[0:14] uh

[0:23] and we're live

[0:26] good afternoon everyone welcome to the regular board meeting for january 27

[0:31] 2021 and before we begin i'd like to recognize this meeting is taking place

[0:36] as a place in various locations throughout coast

[0:38] salish territory and i know that i'm thankful to be here with that we will

[0:42] get underway are there any additions or changes to

[0:45] the agenda ms lago none okay thank you so i'll ask for a

[0:49] motion to approve the agenda as presented

[0:51] moved by director sebring seconded by director topperowski

[0:54] any discussion seeing none all those in favor

[0:58] and he opposed none opposed motion carries moving on ms lego

[1:03] thank you um adoption of the regular board meeting minutes of january 13

[1:07] 2021 and i would like to bring a correction to the board's attention in

[1:11] resolution 21-21.3 the function number stated was 279

[1:19] community community parks and should be functioned

[1:21] to 80 regional parks so with that correction if i can have a

[1:25] motion to adopt the minutes as amended moved by director

[1:29] yanni dinardo seconded by director nicholson any

[1:32] discussion seeing none all those in favor and any opposed

[1:38] and oppose motion carries moving on miss lego

[1:42] no business arising from the minute so on to public input period

[1:49] we have one submission good afternoon mr chair this is from susan kaufman

[1:53] good afternoon mr chair i'd like to provide input on item sr3 virtual

[1:56] meetings and live public participation i'd like to thank staff for the report

[2:00] and hope the board will endorse the recommendations of option one but seek

[2:03] clarification of the following items item a in the event of significant

[2:08] public interest agenda items how will the extended public input submissions be

[2:12] accommodated as per the public input policy

[2:14] that is extending the length of public input by two-thirds majority vote

[2:18] also applicable to question period as noted above

[2:22] and in item d concerned that if public input participation is by video only

[2:26] not everyone has access to internet and or are available during daytime meetings

[2:31] that written submissions be sent directly to members as opposed to being

[2:34] read out loud while public input is meant for the

[2:37] directors it also benefits the public to hear from others within the community

[2:41] and suggest reading written submissions if time allows

[2:44] mr chair at one time the chair of the meetings could refer questions received

[2:47] from the public to staff members or allow the directors to provide comment

[2:51] over time that evolved to having only the chair respond to questions

[2:55] some chairs are quite well informed and provide answers while some unfortunately

[2:58] do not whether by inexperience or lack of

[3:01] knowledge this leads to a less than satisfactory experience

[3:04] for the members of the public participating in question period and

[3:06] hopefully this practice will be reviewed i'd like to

[3:10] thank all those who chair the cvrd meetings not an easy job

[3:13] it is greatly appreciated when a chair does acknowledge the participation by

[3:16] members of the public in both public input and question period

[3:20] and that concludes public input thank you very much and we always

[3:25] appreciate input from the public and we've done

[3:28] i think as we're looking forward to doing as much as we possibly can to

[3:32] enable that input um and we'll discuss that when the item

[3:36] comes up ms lego

[3:41] thank you i'm just going to bring the delegations into

[3:50] so item d1 is a delegation george parker director of planning gp rollo and

[3:56] associates and john horn accounts couch and housing

[3:59] regarding the regional housing needs assessment and this is for information

[4:04] thank you very much and welcome mr parker and i believe i see mr horn here

[4:07] as well um is that the contingent of your

[4:10] delegation presentation today mr parker that's it okay thank you so welcome to

[4:16] both of you and thank you so much for this work

[4:18] obviously john hears it enough from us so i'm not going to say it to him but

[4:22] uh george thank you so much for all your work on this project and i know we're

[4:25] excited to uh to review the information in the powerpoint

[4:28] so please go ahead great um i'm gonna share my screen now

[4:33] um since i have the powerpoint here

[4:38] does that look good it's good okay excellent

[4:42] uh and john will take it from the top okay that's the first act so to speak so

[4:50] good afternoon and thanks for having us my name is john horn from college and

[4:53] housing association and of course i'm here with george

[4:56] parker from gp rule to present the results

[4:58] of the cvrd regional housing needs assessment

[5:03] so we wanted to begin by acknowledging that this work took place in the

[5:09] traditional territories of college and tribes

[5:11] the digital first nation first nation by accident first nation um mala had

[5:18] analogous tsubasa first nation package impersonation

[5:23] amongst others and we're grateful to the housing staff

[5:26] from those first nations who shared their knowledge during this project

[5:30] we also want to thank one in 250 community members

[5:34] who shared their ideas and their lived experience and the long list of

[5:37] stakeholders who participated in interviews

[5:40] or attended one of our housing community cafes we wanted to

[5:44] thank them without their input this report would not have been possible

[5:48] the one we're presenting today is as one of a family

[5:52] of reports of course we're presenting on the overall cbrd regional housing needs

[5:56] assessment today but the work also includes 13

[5:59] sub-regional reports in which we'll be presenting those at future

[6:04] dates to specific um meetings of the cbrd and the

[6:07] municipalities etc so the um the presentation today begins

[6:12] with the qualitative findings and we're kind of an overview of our

[6:17] engagement activities the key themes we heard from the

[6:20] community and key findings by population group

[6:24] then george will take us through the quantitative findings including the

[6:27] information on background research housing price trends

[6:31] affordability and projections so from our perspective we just wanted

[6:36] to give you a bit of an overall view of the community engagement

[6:40] and the engagement process and some of the outcomes associated with that

[6:45] so our engagement process included a place speak

[6:49] questionnaire which ran through september and october

[6:52] and we received about 250 responses to that questionnaire

[6:56] we held three virtual community cafes which brought together about 16

[7:01] organizations including the health authorities

[7:04] community service organizations schools chambers of commerce etc

[7:09] and each community cafe that we held had a specific theme there were three themes

[7:14] all together housing and health housing and youth

[7:18] slash families and then housing and the economy we

[7:21] reached out also to 33 organizations for interviews

[7:25] including community organizations housing organizations housing providers

[7:29] and developers and we interviewed housing managers at

[7:32] eight first nations so that's an overview of the engagement

[7:36] that took place and from that a couple of key themes

[7:40] emerged you'll see them there and i'll just

[7:43] speak briefly to them and just say that on the first theme um our engagement

[7:48] feedback we got during our engagement really

[7:50] does confirm that the demand on housing and the rising prices we're seeing

[7:55] are not likely to change in the next five years

[7:59] there's lots of topics about housing size and one aspect of that is that

[8:03] seniors looking to downsize and they're looking for smaller and more

[8:07] affordable affordable units the third no surprise to anybody the

[8:12] calcium valley is home to an asian population

[8:14] one of the aspects of that is that rising maintenance costs

[8:18] and mobility needs are a concern for seniors

[8:21] and they're really looking for options in which they can age in place

[8:25] on the other end of the spectrum younger generations have housing challenges

[8:29] and they considered concerns about housing and stability

[8:32] and unaffordability really for youth and for young families

[8:37] there is an acute shortage of rental housing we all know that

[8:40] um this is especially true in the electoral areas and for young people

[8:45] indigenous people and those with mental health challenges

[8:48] singles and seniors so a fairly broad section of the community is

[8:52] experiencing the impact of having that acute shortage of rental housing

[8:57] uh the housing prices and the costs are really we're seeing those that they're

[9:01] misaligned with regional wages and one of the outcomes of that we see is

[9:06] that people are locating where housing is available

[9:09] rather than where they would prefer to live and what that really does is it

[9:13] just pushes their transportation costs up quite a bit higher

[9:16] so that's one aspect that maybe gets missed sometimes but

[9:20] when your wages don't match your housing costs you have to live in areas that

[9:23] require long commutes to work into home the housing options again adequately

[9:28] size for first nations family there's really a need for larger

[9:33] multi-generational families as well as smaller units for elders and

[9:36] singles with communal space and these kind of housing projects

[9:40] should have access to criminal uh community services and cultural

[9:44] amenities so they're not just housing there's a bit of a

[9:46] another context that it fits within affordable housing is hard to find even

[9:52] any rental housing that can attach to that is hard to find in this

[9:56] community and so really it's low-income families

[9:59] lone parent families are really having a struggle to find the housing that's in

[10:03] the price range for the size that they need for their

[10:05] family and then really there is a need for more

[10:08] non-market housing options and that's really a key around supportive housing

[10:13] emergency housing options for those with mental health conditions or

[10:17] cognitive or physical disabilities that's uh that's uh evident to most

[10:21] folks who spend time in the community so you'll see that the engagement yield

[10:25] these broad themes which i'm sure george will flesh out with more data but

[10:30] in terms of the findings we just wanted to cluster those by population and then

[10:34] i'll turn this over to george uh one thing is i would say that youth

[10:38] are at high risk of homelessness um but more to the point that when young

[10:43] people are moving into their first home or

[10:45] leaving say the residential care system or the foster care system

[10:49] that they have a fairly setting unique needs around housing and that's such

[10:53] things as staff supervision and support there's a

[10:57] need to take into account that educational needs for those who left

[11:01] school early for example but also the developmental needs they

[11:04] may be old enough to go rent an apartment but

[11:06] developmentally they still have needs that are unmet and we have to look

[11:10] closer at that context in which youth are not finding housing and when they do

[11:16] an additional level of support for them that's really not common for adult

[11:20] renters etc i would say the housing for newcomers into the region

[11:24] uh specifically they have a real need for multi-generational housing that's

[11:28] the demographics that come to our country and

[11:31] they bring typically fairly large families with them

[11:34] and so the kind of housing they need on the incomes they're able to access when

