[0:06] We are unmuted.
[0:08] » Fantastic. Uh, welcome everybody to our
[0:11] January 14th, 2026 uh, regular council
[0:14] meeting, first one of the year. I'd like
[0:16] to respectfully acknowledge the land on
[0:18] which we're gathered today is the
[0:20] unseated territory, the Komox First
[0:22] Nation, the traditional keepers of um,
[0:24] this land.
[0:26] Um, we do have an introduction of late
[0:29] items. Uh, the Courtney Air Park
[0:30] Association letter of request and uh,
[0:37] excellent. Any questions or comments?
[0:39] Seeing none, all those in favor? Any
[0:41] opposed? And motion carries. Thank you
[0:43] for that. And we'll move in adoption of
[0:45] minutes. And we have a regular council
[0:47] minutes from December 10th to
[0:50] any errors or omissions? See none, we'll
[0:53] accept those unanimously and we'll move
[0:55] into the parks and wreck um meeting
[0:58] minutes as well.
[1:02] » Excellent. Any errors or emissions?
[1:05] Seeing none, uh we'll accept those
[1:07] unanimously as well. And with that,
[1:10] we'll move into our first delegation uh
[1:12] with the mayor, Maryanne Me Ward from
[1:14] the city of Burlington, Ontario. Uh,
[1:17] Mayor Ward, it was a pleasure uh
[1:19] speaking with you uh previously and
[1:21] thank you so much for joining us today.
[1:23] Uh the the topic of the discussion uh is
[1:26] the elect respect uh campaign and uh
[1:29] with that I'll turn it over to you.
[1:32] » Well, thank you so much Mayor Wells for
[1:34] inviting me to be here this evening
[1:36] virtually and thank you to all members
[1:38] of council. I had the opportunity uh
[1:41] with my husband to travel through your
[1:43] fine city earlier this year. actually
[1:46] last year um and in and just absolutely
[1:49] loved being there. So we uh I'm a
[1:52] British Columbia an honorary BCN I think
[1:54] if that's the right the way to say it
[1:57] but thanks for for inviting me to uh
[2:00] speak a little bit about the elect
[2:01] respect uh resolution what it is and
[2:03] what it isn't and I want to uh really
[2:06] extend my sincere thanks to Mayor Wells
[2:08] for bringing this forward and for your
[2:10] support mayor for elect respect. Uh this
[2:14] began as really a conversation among um
[2:17] Halton elected representatives who are
[2:19] women. We have a coffee group that meets
[2:22] a couple of times a year for support.
[2:24] And one of our meetings we started
[2:26] talking about whether we would encourage
[2:29] uh our friends, our daughters. Uh my
[2:32] husband and I have two daughters and a
[2:33] son. Uh would we encourage them to seek
[2:36] elected office? And um not so long ago,
[2:40] it wouldn't have I wouldn't have
[2:41] hesitated to say yes. uh those of us who
[2:44] do this, it's a public service. We love
[2:46] what we do and just the ability to see
[2:49] um our community getting better because
[2:51] of some of the work we're able to do
[2:53] together. There's nothing like it. But
[2:56] uh but there's a butt and in recent
[2:59] years it has become um uh very toxic uh
[3:03] to the point of death threats uh for
[3:06] members of elected office. And so
[3:09] Electrospect was born. Um we uh everyone
[3:13] around the table of my coffee group and
[3:15] this is trustees all the way up to MPs,
[3:18] cabinet ministers, we had all
[3:20] experienced it and it was really kind of
[3:21] a shocking moment for us to hear that
[3:23] every single person had a story and uh
[3:26] and then we got to work. Uh what what
[3:28] could we do about this? And the one
[3:31] thing that we can always do is lead by
[3:34] example and commit ourselves to
[3:36] respectful debate and dialogue. And so
[3:39] we so the pledge, the electrospect
[3:42] pledge was born. Uh we commit to uh
[3:46] being respectful to our colleagues on
[3:48] council when we disagree. We want to
[3:51] foster good debate and dialogue about
[3:52] the issues, but we want to focus on
[3:54] policy, not people and not personal
[3:57] attacks. So that's the first part of the
[3:59] pledge. Uh and in return, we ask the
[4:01] public and our uh and our colleagues to
[4:04] treat us with respect. And since uh we
[4:08] launched the pledge um uh it has gone
[4:11] across Ontario, across the country uh
[4:16] major cities including Toronto, Missaga,
[4:19] Hamilton, uh of course Burlington have
[4:21] passed this. You would be the first uh
[4:24] city in British Columbia to pass it. Uh
[4:27] we have Flintflon Manitoba who passed
[4:29] it. uh and a number of uh boards and
[4:32] agencies including chambers of commerce
[4:35] uh business improvement areas you know
[4:37] really those public-f facing uh
[4:39] businesses where they are saying they
[4:41] also want to uh receive respect from the
[4:44] their customers and the people they
[4:46] serve. Uh last year our member of
[4:48] parliament Karina Gould um presented the
[4:52] elect respect pledge in the House of
[4:54] Commons. So we do encourage you to reach
[4:56] out to your MPs, your members of the
[4:58] legislative assembly to see if they will
[5:01] sign and endorse the pledge. So the
[5:04] momentum is really growing across the
[5:06] country. And I think there's there's a
[5:08] good and a and a and a difficult side to
[5:11] that. The good part is people are saying
[5:13] we want respectful discourse. The issues
[5:15] are too important. They're too big and
[5:18] and there are legitimate views,
[5:20] different views about them. Uh the
[5:23] downside is that everyone's got a story
[5:24] and and we really think that that's why
[5:26] this has taken off across the country
[5:28] that people are saying enough. Uh
[5:30] politics doesn't have to be a blood
[5:33] sport. It's actually public service. Uh
[5:35] and we want to encourage good people to
[5:37] run and stay in politics. Uh and uh I
[5:41] want to be able to encourage my
[5:42] daughters and my son uh to choose this
[5:44] as a career and not fear uh for it. Uh
[5:48] what it is is respectful debate. What it
[5:50] isn't is an attempt to silence different
[5:52] views. In fact, the opposite is true.
[5:55] And if there is uh toxic civ uh civil
[5:58] discourse, if you are worried that you
[6:00] could be threatened with uh with death
[6:03] in my case, uh I can tell you my story,
[6:05] but uh it's it's um I've been told not
[6:09] to go to public meetings. My safety
[6:11] couldn't be guaranteed. Uh that's what
[6:14] we're trying to say is unacceptable. uh
[6:16] but legitimate, respectful disagreement
[6:19] and debate on the issues we face is
[6:21] absolutely what we're trying to foster
[6:23] and create a climate of respect. So,
[6:26] thank you for the opportunity to say a
[6:28] few words. Happy to answer any
[6:29] questions. And again, thank you, Mayor
[6:31] Wells, and and all of the good people
[6:33] and council members of Courtney for this
[6:35] opportunity to speak to you this
[6:37] evening.
[6:39] » Oh, thank thank you so much. Really
[6:40] appreciate it. And again, thanks again
[6:42] for for starting this campaign again. Uh
[6:45] I I think you really highlighted the
[6:47] fact that, you know, this is something
[6:49] um uh when we look at the betrayal, when
[6:51] we look at um uh people fearing for
[6:54] their safety, it's definitely something
[6:55] that has uh uh exacerbated over the last
[6:59] five or so years that we we I've noticed
[7:01] it here. Um and uh and it it's
[7:05] [clears throat] definitely something
[7:05] that we see happening a lot online, but
[7:08] then we can see that spilling over um uh
[7:11] beyond that. And when I see how um this
[7:15] uh hits differently for my female
[7:17] colleagues, um one the types of threats
[7:21] they get are definitely I would say um
[7:25] levels multiple levels above what what I
[7:28] receive. Uh and you know some of the
[7:30] stuff I receive I think is certainly
[7:32] unacceptable but um uh people shouldn't
[7:35] have to fear for their safety, for their
[7:37] lives or or for their family members.
[7:39] And and that's just something that uh
[7:41] Unfortunately, uh, as as you mentioned,
[7:43] is is some people you we sometimes refer
[7:46] to them as keyboard warriors, but, uh,
[7:48] especially online, they're they're
[7:50] feeling that they have, uh, sort of a
[7:52] cart blanch to, uh, to attack and to try
[7:55] to intimidate and instill fear in
[7:57] people, which is which is simply
[7:59] bullying and and and not not acceptable.
[8:01] So, u, I really do appreciate it. Um,
[8:03] I'll look to my council members if
[8:05] anybody had any uh, comments uh, or
[8:07] questions beyond that. I don't see
[8:09] anything. Um, I really appreciate you
[8:12] taking the time today uh to do this. I
[8:14] know we had a member of the public who
[8:16] thought you might be flying here today.
[8:18] Uh, this is definitely a lot more uh uh
[8:21] useful. We do have a counselor on a
[8:22] train going in the opposite direction
[8:24] towards you, I think. Uh, but uh really
[8:27] glad you were able to to pop in today.
[8:29] Um, and again, a huge thank you for
[8:32] starting this uh this campaign and
[8:34] really hope that uh we continue to to
[8:37] move things forward. I know there's
[8:39] quite a few BC uh politicians now who
[8:42] have signed on to this and uh and I
[8:45] would expect that to continue. Our our
[8:47] local um association ABICC has asked me
[8:51] to sort of um uh provide some
[8:53] information when we have our um uh
[8:56] conference coming up here uh in in the
[8:58] near future. So there's definitely a lot
[9:00] of interest um uh and uh again, thank
[9:03] you so much. And with that, I'll let you
[9:06] go back to your regularly scheduled
[9:08] program and uh appreciate again all your
[9:11] work on this.
[9:13] » Thank you so much.
[9:15] » All right. Um with that, we'll move into
[9:19] uh internal reports and correspondence.
[9:22] And first is a resident survey, your
[9:25] Courtney, your voice. And I'll pass it
[9:28] over to
[9:30] Miss Okconor.
[9:34] Uh, thank you very much, council. So,
[9:37] um, I'm very excited to present this
[9:39] year's findings of the 2025 resident
[9:41] satisfaction survey, your Courtney, your
[9:43] voice. This year marks a significant
[9:45] step in our commitment to community
[9:47] engagement. Building on the feedback
[9:48] gathered from our previous surveys to
[9:50] form a what will be a very valuable
[9:53] 5-year benchmark data set. As in past
[9:55] durations, the survey serves as a
[9:57] crucial platform for residents to
[9:59] express their opinions and influence
[10:01] city policies and services. By utilizing
[10:03] evidence-based decision-making, we can
[10:05] meaningfully evaluate our service
[10:07] delivery and pinpoint areas that need
[10:09] improvement. Notably, the city selected
[10:11] Prairie Research Associates this year to
[10:14] lead the survey. So, bit of a different
[10:15] face online. uh implementing innovative
[10:18] methodologies that diminish bias and
[10:20] enhance data quality, particularly by
[10:22] capturing a more representative sample
[10:24] of our diverse community, including
[10:26] younger residents who are previously who
[10:28] previously had less visibility. Among
[10:31] the meth methodological updates for the
[10:33] 2025 survey was a significant change in
[10:36] the way we approach our municipal
[10:37] comparators. In the past, our
[10:39] comparisons involved municipalities
[10:41] whose populations range broadly from
[10:43] 10,000 to 150,000 residents, which often
[10:46] skewed the accuracy of our benchmarks
[10:48] for Courtney. This year, we refined our
[10:50] selection criteria to focus on
[10:52] municipalities that are more similar in
[10:53] size and characteristics to Courtney,
[10:55] such as Campbell River, Port Moody,
[10:57] Colonus, Smitch, and Swamish and
[11:00] mission. This targeted approach allows
[11:02] for a more relevant context in
[11:03] evaluating Courtney's performance and
[11:05] satisfaction levels, ultimately leading
[11:07] to more effective planning and resource
[11:09] allocation. Through open and transparent
[11:11] communication, our goal is to ensure
[11:12] that the voices of Courtney residents
[11:14] are heard and that their insights
[11:16] directly influence our collective
[11:17] future. With that in mind, I'm very
[11:19] pleased to hand things over uh to well
[11:22] for the presentation component to Derek
[11:24] Berg, who is the senior marketing
[11:25] research manager for P, who will walk us
[11:27] through the detailed findings of the
[11:29] 2025 survey and share his insights and
[11:31] implications for our community. Council,
[11:33] please note the entirety of the report
[11:36] is on uh the presentation deck in the
[11:38] event you want to go back to specific
[11:39] slides, but Derek will likely be
[11:41] focusing on certain slides more than
[11:43] others. Um, so if you see us moving
[11:45] through some quickly, it's really to
[11:47] allow us to go back in the event you
[11:48] wanted to have a specific discussion
[11:50] about some slides we weren't focusing on
[11:52] for this evening. So with that, I'll
[11:54] pass it over to Derek.
[11:57] » Perfect. Thank you very much for that
[11:59] introduction. Uh, yes, as Kate said, I
[12:01] am Derek Berg. I'm a senior uh market
[12:04] research manager at Prairie Research
[12:06] Associates and uh very happy to have uh
[12:10] uh conducted this work for the city of
[12:11] Courtney um this year and happy to uh go
[12:14] into some details about the findings. Uh
[12:18] so we'll start off I'll just do a quick
[12:20] note on just the the methodology um if
[12:23] we go a couple slides forward here. Um
[12:26] so we did a similar methodology um of
[12:29] what's been done in the past. We did a
[12:31] random digit dialing telephone survey of
[12:34] residents of the city of Courtney.
[12:36] Everyone um had to be at least 18 or
[12:38] older to uh participate.
[12:41] Um but this is basically the most um
[12:43] statistically valid way of uh getting
[12:46] respondents to uh complete this type of
[12:48] survey. So it's completely random uh
[12:51] with 300 residents. Um but what we did
[12:54] is implemented quotas to make sure that
[12:56] we were um reaching the appropriate
[12:58] groups in terms of age and uh gender and
[13:02] household income. Uh to make sure that
[13:05] uh this population that we were serving
[13:07] is uh statistically representative of
[13:10] the the city as a whole. And where there
[13:13] were some discrepancies uh we waited the
[13:15] data to make sure that um once again
[13:18] that data is um statistically valid and
[13:21] uh reliable.
[13:23] So I just skip through a few slides here
[13:27] to get to the section on uh quality of
[13:30] life.
[13:33] Uh so this first is uh top of- mind
[13:36] issues. So we started by asking um
[13:38] residents of the city of Courtney what
[13:40] they thought is the most important issue
[13:42] facing their community today. um as it
[13:45] has been in past years. We we looked at
[13:47] um how to compare this to what we saw in
[13:50] uh previous years and homelessness
[13:52] continues to be kind of the key the
[13:56] first top of mind issue that um that
[13:58] comes to residents minds. Um that's
[14:02] certainly not unique to the city of
[14:04] Courtney. um as it's shown here, it's
[14:06] also um when we looked at other um
[14:09] resident surveys in comparable m
[14:11] municipalities
[14:13] um cities like Campbell River, Colona,
[14:15] Cranbook, and Mission, um homelessness
[14:19] was kind of the the the key uh top of-
[14:22] mind issue that uh that came up the most
[14:25] often. Um so for city of Courtney
[14:28] residents, these concerns witho
[14:30] homelessness or at least it being the
[14:32] top of- mind issue um with people tends
[14:34] to increase with age. Um and although
[14:38] not quite in that statistically uh
[14:40] significant realm, but um also prevalent
[14:43] uh among women more so than men. Um this
[14:46] to me it's likely due to a personal
[14:49] safety um issue. you have the older
[14:52] population or women feeling that, you
[14:55] know, maybe it's they're uh it's more
[14:57] they're more vulnerable um seeing um you
[15:01] know, the homeless population
[15:03] um prominent. So um that's kind of our
[15:07] what I uh interpret from the data here.
[15:10] Um yeah, there you know several other
[15:13] issues that like um the lack of
[15:15] affordable housing or uh mental health
[15:18] issues, traffic, road congestion are
[15:21] some of the more top of- mind issues,
[15:22] but it it's definitely homelessness that
[15:24] is the the key uh top of mind um thing
[15:29] for uh city of Courtney residents.
[15:32] So moving on to quality of life. Um so
[15:36] on a four-point scale here from uh very
[15:39] good to very poor residents were asked
[15:41] to rate you know how they felt the
[15:42] quality of life in city of Courtney is
[15:45] um we generally this is fairly similar
[15:48] when we look at overall um satisfaction
[15:51] and those saying very good or good um
[15:53] with quality of life when we compare it
[15:55] to last year although you can see there
[15:57] is has been a little bit of a drop each
[15:59] year over the past couple years. Um, one
[16:03] thing that I thought is interesting to
[16:04] note here is that it's although the top
[16:09] two score kind of goes a little bit
[16:11] down, um, you'll see that the those in
[16:14] the very good side or then those kind of
[16:17] on the poor side. Um, it seems like
[16:20] people tend to skew more to the extreme
[16:22] in this and you have less of those that
[16:24] are kind of just in the middle with
[16:26] that. Um but
[16:30] yeah, with that said, I I do think it's
[16:33] somewhat of a a positive to see that you
[16:35] still have um certainly an increase over
[16:38] last year and those that feel like the
[16:40] quality of life in City of Courtney is
[16:41] very good. Um those that are more likely
[16:45] to to have those positive perceptions
[16:48] are um those who are 65 and older. And
[16:52] it's um it's those in the the mid age
[16:54] range, 30 to 44 years old, that um are
[16:57] least likely to to rate um positively.
[17:04] And uh as um Kate had mentioned, we kind
[17:07] of took a look at some um comparable m
[17:11] municipalities to kind of give some key
[17:14] um benchmark comparisons. And in terms
[17:16] of quality of life, um when we look at
[17:19] the the the good or very good, so the
[17:21] top two rating, Courtney falls um kind
[17:25] of pretty much in the in the middle of,
[17:27] you know, where we um were able to find
[17:30] data on comparable um cities. So,
[17:34] not uh not on the worst end and not uh
[17:37] not really on the on the on the super
[17:40] high high end, but yeah, just kind of
[17:42] there um in the middle to kind of give
[17:44] you some um benchmark context for that.
[17:48] When we look at changes in quality of
[17:50] life over time, um it's not this isn't a
[17:54] uh it's hard to give a direct comparison
[17:58] um to the previous years simply because
[17:59] we changed this question to um ask just
[18:02] about changes over the past year rather
[18:04] than changes over the past 3 years. Um
[18:08] so for that reason it's not really
[18:09] surprising to me that we have um
[18:12] basically about half of people staying
[18:14] that saying that the they feel like the
[18:16] quality of life has stayed the same. Um
[18:19] but certainly a lot less that are saying
[18:22] you know quality of life has become
[18:23] worse over the past year and a bit
[18:26] similar even a little bit higher with
[18:28] that 8% saying that um the quality of
[18:30] life has um has gotten better.
[18:34] So to me that's a bit of a a positive
[18:37] move in the positive direction.
[18:40] Um and then when we look at the net
[18:42] promoter score this is definitely where
[18:44] we see some some positive movement. um
[18:47] in 23 and 24 we saw similar net promoter
[18:51] scores of um of -1617
[18:55] whereas although we're still in the the
[18:57] negative um moving in the positive
[19:00] direction up to um -4 and just uh to
[19:04] clarify for those don't that don't know
[19:06] the net promoter score is um essentially
[19:09] taking the calculation of those who rate
[19:13] their uh recommendation of city of
[19:16] Courtney has a place to live on a scale
[19:17] of 0 to 10. You take those um promoters,
[19:21] so those saying 9 or 10, and uh that is
[19:24] subtracted from the detractors, so those
[19:26] rating anywhere from 0 to six. So that's
[19:29] what gives you that um that so it's a
[19:32] 32% minus 36% which gives you that uh
[19:35] that negative4. Um, one thing that I'll
[19:38] note is, uh, we changed this to a true
[19:42] net promoter score, um, metric. Uh, in
[19:45] the past, um, this was only rated on a 1
[19:48] to 10 scale, although we moved this to
[19:50] what is considered the industry
[19:52] standard, which is a 0 to 10 scale. Um,
[19:55] so you will see obviously there are 11%
[19:58] here who said zero where there hadn't
[20:00] been any in the previous years because
[20:02] that wasn't an option. But despite
[20:05] having that one extra option for people
[20:07] to rate um their recommendation on the
[20:10] lower end, we're actually seeing an
[20:12] increase in um in a high number of
[20:15] promoters. You jumped up from uh from
[20:18] 16% up to 25% in those that um rate
[20:22] coordinates at 10 out of 10 for
[20:23] likelihood to recommend. Um [snorts]
[20:27] and uh yeah, just one one note about
[20:29] that is again um the older population
[20:32] and also home ownership which is kind of
[20:34] tied to um to to age as well. They had
[20:38] the uh they were more likely to rate um
[20:41] City of Courtney as a higher uh more
[20:43] likely to rate it higher in terms of um
[20:46] how they would recommend it.
[20:49] » [snorts]
[20:49] » Um, and then so this is just looking at
[20:52] um for those that did not give a um a
[20:56] positive rating to um recommending the
[20:59] city of Courtney as a place to live.
[21:01] These are reasons why. Um a lot of these
[21:04] are fairly similar to we we tried to
[21:07] compare to last year as much as
[21:09] possible. So some of these are fairly
[21:10] similar. um you'll see a bit uh of an
[21:13] increase in high cost of living, which
[21:16] again it makes sense and that's not
[21:18] exclusive to Courtney. That's that's um
[21:20] being experienced everywhere. Um and
[21:23] then one thing is that what we didn't
[21:26] see from the data last year is people
[21:27] saying um that the city is too crowded.
[21:30] Um that's 19% of people this year said
[21:33] that. So, I don't know if um the the
[21:36] research vendor that did this last year
[21:38] if if maybe that wasn't a a theme that
[21:40] came up uh enough for them to to put it
[21:43] into its own code, but um it was
[21:45] certainly something that um that we saw
[21:47] in the data um this year and and
[21:48] certainly it's it's tied with um the uh
[21:52] the highest proportion for um for
[21:55] reasons not to recommend uh the city of
[21:57] Courtney.
[22:00] Okay. So, uh now moving on to uh
[22:04] satisfaction with city services. Um
[22:08] so when we look at the uh top two box
[22:11] here, we see 62% are either very
[22:14] satisfied or somewhat satisfied um
[22:16] overall with the city services. Um but
[22:20] to me this is also moving in a more
[22:22] positive direction just because you have
[22:24] that increase of those who are um or are
[22:27] saying they're very satisfied. That two
[22:30] top two box like a difference of 4%
[22:32] isn't isn't a huge increase. Um so to
[22:36] see that that very satisfied number jump
[22:39] up a bit more I think is um is more
[22:41] telling. And then you have a a bit more
[22:44] it's it's more so with the people who
[22:46] are moving out of the somewhat satisfied
[22:48] box into kind of that that middle area.
[22:51] So um you're you're certainly not seeing
[22:54] more negative here. Um but you are
[22:56] seeing more positive.
[23:01] Um and then so the next slide here just
[23:04] talks uh shows overall satisfaction with
[23:06] city services um with what we could find
[23:09] um online with um with other comparable
[23:13] m municipalities.
[23:14] Um so this does show that although the
[23:18] the previous slide showed that there
[23:20] were positive sentiments um this might
[23:23] show that city of Courtney ranks more
[23:26] towards the bottom of this. However, um
[23:29] the caveat here is that typically when
[23:32] other m municipalities, actually all
[23:34] four of those that are above city of
[23:35] Courtney here, um they used a fivepoint
[23:38] scale rather or sorry, a four-point
[23:40] scale um to rate um satisfaction versus
[23:45] what we use as a as a fivepoint scale.
[23:48] So, um, those top four, they didn't have
[23:50] the option to kind of go in the in the
[23:52] middle, forcing them to go either one
[23:55] direction or or the other in terms of
[23:56] positive or negative. Um, I would say if
[24:00] if this if the surveys were be to run
[24:02] exactly the same, you would tend to have
[24:05] um a lot of those people who are in the
[24:07] positive category. Um so typically those
[24:10] who are somewhat satisfied kind of move
[24:12] into that mid category where they're in
[24:14] between um satisfied and dissatisfied.
[24:17] So um again although this this does show
[24:20] City of Courtney is more towards the
[24:22] bottom. Um to me I I think this shows
[24:25] more that they're it's kind of more in
[24:28] the middle. Um certainly with Mission
[24:29] with that 69% you would see that drop
[24:31] down. Um but the other top three there I
[24:34] think would would drop down considerably
[24:36] um with the change in scale and uh and
[24:38] yeah you'd have city of Courtney ranking
[24:41] um I would say similar to um what we can
[24:44] see in other uh comparable
[24:46] municipalities.
[24:50] Okay. And so this is just a quick
[24:52] snapshot of individual um city services
[24:55] that we asked about. Um
[24:59] what's was I guess was interesting to me
[25:02] is that although the overall
[25:04] satisfaction we asked when we um you
[25:07] know prefaced with people rating their
[25:09] just overall satisfaction before getting
[25:11] into uh kind of the details here people
[25:13] were generally um positive. Yet here um
[25:18] we don't really see any positive
[25:21] movement compared to last year other
[25:23] than satisfaction with um parks, green
[25:25] spaces, and multi-use trails. Um others
[25:29] other areas are more either kind of just
[25:32] in line with um with last year or saw a
[25:36] little bit of a drop. Um and then to me
[25:39] I think the biggest drop that we see
[25:41] here is is satisfaction with the
[25:44] availability of online services. Um to
[25:47] me this is um is likely due to I mean
[25:53] we're
[25:55] uh ever evolving technological world now
[25:57] and people see how fastpace and changing
[26:01] um technology is and I think people just
[26:06] expect more from um the availability of
[26:09] online services and being able to access
[26:12] more and to be able to do more with
[26:14] online services. So to me um just in
[26:16] terms of that being the biggest drop
[26:18] that would be my um my my guess as to
[26:22] why that is. And I think um we also saw
[26:25] uh with that we saw that um the younger
[26:28] uh age population were uh less satisfied
[26:32] with um that availability of online um
[26:35] services.
[26:39] Okay. And then so now just looking at um
[26:42] a key driver analysis of um overall city
[26:45] services. Um so what this does we ran a
[26:47] regression model to um basically predict
[26:50] what um are most likely in terms of
[26:55] those individual city services what is
[26:57] most likely to predict
[27:00] um the positive overall satisfaction
[27:03] with city services as a whole. Um so
[27:06] you'll see that uh land use and
[27:09] community planning um is actually the
[27:11] biggest predictor of overall
[27:14] satisfaction
[27:16] um followed by uh park screen spaces and
[27:18] multi-use trails. Um so we know that you
[27:21] know park screen spaces, multi-use
[27:23] trails saw a bit of a a higher
[27:25] satisfaction this year than last year.
[27:27] That was ranked second overall in terms
[27:28] of city services. So that's a good sign
[27:31] um in in that regard. And then land use
[27:34] and community planning. To us, this
[27:36] tells us that this is kind of um you
[27:39] know, if you are looking to hopefully
[27:40] have people more satisfied with the
[27:43] service they received from the city,
[27:44] this is kind of one of the ones to focus
[27:46] on. Um I I I can't really say for sure
[27:50] if it's, you know, is it um you know,
[27:53] how people agree with with um you know,
[27:55] the community planning and the use of
[27:57] land or is it that they don't
[27:59] necessarily have um the information
[28:01] available to them to know what's going
[28:03] on. But um you know certainly this is an
[28:06] aspect that um could be explored um and
[28:10] certainly just by the evidence we have
[28:11] here shows that um it is a very big
[28:14] predictor for um how satisfied people
[28:16] are with the overall services they
[28:19] receive.
[28:22] So now looking over to um experience and
[28:27] satisfaction with city staff.
[28:32] So, uh just under uh half residents, 45%
[28:37] said that they've personally been in
[28:38] contact with the city um in the past
[28:40] year in some capacity. Um a little bit
[28:43] higher than what uh has been seen in
[28:46] previous years, but overall um fairly
[28:48] similar. Um it's those in though in the
[28:51] kind of mid age range, the uh anywhere
[28:53] from 30 to 64 years old. Those are the
[28:56] the residents that are more likely to
[28:58] have contacted the city in the past
[29:00] year. those um under 30 or over 65 less
[29:04] likely to have done so.
[29:10] » Um and so uh those who did have
[29:13] experience with contacting the city in
[29:15] the past year were asked about their
[29:17] overall experience um in in dealing with
[29:21] um city staff. Uh again we see fairly
[29:25] positive uh movement here. We've in
[29:29] terms of last year we see movement in
[29:31] both the um top two very satisfied
[29:34] somewhat satisfied group and then uh
[29:36] quite a big jump in um those who say
[29:39] they are very satisfied um overall with
[29:42] with city staff.
[29:47] Uh looking at the individual um aspects
[29:51] we asked about with dealing with city
[29:52] staff.
[29:54] Um quite a few um positive jumps here.
[29:59] Um but the I think the the thing that
[30:01] pops out to me are kind of the the two
[30:04] bottom ones here where we see um so
[30:06] there was a drop in um satisfaction with
[30:10] being able to easily find the right
[30:12] staff to deal with their their
[30:13] questionnaire problem. that dropped from
[30:16] uh 77% satisfied to 69% this year. Um
[30:21] and then conversely, we saw a pretty big
[30:23] jump in um in satisfaction with staff
[30:26] going the extra mile to help them. So
[30:28] that's from uh 58% last year up to 70%
[30:31] this year. Um other aspects kind of
[30:35] fairly in line with uh with what we saw
[30:37] last year. So um those are kind of the
[30:39] big uh the big changes um that we saw
[30:42] last year. And then as we move forward
[30:45] uh we'll also see a key driver analysis
[30:49] that uh we conducted um on this as well.
[30:52] So same idea as the the one before. This
[30:54] is kind of the to predict um what
[30:57] aspects
[30:58] um are most likely to impact people's
[31:01] overall satisfaction with city staff.
[31:04] Um so this is an interesting one. I
[31:07] unfortunately I don't necessarily know
[31:09] how you um would define uh this top one
[31:13] where it's you know staff going the
[31:15] extra mile to help them. Um but this is
[31:17] certainly a um a very strong predictor
[31:22] of what uh satisfaction overall with
[31:25] staff is. Um, I think it's um it's one
[31:29] of those tricky ones where it's it's
[31:31] hard to measure exactly what going the
[31:34] extra mile means to to people who who do
[31:37] get uh you know help from city city
[31:40] staff, but um certainly it's it's those
[31:43] that feel that um that you know they've
[31:47] they've really been heard and really
[31:48] been helped that um are more likely to
[31:52] uh understandably give an overall uh
[31:54] positive satisfaction rating.
