader in in diverting waste
away from the landfill uh specifically
through the curbside collection service.
So, uh, we've actually met our, uh, if
you just look at that curbside
collection service, we've met our
obligation, uh, to to to meet that
provincial target of, uh, 350 kg per
person annually. Uh, the 2025 numbers
for tonnage are in, they've arrived and
we are on the same pace as 2024. So, it
wasn't just a novelty of uh, the
automated collection. That's that's
truly what uh, our residents are doing.
So, that's fantastic.
Um this chart here is from the waste
composition study and in the sample that
was collected courtney garbage contains
20% compostable organics. So that was
one of the numbers that the staff member
from the CSWN reported. Uh this is
significant and provides an area of
focus for staff to reduce uh to reduce
in 2026 through education about the
organics diversion potential. It's
important to compare us to other
municipalities. So Komox is at 19%.
Campbell River is actually at 35% and
let's say they're pre-automated. So
that's coming uh in 2026, I believe. And
Cumberland's at 24%. So we're actually
we're not doing too bad when we compare
ourselves. Um however, there is an
opportunity for targeted reduction
programs.
And then uh organic contamination. Um
the number that was presented was that
the city's edging towards a 3%
contamination rate in organics. So 97%
of the uh organics is actually good
compostable material. However, there is
2.63%
that's plastic um and other part you
know other components um that make up
contamination. Uh when we compare
ourselves to other municipalities uh
Komox is at 2.2% 2%. Camel river is at
0.19%
and Cumberland's at 0.52%.
However, these these latter two, Camel
River and Cumberland, they're still in
the manual collection. So, uh there is
that sort of oversight at the curb uh to
prevent that contamination from getting
into the into the trucks. The provincial
benchmark is around 2 to 5%. So, we're
we're doing not too bad. However, uh we
do want to reduce that that plastic
going into those automated carts.
And uh finally, recycling contamination.
So periodically throughout the year,
Recycle BC uh does audits themselves on
our recycling waste delivered to their
sorting facility from the city of
Courtney. Um and they they really
analyze it. So there's two
classifications. Um, one is called not
accepted material and that's highlighted
in the it's sort of a gray uh gray uh
area of that uh line chart there and
that's anything that's not accepted uh
for recycling by recycle recycle BC but
it might be accepted through another
program or a donation program. So this
includes books um clothing hazardous
materials scrap metal as well as garbage
and organics. So um the other category
is called incompatible material and
that's all that non-accepted material
plus depot recyclables like glass foam
and and flexible plastics as well as
nested material. So if you if you get
home and you you throw that take out the
takeout cups inside the takeout bag
without sorting it out that's considered
incompatible as well as recyclable that
recyclables that have res too much
residue to be recycled. So um normally
um we are at around 5% uh not accepted
materials. We're actually seeing a
downward trend right now which is
excellent. Um however if we do start to
to to go above that 5% level we we uh
will be under the eye of
recycle BC and we could see fines start
to add up. They can actually find us up
to $90,000 a year um if they start to
see above 5% contamination. So, we
really want to keep an eye on that and
we do that through the Courtney Collects
app, pushing out um campaigns. We we are
constantly updating the waste wizards.
So, what goes where in the recycling bin
as well as community outreach. So, one
issue that we we have been having is
that our contractor has limitations in
their contamination management tools
that are prescribed in the the contract.
Uh and we're we're working with them
through um in in our automated
collection system. So, just to highlight
that there's been some technology and
contractor challenges. The the contract
does specify the use of contamination
management tools, including the uh
including location location based
photographs um showing evidence that
there's contamination and that links to
the carts um which is a link to the
addressing. Um but it is important to
note that contamination of both
recycling or and organics has been
relatively low. However, should
increases occur, the city will be
hampered by the contractor's
limitations. Um,
so to bring this to a close, I will um
the staff recommendation here is to
receive the solid waste man uh
contamination management 2026 briefing
note.
» Thank you very much.
» Excellent. Thank Thanks very much. and
and maybe just uh um since the last sort
of the last part that you talked about
was was the actual ability and I believe
it's like camera systems and that kind
of stuff to be able to actually see
what's going in so it can be uh detected
right away. Um and and you know works
are underway. I mean I think the
expectation was is with this these new
uh trucks that uh basically that would
just kind of be stock um and that
obviously that hasn't been the way. So,
do we have uh any idea of like an ETA of
when um those systems will be uh
basically online so that we can benefit
from them? And then maybe you talked
about a maximum $90,000. Is that
something that could potentially like
the the haulers can help with that
considering we're we're kind of beholden
to their system?
» Um yes, Mr. Mayor. Um the so the two
parts of that question. Uh yes, there's
a possibility that uh those uh fines
could be flowing through to the
contractor. Um we're investigating
investigating that um possibility. Um to
the first part of your question, uh
their operational staff on the island
here have reached out to me actually
this week um with some very positive
news that the cameras are installed and
they hope to have a couple weeks of
data, you know, from the new year on um
available this week. So, I'm really
looking forward to that and we'll be
sharing that as information becomes
available.
» Awesome. Uh really appreciate
[clears throat] the update on that. Uh
and councelor FR.
» Yeah, thanks Meredith. Thanks for the
presentation. Um Chris, I wonder if you
could just off the top of your head give
a list of organic contaminants that
you're seeing, you know, that 3% what
kind of things we're talking about. I'm
going to [snorts] assume some sort of
plastic bag that people think is
recyclable, but you know what else?
Um,
yeah. So, um, it's it's plastics. Uh,
it's, uh, when you clean up your yard,
it's flip-flops, dog tennis balls. Um,
we're seeing things like painted picket
fences. Um, and unfortunately sometimes
diapers, things like that. Um, one of
the challenges is, uh, as we go over the
over the Christmas break, uh, we have
three stat holidays, so we're all
stretched in our garbage capacity. And
so sometimes people um you know it's a
hard time so they throw their garbage in
the organics and then we see a spike is
just in garbage. So
» Uh it doesn't take much for 3% to add
up.
» Yeah. And then when it comes to the
recycling um improvements that we want
to see and that that's in the mainstream
that we pick up obviously what sort of
stuff are we seeing in there? Like if
you just top three things that end up in
the recycling that really shouldn't.
» Yeah. So um recycling contamination is
reported by t by weight. So, uh, when
you when you go to recycle those
encyclopedias, you know, the
Encyclopedia Bratannica, that throws us
off almost for an entire quarter. So,
we're really encouraging people pay
attention. Um, books, hardbound books,
paperback books, unfortunately, are not
recyclable, but they are donatable. So,
that's one of our I would say that's our
biggest challenge.
» And I wonder if it's worth a social
media post about these kind of two items
that were I don't know if people maybe
just don't know about it. And if they
did, it might be a different story. So I
don't know if it's a question or
comment, but I'll leave it with you.
» Yep. We absolutely it's a great idea.
Thank you.
» Yeah. Thanks.
» Excellent. Yeah. And if we know that
there is that sort of increase of
contamination over the Christmas
holidays and maybe there's an
opportunity obviously in a newsletter
story uh uh but also uh again social
media etc. And we have you know Rotary
clubs doing book sales all the time. Um,
so there's there's definitely probably
some partnerships as well that could
happen um along with that. So, uh,
thanks Councelor Fish and Council Ward.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um, yeah, I just
wanted to bring up a point that we heard
at our waste management the the the KO
stress Kona waste management meeting and
that was around the the stickers on
fruit and how they they get through and
just to remind people that those are not
um compostable. Um, and it would be a
great little invention for someone to
come up with something that was because
uh there's probably a lot of fruit
stickers going into the organics.
» Thanks for that, Council Warren and
Councelor Fishan.
» Yeah. Well, I just had a I just had a
thought about books. Um, is the problem
with books that there's no funding for
recycling them or is the problem the
material itself? And uh what I'm
thinking is if someone took a p a hard a
hardback paper book or whatever and tore
it apart, you know, are the pages
recyclable?
» Um I I believe that might be the case. I
don't want to really go on the record
saying if you took a band saw to it and
tore everything apart.
» Yeah. Yeah. Well, then we won't get into
it, but just came to mind. Thanks.
» Thanks, K. [clears throat]
» All right. Um, and we'll um uh receive
this unanimously by by council and move
on to uh Komox Valley Regional District
request for consent for adopting bylaw
number 900, Komox Valley Economic
Development Service Conversion bylaw 345
and so
[clears throat]
» Oh, Mr. Garb. No, thank you. Uh through
the the mayor to council. There's no
presentation. Uh the the uh bylaws uh on
the agenda. It's been um it's a
technical change to address uh the
purpose of the the [clears throat]
function. Um we've been uh getting
regular updates from uh service provider
on this item and uh we don't have any uh
anything to add to this uh and uh in
accordance with our participation in the
service uh consenting is applicable
should council take that direction.
» All right and yeah so basically
housekeeping item uh thanks for that.
It's been moved and seconded. Any
further questions or comments? See none.
All those in favor?
Any opposed? And motion carries. Um, and
we'll move on to the Comox Valley
Regional District uh, Komox Valley Sewer
Conveyance Project Water Supply to
Courtney Pump Station. And I'll pass it
over to Mr. Garbid as well.
» Yeah, thanks. Uh, just to facilitate the
discussion, we don't have a staff report
on this. It's a it's a a quirk in our
bylaw that we now have a property that
is outside our municipal boundary that
requires uh, servicing and staff support
the request. Right.
It's been moved and seconded. I don't
see any questions or comments. All those
in favor and motion carries and we'll
move into Komox Valley uh airport YQ BC
air access program grant request for
letter of support.
» Recommendation.
» Excellent. Been moved and seconded. Any
questions or comments? Seeing none. All
those in favor?
Any opposed? And motion carries and uh
that letter is required by the end of
the week. So it's good to see that
happening. Uh 7.4 Courtney Air Park
Association BC Air Access Program sounds
very familiar. Uh request for a letter
of support.
» Second.
» It's been moved and seconded. And
councelor Moore. Um yeah, just very
briefly, both of these um support
letters are it's good news story that um
that the air park is looking to
electrify and solarize or whatever the
the verb is for that um the facilities
down there. Thank you.
» Thanks for that, Council Min. And uh
with that, uh all those in favor? Any
opposed? And that motion carries as
well. and we'll move into uh item 8.1
community and social development
framework in action plan update and I'll
pass it over to Miss Ba or Mr. Garvin.
[snorts] Thank you mayor. Uh through you
and council Joan Bay our community
development coordinators can introduce a
report and recommendation for staff's or
sorry for council's consideration which
is to receive the action plan update.
» [clears throat]
» Thank you through Mayor and Council. I'm
really uh delighted to pres present an
update on the progress with the uh
community social development plan. Um
and I'm going to focus on what's
happened since the last presentation,
specifically the two strategies that
were approved to inform the plan. And
those strategies, one was
[clears throat] a neighborhood network
strategy which was focused on uh
place-based community development to
strengthen neighborhood connections,
resilience, and cohesion. And the other
was a better together strategy was which
was essentially focusing on
partnerships, coordination and capacity
among service organizations and
collaborative tables who are working in
the social uh development and area with
an emphasis this collaboration with an
emphasis on upstream and preventive uh
action. So trying to move our work a bit
upstream.
» [clears throat]
» I'm really happy to say that we have uh
had some considerable progress over our
this past few months. We've moved from a
discovery phase to planning and we're
well into activation
uh in the key milestones in this period
uh included uh hiring uh retaining uh
consultant teams to help uh move roll
out these two strategies. uh one team uh
is the urban matters
sorry [clears throat] I've got a frog in
my throat uh urban matters and they're
primarily responsible for the roll out
of the better together uh strategy uh
the planning and the activation of that
they are also taking on responsibility
for the overall evaluation of the whole
CSDA initiative um our CSD initiative um
and then we have pollinate and that team
is responsible primarily for the
activation
of the um uh nebrite network strategy um
and supporting the evaluation efforts
during this team. This term we also
developed a communications strategy and
have started implementing that. We
actually have a new website uh pages
that were just went up yesterday. Um and
postcards and a number of other things.
We've also um started the evaluation. We
have an evaluation plan and tools
developed and underway. And finally, we
are I guess in we've developed the
strategy, the actual roadmap to move
these things forward.