[11:38] they first arrive is really not available to them in the

[11:41] way it should be and so there is a strong need for that

[11:44] and there's also a need for them to have a pedestrian access because

[11:47] typically in arrival they may not have a car or be a

[11:51] licensed to drive in this country etc so their needs kind of

[11:55] factor a little bit around their ability to cut out things by

[11:58] by putting by public transit um for those with special needs

[12:02] um we've talked a lot with service providers and parents and

[12:05] recipients of service and one thing they do say is that

[12:09] most of the services are centralized in the urban areas

[12:13] what they would like to see in the perfect world would be that

[12:16] more distributed model where people who grew up in a particular part of the

[12:21] community can remain in that area they have their social supports their family

[12:25] connections that their social ties and their um ways of

[12:29] being in those communities and they have to disrupt themselves to move to a

[12:32] different part of the cvrd in order to find housing

[12:35] so we'd like to see more housing for special needs that's in the

[12:38] neighborhoods in which people grow up in a race and they can maintain their

[12:41] natural supports without having to leave those for housing finally we would

[12:46] talk about homelessness and those experiencing homelessness are at risk of

[12:49] homelessness there is of course uh additional needs for emergency

[12:52] sheltering and long-term options for those experiencing homelessness and

[12:57] there's certainly a concentration of services uh

[13:01] supporting that group in duncan and north carolina

[13:04] and again when you take people out of their home communities it becomes harder

[13:08] for them to access their natural supports and

[13:10] we'd like to see a more distributed model there as well so people are able

[13:14] to maintain those social ties and those family ties

[13:17] and the communities they were raised in so that's really just an overview of the

[13:21] key findings by population and um a broad overview of a qualitative uh

[13:26] perspective of what we encountered when we undertook the the

[13:30] process of uh discussing and dialoguing with the

[13:32] community and then analyzing the findings

[13:34] so i'll stop there and i'll turn it over to george to go through more of the

[13:38] quantitative line so thank you for your attention

[13:43] thanks john um so my name is george parker i'm from gp

[13:48] rollo and associates and i was hired to

[13:53] work on the quantitative components of this project

[13:59] as part of the housing needs assessment we were required to process a great deal

[14:03] of data from the 2006 2011 and 2016 censuses

[14:08] the government of bc provided a custom data set specifically for this purpose

[14:14] the data in this data set might differ from other census data you've seen

[14:19] because it excludes individuals outside of private households

[14:23] for example people living in care homes this data this government sanctioned

[14:27] data set is used throughout this research in the

[14:29] interest of consistency we don't have time to cover all of the

[14:33] background research so this is a curated selection

[14:39] this graph shows the rate of population growth in each jurisdiction

[14:43] in the last five years in teal and in the last 10 years

[14:47] in green and that's from the perspective of 2016.

[14:51] so between 2006 and 2016 bc grew in population from 4.1 million

[14:57] to 4.6 million 12 percent growth whereas the cvrd

[15:02] grew from 75 000 to 82 000 8 growth so as you can see the cvrd

[15:08] uh grew at about two-thirds the pace as the of the province within the cvrd

[15:15] jurisdictions that grew particularly rapidly included ladysmith

[15:19] and electoral areas a b and d and duncan and electoral area f both

[15:24] decreased in population by about seven percent during this

[15:28] period although in both cases this decline took place

[15:31] entirely in the 2006 to 2011 period so the first half of that decade

[15:41] this graph shows the share of households that rent in each jurisdiction

[15:44] over time from 2006 to 2016 renters as a share of all households in

[15:50] bc increased slightly from about thirty percent to

[15:54] about thirty two percent a smaller share of households in the

[15:57] cvrd are renters but the same upward trend is present

[16:02] from about twenty percent to about twenty two percent over the decade

[16:06] the cvrd has a renter share of about 22 percent overall

[16:10] uh lady smith exhibits about the same share

[16:13] uh but north carolina and lake coaching have more renters about 25

[16:19] and duncan has far more renters about 46 the electoral areas exhibit a wide range

[16:25] of renter shares and trajectories but generally have a lower share of

[16:29] renter households than the cvrd as a whole

[16:32] although during this decade electoral areas f and i

[16:35] surpassed the region reaching 23 and 25 percent respectively

[16:40] electoral area g bucked the trend with a continuously decreasing renter share

[16:46] down from 12 percent to 10 percent making it the jurisdiction

[16:50] with the lowest renter share in 2016.

[16:55] this graph shows median household income in each jurisdiction over time

[17:00] the cvrd was slightly less affluent than bc throughout this decade

[17:05] from 2006 to 2016 median household incomes increased

[17:09] in both bc from 62 000 to 70 000 and in the cvrd from 60 000 to 65 000

[17:18] but the above figures and this graphic are nominal figures that include

[17:22] inflation if you account if you account for

[17:25] inflation uh you get this graphic you can see here

[17:30] that median household income in bc actually stagnated in real terms

[17:36] uh and these are in 2019 dollars from 76 000 to 75

[17:40] 000 and the cvrd it declined from 73 000 to seventy thousand um and the same

[17:48] is true in most jurisdictions

[17:53] that was median income if we look at household income distribution

[17:58] this graph shows household income distribution in bc

[18:02] on the left versus the cvrd on the right as it changes from 2006 to 2016.

[18:10] this just gives you a sense of what income distribution tends to look like

[18:15] the main difference here is that the cvrd is slightly less affluent than the

[18:19] province but also has less income inequality

[18:24] you can tell because bc has more people in its lowest income and

[18:28] highest income groups

[18:33] this is a similar comparison between owner households in the cvrd

[18:38] shown on the left and renter households in the cvrd

[18:41] shown on the right for sake of reference in 2016 owner households in the region

[18:47] had a median income of 75 000 while renter households had a median

[18:51] income of 38 000 that's literally half the income per

[18:55] household this would be the kind of distribution

[18:59] that would produce that outcome

[19:03] this slide explores that very statistic the solid teal bar shows owner household

[19:09] income the hatched teal bar shows median

[19:14] renter household income and the green bar shows their ratio

[19:18] a higher green bar means owners and renters are more

[19:22] unequal by this measure the cvrd exhibits slightly more inequality

[19:27] between tenure groups than bc generally within the cvrd

[19:33] the most equal jurisdictions are electoral areas a

[19:36] b and h and the most unequal jurisdictions are duncan

[19:40] and electoral areas f g and i

[19:46] this slide compares bc to the cvrd with respect to bedroom counts

[19:52] in bc there were about there was about an even split

[19:55] between two bedroom three bedroom and four bedroom units about twenty seven

[19:59] percent each in 2016 with fewer one-bedroom units

[20:04] 16 and even fewer studios one percent whereas in the cvrd three bedroom units

[20:11] dominate at almost forty percent followed by two

[20:15] and four bedroom units at about twenty six percent each and

[20:18] very few 1 bedroom units less than 10

[20:24] statistics canada defines three housing standards

[20:29] they are suitability meaning that the dwelling is not overcrowded

[20:34] and has an adequate number of bedrooms in bc the share of all households

[20:39] falling below the suitability standard decreased uh from 2006 to 2016. so

[20:44] that's improvement and compared to bc households in the

[20:47] cvod are less crowded and improvement was also observed

[20:53] the second housing standard is adequacy meaning that the dwelling does not

[20:58] contain does not need major repairs the share of all households falling

[21:02] below the adequacy standard in bc and the cvrd

[21:06] remained fairly constant from 2006 to 2016

[21:10] and bc and the cvrd performed similarly overall and the third housing standard

[21:16] is affordability uh defined as a household spending less

[21:21] than 30 percent of its income on housing expenses

[21:24] in bc the share of all households falling below the affordability standard

[21:29] remain about roughly constant from 2006 to 2016.

[21:34] compared to bc the cvrd performs slightly more favorably overall

[21:43] this graph shows renter housing costs in 2016.

[21:47] in 2016 the region had an average monthly rental housing cost

[21:51] of about 940 that number was somewhat higher at about 950

[21:58] in north carolin and ladysmith and somewhat lower in duncan

[22:02] at 830.

[22:06] this graph shows average assessed value per unit over time

[22:12] by property type as you can see single family

[22:16] are more valuable per unit and you have multi-family in that middle group there

[22:21] three different kinds and manufactured homes

[22:24] pulling up the rear with the lowest property values per unit

[22:30] housing prices were stable from 2008 to 2016

[22:34] because land supply kept up with demand this was likely due to the global

[22:38] economic recession of 2008 sorry global economic crisis of 2008 and

[22:43] the following recession since 2016 prices have increased in all

[22:47] categories suggesting that demand has increased

[22:50] more than supply one purpose of a housing needs

[22:56] assessment is to compare housing costs with household incomes

[23:01] for owner households housing costs are a function of housing prices

[23:04] which we had with the property assessment and for renter household

[23:08] housing costs are a function sorry owner households their function of housing

[23:11] prices renter households they're a function of

[23:13] rental rates uh housing prices we can infer from property assessment data

[23:18] but the most recent government data on household incomes is from 2016 from the

[23:22] census so we needed another source of more

[23:26] current household income data we elected to use the socio-demographic

[23:30] estimate produced by environics analytics

[23:33] a research firm specializing in this kind of product

[23:36] at the time of this analysis the most recent environics estimate

[23:40] was from 2019. that's shown here and as you can see

[23:43] it's a very similar income distribution to what the census showed

[23:52] this graph shows the distribution of housing values

[23:55] per unit in the cvrd in 2019 we also have this data by housing type

[24:02] and by jurisdiction but uh this just shows you all of it in

[24:05] a single distribution uh we combine these two sources of data

[24:10] that is this slide and the previous one to produce an estimate of housing