[31:56] Um, and then that's also followed by
[31:58] being able to easily find um the right
[32:02] um right staff to uh to answer your
[32:05] problem. Um, so that's to me that that I
[32:10] guess that's a more um kind of concrete
[32:13] um aspect that you're able to um put
[32:15] action towards making sure that um
[32:18] people have um the information available
[32:20] to them or being able to easily contact
[32:23] those who can point them in the right um
[32:26] in the right direction. And especially
[32:27] because that's um that was something
[32:30] that was lower end uh lower on the um on
[32:33] the overall scale when uh comparing to
[32:36] the other um aspects that might be
[32:38] something worth uh worth focusing on.
[32:41] [snorts]
[32:43] Okay. And then looking at um value for
[32:46] tax dollars. I think this is a a key
[32:49] metric that's asked every year asking
[32:51] people um you know how would they um you
[32:55] know how do they feel their um overall
[32:58] value for tax dollars rate. Um again we
[33:02] we see
[33:04] that similar um actually no change in
[33:07] the top two box with 70% 7 and 10
[33:09] residents um believing that they either
[33:12] get good or very good value for their
[33:14] tax dollars and uh a little bit of a
[33:16] bump up in uh those who are at the uh
[33:19] the most positive those that say they
[33:21] get very good value. Um, one key
[33:25] difference here in demographics is that
[33:26] there is a a very strong correlation
[33:29] between um, age and their perceptions of
[33:31] tax dollars in that um, the the youngest
[33:35] group um, 18 to 29 year olds, they're
[33:38] least likely to say they get good value
[33:40] for their tax dollars. Um, well, you
[33:42] keep increasing up in age and uh, more
[33:45] so people feel that they're increasingly
[33:48] more positive about what they receive.
[33:50] And I think that's also that's tied to
[33:52] uh to home ownership here is you know
[33:54] the older you are the more likely you
[33:55] are to um to have a home and also feel
[33:59] that you're um you're receiving services
[34:02] that give you good uh good value for
[34:04] your for your money.
[34:10] Um and then so again this uh we are able
[34:13] to um find comparable um stats on other
[34:18] m municipalities. this was on the same
[34:21] uh four-point scale um across all of
[34:24] these uh surveys that we were able to
[34:26] find. So, I think it's um it's a
[34:29] certainly a positive that you see city
[34:30] of Courtney right up there um near the
[34:33] top of the list uh given that this is a
[34:36] a directly um direct uh comparison to uh
[34:41] how these other mun municipalities ask
[34:43] this question. Sorry.
[34:49] Okay. And then uh here we just have um
[34:53] sentiments on balancing taxation and
[34:57] service delivery levels. Um so similar
[35:01] to um what we've seen in the past years
[35:05] is that um not the majority but the most
[35:08] common um uh answer here is to simply
[35:12] say we want taxes to be maintained. um I
[35:17] don't you know I don't necessarily want
[35:19] to uh receive a lot less for my services
[35:22] but I don't want to pay more um for
[35:24] anything. And then you've got an equal
[35:26] proportion on either side who say they
[35:27] either want to see uh an increase to
[35:29] taxes to um to keep up or enhance uh
[35:33] services versus those that say they want
[35:35] to um to reduce their taxes uh even if
[35:40] it means cutting services.
[35:47] Okay. And then um here we just have some
[35:51] uh quick notes about communication from
[35:53] the city. Um about uh essentially no
[35:58] difference from um what was recorded
[36:00] last year in that um just over a third
[36:04] of residents feel that they receive uh
[36:07] too little information from the city
[36:08] where um just about everyone else says
[36:10] they get the right amount of
[36:12] information.
[36:14] And in terms of what type of information
[36:17] they need from the city uh is um city
[36:21] planning and development is kind of the
[36:23] the the main thing that um is top of
[36:26] mind for people in terms of what they
[36:27] want to receive. And I think that goes
[36:29] um you know fits with um when we looked
[36:32] at the the key drivers for overall
[36:35] satisfaction of city services. there was
[36:37] that land use and and community planning
[36:39] that was um you know what is seen as the
[36:42] biggest driver of satisfaction. I think
[36:44] this this certainly ties into that in
[36:46] that um people generally want um may
[36:51] want more information about city
[36:53] planning and development um in order to
[36:56] um you know feel like they understand
[36:58] what's going on or have a say in um in
[37:01] what's happening.
[37:04] So there so there are a few more slides
[37:08] though, but just because I don't want to
[37:09] take up uh too much of anyone's time, I
[37:11] think I hit on um all of the kind of key
[37:14] um points that I wanted to discuss with
[37:16] this. Um I'm happy to answer any
[37:19] questions now. But also on that note, um
[37:21] if there is anything that um comes out
[37:24] of this, other questions that people
[37:26] have um as they review the report in
[37:29] more detail, um we're we're here and
[37:32] we're uh we're happy to answer any
[37:34] questions uh after the fact as well.
[37:38] » Uh fantastic. Thanks so much for for the
[37:40] presentation and and kind of
[37:42] highlighting th those key uh metrics. Um
[37:45] it it's quite interesting to see how um
[37:48] you know one uh those numbers play out
[37:51] for the city of Courtney and then how
[37:52] they compare with others. Um I guess
[37:55] it's it's it's a challenge to know what
[37:57] scale people are using uh community to
[38:00] community. You like you said when you
[38:02] compare it it might be one out of four
[38:04] uh 0 to 10 like just depending on what
[38:07] that question is. So um really
[38:09] appreciate some of that insight. Um and
[38:11] I'll pass it over to councelor healing.
[38:15] Thanks, mayor. No questions. Uh just one
[38:17] observation. Uh I think it's quite
[38:20] possible that the decline in uh overall
[38:23] satisfaction and recommending Courtney's
[38:26] place to live coincides with perceptions
[38:29] that it's too crowded and um concerns
[38:32] about traffic. And uh I think we have to
[38:35] bear in mind that for nine months of
[38:36] last year, we had a major traffic snarl.
[38:39] Um, I also noted that the uh uh you were
[38:42] more likely to be dissatisfied and not
[38:45] recommend the city if you were employed
[38:46] as opposed to if you weren't employed,
[38:48] which means that it was people who were,
[38:50] you know, having to drive and get around
[38:52] the city to get to work and get to where
[38:53] they were going that were less
[38:55] satisfied. And I think that may have a
[38:57] lot to do with the sewer conveyance
[38:59] project. Uh, but otherwise, there's a
[39:01] lot to uh to learn uh from the survey.
[39:04] And I certainly have heard from people
[39:07] that many people think the city's too
[39:09] crowded. They don't particularly like
[39:10] the scale of development and and the
[39:13] congestion in some parts. Uh that uh um
[39:17] it's something that takes some getting
[39:18] used to. Thanks.
[39:20] » Thanks very much, Councelor Hill and
[39:22] Councelor Moore.
[39:23] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um thanks for it's a
[39:26] lot of work putting this all together.
[39:28] Um I while I appreciated some of the
[39:32] insights that you offered, I think it's
[39:34] good to recognize that this um this
[39:36] survey doesn't include narrative
[39:38] responses. I don't believe um or um
[39:41] qualitative. So I mean we all have
[39:45] theories and they may be accurate or not
[39:47] why people answered a certain way. And I
[39:50] know that we are using the same survey
[39:52] for 5 years I believe. So there's
[39:55] obviously we don't want to we can't
[39:56] change anything at this point, but
[39:58] perhaps down the road it it may be
[40:00] useful to have a bit more of that
[40:02] qualitative information to know, you
[40:05] know, if if [snorts] there's a high
[40:07] percentage in one area, you know, why
[40:10] did that why did that person rate rate
[40:12] it that way? Because really we don't
[40:14] have the analysis of this data to know
[40:18] um to know the answers to those
[40:20] questions. So we can only speculate and
[40:24] so it does give us a good snapshot but I
[40:26] think um in future years it may be maybe
[40:29] good to dig a little bit deeper. I know
[40:31] that you did gloss over this the
[40:34] communication the communication piece a
[40:36] bit because it was running a bit long.
[40:39] Um but I think also another important
[40:41] piece is around how people like to
[40:43] receive their information and most
[40:45] people still do get it from the
[40:47] newspaper whether that's
[40:49] you know paper copy or online and um and
[40:54] uh so I think you know sometimes there's
[40:57] confusion or criticism around how we we
[41:01] do have a an online presence um for sure
[41:05] but and we're we've launched a
[41:07] newsletter but I think that's important
[41:08] to know how how people prefer to receive
[41:11] their information. Thanks.
[41:13] » That's a good point. And I just want to
[41:15] touch on um your first point just about
[41:17] the um the qualitative aspect. Um and so
[41:20] the um although with a survey like this,
[41:23] you're right in that you can't um dive
[41:26] too deep into things um in terms of
[41:29] having people answer um open-ended
[41:32] questions. There are a few in this like
[41:34] the um the question that um starts off
[41:37] with top of- mind issues. Um that's
[41:39] strictly a just an open-ended question
[41:41] for for people to um however answer
[41:45] however uh they want for that. Um, so
[41:47] yeah, there there are a few open-ended
[41:50] questions like that um in this survey
[41:52] that um when you see kind of those um
[41:55] those charts that have like a a lot of
[41:59] different response options, typically
[42:00] those are um generally open-ended
[42:03] questions that people just give their
[42:05] their thoughts. Um and then those are
[42:07] kind of coded into um into data that we
[42:12] can kind of we group them into themes so
[42:14] that you can kind of get a quantitative
[42:16] metric on um on what those themes are.
[42:20] Um but yes, one of the challenges with
[42:23] getting more qualitative data in a
[42:25] survey like this is um is simply uh the
[42:29] cost and to be able to um keep people on
[42:33] the phone. Um, a lot of people don't
[42:35] want to spend uh a ton of time answering
[42:37] a survey that ends up getting long
[42:39] because they keep having to um answer
[42:42] kind of open-ended questions where they
[42:43] have to think on the spot. Um, but yeah,
[42:47] I I agree there's always value in um in
[42:51] digging deeper into some qualitative um
[42:54] aspects when you use the the
[42:56] quantitative um evidence to um kind of
[43:00] decide where you need to focus.
[43:04] and uh followup council.
[43:06] » Yeah, just very quickly. Yeah, I totally
[43:08] get that piece about the open-ended. I
[43:09] think my comment was more around the
[43:11] rationale for for mentioning it in the
[43:14] first place or or um rating the topics
[43:18] like you know what was the reason behind
[43:20] it but but I appreciate that. Thank you.
[43:23] » Right. Yep. Fair.
[43:25] » Excellent. And Mr. Okonnell
[43:27] » Uh thanks very much. So, um, councelor
[43:30] Moren, you may recall we had that, um,
[43:32] come up when we did the first year of
[43:34] the survey with the net promoter score,
[43:36] and there was a lot of speculation as to
[43:38] why we scored so low, and we thought,
[43:40] oh, is it really because people wouldn't
[43:42] want to promote the city for negative
[43:44] reasons, or was it that we don't want
[43:46] any more people coming to the island and
[43:48] to Courtney because it's so great, we
[43:49] want to preserve it that way. Um, so we
[43:51] added that secondary question in order
[43:54] to probe a bit deeper to get a bit more
[43:55] insight on that. At the same time, um,
[43:58] council's been very supportive and has
[44:00] adopted a brand new communication
[44:02] strategy and an engagement strategy
[44:04] which is on the verge of completing with
[44:06] the implementation strategy for that.
[44:09] And really basically this is the
[44:11] statistic benchmarking survey and that's
[44:13] the purpose of it. whereas this is a
[44:16] really good indicator for when we're
[44:17] doing other forms of engagement on
[44:19] specific service areas or initiatives or
[44:22] policy decisions um to probe a little
[44:24] bit deeper into some of these areas at
[44:26] that point and also um benefiting from
[44:29] directly targeting the various user
[44:31] groups as opposed to something that's a
[44:33] bit more general. At the same time, um,
[44:36] if we have these types of items that
[44:38] come up and and we we're not seeing any
[44:40] kind of connection, it's absolutely
[44:42] possible to add on secondary questions.
[44:44] U, it's just a matter of what do we want
[44:46] to come off, what do we want to put on
[44:47] or do we want to expand and what are the
[44:49] impacts of that. But yes, we have
[44:50] learned that lesson from the first one
[44:52] to the third one and uh, we were
[44:54] surprised at the response. So, it was
[44:56] not what we suspected. Thank you for the
[44:58] question though. Well, thanks for that
[45:01] uh that insight and um uh one one um uh
[45:05] sort of comment I wanted to make is
[45:07] maybe if we forward went forward a few
[45:09] slides to the preferred method of
[45:11] contacting uh the city. I think it's a
[45:13] pretty important slide that um actually
[45:17] reflects kind of um uh some of the work
[45:21] that we've done. So, I mean, when we
[45:22] look at um uh uh the fact that there
[45:25] there's a local newspaper, I think there
[45:27] may be one more. It might be one more
[45:30] ahead of this.
[45:32] Uh that's the one. Yeah. So, when you're
[45:34] actually contacting the city uh about
[45:36] your concerns, um the telephone is
[45:38] definitely uh high up there. Email uh
[45:41] and um uh and then in person. And you
[45:45] know, when we look uh the city website's
[45:48] relatively, uh far down there for now,
[45:50] but I hopefully uh with the new website,
[45:53] um that will become more effective and a
[45:55] place for people to go. And and one of
[45:57] the things uh that I've noticed um and
[46:00] I'm not sure if it's just with the new
[46:01] website. Um but, uh what what I've seen
[46:05] when I'm searching for things now is
[46:07] pretty much every page includes a
[46:10] contact on there. And so that's
[46:12] something that again when we look at
[46:13] that that question about being able to
[46:15] find the right person um the fact that
[46:18] you know I mean I I have other ways of
[46:20] finding the right person but the fact
[46:21] that I can uh search for something on
[46:24] the website get to a page and then if I
[46:26] want further information there's
[46:28] actually a a name right there which I I
[46:30] found u like one of the things I really
[46:33] love about the new website. There's many
[46:34] things that I like about it, but I think
[46:36] it really pushes us uh down um uh that
[46:40] path of, you know, when we look at the
[46:42] numbers. It'd be really interesting to
[46:44] see um how these numbers are reflected a
[46:47] year from now considering our first uh
[46:50] newsletter just went out on Monday,
[46:51] which again really excited about uh that
[46:54] newsletter and getting information out
[46:55] to people. And even though it might be
[46:58] uh at this point not uh a way for people
[47:01] to uh contact city belt concerns because
[47:04] we're initiating that contact, people
[47:06] have that as an actual way to get back
[47:08] to the city um and prompt them because
[47:11] sometimes you forget about the things
[47:12] that annoy you. Um and uh and the fact
[47:15] that you have the the city contacting
[47:17] you on a regular basis with the ability
[47:19] to reply, I think is great. Um and then
[47:22] lastly, I just love the fact that social
[47:24] media is so far down on this list. So,
[47:27] um, again, I think that just really
[47:28] reinforces, um, decisions made, uh, by
[47:32] staff and council around, um, our social
[47:34] media interactions. So, uh, with that,
[47:37] um, I don't see any further questions or
[47:39] comments. Um, this is just, uh, for
[47:43] receipt.
[47:45] » All right. And I'll receive that on
[47:48] behalf of council unanimously. Thanks
[47:50] very much for the report. Um, and next
[47:53] we'll move into financial services, the
[47:55] 2026 2030 financial plan taxation
[47:59] scenario, and I'll pass it over to Mr.
[48:01] Garvin.
[48:02] » Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, on the
[48:04] staff on our agenda today, beginning on
[48:06] page 133 of the agenda, is a follow-up
[48:09] staff report as a result of the
[48:10] direction council gave us uh, November
[48:13] 26th and 27th committee the whole
[48:15] meetings on our budget. Council was very
[48:18] specific on uh what some requirements
[48:21] were, some information they wanted to
[48:23] facilitate the creation of our financial
[48:25] plan. [gasps]
[48:26] Uh both our annual financial plan for
[48:28] 2026 and then the uh 5-year financial
[48:31] plan. Uh Mr. Langmire is our finance
[48:32] officer, is going to uh give an overview
[48:35] in response to council direction, and
[48:36] we're looking for um support to uh carry
[48:40] on with the preparation of our financial
[48:42] uh plan um in the next uh little while.
[48:48] Mr. Lagman.
[48:50] » Hello, Mayor and Council. Nice to be
[48:51] here once again. So, as Jeff nicely
[48:54] alluded, I'm here to talk about the
[48:56] financial plan. So, council gave the
[48:59] following direction back on November
[49:00] 27th. What I'm filling even on is the
[49:04] taxation scenarios at 567%
[49:07] with options on using 6 to 8.8 8 million
[49:10] in a minimum surplus balance to be held.
[49:16] This information is included in the
[49:17] report. Now, I was a bit challenged by
[49:19] fitting all this information onto one
[49:20] slide, but it was less informative to
[49:23] look at if you broke it up. So, what
[49:24] we're really seeing is each column is a
[49:28] year of the financial plan and then each
[49:30] horizontal green divider is a percentage
[49:33] change scenario. So council had
[49:35] requested what would the scenarios look
[49:36] like at five, six and 7% and then the
[49:39] impact of smoothing the taxation change
[49:42] over the following years.
[49:44] [gasps] So doing this analysis, I really
[49:46] realized that um
[49:48] if we want to have a very smooth tax
[49:50] change, we're going to be holding a $6
[49:53] million surplus target and require 9%
[49:56] tax change for 2026 and 2027.
[50:02] At the 9% uh change, the impact of the
[50:05] average home is just shy of $200, $197.
[50:09] When doing this uh moving on to the next
[50:12] slide of using that surplus target of
[50:14] $8.8 million, it is substantial
[50:17] substantial impact on the tax change
[50:19] scenarios. If we note in the five and
[50:23] six% change scenarios, those two
[50:24] highlighted yellow cells, um those years
[50:28] we're actually underneath or below our
[50:30] desired surplus balance. So in addition
[50:33] to raising taxes to meet our spending
[50:36] obligations, we're actually raising
[50:38] taxes to to meet our surplus balance
[50:40] obligations, too. So this makes it more
[50:43] challenging that it is not recommended
[50:45] to be in these areas holding that $8.8
[50:47] million surplus balance.
[50:50] looking forward to
[50:53] a higher change. Holding the higher
[50:55] balance makes it more challenging to
[50:57] have additional funds on hand to smooth
[50:59] out the taxation changes in the future
[51:01] years.
[51:04] One thing I wanted to highlight is the
[51:06] change in method of how we determine how
[51:08] much is the reasonable amount of surplus
[51:10] to be held. An item that was brought up
[51:12] is that we shouldn't really be
[51:14] maintaining general surplus uh for
[51:16] spending items that we have specific
[51:18] reserves for. So under the revised
[51:20] method of a target surplus balance, you
[51:22] can see that we've removed uh solid
[51:24] waste, RCMP contract costs, and gaming
[51:27] expenditures from our total general fund
[51:30] spending. So it brings the total general
[51:33] fund spending from 55.9 million down to
[51:36] 42.2 million. This really drives how
[51:40] much cash we should have on hand in the
[51:42] event that something occurs. So on the
[51:46] far right hand side we have the reserved
[51:48] surplus target balances
[51:50] and looking at um one of the driving
[51:54] factors of how much surplus you have on
[51:56] hand. It really comes down to how big is
[52:00] your organization, what other reserves
[52:02] do you have on hand, how often you get
[52:04] paid and what other funding options are
[52:08] out there for you. So this really came
[52:10] into [snorts] consideration in in my
[52:13] recommendation. So in the prior years I
[52:16] took a more conservative approach and
[52:18] these were coming out of likely
[52:20] influence from the co years that the
[52:21] city should be holding about 20% of
[52:24] annual spending on hand. After doing
[52:27] this analysis looking at literature on
[52:30] what surplus balance is I have changed
[52:33] my recommendation to be sitting at that
[52:35] 15% range. I recognize that the city has
[52:38] a number of reserves and we have access
[52:40] to other sources of funding. So it is
[52:43] reasonable to use a different target. So
[52:46] that brings me to the recommendations.
[52:50] So to get future direction on the
[52:53] financial plan, one piece that needs to
[52:56] come first is where does council want to
[52:58] hold a surplus balance because that'll
[53:00] greatly influence our available surplus
[53:02] to adjust future tax changes and the
[53:05] 2026 tax change. So I'm recommending we
[53:08] hold a 15% balance. That's uh $6.3
[53:12] million.
[53:14] Another piece that flows into this is I
[53:16] want to be sure that we're using capital
[53:18] efficiently. Having cash in the bank is
[53:21] not an effic efficient use of capital.
[53:23] Having though a safety net if a expense
[53:27] comes on is good
[53:30] given the recommended surplus balance of
[53:33] 15%. My recommended tax change for 26
[53:37] and 27 is 9% followed by a 9% change in
[53:41] 2026 or in 2027. Well, this really helps
[53:44] it. It smooths the tax change over the
[53:46] two years. It bridges a gap between the
[53:48] election and provides an incoming
[53:51] council one year of relatively stable
[53:54] tax change before having to tackle the
[53:56] projected 17.3% tax change in 2028.
[54:02] And my final note though, although the
[54:04] surplus balance is projected to be below
[54:07] the $6.3 million target in 27, it is
[54:11] reasonable that there will be some
[54:13] variations coming from the completion of
[54:15] the 2026 year. And that target is a
[54:17] target.
[54:20] And with that, that concludes my
[54:21] presentation on the subject looking for
[54:23] direction.
[54:27] Excellent. Thanks very much for for the
[54:28] presentation and and coming back with uh
[54:31] those requested uh uh scenarios so that
[54:34] it gives us a little bit more food for
[54:36] thought. Um it's much appreciated and
[54:38] I'll look to council for any comments,
[54:41] suggestion and direction.
[54:44] Councelor
[54:45] McCall,
[54:46] » I'll start with question.
[54:48] » Um yeah, I I think this is really well
[54:52] laid out and um the rationale makes
[54:54] sense to me. It's also a good reflection
[54:56] of the last discussion that we had
[54:58] around this. So, uh, thanks for that.
[55:01] Uh, the only and this might have been in
[55:05] the last report, but we are chewing on I
[55:07] think more um factors when we had our
[55:09] last discussion, but um just the one
[55:13] assumption on the new taxation revenue.
[55:15] Um, I I assume that that's carried
[55:18] forward in all five years of the
[55:20] financial plan of 250,000
[55:23] per year. Um, and I'm just wondering, is
[55:27] that like based on the lowest year we've
[55:29] had in the last couple years? I I
[55:31] thought we're averaging quite a bit more
[55:33] than that, but I I'm not I'm not
[55:35] certain. So, maybe you could just expand
[55:37] on that a little bit.
[55:38] » Yeah. So, in the report, I identify some
[55:41] of the assumptions that went into this
[55:42] forecast. And the new tax revenue is
[55:45] assumed at $250,000 per year across the
[55:48] five years. This is less than we did in
[55:51] the prior years. However, 250,000 is the
[55:55] is what the 2026
[55:58] new tax revenue is pegged at. And so,
[56:01] you know, looking at what the average
[56:02] was, we had a couple really big years in
[56:05] there. And we've had years that have
[56:06] been close to this 250. So, you know,
[56:09] when projecting out, I don't want to
[56:11] take the average just because it's the
[56:13] average. I want to take what's happening
[56:15] today and sort of forecast that forward.
[56:18] So, given this, it still there is
[56:20] flexibility. you know the the picture
[56:22] could be better in 27 28 or 29 and then
[56:24] the taxation scenarios are changing
[56:26] slightly.
[56:27] » That's helpful. So the 250,000 is the
[56:31] amount that we're projecting for this
[56:32] year based on basically what's in the
[56:35] pipeline of development currently in
[56:37] development services. Okay, that sounds
[56:40] like a reasonable approach. Thanks for
[56:43] that.
[56:44] » Thanks Council McCullum and Mr. Garin.
[56:46] » Thank you uh through the mayor. I just
[56:47] want to add to Mr. Lang's comments. Um
[56:51] if we reflect back you over the last
[56:53] 20-year period, we've had some really
[56:55] big big swings. And so non-market growth
[56:58] is uh especially what we're hearing um
[57:01] you know what may be um in the future.
[57:04] That's also tempered with the fact that
[57:06] we're also understanding very
[57:08] significant growth related to CFP
[57:10] Comach. So it's a it's a very difficult
[57:12] time now to really make that projection.
[57:14] We just want to be conservative and
[57:15] council has asked us to be, you know,
[57:17] kind of conservative in both our revenue
[57:19] projections uh as well as our cost
[57:21] projections. So, at this point, we we're
[57:24] saying uh this is a practice you want to
[57:26] follow.
[57:28] » Thanks for that. Uh uh and we'll pass
[57:30] over to councelor.
[57:32] » Thanks, Mayor. Um
[57:35] first of all, I'm interested in the
[57:36] language. We're using the term tax
[57:38] change. Really, what we're talking about
[57:40] is a tax increase. Is that correct?
[57:47] Yeah, that is correct.
[57:49] » Um I don't know tax change is maybe a
[57:53] little more palatable but uh um how do
[57:55] we rationalize uh
[57:58] um a 9% increase uh which is
[58:02] significantly above inflation. Um, I
[58:05] mean, I know we're a growing city and uh
[58:08] we obviously have uh uh increased costs
[58:12] with that, but um uh you know, we've we
[58:17] didn't see it reflected in our resident
[58:19] survey that was just completed, but
[58:21] affordability certainly is a concern out
[58:23] there. And uh um you know, the a 9%
[58:27] increase is still fairly significant.
[58:28] So, I I I'm just interested to hear how
[58:30] we rationalize that.
[58:36] you know through through the mayor.
[58:37] Thank you for the council council's
[58:38] question. Um the finance plan in front
[58:42] of you reflects the strategic priorities
[58:44] identified with this council as well as
[58:45] the capital program and so through the
[58:48] development of this program we ask
[58:50] council for direction and that's what's
[58:52] the cost to deliver this is now the
[58:55] question and we don't and I'm not taking
[58:56] it and being glib about what the cost is
[58:58] to deliver. Mr. Mr. Langmire is uh in
[59:01] the last 3 years showed council what the
[59:03] cost to deliver our services equal how
[59:05] we have to address the needs of the
[59:07] community and how to fund our capital
[59:09] program and that's the majority of these
[59:10] costs and so council didn't give us
[59:13] direction to change our level of
[59:14] service. What council asked us to do was
[59:16] come forward with a way to utili
[59:20] establish a service uh level
[59:23] make sure that we have adequate reserves
[59:25] and um to understand what our surplus is
[59:29] and to smooth our tax over the next 5
[59:31] years. So this is what's required to do
[59:32] that. Now there may be a discussion and
[59:35] direction from council to not do that
[59:37] but the justification is what's required
[59:40] to deliver our services and the staff
[59:42] report that's attached our previous
[59:44] staff report talked about where we land
[59:46] in taxation and service delivery amongst
[59:48] our comparator communities. Um the
[59:50] community to our left uh has a higher
[59:53] tax rate increase include plus their
[59:56] infrastructure levy. the municipality to
[59:59] our this direction [laughter] has chosen
[1:00:02] to change uh their approach for this
[1:00:04] financial year related to reserve
[1:00:06] contributions. Uh that's that's a
[1:00:08] direction from council. Uh but what's
[1:00:10] been presented in front of you is
[1:00:11] required to deliver our services that
[1:00:13] the community is asking for and I
[1:00:16] acknowledge that in our previous
[1:00:17] discussions there were a series of tax
[1:00:20] rates that were discussed. Um, and then
[1:00:23] this tax rates coming back in order to
[1:00:25] address what council's last direction
[1:00:27] was. So that's why we're looking for
[1:00:29] direction in order to prepare the
[1:00:31] financial plan that would come back for
[1:00:32] council. So it's not the we're not
[1:00:34] preparing the this isn't the financial
[1:00:36] plan as of today, but it's the direction
[1:00:38] to create that financial plan. Hopefully
[1:00:40] that clarifies.
[1:00:43] » Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Garbit. And uh and
[1:00:45] and again there there you know
[1:00:47] [clears throat] are discussions at at
[1:00:48] the federal and provincial levels about
[1:00:50] uh potential grants and things like that
[1:00:52] but again we we can't anticipate what
[1:00:55] those are uh until we actually receive
[1:00:58] them the money's in the bank so to speak
[1:01:00] and uh and I mean that that goes I mean
[1:01:02] we're going to have discussions around
[1:01:04] DCC's as well um you know where the
[1:01:06] federal government is saying that you
[1:01:08] know they're going to have them and then
[1:01:10] somehow make cities whole uh based on on
[1:01:13] that. But again, how how do you make
[1:01:14] those decisions when we're really
[1:01:17] waiting for them to to uh provide that
[1:01:19] leadership and uh and move forward uh
[1:01:22] one way or the other? Uh Council Fish.
[1:01:25] » Yeah, thanks Mayor and thanks for the
[1:01:27] report. Um I'm more inclined. I I do
[1:01:29] like the 6.3 uh million balance in our
[1:01:33] surplus and I think that's probably
[1:01:35] reasonable. Um, but I'm more interested
[1:01:37] in seeing something like a six or 7%
[1:01:40] increase. And the reason for that and
[1:01:41] not say a 9% increase is it does
[1:01:44] acknowledge,
[1:01:46] excuse me, the difficult times that
[1:01:48] we're in right now. And it forces um,
[1:01:51] you know, the next council to make what
[1:01:53] I think are obviously difficult
[1:01:55] decisions, but uh, not to to accept a
[1:01:58] year-over-year 9% increase, which I
[1:02:00] think uh, would be very difficult to
[1:02:03] swallow. That continued on. So, um,
[1:02:06] yeah, I understand that it it looks
[1:02:08] smooth, but it's also just kind of
[1:02:12] softening the fact that we're we just
[1:02:14] keep adding more and more services and
[1:02:16] more and more, which they're great
[1:02:18] services, but um, you know, with our
[1:02:21] recent economic challenges with
[1:02:22] everything that's going on in the world,
[1:02:24] I think it might be just a little bit
[1:02:25] rich. So, that's where I'm landing with
[1:02:28] this year's budget. Thanks.
[1:02:31] Thanks, Councelor FR and uh councelor
[1:02:34] McCull.
[1:02:36] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um
[1:02:39] I had uh similar thinking around um what
[1:02:43] the percentage and how much um surplus
[1:02:46] makes sense to utilize. Uh while what's
[1:02:49] in the recommendation um evens out the
[1:02:53] tax increase year-to-year um the 6%
[1:02:56] actually looks at what we have over and
[1:02:59] above our our surplus target and divides
[1:03:02] that amount between two taxation years.