I'm um pretty excited about um both of
these pieces. The neighborhood uh
network strategy in particular um we've
established criteria. We're going to
have a um a pilot of four different
neighborhoods, a minimum of four
different different neighborhoods who
will be engaged in the strategy. And uh
the focus is to build uh as I said uh
social cohesion to support community
resilience, identity and communications
uh amongst uh neighbors and um so we've
developed criteria for participation.
We've um we've the animator has
conducted outreach using a snowball
technique and following criteria to
establish the neighborhoods which ones
are we're going to move with and some of
some people have asked about what is
that criteria and basically we're
looking a big piece is do we have
champions who are ready to move it
forward. uh this isn't going to be
community led, it's neighborhoodled and
uh geographic representation of course
following the cardinal directions of the
OCP and um so we've got four
neighborhoods coming into view. Two that
are firmly going to move forward. One is
the old orchard slash uh downtown uh
network is a huge boundaries
uh taking all of sort of Anderson flats,
the historic district which we tend to
call old orchard, a little piece up by
the railroad track and even up to Fifth
Street. So including some of the
downtown businesses and then um and
they're very focused on uh social uh
engagement uh activities uh to bring
people together to actually form norm
and storm and form this larger more
diverse network. And then there is the
um Urkheart Lake Trail uh neighborhood
network, a little tiny funky group
that's between Fifth and 15th along
Urkart and they're very much into skill
building. Um and they want to do a
placemaking project. So Laneway perhaps.
Um so anyway, we've got a couple going.
We've got a couple more uh on the way.
Um perhaps even three something perhaps
in apartments. Uh I also wanted to point
out that Sandwick said Sandwick and
Braidwood neighborhood has been engaged
and will probably be a third. So we're
trying to get the geographic
representation as well. So the
neighborhood network stuff is working
well. The animators out there pulling
together groups. Um we've developed some
grants uh that we were providing
specifically to these participating
neighborhoods. And in order to qualify
for the grants, they have to agree to be
in the pilot, agree to be, you know,
part of the evaluation, agree to take on
uh circle talks, agree to take on
projects. So, it's a big agreement for
just a tiny little bit of funds, uh
maximum $3,000, and it would be these
projects would have to happen between
now and the end of June, seed projects,
and the end of uh September for larger
placemaking projects. So far we've only
had two proposals or one proposal sorry
and another on the way and they're very
small. Um so that's going as we
expected. Uh and then the better
together which is the larger broader uh
piece of this which is bringing together
uh these uh leads of these different
organizations who are championing work
in the all of the determined all of the
areas um determined areas of health. we
had and and we're helping them to first
of all look at the landscape and try to
think try to see uh where we have uh uh
services gaps in services duplications
of services places we might come
together and coales and get priority
actions done and also to figure out what
our role is. So this is a huge piece and
this ter and in this period we have uh
the urban matters team has initiated
research to uh look at the plans of all
these organizations to pull out where
they are at in a continuum of work that
might be done to advance advance social
development. So from the crisis work
that we find that we're in involved in
mostly to um creating parallel systems
alternatives to what we're already doing
to policy. So they'll be looking at
these plans and um we had a big soft
launch inviting everybody to develop the
vision and the values and so now the
next step is to bring the bring those um
that research back to the large group
and spend a couple of uh workshops
together where we'll we'll validate our
findings. Do we have it right? Um you
know have we missed it? Anything? uh is
there a place where we might work
together and really coordinate and co
efforts one or two priority areas and
what would be each of our roles in that
and so those are the next steps uh all
is going well and I'm open for questions
and the recommendation is yes just to
receive the report.
» Excellent. Thanks very much. And uh
yeah, I was uh uh following along the
the acronym. There's only really one
acronym, the the CSD one, but uh in the
um uh the project timeline graph, it
does uh uh adjust those letters a little
bit. So in one of the things it actually
says uh um uh what was it? Um citys
instead. So and then I was looking for
what that stood for, but I'm pretty sure
it's just a a justosition of letters
» Probably. Sorry, I'm getting dyslexic or
something.
» Community and social development.
» It was probably spelled better.
» It was probably Yeah,
» Fair enough. Uh but other than that, um
I'll pass it over to um Council Hel.
» Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Joanne. Um I I
think that uh the the work you're doing
uh will become more tangible once we
actually have the neighborhood groups
identifying projects that we can
actually describe. And um but I just
want to acknowledge that I've been to
two events that you've coordinated. Uh
one was a presentation to the social
planning society with over 30
representatives of local agencies. The
other was a larger event with probably
over 100 people. and and I thought you
did an excellent job of presenting at
both and I thought that both events that
I attended showed evidence of community
being receptive to uh this work which is
really about um where finding this this
the appropriate place for the city to
intervene in the in the many uh social
challenges in our community that we
often get called upon to respond to. So
thanks for your work uh in this regard.
Thanks uh councelor Helian and councelor
Fr and thanks mayor and thanks for the
presentation. I had a question about the
uh the better together strategy and who
sort of the main players are right now
in that strategy. The main I guess it's
organizations that you're targeting
existing ones I would assume.
» Uh it's primarily the leads of
organizations who are championing work
in each of the determinant areas. So
primarily I want to be clear that we
also have uh leads in local government
uh who surround us uh who are working in
this area. We also have invited uh
people with lived and living experience
to those groups and also KFN and uh
Matei. So quite a diverse group. I was
really hoping because the answer won't
be with service providers actually at
the end of the day. Uh I think the
answer is going to be answer is going to
be part of that of course but we want to
move to a a place where we don't have to
providing hook so many services and we
want to bring some of the people in who
are change agents right uh so I can
foresee these two workshops where we're
identifying possibilities followed by a
larger
citywide event pending my ability to
secure resources for that a larger
citywide event which would bring in
these neighborhood network leads, the
capacity that's out there to help us
move our work a little further upstream.
» Sounds good. And and how are we
advertising the neighborhood network
strategy work that you're doing? You
said you were looking for neighborhoods
and you had a couple already apply for
some projects. How are we kind of
reaching out and getting those people
interested that might want to do
something like that in their
neighborhood?
» Yeah, kind of using a a snowball
technique. Uh we were a little bit
afraid of, you know, putting it up on a
website and getting like a ton. So, it's
the one person recommends somebody else
and somebody else hears about it and
we're just kind of weighing what we're
getting in terms of are we getting the
spread we want? Are we getting the
diversity we want? And basically if the
if they're ready um if they've got a
proven track record in this that really
helps the champions who want to do it
but do we have a diverse neighborhood uh
are we you know yeah so some those are
some of the criteria but how we're doing
it is that way and um presentations I
had a couple come to me from the uh
library presentation recently and yeah
so we're using that for this
» Yeah kind of like a slow play is what it
Sounds like not just a throw it out
there request for proposal in a post.
» No, cuz if I had put up these proposals,
I'm sure we would have had way more than
we could handle.
» Thank you.
Thanks, Councelor Fr and Council Warren.
» Didn't realize my light was on.
» Well, it's and and the microphones are
going on and off, so maybe uh you can
leave your microphone on next time as
well. Um
» Um thank you so much for the
presentation. Of course um some of us
already had the the pleasure of of
seeing um the presentation at social
planning. Um and you know that you're
starting with four pilot neighborhoods
and then you'll do all the evaluation
and see what comes out of that. Um, do
you is there a goal for down the road,
you know, is there a target per year to
or in terms of the neighborhoods or you
just going to start with the four and
see how that all goes and how it rolls
out?
» Yeah, I think we're just starting with
the four. I mean, I wish I could have a
target so to know that we're going to do
this year after year after year, but uh
we're going to start with the four. But
I can say already uh it's really about
the capacity of the neighborhoods that
we bring on and the animator uh and and
my own like how many um so what that
that'll come through the evaluation what
we're thinking per year four seem to be
but you know the old orchard one for
instance I should call old orchard
downtown it's probably four
neighborhoods
» So that's we're calling one and then you
know so We'll find those numbers as we
It's organic that way,
» Right? Um I don't know if Susie wanted
to answer something.
» Do you want to jump in? Yeah.
» Thank you to the mayor to council more
just to build on uh what Miss Ba said.
uh once we're complete well this phase
of work and the evaluation we'll be
coming back to council with uh what
we've learned what the outcomes of the
evaluation were and through that then
looking for direction from council on
what a future program could look like.
So, uh, at this point, we wouldn't be
able to identify how many we should
have. But through this process, uh, even
just the process of identifying
neighborhoods, we're capturing what
we're learning from that, the
experience, what's successful, what's
not. Uh, and that'll all be built into a
future proposal for council's
consideration. And then, uh, that's
where we would set some of those
targets, whether it's funding or
numbers, etc. Uh, so we'd be back to
council for looking for that direction
based on recommendations from this
experience.
» Yeah. I just I think the potential is
amazing. I it really um dubtales with
what the regional well the whole
region's doing around emergency
management and emergency preparedness
and and like you say the neighborhoods
are all um diverse and have their own
focuses and and needs and ideas and
it'll be really interesting to see what
everybody comes out out with. Then I
think you know it's there's funding for
projects and projects is is a big piece
of it but as you say really the ultimate
goal is to have that capacity building
in neighborhood and and to to really
address things like isolation and
loneliness and and um you know all all
the things you know food security and
helping neighbors and and people feeling
more of a sense of belonging. So, um, I
thank you for your work and it's great
to see the start of, um, some of those
tangibles coming forward. Thank you.
» Excellent. Uh, I think, uh, that that's
the the discussion. If somebody would
like to move receipt.
» Excellent. And we'll receive that on
behalf of, uh, council unanimously.
Thanks very much. And then we'll jump
right into our regional sports field
allocation policy project update, and
I'll pass it back over to Miss Sunders.
Thank you. Uh through the mayor council,
the report provides council with an
update on the regional sports field
allocation policy project. Uh the city's
leading this project on behalf of the
region based on the recommendations from
the 2023 Komox Valley sports field
strategy and with the support of our
local uh governments in the school
district. The purpose of the project is
to develop a consistent approach to
allocating fields across the region as
well as an consistent approach to field
fees as also sorry and also developing
recommendations for implementation of a
central booking agency for all fields in
the valley uh which is currently
proposed to be the city of Courtney. In
2025, the project team completed uh
research and data analysis, significant
engagement with field user groups and
established and continues to work with a
staff working group from the region as
well as a user advisory
uh committee uh based of field sport
users. Uh and they've we've presented
our initial findings to the staff and
advisory committee. So we're now
shifting into drafting uh allocation fee
and booking guiding policies and
principles uh which once finalized would
form the development of the final
policies.
The draft guiding principles being
reviewed uh are outlined in the report
and just to summarize uh there's guiding
principles being uh considered around
allocation which is really focused on
balancing both uh tenur uh and emerging
emerging sport groups in an equitable
manner uh and focusing on aligning the
right sports with the right field with
the right amount of time. Um it sounds
uh simple but it's quite complex and
difficult. Um but that's a key priority
for us is to make sure that there is
equitable access uh to sport field um
and that we're what we're proposing
isn't so disruptive as to sort of um
impact current sports groups as well. In
terms of fees, uh a new fee schedule for
all sports fields and users in the Komox
Valley is being considered. One that is
hopefully consistent across the valley.
uh it is being reviewed in line with the
city's recreation fees and charges
framework. So uh considering how we
apply a benefits-based approach to
setting the fees and the subsidy levels.
Uh [snorts] to date the user groups have
indicated general support for fees uh
including youth fees if they result in
improved service levels andor feal and
amenities
for booking. Courtney acting as the
single booking office is being proposed
uh along with a regional committee
reflective of our partner organizations
to support the implementation of
allocation policies. We expect the draft
policies to be complete in early spring
this year following which uh each
jurisdiction will have to review and
approve the recommended policies
including any fee bylaws respectively.
All of this requires significant
coordination and collaboration uh not
just at the staff level but also at the
elected officials level. As such uh
staff and consultants will be presenting
the findings and recommendations uh to
date at an upcoming elected officials
forum and that will include the school
district as well. If we're able to
proceed with the timeline as outlined,
uh we would be looking to initiate
implementation as early as September
2026,
uh with a priority on the artificial
turf that there's a new artificial turf
expected to come online later uh later
this spring, early this summer. Uh and
so we'd want to look at the allocation
policy for the what would be the two
turfs as our first priority. uh and then
followed by the remaining fields uh
being uh using the allocation policy and
fees likely for January 2028. Uh we've
been very clear with the user groups
that we want to make sure we give them
enough time uh to be aware of the fees
and the allocation policy to adjust
their registration timelines,
expectations, etc. And so that's why
there's such a long lead time between a
policy decision and implementation. And
I'm happy to answer any questions.