[24:14] affordability for owner households in each jurisdiction

[24:20] on this graphic each line represents a jurisdiction

[24:24] the horizontal variable is household income and the vertical variable is

[24:28] housing expenses as income increases so do housing costs

[24:33] but typically not as quickly income groups falling above the black

[24:38] line spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing and income groups

[24:43] falling above the red line spend more than 50 percent of their

[24:46] income on housing

[24:51] this graphic gives us a table the middle column

[24:55] shows the income below which an owner household with a mortgage

[25:00] would be likely to have trouble um falling above the

[25:04] black line that is avoiding uh housing need in each jurisdiction

[25:10] the right column shows the share of owner households in this

[25:14] group by this account the most affordable jurisdictions in which to own

[25:18] property are electoral area b and lake cowagen

[25:21] probably due to these communities having more manufactured homes

[25:25] and the least affordable jurisdiction is electoral area i

[25:30] these results indicate that the share of owner households that fall

[25:34] fall below the 30 affordability threshold

[25:37] ranges from 10 percent to 36 percent depending on jurisdiction and has an

[25:42] overall average of 17 which is mostly in line with historical

[25:46] trends reported in the census uh using different data sources we can

[25:51] provide uh do a similar exercise for renters

[25:56] so this graph is similar to the last graph but for renters rather than owners

[26:01] each line represents a jurisdiction you'll notice there's fewer lines

[26:04] because we didn't have as much data so we've

[26:07] grouped together certain jurisdictions as and once again as income increases so

[26:13] do housing costs but typically not as quickly income

[26:17] groups falling above the black line spend more than 30 percent of their

[26:21] income on housing and falling above the red line spend more than 50 percent on

[26:25] house

[26:29] this table uh for each jurisdiction in the cvrd

[26:33] uh shows the share of renters spending more than 30 percent of their income on

[26:37] housing and the share spending more than fifty

[26:39] percent about forty percent of the region

[26:42] region's renters are in core housing need and about fourteen percent are in

[26:47] extreme housing and finally this table shows the overall

[26:55] totals which include owner and renter households

[26:58] about 22 percent of all households in the region are in core housing need

[27:03] and about four percent are in extreme core housing

[27:09] moving on to projections

[27:14] we were asked in this process to use the population and housing projections

[27:19] produced by reni intelligence in 2019 however rennie produced four projections

[27:25] which differ chiefly in terms of how closely the urban

[27:28] containment boundary is respected starting in 2017. for our 2019 estimate

[27:34] we therefore elected to uh sorry these scenarios

[27:38] diverge starting in 2017. therefore running not only provides four versions

[27:43] of the future but four versions of the present

[27:46] for our 2019 estimate the we therefore elected to stick with environics

[27:50] with the exception of lake cowagen where renny's scenario 3 is used in both 2019

[27:55] and 2025 which we'll get to later as this more closely matches the growth

[28:00] trajectory that lake cowage and staff anticipate of

[28:03] the four ready scenarios available to us which is the most appropriate well the

[28:09] four scenarios differ only with respect to how closely the urban containment

[28:12] boundary is observed they therefore differ with respect to

[28:16] housing supply factors that is development approval rather than

[28:21] housing demand factors uh with a given level of demand uh which

[28:26] our research indicates is very high in the cowachin valley the more land supply

[28:32] is available for development the more affordable housing will tend to

[28:36] become in the region

[28:39] therefore in the interest of maximizing affordability we elected to use

[28:43] whichever ready scenario anticipates the most growth in each

[28:46] jurisdiction as this would tend to produce the most

[28:48] affordable housing outcomes there are two exceptions to this lake

[28:53] cowichan and electoral area i in both cases a lower growth scenario

[28:57] scenario three is applied as the more extreme scenarios

[29:01] were deemed implausible

[29:06] this methodology uh produced the projection

[29:09] scene here we project that the region will grow in household count from about

[29:15] 35 000 in 2019 to about 40 000 in 2025

[29:20] which would be growth of about 14 percent in six years

[29:24] this would be somewhat more rapid growth than observed in the past

[29:28] the number of households in the region grew by 13

[29:31] in the decade between 2006 and 2016. under this scenario the slowest growing

[29:37] jurisdiction in terms of household count will be lake kochen at three percent and

[29:41] the fastest growing will be electoral area f

[29:44] at 54 and here's the population projection

[29:49] which is very similar

[29:56] statistics canada defines housing suitability as follows

[30:00] no less than one bedroom per household member except for couples

[30:05] and except for children depending on their age and sex

[30:08] it may not be evident but this definition is extremely austere

[30:13] merely meeting this requirement throughout a community would produce

[30:16] extremely cramped housing both environics and reni provide

[30:22] estimates of population per household but we lack the information on age and

[30:26] sex distribution within households therefore to generate an estimate of

[30:30] housing need by bedroom count we simply we simplify the statistics

[30:34] canada standard to the following no less than one

[30:37] bedroom per household member but couples may share a room this is

[30:42] both practical and produces more generous housing needs

[30:45] estimates the stipulation that couples may share

[30:48] bedrooms is very important because a huge number of households

[30:52] contain couples in the cvrd in 2016 according to the

[30:56] census 89 of two-bedroom households consisted

[30:59] of a couple 73 percent of three-bedroom households

[31:03] contained a couple eighty-four percent of four bedroom uh

[31:06] four-person households contained a couple and so on

[31:09] uh so defining housing need in this way which is only slightly more generous

[31:14] than statistics canada produces the counter-intuitive outcome

[31:19] shown here the majority of housing need shown in

[31:24] green is for one-bedroom units because most

[31:28] most households consist of one person or a couple

[31:32] but the majority of household of housing in the region shown in teal

[31:36] has three or more bedrooms in other words most households in the cvrd

[31:41] have more bedrooms than they need in fact

[31:45] existing supply in 2016 already exceeded housing need in 2025

[31:50] for units with two or more bedrooms however

[31:54] it would be an error to interpret this as suggesting

[31:57] that only one bedroom unit should be constructed from now on

[32:01] uh that's because this represents the minimum number of bedrooms

[32:05] not the ideal number of bedrooms need is different than preference

[32:09] different than demand different than market desire uh in other news

[32:15] in other words rather because most households in the cvrd have more than

[32:19] one have more than enough housing housing

[32:22] need by bedroom count is not a very useful or informative

[32:26] statistic i'm sorry my phone is ringing here

[32:29] maybe not sure how to mute

[32:34] i guess i'll just carry on uh because most households in the cvrd have

[32:40] more than enough house bedrooms housing need by bedroom count

[32:44] is not a very useful or informative statistic for planning

[32:48] although it is still worth noting that the region could use more than

[32:51] uh could use more one-bedroom units because this was always

[32:55] also a finding of the community engagement research

[32:58] as presented by mr horn

[33:05] one other thing gpra has modified the household income projection provided by

[33:10] environics to produce two income projections for

[33:13] each jurisdiction in the cvrd a rapid recovery scenario which has

[33:20] the household incomes in the region recovering rapidly from the covet 19

[33:25] pandemic this is based directly on environments

[33:29] and a slow recovery scenario this projection assumes a slower a

[33:34] slower economic recovery from the kovid 19 pandemic which reduces

[33:38] household incomes overall the reality is likely to fall somewhere

[33:42] between these two scenarios so on this graphic

[33:45] teal is the present distribution of income

[33:49] uh light green is the slow recovery scenario and dark green is the

[33:54] rapid recovery scenario uh at present household incomes are about

[34:00] 75 000 per household uh and we have those

[34:04] rising to 89 000 in the rapid recovery scenario or

[34:08] 84 000 in the slow recovery scenario

[34:12] but again these are nominal income figures if you remove inflation from the

[34:17] question and you use constant 2016

[34:21] in 2019 incomes are about 70 000 per household

[34:25] and that will rise to about 75 000 in the rapid recovery scenario

[34:29] or stay roughly where it is at 70 000 in the slow recovery scenario we use

[34:36] this income projection to produce a projection of tenure so

[34:40] renters or owners in the region and in each jurisdiction

[34:45] and similar just as you'd expect in the rapid recovery scenario

[34:49] we have the 10-year mix shifting somewhat towards owner households

[34:54] whereas in the slow recovery scenario it stays basically where it is now

[35:02] uh i'm not seeing any text here uh but this slide is asking for

[35:06] discussion and questions oh there it is uh discussion and questions thank you

[35:12] very much we'll open the floor if we can uh get

[35:16] folks who aren't speaking to turn off their

[35:18] microphones please uh mr horn yours has given us a lot of feedback it looks like

[35:23] thank you um so if we can lower the presentation

[35:26] so that we can see the directors we can open the description

[35:35] thank you all right so i'll go uh i'll take my speakers list i have director

[35:41] keep your hand up until you hear your name called director sebring

[35:47] uh oh sorry duncan who else smith

[35:56] mcgonagall i can't see when uh hands go over faces

[36:00] out director morrison

[36:04] and marsh and then i'll come back when we've got some

[36:08] some of those out of the way i've got nicholson

[36:13] okay go ahead uh director sebring thank you mr chair

[36:17] and thank you to mr parker mr horn uh a long awaited and excellent

[36:22] presentation a ton of good information here i've already reviewed

[36:26] the north couching piece as well and some interesting things there too

[36:30] mr parker you said something that intrigued me and i'd like you to expand

[36:34] on it with respect to uh how stringently we

[36:39] live within our policy objectives as expressed in urban containment

[36:45] boundaries and the impact that that

[36:49] those decisions have on affordability did i hear you say

[36:53] that if we um build more and and create less

[36:59] restrictive urban containment boundaries and and

[37:03] make more land available for development than it has a positive impact on

[37:07] affordability that is generally true yes uh i would

[37:12] say though as a planner which i am uh there are plenty of other very good