[1:03:05] So we are kind of splitting you know
[1:03:08] that that money that additional surplus
[1:03:12] that we have um to reduce taxation and
[1:03:16] we could use it to smooth it out
[1:03:18] entirely or or you know so I think you
[1:03:21] know splitting it between this year and
[1:03:24] next year is a is a fair approach. Um, I
[1:03:28] think
[1:03:30] it the the next council that comes in is
[1:03:33] going to see um
[1:03:36] a new fireh hall um coming into play and
[1:03:39] there's there's a cost associated with
[1:03:41] that. And you know, essentially what
[1:03:43] we're doing is um addressing some of
[1:03:47] that by pushing some surplus there. But
[1:03:49] you know, you you just can't get around
[1:03:51] um bringing a new asset with new
[1:03:54] staffing online without um an impact to
[1:03:58] uh what what revenue is required. So,
[1:04:01] um, yeah, we could choose to smooth it
[1:04:04] out now and and take on some of that
[1:04:06] cost currently, but, um, it doesn't
[1:04:09] really change the fact that, you know,
[1:04:11] that service is needed and that
[1:04:13] decision's been made and that is the the
[1:04:16] cost impact to it. So, um I think it is
[1:04:19] a fair approach um to go with the 6% um
[1:04:25] and uh yeah, there are likely decisions
[1:04:28] that will need to be make made around
[1:04:30] maybe other services or or how um that's
[1:04:34] addressed in the years going forward,
[1:04:35] but our decision right now is is on this
[1:04:38] year's tax. And I I think that's a
[1:04:40] responsible approach is um using half of
[1:04:42] the excess
[1:04:44] um to make things a little easier this
[1:04:46] year. Thanks.
[1:04:49] » Thanks, Councilman Cullum and Council
[1:04:51] Warren.
[1:04:52] » Great. Thanks, Mayor. Um yeah, I think
[1:04:55] I'm in fair amount of alignment with the
[1:04:57] comments so far. Um I appreciate the
[1:05:01] work that's been been done and you've
[1:05:03] done what we asked you to do, which is
[1:05:05] great. Um it's always um different when
[1:05:08] you're looking at it all in black and
[1:05:10] white, but I know um I question the
[1:05:14] surplus that we were holding um because
[1:05:17] it's not very palatable to me for people
[1:05:21] to have an increase in taxes and then
[1:05:23] see that we have whacks of money in the
[1:05:25] bank because we were under budget or we
[1:05:28] got grants or whatever. And the surplus
[1:05:31] is, you know, has been consistent. And I
[1:05:35] I would like to see us even um holding
[1:05:40] less surplus and staying at the and um
[1:05:44] and looking at a 6% um because I I mean
[1:05:49] we know that some of the funding is is
[1:05:51] drying up, but then we always seem to
[1:05:55] find or you know be successful with some
[1:05:57] grants. I'm not trying to um do what
[1:06:00] Mayor Wells said and count our chickens
[1:06:02] before they're hatched, but this is why
[1:06:04] we do end up with surpluses because we
[1:06:06] we end up um you know with these with
[1:06:12] these extra funds and I think it would
[1:06:14] be better to alleviate the the tax
[1:06:16] increase for our citizens and have a
[1:06:19] bunch of money in the bank. Thanks.
[1:06:23] aside from what we need, we need to have
[1:06:25] some, but I just don't think we need it
[1:06:27] to the level that that we've been
[1:06:29] carrying. Thanks.
[1:06:31] » Thanks, Councelor Mren. Um, and next
[1:06:33] we'll have Councelor Cole Hamilton who's
[1:06:35] online, and then we have a couple more
[1:06:36] lights uh back in the room here, but uh
[1:06:38] over to you, Councelor Cole Hamilton.
[1:06:41] » Yeah, great. Thanks very much, Mayor. I
[1:06:42] think I'm uh having similar thoughts to
[1:06:45] my colleagues. Um I I think that keeping
[1:06:49] sort of uh the $6 million um unallocated
[1:06:53] surplus uh level at least for now while
[1:06:55] we um I know that over the course of the
[1:06:58] next year we're going to get that uh
[1:07:00] reserves and surplus policy that we've
[1:07:02] been thinking about and that will be uh
[1:07:05] allow us to have a much clearer sense I
[1:07:08] think uh we or whoever sitting around
[1:07:10] this table this time next year of where
[1:07:12] where we stand. I do know that we've
[1:07:14] increased our uh reserves considerably
[1:07:17] uh over the course of this term through
[1:07:19] things like the SIP the strategic
[1:07:22] infrastructure investment program which
[1:07:24] is increased by 1.5% every single year.
[1:07:27] So things that a new council could
[1:07:29] consider are um you know the
[1:07:32] implementation of the SIP whether
[1:07:34] there's any cause at any point for um
[1:07:37] changing the rate of increase or anyway
[1:07:40] so I think there there are uh places
[1:07:42] where a future council can make their
[1:07:44] own decisions as to and we'll have more
[1:07:47] information in front of them and as for
[1:07:49] now I'm comfortable with like like my
[1:07:53] colleagues with the um something in the
[1:07:56] six to 7% % range. Uh I'm not sure
[1:07:59] depending on how soon the vote happens
[1:08:00] whether I'll still be here online with
[1:08:03] you at the end of it, but I appreciate
[1:08:04] being able to share my perspective and
[1:08:06] I'm glad to see that there seems to be a
[1:08:09] fair amount of agreement among council.
[1:08:11] This is a a wise balance that we've
[1:08:13] struck here and appreciate staff
[1:08:15] generating these uh these scenarios so
[1:08:17] we could we could look them all through
[1:08:19] carefully and um and it leaves a
[1:08:26] you know, the numbers we see going
[1:08:28] forward. Um, there are always rough
[1:08:31] guesses and they I note that of course
[1:08:34] that no unallocated surplus is included
[1:08:37] in
[1:08:38] them, but we do seem to consistently
[1:08:41] have one. So that means that often the
[1:08:44] uh the the scale of a future tax change
[1:08:47] is not as um substantial as it might
[1:08:50] initially seem uh when one's trying to
[1:08:52] predict it say two years out. So, uh,
[1:08:55] long long and short of it, I'm I'm
[1:08:58] comfortable with a six to 7% increase,
[1:09:01] uh, over this year. Um, and, uh, keeping
[1:09:05] the six the roughly $6 million, um,
[1:09:09] unallocated surplus for now while we,
[1:09:11] uh, you know, complete that process of
[1:09:13] looking at our reserves. And I know
[1:09:15] there are others on council I think
[1:09:16] particularly director mccll have had uh
[1:09:18] better data on the way in which we've
[1:09:20] increased uh our reserves over uh over
[1:09:23] time but if if staff were maybe able to
[1:09:26] uh answer that as a question like how
[1:09:28] our total reserves have increased over
[1:09:31] the course of this council from 2022 to
[1:09:35] uh to the present if that's if those are
[1:09:37] figures that they happen to have. So
[1:09:39] I'll just pack that question on to the
[1:09:41] end. Thank you.
[1:09:44] Uh, thanks very much, uh, Councelor Cole
[1:09:46] Hamilton, and and we did catch about
[1:09:48] 98.9%
[1:09:50] of that. There was a couple little
[1:09:51] hiccups in there, but I think we
[1:09:53] definitely got the the the full gist of
[1:09:55] of your comments, uh, including the
[1:09:57] question in at the end there. Um, and
[1:10:00] I'll maybe I'll pass it over to Mr.
[1:10:01] Langmire, um, just so uh, either he can
[1:10:04] clarify or I don't have the information
[1:10:07] on the reserve changes over the last
[1:10:09] four years on hand. Those will come back
[1:10:12] with the reserve policy and it'll give a
[1:10:14] nice clear picture that way.
[1:10:18] » All right. Okay. Thanks for that. And
[1:10:20] councelor McCullum.
[1:10:23] » Yeah. Um, and this is something we can
[1:10:26] maybe pick up in the next um,
[1:10:29] discussion, but um, something that I was
[1:10:32] wondering about and just kind of chewing
[1:10:34] on these um, numbers, especially looking
[1:10:36] forward is um, our contribution to the
[1:10:40] SIP um, to address our infrastructure
[1:10:43] gap. We've done some really good work on
[1:10:45] that in the last couple of years and we
[1:10:47] understand what the gap is in our
[1:10:50] reserves and our our obligations to our
[1:10:53] um fixed assets
[1:10:56] and we are increasing that contribution
[1:11:00] by a percentage every financial cycle.
[1:11:04] Um but could you remind me how long it
[1:11:06] will take for us to increase that until
[1:11:09] we've um if anyone reme we can again
[1:11:12] pick this up next time but um until that
[1:11:14] that gap is kind of met with our our tax
[1:11:18] contributions
[1:11:20] » I believe from the um information was
[1:11:23] about 10 or 11 years was the projection
[1:11:25] at the time.
[1:11:28] » Yeah. Based on what we know now. Yeah.
[1:11:30] Um okay that's great. I I just wanted to
[1:11:33] highlight that that is um you know a
[1:11:36] decision that was made. It's it's sound
[1:11:38] financial policy. It's um it's a it's
[1:11:42] responsible decision- making, but um
[1:11:45] it's also, you know, ambitious to make
[1:11:48] up that gap that a lot of um
[1:11:51] organizations are are basically ignoring
[1:11:53] in a 10-year time span. So that is a
[1:11:56] policy decision that future councils
[1:11:58] could revisit and and change the
[1:12:00] approach and lengthen that if if that's
[1:12:03] the desire or um you know addressing
[1:12:07] trying to smooth out some of these ups
[1:12:08] and downs that that are inevitably in
[1:12:11] front of us. Um yeah so I'll just leave
[1:12:15] it at that. I just wanted to bring that
[1:12:16] into the discussion.
[1:12:18] » Thanks Councelor McCullum and Councelor
[1:12:21] Fr.
[1:12:22] » Yeah thanks again mayor. [clears throat]
[1:12:23] Would you accept a motion at this time?
[1:12:26] » Um, I don't see anybody getting any more
[1:12:28] clarification. So, yeah.
[1:12:30] » Thanks, Mayor. I'll I'll move that
[1:12:31] council direct staff to prepare the 2026
[1:12:34] to 2030 financial plan using a surplus
[1:12:37] balance target of 15% of the 2025
[1:12:39] general fund budgeted spending,
[1:12:41] including tax funded capital and
[1:12:43] excluding expenditures with specific
[1:12:45] reserves. And the council directs staff
[1:12:47] to prepare the 2026 to 20 2030 financial
[1:12:51] plan using the 6% tax change scenario
[1:12:55] for 2026 and that additional available
[1:12:58] surplus be applied through 2027 to 2030.
[1:13:02] » Second.
[1:13:05] » Right. That's been moved and seconded.
[1:13:06] Are there any questions or comments on
[1:13:09] the motion on the floor?
[1:13:13] Um, I'll maybe just make make the
[1:13:14] comment that I think I've made uh pretty
[1:13:16] much every year when we've gotten to
[1:13:18] budget time and and that kind of talks
[1:13:21] about that bow wave and um the the fact
[1:13:24] that the less we do this year, the the
[1:13:26] more that's going to be next year and
[1:13:27] and I think we've seen that uh time and
[1:13:30] time again and and so um uh again uh
[1:13:33] looking forward to that reserve and um
[1:13:37] surplus policy coming back uh to give us
[1:13:41] another tool in the toolbox. So, so
[1:13:43] we're able to really contemplate that
[1:13:45] stuff and and make sure that we're
[1:13:47] leaving things as healthy as possible
[1:13:48] for uh the uh the council after the next
[1:13:52] term. So, um that being said, I still
[1:13:55] don't see any further questions or
[1:13:56] comments. So, I'll call the question.
[1:13:58] All those in favor?
[1:14:00] Any opposed?
[1:14:02] And motion carries.
[1:14:05] Um all right, moving on to lease
[1:14:08] renewals for the Courtney Air Park. U
[1:14:10] lease lots 2 to four commercial hangers
[1:14:13] uh 6.12 and I'll pass it over to um Mr.
[1:14:18] Garb
[1:14:20] through the mayor. Um Scott Haynesworth
[1:14:22] is going to give an introduction of this
[1:14:24] report and it's covering um
[1:14:28] four of the five commercial leases,
[1:14:31] sorry, three of the four commercial
[1:14:33] leases at the airport.
[1:14:36] » Thank you, Jeff. uh through the city
[1:14:38] manager, mayor and councel. Uh this
[1:14:40] report is before you to consider the
[1:14:41] renewal of three existing ground leases
[1:14:43] at the Courtney Air Park, specifically
[1:14:45] lease lots 2, three, and four, all of
[1:14:48] which expired on December 31st, 2025.
[1:14:52] The leases relate to existing commercial
[1:14:54] hangers and aviation uses that are
[1:14:56] already uh established on site. In each
[1:14:59] case, the tenant owns the building
[1:15:01] improvements and is requesting to
[1:15:02] exercise the first renewal term provided
[1:15:04] under the original lease agreements. The
[1:15:07] proposed renewals are for a further
[1:15:08] 5-year term from January 1st, 2026, uh,
[1:15:11] running until December 31st, 2030 with
[1:15:14] two additional 5-year renewal options
[1:15:16] remaining, each subject to council
[1:15:18] approval.
[1:15:19] An independent fair market rental
[1:15:21] appraisal was completed in November 2025
[1:15:23] to support the renewals. The appraisal
[1:15:26] confirms that the proposed rents meet or
[1:15:28] exceed minimum market benchmarks based
[1:15:30] on existing zoning, land use controls,
[1:15:33] and aviation related use restrictions
[1:15:36] included in the leases.
[1:15:38] Annual rents will continue to escalate
[1:15:40] at 4 and a.5% consistent with the
[1:15:42] structure in the original lease
[1:15:43] agreements. I'll also note that the
[1:15:44] proposed lease rates are approximately
[1:15:46] 45% higher than the 2025 lease rates. A
[1:15:50] notice that this position was issued in
[1:15:51] accordance with the community charter
[1:15:53] and no public feedback was received. Uh
[1:15:55] staff are therefore recommending
[1:15:56] approval of the lease renewals as
[1:15:58] presented. Be happy to take any
[1:16:00] questions.
[1:16:02] Right. Thanks very much uh for that. Are
[1:16:05] there any questions or comments?
[1:16:09] Right.
[1:16:11] » Any questions, comments on the
[1:16:12] recommendations on the floor? Seeing
[1:16:14] none. All those in favor? Any opposed?
[1:16:17] And motion carries.
[1:16:21] and we'll move on to operational
[1:16:22] services CBRD water south extension
[1:16:25] project uh project approval and pass it
[1:16:29] over to Mr. Garvin again.
[1:16:30] » Thank you through the mayor and council.
[1:16:32] It's a really important uh uh project
[1:16:35] where we're sharing in infrastructure
[1:16:37] with both CVRD
[1:16:40] uh and Komox First Nation Council um
[1:16:43] confirmed the partnership on this
[1:16:45] project uh with a public statement uh in
[1:16:48] a past council meeting and Mr. Shaw is
[1:16:51] going to give an overview and we have
[1:16:53] staff from the CVRD have joined us uh as
[1:16:55] partners in this project. Over to you
[1:16:57] Mr. Shaw.
[1:16:59] » Thank you Mr. Garbot. Uh good evening
[1:17:01] through the mayor to council. I'm
[1:17:02] pleased to present the water south
[1:17:04] extension project project approval
[1:17:06] report. Really a cover report for the
[1:17:08] bylaws that the CBRD has submitted on
[1:17:10] behalf of the service. Uh and before I
[1:17:12] begin as Mr. Garin articulated uh we I'd
[1:17:14] like to acknowledge and introduce u a
[1:17:16] few members from the Comox Valley
[1:17:17] Regional District who played a critical
[1:17:19] role in developing this initiative. So
[1:17:22] please join me in welcoming Mr. Charlie
[1:17:24] Gore the senior manager of capital
[1:17:25] project delivery. Uh Jake Martins the
[1:17:27] general manager of corporate services.
[1:17:29] um their expertise and collaboration has
[1:17:31] been instrumental in bringing this
[1:17:32] project to its current stage and I'm
[1:17:35] glad to see them here today to support
[1:17:37] the discussion. So if council has any
[1:17:38] questions for them feel free to ask. Um
[1:17:40] but just briefly uh the water south
[1:17:43] extension project is a transformative
[1:17:45] regional infrastructure project led by
[1:17:47] the Komox Valley Regional District in
[1:17:49] partnership with Komox First Nation and
[1:17:51] the Royston water local service area
[1:17:54] with the participant being the city of
[1:17:56] Kourtney. Uh the project itself will
[1:17:58] extend water transmission infrastructure
[1:17:59] south of Courtney supporting treaty
[1:18:01] lands uh Royston uh key growth areas in
[1:18:04] South Courtney and this investment is
[1:18:06] foundational to the city's long-term
[1:18:08] growth strategy ensuring reliable water
[1:18:11] services for our future both for
[1:18:13] development and as well as aligning with
[1:18:15] the city's water master plan for future
[1:18:18] growth. Uh governance for this project
[1:18:20] is anchored in two CBRD bylaws that are
[1:18:22] here for you today. both bylaw number
[1:18:24] 897, the establishment bylaw, and 898,
[1:18:28] the loan authorization bylaw, which are
[1:18:30] both here in front of council for
[1:18:32] council consent. Um, council support
[1:18:35] today will enable the timely delivery
[1:18:37] deliver sorry, delivery and advancement
[1:18:39] of the strategic initiative in this
[1:18:41] project as the project aims to support a
[1:18:44] sustainable development, economic
[1:18:46] growth, and regional collaboration while
[1:18:48] positioning the city for future success.
[1:18:51] In terms of timelines and next steps, uh
[1:18:54] timely consent is essential for the
[1:18:56] project to move forward. Uh continue and
[1:18:58] maintain momentum for the project and
[1:19:00] meet grant funding deadlines. So key
[1:19:02] milestones are obviously consent of the
[1:19:05] bylaws today in January. post consent.
[1:19:08] Uh the province uh the submissions to
[1:19:10] the province for the bylaws for
[1:19:11] adoptions will be in March or March at
[1:19:13] the latest with tendering and
[1:19:15] construction phases through the fall of
[1:19:17] 2026 and construction till the end of
[1:19:19] March of 2028.
[1:19:22] So the recommendation before you today
[1:19:24] is to staff recommend that council
[1:19:26] consent to support the bylaws, both
[1:19:27] bylaw number 897 and bylaw 898, and
[1:19:31] authorize the city manager to finalize
[1:19:33] and execute the project agreement
[1:19:35] between the city and the CVRD and direct
[1:19:37] staff to take all necessary steps to
[1:19:39] advance this initiative. With that, I'm
[1:19:42] happy to take any questions.
[1:19:44] » Excellent. Thanks very much for that.
[1:19:45] And looking to council if there's any
[1:19:48] questions or comments. Um,
[1:19:51] council mak.
[1:19:54] » Yeah, the thanks for the report. I It's
[1:19:57] good news um seeing this move ahead. I
[1:20:00] It's very important project for our
[1:20:02] region. Um,
[1:20:05] one question I had just um in the
[1:20:07] financial implications section of the
[1:20:09] report. Um when we've uh reviewed this
[1:20:13] project in the past, we've kind of
[1:20:15] talked about um you know the city's
[1:20:17] benefit um how we are aortioning um our
[1:20:21] financial commitment
[1:20:23] and um but something that we haven't
[1:20:27] discussed is um like how how that how
[1:20:33] those funds are being collected and um
[1:20:37] I I guess my assumption had And a big
[1:20:40] portion of this would be through DCC's
[1:20:43] um because it's my understanding that
[1:20:44] the main driver for this is to support
[1:20:48] new development.
[1:20:50] And um in reading this it it says that
[1:20:53] 75% of this cost will be allocated to
[1:20:56] residential customers. I I'm assuming
[1:20:58] the other 25 is just simply
[1:20:59] non-residential, but there's no
[1:21:02] indication of exactly um how like the
[1:21:05] source of these funds. Is this um a
[1:21:08] straight addition to uh the water
[1:21:11] service requisition or are there DCC's
[1:21:14] um coming in to fund this or um just
[1:21:17] some better information there would be
[1:21:19] helpful.
[1:21:21] » Yeah, thank you for that through the
[1:21:22] mayor to councelor McCullum. Fair
[1:21:23] question. Um ran some very preliminary
[1:21:25] numbers. You'll see that the cost
[1:21:27] estimates are based on a 20-year
[1:21:28] amortization with a 5% over the customer
[1:21:31] base that exists today. No dcc
[1:21:33] considerations for that. um and it it
[1:21:36] would be attributed to the water fee and
[1:21:39] then requisitioned by the CVR through
[1:21:41] the city. So the city would collect
[1:21:42] through fees and charges and then
[1:21:43] requisition the amount for debt
[1:21:45] servicing back to the CVRD over the
[1:21:47] amortization period that was selected.
[1:21:50] So,
[1:21:53] so in terms of that additional cost
[1:21:55] because that's basically an additional
[1:21:56] cost to all the households in the ser
[1:21:59] like in the city of Courtney um to
[1:22:01] receive or to support this project. And
[1:22:04] what is the benefit then to um existing
[1:22:08] users for that additional fee? I think
[1:22:10] that's important for us to understand.
[1:22:12] » That's a great question. So uh the
[1:22:14] transmission project in and of itself um
[1:22:17] transverses uh through the Ardan
[1:22:18] corridor uh and across um the Ministry
[1:22:21] of Jurisdiction all the way to the
[1:22:22] boundary past the ridge development.
[1:22:24] There's a number of tie-in connection
[1:22:26] points within the city and the existing
[1:22:28] zone. So the 87 meter zone on the West
[1:22:31] Courtney side which services a large
[1:22:32] vast majority of our customer base would
[1:22:35] see a fire suppression enhancement
[1:22:37] opportunity through its connection to
[1:22:38] the CVRD main at that particular
[1:22:40] location as well as disconnecting some
[1:22:43] of the existing customers that rely on
[1:22:46] um other systems that the CVRD support.
[1:22:49] uh so local service areas or the Marsden
[1:22:51] zone, disconnect those and put them back
[1:22:53] onto the 87. So they'd be truly serviced
[1:22:55] through the city's infrastructure as
[1:22:57] well as providing secondary support for
[1:22:59] fire and water um to the uh ridge
[1:23:02] subdivision which is currently through
[1:23:04] the temporary booster station. So that
[1:23:06] would provide a singular secondary
[1:23:08] source and primary flow to that existing
[1:23:10] area as well as introduce water an
[1:23:12] opportunity for water at a higher
[1:23:14] velocity and fire flow for the Christy
[1:23:16] Parkway which already uh exists within
[1:23:18] our community. So there's a number of
[1:23:19] connection points and a number of
[1:23:21] benefits to the existing community, but
[1:23:22] also provides the opportunity for the
[1:23:24] continuation of growth within those
[1:23:26] areas that otherwise would be limited
[1:23:28] without
[1:23:30] » That's that's really helpful. Thanks.
[1:23:32] And so just for clarity, 75% of the cost
[1:23:35] is residential and the rest is business
[1:23:37] and industry. Is that is that what the
[1:23:40] implication is?
[1:23:41] » Sorry. Yes. Correct. Yeah. The breakdown
[1:23:42] currently is roughly between 75 just
[1:23:45] over 75% residential to ICI in terms of
[1:23:47] the makeup and so that's what I used to
[1:23:49] build to build the foundation of of this
[1:23:51] cost estimate.
[1:23:53] » Thank you.
[1:23:55] » Thanks councelor McCullum and councelor
[1:23:57] Fr.
[1:23:58] » Yeah, thanks again mayor. Um and in my
[1:24:01] recollection of this project I thought
[1:24:04] there was an opportunity for an active
[1:24:06] transportation corridor but maybe you
[1:24:07] can uh just bring me up to speed. Is the
[1:24:11] transmission line is that going to be
[1:24:12] like fully publicly owned property or is
[1:24:15] is there some other scenario for that
[1:24:17] and is there an opportunity for an
[1:24:18] active transportation corridor along it?
[1:24:21] It's a great question. Thank you to the
[1:24:22] mayor. It's councelor Frish. Um so it
[1:24:24] has been contemplated as a part of this
[1:24:25] project as it runs through the Ardan
[1:24:27] corridor and through the Komox uh
[1:24:29] logging road where practicable and
[1:24:31] ability within the corridor um
[1:24:33] cross-section there's an allowance for
[1:24:35] the road to be constructed in such a way
[1:24:37] that would support active transportation
[1:24:39] or shoulder widening for future
[1:24:40] consideration of active transportation.
[1:24:43] We're seeking to work with the CBRD to
[1:24:45] have those pieces um built into the
[1:24:47] overall delivery of the project. Um, so
[1:24:50] it's not necessarily of a built to a
[1:24:52] completeness, but built it to a place
[1:24:54] where the corridor is then restored to a
[1:24:56] means which would provide the city the
[1:24:58] opportunity to build the active
[1:25:00] transportation corridor uh throughout
[1:25:02] its entirety. As we move past some of
[1:25:04] the undeveloped lands that are beyond um
[1:25:07] the ridge development, as this
[1:25:08] transmission ma main continues on,
[1:25:10] there'll be some clearing and removal of
[1:25:12] materials in order to facilitate the
[1:25:14] installation. And so where again
[1:25:16] practical and opportunity exists for
[1:25:18] active transportation to continue along
[1:25:20] that corridor. Uh the reconstruction of
[1:25:22] the the the earthworks in that area will
[1:25:25] be to suit that of actual transportation
[1:25:27] or a multi-use path under the parameters
[1:25:30] of our existing SDS bylaw.
[1:25:31] » Right. And and the logging the logging
[1:25:33] road that it's using is that is that the
[1:25:35] really old one that's just beyond the
[1:25:37] connector that connects the ridge.
[1:25:38] Right. That the one that's expensive to
[1:25:40] fix and we haven't done
[1:25:41] » Yeah.
[1:25:42] » Yeah. That's the one. Okay. So, that's
[1:25:43] going to be expensive no matter what.
[1:25:45] Um, and then does it cross the um the
[1:25:49] river? I'm I'm totally lost on the name
[1:25:51] of the river. You know the one I mean,
[1:25:52] thank you. The Trent is actually what I
[1:25:54] was thinking. Does it cross Trent?
[1:25:57] » Uh, yes.
[1:25:58] » Yeah. How does it cross the Trent?
[1:26:00] » It'll be in the road crosssection. Okay.
[1:26:03] » Y thanks. Thanks for the
[1:26:05] » Sure.
[1:26:09] recommendations.
[1:26:10] » All right. It's been moved and seconded.
[1:26:12] Any further questions or comments?
[1:26:14] Seeing none, all those in favor? Any
[1:26:17] opposed? And motion carries.
[1:26:20] We'll move into um 6.2.2 solid waste
[1:26:24] contamination uh update. And I'll pass
[1:26:27] it over to
[1:26:30] Chris Thompson. [clears throat]
[1:26:33] Mr. Thompson. Oh, you need the clicker.
[1:26:39] » Oh, and Mr. Garvis got a comment. Yeah,
[1:26:41] thanks. Um, thank you, Mayor Council.
[1:26:44] Uh, we received an update um, from the
[1:26:47] solidway staff at the region. Uh, we
[1:26:49] have a good partnership working towards
[1:26:50] there and I asked operational services
[1:26:53] staff to uh, give uh, council a little
[1:26:55] bit more information. Uh, the launch of
[1:26:57] our uh, cart program, organics diversion
[1:27:01] and recycling has gone really really
[1:27:02] well. And I think it's really important
[1:27:04] for council to understand uh how
[1:27:06] effective this program's been uh as it's
[1:27:08] um you know it's a it's a huge component
[1:27:10] of uh work that happened under council's
[1:27:13] direction uh last year. So thanks Mr.
[1:27:16] Thompson.
[1:27:18] » Thank you the CEO to the mayor and
[1:27:20] council. Um appreciate the preamble. Um
[1:27:24] yeah so in October uh staff from KMAC
[1:27:27] Strath Kona Waste Management um
[1:27:30] presented this solid waste management
[1:27:32] plan update. This plan updates the or
[1:27:35] outlines long-term strategies for
[1:27:37] garbage, recycling, and organics. Uh,
[1:27:40] and it update or it outlines several
[1:27:42] strategies to focus on waste reduction
[1:27:44] and diversion, including supporting
[1:27:46] multif family waste separation, reducing
[1:27:48] industrial and construction waste, and
[1:27:50] equalizing access to services. Uh, a
[1:27:53] significant portion of the solid waste
[1:27:55] management plan is a waste composition
[1:27:58] study, which takes samples of waste from
[1:28:00] different communities. um and provides
[1:28:03] insights into the components as a
[1:28:05] snapshot in time. So it's like a waste
[1:28:06] audit. This report and presentation
[1:28:09] reviews the perform the city's
[1:28:10] performance in comparison to other
[1:28:12] municipalities in the uh CSWM service.
[1:28:16] So uh I believe this is this chart's
[1:28:19] been shown before and it really
[1:28:21] highlights some of the successes of the
[1:28:23] automated uh transition. So in 2024
[1:28:27] along with automated we switched to
[1:28:29] bi-weekly garbage collection and we saw
[1:28:31] 38% reduction in garbage tonnage and a
[1:28:35] 49% increase in organics tonnage. Uh so
[1:28:39] the the ratio of organics tonnage to
[1:28:42] garbage is 2.17
[1:28:44] which makes the city of Courtney a
[1:28:46] regional leader in in diverting waste
[1:28:48] away from the landfill uh specifically
[1:28:51] through the curbside collection service.
[1:28:53] So, uh, we've actually met our, uh, if
[1:28:56] you just look at that curbside
[1:28:57] collection service, we've met our
[1:28:59] obligation, uh, to to to meet that
[1:29:01] provincial target of, uh, 350 kg per
[1:29:04] person annually. Uh, the 2025 numbers
[1:29:08] for tonnage are in, they've arrived and
[1:29:11] we are on the same pace as 2024. So, it
[1:29:14] wasn't just a novelty of uh, the
[1:29:16] automated collection. That's that's
[1:29:18] truly what uh, our residents are doing.
[1:29:20] So, that's fantastic.
[1:29:22] Um this chart here is from the waste
[1:29:24] composition study and in the sample that
[1:29:27] was collected courtney garbage contains
[1:29:30] 20% compostable organics. So that was
[1:29:33] one of the numbers that the staff member
[1:29:34] from the CSWN reported. Uh this is
[1:29:37] significant and provides an area of
[1:29:39] focus for staff to reduce uh to reduce
[1:29:43] in 2026 through education about the
[1:29:45] organics diversion potential. It's
[1:29:47] important to compare us to other
[1:29:49] municipalities. So Komox is at 19%.
[1:29:53] Campbell River is actually at 35% and
[1:29:55] let's say they're pre-automated. So
[1:29:58] that's coming uh in 2026, I believe. And
[1:30:01] Cumberland's at 24%. So we're actually
[1:30:03] we're not doing too bad when we compare
[1:30:05] ourselves. Um however, there is an
[1:30:07] opportunity for targeted reduction
[1:30:09] programs.