» Uh excellent. Thanks so much. Uh it it's
it's somewhat exciting to hear that
we're like this close to the finish
line. Uh you know, it has been a
discussion that that seems to be uh
ongoing for for some time. So, it's
great to get this update and and see
that uh we're we're pretty close to uh
pulling the trigger and and uh this
thing kind of uh launching into uh
actual implementation. So, with that,
I'll pass it over to Council McCulla.
» Yeah, similar comments. It's u great to
see this moving ahead and um that it
seems like it's been fairly wellreceived
by those that we've engaged with. Um I
think that willingness to um take take
on these changes and um the relatively
um good acceptance of the possibility of
the changes probably reflects that
there's a real recognition that um
fields are a finite resource and having
good policy in place that makes it clear
and fair on on who gets what when is
probably overdue. Um, and I do have a
question and it's not necessarily
related to the next steps here, but um,
we have other sport um, shared resources
that aren't necessarily fields that um,
you know, one of them came up um, at the
recreation commission meeting yesterday
around um, gym space, which you know is
very sim similar to um, fields in terms
of usage and and um, how it's spread out
in the community and I'm wondering if in
this um process that there has been an
any discussion or identification on um
whether or not we would kind of expand
this whole process to other types of
facilities in the community or if um or
if we're going to take a pause when we
get to completion on this.
[clears throat]
Thank you through the mayor to councelor
McCullum. Um
I would suggest uh that we will p I
don't I don't want to say pause but we
will focus on the implementation of the
uh sport field allocation policy. That
will take a number of seasons uh to work
through to a place where everyone's
feeling comfortable and confident with
it and give us time to also tweak it in
case there's I'm sure there'll be things
we'll want to improve. uh there hasn't
been discussion uh at the regional sort
of staff advisory group around
considering a similar regional policy
allocation policy for indoor space and I
would offer it at this point that that's
probably not something I as a staff I
would recommend because the demands on
indoor space are quite different than
sport fields. uh for sports fields,
we're we're basically balancing the need
of just public access with uh permitted
time. Uh we're not they're not
facilities where we also have um sort of
the city programming spaces, other
private interest, other social sort of
and you're you're managing all these
complex bookings. Um and so I I don't
think that would come up. I do know and
and we had this conversation with the
parks and recreation advisory commission
uh that from this work uh the city of
Courtney for instance would look to use
some of the allocation principles and
policies for some of our other outdoor
sport facilities like tennis courts uh
pickle ball courts uh we have a lacrosse
box uh those types of things we our our
allocation policies are um not refined
I'd say for those areas and so we would
apply those after we finish the field uh
work. Yeah, that makes good sense. Yeah,
thanks for pointing that out. Um that
yeah, there's a lot more pressures on
our indoor spaces, so not as easy to
take on the same framework. Uh the other
question I had too was just whether or
not in this process of engaging with our
various groups if there was
any changes identified or anything that
came out of those groups or if it was
mostly an exercise and just um you know
explaining the framework and getting um
people on side or if we made any changes
um based on anything that came came out
of those sessions.
Uh thank you S council McCullum. Um I
think the group's feedback to date has
been mostly focused on implementation
and how it will be implemented and
that's where I think uh they've you know
for example when we start to talk about
a single allocate or booking agency we
start to talk about seasonal uh booking
timelines and allocation and
understanding from all these sports with
a variety of seasons and timings when
those best moments are during the year
to plan uh for their future allocations
and how the interaction between the
allocation and their registration happen
and the timing of those two things. So
really wanting to make sure that
whichever processes we put in place will
also work for the sports groups as they
do their registration communication with
families etc. Um I think understanding
the implementation of fees and how we go
about doing that in a way that um is
both around uh equity and sustainability
but also understanding that fees are a
way to prevent some of the block booking
um not prevent but reduce uh block
booking where now if there's no fee
involved uh sports groups are holding
entire fields and whether they use it or
not there's no financial impact to the
club to do that. So um those are some of
the conversations I think where there's
a lot of value. The other one we're
having is around how we
manage the historical tenure of large
sports and the amount of field time they
need while also trying to create space
for new sports as they come forward. And
that's really difficult because
sometimes it could result in folks um
having to give up time. Uh so we've
proposed some ways of managing the
growth of large sports. so that they
have limits to the amount of field time
they can grow in a single year um based
on a percentage of what they already
have. Um otherwise they kind of grow
exponentially and it's really hard for
small groups to get space. So we've been
testing some of those really kind of
detailed specific things with the groups
um as well as how we establish their
baselines. So, how do we do an audit at
the beginning of this process to make
sure everyone has the appropriate amount
based on the standards of play for their
sport and use that as our baseline and
what an audit process might look like,
you know, every 5 years. So, I think
it's in those level of details where the
sports groups are particularly
interested and we're particularly
interested in making sure we don't do
something that uh throws a wrench in
their registration plans, timelines,
etc.
» Yeah, that's really interesting. It's
good understanding of how complex the
whole thing is when you really get down
to the nuts and bolts of um having it
get down to various club levels. So,
thanks for that.
» Uh thanks uh councelor McCullum uh for
your comments and uh
» Excellent. Thank you very much. and
we'll receive that unanimously uh uh for
council and we'll move into council uh
resolutions and um and uh as mayor I do
have uh the elect respect uh support uh
motion in front of us um and uh okay
» Okay it's been moved and seconded we did
have a discussion uh during the
delegation portion of this so I think we
covered most of the topics I'm not sure
if anybody has any further comments
they'd like to make and I'll pass over
to Council Mort.
» Thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I think it's
all outlined in the motion in terms of
next steps. Obviously, this is um this
is, you know, symbolic. We hope that
people will put it into practice,
obviously. Um,
but I know you're going to be sending it
to UBCM and all those organizations. And
I'm just looking is it it's going out to
the other local governments is it or
» I don't believe the other local
governments are on this list but that
could be something that I think would be
relatively easy to to add uh local
governments in Komox First Nation
posture.
» Yeah. I mean, I know it it means them
putting it on an agenda and, you know,
some of the same people looking at it
again, but I think it would be good to
have a regional approach. And I I
thought the comments earlier were were
good around how this is not about
shutting down um commentary. It's really
about um the stuff that crosses the
line. Um and uh there's a lot of it. And
um and we've had some local examples.
We've had some particularly female um uh
leaders who have uh who've had to um uh
file police reports etc. Um actually
we've we've got kind of a um pro um per
capita I think we have a fairly high
number for for the limited number of
elected officials we have um in terms of
police investigations and things like
that for harassment. So, um you know, a
lot of a lot of the stuff that goes on
people don't don't even hear about, but
it does happen. So, um I think it'd be
good to have a united front and I'm
really hoping that that um although this
is symbolic and it's a statement that
people put it into practice because we
know that words on a screen do does turn
into behavior, the behaviors that we see
don't they start somewhere and it's
usually with those uh uh those uh
comments. Thanks.
» Thanks very much. Yeah, I you know the
idea that um you know the what we really
want to have as an outcome here is more
people involved from across the spectrum
of of all perspectives um but feeling
comfortable they can they can speak uh
their mind without uh fear of being
bullied or intimidated. Uh uh thanks um
and I don't see any other comments. So
uh
» Sorry can I clarify was that a friendly
amendment or are we leaving the motion
as is
» I think a friendly amendment to add
local governments
» To add regional local governments and
comox first nation and the distribution.
» Thanks for that council morren um and I
think that that is absolutely
appropriate. Um and with that uh all
those in favor? Any opposed? And motion
carries. And that gets us into uh
unfinished business. We are at about 12
after 6. Uh we're at a point where
there's a potential we could kind of
power through this and and then have
dinner. That that's kind of my uh my
hope. Um and we'll go from there.
Councelor,
» I'm just wondering if we want to
contemplate um varying the agenda just
for the um first item in the bylaws
because I think that's mainly what um
people are here for and then maybe we
could see from there. I'm not sure if
that works for staff,
» Right? Okay. Um yeah, we we have I think
a couple different groups here. Uh
» Oh, okay. In that case, maybe we'll just
leave it as is. These other items are
pretty small, too. So, the unfinished
business. So, probably won't take long.
We can maybe just
» All right. Well, we'll jump on to 10.1
and try to move through this fairly
quickly. That's the Komalt Valley Food
Policy Council uh from the December 10th
delegation. Um and there was request for
$15,000 financial assistance and I'll
pass it over to Council Morn.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um I don't think
we're just basically responding to this
delegation. Um,
unfortunately, we didn't really get
clarification from the group about what
happened with the funding um through the
regional district because like, you
know, I would think this group would be
able to apply for one of the grants. So,
um, I'm not quite sure what happened
there. Um, I know that it's um it's I
think the I think the presentation
really outlined some of the some of the
um the work that that the group would
like to do with the city in terms of um
advancing the food systems
recommendations and the OCP as well as
some other things that that fit into
what we're doing. Um they talk about um
you know the emergency preparedness
piece which I think also really fits in
with the with the strategy that Miss Bae
was talking about earlier um and things
like the ecosystem resilience and and
promoting you know pollinator habitat
and we know that Komox is has a
designation now and I really don't like
it when Komox gets a designation before
we do on these things but um so I guess
I'm I'm proposing that we do provide a
little bit of funding. I I recognize
that um we shouldn't be paying the the
whole bit and that other local
governments should step up, but I would
propose that we
um I'd like to move that the Komox
Valley Food Policy Council's request um
uh be granted for half of that amount,
not to be included in the motion, but
$7,500
to be allocated from the council
initiatives fund and further that staff
meet with food policy council members
for an initial discussion to explore
potential collaboration to advance
recommendations in the food systems
chapter of Courtney's official community
plan.
And that's the motion if someone's
» Okay and I know that that is already in
our strategic priorities engaging with
the food policy council to identify
needs and and I don't anticipate this to
be a big workload item and recognizing
we are going to go into a new term but I
think it would be helpful to start
having some of those conversations
before the end of the term just to um
yeah just to to get that going. um
recognizing that staff I know is in
contact with with this council um and
hoping that other local governments
maybe come on to to help support some of
the initiatives that uh the food policy
council is they actually are doing a lot
of stuff but it's not that well known
» And to that end would you want to have
other local governments included to on
the um motion if if it passes just so
that there's um they get that
information and know
» I I I'd rather have the Food Policy
Council leave that up to them to present
to the other local governments and work
that out.
» Okay.
» Um I did uh I did check quite a while
ago now with um Mr. Lagmire around um
what was in the council initiatives
fund. There is a little bit of money
still there I believe. So I'm pretty
sure that's what the answer was before.
Anyway, that's what I propose and leave
it open to other comments. Thanks.
» All right. And Mr. Garby,
» Uh, sorry, if I may, uh, just want to
insert myself in this discussion.
Council, just for council's reference,
when we did our strategic plan update,
we did remove working on the FU
initiatives from the 2026 work. So, we
don't have staff time dedicated towards
that. Council may have some monies
available. I just want to remind council
of the direction that we had.
» Sorry, I was thinking that that was
2025, not 2026. Thanks.
» Thanks, Councelor Morren and councelor
F.
» Yes, generally in favor of the first
half of the motion on the money. Um, but
I was going to ask um where we are with
our count council initiatives um budget
slash balance.
» Mr. Legire.
» Well, being a new year, we have the full
budget again and the normal budget is
$75,000
and the initial
financial plan committee the whole work
in November. There's been no changes to
that number for 26.
» Okay. Thank you for that. So, that's
10%. And I I did have a concern about um
moving to ask staff to to h have more
discussions with them if it's not on our
our our current
priority list. Um so if we're going to
move forward with this motion, maybe we
just sever it or I don't know if other
counselors would support just removing
that part from the motion and just
support the first half from now.
» There's no request to sever it. We we
can just separate it. Well, I'll see
what happens.
Yeah, I I would say let's sever it and
and and then we can call questions and
and move through it. Um
yeah, council horn, did you want to
speak to it?
» I just want to send it to
» Okay.
» All right. And
Miss
Councelor McCullum,
» You can call me Miss McCullum if you
want. There were other lights on so but
they've gone off now.