[37:18] reasons from environmental uh to uh transportation based

[37:23] to um uh you know uh creating vibrant urban centers and so on why that

[37:29] might not be a good idea but extremely speaking but strictly

[37:33] speaking if you increase the availability of

[37:36] housing here's here's a here's a thought

[37:39] experiment in a market context if you build 50 homes in a location

[37:45] they'll tend to go to the 50 highest bidders whereas if you build

[37:50] a hundred homes in the same location they will tend to go to the 100 highest

[37:54] bidders and that's just how markets work

[37:57] therefore as you increase supply the average price tends to go down

[38:02] simply as a function of mathematics now it can't go down past a certain point

[38:07] which is the cost the cost to build you can't sell a new

[38:12] unit for more than for less than it costs to build it but

[38:16] generally the more supply uh the lower the place

[38:20] the lower the prices you know this is the dilemma we were

[38:23] talking about it last night in the committee of the whole meeting at

[38:26] north couch and we're in the middle of rewriting our ocp

[38:29] and one of the pieces there is the the growth management strategy

[38:34] and i mean i i get both sides of the equation we want to promote compact

[38:38] communities in the sense that you know not only is it good for the environment

[38:41] and all those other things it's also good for us municipally

[38:44] because it costs a hell of a lot less to to service

[38:48] those 50 homes if they're clustered than if we have to run

[38:51] water and sewer lines either and all over the place because we're not

[38:54] clustering so there's good reasons to to do the

[38:58] compact development but you know equally i can take you to

[39:02] places in north carolina we're fairly strict about our ucb

[39:05] where properties that are relatively compatible

[39:09] and and you know side by each by like there's major price differences because

[39:14] one is inside the ucb it can be developed and the other one's sitting

[39:17] out there and you can't do anything with it so

[39:20] do you have any advice in terms of finding that balance i know it's a

[39:23] political question but damn it it's a political question

[39:28] um i i don't feel that when i'm speaking to a

[39:31] group of people who are um really the decision makers you know and

[39:37] uh all i know is that um is that there does tend to be that

[39:44] trade-off and that um there are perhaps uh

[39:49] side strategies right strategies that allow you to

[39:53] have your cake and eat it for example making it easier to live in multi-family

[39:59] homes will tend to increase the desirability

[40:04] of multi-family homes now multi-family homes are

[40:07] this would tend to increase the price of your multi-family homes

[40:11] but it would tend because multi-family homes are

[40:14] by by that i mean townhomes apartments because those units are cheaper

[40:18] on average than single-family homes if you have more of them

[40:23] your average housing price will go down so planning strategies to make

[40:29] multi-family living more attractive can include things like

[40:34] having a good public transportation system uh having complete neighborhoods

[40:39] where uh you can live uh in an apartment and

[40:42] the appeal of that is you can walk to the grocery store

[40:45] uh walk to uh walk to your kids can walk to school

[40:49] so that you can live that more urban format of living but i will say

[40:53] it is absolutely an intractable planning problem and there's just simply a

[40:57] trade-off at some point however there are policies that can be

[41:01] introduced and have to some extent been introduced

[41:03] and i'm sure john could speak to these more than me for making sure

[41:07] that those at the bottom end of the housing spectrum have what they need

[41:11] to avoid the direst consequences of unaffordability

[41:17] these this uh this effect that we're described that we're discussing

[41:21] about supply constraints leading to more expensive housing

[41:26] is really on the market side of things you know it's not

[41:29] that bottom 10 of the population bottom only in the sense of

[41:33] bottom of the income distribution let's say uh it's more the people

[41:37] who can afford to purchase homes in the first place

[41:41] as for the renter side uh dedicating zoning to um you know you

[41:47] there the municipalities are now empowered by

[41:50] the province to make a rental zoning and that's

[41:54] something that can help increase the supply of rental

[41:56] which is a particularly important tenure of course for

[42:00] lower income households um so that's a variety of ways of thinking about this

[42:05] but i don't deny that there's a trade-off and

[42:08] it's not really my place to say which community what communities should do

[42:13] to strike that balance because the ideal balance

[42:16] varies by geography varies by community sure thank you very much thank you

[42:24] thank you and i am mindful that we have a long speakers list

[42:27] so if we can keep our questions and our responses as concise as possible

[42:32] and to our municipal partners i understand that this will be presented

[42:35] to the municipal councils as well so maybe for us municipal directors we

[42:39] can save most of our our specific questions around our

[42:43] municipalities for that uh next i have directors duncan and

[42:47] smith and mcgonagall uh thank you uh mr chair uh just a quick

[42:51] question on the household incomes uh what how is that

[42:56] based i know i know it must be from stat scan is it based on

[42:59] one person working on the house in the household two people

[43:02] uh is it just by address did they come from stats council just some background

[43:06] on how they they come up with that that

[43:09] household income level sure um so

[43:13] well there's different there's different data sources and there's different data

[43:17] components here so i'll just go through them briefly

[43:20] uh the first part of the presentation covered census data so that was from

[43:25] 2006 the 2006 2011 and 2016 censuses and they define households as um

[43:33] any two people well any one person really uh

[43:36] people living together it's private households it's just about everybody

[43:40] exceptions to private households would be people living in care homes

[43:45] other kinds of institutional arrangements that kind of thing

[43:48] so it's their income their annual income you add together all the incomes in the

[43:54] household and that's it um presumably uh stats canada

[43:59] gets that information directly from uh from people uh i believe it's short form

[44:05] sense or long-form census which means they uh they pull 25 of the population

[44:11] and then they apply some basic data analysis

[44:14] tools to generalize that to the to the other 75

[44:18] of the population then there was our 2019 and 2025

[44:23] income projections and those are produced by a company called

[44:27] environics analytics with a little bit of processing from yours truly

[44:32] they have proprietary methodology but essentially

[44:36] i believe they do uh they use census data

[44:40] they use things like surveys uh they use economic modeling and so on uh

[44:46] to make an estimate of income distribution and as as i showed there

[44:51] it's fairly compatible and tells a very similar story

[44:54] uh to the census data

[44:59] thank you that's my answer okay thank you director duncan

[45:02] i have director smith and mcgonagall dan morrison go ahead director smith

[45:07] thank you that was extremely fascinating presentation

[45:11] it's always nice to have those presentations with the

[45:16] commentary going with it because it gives us an opportunity to actually hear

[45:20] a little more detail i noticed that

[45:25] there was an indication that area g is going to population is going to grow and

[45:29] yet the last presentation that we saw there was some

[45:33] of our communities that were going in the other direction so i'll split it

[45:38] down the middle and say we're going to grow a little

[45:41] and that one of the things that i'm out in the communities a lot and i listen to

[45:46] what people are up to and a lot of people are

[45:49] buying a second home and those homes are for their personal

[45:53] use so we have people that are from say the

[45:56] lower mainland or from elsewhere they they come to our

[46:00] areas and they own a second home that home

[46:04] isn't available for rental and i don't know if you have any details on how many

[46:08] of those are actually sitting there or we have situations

[46:13] where they own a little rv

[46:17] lot situation so those aren't available for rental they're not part of the

[46:24] rental pool so there's some gaps in some of the

[46:28] material that we we just don't have any stats on as to

[46:32] what's going on there and i think that you know a lot of

[46:37] people in their areas have illegal rentals going on so the rental situation

[46:42] is not necessarily people aren't going to fill in a form

[46:45] yes i have an illegal rental on my property

[46:47] and then we have the other situation where we have the airbnbs that are

[46:52] removing rental possibilities out of our pool

[46:56] so we have a lot of areas that we don't have those stats and and as

[47:03] much as we do have those rentals actually in our

[47:06] areas they're just not part of these stats sometimes but i really appreciated

[47:11] the presentation and i'm going to definitely re-watch the video thank you

[47:15] very much for your time thank you thank you thank you thank you

[47:19] director smith and we'll go into director mcgonagall then morrison then

[47:23] marsh director mcgonagall thank you very much first of all

[47:26] uh mr horn and mr parker thank you very much for that very informative

[47:31] report and presentation i think if nothing else it shows the diversity of

[47:36] the couch valley regional district in not only affordability but in

[47:41] availability as was stated when you look to the south as opposed to

[47:46] the east and the west there are so many

[47:49] discrepancies within those areas and needs within those areas i was

[47:53] pleased that a planner had mentioned a topic

[47:58] that i have brought up many times within the

[48:00] municipalities forte of of rental zoning within our

[48:04] municipalities to accommodate the affordability within

[48:09] that and i would encourage everyone within

[48:12] the municipal uh forte to investigate that to the

[48:16] fullest capacity whether it's percentages within that

[48:19] zoning or or whatever consider that as an option for

[48:23] affordability when you look at some of those numbers

[48:26] and the projections that are needed i think that's imperative you director

[48:34] mcgonagall any comment on that mr parker no i um i i suppose as a

[48:41] planner it's exciting to me to hear uh whenever municipalities are empowered

[48:47] by the municipal uh government act to

[48:51] uh introduce new kinds of zoning especially when it

[48:55] has the power to really ensure that a a kind of housing that is in dire need

[49:01] um might be more present and available um so i

[49:04] echo the director's comments thank you director morrison then

[49:10] marshland nicholson go ahead director morrison

[49:12] uh thank you i'll try and be brief i i have to say i i kind of love the

[49:18] optimism in your housing projections and population

[49:22] growth for electoral area f uh gosh if we could

[49:26] reach them that'd be great um my questions are around um

[49:32] so you made some mention of manufactured homes and and

[49:35] technically we really don't have any in my electoral area which

[49:40] it kind of leads me to a question around and this is

[49:44] both around the rental and and owning is the

[49:47] the uh push to broaden use of non-traditional housing types to

[49:53] uh to accommodate some of the pressures that we're facing and

[49:56] and you know i've got a lot of pressure to look at the tiny home question i've