[1:30:12] And then uh organic contamination. Um
[1:30:15] the number that was presented was that
[1:30:17] the city's edging towards a 3%
[1:30:19] contamination rate in organics. So 97%
[1:30:23] of the uh organics is actually good
[1:30:26] compostable material. However, there is
[1:30:29] 2.63%
[1:30:30] that's plastic um and other part you
[1:30:34] know other components um that make up
[1:30:36] contamination. Uh when we compare
[1:30:38] ourselves to other municipalities uh
[1:30:40] Komox is at 2.2% 2%. Camel river is at
[1:30:43] 0.19%
[1:30:44] and Cumberland's at 0.52%.
[1:30:47] However, these these latter two, Camel
[1:30:49] River and Cumberland, they're still in
[1:30:50] the manual collection. So, uh there is
[1:30:53] that sort of oversight at the curb uh to
[1:30:55] prevent that contamination from getting
[1:30:57] into the into the trucks. The provincial
[1:31:00] benchmark is around 2 to 5%. So, we're
[1:31:02] we're doing not too bad. However, uh we
[1:31:05] do want to reduce that that plastic
[1:31:07] going into those automated carts.
[1:31:11] And uh finally, recycling contamination.
[1:31:14] So periodically throughout the year,
[1:31:15] Recycle BC uh does audits themselves on
[1:31:19] our recycling waste delivered to their
[1:31:21] sorting facility from the city of
[1:31:22] Courtney. Um and they they really
[1:31:25] analyze it. So there's two
[1:31:27] classifications. Um, one is called not
[1:31:30] accepted material and that's highlighted
[1:31:33] in the it's sort of a gray uh gray uh
[1:31:37] area of that uh line chart there and
[1:31:40] that's anything that's not accepted uh
[1:31:42] for recycling by recycle recycle BC but
[1:31:46] it might be accepted through another
[1:31:47] program or a donation program. So this
[1:31:49] includes books um clothing hazardous
[1:31:54] materials scrap metal as well as garbage
[1:31:56] and organics. So um the other category
[1:31:59] is called incompatible material and
[1:32:00] that's all that non-accepted material
[1:32:04] plus depot recyclables like glass foam
[1:32:06] and and flexible plastics as well as
[1:32:10] nested material. So if you if you get
[1:32:12] home and you you throw that take out the
[1:32:14] takeout cups inside the takeout bag
[1:32:16] without sorting it out that's considered
[1:32:19] incompatible as well as recyclable that
[1:32:21] recyclables that have res too much
[1:32:23] residue to be recycled. So um normally
[1:32:27] um we are at around 5% uh not accepted
[1:32:30] materials. We're actually seeing a
[1:32:32] downward trend right now which is
[1:32:33] excellent. Um however if we do start to
[1:32:36] to to go above that 5% level we we uh
[1:32:40] will be under the eye of
[1:32:43] recycle BC and we could see fines start
[1:32:46] to add up. They can actually find us up
[1:32:47] to $90,000 a year um if they start to
[1:32:50] see above 5% contamination. So, we
[1:32:52] really want to keep an eye on that and
[1:32:54] we do that through the Courtney Collects
[1:32:55] app, pushing out um campaigns. We we are
[1:33:00] constantly updating the waste wizards.
[1:33:01] So, what goes where in the recycling bin
[1:33:03] as well as community outreach. So, one
[1:33:06] issue that we we have been having is
[1:33:08] that our contractor has limitations in
[1:33:10] their contamination management tools
[1:33:11] that are prescribed in the the contract.
[1:33:14] Uh and we're we're working with them
[1:33:16] through um in in our automated
[1:33:19] collection system. So, just to highlight
[1:33:21] that there's been some technology and
[1:33:23] contractor challenges. The the contract
[1:33:25] does specify the use of contamination
[1:33:27] management tools, including the uh
[1:33:29] including location location based
[1:33:31] photographs um showing evidence that
[1:33:34] there's contamination and that links to
[1:33:36] the carts um which is a link to the
[1:33:39] addressing. Um but it is important to
[1:33:41] note that contamination of both
[1:33:42] recycling or and organics has been
[1:33:45] relatively low. However, should
[1:33:47] increases occur, the city will be
[1:33:48] hampered by the contractor's
[1:33:50] limitations. Um,
[1:33:54] so to bring this to a close, I will um
[1:33:57] the staff recommendation here is to
[1:33:59] receive the solid waste man uh
[1:34:01] contamination management 2026 briefing
[1:34:04] note.
[1:34:06] » Thank you very much.
[1:34:07] » Excellent. Thank Thanks very much. and
[1:34:09] and maybe just uh um since the last sort
[1:34:12] of the last part that you talked about
[1:34:13] was was the actual ability and I believe
[1:34:16] it's like camera systems and that kind
[1:34:17] of stuff to be able to actually see
[1:34:19] what's going in so it can be uh detected
[1:34:21] right away. Um and and you know works
[1:34:24] are underway. I mean I think the
[1:34:26] expectation was is with this these new
[1:34:28] uh trucks that uh basically that would
[1:34:31] just kind of be stock um and that
[1:34:33] obviously that hasn't been the way. So,
[1:34:35] do we have uh any idea of like an ETA of
[1:34:37] when um those systems will be uh
[1:34:40] basically online so that we can benefit
[1:34:43] from them? And then maybe you talked
[1:34:44] about a maximum $90,000. Is that
[1:34:47] something that could potentially like
[1:34:49] the the haulers can help with that
[1:34:53] considering we're we're kind of beholden
[1:34:55] to their system?
[1:34:57] » Um yes, Mr. Mayor. Um the so the two
[1:35:01] parts of that question. Uh yes, there's
[1:35:03] a possibility that uh those uh fines
[1:35:06] could be flowing through to the
[1:35:08] contractor. Um we're investigating
[1:35:11] investigating that um possibility. Um to
[1:35:14] the first part of your question, uh
[1:35:16] their operational staff on the island
[1:35:18] here have reached out to me actually
[1:35:19] this week um with some very positive
[1:35:22] news that the cameras are installed and
[1:35:24] they hope to have a couple weeks of
[1:35:27] data, you know, from the new year on um
[1:35:29] available this week. So, I'm really
[1:35:31] looking forward to that and we'll be
[1:35:32] sharing that as information becomes
[1:35:34] available.
[1:35:35] » Awesome. Uh really appreciate
[1:35:37] [clears throat] the update on that. Uh
[1:35:38] and councelor FR.
[1:35:40] » Yeah, thanks Meredith. Thanks for the
[1:35:41] presentation. Um Chris, I wonder if you
[1:35:43] could just off the top of your head give
[1:35:46] a list of organic contaminants that
[1:35:48] you're seeing, you know, that 3% what
[1:35:50] kind of things we're talking about. I'm
[1:35:52] going to [snorts] assume some sort of
[1:35:53] plastic bag that people think is
[1:35:54] recyclable, but you know what else?
[1:35:57] Um,
[1:35:58] yeah. So, um, it's it's plastics. Uh,
[1:36:01] it's, uh, when you clean up your yard,
[1:36:03] it's flip-flops, dog tennis balls. Um,
[1:36:06] we're seeing things like painted picket
[1:36:09] fences. Um, and unfortunately sometimes
[1:36:11] diapers, things like that. Um, one of
[1:36:14] the challenges is, uh, as we go over the
[1:36:16] over the Christmas break, uh, we have
[1:36:19] three stat holidays, so we're all
[1:36:22] stretched in our garbage capacity. And
[1:36:24] so sometimes people um you know it's a
[1:36:26] hard time so they throw their garbage in
[1:36:28] the organics and then we see a spike is
[1:36:29] just in garbage. So
[1:36:31] » Uh it doesn't take much for 3% to add
[1:36:33] up.
[1:36:34] » Yeah. And then when it comes to the
[1:36:35] recycling um improvements that we want
[1:36:38] to see and that that's in the mainstream
[1:36:40] that we pick up obviously what sort of
[1:36:42] stuff are we seeing in there? Like if
[1:36:44] you just top three things that end up in
[1:36:46] the recycling that really shouldn't.
[1:36:48] » Yeah. So um recycling contamination is
[1:36:51] reported by t by weight. So, uh, when
[1:36:53] you when you go to recycle those
[1:36:56] encyclopedias, you know, the
[1:36:58] Encyclopedia Bratannica, that throws us
[1:37:00] off almost for an entire quarter. So,
[1:37:02] we're really encouraging people pay
[1:37:04] attention. Um, books, hardbound books,
[1:37:08] paperback books, unfortunately, are not
[1:37:09] recyclable, but they are donatable. So,
[1:37:11] that's one of our I would say that's our
[1:37:13] biggest challenge.
[1:37:14] » And I wonder if it's worth a social
[1:37:16] media post about these kind of two items
[1:37:18] that were I don't know if people maybe
[1:37:20] just don't know about it. And if they
[1:37:21] did, it might be a different story. So I
[1:37:24] don't know if it's a question or
[1:37:25] comment, but I'll leave it with you.
[1:37:27] » Yep. We absolutely it's a great idea.
[1:37:30] Thank you.
[1:37:30] » Yeah. Thanks.
[1:37:31] » Excellent. Yeah. And if we know that
[1:37:33] there is that sort of increase of
[1:37:35] contamination over the Christmas
[1:37:37] holidays and maybe there's an
[1:37:38] opportunity obviously in a newsletter
[1:37:40] story uh uh but also uh again social
[1:37:44] media etc. And we have you know Rotary
[1:37:46] clubs doing book sales all the time. Um,
[1:37:49] so there's there's definitely probably
[1:37:50] some partnerships as well that could
[1:37:52] happen um along with that. So, uh,
[1:37:55] thanks Councelor Fish and Council Ward.
[1:37:57] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um, yeah, I just
[1:37:59] wanted to bring up a point that we heard
[1:38:01] at our waste management the the the KO
[1:38:04] stress Kona waste management meeting and
[1:38:06] that was around the the stickers on
[1:38:08] fruit and how they they get through and
[1:38:12] just to remind people that those are not
[1:38:15] um compostable. Um, and it would be a
[1:38:18] great little invention for someone to
[1:38:19] come up with something that was because
[1:38:21] uh there's probably a lot of fruit
[1:38:23] stickers going into the organics.
[1:38:27] » Thanks for that, Council Warren and
[1:38:29] Councelor Fishan.
[1:38:30] » Yeah. Well, I just had a I just had a
[1:38:32] thought about books. Um, is the problem
[1:38:34] with books that there's no funding for
[1:38:36] recycling them or is the problem the
[1:38:38] material itself? And uh what I'm
[1:38:40] thinking is if someone took a p a hard a
[1:38:42] hardback paper book or whatever and tore
[1:38:44] it apart, you know, are the pages
[1:38:46] recyclable?
[1:38:48] » Um I I believe that might be the case. I
[1:38:52] don't want to really go on the record
[1:38:53] saying if you took a band saw to it and
[1:38:54] tore everything apart.
[1:38:56] » Yeah. Yeah. Well, then we won't get into
[1:38:58] it, but just came to mind. Thanks.
[1:39:01] » Thanks, K. [clears throat]
[1:39:04] » All right. Um, and we'll um uh receive
[1:39:08] this unanimously by by council and move
[1:39:11] on to uh Komox Valley Regional District
[1:39:14] request for consent for adopting bylaw
[1:39:16] number 900, Komox Valley Economic
[1:39:19] Development Service Conversion bylaw 345
[1:39:29] and so
[1:39:32] [clears throat]
[1:39:32] » Oh, Mr. Garb. No, thank you. Uh through
[1:39:34] the the mayor to council. There's no
[1:39:36] presentation. Uh the the uh bylaws uh on
[1:39:40] the agenda. It's been um it's a
[1:39:43] technical change to address uh the
[1:39:45] purpose of the the [clears throat]
[1:39:48] function. Um we've been uh getting
[1:39:50] regular updates from uh service provider
[1:39:54] on this item and uh we don't have any uh
[1:39:56] anything to add to this uh and uh in
[1:40:01] accordance with our participation in the
[1:40:02] service uh consenting is applicable
[1:40:06] should council take that direction.
[1:40:10] » All right and yeah so basically
[1:40:12] housekeeping item uh thanks for that.
[1:40:14] It's been moved and seconded. Any
[1:40:16] further questions or comments? See none.
[1:40:18] All those in favor?
[1:40:20] Any opposed? And motion carries. Um, and
[1:40:24] we'll move on to the Comox Valley
[1:40:25] Regional District uh, Komox Valley Sewer
[1:40:27] Conveyance Project Water Supply to
[1:40:30] Courtney Pump Station. And I'll pass it
[1:40:32] over to Mr. Garbid as well.
[1:40:33] » Yeah, thanks. Uh, just to facilitate the
[1:40:35] discussion, we don't have a staff report
[1:40:36] on this. It's a it's a a quirk in our
[1:40:39] bylaw that we now have a property that
[1:40:41] is outside our municipal boundary that
[1:40:43] requires uh, servicing and staff support
[1:40:46] the request. Right.
[1:40:51] It's been moved and seconded. I don't
[1:40:52] see any questions or comments. All those
[1:40:54] in favor and motion carries and we'll
[1:40:57] move into Komox Valley uh airport YQ BC
[1:41:02] air access program grant request for
[1:41:04] letter of support.
[1:41:05] » Recommendation.
[1:41:08] » Excellent. Been moved and seconded. Any
[1:41:10] questions or comments? Seeing none. All
[1:41:13] those in favor?
[1:41:15] Any opposed? And motion carries and uh
[1:41:20] that letter is required by the end of
[1:41:22] the week. So it's good to see that
[1:41:23] happening. Uh 7.4 Courtney Air Park
[1:41:26] Association BC Air Access Program sounds
[1:41:29] very familiar. Uh request for a letter
[1:41:31] of support.
[1:41:33] » Second.
[1:41:34] » It's been moved and seconded. And
[1:41:36] councelor Moore. Um yeah, just very
[1:41:38] briefly, both of these um support
[1:41:40] letters are it's good news story that um
[1:41:43] that the air park is looking to
[1:41:46] electrify and solarize or whatever the
[1:41:48] the verb is for that um the facilities
[1:41:51] down there. Thank you.
[1:41:54] » Thanks for that, Council Min. And uh
[1:41:56] with that, uh all those in favor? Any
[1:41:59] opposed? And that motion carries as
[1:42:01] well. and we'll move into uh item 8.1
[1:42:06] community and social development
[1:42:07] framework in action plan update and I'll
[1:42:10] pass it over to Miss Ba or Mr. Garvin.
[1:42:15] [snorts] Thank you mayor. Uh through you
[1:42:17] and council Joan Bay our community
[1:42:19] development coordinators can introduce a
[1:42:21] report and recommendation for staff's or
[1:42:23] sorry for council's consideration which
[1:42:25] is to receive the action plan update.
[1:42:30] » [clears throat]
[1:42:30] » Thank you through Mayor and Council. I'm
[1:42:33] really uh delighted to pres present an
[1:42:35] update on the progress with the uh
[1:42:38] community social development plan. Um
[1:42:41] and I'm going to focus on what's
[1:42:42] happened since the last presentation,
[1:42:45] specifically the two strategies that
[1:42:47] were approved to inform the plan. And
[1:42:50] those strategies, one was
[1:42:52] [clears throat] a neighborhood network
[1:42:54] strategy which was focused on uh
[1:42:57] place-based community development to
[1:42:59] strengthen neighborhood connections,
[1:43:01] resilience, and cohesion. And the other
[1:43:03] was a better together strategy was which
[1:43:06] was essentially focusing on
[1:43:08] partnerships, coordination and capacity
[1:43:10] among service organizations and
[1:43:13] collaborative tables who are working in
[1:43:15] the social uh development and area with
[1:43:19] an emphasis this collaboration with an
[1:43:22] emphasis on upstream and preventive uh
[1:43:25] action. So trying to move our work a bit
[1:43:27] upstream.
[1:43:28] » [clears throat]
[1:43:29] » I'm really happy to say that we have uh
[1:43:32] had some considerable progress over our
[1:43:35] this past few months. We've moved from a
[1:43:38] discovery phase to planning and we're
[1:43:40] well into activation
[1:43:43] uh in the key milestones in this period
[1:43:46] uh included uh hiring uh retaining uh
[1:43:49] consultant teams to help uh move roll
[1:43:52] out these two strategies. uh one team uh
[1:43:56] is the urban matters
[1:43:58] sorry [clears throat] I've got a frog in
[1:44:00] my throat uh urban matters and they're
[1:44:02] primarily responsible for the roll out
[1:44:04] of the better together uh strategy uh
[1:44:07] the planning and the activation of that
[1:44:09] they are also taking on responsibility
[1:44:11] for the overall evaluation of the whole
[1:44:14] CSDA initiative um our CSD initiative um
[1:44:18] and then we have pollinate and that team
[1:44:20] is responsible primarily for the
[1:44:23] activation
[1:44:24] of the um uh nebrite network strategy um
[1:44:28] and supporting the evaluation efforts
[1:44:30] during this team. This term we also
[1:44:32] developed a communications strategy and
[1:44:35] have started implementing that. We
[1:44:37] actually have a new website uh pages
[1:44:40] that were just went up yesterday. Um and
[1:44:43] postcards and a number of other things.
[1:44:44] We've also um started the evaluation. We
[1:44:47] have an evaluation plan and tools
[1:44:49] developed and underway. And finally, we
[1:44:54] are I guess in we've developed the
[1:44:57] strategy, the actual roadmap to move
[1:44:59] these things forward.
[1:45:01] I'm um pretty excited about um both of
[1:45:04] these pieces. The neighborhood uh
[1:45:07] network strategy in particular um we've
[1:45:10] established criteria. We're going to
[1:45:12] have a um a pilot of four different
[1:45:15] neighborhoods, a minimum of four
[1:45:17] different different neighborhoods who
[1:45:18] will be engaged in the strategy. And uh
[1:45:21] the focus is to build uh as I said uh
[1:45:24] social cohesion to support community
[1:45:27] resilience, identity and communications
[1:45:30] uh amongst uh neighbors and um so we've
[1:45:34] developed criteria for participation.
[1:45:38] We've um we've the animator has
[1:45:40] conducted outreach using a snowball
[1:45:43] technique and following criteria to
[1:45:46] establish the neighborhoods which ones
[1:45:48] are we're going to move with and some of
[1:45:51] some people have asked about what is
[1:45:52] that criteria and basically we're
[1:45:54] looking a big piece is do we have
[1:45:56] champions who are ready to move it
[1:45:58] forward. uh this isn't going to be
[1:46:00] community led, it's neighborhoodled and
[1:46:03] uh geographic representation of course
[1:46:05] following the cardinal directions of the
[1:46:07] OCP and um so we've got four
[1:46:11] neighborhoods coming into view. Two that
[1:46:13] are firmly going to move forward. One is
[1:46:15] the old orchard slash uh downtown uh
[1:46:19] network is a huge boundaries
[1:46:22] uh taking all of sort of Anderson flats,
[1:46:25] the historic district which we tend to
[1:46:27] call old orchard, a little piece up by
[1:46:30] the railroad track and even up to Fifth
[1:46:32] Street. So including some of the
[1:46:34] downtown businesses and then um and
[1:46:37] they're very focused on uh social uh
[1:46:40] engagement uh activities uh to bring
[1:46:43] people together to actually form norm
[1:46:46] and storm and form this larger more
[1:46:48] diverse network. And then there is the
[1:46:50] um Urkheart Lake Trail uh neighborhood
[1:46:54] network, a little tiny funky group
[1:46:56] that's between Fifth and 15th along
[1:46:59] Urkart and they're very much into skill
[1:47:02] building. Um and they want to do a
[1:47:04] placemaking project. So Laneway perhaps.
[1:47:08] Um so anyway, we've got a couple going.
[1:47:09] We've got a couple more uh on the way.
[1:47:12] Um perhaps even three something perhaps
[1:47:14] in apartments. Uh I also wanted to point
[1:47:17] out that Sandwick said Sandwick and
[1:47:20] Braidwood neighborhood has been engaged
[1:47:22] and will probably be a third. So we're
[1:47:25] trying to get the geographic
[1:47:26] representation as well. So the
[1:47:28] neighborhood network stuff is working
[1:47:30] well. The animators out there pulling
[1:47:32] together groups. Um we've developed some
[1:47:35] grants uh that we were providing
[1:47:37] specifically to these participating
[1:47:40] neighborhoods. And in order to qualify
[1:47:41] for the grants, they have to agree to be
[1:47:43] in the pilot, agree to be, you know,
[1:47:46] part of the evaluation, agree to take on
[1:47:49] uh circle talks, agree to take on
[1:47:52] projects. So, it's a big agreement for
[1:47:54] just a tiny little bit of funds, uh
[1:47:56] maximum $3,000, and it would be these
[1:47:59] projects would have to happen between
[1:48:01] now and the end of June, seed projects,
[1:48:03] and the end of uh September for larger
[1:48:07] placemaking projects. So far we've only
[1:48:09] had two proposals or one proposal sorry
[1:48:11] and another on the way and they're very
[1:48:13] small. Um so that's going as we
[1:48:17] expected. Uh and then the better
[1:48:19] together which is the larger broader uh
[1:48:22] piece of this which is bringing together
[1:48:24] uh these uh leads of these different
[1:48:26] organizations who are championing work
[1:48:29] in the all of the determined all of the
[1:48:31] areas um determined areas of health. we
[1:48:34] had and and we're helping them to first
[1:48:37] of all look at the landscape and try to
[1:48:40] think try to see uh where we have uh uh
[1:48:46] services gaps in services duplications
[1:48:49] of services places we might come
[1:48:51] together and coales and get priority
[1:48:54] actions done and also to figure out what
[1:48:56] our role is. So this is a huge piece and
[1:48:59] this ter and in this period we have uh
[1:49:03] the urban matters team has initiated
[1:49:06] research to uh look at the plans of all
[1:49:09] these organizations to pull out where
[1:49:12] they are at in a continuum of work that
[1:49:15] might be done to advance advance social
[1:49:18] development. So from the crisis work
[1:49:21] that we find that we're in involved in
[1:49:23] mostly to um creating parallel systems
[1:49:27] alternatives to what we're already doing
[1:49:29] to policy. So they'll be looking at
[1:49:32] these plans and um we had a big soft
[1:49:36] launch inviting everybody to develop the
[1:49:38] vision and the values and so now the
[1:49:41] next step is to bring the bring those um
[1:49:43] that research back to the large group
[1:49:46] and spend a couple of uh workshops
[1:49:49] together where we'll we'll validate our
[1:49:52] findings. Do we have it right? Um you
[1:49:55] know have we missed it? Anything? uh is
[1:49:57] there a place where we might work
[1:49:59] together and really coordinate and co
[1:50:02] efforts one or two priority areas and
[1:50:04] what would be each of our roles in that
[1:50:07] and so those are the next steps uh all
[1:50:10] is going well and I'm open for questions
[1:50:13] and the recommendation is yes just to
[1:50:15] receive the report.
[1:50:18] » Excellent. Thanks very much. And uh
[1:50:20] yeah, I was uh uh following along the
[1:50:22] the acronym. There's only really one
[1:50:24] acronym, the the CSD one, but uh in the
[1:50:27] um uh the project timeline graph, it
[1:50:30] does uh uh adjust those letters a little
[1:50:33] bit. So in one of the things it actually
[1:50:35] says uh um uh what was it? Um citys
[1:50:39] instead. So and then I was looking for
[1:50:41] what that stood for, but I'm pretty sure
[1:50:42] it's just a a justosition of letters
[1:50:47] » Probably. Sorry, I'm getting dyslexic or
[1:50:49] something.
[1:50:50] » Community and social development.
[1:50:52] » It was probably spelled better.
[1:50:53] » It was probably Yeah,
[1:50:55] » Fair enough. Uh but other than that, um
[1:50:57] I'll pass it over to um Council Hel.
[1:51:02] » Thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Joanne. Um I I
[1:51:04] think that uh the the work you're doing
[1:51:07] uh will become more tangible once we
[1:51:09] actually have the neighborhood groups
[1:51:12] identifying projects that we can
[1:51:13] actually describe. And um but I just
[1:51:16] want to acknowledge that I've been to
[1:51:18] two events that you've coordinated. Uh
[1:51:20] one was a presentation to the social
[1:51:22] planning society with over 30
[1:51:24] representatives of local agencies. The
[1:51:27] other was a larger event with probably
[1:51:30] over 100 people. and and I thought you
[1:51:32] did an excellent job of presenting at
[1:51:34] both and I thought that both events that
[1:51:37] I attended showed evidence of community
[1:51:39] being receptive to uh this work which is
[1:51:42] really about um where finding this this
[1:51:46] the appropriate place for the city to
[1:51:48] intervene in the in the many uh social
[1:51:51] challenges in our community that we
[1:51:53] often get called upon to respond to. So
[1:51:55] thanks for your work uh in this regard.
[1:52:00] Thanks uh councelor Helian and councelor
[1:52:02] Fr and thanks mayor and thanks for the
[1:52:04] presentation. I had a question about the
[1:52:07] uh the better together strategy and who
[1:52:10] sort of the main players are right now
[1:52:13] in that strategy. The main I guess it's
[1:52:16] organizations that you're targeting
[1:52:18] existing ones I would assume.
[1:52:20] » Uh it's primarily the leads of
[1:52:24] organizations who are championing work
[1:52:27] in each of the determinant areas. So
[1:52:32] primarily I want to be clear that we
[1:52:34] also have uh leads in local government
[1:52:38] uh who surround us uh who are working in
[1:52:40] this area. We also have invited uh
[1:52:44] people with lived and living experience
[1:52:46] to those groups and also KFN and uh
[1:52:50] Matei. So quite a diverse group. I was
[1:52:55] really hoping because the answer won't
[1:52:58] be with service providers actually at
[1:53:00] the end of the day. Uh I think the
[1:53:02] answer is going to be answer is going to
[1:53:04] be part of that of course but we want to
[1:53:07] move to a a place where we don't have to
[1:53:10] providing hook so many services and we
[1:53:12] want to bring some of the people in who
[1:53:15] are change agents right uh so I can
[1:53:19] foresee these two workshops where we're
[1:53:23] identifying possibilities followed by a
[1:53:25] larger
[1:53:28] citywide event pending my ability to
[1:53:31] secure resources for that a larger
[1:53:33] citywide event which would bring in
[1:53:36] these neighborhood network leads, the
[1:53:38] capacity that's out there to help us
[1:53:41] move our work a little further upstream.
[1:53:44] » Sounds good. And and how are we
[1:53:46] advertising the neighborhood network
[1:53:48] strategy work that you're doing? You
[1:53:50] said you were looking for neighborhoods
[1:53:52] and you had a couple already apply for
[1:53:54] some projects. How are we kind of
[1:53:56] reaching out and getting those people
[1:53:58] interested that might want to do
[1:53:59] something like that in their
[1:54:00] neighborhood?
[1:54:01] » Yeah, kind of using a a snowball
[1:54:03] technique. Uh we were a little bit
[1:54:06] afraid of, you know, putting it up on a
[1:54:08] website and getting like a ton. So, it's
[1:54:11] the one person recommends somebody else
[1:54:14] and somebody else hears about it and
[1:54:16] we're just kind of weighing what we're
[1:54:18] getting in terms of are we getting the
[1:54:20] spread we want? Are we getting the
[1:54:21] diversity we want? And basically if the
[1:54:24] if they're ready um if they've got a
[1:54:26] proven track record in this that really
[1:54:29] helps the champions who want to do it
[1:54:31] but do we have a diverse neighborhood uh
[1:54:34] are we you know yeah so some those are
[1:54:37] some of the criteria but how we're doing
[1:54:38] it is that way and um presentations I
[1:54:42] had a couple come to me from the uh
[1:54:45] library presentation recently and yeah
[1:54:48] so we're using that for this
[1:54:50] » Yeah kind of like a slow play is what it
[1:54:52] Sounds like not just a throw it out
[1:54:54] there request for proposal in a post.
[1:54:57] » No, cuz if I had put up these proposals,
[1:54:59] I'm sure we would have had way more than
[1:55:02] we could handle.
[1:55:04] » Thank you.
[1:55:06] Thanks, Councelor Fr and Council Warren.
[1:55:12] » Didn't realize my light was on.
[1:55:14] » Well, it's and and the microphones are
[1:55:15] going on and off, so maybe uh you can
[1:55:18] leave your microphone on next time as
[1:55:19] well. Um
[1:55:22] » Um thank you so much for the
[1:55:23] presentation. Of course um some of us
[1:55:25] already had the the pleasure of of
[1:55:28] seeing um the presentation at social
[1:55:30] planning. Um and you know that you're
[1:55:34] starting with four pilot neighborhoods
[1:55:36] and then you'll do all the evaluation
[1:55:39] and see what comes out of that. Um, do
[1:55:41] you is there a goal for down the road,
[1:55:46] you know, is there a target per year to
[1:55:50] or in terms of the neighborhoods or you
[1:55:52] just going to start with the four and
[1:55:53] see how that all goes and how it rolls
[1:55:55] out?
[1:55:57] » Yeah, I think we're just starting with
[1:55:59] the four. I mean, I wish I could have a
[1:56:01] target so to know that we're going to do
[1:56:03] this year after year after year, but uh
[1:56:05] we're going to start with the four. But
[1:56:06] I can say already uh it's really about
[1:56:09] the capacity of the neighborhoods that
[1:56:11] we bring on and the animator uh and and
[1:56:15] my own like how many um so what that
[1:56:19] that'll come through the evaluation what
[1:56:21] we're thinking per year four seem to be
[1:56:24] but you know the old orchard one for
[1:56:26] instance I should call old orchard
[1:56:28] downtown it's probably four
[1:56:30] neighborhoods
[1:56:32] » So that's we're calling one and then you
[1:56:35] know so We'll find those numbers as we
[1:56:38] It's organic that way,
[1:56:40] » Right? Um I don't know if Susie wanted
[1:56:43] to answer something.
[1:56:44] » Do you want to jump in? Yeah.
[1:56:47] » Thank you to the mayor to council more
[1:56:48] just to build on uh what Miss Ba said.
[1:56:51] uh once we're complete well this phase
[1:56:54] of work and the evaluation we'll be
[1:56:56] coming back to council with uh what
[1:56:58] we've learned what the outcomes of the
[1:57:00] evaluation were and through that then
[1:57:02] looking for direction from council on
[1:57:04] what a future program could look like.
[1:57:06] So, uh, at this point, we wouldn't be
[1:57:08] able to identify how many we should
[1:57:10] have. But through this process, uh, even
[1:57:12] just the process of identifying
[1:57:14] neighborhoods, we're capturing what
[1:57:16] we're learning from that, the
[1:57:17] experience, what's successful, what's
[1:57:18] not. Uh, and that'll all be built into a
[1:57:21] future proposal for council's
[1:57:22] consideration. And then, uh, that's
[1:57:24] where we would set some of those
[1:57:25] targets, whether it's funding or
[1:57:27] numbers, etc. Uh, so we'd be back to
[1:57:29] council for looking for that direction
[1:57:31] based on recommendations from this
[1:57:33] experience.