» Um yeah, I think that this is reasonable
to um [clears throat] provide uh the
funding that's been put forward by
councelor Morren. Um I I am supportive
of the work that this um food policy
council is looking to do, but um I also
recognize that you know we're being
asked as far as I can tell from the
budget that they provided to um
fund um all of their um financial ask.
um as the rest of the slide is um in
kind at least that's my understanding
from what they provided but I am filling
in some blanks there. So um much of the
work that they're doing is is for the
whole region and of course um city of
Courtney benefits from that but um we
are not uh the only organization that
exists um to support this work. So I
think this is a good compromise. Um, so
I'm happy to support that and I am in
agreement um that that second piece of
organizing a council meeting um between
council and the food policy is it's a it
it's often not recognized or not obvious
to us um how much work that creates for
staff when we set those up and we are in
the um final months of the term. So, I
think if that's like a coordinated
effort that the next council wants to do
with this uh with the food policy
council, that would make good sense to
do at a later date. So, um that's my
thinking when we vote on the two
motions. Thanks.
» Great. Thanks for that. And back to you,
Council Moore.
» Thanks. Um could I just clarify whether
staff is devoting any time at all in
meeting with the council around I mean
informal I don't know I guess I'm just
curious whether any of this these
conversations are already happening. I'm
fine to have the the motion severed um
and just provide the funding and then
ask the food policy council to go to the
other local governments
» Through the mayor councelor Morin. Uh
the food policy council also has been
invited as a part of the better together
strategy. So we do have staff engagement
with the food policy council and we
engage on certain topics as they come
up. um but there isn't a concerted
effort to coordinate particular pieces
of work or advance particular pieces of
work uh since the strategic priorities
were adjusted. So our priority uh prior
to that was the community garden and
making sure that that service agreement
was in place and that we had uh renewed
that agreement and then planning uh for
the future of the community garden uh
which of course is part of some
recommendations in the OCP but not
necessarily specific to the food policy
council but we do engage with them sort
of intermittently and on other sort of
broader initiatives and I don't know if
um
» Yeah I just wanted to to just clarify
that the community garden is lush and
food policy council is different because
that's been very confusing over the
years. Okay. Thank you.
» All right. Uh that being said, uh the
motions are severed. So we'll start with
motion the first motion for the $7,500.
Uh I think that's clear for everybody.
All those in favor.
Any opposed? And that motion uh carries.
Yeah. Well, we'll just vote on the
second motion uh directing staff to meet
with food policy. Uh, all those in
favor?
» Any opposed? And there we go. We've
deleted it now. So,
I know I know.
» Yes.
» Did you Did Council vote in favor or
were you opposed?
» Well, I would have rather vote on it.
So,
» Yeah,
» I think it was unanimously opposed.
Yeah, Mr. Garin.
» Thank you, Mayor.
In the materials that was provided us,
there's an indication that the the CVD
was going to reduce the budget. I I
don't I not wish the CVD was the budget
reduced and does council support
spending this money subject to the CVRD
and and my apologies. I was trying to
just get clarification as we have done
that in the past with with other
funding. So I I'm sorry if if that
matter has gone forward that I know.
» Yeah.
I I I think I think that uh yeah, I
think we passed that point, but uh
definitely it's you know, I'll look to
our uh directors at the regional
district who can um if something changed
there, then they they can let us know as
well. Um moving on to 10.2 2 um endure
projects palace place um and there is
the request um about the tax exemption
um and so there was a another followup
uh from before and so I'll pass it over
to any council members that would like
to speak to this matter and councelor
Helen.
Yeah, thanks Mayor. I I just wanted to
ask staff if uh if we did look at option
two, what's the significance of
specifying u retroactive versus going
forward from 2026?
» Uh
uh thanks very much. So sorry, I'm just
pulling up the correspondence again.
So essentially there were the the
the request was essentially to
reconsider the uh level of the t the tax
exemption itself. Um in order to for
council to reconsider it, you would have
to rescend your previous motions or
reconsider your previous motions through
a rule to suspend a motion to suspend
the rule which would require um more
than the majority of council to support.
Even then, I would prefer to get a bit
more direction from council to explore
the legal options as far as how we could
go about that. Essentially, the
information that I have around whether
or not council has the ability to
reconsider it right now is that you
really don't. Um that said, if you want
me to see whether or not there's
opportunities to um pass that motion to
suspend the rules, which is not the
question I had asked of our our legal
counsel at the beginning, um that's
something I could definitely go ahead
and do. However, the effect we're able
to undertake that would be the same
where the previous tax exemptions would
be removed. the developer would be
required to repay the taxes that had
been previously exempted and the new
exemption would only apply to future tax
years. So the question still is council
would not really have an opportunity to
make the taxes whole or the exemption
whole in that case. Um and that option
as well has not been explored with the
requester as to whether or not that
would be an acceptable resolution at the
end of it. So if council would like to
explore all potential options within um
our our authorities, I would need
direction to undertake that work.
» Yeah, my inclination is is to uh
ask for a report with options going
forward rather than retroactively, but
I'll see what other people think.
Thanks.
» Uh thanks Councelor Alen and Councelor
Brush.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um, as I stated at
the last meeting, uh, I'm also inclined
to ask [clears throat] staff to report
back with options to provide, um, the
revitaliz revitalization tax exemption.
And, um, my reasoning for that was
stated last time that we put this bylaw
through to get this exact development,
we got this development, and somewhere
along the line it didn't work out uh, to
fit the bylaw. So, um, and I am also
inclined to just move forward and do the
best we can. Um, so my apologies. I
don't think I'm going to support
retroactively, but, um, I'd like to get
staff to report back on 100% tax
revitalization exemption to Palace Place
um, from or for 2026, I believe, would
be the right wording for that.
» Okay. And is are you making a movement?
» Sure. I'll make that a motion if that's
okay.
» Okay. So that's motion now. Okay. And do
you want to speak any further to
» No, that's fine. Thanks. I'll leave it
up.
» And
Councilman,
» Yeah. Um
my recollection is we had a pretty
detailed discussion around this um once
already. um I received information that
um you know there was maybe a different
way to have calculated it and perhaps
our bylaw should look at other things. I
I think we are doing a review of it
through the downtown local area plan
currently. So I don't see a need to
provide further direction on that right
now. We we have already directed uh
staff to come back on that and uh I
don't have an appetite to review this
again. um this is not the not the first
time it's come here and um I think that
it was handled as fairly with um the
information that we had at the time and
my inclination is that um we focus on
providing
fast turnaround with applications for
downtown development and that um we get
we get rid of this or adjust it in some
way because um I don't I don't think
it's actually done what we've wanted it
to in the 8 years I've been on council
and I'm inclined to take a different
approach and I think we'll be getting
some more information around that at
some point and I'm happy to discuss that
then. Thanks.
» Thanks. Thanks for that comment. Um I
don't see any further questions or
comments at this point. Um I saw a
movement there but uh uh seeing that
there's no further questions or
comments, I'll call the question. All
those in favor of the motion on the
screen. Any opposed?
And motion carries with councelor Moore
and councelor McCollum opposed.
And um
uh next we have uh item 11.1.1 amenity
cost charges bylaw number 3207.
And um I'll pass over to Miss Okcon.
» Uh thanks very much. So, as you may
recall, at the last meeting, council
provided direction to staff to bring
forward the bylaw to um undertake and
authorize the ECC uh charges. So, that
is the bylaw that is before council
based on the the decisions made at the
previous meeting. Um I have support from
Nancy Henderson here who from urban
systems who has substantially been who's
been substantially involved in this
project in order to help answer any
technical questions that council may
have. The cover report really just
outlines some of the background. um is a
reminder of some of the options that
were considered in the policy discussion
and essentially sums it up into where we
are today and then includes uh we're
seeking direction from council to twin
the timing of the ACC bylaw final
adoption reading with the DCC bylaw
final adoption reading upon its return
from uh the minister's office and or
sorry the inspector's office and
essentially the intent of that twinning
or that combined time is to provide some
anticipatable and an ease of
implementation So we're not having to
phase in different cost charges at
different times, but actually aligning
them together to have one calculation
and one impact at at the same time.
» Okay.
» All right. Uh thanks very much for that.
I'll look to council and I have
councelor Helian.
» I suppose I have one technical question.
If this uh was passed, how long would it
take for it actually to be implemented?
through the chair. I mean, in terms of
the implementation of the bylaw, as soon
as it's adopted, it could come into
effect. Council has the option to have a
grace period if you wish. Um, however,
the intention, as noted by Miss
Okonnell, was to bring it in alignment
with the DCC adoption. So, that's
currently with the ministry. So, when we
hear back from them, the idea would be
the adoption would happen at the same
time. That being said, in terms of the
implementation of the charges, there is
an instream protection for applications
that are instream with the city. So the
first year of the bylaw, um the inflow
of charges would be relatively slow. Um
and then that would over time uh
increase. So there's a bit of a there's
a couple doublegged approach to that
answer, if you will. and and that one
year sorry uh that one year because
that's what I remember from the DCC is
there would be I don't know if it was a
one-year grace period but there would be
that one-year buffer so just so we're
because what I heard was almost a a
little bit of this and a little bit of
that. Uh so just to be crystal clear is
that one-year buffer going to be applied
to DCC the new DCC's and the new ACC is
that how it would be looked at?
» Yeah, Mr. Mayor. So the there's actually
a difference in terminology between
grace period and the instream protection
just to be clear. So grace period would
be and you could do this with your DCC
VA if you wish is you could adopt it on
February 1st and say it's going to come
into effect on April 1st.
» Uh the instream protection is from the
date of the adoption of the bylaw. So
even if you have that grace period that
instream uh protection would take place
from the adoption of the bylaw. If you
have those complete precursor
applications in, they uh would have the
one year to get their building permit
essentially issued and then if they can
do that in the one year, then they would
not be subjected to the ACC.
» Okay. So, I think that clarifies for me.
Sorry, Councelor Hillian. Does it do you
have a follow-up or
» I I wanted to make some comments. Uh Mr.
Mayor, people will recall that uh when
we dealt with this in December, we had a
lot of uh um letters that were received
from members of the development
community expressing concern about the
direction council was going and um there
was a also a view expressed that there
hadn't been adequate uh engagement with
the development community. Um some of us
did have the opportunity to meet with
representatives of the development
community um since then and I just
wanted to share some of the uh um
feedback that uh was received and ask
staff to to comment on it to help us uh
uh come to a decision on this. Um um so
first of all, one of the assertions was
that the growth pro projections that uh
we're we're working with are unlikely to
be met due to the slowdown in both in
migration and other economic factors. um
that that the smallcale multi-unit uh uh
legislation and and uh process won't
provide the housing projected u as uh
many local builders don't see it as
economical to build. Uh there's a view
that the market can't absorb the uh $200
million project cost that uh that we've
uh identified. Um there's a view that um
our staff reports didn't accurately uh
portray developer feedback. Um and um
there is um
I think a desire for more robust
engagement on an ongoing basis. Um
there's also a concern that um some of
the consultants might not have um uh
have as sufficient local knowledge of
market conditions and such. Um and that
the benefit of our local builder
knowledge hasn't been realized in uh
staff and council deliberations on this
uh on these bylaws.
Um there's a view that the fees really
do need to reflect what the market can
bear. Um and that developers are dealing
with not just these uh proposals but um
a 25% increase uh related to seismic
upgrades, step code increases, other uh
regulations and fees that uh that make
development more challenging. Uh it was
expressed that um there there at least a
couple of projects in town that wouldn't
have been built um if in fact uh these
rates had been in effect. Um and uh one
of the primary reasons is that the banks
simply won't finance
um some of the costs that are involved.
And um questions were asked about
whether we can trim the project list. Um
to what extent uh members of the de
development community can be at the
table and uh are there ways to make the
rates dynamic to react to market
conditions. Um, those are some of the
primary uh messages that that uh that I
heard and and I'd just be really
interested in uh other counselor's
comments and what staff might respond.
Thanks.