[50:02] got a lot of pressure to look at well we're starting to get more pressure

[50:06] on on a desire for people to be able to

[50:09] have a pad beside their house and and rent it out as an rv space and and

[50:14] then it's already been mentioned the uh the uh issue around airbnb

[50:20] taking you know rental housing out of uh out of that pool

[50:24] so it's around that i wouldn't call it necessarily lower end but that

[50:29] alternative housing do you do you have any predictions as to

[50:34] how that's going to impact uh you know some of the

[50:38] more rural areas and i just want to make this one point

[50:41] uh three or four years ago all of our planners were saying that there wasn't

[50:45] really a need for additional residential housing lots to be created

[50:49] in my electoral area and now you can't find one for sale but

[50:54] your projections take into account the fact that we've actually gone ahead

[50:58] and created more potential building lots in our area so that

[51:02] we now have that room for the growth but my specific point is around those

[51:06] alternative housing types rvs is a type of housing

[51:11] which you know a lot of areas are trying to discourage

[51:13] any thoughts in that area well um first of all i'd like to say that don't thank

[51:18] me for the projection uh we were instructed by

[51:21] the cvrd staff to make use of reni's projections which were produced in early

[51:27] 2019 uh we did make use of those projections

[51:30] and let me tell you regarding electoral area f

[51:35] i in particular is this what i'm thinking of i'm thinking of a different

[51:37] electoral area anyway um renny seems to present the case

[51:42] that assuming that the urban containment boundary is not

[51:45] respected i'm not commenting on the wisdom of that

[51:49] but renny seems to take the perspective that assuming that's the case

[51:54] this kind of really quite rapid growth in electoral area f

[51:58] and other electoral areas to a lesser extent is possible

[52:02] um he did a land analysis he looked at the

[52:05] land that was available uh and he simply made that projection

[52:09] um all the indicators of the market that i've ran into during this process have

[52:14] suggested that uh german the demand is tremendous it's

[52:18] growing uh and it will only continue to grow uh

[52:21] for the next few years at least um now touching on the comment uh

[52:26] regarding manufactured homes um uh coach coach homes

[52:32] um basement suites um i will say any increase in the diversity of housing

[52:38] will tend to have positive effects for affordability take

[52:42] from that way you will but as you increase the number of the

[52:45] variety of options available more households that may not have been

[52:49] served by the previous more constrained market

[52:52] will find that they can afford a place to live now

[52:55] manufactured homes i recognize aren't everyone's favorite uh they're not

[53:00] exactly popular um from from neighbors and also manufactured homes uh tend to

[53:06] not be what in economics terms we call the highest and best use of land

[53:10] and by that i mean if you could build anything

[53:13] manufactured homes would probably not be the most lucrative thing

[53:17] to create on a lot but that doesn't mean they're the worst for affordability

[53:21] uh so i think it's certainly worth thinking about

[53:27] so just a little just a follow-up quick clarification on on the concept of tiny

[53:32] homes you say you're a planner and we're getting a lot of buzz on on

[53:35] tiny homes and and they obviously have to fit into a

[53:39] zone of some sort but uh your your

[53:42] anticipation of where that's going to fit in not just my area

[53:46] but you know there's a demand for it within urban areas as well yeah i'm

[53:52] talking about those tiny ones on trailers that can be picked

[53:56] up and moved if need be there's a market

[54:00] um the depth of that market isn't something that i've investigated

[54:04] specifically um but i would say that just like

[54:08] there's this word for these little homes that you put on the side of a house

[54:12] maybe in the like facing onto the back alley i can't remember the name off the

[54:15] top of my head um

[54:20] exactly laneway that's it so just like laneway homes

[54:24] what these do is they essentially are a sneaky way to increase density

[54:29] so they create two units out of one uh and they provide a source of income

[54:35] for the owner household so what that means is um it's a win-win

[54:39] from an affordability perspective and i imagine that tiny homes would have

[54:43] the same dynamic in that they would create something from

[54:48] nothing they would allow you to put a home where

[54:50] previously a home didn't exist but it's not really something for

[54:54] nothing because there are knock-on effects when you increase

[54:57] density increase traffic increase municipal costs of a variety of kinds

[55:03] increased need for amenities in the neighborhood and so on and

[55:06] managing that through a variety of mechanisms

[55:09] is really the art of municipal governance right she has that trade-off

[55:13] between growth which is good for affordability

[55:17] but bad for municipal costs and i don't know what the right approach

[55:22] is but i will say that tiny homes and other things of a similar

[55:26] nature will be good for affordability

[55:32] thank you very much i have director marsh then nicholson then uh the

[55:36] full list i have myself director martin and back to director smith

[55:40] so that's my full list right now but next i have director marsh

[55:43] nicholson and thank you very much i i hope i'm going to be able to word this

[55:49] in a way that you understand what i'm what i'm getting at um i'm looking um

[55:55] at your chart income distribution and i you know i'm not

[56:02] a planner and i'm not an expert in housing but

[56:06] i see that in the couch and valley the inca the there's a large number of

[56:12] people i'm not saying a lot the largest number

[56:16] but um if you if you i don't know how to say

[56:21] this that our be whose income is between

[56:26] [Music] thousand uh a hundred and nineteen

[56:30] thousand dollars and that's that i just got that from

[56:36] sticking my pencil across your graph and so if the average price of the

[56:42] single family home which it seems like most um

[56:47] districts are more inclined to build is five hundred thousand dollars

[56:54] how do you how do you relate that to be affordable even to someone

[56:58] who whose household income is a hundred and nineteen thousand dollars

[57:06] well i actually have some statistics here so i'm gonna pull those up

[57:11] great you can't see them you can't see them but i can

[57:14] so can you send them to us at some point uh you have them uh i have submitted

[57:20] them to uh the to folder uh modis

[57:24] and corley breen of the cvid staff have access to this and i can

[57:30] direct i can direct you to that it's

[57:32] essentially what i'm looking at here is

[57:36] is summaries that i've made of assessment data

[57:39] so what we see here is that the average assessed value of a single family home

[57:44] in the whole cbrd is like you said just north of half a

[57:49] million so about about 546 thousand

[57:54] and the that varies by jurisdiction some places higher some places lower

[57:59] um so i don't know off the top of my head

[58:03] the income that would make that affordable uh

[58:06] but there is definitely an income grew below

[58:10] that level it's absolutely true and it will always be true

[58:13] because um the cost of building a single family home

[58:17] uh is in the hundreds of thousands the cost to build one even for a developer

[58:22] just to build it um and so it is impossible to

[58:25] generate new housing below that price now of course there's always the

[58:30] existing supply of housing and there's no rule that that can't

[58:34] be lower and indeed in some jurisdictions the average price of

[58:37] housing is well below uh the cost to build a new house

[58:43] and yet you would never expect the market to satisfy all housing needs it

[58:47] simply can't be done because there are cost to construction

[58:50] uh rental housing helps in that it allows people to get housed without a

[58:56] down payment um multi-family housing helps in that

[59:01] it's cheaper to build a smaller unit and it's easier to make money if you build

[59:05] more of them and yet at the end of the day it was

[59:08] impossible for the market to satisfy all the housing needs of any community

[59:12] and that's why policies and and strategies are needed to provide

[59:18] non-market housing and subsidies of various kinds

[59:21] that meet people's personal needs whether those are low-income

[59:25] seniors uh people with disabilities and so on

[59:30] um i'm not sure exactly how to better answer your question than that no

[59:33] no i appreciate that may i have a follow-up mr chair

[59:39] yes okay so it sounded like you were saying

[59:45] that your your research showed that if we made our urban containment

[59:50] boundaries larger it would make housing more

[59:55] affordable to more people and i wondered if in that is that

[1:00:02] correct what the what you said that will tend to be the

[1:00:07] case okay so did you factor in the cost

[1:00:11] of uh traveling having to own a vehicle the cost of not just putting in the

[1:00:18] pipes initially but the asset management of all the

[1:00:23] things that would be required in order to do that

[1:00:26] is that factored in uh factored in in what sense

[1:00:31] well okay so it's cheaper we a house is cheaper to buy

[1:00:38] but when you think of the taxpayers that are helping

[1:00:42] to allow that house to be cheaper for that purchaser

[1:00:47] is it indeed a wise mew for us a muni or an area direct air

[1:00:53] electoral area to build out because in the long term

[1:01:00] it's everybody else that's going to be paying for the replacement

[1:01:04] and the maintenance of the infrastructure and the assets

[1:01:08] so to me i i i don't want to challenge you because

[1:01:12] you're a lot more intelligent than i am about this but

[1:01:16] i'm feeling a bit like um hearing that is kind of a false economy

[1:01:23] i agree with you uh i actually think that

[1:01:26] um the ideal situation is for development to be forced to pay for

[1:01:31] itself so i agree measures uh measures such as

[1:01:36] dcc's cacs land uh you know phase development agreements

[1:01:41] measures put in place to ensure that new

[1:01:44] development pays for as many of the costs it

[1:01:47] generates as possible but i'd also go i'd also i also want to

[1:01:51] look back to what you said and say you you disagree well i don't actually think

[1:01:54] it's necessarily the right approach to expand the urban containment boundary

[1:01:59] that's what i wanted because it's just it's just that it's a

[1:02:03] political choice there are trade-offs to be made between

[1:02:08] using the market mechanisms to increase affordability

[1:02:11] on the one hand and on the other hand pursuing all these perfectly valid

[1:02:17] planning objectives such as reduced pollution

[1:02:20] complete communities um and so on uh i i don't have a particular stake uh