[1:57:35] » Yeah. I just I think the potential is
[1:57:37] amazing. I it really um dubtales with
[1:57:40] what the regional well the whole
[1:57:42] region's doing around emergency
[1:57:44] management and emergency preparedness
[1:57:46] and and like you say the neighborhoods
[1:57:48] are all um diverse and have their own
[1:57:51] focuses and and needs and ideas and
[1:57:54] it'll be really interesting to see what
[1:57:57] everybody comes out out with. Then I
[1:57:59] think you know it's there's funding for
[1:58:02] projects and projects is is a big piece
[1:58:04] of it but as you say really the ultimate
[1:58:08] goal is to have that capacity building
[1:58:10] in neighborhood and and to to really
[1:58:13] address things like isolation and
[1:58:15] loneliness and and um you know all all
[1:58:19] the things you know food security and
[1:58:21] helping neighbors and and people feeling
[1:58:24] more of a sense of belonging. So, um, I
[1:58:27] thank you for your work and it's great
[1:58:28] to see the start of, um, some of those
[1:58:31] tangibles coming forward. Thank you.
[1:58:36] » Excellent. Uh, I think, uh, that that's
[1:58:38] the the discussion. If somebody would
[1:58:40] like to move receipt.
[1:58:43] » Excellent. And we'll receive that on
[1:58:45] behalf of, uh, council unanimously.
[1:58:47] Thanks very much. And then we'll jump
[1:58:49] right into our regional sports field
[1:58:51] allocation policy project update, and
[1:58:53] I'll pass it back over to Miss Sunders.
[1:58:55] Thank you. Uh through the mayor council,
[1:58:57] the report provides council with an
[1:58:59] update on the regional sports field
[1:59:01] allocation policy project. Uh the city's
[1:59:04] leading this project on behalf of the
[1:59:06] region based on the recommendations from
[1:59:07] the 2023 Komox Valley sports field
[1:59:09] strategy and with the support of our
[1:59:11] local uh governments in the school
[1:59:13] district. The purpose of the project is
[1:59:15] to develop a consistent approach to
[1:59:17] allocating fields across the region as
[1:59:19] well as an consistent approach to field
[1:59:21] fees as also sorry and also developing
[1:59:24] recommendations for implementation of a
[1:59:26] central booking agency for all fields in
[1:59:29] the valley uh which is currently
[1:59:30] proposed to be the city of Courtney. In
[1:59:32] 2025, the project team completed uh
[1:59:35] research and data analysis, significant
[1:59:37] engagement with field user groups and
[1:59:39] established and continues to work with a
[1:59:41] staff working group from the region as
[1:59:42] well as a user advisory
[1:59:44] uh committee uh based of field sport
[1:59:47] users. Uh and they've we've presented
[1:59:50] our initial findings to the staff and
[1:59:52] advisory committee. So we're now
[1:59:54] shifting into drafting uh allocation fee
[1:59:56] and booking guiding policies and
[1:59:59] principles uh which once finalized would
[2:00:01] form the development of the final
[2:00:02] policies.
[2:00:04] The draft guiding principles being
[2:00:06] reviewed uh are outlined in the report
[2:00:09] and just to summarize uh there's guiding
[2:00:11] principles being uh considered around
[2:00:13] allocation which is really focused on
[2:00:15] balancing both uh tenur uh and emerging
[2:00:19] emerging sport groups in an equitable
[2:00:21] manner uh and focusing on aligning the
[2:00:24] right sports with the right field with
[2:00:25] the right amount of time. Um it sounds
[2:00:28] uh simple but it's quite complex and
[2:00:30] difficult. Um but that's a key priority
[2:00:32] for us is to make sure that there is
[2:00:34] equitable access uh to sport field um
[2:00:37] and that we're what we're proposing
[2:00:39] isn't so disruptive as to sort of um
[2:00:43] impact current sports groups as well. In
[2:00:46] terms of fees, uh a new fee schedule for
[2:00:48] all sports fields and users in the Komox
[2:00:50] Valley is being considered. One that is
[2:00:53] hopefully consistent across the valley.
[2:00:56] uh it is being reviewed in line with the
[2:00:58] city's recreation fees and charges
[2:00:59] framework. So uh considering how we
[2:01:01] apply a benefits-based approach to
[2:01:03] setting the fees and the subsidy levels.
[2:01:05] Uh [snorts] to date the user groups have
[2:01:07] indicated general support for fees uh
[2:01:10] including youth fees if they result in
[2:01:11] improved service levels andor feal and
[2:01:14] amenities
[2:01:16] for booking. Courtney acting as the
[2:01:18] single booking office is being proposed
[2:01:20] uh along with a regional committee
[2:01:22] reflective of our partner organizations
[2:01:24] to support the implementation of
[2:01:25] allocation policies. We expect the draft
[2:01:28] policies to be complete in early spring
[2:01:30] this year following which uh each
[2:01:33] jurisdiction will have to review and
[2:01:35] approve the recommended policies
[2:01:36] including any fee bylaws respectively.
[2:01:39] All of this requires significant
[2:01:41] coordination and collaboration uh not
[2:01:43] just at the staff level but also at the
[2:01:44] elected officials level. As such uh
[2:01:47] staff and consultants will be presenting
[2:01:49] the findings and recommendations uh to
[2:01:51] date at an upcoming elected officials
[2:01:53] forum and that will include the school
[2:01:55] district as well. If we're able to
[2:01:58] proceed with the timeline as outlined,
[2:02:00] uh we would be looking to initiate
[2:02:01] implementation as early as September
[2:02:03] 2026,
[2:02:05] uh with a priority on the artificial
[2:02:07] turf that there's a new artificial turf
[2:02:09] expected to come online later uh later
[2:02:12] this spring, early this summer. Uh and
[2:02:14] so we'd want to look at the allocation
[2:02:15] policy for the what would be the two
[2:02:17] turfs as our first priority. uh and then
[2:02:19] followed by the remaining fields uh
[2:02:21] being uh using the allocation policy and
[2:02:24] fees likely for January 2028. Uh we've
[2:02:28] been very clear with the user groups
[2:02:29] that we want to make sure we give them
[2:02:31] enough time uh to be aware of the fees
[2:02:33] and the allocation policy to adjust
[2:02:36] their registration timelines,
[2:02:37] expectations, etc. And so that's why
[2:02:39] there's such a long lead time between a
[2:02:41] policy decision and implementation. And
[2:02:44] I'm happy to answer any questions.
[2:02:47] » Uh excellent. Thanks so much. Uh it it's
[2:02:50] it's somewhat exciting to hear that
[2:02:52] we're like this close to the finish
[2:02:53] line. Uh you know, it has been a
[2:02:56] discussion that that seems to be uh
[2:02:58] ongoing for for some time. So, it's
[2:03:00] great to get this update and and see
[2:03:02] that uh we're we're pretty close to uh
[2:03:05] pulling the trigger and and uh this
[2:03:07] thing kind of uh launching into uh
[2:03:10] actual implementation. So, with that,
[2:03:13] I'll pass it over to Council McCulla.
[2:03:16] » Yeah, similar comments. It's u great to
[2:03:18] see this moving ahead and um that it
[2:03:22] seems like it's been fairly wellreceived
[2:03:24] by those that we've engaged with. Um I
[2:03:28] think that willingness to um take take
[2:03:31] on these changes and um the relatively
[2:03:35] um good acceptance of the possibility of
[2:03:38] the changes probably reflects that
[2:03:41] there's a real recognition that um
[2:03:43] fields are a finite resource and having
[2:03:45] good policy in place that makes it clear
[2:03:47] and fair on on who gets what when is
[2:03:51] probably overdue. Um, and I do have a
[2:03:56] question and it's not necessarily
[2:03:58] related to the next steps here, but um,
[2:04:02] we have other sport um, shared resources
[2:04:06] that aren't necessarily fields that um,
[2:04:09] you know, one of them came up um, at the
[2:04:11] recreation commission meeting yesterday
[2:04:13] around um, gym space, which you know is
[2:04:15] very sim similar to um, fields in terms
[2:04:18] of usage and and um, how it's spread out
[2:04:21] in the community and I'm wondering if in
[2:04:24] this um process that there has been an
[2:04:27] any discussion or identification on um
[2:04:30] whether or not we would kind of expand
[2:04:32] this whole process to other types of
[2:04:35] facilities in the community or if um or
[2:04:38] if we're going to take a pause when we
[2:04:41] get to completion on this.
[2:04:44] [clears throat]
[2:04:44] Thank you through the mayor to councelor
[2:04:45] McCullum. Um
[2:04:48] I would suggest uh that we will p I
[2:04:52] don't I don't want to say pause but we
[2:04:53] will focus on the implementation of the
[2:04:55] uh sport field allocation policy. That
[2:04:58] will take a number of seasons uh to work
[2:05:01] through to a place where everyone's
[2:05:03] feeling comfortable and confident with
[2:05:04] it and give us time to also tweak it in
[2:05:06] case there's I'm sure there'll be things
[2:05:08] we'll want to improve. uh there hasn't
[2:05:10] been discussion uh at the regional sort
[2:05:13] of staff advisory group around
[2:05:16] considering a similar regional policy
[2:05:19] allocation policy for indoor space and I
[2:05:22] would offer it at this point that that's
[2:05:24] probably not something I as a staff I
[2:05:27] would recommend because the demands on
[2:05:28] indoor space are quite different than
[2:05:31] sport fields. uh for sports fields,
[2:05:34] we're we're basically balancing the need
[2:05:37] of just public access with uh permitted
[2:05:40] time. Uh we're not they're not
[2:05:43] facilities where we also have um sort of
[2:05:46] the city programming spaces, other
[2:05:49] private interest, other social sort of
[2:05:51] and you're you're managing all these
[2:05:52] complex bookings. Um and so I I don't
[2:05:56] think that would come up. I do know and
[2:05:58] and we had this conversation with the
[2:06:00] parks and recreation advisory commission
[2:06:03] uh that from this work uh the city of
[2:06:05] Courtney for instance would look to use
[2:06:06] some of the allocation principles and
[2:06:08] policies for some of our other outdoor
[2:06:10] sport facilities like tennis courts uh
[2:06:13] pickle ball courts uh we have a lacrosse
[2:06:15] box uh those types of things we our our
[2:06:18] allocation policies are um not refined
[2:06:21] I'd say for those areas and so we would
[2:06:23] apply those after we finish the field uh
[2:06:26] work. Yeah, that makes good sense. Yeah,
[2:06:29] thanks for pointing that out. Um that
[2:06:31] yeah, there's a lot more pressures on
[2:06:33] our indoor spaces, so not as easy to
[2:06:36] take on the same framework. Uh the other
[2:06:39] question I had too was just whether or
[2:06:41] not in this process of engaging with our
[2:06:43] various groups if there was
[2:06:45] any changes identified or anything that
[2:06:47] came out of those groups or if it was
[2:06:50] mostly an exercise and just um you know
[2:06:54] explaining the framework and getting um
[2:06:57] people on side or if we made any changes
[2:07:01] um based on anything that came came out
[2:07:04] of those sessions.
[2:07:06] Uh thank you S council McCullum. Um I
[2:07:10] think the group's feedback to date has
[2:07:12] been mostly focused on implementation
[2:07:14] and how it will be implemented and
[2:07:16] that's where I think uh they've you know
[2:07:19] for example when we start to talk about
[2:07:21] a single allocate or booking agency we
[2:07:23] start to talk about seasonal uh booking
[2:07:25] timelines and allocation and
[2:07:27] understanding from all these sports with
[2:07:30] a variety of seasons and timings when
[2:07:33] those best moments are during the year
[2:07:35] to plan uh for their future allocations
[2:07:37] and how the interaction between the
[2:07:40] allocation and their registration happen
[2:07:42] and the timing of those two things. So
[2:07:44] really wanting to make sure that
[2:07:46] whichever processes we put in place will
[2:07:48] also work for the sports groups as they
[2:07:50] do their registration communication with
[2:07:52] families etc. Um I think understanding
[2:07:56] the implementation of fees and how we go
[2:07:59] about doing that in a way that um is
[2:08:01] both around uh equity and sustainability
[2:08:05] but also understanding that fees are a
[2:08:07] way to prevent some of the block booking
[2:08:10] um not prevent but reduce uh block
[2:08:12] booking where now if there's no fee
[2:08:14] involved uh sports groups are holding
[2:08:17] entire fields and whether they use it or
[2:08:19] not there's no financial impact to the
[2:08:20] club to do that. So um those are some of
[2:08:24] the conversations I think where there's
[2:08:25] a lot of value. The other one we're
[2:08:28] having is around how we
[2:08:30] manage the historical tenure of large
[2:08:33] sports and the amount of field time they
[2:08:36] need while also trying to create space
[2:08:39] for new sports as they come forward. And
[2:08:41] that's really difficult because
[2:08:43] sometimes it could result in folks um
[2:08:45] having to give up time. Uh so we've
[2:08:47] proposed some ways of managing the
[2:08:49] growth of large sports. so that they
[2:08:51] have limits to the amount of field time
[2:08:53] they can grow in a single year um based
[2:08:56] on a percentage of what they already
[2:08:58] have. Um otherwise they kind of grow
[2:09:00] exponentially and it's really hard for
[2:09:02] small groups to get space. So we've been
[2:09:04] testing some of those really kind of
[2:09:06] detailed specific things with the groups
[2:09:08] um as well as how we establish their
[2:09:10] baselines. So, how do we do an audit at
[2:09:12] the beginning of this process to make
[2:09:14] sure everyone has the appropriate amount
[2:09:16] based on the standards of play for their
[2:09:17] sport and use that as our baseline and
[2:09:19] what an audit process might look like,
[2:09:21] you know, every 5 years. So, I think
[2:09:23] it's in those level of details where the
[2:09:25] sports groups are particularly
[2:09:26] interested and we're particularly
[2:09:28] interested in making sure we don't do
[2:09:29] something that uh throws a wrench in
[2:09:31] their registration plans, timelines,
[2:09:33] etc.
[2:09:34] » Yeah, that's really interesting. It's
[2:09:36] good understanding of how complex the
[2:09:38] whole thing is when you really get down
[2:09:40] to the nuts and bolts of um having it
[2:09:43] get down to various club levels. So,
[2:09:45] thanks for that.
[2:09:48] » Uh thanks uh councelor McCullum uh for
[2:09:51] your comments and uh
[2:09:55] » Excellent. Thank you very much. and
[2:09:56] we'll receive that unanimously uh uh for
[2:09:59] council and we'll move into council uh
[2:10:02] resolutions and um and uh as mayor I do
[2:10:07] have uh the elect respect uh support uh
[2:10:11] motion in front of us um and uh okay
[2:10:18] » Okay it's been moved and seconded we did
[2:10:19] have a discussion uh during the
[2:10:22] delegation portion of this so I think we
[2:10:24] covered most of the topics I'm not sure
[2:10:26] if anybody has any further comments
[2:10:28] they'd like to make and I'll pass over
[2:10:30] to Council Mort.
[2:10:31] » Thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I think it's
[2:10:33] all outlined in the motion in terms of
[2:10:35] next steps. Obviously, this is um this
[2:10:38] is, you know, symbolic. We hope that
[2:10:40] people will put it into practice,
[2:10:42] obviously. Um,
[2:10:44] but I know you're going to be sending it
[2:10:47] to UBCM and all those organizations. And
[2:10:51] I'm just looking is it it's going out to
[2:10:54] the other local governments is it or
[2:10:56] » I don't believe the other local
[2:10:57] governments are on this list but that
[2:11:00] could be something that I think would be
[2:11:02] relatively easy to to add uh local
[2:11:05] governments in Komox First Nation
[2:11:06] posture.
[2:11:07] » Yeah. I mean, I know it it means them
[2:11:09] putting it on an agenda and, you know,
[2:11:11] some of the same people looking at it
[2:11:13] again, but I think it would be good to
[2:11:15] have a regional approach. And I I
[2:11:18] thought the comments earlier were were
[2:11:20] good around how this is not about
[2:11:22] shutting down um commentary. It's really
[2:11:25] about um the stuff that crosses the
[2:11:28] line. Um and uh there's a lot of it. And
[2:11:32] um and we've had some local examples.
[2:11:35] We've had some particularly female um uh
[2:11:39] leaders who have uh who've had to um uh
[2:11:44] file police reports etc. Um actually
[2:11:47] we've we've got kind of a um pro um per
[2:11:51] capita I think we have a fairly high
[2:11:53] number for for the limited number of
[2:11:55] elected officials we have um in terms of
[2:11:58] police investigations and things like
[2:12:00] that for harassment. So, um you know, a
[2:12:03] lot of a lot of the stuff that goes on
[2:12:05] people don't don't even hear about, but
[2:12:07] it does happen. So, um I think it'd be
[2:12:09] good to have a united front and I'm
[2:12:11] really hoping that that um although this
[2:12:14] is symbolic and it's a statement that
[2:12:16] people put it into practice because we
[2:12:18] know that words on a screen do does turn
[2:12:21] into behavior, the behaviors that we see
[2:12:23] don't they start somewhere and it's
[2:12:25] usually with those uh uh those uh
[2:12:28] comments. Thanks.
[2:12:29] » Thanks very much. Yeah, I you know the
[2:12:31] idea that um you know the what we really
[2:12:34] want to have as an outcome here is more
[2:12:37] people involved from across the spectrum
[2:12:40] of of all perspectives um but feeling
[2:12:43] comfortable they can they can speak uh
[2:12:45] their mind without uh fear of being
[2:12:48] bullied or intimidated. Uh uh thanks um
[2:12:52] and I don't see any other comments. So
[2:12:54] uh
[2:12:57] » Sorry can I clarify was that a friendly
[2:12:59] amendment or are we leaving the motion
[2:13:01] as is
[2:13:03] » I think a friendly amendment to add
[2:13:05] local governments
[2:13:06] » To add regional local governments and
[2:13:08] comox first nation and the distribution.
[2:13:12] » Thanks for that council morren um and I
[2:13:14] think that that is absolutely
[2:13:16] appropriate. Um and with that uh all
[2:13:20] those in favor? Any opposed? And motion
[2:13:24] carries. And that gets us into uh
[2:13:26] unfinished business. We are at about 12
[2:13:30] after 6. Uh we're at a point where
[2:13:32] there's a potential we could kind of
[2:13:34] power through this and and then have
[2:13:36] dinner. That that's kind of my uh my
[2:13:38] hope. Um and we'll go from there.
[2:13:41] Councelor,
[2:13:44] » I'm just wondering if we want to
[2:13:46] contemplate um varying the agenda just
[2:13:48] for the um first item in the bylaws
[2:13:50] because I think that's mainly what um
[2:13:53] people are here for and then maybe we
[2:13:55] could see from there. I'm not sure if
[2:13:57] that works for staff,
[2:14:00] » Right? Okay. Um yeah, we we have I think
[2:14:04] a couple different groups here. Uh
[2:14:05] » Oh, okay. In that case, maybe we'll just
[2:14:08] leave it as is. These other items are
[2:14:10] pretty small, too. So, the unfinished
[2:14:12] business. So, probably won't take long.
[2:14:15] We can maybe just
[2:14:16] » All right. Well, we'll jump on to 10.1
[2:14:18] and try to move through this fairly
[2:14:19] quickly. That's the Komalt Valley Food
[2:14:21] Policy Council uh from the December 10th
[2:14:23] delegation. Um and there was request for
[2:14:27] $15,000 financial assistance and I'll
[2:14:30] pass it over to Council Morn.
[2:14:32] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um I don't think
[2:14:35] we're just basically responding to this
[2:14:37] delegation. Um,
[2:14:39] unfortunately, we didn't really get
[2:14:41] clarification from the group about what
[2:14:43] happened with the funding um through the
[2:14:46] regional district because like, you
[2:14:48] know, I would think this group would be
[2:14:49] able to apply for one of the grants. So,
[2:14:52] um, I'm not quite sure what happened
[2:14:54] there. Um, I know that it's um it's I
[2:15:00] think the I think the presentation
[2:15:02] really outlined some of the some of the
[2:15:05] um the work that that the group would
[2:15:08] like to do with the city in terms of um
[2:15:11] advancing the food systems
[2:15:13] recommendations and the OCP as well as
[2:15:15] some other things that that fit into
[2:15:18] what we're doing. Um they talk about um
[2:15:21] you know the emergency preparedness
[2:15:23] piece which I think also really fits in
[2:15:25] with the with the strategy that Miss Bae
[2:15:28] was talking about earlier um and things
[2:15:32] like the ecosystem resilience and and
[2:15:35] promoting you know pollinator habitat
[2:15:37] and we know that Komox is has a
[2:15:40] designation now and I really don't like
[2:15:41] it when Komox gets a designation before
[2:15:44] we do on these things but um so I guess
[2:15:47] I'm I'm proposing that we do provide a
[2:15:50] little bit of funding. I I recognize
[2:15:52] that um we shouldn't be paying the the
[2:15:55] whole bit and that other local
[2:15:57] governments should step up, but I would
[2:16:00] propose that we
[2:16:02] um I'd like to move that the Komox
[2:16:04] Valley Food Policy Council's request um
[2:16:08] uh be granted for half of that amount,
[2:16:12] not to be included in the motion, but
[2:16:13] $7,500
[2:16:15] to be allocated from the council
[2:16:17] initiatives fund and further that staff
[2:16:19] meet with food policy council members
[2:16:21] for an initial discussion to explore
[2:16:23] potential collaboration to advance
[2:16:25] recommendations in the food systems
[2:16:27] chapter of Courtney's official community
[2:16:30] plan.
[2:16:32] And that's the motion if someone's
[2:16:34] » Okay and I know that that is already in
[2:16:37] our strategic priorities engaging with
[2:16:39] the food policy council to identify
[2:16:42] needs and and I don't anticipate this to
[2:16:44] be a big workload item and recognizing
[2:16:47] we are going to go into a new term but I
[2:16:50] think it would be helpful to start
[2:16:52] having some of those conversations
[2:16:54] before the end of the term just to um
[2:16:58] yeah just to to get that going. um
[2:17:02] recognizing that staff I know is in
[2:17:04] contact with with this council um and
[2:17:08] hoping that other local governments
[2:17:10] maybe come on to to help support some of
[2:17:13] the initiatives that uh the food policy
[2:17:16] council is they actually are doing a lot
[2:17:18] of stuff but it's not that well known
[2:17:22] » And to that end would you want to have
[2:17:24] other local governments included to on
[2:17:27] the um motion if if it passes just so
[2:17:30] that there's um they get that
[2:17:32] information and know
[2:17:33] » I I I'd rather have the Food Policy
[2:17:36] Council leave that up to them to present
[2:17:38] to the other local governments and work
[2:17:41] that out.
[2:17:42] » Okay.
[2:17:42] » Um I did uh I did check quite a while
[2:17:45] ago now with um Mr. Lagmire around um
[2:17:49] what was in the council initiatives
[2:17:51] fund. There is a little bit of money
[2:17:52] still there I believe. So I'm pretty
[2:17:55] sure that's what the answer was before.
[2:17:57] Anyway, that's what I propose and leave
[2:18:00] it open to other comments. Thanks.
[2:18:02] » All right. And Mr. Garby,
[2:18:04] » Uh, sorry, if I may, uh, just want to
[2:18:07] insert myself in this discussion.
[2:18:08] Council, just for council's reference,
[2:18:10] when we did our strategic plan update,
[2:18:12] we did remove working on the FU
[2:18:15] initiatives from the 2026 work. So, we
[2:18:18] don't have staff time dedicated towards
[2:18:20] that. Council may have some monies
[2:18:22] available. I just want to remind council
[2:18:24] of the direction that we had.
[2:18:27] » Sorry, I was thinking that that was
[2:18:28] 2025, not 2026. Thanks.
[2:18:33] » Thanks, Councelor Morren and councelor
[2:18:34] F.
[2:18:36] » Yes, generally in favor of the first
[2:18:38] half of the motion on the money. Um, but
[2:18:40] I was going to ask um where we are with
[2:18:42] our count council initiatives um budget
[2:18:46] slash balance.
[2:18:48] » Mr. Legire.
[2:18:50] » Well, being a new year, we have the full
[2:18:52] budget again and the normal budget is
[2:18:54] $75,000
[2:18:57] and the initial
[2:18:59] financial plan committee the whole work
[2:19:01] in November. There's been no changes to
[2:19:02] that number for 26.
[2:19:04] » Okay. Thank you for that. So, that's
[2:19:05] 10%. And I I did have a concern about um
[2:19:10] moving to ask staff to to h have more
[2:19:14] discussions with them if it's not on our
[2:19:16] our our current
[2:19:18] priority list. Um so if we're going to
[2:19:21] move forward with this motion, maybe we
[2:19:22] just sever it or I don't know if other
[2:19:24] counselors would support just removing
[2:19:26] that part from the motion and just
[2:19:28] support the first half from now.
[2:19:31] » There's no request to sever it. We we
[2:19:33] can just separate it. Well, I'll see
[2:19:35] what happens.
[2:19:37] Yeah, I I would say let's sever it and
[2:19:40] and and then we can call questions and
[2:19:42] and move through it. Um
[2:19:45] yeah, council horn, did you want to
[2:19:47] speak to it?
[2:19:49] » I just want to send it to
[2:19:53] » Okay.
[2:19:55] » All right. And
[2:19:58] Miss
[2:20:01] Councelor McCullum,
[2:20:02] » You can call me Miss McCullum if you
[2:20:04] want. There were other lights on so but
[2:20:06] they've gone off now.
[2:20:07] » Um yeah, I think that this is reasonable
[2:20:10] to um [clears throat] provide uh the
[2:20:13] funding that's been put forward by
[2:20:15] councelor Morren. Um I I am supportive
[2:20:18] of the work that this um food policy
[2:20:22] council is looking to do, but um I also
[2:20:26] recognize that you know we're being
[2:20:29] asked as far as I can tell from the
[2:20:31] budget that they provided to um
[2:20:35] fund um all of their um financial ask.
[2:20:38] um as the rest of the slide is um in
[2:20:42] kind at least that's my understanding
[2:20:44] from what they provided but I am filling
[2:20:46] in some blanks there. So um much of the
[2:20:50] work that they're doing is is for the
[2:20:51] whole region and of course um city of
[2:20:54] Courtney benefits from that but um we
[2:20:56] are not uh the only organization that
[2:20:59] exists um to support this work. So I
[2:21:01] think this is a good compromise. Um, so
[2:21:04] I'm happy to support that and I am in
[2:21:06] agreement um that that second piece of
[2:21:10] organizing a council meeting um between
[2:21:12] council and the food policy is it's a it
[2:21:17] it's often not recognized or not obvious
[2:21:20] to us um how much work that creates for
[2:21:22] staff when we set those up and we are in
[2:21:24] the um final months of the term. So, I
[2:21:27] think if that's like a coordinated
[2:21:28] effort that the next council wants to do
[2:21:30] with this uh with the food policy
[2:21:33] council, that would make good sense to
[2:21:35] do at a later date. So, um that's my
[2:21:39] thinking when we vote on the two
[2:21:40] motions. Thanks.
[2:21:42] » Great. Thanks for that. And back to you,
[2:21:44] Council Moore.
[2:21:45] » Thanks. Um could I just clarify whether
[2:21:48] staff is devoting any time at all in
[2:21:51] meeting with the council around I mean
[2:21:54] informal I don't know I guess I'm just
[2:21:57] curious whether any of this these
[2:22:00] conversations are already happening. I'm
[2:22:02] fine to have the the motion severed um
[2:22:04] and just provide the funding and then
[2:22:06] ask the food policy council to go to the
[2:22:08] other local governments
[2:22:11] » Through the mayor councelor Morin. Uh
[2:22:13] the food policy council also has been
[2:22:16] invited as a part of the better together
[2:22:17] strategy. So we do have staff engagement
[2:22:20] with the food policy council and we
[2:22:22] engage on certain topics as they come
[2:22:24] up. um but there isn't a concerted
[2:22:26] effort to coordinate particular pieces
[2:22:29] of work or advance particular pieces of
[2:22:31] work uh since the strategic priorities
[2:22:34] were adjusted. So our priority uh prior
[2:22:37] to that was the community garden and
[2:22:38] making sure that that service agreement
[2:22:40] was in place and that we had uh renewed
[2:22:43] that agreement and then planning uh for
[2:22:45] the future of the community garden uh
[2:22:47] which of course is part of some
[2:22:49] recommendations in the OCP but not
[2:22:50] necessarily specific to the food policy
[2:22:52] council but we do engage with them sort
[2:22:54] of intermittently and on other sort of
[2:22:56] broader initiatives and I don't know if
[2:22:58] um
[2:22:59] » Yeah I just wanted to to just clarify
[2:23:01] that the community garden is lush and
[2:23:03] food policy council is different because
[2:23:04] that's been very confusing over the
[2:23:07] years. Okay. Thank you.
[2:23:10] » All right. Uh that being said, uh the
[2:23:12] motions are severed. So we'll start with
[2:23:14] motion the first motion for the $7,500.
[2:23:17] Uh I think that's clear for everybody.
[2:23:19] All those in favor.
[2:23:21] Any opposed? And that motion uh carries.
[2:23:27] Yeah. Well, we'll just vote on the
[2:23:29] second motion uh directing staff to meet
[2:23:31] with food policy. Uh, all those in
[2:23:34] favor?
[2:23:35] » Any opposed? And there we go. We've
[2:23:38] deleted it now. So,
[2:23:40] I know I know.
[2:23:42] » Yes.
[2:23:44] » Did you Did Council vote in favor or
[2:23:46] were you opposed?
[2:23:48] » Well, I would have rather vote on it.
[2:23:50] So,
[2:23:52] » Yeah,
[2:23:53] » I think it was unanimously opposed.
[2:23:55] Yeah, Mr. Garin.
[2:23:56] » Thank you, Mayor.
[2:23:58] In the materials that was provided us,
[2:24:00] there's an indication that the the CVD
[2:24:02] was going to reduce the budget. I I
[2:24:04] don't I not wish the CVD was the budget
[2:24:06] reduced and does council support
[2:24:09] spending this money subject to the CVRD
[2:24:11] and and my apologies. I was trying to
[2:24:13] just get clarification as we have done
[2:24:17] that in the past with with other
[2:24:19] funding. So I I'm sorry if if that
[2:24:21] matter has gone forward that I know.
[2:24:25] » Yeah.
[2:24:27] I I I think I think that uh yeah, I
[2:24:30] think we passed that point, but uh
[2:24:32] definitely it's you know, I'll look to
[2:24:34] our uh directors at the regional
[2:24:36] district who can um if something changed
[2:24:38] there, then they they can let us know as
[2:24:40] well. Um moving on to 10.2 2 um endure
[2:24:44] projects palace place um and there is
[2:24:48] the request um about the tax exemption
[2:24:52] um and so there was a another followup
[2:24:55] uh from before and so I'll pass it over
[2:24:58] to any council members that would like
[2:25:00] to speak to this matter and councelor
[2:25:02] Helen.