» Um, Miss Okonnell,
» Uh, thanks very much. So, um, for
councelor Hillian, there's, uh, the
items that you've just spoken to, and
I've done my best to try and jot them
all down, so I I understand. Um, some of
the comments that you're relaying, um,
actually speak to the professional
capabilities of both staff and the
consultants. If council would like us to
look into those accusations that are
being made, uh, we could absolutely do
that. Uh I'm not interested in getting
into a debate at this point and I'm not
sure if that was the intent. However,
components like um that staff reports
didn't accurately portray developer
feedback. It would be nice to know where
specifically where that concern is
raised from relative to the many
examples and opportunities where we did
engage specifically the development
community in a very intentional and
comprehensive way with a plan that was
endorsed by council. um the desire for a
ro more robust engagement um that is
always an option. The uh engagement can
be enhanced with the understanding that
that is a service level increase and
would require the resources in order to
provide that service level increase. So
in the future, if council wants us to go
back on this one, we can definitely do
that, but it will require rep
prioritization of 2026 work plan items
as well as the resources necessary to
undertake that work as a priority item.
In regard to consultants not having
sufficient local knowledge on market
conditions, again, that is a significant
uh comment and commentary on
professional firms that we rely on in
order to inform these policy decisions.
So council can make the informed
decision. If council would like us to
look into a separate validation process,
um that is something that we would
require direction on and that is
absolutely something that we could
undertake if council shares those
concerns. As far as the technical
questions in regards to um whether or
not we can trim the project list, um I
have projects in town that would not
have been built if rates had been cut.
Um that is a very hard thing to cast
back on and to validate those kinds of
comments. Uh, so I'm not sure if we're
going to be able to answer that for
council in regards to the shoo and the
legislation not providing the housing
projected. That's very challenging
because really that is what the
provincial government and their policy
analysts have deemed as one of the main
ways or primary ways of increasing
housing availability and dealing with
the housing crisis we're experiencing on
a province level. So I wonder where that
information is coming from and whether
or not the information has been shared
with the province. If that is really the
reality, it means the provincial policy
approach to this is not effective on
whole, or at least that's what the
assertion is in a comment like that. Um,
with that, I will pass it over to Nancy
Henderson to talk about some of the
technical aspects, but if council would
like to provide direction on those other
items to conduct investigations into the
professional conduct and information of
our staff and third party consultants,
please go ahead and do so.
uh through the chair. I guess it's in
terms of the growth projections. Uh we
use the 2024 BC stats data to form uh
the basis of our projections. Uh we did
review this project's been going on
since then. Um we did review the 25 uh
BC stats projections for the city which
have actually decreased slightly because
of the immigration policy as as noted.
Um however the impact of changing the
projections to the 2025 projections
would have actually increased the amount
of the ACC. So we elected to stick with
the 2024 uh projections for that
purpose. Um they are fairly conservative
projections. We certainly weren't using
like the housing need reports or
something that's a little more
aspirational at a higher housing rate.
Um when we went through uh for each land
use category, we need to allocate the
different type of development we project
to see over 20 the next 20 years. Um the
amount that was allocated to the low
density amount where you know that's
most of the shoo housing falls into that
um is actually a very low number. Uh so
it wasn't using uh the province's shoo
projections that we've used in other
studies and aspects. So I know sometimes
there might be a bit of confusion there
because we have uh used those
projections in in other work but it was
a I think about a 10% allocation to the
low density charge. Um once you get into
like duplexes and plexes they do fit
that townhouse charge but as do uh
larger townhouse developments. Uh so I
hope that helps with the understanding
of the decision- making because we're
balancing the count the developer
feedback of not wanting to increase
rates with the decision- making
regarding the projections and as we know
markets do change and with those market
changes like so does population
projections change and it is a 20-year
study. So if you're to look backwards uh
20 years we're you know we're kind of in
line. We're a very um high growth high
demand area as well. Uh so we wanted to
not increase the rates anymore because
the the land use economist that did do
the analysis was very clear uh to keep
the rates no higher than where they were
when we did the engagement back in the
summer. Um, so we've really focused on
that uh and keeping them sort of at that
consistent rate.
» And uh, yeah,
» Thanks, Mayor. I I just want to clarify,
thanks to staff for those responses. It
certainly wasn't my intent to uh attack
or challenge the qualifications uh of
staff or or consultants, but merely to
to share opinions that had been
expressed um in in um the consultations
that took place uh where primarily the
feeling was that uh uh these changes are
going to have a significant impact on
the uh um the housing targets that we
have and and the ability of our local
builders to achieve them. Thanks.
» Thanks for that clarification, Councelor
Hill and Mr. Gar.
» Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through to council
as a whole. Um, you know, we and our
professional work that we do are acting
on council's direction and as you heard
earlier today about the desires to
manage the costs to the community. We
have a limited number of opportunities
and the province has significantly
altered what's accessible to
municipalities. And in the past, a
number of these amenities would actually
been levered out of uh development
applications. And so we only have a we
actually have a limited tools now that
we can work through on this. And these
what's come forward is what council has
identified as these sort of priorities
for us. Um
we can appreciate there's entrepreneurs
that are investing in this community and
have for many years. uh and we wouldn't
be in a position to have any kind of
housing unless people built those
houses. So it's it's a really ch it's a
very very difficult challenge in front
of us. Um
I would say that uh particularly with
the ACC's our our director of
development services uh our previous
director of development services
insisted that we have an economic
analysis as it relates to these ACCs.
uh other communities in the valley that
have brought forward ECC's have not
undertaken that work and so we we
actually took that extra step and so
again if this if the outcome of the work
um from third party consultants is is
actually insufficient um it's a step
that we actually took recognizing how
impactful these could be and council may
recall that um the uh levies that we
were trying to do around other amenities
you know have been have been also very
challenging in the community
so So I I [clears throat] offer that we
find ourselves in a situation um where
is growth going to proceed? Is this
going to impact growth? We also am now
absorbing the concept and the shared
understanding that CFP Comox and its
expansion is actually going to now have
actually known pressure inside the
community. So we most of our development
growth is was kind of unknown and we
react but um and lots of discussions
have been happening and we know at a
minimum you know these kinds of this
kind of job growth is going to be there
which will require the housing and so um
you know I offer that having projections
are extremely challenging at the best of
times and now we have this combination
of potential economic changes but at the
same time we know there's going to be
direct investment in a jurisdiction
that's going to directly impact the city
of Courtney and needed housing. And so
we're working as best we can with the
development community balancing the
costs and needs uh to address this new
growth in the community. And uh at this
point, you know, your staff have
provided to you and and I've endorsed a
report to take forward. Council can
provide us with political direction in
this regard and we'll respond. And I
would say the timing of this work
relative to what's about to happen in
November. And I will say that if we get
alternative direction to do significant
amount of work, we are butdding up right
up against the next coming changes. And
so with the uh issues at hand, it would
be um important work that we would have
to prioritize uh in the next very short
period of time and it would be likely
very difficult uh to adjust that. Having
said that though,
clear direction has been given to
council to stay on top of these things
to make that make sure they're accurate,
timely, um and um at the cutting edge of
what development is needed. Um we have
uh a number of needs inside the
community that primarily this amenity
cost charges um related to the outdoor
pool if uh what has been presented to
council has been adjusted because of the
cost of the pool. And so we will have to
re-engage uh and understand those things
because there are important community
growth impacted amenities um that are
not included in this recognizing the
fact that there is this you know big
priority project. So this is a
long-winded way of saying that what's in
front of council reflects what council
has asked us to do. It's consistent with
our capital projects. It's consistent
with our strategic priorities. It's
consistent with what the community plan
has asked us for. and it responds to
what the provincial direction has been
and our staff serve at your direction
and uh we will ultimately take that.
Thanks Mr. Garvid and I think one of the
other comments was if it's not on the
list we also can't apply for grants for
it either. So um that's one of the one
of the challenges if it goes off the
list then I believe that that was
another um thing Mr. Garbett
sorry Mr. Uh we uh typically any grants
require you know matching budget funds
but no it does would not have to be in
an ACC list for us to apply for a grant
and staff could correct me if I've
answered incorrectly.
» All right.
» I think Mr. Mayor what you're referring
to is the promise from the federal
government to provide um relief around
DCC and ACC costs to developers. Yeah.
the policy approach or the policy
options as to how that money will flow,
who it'll flow to, what it will cover,
and whether or not a cost sharing
approach will be included has not been
announced. We don't have any early
indications at this time. However, if
the plan, if the federal government, as
they've stated, is to offset the cost of
DCC's. Not having a project on the list
would likely make that project
ineligible to access that federal
funding.
» Yeah. And and that's kind of how I'm
interpreting it as well. So, you know,
again, it's a bit of an unknown, but uh
definitely uh big moves coming uh later
this year. So, uh Oh, yeah. No, Mr.
Garin, also want to clarify, the topic
of discussion is amenity cost charges,
not development cost charges, and the
federal government didn't talk about
funding ACC's. So, just to keep keep us
on uh on the uh matter on the agenda.
» Thanks. Thanks for that clarification,
Council Moore.
» Great. Thanks, Mayor. Um my question is
around the grace period not the instream
protection. Um so I heard you say that
when when and if it comes back um the
bylaw would be enacted but we could
delay the when it's enacted. Is that is
that correct?
» Through the chair. Uh it is possible for
a council to adopt a bylaw and set a
date for when it becomes uh the charges
become in effect.
» Uh that could be beyond the date of
adoption. Okay.
» And that's an option for council. Uh
just keeping in mind the instream
protection is from the date of adoption,
not the date of the great grace period.
» The date Oh, from the date of adoption.
» Okay.
All right. I just was trying to think of
a way that we could maybe extend the the
grace period, but doesn't look like
that'll fit. Thanks.
» Thanks, Council Warren and Councelor Fr.
» Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I'll just
highlight that. Um,
I mean, this issue
has input from so many different
perspectives. You know, us at the table,
we see it differently than um the
construction industry. We see it
differently than staff. we see it
differently than people who already own
a house versus people who want to buy a
house. So, uh, our job obviously is to
balance that all out. And, um, yeah,
there's I don't think anyone's pointing
fingers. It's just everyone has a
different perspective and we all have to
figure out what the solution is. Um
I'm wondering if we have an ACC project
and um we don't collect enough money for
it and then you know down the road we go
well maybe we're just not going to do
that. What what happens to that money
through the chair? I mean the money the
money would just stay in the ACC reserve
and be directed to other projects. Uh it
is possible to advance a project before
you have money to pay for it all, but
then that project would stay on the ACC
list until the funds were received. So a
project could be on the list for 20 or
or longer years uh if growth was slower
than anticipated and then once it that
project's been paid for then it would
come off the list, right? Um, I think
it's also important to note that like
should the city receive funding, grant
funding for example, you should be doing
an amendment to the bylaw to reflect
that funding uh because that could also
decrease the cost would decrease the
cost of the ACC and it's something that
is a best practice and it's not always
followed. So, you know, considering the
market conditions that are in right now,
if there's a commitment to apply for
funding and you get that funding, you
know, committing to make sure that that
administrative work is done, I'm sure it
would be also important to the
development community.
» And then that applies to DCC's all
everything you just said.
» Yeah, the chair. Yes, it does.
» Okay, great. Um, I guess I'm interested
in maybe looking at the assist factor
and what what that could mean. Um I
don't know the numbers off the top of my
head but um you know could we say well
for the next two years uh considering
the you know economic climate we'd like
to provide a 20% assist factor which
would essentially lower what we bringing
in in for ACC's is is that something we
need to would that be a lot of work to
figure out what those numbers are
» Uh through the chair the assist factor
is council's tool you know to reduce the
impact of ACC's you know The effect is
the assist factor amount that it would
lower the ACC ends up being a burden on
the existing tax base. So as long as you
recognize that that is a a tool council
has and you could phase it in um you
could say in year one it's a 20%, year
two it's 15% you know and so on. Um and
then the cost of that uh you know staff
could potentially report back on the
impacts. So we don't have to do mental
math tonight but just in terms of uh you
know looking at the impact to that would
be put on the municipal responsibility.
Uh that is an option to council.
» Yeah. And if and if we did something
like that and it turns out that this was
a great boon for development and would
we could we in essence collect more in
ACC's than we plan to um or does the
number just I mean do we reach our 80%
of their allotted responsibility
knowing that we're covering 20 and then
we just stop we just take it off the
list and say we've collected money or I
assume it wouldn't be down to the
project like that anyways would it?