[1:02:27] on in which which choice the municipalities

[1:02:31] and uh the dicks the district go with that right

[1:02:35] um right but since it's an affordability study since it's a housing needs

[1:02:39] assessment study uh that mechanic was our focus

[1:02:44] okay thank you i'm going to lead the floor knowing that you're going to come

[1:02:47] to north carolina but i'm glad to hear that you don't

[1:02:50] think that making urban containment boundaries for

[1:02:54] many reasons larger is is necessarily wise

[1:02:58] so thanks very much thank you uh director nicholson then kuhn and myself

[1:03:04] then martin and then smith and i'm noticing we are an hour into our

[1:03:07] meeting so once that's done um we do have this item coming up under

[1:03:11] our reports as well so uh we will have more opportunity for

[1:03:14] discussion then go ahead director nicholson then

[1:03:18] them myself thank you chair this is so interesting

[1:03:22] um and a great presentation so i am

[1:03:26] i am wondering about we have this needs assessment study done and we're going to

[1:03:31] take this information and use it in our planning

[1:03:34] but i also know in my area which is area e

[1:03:37] the sort of the electoral area that cups duncan the urban

[1:03:42] the urban area i know that there are a lot of

[1:03:50] not legal uh people living out in the bush behind the

[1:03:56] trees that we don't see and i'm wondering how

[1:04:00] much confidence can we put on this study

[1:04:04] for our planning

[1:04:09] well in the sense that the reliability of the uh projections

[1:04:18] yeah yep well it really depends on whether you

[1:04:22] uh the extent to which you trust uh the the reni the bob brenny projection

[1:04:29] methodology that we were instructed to uh to to use um

[1:04:35] basically what what renny did was he uh he basically projected regional growth

[1:04:42] as an extension of historical trends and then how that

[1:04:47] growth is distributed varies by varies by scenario

[1:04:53] and we cherry pick from among those scenarios to show the

[1:04:56] maximum scenario in each jurisdiction so essentially what we're saying is as

[1:05:02] aggressive as rooney is willing to go that is what we will model um

[1:05:09] in terms of reliability i believe it's mostly based on census data

[1:05:14] so in terms of the actual counts the actual numbers

[1:05:18] so only as reliable as the census it's not a hundred percent um and i

[1:05:24] assume they miss some people um but i also assume statistics canada

[1:05:28] has a variety of mechanisms for making sure that everyone is captured

[1:05:34] so i'm not exactly sure how to go further with my answer

[1:05:41] okay if i could add to that maybe the unhoused population usually doesn't

[1:05:47] get captured by the formal census methodologies and

[1:05:51] you know that we do our own homeless counts typically in communities

[1:05:54] to assess but more on an ongoing basis we would

[1:05:58] look at shelter take up and connections with

[1:06:01] outreach workers and be hot mental health and substance use so

[1:06:05] the case loads of the social agencies that respond to the

[1:06:09] needs of those without any place to live at all

[1:06:12] is probably the most accurate way on a day-to-day basis to track

[1:06:15] what is the population that's unhoused in your community and

[1:06:19] and sort of as we move forward it's likely that those are the kind of data

[1:06:22] sets we'll be drawing up and we won't rely much on

[1:06:25] bigger formal data sets like census can because they don't capture that

[1:06:29] population very much at all so we'd rely on

[1:06:32] connections with our local social agencies to determine

[1:06:35] ongoing you know how many people are there that really are unhoused

[1:06:38] absolutely on house and need some form of redress in that regard so

[1:06:43] that's probably how we continue on that way yeah can i just

[1:06:47] follow up i i just i guess i think that we ought

[1:06:51] to be focusing as well on all the people that are

[1:06:55] living in in rvs and little tiny

[1:07:00] cabins in the woods that have you know not proper whatever

[1:07:07] i know that there's a lot of them and now we're getting fancier

[1:07:11] tiny homes on mobile tiny homes but there are a lot of people that live that

[1:07:18] way and i think that we shouldn't overlook

[1:07:21] that in our planning that's all

[1:07:27] so i i was that a rhetorical question it's just a statement

[1:07:34] i don't make rhetorical statements

[1:07:39] a position not not a query i thought but it was a position

[1:07:43] i i just don't want to i just think when we're using this kind of study for

[1:07:47] planning we can't forget the the the data that we don't have that's

[1:07:53] yeah well i think that's important and john i think you've addressed that about

[1:07:57] talking about the qualitative piece and bringing in those other

[1:08:00] metrics and analysis that couch and housing has done as well right

[1:08:05] but again we do the heavy lifting at local government when we

[1:08:08] amend our policies uh to support the types of housing that are needed right

[1:08:13] so um any other comments before i move on

[1:08:17] my speakers list sorry i'm not sure the background noises

[1:08:21] but again if i could remind the directors if you're not speaking to

[1:08:24] please meet your microphones

[1:08:28] uh director i believe you're next

[1:08:32] you're fine okay uh just a quick comment from myself

[1:08:36] in the speakers list here i just want to say that i love

[1:08:39] the data and the statistical interpretations i know that there's a

[1:08:43] lot of specific questions that i may have but i'll save those for my council

[1:08:47] just those those little parts that seem to stick out as like almost like a blip

[1:08:51] in the radar like the statistics sort of seem to carry a a

[1:08:54] methodology throughout but then there's something that sticks out maybe as a bit

[1:08:58] of a sore thumb so i really just want to say i

[1:09:00] appreciate the the data and the interpretations because it does

[1:09:04] i think confirm and line up with some of the anecdotal

[1:09:07] uh observations and stories we hear i know john in your work you probably see

[1:09:11] quite a bit of that so uh i'm thank you for all of the work and

[1:09:16] i know that many of us are embarking on ocp and zoning

[1:09:20] bylaw discussions and and this kind of information is so informative and

[1:09:24] helpful in us being able to use facts to help

[1:09:26] support some of the more controversial housing or ocp type decisions we may

[1:09:31] make in terms of increasing density and affordability and

[1:09:35] some of those things that in typically suburban rural communities can sometimes

[1:09:39] create a public uh fervor around around those desires to to support those

[1:09:44] types of housing so moving on to director martman and then

[1:09:48] i'll go back to director smith if i've missed anyone just feel free to

[1:09:52] put your hands up hi um i'm director martman from area h

[1:09:58] and thank you very much for the report i echo many others and that i really

[1:10:02] appreciate having something like this to share with my um constituents i i

[1:10:07] always look at these from a data research perspective and i'd

[1:10:12] like to know i have a couple of comments but where do

[1:10:15] you think are the most vulnerable assumptions that

[1:10:18] you're making in presenting this data

[1:10:22] very good question um well we were instructed to use reni's

[1:10:28] projections and they rely upon two basic streams of data

[1:10:34] one is the overall amount of growth in the region

[1:10:37] and that's based on historical trends and the other

[1:10:40] is the scenarios themselves which divvy that growth up between re

[1:10:44] between uh jurisdictions in the region i believe his methodology was principally

[1:10:49] based on uh basically the amount of undeveloped

[1:10:52] land um and it may be

[1:10:56] that there's there are many places in the uh

[1:11:00] region where that approach was uh simply incorrect

[1:11:04] uh because uh well it's you know for example if you look at electoral area i

[1:11:09] or electoral area f or lake cowa-chin there are places where rene projected at

[1:11:15] least in some scenarios or even most scenarios

[1:11:17] a huge amount of growth completely out of line with

[1:11:20] um historical trends which are constrained by policy forces

[1:11:26] and it seems in my in my opinion it seems to me like a lot of those might

[1:11:31] be implausible um so that's certainly a methodological

[1:11:35] weakness in terms of another methodological

[1:11:40] weakness is that because we were doing this project in

[1:11:43] 2019 and 2020 but the most recent official data from

[1:11:47] the government was from 2016. when we make the jump from 2016 to 2019

[1:11:53] we need to start switching our data sources whenever you

[1:11:56] switch your data sources you introduce

[1:12:01] sources of error and sources of conflict in the data

[1:12:05] where for example you show trends that might not actually exist they just

[1:12:09] different different data projections and different sources of data

[1:12:13] count things in slightly different ways one particular area is that we have

[1:12:20] a estimate of household uh household size

[1:12:24] so number of people per household in 2019 which comes from environics

[1:12:28] and in 2025 which comes from reni and these often show

[1:12:32] very different uh very different average uh

[1:12:36] number of people per unit and there's two interpretations there

[1:12:39] one interpretation is that that's real and we're projecting a change of

[1:12:43] household size the other interpretation is well they use different methodologies

[1:12:47] and they come up with different answers and consequently that change in

[1:12:52] household size may be somewhat spurious uh and so

[1:12:56] that's another methodological weakness um here's another methodological

[1:13:01] weakness we don't have data

[1:13:06] connecting the incomes of particular households

[1:13:09] with the with the um price of a particular home so uh

[1:13:15] we don't we know the distribution of income and we know the distribution of

[1:13:20] uh housing prices but we don't know how they match up

[1:13:24] so our methodology required us to make a best guess

[1:13:28] and what we basically did was we basically applied uh the top one percent

[1:13:32] of the population will live in the top one percent of

[1:13:35] expensive housing the top ten percent in the top ten percent and so on

[1:13:39] now that should approximate something accurate

[1:13:42] but there's no way to be entirely sure uh

[1:13:46] until the next census which would be in 2021

[1:13:49] um and so that's just a source of methodological weakness

[1:13:53] um but since the most recent data we had was 2016 there wasn't really much we

[1:13:58] could do about it um i could probably keep going about

[1:14:01] methodologically i'll stop it i'll stop it in the interest of time

[1:14:08] just a follow-up to that then because to me that whenever i look at a report i