[2:25:04] Yeah, thanks Mayor. I I just wanted to
[2:25:06] ask staff if uh if we did look at option
[2:25:10] two, what's the significance of
[2:25:12] specifying u retroactive versus going
[2:25:15] forward from 2026?
[2:25:22] » Uh
[2:25:28] uh thanks very much. So sorry, I'm just
[2:25:30] pulling up the correspondence again.
[2:25:35] So essentially there were the the
[2:25:39] the request was essentially to
[2:25:40] reconsider the uh level of the t the tax
[2:25:43] exemption itself. Um in order to for
[2:25:46] council to reconsider it, you would have
[2:25:48] to rescend your previous motions or
[2:25:50] reconsider your previous motions through
[2:25:52] a rule to suspend a motion to suspend
[2:25:55] the rule which would require um more
[2:25:58] than the majority of council to support.
[2:26:00] Even then, I would prefer to get a bit
[2:26:02] more direction from council to explore
[2:26:04] the legal options as far as how we could
[2:26:07] go about that. Essentially, the
[2:26:09] information that I have around whether
[2:26:11] or not council has the ability to
[2:26:12] reconsider it right now is that you
[2:26:15] really don't. Um that said, if you want
[2:26:18] me to see whether or not there's
[2:26:20] opportunities to um pass that motion to
[2:26:23] suspend the rules, which is not the
[2:26:26] question I had asked of our our legal
[2:26:28] counsel at the beginning, um that's
[2:26:30] something I could definitely go ahead
[2:26:32] and do. However, the effect we're able
[2:26:34] to undertake that would be the same
[2:26:36] where the previous tax exemptions would
[2:26:38] be removed. the developer would be
[2:26:40] required to repay the taxes that had
[2:26:43] been previously exempted and the new
[2:26:45] exemption would only apply to future tax
[2:26:48] years. So the question still is council
[2:26:50] would not really have an opportunity to
[2:26:52] make the taxes whole or the exemption
[2:26:54] whole in that case. Um and that option
[2:26:58] as well has not been explored with the
[2:27:00] requester as to whether or not that
[2:27:01] would be an acceptable resolution at the
[2:27:03] end of it. So if council would like to
[2:27:06] explore all potential options within um
[2:27:09] our our authorities, I would need
[2:27:11] direction to undertake that work.
[2:27:14] » Yeah, my inclination is is to uh
[2:27:18] ask for a report with options going
[2:27:20] forward rather than retroactively, but
[2:27:22] I'll see what other people think.
[2:27:24] Thanks.
[2:27:26] » Uh thanks Councelor Alen and Councelor
[2:27:30] Brush.
[2:27:31] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Um, as I stated at
[2:27:33] the last meeting, uh, I'm also inclined
[2:27:36] to ask [clears throat] staff to report
[2:27:38] back with options to provide, um, the
[2:27:41] revitaliz revitalization tax exemption.
[2:27:45] And, um, my reasoning for that was
[2:27:47] stated last time that we put this bylaw
[2:27:50] through to get this exact development,
[2:27:51] we got this development, and somewhere
[2:27:53] along the line it didn't work out uh, to
[2:27:56] fit the bylaw. So, um, and I am also
[2:28:00] inclined to just move forward and do the
[2:28:02] best we can. Um, so my apologies. I
[2:28:04] don't think I'm going to support
[2:28:05] retroactively, but, um, I'd like to get
[2:28:09] staff to report back on 100% tax
[2:28:11] revitalization exemption to Palace Place
[2:28:14] um, from or for 2026, I believe, would
[2:28:18] be the right wording for that.
[2:28:21] » Okay. And is are you making a movement?
[2:28:24] » Sure. I'll make that a motion if that's
[2:28:25] okay.
[2:28:26] » Okay. So that's motion now. Okay. And do
[2:28:29] you want to speak any further to
[2:28:30] » No, that's fine. Thanks. I'll leave it
[2:28:31] up.
[2:28:32] » And
[2:28:34] Councilman,
[2:28:37] » Yeah. Um
[2:28:40] my recollection is we had a pretty
[2:28:42] detailed discussion around this um once
[2:28:44] already. um I received information that
[2:28:49] um you know there was maybe a different
[2:28:52] way to have calculated it and perhaps
[2:28:56] our bylaw should look at other things. I
[2:28:58] I think we are doing a review of it
[2:29:00] through the downtown local area plan
[2:29:02] currently. So I don't see a need to
[2:29:05] provide further direction on that right
[2:29:07] now. We we have already directed uh
[2:29:10] staff to come back on that and uh I
[2:29:12] don't have an appetite to review this
[2:29:14] again. um this is not the not the first
[2:29:17] time it's come here and um I think that
[2:29:20] it was handled as fairly with um the
[2:29:23] information that we had at the time and
[2:29:26] my inclination is that um we focus on
[2:29:31] providing
[2:29:33] fast turnaround with applications for
[2:29:36] downtown development and that um we get
[2:29:39] we get rid of this or adjust it in some
[2:29:41] way because um I don't I don't think
[2:29:43] it's actually done what we've wanted it
[2:29:45] to in the 8 years I've been on council
[2:29:47] and I'm inclined to take a different
[2:29:49] approach and I think we'll be getting
[2:29:51] some more information around that at
[2:29:53] some point and I'm happy to discuss that
[2:29:56] then. Thanks.
[2:29:59] » Thanks. Thanks for that comment. Um I
[2:30:01] don't see any further questions or
[2:30:03] comments at this point. Um I saw a
[2:30:05] movement there but uh uh seeing that
[2:30:08] there's no further questions or
[2:30:09] comments, I'll call the question. All
[2:30:11] those in favor of the motion on the
[2:30:13] screen. Any opposed?
[2:30:16] And motion carries with councelor Moore
[2:30:19] and councelor McCollum opposed.
[2:30:22] And um
[2:30:26] uh next we have uh item 11.1.1 amenity
[2:30:30] cost charges bylaw number 3207.
[2:30:34] And um I'll pass over to Miss Okcon.
[2:30:38] » Uh thanks very much. So, as you may
[2:30:40] recall, at the last meeting, council
[2:30:41] provided direction to staff to bring
[2:30:43] forward the bylaw to um undertake and
[2:30:45] authorize the ECC uh charges. So, that
[2:30:49] is the bylaw that is before council
[2:30:50] based on the the decisions made at the
[2:30:52] previous meeting. Um I have support from
[2:30:55] Nancy Henderson here who from urban
[2:30:57] systems who has substantially been who's
[2:30:59] been substantially involved in this
[2:31:00] project in order to help answer any
[2:31:02] technical questions that council may
[2:31:04] have. The cover report really just
[2:31:06] outlines some of the background. um is a
[2:31:08] reminder of some of the options that
[2:31:09] were considered in the policy discussion
[2:31:11] and essentially sums it up into where we
[2:31:13] are today and then includes uh we're
[2:31:16] seeking direction from council to twin
[2:31:17] the timing of the ACC bylaw final
[2:31:20] adoption reading with the DCC bylaw
[2:31:22] final adoption reading upon its return
[2:31:25] from uh the minister's office and or
[2:31:28] sorry the inspector's office and
[2:31:30] essentially the intent of that twinning
[2:31:32] or that combined time is to provide some
[2:31:35] anticipatable and an ease of
[2:31:36] implementation So we're not having to
[2:31:38] phase in different cost charges at
[2:31:40] different times, but actually aligning
[2:31:41] them together to have one calculation
[2:31:43] and one impact at at the same time.
[2:31:47] » Okay.
[2:31:48] » All right. Uh thanks very much for that.
[2:31:50] I'll look to council and I have
[2:31:52] councelor Helian.
[2:31:56] » I suppose I have one technical question.
[2:31:58] If this uh was passed, how long would it
[2:32:01] take for it actually to be implemented?
[2:32:09] through the chair. I mean, in terms of
[2:32:11] the implementation of the bylaw, as soon
[2:32:13] as it's adopted, it could come into
[2:32:15] effect. Council has the option to have a
[2:32:17] grace period if you wish. Um, however,
[2:32:20] the intention, as noted by Miss
[2:32:22] Okonnell, was to bring it in alignment
[2:32:24] with the DCC adoption. So, that's
[2:32:27] currently with the ministry. So, when we
[2:32:29] hear back from them, the idea would be
[2:32:31] the adoption would happen at the same
[2:32:33] time. That being said, in terms of the
[2:32:35] implementation of the charges, there is
[2:32:38] an instream protection for applications
[2:32:41] that are instream with the city. So the
[2:32:43] first year of the bylaw, um the inflow
[2:32:46] of charges would be relatively slow. Um
[2:32:49] and then that would over time uh
[2:32:51] increase. So there's a bit of a there's
[2:32:53] a couple doublegged approach to that
[2:32:55] answer, if you will. and and that one
[2:32:57] year sorry uh that one year because
[2:33:00] that's what I remember from the DCC is
[2:33:01] there would be I don't know if it was a
[2:33:03] one-year grace period but there would be
[2:33:04] that one-year buffer so just so we're
[2:33:07] because what I heard was almost a a
[2:33:09] little bit of this and a little bit of
[2:33:10] that. Uh so just to be crystal clear is
[2:33:14] that one-year buffer going to be applied
[2:33:16] to DCC the new DCC's and the new ACC is
[2:33:20] that how it would be looked at?
[2:33:23] » Yeah, Mr. Mayor. So the there's actually
[2:33:25] a difference in terminology between
[2:33:28] grace period and the instream protection
[2:33:30] just to be clear. So grace period would
[2:33:33] be and you could do this with your DCC
[2:33:35] VA if you wish is you could adopt it on
[2:33:38] February 1st and say it's going to come
[2:33:40] into effect on April 1st.
[2:33:42] » Uh the instream protection is from the
[2:33:44] date of the adoption of the bylaw. So
[2:33:46] even if you have that grace period that
[2:33:48] instream uh protection would take place
[2:33:51] from the adoption of the bylaw. If you
[2:33:52] have those complete precursor
[2:33:54] applications in, they uh would have the
[2:33:57] one year to get their building permit
[2:33:59] essentially issued and then if they can
[2:34:02] do that in the one year, then they would
[2:34:04] not be subjected to the ACC.
[2:34:07] » Okay. So, I think that clarifies for me.
[2:34:10] Sorry, Councelor Hillian. Does it do you
[2:34:12] have a follow-up or
[2:34:14] » I I wanted to make some comments. Uh Mr.
[2:34:16] Mayor, people will recall that uh when
[2:34:20] we dealt with this in December, we had a
[2:34:22] lot of uh um letters that were received
[2:34:25] from members of the development
[2:34:26] community expressing concern about the
[2:34:29] direction council was going and um there
[2:34:33] was a also a view expressed that there
[2:34:36] hadn't been adequate uh engagement with
[2:34:40] the development community. Um some of us
[2:34:43] did have the opportunity to meet with
[2:34:45] representatives of the development
[2:34:46] community um since then and I just
[2:34:49] wanted to share some of the uh um
[2:34:51] feedback that uh was received and ask
[2:34:54] staff to to comment on it to help us uh
[2:34:58] uh come to a decision on this. Um um so
[2:35:02] first of all, one of the assertions was
[2:35:04] that the growth pro projections that uh
[2:35:07] we're we're working with are unlikely to
[2:35:10] be met due to the slowdown in both in
[2:35:14] migration and other economic factors. um
[2:35:18] that that the smallcale multi-unit uh uh
[2:35:22] legislation and and uh process won't
[2:35:25] provide the housing projected u as uh
[2:35:29] many local builders don't see it as
[2:35:30] economical to build. Uh there's a view
[2:35:33] that the market can't absorb the uh $200
[2:35:36] million project cost that uh that we've
[2:35:39] uh identified. Um there's a view that um
[2:35:44] our staff reports didn't accurately uh
[2:35:47] portray developer feedback. Um and um
[2:35:52] there is um
[2:35:55] I think a desire for more robust
[2:35:57] engagement on an ongoing basis. Um
[2:36:00] there's also a concern that um some of
[2:36:03] the consultants might not have um uh
[2:36:07] have as sufficient local knowledge of
[2:36:10] market conditions and such. Um and that
[2:36:13] the benefit of our local builder
[2:36:14] knowledge hasn't been realized in uh
[2:36:17] staff and council deliberations on this
[2:36:20] uh on these bylaws.
[2:36:23] Um there's a view that the fees really
[2:36:25] do need to reflect what the market can
[2:36:27] bear. Um and that developers are dealing
[2:36:30] with not just these uh proposals but um
[2:36:34] a 25% increase uh related to seismic
[2:36:37] upgrades, step code increases, other uh
[2:36:41] regulations and fees that uh that make
[2:36:44] development more challenging. Uh it was
[2:36:47] expressed that um there there at least a
[2:36:50] couple of projects in town that wouldn't
[2:36:52] have been built um if in fact uh these
[2:36:55] rates had been in effect. Um and uh one
[2:37:00] of the primary reasons is that the banks
[2:37:02] simply won't finance
[2:37:04] um some of the costs that are involved.
[2:37:07] And um questions were asked about
[2:37:09] whether we can trim the project list. Um
[2:37:12] to what extent uh members of the de
[2:37:14] development community can be at the
[2:37:16] table and uh are there ways to make the
[2:37:19] rates dynamic to react to market
[2:37:21] conditions. Um, those are some of the
[2:37:24] primary uh messages that that uh that I
[2:37:27] heard and and I'd just be really
[2:37:29] interested in uh other counselor's
[2:37:32] comments and what staff might respond.
[2:37:34] Thanks.
[2:37:37] » Um, Miss Okonnell,
[2:37:40] » Uh, thanks very much. So, um, for
[2:37:42] councelor Hillian, there's, uh, the
[2:37:46] items that you've just spoken to, and
[2:37:47] I've done my best to try and jot them
[2:37:49] all down, so I I understand. Um, some of
[2:37:53] the comments that you're relaying, um,
[2:37:56] actually speak to the professional
[2:37:58] capabilities of both staff and the
[2:38:00] consultants. If council would like us to
[2:38:03] look into those accusations that are
[2:38:05] being made, uh, we could absolutely do
[2:38:08] that. Uh I'm not interested in getting
[2:38:10] into a debate at this point and I'm not
[2:38:13] sure if that was the intent. However,
[2:38:15] components like um that staff reports
[2:38:18] didn't accurately portray developer
[2:38:20] feedback. It would be nice to know where
[2:38:21] specifically where that concern is
[2:38:23] raised from relative to the many
[2:38:26] examples and opportunities where we did
[2:38:28] engage specifically the development
[2:38:30] community in a very intentional and
[2:38:31] comprehensive way with a plan that was
[2:38:34] endorsed by council. um the desire for a
[2:38:36] ro more robust engagement um that is
[2:38:40] always an option. The uh engagement can
[2:38:43] be enhanced with the understanding that
[2:38:45] that is a service level increase and
[2:38:47] would require the resources in order to
[2:38:49] provide that service level increase. So
[2:38:52] in the future, if council wants us to go
[2:38:54] back on this one, we can definitely do
[2:38:56] that, but it will require rep
[2:38:57] prioritization of 2026 work plan items
[2:38:59] as well as the resources necessary to
[2:39:01] undertake that work as a priority item.
[2:39:04] In regard to consultants not having
[2:39:05] sufficient local knowledge on market
[2:39:07] conditions, again, that is a significant
[2:39:10] uh comment and commentary on
[2:39:11] professional firms that we rely on in
[2:39:13] order to inform these policy decisions.
[2:39:15] So council can make the informed
[2:39:17] decision. If council would like us to
[2:39:19] look into a separate validation process,
[2:39:22] um that is something that we would
[2:39:23] require direction on and that is
[2:39:25] absolutely something that we could
[2:39:26] undertake if council shares those
[2:39:28] concerns. As far as the technical
[2:39:30] questions in regards to um whether or
[2:39:33] not we can trim the project list, um I
[2:39:36] have projects in town that would not
[2:39:37] have been built if rates had been cut.
[2:39:38] Um that is a very hard thing to cast
[2:39:40] back on and to validate those kinds of
[2:39:43] comments. Uh, so I'm not sure if we're
[2:39:44] going to be able to answer that for
[2:39:46] council in regards to the shoo and the
[2:39:49] legislation not providing the housing
[2:39:50] projected. That's very challenging
[2:39:52] because really that is what the
[2:39:54] provincial government and their policy
[2:39:56] analysts have deemed as one of the main
[2:39:58] ways or primary ways of increasing
[2:40:00] housing availability and dealing with
[2:40:01] the housing crisis we're experiencing on
[2:40:03] a province level. So I wonder where that
[2:40:05] information is coming from and whether
[2:40:07] or not the information has been shared
[2:40:08] with the province. If that is really the
[2:40:09] reality, it means the provincial policy
[2:40:11] approach to this is not effective on
[2:40:13] whole, or at least that's what the
[2:40:15] assertion is in a comment like that. Um,
[2:40:17] with that, I will pass it over to Nancy
[2:40:20] Henderson to talk about some of the
[2:40:21] technical aspects, but if council would
[2:40:24] like to provide direction on those other
[2:40:25] items to conduct investigations into the
[2:40:27] professional conduct and information of
[2:40:29] our staff and third party consultants,
[2:40:31] please go ahead and do so.
[2:40:37] uh through the chair. I guess it's in
[2:40:38] terms of the growth projections. Uh we
[2:40:41] use the 2024 BC stats data to form uh
[2:40:45] the basis of our projections. Uh we did
[2:40:48] review this project's been going on
[2:40:50] since then. Um we did review the 25 uh
[2:40:53] BC stats projections for the city which
[2:40:56] have actually decreased slightly because
[2:40:58] of the immigration policy as as noted.
[2:41:02] Um however the impact of changing the
[2:41:05] projections to the 2025 projections
[2:41:07] would have actually increased the amount
[2:41:09] of the ACC. So we elected to stick with
[2:41:12] the 2024 uh projections for that
[2:41:15] purpose. Um they are fairly conservative
[2:41:18] projections. We certainly weren't using
[2:41:20] like the housing need reports or
[2:41:21] something that's a little more
[2:41:22] aspirational at a higher housing rate.
[2:41:25] Um when we went through uh for each land
[2:41:28] use category, we need to allocate the
[2:41:30] different type of development we project
[2:41:32] to see over 20 the next 20 years. Um the
[2:41:35] amount that was allocated to the low
[2:41:38] density amount where you know that's
[2:41:41] most of the shoo housing falls into that
[2:41:43] um is actually a very low number. Uh so
[2:41:46] it wasn't using uh the province's shoo
[2:41:50] projections that we've used in other
[2:41:53] studies and aspects. So I know sometimes
[2:41:55] there might be a bit of confusion there
[2:41:57] because we have uh used those
[2:41:59] projections in in other work but it was
[2:42:01] a I think about a 10% allocation to the
[2:42:04] low density charge. Um once you get into
[2:42:07] like duplexes and plexes they do fit
[2:42:09] that townhouse charge but as do uh
[2:42:12] larger townhouse developments. Uh so I
[2:42:14] hope that helps with the understanding
[2:42:16] of the decision- making because we're
[2:42:18] balancing the count the developer
[2:42:20] feedback of not wanting to increase
[2:42:22] rates with the decision- making
[2:42:23] regarding the projections and as we know
[2:42:27] markets do change and with those market
[2:42:29] changes like so does population
[2:42:31] projections change and it is a 20-year
[2:42:34] study. So if you're to look backwards uh
[2:42:36] 20 years we're you know we're kind of in
[2:42:38] line. We're a very um high growth high
[2:42:41] demand area as well. Uh so we wanted to
[2:42:45] not increase the rates anymore because
[2:42:46] the the land use economist that did do
[2:42:49] the analysis was very clear uh to keep
[2:42:52] the rates no higher than where they were
[2:42:54] when we did the engagement back in the
[2:42:56] summer. Um, so we've really focused on
[2:42:59] that uh and keeping them sort of at that
[2:43:02] consistent rate.
[2:43:08] » And uh, yeah,
[2:43:13] » Thanks, Mayor. I I just want to clarify,
[2:43:15] thanks to staff for those responses. It
[2:43:18] certainly wasn't my intent to uh attack
[2:43:21] or challenge the qualifications uh of
[2:43:24] staff or or consultants, but merely to
[2:43:27] to share opinions that had been
[2:43:29] expressed um in in um the consultations
[2:43:33] that took place uh where primarily the
[2:43:36] feeling was that uh uh these changes are
[2:43:39] going to have a significant impact on
[2:43:42] the uh um the housing targets that we
[2:43:45] have and and the ability of our local
[2:43:48] builders to achieve them. Thanks.
[2:43:52] » Thanks for that clarification, Councelor
[2:43:54] Hill and Mr. Gar.
[2:43:56] » Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Through to council
[2:43:57] as a whole. Um, you know, we and our
[2:44:00] professional work that we do are acting
[2:44:02] on council's direction and as you heard
[2:44:04] earlier today about the desires to
[2:44:06] manage the costs to the community. We
[2:44:09] have a limited number of opportunities
[2:44:11] and the province has significantly
[2:44:14] altered what's accessible to
[2:44:15] municipalities. And in the past, a
[2:44:17] number of these amenities would actually
[2:44:19] been levered out of uh development
[2:44:22] applications. And so we only have a we
[2:44:25] actually have a limited tools now that
[2:44:29] we can work through on this. And these
[2:44:31] what's come forward is what council has
[2:44:33] identified as these sort of priorities
[2:44:34] for us. Um
[2:44:38] we can appreciate there's entrepreneurs
[2:44:39] that are investing in this community and
[2:44:41] have for many years. uh and we wouldn't
[2:44:44] be in a position to have any kind of
[2:44:45] housing unless people built those
[2:44:46] houses. So it's it's a really ch it's a
[2:44:48] very very difficult challenge in front
[2:44:50] of us. Um
[2:44:54] I would say that uh particularly with
[2:44:56] the ACC's our our director of
[2:44:58] development services uh our previous
[2:45:00] director of development services
[2:45:01] insisted that we have an economic
[2:45:03] analysis as it relates to these ACCs.
[2:45:06] uh other communities in the valley that
[2:45:08] have brought forward ECC's have not
[2:45:10] undertaken that work and so we we
[2:45:12] actually took that extra step and so
[2:45:14] again if this if the outcome of the work
[2:45:17] um from third party consultants is is
[2:45:19] actually insufficient um it's a step
[2:45:21] that we actually took recognizing how
[2:45:23] impactful these could be and council may
[2:45:25] recall that um the uh levies that we
[2:45:28] were trying to do around other amenities
[2:45:31] you know have been have been also very
[2:45:32] challenging in the community
[2:45:35] so So I I [clears throat] offer that we
[2:45:37] find ourselves in a situation um where
[2:45:40] is growth going to proceed? Is this
[2:45:42] going to impact growth? We also am now
[2:45:45] absorbing the concept and the shared
[2:45:48] understanding that CFP Comox and its
[2:45:51] expansion is actually going to now have
[2:45:54] actually known pressure inside the
[2:45:55] community. So we most of our development
[2:45:57] growth is was kind of unknown and we
[2:45:59] react but um and lots of discussions
[2:46:02] have been happening and we know at a
[2:46:03] minimum you know these kinds of this
[2:46:05] kind of job growth is going to be there
[2:46:06] which will require the housing and so um
[2:46:10] you know I offer that having projections
[2:46:13] are extremely challenging at the best of
[2:46:15] times and now we have this combination
[2:46:17] of potential economic changes but at the
[2:46:19] same time we know there's going to be
[2:46:21] direct investment in a jurisdiction
[2:46:23] that's going to directly impact the city
[2:46:24] of Courtney and needed housing. And so
[2:46:26] we're working as best we can with the
[2:46:28] development community balancing the
[2:46:30] costs and needs uh to address this new
[2:46:34] growth in the community. And uh at this
[2:46:36] point, you know, your staff have
[2:46:38] provided to you and and I've endorsed a
[2:46:40] report to take forward. Council can
[2:46:43] provide us with political direction in
[2:46:44] this regard and we'll respond. And I
[2:46:47] would say the timing of this work
[2:46:49] relative to what's about to happen in
[2:46:51] November. And I will say that if we get
[2:46:54] alternative direction to do significant
[2:46:56] amount of work, we are butdding up right
[2:46:57] up against the next coming changes. And
[2:47:00] so with the uh issues at hand, it would
[2:47:04] be um important work that we would have
[2:47:07] to prioritize uh in the next very short
[2:47:10] period of time and it would be likely
[2:47:12] very difficult uh to adjust that. Having
[2:47:15] said that though,
[2:47:17] clear direction has been given to
[2:47:18] council to stay on top of these things
[2:47:20] to make that make sure they're accurate,
[2:47:22] timely, um and um at the cutting edge of
[2:47:26] what development is needed. Um we have
[2:47:29] uh a number of needs inside the
[2:47:31] community that primarily this amenity
[2:47:33] cost charges um related to the outdoor
[2:47:36] pool if uh what has been presented to
[2:47:39] council has been adjusted because of the
[2:47:42] cost of the pool. And so we will have to
[2:47:44] re-engage uh and understand those things
[2:47:46] because there are important community
[2:47:48] growth impacted amenities um that are
[2:47:51] not included in this recognizing the
[2:47:53] fact that there is this you know big
[2:47:54] priority project. So this is a
[2:47:56] long-winded way of saying that what's in
[2:47:59] front of council reflects what council
[2:48:00] has asked us to do. It's consistent with
[2:48:03] our capital projects. It's consistent
[2:48:05] with our strategic priorities. It's
[2:48:06] consistent with what the community plan
[2:48:08] has asked us for. and it responds to
[2:48:10] what the provincial direction has been
[2:48:11] and our staff serve at your direction
[2:48:14] and uh we will ultimately take that.
[2:48:19] Thanks Mr. Garvid and I think one of the
[2:48:21] other comments was if it's not on the
[2:48:22] list we also can't apply for grants for
[2:48:24] it either. So um that's one of the one
[2:48:27] of the challenges if it goes off the
[2:48:28] list then I believe that that was
[2:48:30] another um thing Mr. Garbett
[2:48:33] sorry Mr. Uh we uh typically any grants
[2:48:38] require you know matching budget funds
[2:48:40] but no it does would not have to be in
[2:48:42] an ACC list for us to apply for a grant
[2:48:45] and staff could correct me if I've
[2:48:47] answered incorrectly.
[2:48:50] » All right.
[2:48:51] » I think Mr. Mayor what you're referring
[2:48:52] to is the promise from the federal
[2:48:54] government to provide um relief around
[2:48:58] DCC and ACC costs to developers. Yeah.
[2:49:01] the policy approach or the policy
[2:49:02] options as to how that money will flow,
[2:49:04] who it'll flow to, what it will cover,
[2:49:07] and whether or not a cost sharing
[2:49:09] approach will be included has not been
[2:49:10] announced. We don't have any early
[2:49:12] indications at this time. However, if
[2:49:15] the plan, if the federal government, as
[2:49:16] they've stated, is to offset the cost of
[2:49:19] DCC's. Not having a project on the list
[2:49:21] would likely make that project
[2:49:23] ineligible to access that federal
[2:49:25] funding.
[2:49:26] » Yeah. And and that's kind of how I'm
[2:49:27] interpreting it as well. So, you know,
[2:49:29] again, it's a bit of an unknown, but uh
[2:49:32] definitely uh big moves coming uh later
[2:49:35] this year. So, uh Oh, yeah. No, Mr.
[2:49:38] Garin, also want to clarify, the topic
[2:49:40] of discussion is amenity cost charges,
[2:49:43] not development cost charges, and the
[2:49:45] federal government didn't talk about
[2:49:46] funding ACC's. So, just to keep keep us
[2:49:49] on uh on the uh matter on the agenda.
[2:49:52] » Thanks. Thanks for that clarification,
[2:49:55] Council Moore.
[2:49:56] » Great. Thanks, Mayor. Um my question is
[2:49:59] around the grace period not the instream
[2:50:01] protection. Um so I heard you say that
[2:50:04] when when and if it comes back um the
[2:50:10] bylaw would be enacted but we could
[2:50:13] delay the when it's enacted. Is that is
[2:50:18] that correct?
[2:50:20] » Through the chair. Uh it is possible for
[2:50:23] a council to adopt a bylaw and set a
[2:50:26] date for when it becomes uh the charges
[2:50:29] become in effect.
[2:50:31] » Uh that could be beyond the date of
[2:50:33] adoption. Okay.
[2:50:34] » And that's an option for council. Uh
[2:50:36] just keeping in mind the instream
[2:50:37] protection is from the date of adoption,
[2:50:39] not the date of the great grace period.
[2:50:43] » The date Oh, from the date of adoption.
[2:50:45] » Okay.
[2:50:47] All right. I just was trying to think of
[2:50:50] a way that we could maybe extend the the
[2:50:53] grace period, but doesn't look like
[2:50:54] that'll fit. Thanks.
[2:50:56] » Thanks, Council Warren and Councelor Fr.
[2:51:00] » Yeah, thanks, Mayor. Um, yeah, I'll just
[2:51:03] highlight that. Um,
[2:51:05] I mean, this issue
[2:51:08] has input from so many different
[2:51:09] perspectives. You know, us at the table,
[2:51:11] we see it differently than um the
[2:51:14] construction industry. We see it
[2:51:15] differently than staff. we see it
[2:51:16] differently than people who already own
[2:51:19] a house versus people who want to buy a
[2:51:21] house. So, uh, our job obviously is to
[2:51:24] balance that all out. And, um, yeah,
[2:51:27] there's I don't think anyone's pointing
[2:51:29] fingers. It's just everyone has a
[2:51:30] different perspective and we all have to
[2:51:32] figure out what the solution is. Um
[2:51:35] I'm wondering if we have an ACC project
[2:51:38] and um we don't collect enough money for
[2:51:44] it and then you know down the road we go
[2:51:47] well maybe we're just not going to do
[2:51:49] that. What what happens to that money
[2:51:53] through the chair? I mean the money the
[2:51:54] money would just stay in the ACC reserve
[2:51:57] and be directed to other projects. Uh it
[2:52:01] is possible to advance a project before
[2:52:03] you have money to pay for it all, but
[2:52:06] then that project would stay on the ACC
[2:52:09] list until the funds were received. So a
[2:52:12] project could be on the list for 20 or
[2:52:14] or longer years uh if growth was slower
[2:52:17] than anticipated and then once it that
[2:52:19] project's been paid for then it would
[2:52:21] come off the list, right? Um, I think
[2:52:23] it's also important to note that like
[2:52:25] should the city receive funding, grant
[2:52:27] funding for example, you should be doing
[2:52:29] an amendment to the bylaw to reflect
[2:52:31] that funding uh because that could also
[2:52:34] decrease the cost would decrease the
[2:52:36] cost of the ACC and it's something that
[2:52:39] is a best practice and it's not always
[2:52:41] followed. So, you know, considering the
[2:52:43] market conditions that are in right now,
[2:52:45] if there's a commitment to apply for
[2:52:47] funding and you get that funding, you
[2:52:49] know, committing to make sure that that
[2:52:50] administrative work is done, I'm sure it
[2:52:53] would be also important to the
[2:52:54] development community.