Yeah, through the chair. I mean, this is
why it's important to update these
charges regularly and look at what
you're collecting and do development
projections and as you do cost estimates
on these projects to also update the
costs because these are basically
highlevel cost estimates. Once they get
accurate, the project costs might go up,
it might go down, but that does impact
uh the charge overall. So these should
be like living you should be paying
attention uh to the cost to the
development projections and making
adjustments um often the DCC uh because
you're going to the inspector
municipalities and it's quite a process
uh they tend to be you know a little bit
longer. years got a little bit too long
in all honesty, but like in that sort of
3 to four year timeline for a major
review, if you get a huge grant, you
should you should do that minor
amendment and the ministry deals with
that differently. But when you're
talking about an ACC bylaw, it's just
like all the other CDs bylaws, and you
don't need that um approval from the
inspector, but you do need to do some
consultation. But I expect if you're
bringing forward a grant to reduce the
cost of the ACC, you know, the level of
engagement for something like that
should be quite minor.
» Yeah. I guess my thinking then back back
to the assist factor is that um our
development community is telling us that
uh projects might not be financially
possible or won't be funded by banks.
Banks will see the projects as
unfundable.
» [clears throat]
» And um yeah, it's hard it's hard to
know. I mean, I would assume they know
or they feel like they know. And um
yeah, it's hard to to decide how much
support to give to that industry. Um but
I'd be interested in in in getting some
numbers back on assist factors for ACC.
And I guess my next question would be um
is that possible to do for DCC's if we
want to look at if we want to look at
that. I know we sent did we send that
off already because we gave it three
ratings, but is that an option that
council still has on that because I know
ACC's are a rather small part of this
whole thing.
» Right, Miss uh Okono. Um so just as u
NY's reference kind of the trade-off so
it's a bit like if you uh increase the
assist factor here um because the
development community would be paying
less you see an increase that would
correspond on the taxpayer side as far
as funding the plan that the city has
made in the capital program that council
has identified as important through the
engagement processes that we undertake.
My I would recommend to council if you
want to look at those considerations
that you do them in context with the
overall financial planning process and
really look first at the projects
themselves and then consider the funding
mechanism that you would prefer in order
to make those projects come to fruition.
It's very hard because the ACC bylaw
itself, similarly to the DCC bylaw, is a
mechanism to pay for the infrastructure
we need and the priorities that we have
been um provided direction from council
on. Really the big changes would stem
from changing priorities or changing the
plan the time horizon and things like
that. So really this isn't a
conversation that happens in isolation
related to this one mechanism. is part
of a bigger consideration planning
process and perspectives when it comes
to whether or not the projects are
necessary and who pays for those
projects based on who benefits the most
and where the burden can be borne. So,
um, happy to do the work, but I would
say out of the context of the longer
financial plan and the capital plans,
um, it's very problematic to see how an
action over here may cause challenges
for what council has already identified
around tax rates and sustainability in
the future, especially based on
conversations that have happened earlier
tonight and uh, previously in committees
as a whole when we were talking about
the budget.
» Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. Thanks for
that. I'll I'll digress and let others
speak. Thanks, Councelor F and Mr.
Corbett.
» Yeah. Thanks. Uh I just would to weigh
in ultimately we've done significant
amount of work. If if the issue is a cis
factor, we've actually asked council for
direction on that. That's that's not a
significant change. If it's removing
projects, there's there's significant
amount of work to do that. And then
there also is implications because some
of those projects may or may not
actually be directly related to
development that has frontage there. And
so sometimes we have development uh uh
development that has uh dcc credits
towards that. So I guess it would
suggest that council has given us
direction to go down a route. Uh if
we're talking about assist factor that's
a type of work talking about what is a
dcc project that's that's also important
work but at this time um you know we
we're looking for some really clear
direction from council in here to come
back on items. Uh remind council that we
worked regionally to try and coordinate
this as well. I understand actually
though the CVRD has adopted their sewer
DCC. Uh the intention was to kind of
coordinate this so it would all be
landing at the same time. So developers
would be um responding to um you know in
a comprehensive way but uh we we're just
already starting dcc calculations or
sorry there are they will be impacting
at a different time from a year from
now. We are not doing any different
calculations right at this point. My
apologies. Um so if if council can uh
let us know where you want to go, we the
staff can respond. Um, yeah, this is, as
I said in my long-winded discussion
around ACC's, it's not easy at this
point. And, uh, council, we're here to
get council direction on on this matter.
» Thanks, Mr. Garbett and Council
McCullen.
» Yeah, I mean, adding charges and
updating DCC's, I it's a major impact.
It's a major change. Um, as has been
highlighted already tonight, our DCC
bylaw was more than a decade out of date
and it really hasn't been adjusted to
meet the rising costs of what
what our capital demands are. Um, and
then I I don't know if we've lost sight
of this to a degree and in kind of
getting into the details of this, but
the ACC's were brought on by the
province to provide certainty around
development costs in order to get rid of
what was um, you know, amenity
contribution negotiations at resoning.
And what we've done instead is um
implemented a major change to our zoning
bylaw that allows for much more
development to occur on development
lots. And and this is the trade-off. And
unless we proceed with that trade-off,
we don't really understand the impact.
There has been um a benefit provided.
We've we've reduced parking requirements
on just about every type of residential
development that can occur in the city.
We are allowing more to happen on on
single family lots all the way up to um
you know our highdensity areas and we've
given up the ability to negotiate um
amenities to come from those. So this
this is the tool that we have and um
this is the process that we've followed
um very thoroughly um with some very um
detailed reports and discussion that's
led up to this point. So um I'm I'm
fairly comfortable with where that is
and yeah it I mean it doesn't need to go
to the inspector of municipalities um
in the same way that the DCC's are. So
perhaps there will be changes to it. But
I would also remind that um I'm sure
that if we didn't change any of our
property taxes and did it all in one go,
it would be a major sticker shock too,
which is essentially what we have done
here. Um
and I mean our our previous discussion
tonight around um what we're grappling
with in terms of property taxation
increases. We we have a lot of
downloaded costs from higher levels of
government that used to get, you know,
66% of our capital. Um projects were
being funded and now we're being asked
to do, you know, at at our sewer
commission committee yesterday. We're
looking at a hund00 million project with
basically no funding from higher levels
of government. And the end result is
that we have to increase things um
faster than inflation as we're not
getting that support. So, the money has
to come from somewhere and I'm not
comfortable um asking our taxpayers to
take a bigger piece of that pie than
what's fair. So, um this is the the best
solution that we have at this point. And
yes, there are going to be impacts from
it. And um you know, if those impacts
end up being more than than what makes
sense, they they can be revisited. and
um I'm I'm comfortable proceeding with
what's in front of us um tonight. Thank
you.
» Thanks uh Councelor McCullum. Maybe I'll
just ask a clarifying question um uh
just because what keeps coming back to
us and again hopefully things don't
don't get delayed so long but um back in
2016 and then when we visit DCC's again
uh I know I asked the question around
CPI and whether or not CPI is
automatically um included in those
calculations. So going forward again we
can sit down and and re-evaluate those
projects. But just in the absence of
that uh happening um uh is there some
mechanism like CPI that keeps those
amounts going up so that we're not doing
this catch up like we are with with
DCC's right now.
» Uh Mr. Mayor, the best practice is to do
your dcc amendment every year to capture
that CPI amount. That that does not need
to go to the inspector of
municipalities, right?
» And I think what happened is the the
city also was not doing that until very
recently. So it really fell behind. Uh
so that would be a recommended best
practice for uh both bylaws.
» Okay. Um
um All right. I appreciate that uh
clarification. and councelor Brish.
» Yeah, thanks. I have two two more
questions. Um, one is around the sort of
all-in DCC and ACC costs per per unit
per square meter. I guess we have the
three different densities and um, do we
have that number that includes the
regional district and the Courtney's
proposed numbers?
And I'm sorry I'm trying to dig up the
dcc's from the last discussion and add
them into the ACC's but is that
something that is possible to share with
me at this time like what is it let's
just talk about a house simple house
like what is the full number?
» Yeah through the chair I mean that
information has been presented to
council previously. Uh you know I want
to look at the exact bylaw that the CVRD
uh did adopt. Uh we could probably find
it pretty quickly. I think there the low
density charge was roughly $18,000 a lot
for the sewer and um Miss Okonnell might
be pulling it up uh for the other
charges that you know significantly
decrease decrease from there.
» Yeah. Yeah. I did get the dcc's um that
we had for the RD and Courtney
and then I guess um is he RD doing ACC's
or
» Oh, sorry Saunders.
» I was that close.
» Thank you. The mayor of councelor Fr. Uh
the regional district has given staff
direction to uh look into an ACC, but
they have not uh they were staff were
waiting for direction from the
recreation commission on the uh new
arena or the additional arena. Now that
they've received that direction and they
know what type of arena they're planning
for, uh they expect to start working on
uh ECC's this year. So they have not
started that process. Um but they will
be starting it this year.
» Great. Thanks for that. I guess I guess
my my interest is in looking into um an
assist factor on both. And it doesn't
maybe it doesn't have to be huge. I'm
actually um not exactly clear on what
the old numbers are were to what the new
numbers will be. And um I don't know if
I've had enough time to contemplate what
kind of assist factor I'd even be
willing to give um let alone the rest of
council. So um yeah, I'd love Sorry, go
ahead. If you have more information, I'
I'd take it. It sounded like someone was
going to speak there. Nope, not yet. And
so I'm I'm I'm inclined to ask for that
information um for ACC's at least. And
then knowing that I'll probably ask the
same thing when the DCC bylaw comes
back.
So maybe while we're waiting, we can
move on to the council more.
» Yeah. I mean, uh, councelor McCollum
gave some examples of how we're trying
to help developers
with costs like the parking and things
like that. And I know that um our city
manager had uh had mentioned this before
around some of those other policy
changes um in terms of of helping to
alleviate some of the costs. So I'm just
curious whether um Mr. but feels
comfortable with talking about some
other things that are in the pipeline to
offset you know some of the
some of this uh
» And if you don't you know through the
mayor it's just I I don't want to
overstate I mean we we're working uh
with council direction on a number of
adjustments and we had talked about
adjustments uh council column talked
about that um we're uh with the
direction of our acting director. We're
working on our processes. Um
we've had uh improvements in the return
of uh bonding and costing. That's that's
an impact for developers. I I don't have
a detailed list right in front of me
right now. However, um uh you know,
forming uh good working groups to try
and engage uh uh grant resources. Um we
mentioned CFP Comox as a bit of a
catalyzing factor right now. Um a lot of
that is going to impact all forms of
infrastructure in the community. uh
forming a a you know a working group or
task force on uh trying to uh both speed
development applications, raise the
priority of our community for um grant
applications which
our uh colleague has talked about how we
would amend development cost charges for
that. Um speeding our uh processes uh
ultimately uh amending zoning in areas.
Um, one of our large, well, basically
the largest developer in our community
has pre-zoneed land that staff are
working right now with great development
consultants that are working on behalf
of that development to, um, fine-tune
and and address the market.
» These are some of the things that we're
doing. Um
uh sorry that that that the complaint.
Um likewise um you know um making sure
that we have uh better uh and more um
effective customer service in place to
move applications through um is a is a
critical component because time is
money. And then uh just as as recently
as yesterday, I know that elected
officials met with uh development
community, but we talked about the city
trying to engage with the other
regulatory agencies um that affect the
development process. But the these are
just examples and and and we've we've
all heard about timelines uh very
extended timelines. Council dealt with
an extended timeline uh expeditiously uh
once uh we uh received some really clear
direction. Um but those are examples.
Um, and I I know my head colleagues are
doing some uh additional work. Feel like
I might be holding airspace. [laughter]
» All right, I see Miss Okonnell's
microphone's ready.
» So, the quickest place I could find the
majority of the information of all the
different pieces was actually on the
engage page where we provided all the
materials and if this was directly from
one of the presentations. Um so as an uh
an example the um DCC's or the draft
rates for Courtney at the time well were
21 for sorry for a low density
residential as an example were 21,337
for the town of Komox for the same it
was uh 30,792
um for
» Okay
» And then for the um CBRD So for the
sewer it's for low density residential
it's $18,042.
For medium residential it's uh 9,800 and
change. Um so when you combine those
rates there's like five different
categories. You'd have to add each of
them up. But we're consistent with our
municipal comparators across both um
ACC's and DCC's and or below.
» If I could just thanks for that. I know
we're sort of mixing two discussions
here.