[1:14:12] love to see that in part of the report somewhere because

[1:14:15] to me that has intrinsic value to know where potential

[1:14:19] weaknesses are i don't necessarily see it in here or

[1:14:22] was it meant to be included that's just a follow-up to that but a

[1:14:25] question and then then sort of another assumption that i

[1:14:28] saw on this was around the 30 and 50 rules

[1:14:31] and i'm wondering how applicable they are if you don't take into account

[1:14:35] household debt um and so do you look at household debt at any

[1:14:40] point in this yes uh we we do look at household debt

[1:14:45] in fact we ran that same analysis that you saw

[1:14:49] on um households owner that is owner households

[1:14:53] with um uh with mortgages and without mortgages

[1:14:57] and what we which is the biggest source of household debt um and what we found

[1:15:02] is that um that graphic we showed you was for people with mortgages households

[1:15:07] with mortgages for households without mortgages uh it

[1:15:10] is much more favorable of housing is much more

[1:15:14] affordable in the sense that their monthly

[1:15:16] household costs uh without a mortgage expense are easily in all cases for

[1:15:22] owner households easily below that 30 mark um

[1:15:27] and if you somebody actually uh one of the comments we got on one of these

[1:15:30] reports was somebody had crunched the numbers

[1:15:33] and said this doesn't seem to look right if let's say the cutoff is 55 000

[1:15:38] anyone below this would be expected to be in household uh in household need

[1:15:42] housing need and they said well but that's not uh and

[1:15:46] you've said that's 20 of the population but it's actually much

[1:15:48] more well the reason for that disconnect is because we've taken the households

[1:15:53] without mortgages out of that factor we've said this

[1:15:57] really only applies to households owner households with mortgages so yeah

[1:16:02] we have we have incorporated debt to some extent into the analysis and

[1:16:07] last lastly if you can't if i may um do you

[1:16:10] take an accountant the generational wealth transfer

[1:16:16] um not directly okay however one of the things we do look at

[1:16:22] is how how the value of how

[1:16:26] value of homes has escalated over the years

[1:16:30] so that um people who live in existing homes they're actually paying a mortgage

[1:16:36] based on let's say 10 years ago whereas there's a section of the report

[1:16:41] that looks at the affordability of new housing

[1:16:44] so if you were to buy a home that was just billed and that of course

[1:16:48] looks at housing costs today the cost to construct

[1:16:51] a home today and so those produce very different results

[1:16:55] in part because there's these factors and of course that would

[1:16:58] impact intergenerate there will be intergenerational aspects there

[1:17:01] but that's very indirect okay thank you thanks thanks

[1:17:04] i'm chair thank you uh i think i have director smith to close

[1:17:09] and then we'll probably just take a a quick break uh before we resume our

[1:17:13] agenda we're almost uh just about an hour and a half and go

[1:17:16] ahead uh director smith uh thank you uh once again i i love the

[1:17:21] report and i'm gonna definitely have to look look look a lot

[1:17:25] more and one of the things that i think is

[1:17:28] electoral areas are very different than municipalities and

[1:17:33] right now we're currently working at doing a harmonized official community

[1:17:37] plan some of the things that we have to take

[1:17:40] into consideration are the water sustainability uh

[1:17:45] as we have areas that definitely have water issues

[1:17:49] and we also have to look at the waste water uh

[1:17:52] without specific um infrastructure in place then we're we're looking at a

[1:17:58] really different area and most of our electoral areas are a

[1:18:02] mixture of all those combinations of water sustainability wastewater systems

[1:18:09] septic systems septic systems on us on soil types that don't work so

[1:18:17] all of those things have to go into our ocp one of the other things is electoral

[1:18:22] areas are not able to collect the dcc that

[1:18:26] municipalities are able to do use and that sort of puts

[1:18:30] us in a different category for some of the things that

[1:18:34] would be attainable if we were a municipality also

[1:18:40] none of the figures really reflect that a lot of those people

[1:18:43] in the income bracket for 2020 went from one family member uh with

[1:18:51] two people with a paycheck to one person with a paycheck so it's really hard to

[1:18:56] look at these numbers and see what the the 2020 actually is we won't know that

[1:19:03] for maybe a year of the household income has

[1:19:07] drastically changed for many people in 2020

[1:19:11] and i think that one of the other things that we're looking at is

[1:19:14] the step code coming in that's going to increase the cost of

[1:19:19] housing so we have so many things on our plate that we have to consider

[1:19:23] along with your report that's definitely a benefit for us to have this report at

[1:19:28] this time thank you thank you very much

[1:19:33] i believe we're at the end of our speakers list i just want to say thank

[1:19:36] you so much for all of your work and uh

[1:19:39] great information get the virtual clap sorry if you can't

[1:19:43] hear the roar of the applause but you can see it on your screen

[1:19:46] uh and uh mr horn and mr parker thank you for all your work and support

[1:19:51] um as most of the directors have indicated i think we're almost all

[1:19:55] redoing our ocps so this is really important information

[1:19:59] to uh to to utilize as we go on those processes

[1:20:04] so um i will say thank you and uh hopefully we'll see you again

[1:20:08] and ms lego is there anything we need to cover before we take a brief break

[1:20:13] okay thank you very much we'll adjourn for 10 minutes be back

[1:20:17] at 3 p.m thank you both very much have a great thanks for having us

[1:20:21] thank you both

[1:20:41] the camera's live great thank you so we are back and

[1:20:46] i would say that we will uh our delegates have remained behind

[1:20:51] um and i don't want to make them wait till we get through all our committee

[1:20:54] reports and correspondence to uh let them move on with their day

[1:20:57] so we'll move sr1 up uh to the next item on the agenda quickly

[1:21:03] um ms lego should i get a motion for that or is that within my prerogative

[1:21:08] it's it's within the chair's purview thank you so we'll move on to sr1 just

[1:21:12] under number 11 staff reports and ms lego if you want to read out the

[1:21:16] recommendation while everyone scrolls down the agenda to that location

[1:21:21] uh we'll go ahead sure mr chair this is staff report from community planning and

[1:21:25] the proposed recommendation is that the couch and valley regional district

[1:21:28] housing needs assessment reports 2021 be received

[1:21:31] thank you moved by director sebring seconded by director yanni dinardo

[1:21:35] any discussion on the motion seeing none all those sorry we do have discussion on

[1:21:41] a motion to receive director sebring then marsh just just a

[1:21:45] question what happens to this report now i mean we put a lot of energy and time

[1:21:50] into this and a lot of money uh the province had insisted that all

[1:21:54] the regions and municipalities do this now what just a very practical thing

[1:21:58] going forward i know it'll be incorporated into our

[1:22:02] municipal and regional ocp work but i will

[1:22:05] turn it over to staff for more clarity on next steps

[1:22:10] and just a reminder again to directors please mute your microphone if you're

[1:22:14] not speaking thank you um good after good afternoon everyone

[1:22:19] and through the chair uh we have a requirement first of all

[1:22:22] with the province after uh easc and each municipal

[1:22:27] uh council receives the report to then file

[1:22:31] um all of the reports with the province the municipal planning managers and

[1:22:38] directors have it uh each respective um

[1:22:42] local government will then consider it in conjunction with updating their ocp

[1:22:48] thank you director sebring follow-up i just want to make sure it doesn't sit on

[1:22:52] the shelf and collect best pencil thank you thank you i know we're ant

[1:22:56] eagerly anticipating this data to inform our osvp process so

[1:23:01] um i will go through to director murph thank you very much mr chair i i just

[1:23:06] wanted to um acknowledge that um

[1:23:11] mr parker said that there were some spurious

[1:23:14] um data in here and he did mention uh rini and company and i can tell you

[1:23:21] that north korean got a report on housing and employment and

[1:23:26] affordability predictions last night so i'm sure that it was in a public

[1:23:31] meeting i'm sure that um if uh north cbrd staff don't have it yet

[1:23:38] they could certainly get it sent by north north couch and it was

[1:23:41] as a part of a modus report and there was a link in this

[1:23:45] report and because i the feeling i got from this was like

[1:23:50] this isn't like the bible this is like they were given certain parameter and

[1:23:54] that's the answer to that parameter so thank you thank you any further

[1:24:00] discussion seeing none i'll call the question all

[1:24:02] those in favor and opposed not opposed motion carries

[1:24:07] thank you again i know our delegates are probably in the

[1:24:09] background because i don't see them on camera

[1:24:11] but thank you both again and uh i'm sure we'll have further discussions in the

[1:24:16] future thanks for having us thank you uh ms

[1:24:20] lego back to our regularly scheduled agenda

[1:24:25] i think wrong correspondence uh so there if there's no report from the chair then

[1:24:29] yes we're on to correspondence item c1 uh brian thacker pacific

[1:24:33] industrial and marine with a request for a letter of support for bc coast clean

[1:24:37] waters funding project and should the board be willing to provide that letter

[1:24:41] of support the proposed recommendation is that a letter of support be provided

[1:24:45] to pacific industrial and marine for their

[1:24:47] application to the bc coast clean waters initiative

[1:24:50] thank you i believe that's moved by director yanni dinardo is that a second

[1:24:53] by director wilson yes mr chair and i'd also like to speak

[1:24:57] on it if possible yeah i'll always go to the mover first if you'd like to speak

[1:25:01] to director yanni dinardo and then director

[1:25:04] wilson um yeah this is just um something that

[1:25:08] this uh organization has been doing for a long

[1:25:11] time on their own dime a lot of the time so this is something that's really

[1:25:15] needed in our on our waters so as simple as that

[1:25:19] thank you director wilson thank you mr chair exactly as

[1:25:23] uh director yanni dinardo said uh this is a no-brainer so i said uh let's uh

[1:25:28] just give them the support they need

[1:25:30] absolutely and i know that many of the local industries

[1:25:33] have taken it on themselves to be that sort of helper

[1:25:36] in our areas that was solitaire marine here does much the same so i know we're

[1:25:40] all grateful for that so it has been moved in seconded seeing

[1:25:43] no more discussion i'll call the question all those in favor

[1:25:46] any opposed non-opposed motion carries thank you very much ms lego onto

[1:25:53] committee and commission reports item cr1 is the report and recommendations of

[1:25:56] the kerry park recreation commission meeting of november 24th 2020.