[2:52:56] » And then that applies to DCC's all
[2:52:58] everything you just said.
[2:53:00] » Yeah, the chair. Yes, it does.
[2:53:02] » Okay, great. Um, I guess I'm interested
[2:53:05] in maybe looking at the assist factor
[2:53:07] and what what that could mean. Um I
[2:53:11] don't know the numbers off the top of my
[2:53:12] head but um you know could we say well
[2:53:15] for the next two years uh considering
[2:53:18] the you know economic climate we'd like
[2:53:20] to provide a 20% assist factor which
[2:53:23] would essentially lower what we bringing
[2:53:25] in in for ACC's is is that something we
[2:53:28] need to would that be a lot of work to
[2:53:30] figure out what those numbers are
[2:53:32] » Uh through the chair the assist factor
[2:53:34] is council's tool you know to reduce the
[2:53:37] impact of ACC's you know The effect is
[2:53:40] the assist factor amount that it would
[2:53:42] lower the ACC ends up being a burden on
[2:53:45] the existing tax base. So as long as you
[2:53:47] recognize that that is a a tool council
[2:53:50] has and you could phase it in um you
[2:53:53] could say in year one it's a 20%, year
[2:53:55] two it's 15% you know and so on. Um and
[2:53:58] then the cost of that uh you know staff
[2:54:01] could potentially report back on the
[2:54:03] impacts. So we don't have to do mental
[2:54:05] math tonight but just in terms of uh you
[2:54:08] know looking at the impact to that would
[2:54:10] be put on the municipal responsibility.
[2:54:13] Uh that is an option to council.
[2:54:15] » Yeah. And if and if we did something
[2:54:17] like that and it turns out that this was
[2:54:19] a great boon for development and would
[2:54:22] we could we in essence collect more in
[2:54:24] ACC's than we plan to um or does the
[2:54:27] number just I mean do we reach our 80%
[2:54:31] of their allotted responsibility
[2:54:34] knowing that we're covering 20 and then
[2:54:36] we just stop we just take it off the
[2:54:37] list and say we've collected money or I
[2:54:40] assume it wouldn't be down to the
[2:54:41] project like that anyways would it?
[2:54:43] Yeah, through the chair. I mean, this is
[2:54:44] why it's important to update these
[2:54:46] charges regularly and look at what
[2:54:48] you're collecting and do development
[2:54:50] projections and as you do cost estimates
[2:54:52] on these projects to also update the
[2:54:55] costs because these are basically
[2:54:56] highlevel cost estimates. Once they get
[2:54:59] accurate, the project costs might go up,
[2:55:01] it might go down, but that does impact
[2:55:03] uh the charge overall. So these should
[2:55:05] be like living you should be paying
[2:55:07] attention uh to the cost to the
[2:55:10] development projections and making
[2:55:12] adjustments um often the DCC uh because
[2:55:17] you're going to the inspector
[2:55:18] municipalities and it's quite a process
[2:55:21] uh they tend to be you know a little bit
[2:55:24] longer. years got a little bit too long
[2:55:26] in all honesty, but like in that sort of
[2:55:28] 3 to four year timeline for a major
[2:55:29] review, if you get a huge grant, you
[2:55:32] should you should do that minor
[2:55:33] amendment and the ministry deals with
[2:55:35] that differently. But when you're
[2:55:37] talking about an ACC bylaw, it's just
[2:55:39] like all the other CDs bylaws, and you
[2:55:41] don't need that um approval from the
[2:55:44] inspector, but you do need to do some
[2:55:46] consultation. But I expect if you're
[2:55:48] bringing forward a grant to reduce the
[2:55:50] cost of the ACC, you know, the level of
[2:55:53] engagement for something like that
[2:55:55] should be quite minor.
[2:55:57] » Yeah. I guess my thinking then back back
[2:56:00] to the assist factor is that um our
[2:56:03] development community is telling us that
[2:56:06] uh projects might not be financially
[2:56:10] possible or won't be funded by banks.
[2:56:13] Banks will see the projects as
[2:56:16] unfundable.
[2:56:18] » [clears throat]
[2:56:18] » And um yeah, it's hard it's hard to
[2:56:21] know. I mean, I would assume they know
[2:56:24] or they feel like they know. And um
[2:56:25] yeah, it's hard to to decide how much
[2:56:28] support to give to that industry. Um but
[2:56:32] I'd be interested in in in getting some
[2:56:34] numbers back on assist factors for ACC.
[2:56:37] And I guess my next question would be um
[2:56:40] is that possible to do for DCC's if we
[2:56:42] want to look at if we want to look at
[2:56:44] that. I know we sent did we send that
[2:56:45] off already because we gave it three
[2:56:47] ratings, but is that an option that
[2:56:49] council still has on that because I know
[2:56:52] ACC's are a rather small part of this
[2:56:53] whole thing.
[2:56:57] » Right, Miss uh Okono. Um so just as u
[2:57:02] NY's reference kind of the trade-off so
[2:57:04] it's a bit like if you uh increase the
[2:57:07] assist factor here um because the
[2:57:10] development community would be paying
[2:57:11] less you see an increase that would
[2:57:12] correspond on the taxpayer side as far
[2:57:14] as funding the plan that the city has
[2:57:16] made in the capital program that council
[2:57:19] has identified as important through the
[2:57:20] engagement processes that we undertake.
[2:57:23] My I would recommend to council if you
[2:57:25] want to look at those considerations
[2:57:27] that you do them in context with the
[2:57:28] overall financial planning process and
[2:57:31] really look first at the projects
[2:57:33] themselves and then consider the funding
[2:57:36] mechanism that you would prefer in order
[2:57:38] to make those projects come to fruition.
[2:57:41] It's very hard because the ACC bylaw
[2:57:43] itself, similarly to the DCC bylaw, is a
[2:57:46] mechanism to pay for the infrastructure
[2:57:48] we need and the priorities that we have
[2:57:51] been um provided direction from council
[2:57:53] on. Really the big changes would stem
[2:57:56] from changing priorities or changing the
[2:57:59] plan the time horizon and things like
[2:58:02] that. So really this isn't a
[2:58:04] conversation that happens in isolation
[2:58:05] related to this one mechanism. is part
[2:58:08] of a bigger consideration planning
[2:58:10] process and perspectives when it comes
[2:58:12] to whether or not the projects are
[2:58:15] necessary and who pays for those
[2:58:17] projects based on who benefits the most
[2:58:19] and where the burden can be borne. So,
[2:58:23] um, happy to do the work, but I would
[2:58:25] say out of the context of the longer
[2:58:27] financial plan and the capital plans,
[2:58:30] um, it's very problematic to see how an
[2:58:32] action over here may cause challenges
[2:58:34] for what council has already identified
[2:58:36] around tax rates and sustainability in
[2:58:38] the future, especially based on
[2:58:39] conversations that have happened earlier
[2:58:40] tonight and uh, previously in committees
[2:58:43] as a whole when we were talking about
[2:58:44] the budget.
[2:58:44] » Yeah. Yeah, that's fair. Thanks for
[2:58:46] that. I'll I'll digress and let others
[2:58:48] speak. Thanks, Councelor F and Mr.
[2:58:51] Corbett.
[2:58:51] » Yeah. Thanks. Uh I just would to weigh
[2:58:54] in ultimately we've done significant
[2:58:56] amount of work. If if the issue is a cis
[2:58:58] factor, we've actually asked council for
[2:59:00] direction on that. That's that's not a
[2:59:02] significant change. If it's removing
[2:59:04] projects, there's there's significant
[2:59:06] amount of work to do that. And then
[2:59:07] there also is implications because some
[2:59:09] of those projects may or may not
[2:59:11] actually be directly related to
[2:59:13] development that has frontage there. And
[2:59:15] so sometimes we have development uh uh
[2:59:18] development that has uh dcc credits
[2:59:20] towards that. So I guess it would
[2:59:22] suggest that council has given us
[2:59:23] direction to go down a route. Uh if
[2:59:25] we're talking about assist factor that's
[2:59:28] a type of work talking about what is a
[2:59:31] dcc project that's that's also important
[2:59:34] work but at this time um you know we
[2:59:36] we're looking for some really clear
[2:59:37] direction from council in here to come
[2:59:39] back on items. Uh remind council that we
[2:59:42] worked regionally to try and coordinate
[2:59:44] this as well. I understand actually
[2:59:46] though the CVRD has adopted their sewer
[2:59:48] DCC. Uh the intention was to kind of
[2:59:52] coordinate this so it would all be
[2:59:53] landing at the same time. So developers
[2:59:55] would be um responding to um you know in
[2:59:59] a comprehensive way but uh we we're just
[3:00:02] already starting dcc calculations or
[3:00:04] sorry there are they will be impacting
[3:00:07] at a different time from a year from
[3:00:09] now. We are not doing any different
[3:00:11] calculations right at this point. My
[3:00:13] apologies. Um so if if council can uh
[3:00:16] let us know where you want to go, we the
[3:00:17] staff can respond. Um, yeah, this is, as
[3:00:20] I said in my long-winded discussion
[3:00:22] around ACC's, it's not easy at this
[3:00:24] point. And, uh, council, we're here to
[3:00:27] get council direction on on this matter.
[3:00:31] » Thanks, Mr. Garbett and Council
[3:00:33] McCullen.
[3:00:36] » Yeah, I mean, adding charges and
[3:00:40] updating DCC's, I it's a major impact.
[3:00:44] It's a major change. Um, as has been
[3:00:47] highlighted already tonight, our DCC
[3:00:50] bylaw was more than a decade out of date
[3:00:53] and it really hasn't been adjusted to
[3:00:55] meet the rising costs of what
[3:00:59] what our capital demands are. Um, and
[3:01:03] then I I don't know if we've lost sight
[3:01:06] of this to a degree and in kind of
[3:01:08] getting into the details of this, but
[3:01:10] the ACC's were brought on by the
[3:01:13] province to provide certainty around
[3:01:15] development costs in order to get rid of
[3:01:17] what was um, you know, amenity
[3:01:22] contribution negotiations at resoning.
[3:01:25] And what we've done instead is um
[3:01:30] implemented a major change to our zoning
[3:01:33] bylaw that allows for much more
[3:01:35] development to occur on development
[3:01:37] lots. And and this is the trade-off. And
[3:01:41] unless we proceed with that trade-off,
[3:01:42] we don't really understand the impact.
[3:01:44] There has been um a benefit provided.
[3:01:48] We've we've reduced parking requirements
[3:01:50] on just about every type of residential
[3:01:53] development that can occur in the city.
[3:01:55] We are allowing more to happen on on
[3:01:58] single family lots all the way up to um
[3:02:00] you know our highdensity areas and we've
[3:02:04] given up the ability to negotiate um
[3:02:06] amenities to come from those. So this
[3:02:09] this is the tool that we have and um
[3:02:12] this is the process that we've followed
[3:02:14] um very thoroughly um with some very um
[3:02:20] detailed reports and discussion that's
[3:02:23] led up to this point. So um I'm I'm
[3:02:26] fairly comfortable with where that is
[3:02:28] and yeah it I mean it doesn't need to go
[3:02:31] to the inspector of municipalities um
[3:02:35] in the same way that the DCC's are. So
[3:02:38] perhaps there will be changes to it. But
[3:02:41] I would also remind that um I'm sure
[3:02:43] that if we didn't change any of our
[3:02:46] property taxes and did it all in one go,
[3:02:48] it would be a major sticker shock too,
[3:02:50] which is essentially what we have done
[3:02:52] here. Um
[3:02:55] and I mean our our previous discussion
[3:02:58] tonight around um what we're grappling
[3:03:01] with in terms of property taxation
[3:03:03] increases. We we have a lot of
[3:03:05] downloaded costs from higher levels of
[3:03:08] government that used to get, you know,
[3:03:10] 66% of our capital. Um projects were
[3:03:14] being funded and now we're being asked
[3:03:15] to do, you know, at at our sewer
[3:03:18] commission committee yesterday. We're
[3:03:20] looking at a hund00 million project with
[3:03:22] basically no funding from higher levels
[3:03:25] of government. And the end result is
[3:03:27] that we have to increase things um
[3:03:29] faster than inflation as we're not
[3:03:31] getting that support. So, the money has
[3:03:33] to come from somewhere and I'm not
[3:03:36] comfortable um asking our taxpayers to
[3:03:40] take a bigger piece of that pie than
[3:03:42] what's fair. So, um this is the the best
[3:03:46] solution that we have at this point. And
[3:03:49] yes, there are going to be impacts from
[3:03:50] it. And um you know, if those impacts
[3:03:53] end up being more than than what makes
[3:03:55] sense, they they can be revisited. and
[3:03:58] um I'm I'm comfortable proceeding with
[3:04:00] what's in front of us um tonight. Thank
[3:04:03] you.
[3:04:06] » Thanks uh Councelor McCullum. Maybe I'll
[3:04:09] just ask a clarifying question um uh
[3:04:12] just because what keeps coming back to
[3:04:16] us and again hopefully things don't
[3:04:18] don't get delayed so long but um back in
[3:04:21] 2016 and then when we visit DCC's again
[3:04:25] uh I know I asked the question around
[3:04:26] CPI and whether or not CPI is
[3:04:28] automatically um included in those
[3:04:31] calculations. So going forward again we
[3:04:33] can sit down and and re-evaluate those
[3:04:37] projects. But just in the absence of
[3:04:39] that uh happening um uh is there some
[3:04:44] mechanism like CPI that keeps those
[3:04:47] amounts going up so that we're not doing
[3:04:50] this catch up like we are with with
[3:04:52] DCC's right now.
[3:04:54] » Uh Mr. Mayor, the best practice is to do
[3:04:56] your dcc amendment every year to capture
[3:04:59] that CPI amount. That that does not need
[3:05:03] to go to the inspector of
[3:05:04] municipalities, right?
[3:05:05] » And I think what happened is the the
[3:05:07] city also was not doing that until very
[3:05:09] recently. So it really fell behind. Uh
[3:05:12] so that would be a recommended best
[3:05:14] practice for uh both bylaws.
[3:05:17] » Okay. Um
[3:05:20] um All right. I appreciate that uh
[3:05:22] clarification. and councelor Brish.
[3:05:25] » Yeah, thanks. I have two two more
[3:05:27] questions. Um, one is around the sort of
[3:05:31] all-in DCC and ACC costs per per unit
[3:05:35] per square meter. I guess we have the
[3:05:36] three different densities and um, do we
[3:05:40] have that number that includes the
[3:05:41] regional district and the Courtney's
[3:05:43] proposed numbers?
[3:05:45] And I'm sorry I'm trying to dig up the
[3:05:47] dcc's from the last discussion and add
[3:05:49] them into the ACC's but is that
[3:05:51] something that is possible to share with
[3:05:53] me at this time like what is it let's
[3:05:55] just talk about a house simple house
[3:05:57] like what is the full number?
[3:05:59] » Yeah through the chair I mean that
[3:06:01] information has been presented to
[3:06:03] council previously. Uh you know I want
[3:06:06] to look at the exact bylaw that the CVRD
[3:06:09] uh did adopt. Uh we could probably find
[3:06:12] it pretty quickly. I think there the low
[3:06:15] density charge was roughly $18,000 a lot
[3:06:18] for the sewer and um Miss Okonnell might
[3:06:22] be pulling it up uh for the other
[3:06:24] charges that you know significantly
[3:06:26] decrease decrease from there.
[3:06:28] » Yeah. Yeah. I did get the dcc's um that
[3:06:33] we had for the RD and Courtney
[3:06:36] and then I guess um is he RD doing ACC's
[3:06:40] or
[3:06:47] » Oh, sorry Saunders.
[3:06:50] » I was that close.
[3:06:51] » Thank you. The mayor of councelor Fr. Uh
[3:06:54] the regional district has given staff
[3:06:56] direction to uh look into an ACC, but
[3:06:59] they have not uh they were staff were
[3:07:01] waiting for direction from the
[3:07:03] recreation commission on the uh new
[3:07:05] arena or the additional arena. Now that
[3:07:08] they've received that direction and they
[3:07:09] know what type of arena they're planning
[3:07:10] for, uh they expect to start working on
[3:07:13] uh ECC's this year. So they have not
[3:07:16] started that process. Um but they will
[3:07:18] be starting it this year.
[3:07:20] » Great. Thanks for that. I guess I guess
[3:07:22] my my interest is in looking into um an
[3:07:24] assist factor on both. And it doesn't
[3:07:26] maybe it doesn't have to be huge. I'm
[3:07:27] actually um not exactly clear on what
[3:07:30] the old numbers are were to what the new
[3:07:32] numbers will be. And um I don't know if
[3:07:36] I've had enough time to contemplate what
[3:07:38] kind of assist factor I'd even be
[3:07:39] willing to give um let alone the rest of
[3:07:42] council. So um yeah, I'd love Sorry, go
[3:07:46] ahead. If you have more information, I'
[3:07:48] I'd take it. It sounded like someone was
[3:07:50] going to speak there. Nope, not yet. And
[3:07:53] so I'm I'm I'm inclined to ask for that
[3:07:55] information um for ACC's at least. And
[3:07:58] then knowing that I'll probably ask the
[3:08:00] same thing when the DCC bylaw comes
[3:08:02] back.
[3:08:15] So maybe while we're waiting, we can
[3:08:17] move on to the council more.
[3:08:20] » Yeah. I mean, uh, councelor McCollum
[3:08:25] gave some examples of how we're trying
[3:08:28] to help developers
[3:08:31] with costs like the parking and things
[3:08:33] like that. And I know that um our city
[3:08:36] manager had uh had mentioned this before
[3:08:39] around some of those other policy
[3:08:41] changes um in terms of of helping to
[3:08:47] alleviate some of the costs. So I'm just
[3:08:49] curious whether um Mr. but feels
[3:08:52] comfortable with talking about some
[3:08:54] other things that are in the pipeline to
[3:08:56] offset you know some of the
[3:09:00] some of this uh
[3:09:05] » And if you don't you know through the
[3:09:07] mayor it's just I I don't want to
[3:09:09] overstate I mean we we're working uh
[3:09:12] with council direction on a number of
[3:09:14] adjustments and we had talked about
[3:09:15] adjustments uh council column talked
[3:09:18] about that um we're uh with the
[3:09:21] direction of our acting director. We're
[3:09:23] working on our processes. Um
[3:09:27] we've had uh improvements in the return
[3:09:31] of uh bonding and costing. That's that's
[3:09:36] an impact for developers. I I don't have
[3:09:39] a detailed list right in front of me
[3:09:40] right now. However, um uh you know,
[3:09:45] forming uh good working groups to try
[3:09:48] and engage uh uh grant resources. Um we
[3:09:54] mentioned CFP Comox as a bit of a
[3:09:56] catalyzing factor right now. Um a lot of
[3:09:58] that is going to impact all forms of
[3:10:00] infrastructure in the community. uh
[3:10:02] forming a a you know a working group or
[3:10:05] task force on uh trying to uh both speed
[3:10:09] development applications, raise the
[3:10:11] priority of our community for um grant
[3:10:14] applications which
[3:10:17] our uh colleague has talked about how we
[3:10:19] would amend development cost charges for
[3:10:21] that. Um speeding our uh processes uh
[3:10:26] ultimately uh amending zoning in areas.
[3:10:30] Um, one of our large, well, basically
[3:10:32] the largest developer in our community
[3:10:33] has pre-zoneed land that staff are
[3:10:36] working right now with great development
[3:10:38] consultants that are working on behalf
[3:10:39] of that development to, um, fine-tune
[3:10:42] and and address the market.
[3:10:45] » These are some of the things that we're
[3:10:46] doing. Um
[3:10:48] uh sorry that that that the complaint.
[3:10:51] Um likewise um you know um making sure
[3:10:55] that we have uh better uh and more um
[3:11:00] effective customer service in place to
[3:11:02] move applications through um is a is a
[3:11:05] critical component because time is
[3:11:06] money. And then uh just as as recently
[3:11:09] as yesterday, I know that elected
[3:11:11] officials met with uh development
[3:11:12] community, but we talked about the city
[3:11:14] trying to engage with the other
[3:11:16] regulatory agencies um that affect the
[3:11:18] development process. But the these are
[3:11:20] just examples and and and we've we've
[3:11:22] all heard about timelines uh very
[3:11:25] extended timelines. Council dealt with
[3:11:27] an extended timeline uh expeditiously uh
[3:11:30] once uh we uh received some really clear
[3:11:34] direction. Um but those are examples.
[3:11:36] Um, and I I know my head colleagues are
[3:11:39] doing some uh additional work. Feel like
[3:11:41] I might be holding airspace. [laughter]
[3:11:45] » All right, I see Miss Okonnell's
[3:11:46] microphone's ready.
[3:11:48] » So, the quickest place I could find the
[3:11:50] majority of the information of all the
[3:11:52] different pieces was actually on the
[3:11:55] engage page where we provided all the
[3:11:58] materials and if this was directly from
[3:12:00] one of the presentations. Um so as an uh
[3:12:04] an example the um DCC's or the draft
[3:12:08] rates for Courtney at the time well were
[3:12:10] 21 for sorry for a low density
[3:12:12] residential as an example were 21,337
[3:12:15] for the town of Komox for the same it
[3:12:18] was uh 30,792
[3:12:22] um for
[3:12:26] » Okay
[3:12:28] » And then for the um CBRD So for the
[3:12:32] sewer it's for low density residential
[3:12:34] it's $18,042.
[3:12:36] For medium residential it's uh 9,800 and
[3:12:39] change. Um so when you combine those
[3:12:43] rates there's like five different
[3:12:45] categories. You'd have to add each of
[3:12:47] them up. But we're consistent with our
[3:12:50] municipal comparators across both um
[3:12:52] ACC's and DCC's and or below.
[3:12:56] » If I could just thanks for that. I know
[3:12:59] we're sort of mixing two discussions
[3:13:00] here.
[3:13:01] » Um,
[3:13:02] one of the reasons I bring that up is
[3:13:04] because, you know, we also heard from
[3:13:06] the development community that, you
[3:13:08] know, time is money as well. And I know
[3:13:12] this would have been probably at least a
[3:13:14] couple years ago now. Um the regional
[3:13:16] district was getting a a lot of grief
[3:13:18] around um their delayed timelines and
[3:13:22] the electoral areas services committee
[3:13:25] um gave some really clear direction um
[3:13:29] to deal with that. And so what resulted
[3:13:32] was um they gave direction for you know
[3:13:36] additional resources and staff to get
[3:13:38] through that backlog of applications and
[3:13:43] they went from I think 3 or 4 months to
[3:13:45] like 2 or 3 weeks or something and that
[3:13:48] was a couple years ago now. So I think
[3:13:51] you know I guess this speaks to the
[3:13:53] whole engagement piece as well. Um, I
[3:13:56] think whatever we can do to act on those
[3:14:00] other things that are costing
[3:14:03] costing money and and responding to that
[3:14:06] in a in a really clear direct way I
[3:14:08] think um I think is important like it
[3:14:11] can be done. I think, you know, staff
[3:14:14] couldn't, you know, decide that on their
[3:14:15] own. That needed to come from the
[3:14:18] electoral directors. But it's just one
[3:14:20] example of um I think just being more
[3:14:24] um I guess just having a better read on
[3:14:28] on how those costs um
[3:14:33] uh yeah those additional costs um
[3:14:36] acknowledging that you know that's not
[3:14:39] necessarily part of this discussion but
[3:14:41] just part of the whole picture. Thanks.
[3:14:44] Thanks, Councelor Morren. And yeah, and
[3:14:46] I and I think that there was definitely
[3:14:47] a commitment uh uh uh probably from
[3:14:50] across mo most of the counselors to to
[3:14:53] uh put some energy um and to make sure
[3:14:56] that we're having those ongoing
[3:14:57] conversations, but also uh when when
[3:15:00] it's appropriate and and it's possible
[3:15:01] that we're advocating for other things
[3:15:03] that are uh causing these um projects to
[3:15:07] lose their viability. And so Cichi um
[3:15:10] fees which have doubled and and other
[3:15:12] things are are places where we can be
[3:15:14] advocating um not just uh within
[3:15:17] ourselves and within the the Komox
[3:15:19] Valley but with the provincial and and
[3:15:22] federal counterparts uh that are um
[3:15:25] having a deep impact on on the viability
[3:15:28] of a lot of these projects as well
[3:15:30] beyond um ACC's and DCC's. Um and with
[3:15:34] that I'll pass over to councelor Fresh.
[3:15:36] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. So, um I just
[3:15:39] quickly added up the numbers that you
[3:15:41] gave me. Thanks very much. And so for a
[3:15:43] single family unit, it looks to be
[3:15:45] around $46,000
[3:15:47] per door. Um that's seven coming from
[3:15:50] our ECC's, 18 from the regional 18,000
[3:15:54] from the regional district and um and 21
[3:15:57] from Courtney.
[3:15:59] And then the um medium density is
[3:16:01] $25,000 a door which is three and a half
[3:16:04] from our ECC's and 10,000 from the RDS
[3:16:07] dcc and 12 from our DCC's. And then
[3:16:10] finally the um high density is around
[3:16:14] $260 per square meter. Um which I always
[3:16:20] think about a thousand uh like square
[3:16:22] foot unit, but maybe that's even big.
[3:16:25] Maybe they're building 750s. I don't
[3:16:27] know. But um that puts it in a similar
[3:16:29] range to the medium density depending on
[3:16:31] how big of a unit you build. So um I
[3:16:36] guess that's where we're at and I just
[3:16:37] wanted like that's kind of the all-in
[3:16:39] number and it's worth looking at because
[3:16:40] if we piece it out into little bits,
[3:16:42] it's kind of hard to fathom what what um
[3:16:44] the industry is up against. And so I
[3:16:47] just want to share that I that we're
[3:16:49] hearing those numbers um aren't possible
[3:16:53] and it's going to scare away development
[3:16:54] or or just make it not possible. So, in
[3:16:57] light of that, I I would be interested
[3:16:58] in hearing about what an assist factor
[3:17:01] of say 5 and 10% might mean for us and
[3:17:04] how that would change the numbers
[3:17:07] compared to the old numbers. Um, and
[3:17:09] wonder if we can do that for just, you
[3:17:12] know, a year or two like to ease to ease
[3:17:14] the development community into this idea
[3:17:16] of these new fees. Uh, is that possible
[3:17:18] to say we want to do an assist factor
[3:17:20] for one year and then review it or two
[3:17:23] years or whatever?
[3:17:27] Thank you chair. It's absolutely
[3:17:29] possible. That's council's discretion
[3:17:31] and it's just as staff has noted it will
[3:17:33] impact uh cost to the taxpayer by that
[3:17:36] amount. But it's absolutely possible for
[3:17:39] council to provide that direction. Um
[3:17:42] and you could do that solely for the ACC
[3:17:45] program. Uh if you wish you could apply
[3:17:47] it the same as this factor to the DCC
[3:17:50] program as a whole or you could also
[3:17:52] apply it just to say transportation for
[3:17:55] example um that would be at council's
[3:17:58] discretion.
[3:17:59] » The one thing I would note though if
[3:18:01] you're if council wishes to direct
[3:18:03] changes um to the assist factor to the
[3:18:07] development cost charge uh we do have
[3:18:10] that in at the inspector of
[3:18:12] municipalities. So, we I can't imagine
[3:18:14] it influencing um their approval of the
[3:18:17] bylaws, but they do sign off on the
[3:18:19] bylaws. So, we'd want to do that
[3:18:20] amendment and provide that update to
[3:18:22] them uh while they're in their review.
[3:18:27] » Well, we would basically put them on
[3:18:28] hold. Yeah. And would would it make
[3:18:31] mathematical sense to assume that if
[3:18:33] we're giving a 5% assist factor that it
[3:18:36] would decrease those per door costs by
[3:18:39] about 5% for for our portion for our DCC
[3:18:42] or our ACC or is it am I missing missing
[3:18:46] the calculation a bit
[3:18:48] » Through the chair? Yeah, the 5% would be
[3:18:50] based on the developer's portion and
[3:18:54] then that savings just or that savings
[3:18:57] that the developer has just gets
[3:18:58] transferred to the municipal
[3:19:00] responsibility,
[3:19:01] » Right?
[3:19:01] » Um but we could illustrate how that
[3:19:03] assist factor um is impact in a in a
[3:19:06] separate column essentially for
[3:19:08] council's consideration at a future
[3:19:09] time. Yeah, I I mean I'm having a hard
[3:19:14] time understanding what is going to make
[3:19:15] and what's going to break development
[3:19:17] and um but it has been argued that of
[3:19:20] course if you get far less development
[3:19:23] then you're going to get far less DCC's
[3:19:25] and ACC's as well. So that's what I'm
[3:19:28] contemplating. Um I see one more light
[3:19:30] two more lights so I'm going to let go.
[3:19:32] Thanks.
[3:19:33] Thanks, Councelor Fish and uh Council
[3:19:35] Helen. And I just want to acknowledge
[3:19:37] that we're way past the 6:30 deadline
[3:19:39] that I thought we would have for dinner.
[3:19:40] So, I do I'm just going to apologize
[3:19:42] right now. I know we're uh probably
[3:19:45] starving, so I just want to acknowledge,
[3:19:46] but councelor, floor is yours.
[3:19:50] » Yes, decisions made when uh hungry and
[3:19:54] tired. Um
[3:19:56] so there's there's one part of this that
[3:19:59] still confuses me and and um when I
[3:20:01] asked the question earlier about the
[3:20:03] time um it would take for the uh
[3:20:06] implementation
[3:20:08] um part of what I was mindful of was in
[3:20:11] the um the guide for elected officials
[3:20:13] that uh we were provided with which was
[3:20:16] referenced in the staff report there's a
[3:20:19] section that um talks about um assessing
[3:20:22] potential development impact act and it
[3:20:26] says staff will evaluate and advise
[3:20:28] elected officials whether proposed ACC's
[3:20:30] will deter development or discourage the
[3:20:32] construction of reasonably priced
[3:20:34] housing adjustments by elected officials
[3:20:37] to the assist factor or providing a
[3:20:40] grace period or phasing in of ACC's
[3:20:44] rates could be considered at this stage.
[3:20:47] So,
[3:20:49] forgive me if I missed it, but have we
[3:20:50] have we considered the possibility of
[3:20:52] phasing in and what that would involve
[3:20:54] and what the pros and cons of that
[3:20:58] » Mr. Gman?
[3:20:58] » Yeah, thank you.