» Um,
one of the reasons I bring that up is
because, you know, we also heard from
the development community that, you
know, time is money as well. And I know
this would have been probably at least a
couple years ago now. Um the regional
district was getting a a lot of grief
around um their delayed timelines and
the electoral areas services committee
um gave some really clear direction um
to deal with that. And so what resulted
was um they gave direction for you know
additional resources and staff to get
through that backlog of applications and
they went from I think 3 or 4 months to
like 2 or 3 weeks or something and that
was a couple years ago now. So I think
you know I guess this speaks to the
whole engagement piece as well. Um, I
think whatever we can do to act on those
other things that are costing
costing money and and responding to that
in a in a really clear direct way I
think um I think is important like it
can be done. I think, you know, staff
couldn't, you know, decide that on their
own. That needed to come from the
electoral directors. But it's just one
example of um I think just being more
um I guess just having a better read on
on how those costs um
uh yeah those additional costs um
acknowledging that you know that's not
necessarily part of this discussion but
just part of the whole picture. Thanks.
Thanks, Councelor Morren. And yeah, and
I and I think that there was definitely
a commitment uh uh uh probably from
across mo most of the counselors to to
uh put some energy um and to make sure
that we're having those ongoing
conversations, but also uh when when
it's appropriate and and it's possible
that we're advocating for other things
that are uh causing these um projects to
lose their viability. And so Cichi um
fees which have doubled and and other
things are are places where we can be
advocating um not just uh within
ourselves and within the the Komox
Valley but with the provincial and and
federal counterparts uh that are um
having a deep impact on on the viability
of a lot of these projects as well
beyond um ACC's and DCC's. Um and with
that I'll pass over to councelor Fresh.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor. So, um I just
quickly added up the numbers that you
gave me. Thanks very much. And so for a
single family unit, it looks to be
around $46,000
per door. Um that's seven coming from
our ECC's, 18 from the regional 18,000
from the regional district and um and 21
from Courtney.
And then the um medium density is
$25,000 a door which is three and a half
from our ECC's and 10,000 from the RDS
dcc and 12 from our DCC's. And then
finally the um high density is around
$260 per square meter. Um which I always
think about a thousand uh like square
foot unit, but maybe that's even big.
Maybe they're building 750s. I don't
know. But um that puts it in a similar
range to the medium density depending on
how big of a unit you build. So um I
guess that's where we're at and I just
wanted like that's kind of the all-in
number and it's worth looking at because
if we piece it out into little bits,
it's kind of hard to fathom what what um
the industry is up against. And so I
just want to share that I that we're
hearing those numbers um aren't possible
and it's going to scare away development
or or just make it not possible. So, in
light of that, I I would be interested
in hearing about what an assist factor
of say 5 and 10% might mean for us and
how that would change the numbers
compared to the old numbers. Um, and
wonder if we can do that for just, you
know, a year or two like to ease to ease
the development community into this idea
of these new fees. Uh, is that possible
to say we want to do an assist factor
for one year and then review it or two
years or whatever?
Thank you chair. It's absolutely
possible. That's council's discretion
and it's just as staff has noted it will
impact uh cost to the taxpayer by that
amount. But it's absolutely possible for
council to provide that direction. Um
and you could do that solely for the ACC
program. Uh if you wish you could apply
it the same as this factor to the DCC
program as a whole or you could also
apply it just to say transportation for
example um that would be at council's
discretion.
» The one thing I would note though if
you're if council wishes to direct
changes um to the assist factor to the
development cost charge uh we do have
that in at the inspector of
municipalities. So, we I can't imagine
it influencing um their approval of the
bylaws, but they do sign off on the
bylaws. So, we'd want to do that
amendment and provide that update to
them uh while they're in their review.
» Well, we would basically put them on
hold. Yeah. And would would it make
mathematical sense to assume that if
we're giving a 5% assist factor that it
would decrease those per door costs by
about 5% for for our portion for our DCC
or our ACC or is it am I missing missing
the calculation a bit
» Through the chair? Yeah, the 5% would be
based on the developer's portion and
then that savings just or that savings
that the developer has just gets
transferred to the municipal
responsibility,
» Right?
» Um but we could illustrate how that
assist factor um is impact in a in a
separate column essentially for
council's consideration at a future
time. Yeah, I I mean I'm having a hard
time understanding what is going to make
and what's going to break development
and um but it has been argued that of
course if you get far less development
then you're going to get far less DCC's
and ACC's as well. So that's what I'm
contemplating. Um I see one more light
two more lights so I'm going to let go.
Thanks.
Thanks, Councelor Fish and uh Council
Helen. And I just want to acknowledge
that we're way past the 6:30 deadline
that I thought we would have for dinner.
So, I do I'm just going to apologize
right now. I know we're uh probably
starving, so I just want to acknowledge,
but councelor, floor is yours.
» Yes, decisions made when uh hungry and
tired. Um
so there's there's one part of this that
still confuses me and and um when I
asked the question earlier about the
time um it would take for the uh
implementation
um part of what I was mindful of was in
the um the guide for elected officials
that uh we were provided with which was
referenced in the staff report there's a
section that um talks about um assessing
potential development impact act and it
says staff will evaluate and advise
elected officials whether proposed ACC's
will deter development or discourage the
construction of reasonably priced
housing adjustments by elected officials
to the assist factor or providing a
grace period or phasing in of ACC's
rates could be considered at this stage.
So,
forgive me if I missed it, but have we
have we considered the possibility of
phasing in and what that would involve
and what the pros and cons of that
» Mr. Gman?
» Yeah, thank you.
Are we had responded that we council
gave direction on the cis factor, give
direction on those timing? We we have
responded to that. So I what I have not
heard is any actual direction from
council in terms of would you like to
consider this for send it back for some
more information you know we do need
some some direction you have received uh
with respect to ACC specifically we
engaged net it was not missenderson's
firm we had a secondary firm do an
economic analysis that was included in
the original information that was
provided to council that we were
referencing that u that was a step that
we did specifically um in accordance
with the best practice guide. Um, and
you've received information from
developers that it will impede and so we
have a difference of opinion. Uh,
ultimately you could ask you give us
direction to get some more information
on the impact of assist factors um about
the timeline and etc. And so that I mean
we we can't really give you any guidance
about that uh in terms of what but it is
in fact possible yes to do that um and
uh um we we would take council's
direction in that regard.
» Thanks Mr. Urban and um Council McCullum
» At the risk of lengthening this
discussion. Um just I I I found the
summary of the calculation of all these
different fees coming in helpful. I
think we did see some of that way back
in this discussion but um I think it's
good to revisit. But then the other
piece that I just wanted staff to
clarify on record with the largest one
being what we call a single family lot,
which is of course no longer a single
family lot at all and that um you could
do a lot more than single family.
What is the maximum number of units that
can fit on um a lot under that um 40
some odd thousand dcc?
» Do the chair. Um just a point of
clarification on the low density charge
from your old bylaw. So your old bylaw
you would require the single detached
house and then there would be a fee for
both the city and the regional district
for carriage homes where the new
lowdensity charge includes a carriage
home, a suite and a um and this the main
dwelling. And then if you were to do a
duplex, you would essentially charge two
medium density uh charges, which isn't
that all that different from just a
little bit more uh than the single low
density charge. So that's why comparing
the old rates to the new rates is apples
to oranges because there's more that's
allowed under under that first rate and
then the uh carriage home if you had a
second carriage home would go to the
apartment rate. I think it's also
important to note and I can't speak for
them but the city squared work uh that
was done also was looking at
inclusionary zoning uh which was another
tool that council could have used um and
it and it's basically recognized that
you couldn't have the increased DCC's
the ACC's and inclusionary zoning. So my
understanding was that council did um
sort of move away from the requirement
of inclusionary zoning. So that's like
another example that that council
already considered uh when looking at
the rates. Like I think there's been a
number of concessions over the course of
this um study, including the reduction
of the number of projects on the ACC
list and the parks list um to try to fit
it in to what would be uh financially
viable for certain uh types of
development. right now in this market. I
mean, there's people in the room that
could clearly tell you that there's a
lot of development that just clearly
isn't viable under the existing DCC or a
future DCC. But the uh land use
economics work that I believe city
square did did illustrate um with some
upzoning and other things that the city
is looking at that there were some
developments based on the charges not
getting any higher than they are that
were marginal.
Thanks for that and councelor FR.
» Yeah, well [clears throat] I remember
you mentioning that before the single
family home includes up to three units
and it does seem like a steal of a deal
in a lot of ways and it makes me think
maybe we really need to be looking at
the high density and are we discouraging
high density you know 700 square foot
units,000 square foot units um which I
think we really want for a lot of
reasons. One is the obvious need to
densify if we're not going to sprawl,
but otherwise
um the value to our community and
getting and using our infrastructure
more efficiently. Like there's a lot of
advantages to having um condominiums and
and rental apartments. And is this price
um is this price the right one to
incentivize that versus
um trying to do more single family lots
where you know if you get three units on
a lot it's it it does seem quite
affordable that way
» To the chair just to answer that
question. So it's not possible to do a
assist factor for a specific land use
category. uh so it has to be by DCC
program type uh transportation sewer
water drainage for example you can't say
we want to assist apartment um and then
when you go back to like why is the
apartment that way why does it come out
I mean it's a very um well somewhat of a
complicated model that you how you
calculate the dcc charges but you know
we're looking at you know the population
projections we're looking at per
household data um and So that's just
sort of how it computes out you know
based on the best practice approach to
calculating DCC's. So to tinker with the
apartment um one specifically like you'd
essentially be uh sort of tinkering with
like people per households or like
equivalency factors which are like
technically based engineering uh
requirements. So it's really difficult
to kind of look at that one land use
category and say I really wish that
would be lower.
» Okay. Thank you for that. Makes sense.
Um so in view in light of that I' I'd be
interested in having staff come back
with a little um a little more not
information actually just some option
around um some grace periods you know
maybe 3 months 6 months um and some
assist factor you know five and 10% and
I can put that into the form of a motion
if that's okay with you mayor. So, I'll
move that staff uh come back to council
with options for a grace period and for
[snorts] assist fact an assist factor
for the ACC bylaw.
» And Mr. Garbett need a little bit more
on what type of grace period and
timeline just if we can assist that
because uh we need to we need to be more
more specific there
» For phasing.
» Sure. Um, would you like me to restate a
motion?
» I think so.
» Okay.
» I know it's getting late and we're at
[clears throat] that point, but
» I'll do my best. I'll move that staff
come back to council with options for
phasing in the ACC bylaw for three and
six months and also for an assist factor
of five and 10% and well and one's
already provided. So,
Um, we don't have a secondary yet.
» Okay. And do you want to speak to it
further?
» Well, yeah. Just I'll just just to
clarify like I'm interested in the grace
period like if we if we do end up
passing this this uh winter, you know,
maybe we do push it off for a few months
just to give a bit more time. And then
um also the assist factor for a period
of time whether it's a year or two years
um to be reassessed later on. You know
maybe the market conditions change.
Maybe we find that uh it's not such a
big scary thing after all or maybe we
find everything's dropped off the map
and it's we need to reconsider how how
we're the projects [clears throat] we're
looking at basically I guess. And so
that's why I suggested the five and the
10%. [gasps]
Okay. Is that is that clear to anyone?
» Well, I think it's getting written up
right now and then
once it's up on the screen, you can just
confirm that that uh reflects
your intent.
» That's perfect. Um and after factors of
5 to 10%
or
say two years, I don't know. I guess we
can change that when it comes back to
see what those dollars look like. But
» And and it might be rather than dashes
the word and just because
that that that just kind of articulates
the
» Yeah, I just five and 10%. You're right.
It's we don't want we don't want
everything in between. Thanks. That's
perfect. Thank you.
» See? Yeah. Okay. Um and councelor
McCullum, um is this to the motion on
the floor now or?
» Yeah, it's just a clarifying question.
Um so if we provide this direction to
staff um I mean this is around the
implementation of the amenity cost
charge bylaw could we proceed with first
second and third reading and then um
this would inform adoption or um would
this have to delay the readings of the
bylaw as well?
» Mr. Con? Um, so it depends. Um, if the
intent or the belief is that the report
coming back would result in council's
desire to amend the bylaw, um, for
tonight, you I would recommend you
consider first and second. That way,
we're not considering the having to
resend third reading. At the same time,
um, having the bylaw split and now
potentially moving out of sync with the
DCC bylaw, that will also have kind of
some implications as well. So um yes, we
can def you can consider first and
second reading, provide the direction
based on this and then essentially I
wouldn't um bring the the bylaw back for
third reading consideration until we've
had a chance to undertake this work and
report back to council. And whether or
not the dcc bylaw comes back from the
province before then or not, it's the
timing may be off, which will impact our
current work because we're actually
preparing to implement some of these
fees and and get all of our ducks in a
row for when that time comes. So, we'll
just have to do some some tweaks on the
work plan as well.