[3:21:00] Are we had responded that we council
[3:21:03] gave direction on the cis factor, give
[3:21:05] direction on those timing? We we have
[3:21:09] responded to that. So I what I have not
[3:21:10] heard is any actual direction from
[3:21:12] council in terms of would you like to
[3:21:14] consider this for send it back for some
[3:21:17] more information you know we do need
[3:21:19] some some direction you have received uh
[3:21:21] with respect to ACC specifically we
[3:21:24] engaged net it was not missenderson's
[3:21:27] firm we had a secondary firm do an
[3:21:29] economic analysis that was included in
[3:21:31] the original information that was
[3:21:33] provided to council that we were
[3:21:35] referencing that u that was a step that
[3:21:37] we did specifically um in accordance
[3:21:39] with the best practice guide. Um, and
[3:21:42] you've received information from
[3:21:44] developers that it will impede and so we
[3:21:46] have a difference of opinion. Uh,
[3:21:48] ultimately you could ask you give us
[3:21:51] direction to get some more information
[3:21:52] on the impact of assist factors um about
[3:21:56] the timeline and etc. And so that I mean
[3:21:58] we we can't really give you any guidance
[3:22:00] about that uh in terms of what but it is
[3:22:02] in fact possible yes to do that um and
[3:22:05] uh um we we would take council's
[3:22:08] direction in that regard.
[3:22:12] » Thanks Mr. Urban and um Council McCullum
[3:22:19] » At the risk of lengthening this
[3:22:21] discussion. Um just I I I found the
[3:22:24] summary of the calculation of all these
[3:22:27] different fees coming in helpful. I
[3:22:29] think we did see some of that way back
[3:22:32] in this discussion but um I think it's
[3:22:35] good to revisit. But then the other
[3:22:37] piece that I just wanted staff to
[3:22:39] clarify on record with the largest one
[3:22:42] being what we call a single family lot,
[3:22:45] which is of course no longer a single
[3:22:47] family lot at all and that um you could
[3:22:51] do a lot more than single family.
[3:22:53] What is the maximum number of units that
[3:22:56] can fit on um a lot under that um 40
[3:23:01] some odd thousand dcc?
[3:23:04] » Do the chair. Um just a point of
[3:23:06] clarification on the low density charge
[3:23:08] from your old bylaw. So your old bylaw
[3:23:11] you would require the single detached
[3:23:13] house and then there would be a fee for
[3:23:15] both the city and the regional district
[3:23:17] for carriage homes where the new
[3:23:19] lowdensity charge includes a carriage
[3:23:21] home, a suite and a um and this the main
[3:23:26] dwelling. And then if you were to do a
[3:23:28] duplex, you would essentially charge two
[3:23:31] medium density uh charges, which isn't
[3:23:34] that all that different from just a
[3:23:37] little bit more uh than the single low
[3:23:39] density charge. So that's why comparing
[3:23:43] the old rates to the new rates is apples
[3:23:45] to oranges because there's more that's
[3:23:47] allowed under under that first rate and
[3:23:49] then the uh carriage home if you had a
[3:23:52] second carriage home would go to the
[3:23:53] apartment rate. I think it's also
[3:23:56] important to note and I can't speak for
[3:23:58] them but the city squared work uh that
[3:24:00] was done also was looking at
[3:24:02] inclusionary zoning uh which was another
[3:24:05] tool that council could have used um and
[3:24:08] it and it's basically recognized that
[3:24:10] you couldn't have the increased DCC's
[3:24:13] the ACC's and inclusionary zoning. So my
[3:24:15] understanding was that council did um
[3:24:18] sort of move away from the requirement
[3:24:19] of inclusionary zoning. So that's like
[3:24:22] another example that that council
[3:24:25] already considered uh when looking at
[3:24:27] the rates. Like I think there's been a
[3:24:28] number of concessions over the course of
[3:24:31] this um study, including the reduction
[3:24:34] of the number of projects on the ACC
[3:24:36] list and the parks list um to try to fit
[3:24:40] it in to what would be uh financially
[3:24:43] viable for certain uh types of
[3:24:46] development. right now in this market. I
[3:24:49] mean, there's people in the room that
[3:24:50] could clearly tell you that there's a
[3:24:52] lot of development that just clearly
[3:24:54] isn't viable under the existing DCC or a
[3:24:57] future DCC. But the uh land use
[3:25:00] economics work that I believe city
[3:25:01] square did did illustrate um with some
[3:25:04] upzoning and other things that the city
[3:25:06] is looking at that there were some
[3:25:08] developments based on the charges not
[3:25:10] getting any higher than they are that
[3:25:12] were marginal.
[3:25:16] Thanks for that and councelor FR.
[3:25:19] » Yeah, well [clears throat] I remember
[3:25:21] you mentioning that before the single
[3:25:23] family home includes up to three units
[3:25:25] and it does seem like a steal of a deal
[3:25:27] in a lot of ways and it makes me think
[3:25:29] maybe we really need to be looking at
[3:25:32] the high density and are we discouraging
[3:25:34] high density you know 700 square foot
[3:25:36] units,000 square foot units um which I
[3:25:40] think we really want for a lot of
[3:25:42] reasons. One is the obvious need to
[3:25:44] densify if we're not going to sprawl,
[3:25:45] but otherwise
[3:25:47] um the value to our community and
[3:25:50] getting and using our infrastructure
[3:25:52] more efficiently. Like there's a lot of
[3:25:54] advantages to having um condominiums and
[3:25:57] and rental apartments. And is this price
[3:26:01] um is this price the right one to
[3:26:03] incentivize that versus
[3:26:06] um trying to do more single family lots
[3:26:09] where you know if you get three units on
[3:26:11] a lot it's it it does seem quite
[3:26:14] affordable that way
[3:26:16] » To the chair just to answer that
[3:26:18] question. So it's not possible to do a
[3:26:20] assist factor for a specific land use
[3:26:23] category. uh so it has to be by DCC
[3:26:27] program type uh transportation sewer
[3:26:29] water drainage for example you can't say
[3:26:32] we want to assist apartment um and then
[3:26:35] when you go back to like why is the
[3:26:37] apartment that way why does it come out
[3:26:39] I mean it's a very um well somewhat of a
[3:26:42] complicated model that you how you
[3:26:45] calculate the dcc charges but you know
[3:26:47] we're looking at you know the population
[3:26:49] projections we're looking at per
[3:26:51] household data um and So that's just
[3:26:54] sort of how it computes out you know
[3:26:56] based on the best practice approach to
[3:26:58] calculating DCC's. So to tinker with the
[3:27:02] apartment um one specifically like you'd
[3:27:05] essentially be uh sort of tinkering with
[3:27:09] like people per households or like
[3:27:11] equivalency factors which are like
[3:27:13] technically based engineering uh
[3:27:15] requirements. So it's really difficult
[3:27:17] to kind of look at that one land use
[3:27:20] category and say I really wish that
[3:27:21] would be lower.
[3:27:22] » Okay. Thank you for that. Makes sense.
[3:27:24] Um so in view in light of that I' I'd be
[3:27:27] interested in having staff come back
[3:27:28] with a little um a little more not
[3:27:31] information actually just some option
[3:27:33] around um some grace periods you know
[3:27:35] maybe 3 months 6 months um and some
[3:27:39] assist factor you know five and 10% and
[3:27:42] I can put that into the form of a motion
[3:27:44] if that's okay with you mayor. So, I'll
[3:27:46] move that staff uh come back to council
[3:27:48] with options for a grace period and for
[3:27:51] [snorts] assist fact an assist factor
[3:27:53] for the ACC bylaw.
[3:27:56] » And Mr. Garbett need a little bit more
[3:27:59] on what type of grace period and
[3:28:01] timeline just if we can assist that
[3:28:03] because uh we need to we need to be more
[3:28:06] more specific there
[3:28:10] » For phasing.
[3:28:12] » Sure. Um, would you like me to restate a
[3:28:15] motion?
[3:28:15] » I think so.
[3:28:16] » Okay.
[3:28:17] » I know it's getting late and we're at
[3:28:18] [clears throat] that point, but
[3:28:19] » I'll do my best. I'll move that staff
[3:28:21] come back to council with options for
[3:28:24] phasing in the ACC bylaw for three and
[3:28:28] six months and also for an assist factor
[3:28:32] of five and 10% and well and one's
[3:28:35] already provided. So,
[3:28:43] Um, we don't have a secondary yet.
[3:28:48] » Okay. And do you want to speak to it
[3:28:50] further?
[3:28:50] » Well, yeah. Just I'll just just to
[3:28:52] clarify like I'm interested in the grace
[3:28:54] period like if we if we do end up
[3:28:56] passing this this uh winter, you know,
[3:28:58] maybe we do push it off for a few months
[3:29:00] just to give a bit more time. And then
[3:29:03] um also the assist factor for a period
[3:29:06] of time whether it's a year or two years
[3:29:08] um to be reassessed later on. You know
[3:29:10] maybe the market conditions change.
[3:29:12] Maybe we find that uh it's not such a
[3:29:14] big scary thing after all or maybe we
[3:29:17] find everything's dropped off the map
[3:29:19] and it's we need to reconsider how how
[3:29:21] we're the projects [clears throat] we're
[3:29:23] looking at basically I guess. And so
[3:29:25] that's why I suggested the five and the
[3:29:27] 10%. [gasps]
[3:29:30] Okay. Is that is that clear to anyone?
[3:29:33] » Well, I think it's getting written up
[3:29:34] right now and then
[3:29:36] once it's up on the screen, you can just
[3:29:39] confirm that that uh reflects
[3:29:42] your intent.
[3:29:47] » That's perfect. Um and after factors of
[3:29:49] 5 to 10%
[3:29:51] or
[3:29:54] say two years, I don't know. I guess we
[3:29:57] can change that when it comes back to
[3:29:58] see what those dollars look like. But
[3:30:01] » And and it might be rather than dashes
[3:30:04] the word and just because
[3:30:07] that that that just kind of articulates
[3:30:09] the
[3:30:10] » Yeah, I just five and 10%. You're right.
[3:30:12] It's we don't want we don't want
[3:30:13] everything in between. Thanks. That's
[3:30:15] perfect. Thank you.
[3:30:17] » See? Yeah. Okay. Um and councelor
[3:30:20] McCullum, um is this to the motion on
[3:30:22] the floor now or?
[3:30:23] » Yeah, it's just a clarifying question.
[3:30:25] Um so if we provide this direction to
[3:30:28] staff um I mean this is around the
[3:30:31] implementation of the amenity cost
[3:30:34] charge bylaw could we proceed with first
[3:30:37] second and third reading and then um
[3:30:40] this would inform adoption or um would
[3:30:43] this have to delay the readings of the
[3:30:45] bylaw as well?
[3:30:46] » Mr. Con? Um, so it depends. Um, if the
[3:30:51] intent or the belief is that the report
[3:30:54] coming back would result in council's
[3:30:55] desire to amend the bylaw, um, for
[3:30:58] tonight, you I would recommend you
[3:30:59] consider first and second. That way,
[3:31:01] we're not considering the having to
[3:31:02] resend third reading. At the same time,
[3:31:06] um, having the bylaw split and now
[3:31:09] potentially moving out of sync with the
[3:31:11] DCC bylaw, that will also have kind of
[3:31:14] some implications as well. So um yes, we
[3:31:18] can def you can consider first and
[3:31:20] second reading, provide the direction
[3:31:23] based on this and then essentially I
[3:31:25] wouldn't um bring the the bylaw back for
[3:31:28] third reading consideration until we've
[3:31:29] had a chance to undertake this work and
[3:31:31] report back to council. And whether or
[3:31:33] not the dcc bylaw comes back from the
[3:31:37] province before then or not, it's the
[3:31:40] timing may be off, which will impact our
[3:31:42] current work because we're actually
[3:31:44] preparing to implement some of these
[3:31:46] fees and and get all of our ducks in a
[3:31:48] row for when that time comes. So, we'll
[3:31:50] just have to do some some tweaks on the
[3:31:52] work plan as well.
[3:31:54] » Okay. Thanks for that clarity.
[3:31:57] » Right. Thanks for that that that
[3:31:58] clarification. Um and councelor Mo.
[3:32:02] Thanks, Mayor. Um, so just um reflecting
[3:32:05] on what Miss Okonnell said earlier
[3:32:08] around how um there, you know, there's a
[3:32:12] domino effect with um the tax rates,
[3:32:16] etc.
[3:32:17] I'm not sure if um councelor Fr had
[3:32:20] intended to have that as part of the
[3:32:24] information that comes back. Um I mean
[3:32:27] we've we've approved the the increase
[3:32:30] for this year but
[3:32:33] adjusting this would impact you know
[3:32:35] future
[3:32:37] tax rates. So I I don't know how full
[3:32:40] wholesome of information
[3:32:42] you're expecting like do we want to know
[3:32:46] um how that's going to impact the the
[3:32:48] numbers next year and beyond?
[3:32:53] » And [clears throat]
[3:32:54] uh Mr. department.
[3:32:57] » The chair, we're we're having a a good
[3:33:00] engaged discussion. I I had asked our
[3:33:02] finance officer what the if we did not
[3:33:05] proceed in in this current year, what
[3:33:07] does that do for our taxation?
[3:33:10] » Maybe ask Adam to recount the
[3:33:13] conversation we had.
[3:33:15] » Yeah. So if there is a delay in the
[3:33:17] adoption of the ACC or DCC bylaw, there
[3:33:20] will not be a direct impact on the
[3:33:23] financial plan that council has been
[3:33:25] presented with so far. What that
[3:33:27] financial plan does not have though is
[3:33:30] any of these projects in it.
[3:33:32] Um, there are a handful of items that
[3:33:35] would receive additional funding if the
[3:33:39] ACC and DCC bylaws are adopted, which
[3:33:42] would actually reduce the tax increases
[3:33:45] required in the current year in
[3:33:50] the financial plan is presented. So,
[3:33:52] it's kind of a blend.
[3:33:55] There's
[3:33:57] not a big influence of DCC projects
[3:34:01] because we I was working from an old DCC
[3:34:03] bylaw, but there were projects that were
[3:34:07] preceding and were included in the
[3:34:09] financial plan that had not had DCC
[3:34:14] money allocated to it yet. And I can't
[3:34:17] allocate it until the new bylaws in. So,
[3:34:23] » So it doesn't affect this year.
[3:34:26] » It will not increase taxation for 2026.
[3:34:31] It will not allow for decreases
[3:34:37] in projects that are on the proposed
[3:34:39] list.
[3:34:41] » Okay. Thank you. But it will definitely
[3:34:46] impact future years.
[3:34:49] So that 14% or whatever is indicated for
[3:34:52] 2027 would be substantially higher for a
[3:34:56] new council to have to figure out.
[3:35:00] Sounds light.
[3:35:04] The delay of this DCC or ACC will not
[3:35:08] impact the 2027 tax change as I haven't
[3:35:12] factored in the impacts from this
[3:35:15] proposed.
[3:35:16] Um, if all other things stay the same
[3:35:19] for the financial plan next year and
[3:35:21] this DCC bylaw comes in as presented, we
[3:35:24] will see a decrease in taxation as there
[3:35:26] is new funding sources eligible for
[3:35:28] projects already in the financial plan.
[3:35:33] » Right. Thanks for uh articulating that
[3:35:35] and councelor.
[3:35:38] » Yeah, thanks Mayor. Two points. First of
[3:35:39] all, I wonder um if it would make sense
[3:35:42] to uh add the word
[3:35:46] and implications
[3:35:48] um that the report back with options and
[3:35:51] implications.
[3:35:54] Um because I I'm assuming that the
[3:35:56] report will do that anyway and that it
[3:35:58] will if it gives us options, it'll also
[3:36:00] let us know uh what the implications of
[3:36:03] those options are. But I'm just
[3:36:05] wondering if we should be clear about
[3:36:06] giving that direction. Yeah. Um,
[3:36:11] so that would be a friendly suggestion
[3:36:13] or a friendly amendment. Then my
[3:36:15] question procedurally is uh whether or
[3:36:18] not it makes sense to defer the um the
[3:36:22] motion the recommendation related to the
[3:36:25] bylaw um to when that report comes back
[3:36:30] you know if that would be procedurally a
[3:36:33] a sensible way to to go or not.
[3:36:36] Mr.
[3:36:37] Um,
[3:36:39] it it wouldn't actually make a
[3:36:41] difference because it's an ACC bylaw.
[3:36:43] You can do three readings at once. The
[3:36:46] option to pursue or to consider first
[3:36:48] and second at this point would be more
[3:36:50] of a indication of council's intent to
[3:36:52] continue to seriously consider the
[3:36:54] application of the ACC's by delaying or
[3:36:57] deferring the bylaw in its entirety. um
[3:37:00] that is a different u approach but both
[3:37:04] ultimately um as far as timeline for
[3:37:07] consideration
[3:37:09] it it's the same.
[3:37:10] » Okay, thanks
[3:37:13] and council last word.
[3:37:15] » Yeah, sure. I'm happy to um move first
[3:37:17] and second when it comes up and I'll
[3:37:19] just hold off on third till we get this
[3:37:20] information. And then I would I would
[3:37:23] wonder if um just asking for the same
[3:37:25] information on the DCC's um if it would
[3:37:28] make sense to do it at the same time if
[3:37:30] or maybe I should make a a subsequent
[3:37:33] motion if we're interested in seeing
[3:37:35] that same scenario laid out for that.
[3:37:39] » Probably recommend waiting just it might
[3:37:42] get severed anyway. So I I probably it's
[3:37:44] a lot
[3:37:44] » It would be a subsequent for sure but I
[3:37:46] was I'm just throwing a little little
[3:37:48] warning out.
[3:37:49] » Yep.
[3:37:49] » Okay,
[3:37:51] » Fair enough. Uh so we do have a motion
[3:37:53] on the floor. I don't see any further
[3:37:56] questions or comments at this point in
[3:37:57] time. All those in favor of the motion
[3:37:59] on the screen
[3:38:01] and motion carries.
[3:38:05] Any subsequence before we move on? Okay.
[3:38:07] Councelor FR I'd make the same motion
[3:38:10] for the DCC bylaw. So we have the
[3:38:12] information as soon as possible to
[3:38:14] consider
[3:38:16] and you know what I'm sure you would
[3:38:18] come back with the uh implications of
[3:38:21] how to move forward with that bylaw if
[3:38:22] we wanted to make similar change or make
[3:38:25] a change around the assist factor or the
[3:38:27] um the implementation strategy on it.
[3:38:37] I don't see a seconder for your motion.
[3:38:39] So I don't believe that's going to move
[3:38:40] forward.
[3:38:42] Okay,
[3:38:47] » I can read it if if that wakes you up.
[3:38:50] » It's been seconded. Uh I do see Miss
[3:38:53] Okonnell has her as well as Council
[3:38:55] Mcllum. I'll go to Council McCullum
[3:38:57] first.
[3:38:59] » Uh thanks. I just uh want to say that I
[3:39:02] am not in favor of um revisiting this.
[3:39:06] Um I I think we've gotten far enough in
[3:39:09] this process that this doesn't serve us
[3:39:12] at this point in time and there has been
[3:39:15] a fair amount of work both um with our
[3:39:18] staff and other um and our municipal
[3:39:20] partners to align this process and we've
[3:39:24] passed third reading. It's gone to the
[3:39:26] inspector of municipalities and this
[3:39:28] will have a major impact on the cost of
[3:39:31] property taxes for our residents if
[3:39:33] we're going to wind this back. This is
[3:39:34] work we have been asking for and
[3:39:37] desperately needed to do 5 years ago and
[3:39:39] I'm not in favor of slowing that down at
[3:39:41] this point. So I'm not in favor of this
[3:39:43] motion.
[3:39:45] » Thanks Councelor Cullum and um Miss
[3:39:49] Okonnell.
[3:39:50] » Uh thank you to the mayor to council. Um
[3:39:53] as council knows I'm currently the
[3:39:56] acting director of Dolman services. We
[3:39:58] are in active recruitment for the
[3:40:00] replacement. Um part of me coming into
[3:40:04] development services department over the
[3:40:06] period of time was um very specifically
[3:40:09] to work on internal systems in order to
[3:40:11] improve service provision and service
[3:40:14] level specifically looking at the KPIs
[3:40:18] the systems um and the structure itself.
[3:40:21] I will say that undertaking this work I
[3:40:25] it will have a capacity impact on that
[3:40:27] and I do have a finite timeline for the
[3:40:30] amount of time I can be in development
[3:40:31] services is with the election coming up
[3:40:33] in the fall. Um it was not my intent to
[3:40:36] stay in this position longer term than
[3:40:39] that. So, in the event of um we can come
[3:40:42] back with this information, but I I do
[3:40:44] want you to know it's not likely not
[3:40:47] feasible to do both in tandem without
[3:40:50] one impacting the service processes
[3:40:53] internally. I just don't have the staff
[3:40:56] that are able to help and support and
[3:40:58] manage a project like that. Um, as you
[3:41:01] know, we're currently working on the OCP
[3:41:03] update. We're working on repeal and
[3:41:05] replacing the zoning bylaw. Um there's a
[3:41:08] lot of work going on in the building
[3:41:09] services division. Um it we are
[3:41:12] challenged to resource this. So it will
[3:41:16] be a bit of a trade-off for council to
[3:41:18] determine where those resources need to
[3:41:20] be allocated at the staff level.
[3:41:23] Alternatively, if council would like to
[3:41:26] um I could bring back some cost
[3:41:27] estimates to completely outsource this
[3:41:29] work and then council can make the
[3:41:31] decision as to whether or not you want
[3:41:33] to fund the service improvements through
[3:41:34] third parties or if you would like to
[3:41:36] increase the budget or the resources
[3:41:38] available to development services to
[3:41:40] undertake this work that is not part of
[3:41:41] the work plan. Um so I I just I just
[3:41:45] kind of eyes wide open. um every action
[3:41:48] there's a reaction including on a
[3:41:50] department that currently in its current
[3:41:53] state
[3:41:55] » Right thanks for that and Mr. regard it.
[3:41:56] » Yeah. Thanks. Uh um I I want to be I
[3:42:00] want to be I want to clearly acknowledge
[3:42:02] that this is in response to feedback
[3:42:04] that you've received. We had a process.
[3:42:06] Um
[3:42:08] I think getting information directly on
[3:42:11] what what the implications are is is we
[3:42:14] can do that and then council needs to
[3:42:17] ultimately decide what they want to do.
[3:42:19] Uh Ms. Okonnell uh spoke to this. We've
[3:42:22] been working at this at council's
[3:42:24] direction uh stretching back to the 2018
[3:42:27] um uh council. Uh this was all intended
[3:42:31] work to go. We were impacted by COVID.
[3:42:33] So we're now
[3:42:35] two terms past the conversation. Uh and
[3:42:38] I only offer I don't offer that as as
[3:42:40] any kind of a sort of ultimatum type of
[3:42:43] thing. And I I know that how that will
[3:42:45] sound. Council just needs to determine
[3:42:47] if they want to proceed or not. And it
[3:42:48] may not may not be the right time. uh
[3:42:50] and and we we serve there. Um we do know
[3:42:53] that there's been a call to update these
[3:42:55] things because there are implications
[3:42:57] for uh the development committee and
[3:42:59] then we have the development committee
[3:43:00] identifying that these costs in light of
[3:43:02] the current conditions have impacts and
[3:43:04] so ultimately council will determine
[3:43:06] they want to proceed or not. There's no
[3:43:07] obligation to do this. Uh it doesn't
[3:43:11] matter how much uh time and effort or
[3:43:13] direction or whatever. We have to do
[3:43:15] what council would like to see. So I
[3:43:16] just I offer that it's a real factor and
[3:43:19] we are coming to the close of the second
[3:43:22] term who wanted to work on this and so
[3:43:24] you know we will come back these are
[3:43:27] these are number these are number
[3:43:29] factors there's tables that go along
[3:43:30] with that and then council does have to
[3:43:31] be take a serious look at what uh what
[3:43:33] they want to do given all of their
[3:43:35] priorities between now and the end of
[3:43:37] the term in 2026. So just just offer
[3:43:39] that and there's been good input uh
[3:43:41] received by by many parties um and uh
[3:43:45] and ultimately it's a decision the
[3:43:46] council needs to take forward. So thank
[3:43:48] you.
[3:43:50] » Thanks Mr. Garvet and uh councelor
[3:43:52] Fresh. Uh last word again.
[3:43:54] » Okay. Thank you. Well well thanks to
[3:43:56] staff for the the input about um what
[3:43:59] it's going to take to get these numbers.
[3:44:02] Um
[3:44:04] yeah I'm just looking I'm just looking
[3:44:05] at the two requests. So, one's about
[3:44:07] phasing the implementation.
[3:44:09] I would assume that means changing the
[3:44:11] date and then the other one's the five
[3:44:13] and 10%.
[3:44:15] Um, and I guess the implications of that
[3:44:18] is that we won't be collecting 5 to 10%
[3:44:21] of the DCC's
[3:44:24] for two years and up to two years. And
[3:44:26] that's going to have an effect on our
[3:44:28] [clears throat] funding for certain
[3:44:29] projects and obviously taxation
[3:44:31] implications.
[3:44:33] Um, but I'm also guessing these aren't
[3:44:36] massive numbers. So, um, I mean, I'd
[3:44:39] like to get it right.
[3:44:42] So, I'm going to support the motion.
[3:44:44] Thanks.
[3:44:46] » All right. Uh, Council McCullum, last
[3:44:48] word.
[3:44:49] » Um, can staff clarify if we were to make
[3:44:52] this change whether or not the DCC's
[3:44:54] would have to go a second time back to
[3:44:56] the inspector of municipalities because
[3:44:58] that seems to be a point of confusion
[3:45:00] here.
[3:45:03] through the chair. Um the inspectors had
[3:45:06] the blaw for about four weeks. I'm going
[3:45:09] to say three or four weeks. Uh their
[3:45:11] turnaround time right now is two to
[3:45:12] three months. Um so there's a couple
[3:45:14] different options like we could ask them
[3:45:16] to pause the review until we get this
[3:45:18] report to council. Um we could let them
[3:45:22] know that this is what you're
[3:45:23] considering. Um, if council, if the
[3:45:26] inspector did sign the bylaw in the
[3:45:28] meantime, uh, we would have to bring the
[3:45:31] new bylaw back through the ministry and
[3:45:34] the inspector would have to resign. I
[3:45:36] don't expect that would take as much
[3:45:38] time as a complete review would because
[3:45:41] especially when you're like decreasing
[3:45:43] and using an assist factor, which is
[3:45:44] council's tool, but it may be it's just
[3:45:47] a little bit more of an administrative
[3:45:48] cost and sort of a bit of a hiccup that
[3:45:51] we need to manage. Uh, so the answer is
[3:45:53] if they sign the bylaw and it arrives
[3:45:54] tomorrow, it has to go back. Um, we will
[3:45:57] need another signature.
[3:46:00] » Okay. All right. Thanks for that
[3:46:01] clarification. I don't see any other
[3:46:03] lights, so I'm going to ask the question
[3:46:04] right now. Um, all those in favor of the
[3:46:07] motion on the floor.
[3:46:09] Any opposed?
[3:46:11] And motion uh, fails.
[3:46:15] Uh,
[3:46:16] uh, thanks for the lengthy conversation
[3:46:18] on that. I know I know it's much later
[3:46:20] than I think I anticipated possibly some
[3:46:23] others as well. We have one last item uh
[3:46:26] before we can break and that's the
[3:46:27] development procedure bylaw. third.
[3:46:30] » Yeah.
[3:46:42] » Yeah. Are they giving you
[3:46:59] Uh I'll I'll move that. Um
[3:47:05] I'm just making sure that I am not
[3:47:07] missing anything here. Um I think the
[3:47:10] only change. Okay. So I'll move the
[3:47:12] recommended motion. Um with the the
[3:47:16] change being that council give first and
[3:47:18] second reading to the amenity cost bar
[3:47:21] cost charges bylaw 3207 as amended.
[3:47:26] » Okay. So that's been moved and seconded.
[3:47:28] It's just first and second reading only.
[3:47:30] Um all those [clears throat] in favor?
[3:47:34] Any opposed? And motion carries. Sorry
[3:47:37] for jumping the gun on that one. And Mr.
[3:47:38] regard.
[3:47:40] » Uh
[3:47:45] so uh giving person second and then we
[3:47:49] would have it back for third reading at
[3:47:52] the with the report
[3:47:55] about amenities because that resolution
[3:47:58] passed. Thank you. Just want to make
[3:48:01] sure we're on the same page. Yeah. And
[3:48:03] what I had heard is that we could do
[3:48:05] this for first and second or do first,
[3:48:07] second, and third because it's an ACC.
[3:48:09] So that's why I was less concerned about
[3:48:11] that.
[3:48:18] » Yeah.
[3:48:21] » If there were changes though, we we
[3:48:22] couldn't. My understanding is that you
[3:48:25] said that.
[3:48:26] » Yeah. Yeah.
[3:48:29] » But first, second, and third could
[3:48:30] happen in the future is what I said. It
[3:48:32] didn't first and second didn't have to
[3:48:34] happen tonight as far as I understood
[3:48:35] but maybe I but it yeah I think we can
[3:48:39] move on Miss Okonnell though you look
[3:48:41] like
[3:48:42] » Um no I just want to clarify so the
[3:48:44] motion that was passed has to do with
[3:48:45] the DCC's
[3:48:47] » The or before that the one typed um no
[3:48:51] it said DCC's the one that was shown
[3:48:53] » That failed
[3:48:54] » That failed and then there was one
[3:48:55] before about the ACC's which is the
[3:48:57] referral and that passed and now you've
[3:48:59] done first and second Okay. And then
[3:49:02] you're still because that motion as
[3:49:04] recommended included the twinning with
[3:49:06] the DCC's,
[3:49:09] right? Because the only change that was
[3:49:10] made was the number of reasons like the
[3:49:13] number of readings.
[3:49:16] It'll depend on the timing and what
[3:49:18] council decides to do and where we are
[3:49:20] in that.
[3:49:21] » So we don't have to take it out then.
[3:49:23] » No, no, you can just leave it for now.
[3:49:24] Yeah. But just just to clarify so
[3:49:27] resolution 11.11
[3:49:29] had the second thing which the desire
[3:49:32] which is in the interest of everybody's
[3:49:34] calculations to twin whatever happens
[3:49:36] with ACC and whatever happens with the
[3:49:38] DCC to have the timing coincidental.
[3:49:42] Okay. Thanks. Thank you.
[3:49:44] » All right. Much appreciated. On to uh
[3:49:47] the last item development procedure
[3:49:49] bylaw 320.
[3:49:52] Any questions or comments? Uh it's just
[3:49:55] housekeeping. All those in favor and any
[3:49:58] opposed and motion carries. Uh and we
[3:50:02] have our encampment resolution.
[3:50:05] Uh is everyone okay if I count cancel or
[3:50:09] skip the uh council reports?
[3:50:12] » All right. So we have a first and second
[3:50:14] for in camera. All those in favor? Any
[3:50:18] opposed? Motion carries and we are
[3:50:20] adjourned.
[3:50:26] All right.