» Okay. Thanks for that clarity.
» Right. Thanks for that that that
clarification. Um and councelor Mo.
Thanks, Mayor. Um, so just um reflecting
on what Miss Okonnell said earlier
around how um there, you know, there's a
domino effect with um the tax rates,
etc.
I'm not sure if um councelor Fr had
intended to have that as part of the
information that comes back. Um I mean
we've we've approved the the increase
for this year but
adjusting this would impact you know
future
tax rates. So I I don't know how full
wholesome of information
you're expecting like do we want to know
um how that's going to impact the the
numbers next year and beyond?
» And [clears throat]
uh Mr. department.
» The chair, we're we're having a a good
engaged discussion. I I had asked our
finance officer what the if we did not
proceed in in this current year, what
does that do for our taxation?
» Maybe ask Adam to recount the
conversation we had.
» Yeah. So if there is a delay in the
adoption of the ACC or DCC bylaw, there
will not be a direct impact on the
financial plan that council has been
presented with so far. What that
financial plan does not have though is
any of these projects in it.
Um, there are a handful of items that
would receive additional funding if the
ACC and DCC bylaws are adopted, which
would actually reduce the tax increases
required in the current year in
the financial plan is presented. So,
it's kind of a blend.
There's
not a big influence of DCC projects
because we I was working from an old DCC
bylaw, but there were projects that were
preceding and were included in the
financial plan that had not had DCC
money allocated to it yet. And I can't
allocate it until the new bylaws in. So,
» So it doesn't affect this year.
» It will not increase taxation for 2026.
It will not allow for decreases
in projects that are on the proposed
list.
» Okay. Thank you. But it will definitely
impact future years.
So that 14% or whatever is indicated for
2027 would be substantially higher for a
new council to have to figure out.
Sounds light.
The delay of this DCC or ACC will not
impact the 2027 tax change as I haven't
factored in the impacts from this
proposed.
Um, if all other things stay the same
for the financial plan next year and
this DCC bylaw comes in as presented, we
will see a decrease in taxation as there
is new funding sources eligible for
projects already in the financial plan.
» Right. Thanks for uh articulating that
and councelor.
» Yeah, thanks Mayor. Two points. First of
all, I wonder um if it would make sense
to uh add the word
and implications
um that the report back with options and
implications.
Um because I I'm assuming that the
report will do that anyway and that it
will if it gives us options, it'll also
let us know uh what the implications of
those options are. But I'm just
wondering if we should be clear about
giving that direction. Yeah. Um,
so that would be a friendly suggestion
or a friendly amendment. Then my
question procedurally is uh whether or
not it makes sense to defer the um the
motion the recommendation related to the
bylaw um to when that report comes back
you know if that would be procedurally a
a sensible way to to go or not.
Mr.
Um,
it it wouldn't actually make a
difference because it's an ACC bylaw.
You can do three readings at once. The
option to pursue or to consider first
and second at this point would be more
of a indication of council's intent to
continue to seriously consider the
application of the ACC's by delaying or
deferring the bylaw in its entirety. um
that is a different u approach but both
ultimately um as far as timeline for
consideration
it it's the same.
» Okay, thanks
and council last word.
» Yeah, sure. I'm happy to um move first
and second when it comes up and I'll
just hold off on third till we get this
information. And then I would I would
wonder if um just asking for the same
information on the DCC's um if it would
make sense to do it at the same time if
or maybe I should make a a subsequent
motion if we're interested in seeing
that same scenario laid out for that.
» Probably recommend waiting just it might
get severed anyway. So I I probably it's
a lot
» It would be a subsequent for sure but I
was I'm just throwing a little little
warning out.
» Yep.
» Okay,
» Fair enough. Uh so we do have a motion
on the floor. I don't see any further
questions or comments at this point in
time. All those in favor of the motion
on the screen
and motion carries.
Any subsequence before we move on? Okay.
Councelor FR I'd make the same motion
for the DCC bylaw. So we have the
information as soon as possible to
consider
and you know what I'm sure you would
come back with the uh implications of
how to move forward with that bylaw if
we wanted to make similar change or make
a change around the assist factor or the
um the implementation strategy on it.
I don't see a seconder for your motion.
So I don't believe that's going to move
forward.
Okay,
» I can read it if if that wakes you up.
» It's been seconded. Uh I do see Miss
Okonnell has her as well as Council
Mcllum. I'll go to Council McCullum
first.
» Uh thanks. I just uh want to say that I
am not in favor of um revisiting this.
Um I I think we've gotten far enough in
this process that this doesn't serve us
at this point in time and there has been
a fair amount of work both um with our
staff and other um and our municipal
partners to align this process and we've
passed third reading. It's gone to the
inspector of municipalities and this
will have a major impact on the cost of
property taxes for our residents if
we're going to wind this back. This is
work we have been asking for and
desperately needed to do 5 years ago and
I'm not in favor of slowing that down at
this point. So I'm not in favor of this
motion.
» Thanks Councelor Cullum and um Miss
Okonnell.
» Uh thank you to the mayor to council. Um
as council knows I'm currently the
acting director of Dolman services. We
are in active recruitment for the
replacement. Um part of me coming into
development services department over the
period of time was um very specifically
to work on internal systems in order to
improve service provision and service
level specifically looking at the KPIs
the systems um and the structure itself.
I will say that undertaking this work I
it will have a capacity impact on that
and I do have a finite timeline for the
amount of time I can be in development
services is with the election coming up
in the fall. Um it was not my intent to
stay in this position longer term than
that. So, in the event of um we can come
back with this information, but I I do
want you to know it's not likely not
feasible to do both in tandem without
one impacting the service processes
internally. I just don't have the staff
that are able to help and support and
manage a project like that. Um, as you
know, we're currently working on the OCP
update. We're working on repeal and
replacing the zoning bylaw. Um there's a
lot of work going on in the building
services division. Um it we are
challenged to resource this. So it will
be a bit of a trade-off for council to
determine where those resources need to
be allocated at the staff level.
Alternatively, if council would like to
um I could bring back some cost
estimates to completely outsource this
work and then council can make the
decision as to whether or not you want
to fund the service improvements through
third parties or if you would like to
increase the budget or the resources
available to development services to
undertake this work that is not part of
the work plan. Um so I I just I just
kind of eyes wide open. um every action
there's a reaction including on a
department that currently in its current
state
» Right thanks for that and Mr. regard it.
» Yeah. Thanks. Uh um I I want to be I
want to be I want to clearly acknowledge
that this is in response to feedback
that you've received. We had a process.
Um
I think getting information directly on
what what the implications are is is we
can do that and then council needs to
ultimately decide what they want to do.
Uh Ms. Okonnell uh spoke to this. We've
been working at this at council's
direction uh stretching back to the 2018
um uh council. Uh this was all intended
work to go. We were impacted by COVID.
So we're now
two terms past the conversation. Uh and
I only offer I don't offer that as as
any kind of a sort of ultimatum type of
thing. And I I know that how that will
sound. Council just needs to determine
if they want to proceed or not. And it
may not may not be the right time. uh
and and we we serve there. Um we do know
that there's been a call to update these
things because there are implications
for uh the development committee and
then we have the development committee
identifying that these costs in light of
the current conditions have impacts and
so ultimately council will determine
they want to proceed or not. There's no
obligation to do this. Uh it doesn't
matter how much uh time and effort or
direction or whatever. We have to do
what council would like to see. So I
just I offer that it's a real factor and
we are coming to the close of the second
term who wanted to work on this and so
you know we will come back these are
these are number these are number
factors there's tables that go along
with that and then council does have to
be take a serious look at what uh what
they want to do given all of their
priorities between now and the end of
the term in 2026. So just just offer
that and there's been good input uh
received by by many parties um and uh
and ultimately it's a decision the
council needs to take forward. So thank
you.
» Thanks Mr. Garvet and uh councelor
Fresh. Uh last word again.
» Okay. Thank you. Well well thanks to
staff for the the input about um what
it's going to take to get these numbers.
Um
yeah I'm just looking I'm just looking
at the two requests. So, one's about
phasing the implementation.
I would assume that means changing the
date and then the other one's the five
and 10%.
Um, and I guess the implications of that
is that we won't be collecting 5 to 10%
of the DCC's
for two years and up to two years. And
that's going to have an effect on our
[clears throat] funding for certain
projects and obviously taxation
implications.
Um, but I'm also guessing these aren't
massive numbers. So, um, I mean, I'd
like to get it right.
So, I'm going to support the motion.
Thanks.
» All right. Uh, Council McCullum, last
word.
» Um, can staff clarify if we were to make
this change whether or not the DCC's
would have to go a second time back to
the inspector of municipalities because
that seems to be a point of confusion
here.
through the chair. Um the inspectors had
the blaw for about four weeks. I'm going
to say three or four weeks. Uh their
turnaround time right now is two to
three months. Um so there's a couple
different options like we could ask them
to pause the review until we get this
report to council. Um we could let them
know that this is what you're
considering. Um, if council, if the
inspector did sign the bylaw in the
meantime, uh, we would have to bring the
new bylaw back through the ministry and
the inspector would have to resign. I
don't expect that would take as much
time as a complete review would because
especially when you're like decreasing
and using an assist factor, which is
council's tool, but it may be it's just
a little bit more of an administrative
cost and sort of a bit of a hiccup that
we need to manage. Uh, so the answer is
if they sign the bylaw and it arrives
tomorrow, it has to go back. Um, we will
need another signature.
» Okay. All right. Thanks for that
clarification. I don't see any other
lights, so I'm going to ask the question
right now. Um, all those in favor of the
motion on the floor.
Any opposed?
And motion uh, fails.
Uh,
uh, thanks for the lengthy conversation
on that. I know I know it's much later
than I think I anticipated possibly some
others as well. We have one last item uh
before we can break and that's the
development procedure bylaw. third.
» Yeah.
» Yeah. Are they giving you
Uh I'll I'll move that. Um
I'm just making sure that I am not
missing anything here. Um I think the
only change. Okay. So I'll move the
recommended motion. Um with the the
change being that council give first and
second reading to the amenity cost bar
cost charges bylaw 3207 as amended.
» Okay. So that's been moved and seconded.
It's just first and second reading only.
Um all those [clears throat] in favor?
Any opposed? And motion carries. Sorry
for jumping the gun on that one. And Mr.
regard.
» Uh
so uh giving person second and then we
would have it back for third reading at
the with the report
about amenities because that resolution
passed. Thank you. Just want to make
sure we're on the same page. Yeah. And
what I had heard is that we could do
this for first and second or do first,
second, and third because it's an ACC.
So that's why I was less concerned about
that.
» Yeah.
» If there were changes though, we we
couldn't. My understanding is that you
said that.
» Yeah. Yeah.
» But first, second, and third could
happen in the future is what I said. It
didn't first and second didn't have to
happen tonight as far as I understood
but maybe I but it yeah I think we can
move on Miss Okonnell though you look
like
» Um no I just want to clarify so the
motion that was passed has to do with
the DCC's
» The or before that the one typed um no
it said DCC's the one that was shown
» That failed
» That failed and then there was one
before about the ACC's which is the
referral and that passed and now you've
done first and second Okay. And then
you're still because that motion as
recommended included the twinning with
the DCC's,
right? Because the only change that was
made was the number of reasons like the
number of readings.
It'll depend on the timing and what
council decides to do and where we are
in that.
» So we don't have to take it out then.
» No, no, you can just leave it for now.
Yeah. But just just to clarify so
resolution 11.11
had the second thing which the desire
which is in the interest of everybody's
calculations to twin whatever happens
with ACC and whatever happens with the
DCC to have the timing coincidental.
Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
» All right. Much appreciated. On to uh
the last item development procedure
bylaw 320.
Any questions or comments? Uh it's just
housekeeping. All those in favor and any
opposed and motion carries. Uh and we
have our encampment resolution.
Uh is everyone okay if I count cancel or
skip the uh council reports?
» All right. So we have a first and second
for in camera. All those in favor? Any
opposed? Motion carries and we are
adjourned.
All right.