[1:26:01] over to you director wilson for those recommendations

[1:26:07] thank you mr chair uh and uh i have uh great pleasure

[1:26:10] in um in saying great stuff good stuff uh let's uh go forward with

[1:26:16] these and uh do i have to pro do i have to move

[1:26:19] the motion it's just a recommendation as far as i could see i move those

[1:26:22] recommendations thank you typically the chair that's

[1:26:24] presenting them will read the recommendations and say and i move those

[1:26:27] items but uh we can all see them in front of us if

[1:26:30] the board's okay with that i believe it's been seconded by director yanni

[1:26:33] dinardo and discussion director acton

[1:26:39] it's just a quick comment i just wanted to

[1:26:42] point out that the kerry park budget is is on here and i spoke to

[1:26:49] the manager where we had been some question it was a little bit unclear i

[1:26:53] think at our budget meeting but we will be going above uh

[1:26:59] our zero mandate in order to this to take out a loan for the

[1:27:04] pickleball courts i am in favor of the pickleball

[1:27:07] courts but just as a note we are not sticking with the

[1:27:11] zero budget and we will have to uh borrow that money and and come out of

[1:27:17] requisition as well for the first year's payment thank you thank you thank you

[1:27:23] any further discussion director marsh yeah it was a long day yesterday but i

[1:27:30] thought that on this item that director atkins

[1:27:33] mentioned that the board approval was conditional on uh

[1:27:38] the receipt of a grant did i get that wrong

[1:27:44] direct i can i can answer i guess for staff really um

[1:27:52] it will come back to the to the commission to see if we will

[1:27:56] go forward with the pickleball courts if we don't get the grant but

[1:28:00] the okay the loan is in in process and the loan will

[1:28:05] uh or the the requisition will increase to cover the first year of the law okay

[1:28:11] thank you thank you any further discussion it's

[1:28:15] been moved and seconded call the question all those in favor any

[1:28:20] opposed none opposed motion carries moving on to

[1:28:24] cr2 ms lego the report and recommendation of the

[1:28:27] couch and lake recreation commission meeting of november 26th

[1:28:32] director kuhn do you want to read that one out i see it there he's moving that

[1:28:35] the draft 2021 draft budget for function 405 couch and

[1:28:39] lake recreation be approved seconded by director morrison any discussion

[1:28:44] seeing none all those in favor and opposed

[1:28:48] none opposed motion carries moving on to cr3 ms lago

[1:28:52] the report and recommendations of the special corporate services committee

[1:28:55] meeting of january 13th i'll go i'll cover those because

[1:28:59] director mcgonagall's i don't believe he's back yet he's just

[1:29:02] going to be a few minutes before he rejoins us

[1:29:05] the recommendations are that one the supplemental request for function 238

[1:29:09] community parks area h fern gully trail bridge hiking in

[1:29:12] equestrian bridge west trail be referred to the january 25th

[1:29:16] special corporate services meeting which just happened the other day

[1:29:20] number two the 2021 draft budget as amended for function 106 commuter

[1:29:24] transit be approved number three that 2021 draft budget as

[1:29:28] amended for function 107 conventional and custom transit services

[1:29:32] be approved number four one that the supplemental request for

[1:29:35] function 100 general government regional recreation

[1:29:38] referendum and analysis be approved for two that the supplemental request for

[1:29:42] function one two one economic development regional connectivity

[1:29:45] strategy be approved number three that the supplemental

[1:29:49] request for function 280 regional parks calcium valley

[1:29:52] trail replacement of major culverts be approved number four that the

[1:29:55] supplemental request for function 280 regional parks

[1:29:58] recreation or sorry regional parks regional active

[1:30:02] transportation plan be approved number five

[1:30:04] that supplemental request for function 280 regional parks vehicle replacement

[1:30:08] be approved number six that the supplemental request for

[1:30:11] function 285 regional park lan power plant acquisition master plan be

[1:30:16] approved number seven that supplemental request for function 520

[1:30:20] solid waste management complex transfer station scale replacement be approved

[1:30:24] number eight the supplemental request for function 520 solid state management

[1:30:28] complex peerless road skid steer replacement

[1:30:31] be approved number five that the draft 2021 budget for function 235

[1:30:36] area e community parks be amended by number one

[1:30:39] increasing minor capital by ten thousand number two increasing invasive species

[1:30:43] management by five thousand number three increasing

[1:30:47] requisition by 15 000. number six that the draft

[1:30:50] 2021 budget for function 237 area g community parks

[1:30:54] be amended by one increasing minor capital by 15 000 number two

[1:30:59] increasing major capital land improvements by twenty one thousand

[1:31:02] number three increasing transfer from capital

[1:31:04] reserves by twenty one thousand number four

[1:31:07] increasing transfer from operating reserves by fifteen thousand

[1:31:10] and number seven that 2021 draft budget for function two three eight community

[1:31:14] parks area age be referred to the special corporate

[1:31:17] community services meeting committee meeting of january 25th 2021

[1:31:23] and i'll move those items second by director smith does anybody

[1:31:27] want one pulled okay great question like director

[1:31:32] mcgonagall isn't here i i feel like i was set up but we'll

[1:31:36] move on uh we'll him and i will talk about that

[1:31:39] offline uh but i seeing no further questions i'll call the question

[1:31:44] all those in favor and any opposed non-opposed motion carries i'm moving on

[1:31:50] to cr5 ms lago cr4

[1:31:54] report and recommendations of the community services committee meeting of

[1:31:57] january 13th and staff would request

[1:32:01] the opportunity to speak to item three so perhaps one and two could go forward

[1:32:05] first thank you go ahead and director

[1:32:08] nicholson all right your community services

[1:32:11] committee reports and recommends that number one staff continue the planning

[1:32:15] and analysis work to support implementation of

[1:32:18] inter-regional transit service between the cvrd

[1:32:21] and the regional district of nanaimo as described in

[1:32:24] option one of the staff report to the january 13th community services

[1:32:28] committee and number two that the annual operating

[1:32:32] agreement with bc transit for the period of april 1st 2020

[1:32:35] to march 31st 2021 be approved thank you and

[1:32:40] that's been moved second by director yanni dinardo questions

[1:32:45] seeing none call the question all those in favor

[1:32:48] and any opposed an opposed motion carries miss lego on number three

[1:32:54] thank you and i'm going to pass it over to april diver

[1:32:57] from our emergency management division to speak to item three

[1:33:02] thank you thank you thank you miss lego and to the chair uh

[1:33:05] we have just learned that cowhitchin tribes would like to be a part of this

[1:33:10] grant application originally the grant application was

[1:33:13] going forward with our four municipal partners on the cvrd and

[1:33:18] cowichan tribes has requested to join that application and

[1:33:22] therefore um we are recommending a revised motion

[1:33:27] um which is as follows that a grant application in the amount of

[1:33:30] one hundred and sixty one thousand one hundred and fifty dollars be submitted

[1:33:34] to the union of british columbia municipalities community emergency

[1:33:37] preparedness fund initiative for the purchase of emergency support

[1:33:41] services electronic equipment storage units a second mobile unit and delivery

[1:33:44] of training thank you thank you so i believe that's

[1:33:48] been moved by director yanni leonardo and seconded by director marsh

[1:33:52] any discussion okay so i've got some points myself i have director smith and

[1:34:02] morrison i do we have any details on the the

[1:34:07] couch and tribe's inclusion and what the document looks like for their

[1:34:12] inclusion uh this sounds like a great opportunity

[1:34:16] and i'd just like to have a further understanding as there is no

[1:34:20] document to support it thank you i'll put that

[1:34:25] through to mr carruthers or ms driver miss diver

[1:34:29] sorry uh thank you chair uh so there is a

[1:34:34] revised budget um essentially with the addition of the sixth

[1:34:38] partner into this grant application we're just increasing the number of

[1:34:42] um pieces of equipment that we're purchasing so some additional

[1:34:46] mobile laptops as well as supporting the purchase of a storage unit

[1:34:53] and a concrete pad so that they can place some of these supplies

[1:34:57] for emergency support services on the south side of the river so that's

[1:35:03] the there's a revised budget that can be

[1:35:06] submitted if required thank you that answer the question

[1:35:11] director smith okay thank you director morrison and

[1:35:14] then marsh questions been answered thank you thank

[1:35:18] you director marsh yeah i just wanted to

[1:35:22] acknowledge that this is really to me quite a seminal moment

[1:35:28] that in terms of our efforts at reconciliation um

[1:35:34] starting to show in um practical ways and i'm really thrilled

[1:35:40] that staff brought this to us and i and i'm

[1:35:44] really thrilled that um tribes brought it to the cvrd it's very

[1:35:48] exciting

[1:35:50] thank you that leads to my question through to staff i appreciate that we've

[1:35:54] brought couch and tribes into this application but what was there

[1:35:58] what other engagement was there with the other nations in our region

[1:36:04] so we have reached out to all of the areas and didn't hear back from any of

[1:36:07] the others and it just could be that couch and

[1:36:09] tribes is a little further along in their process with the emergency support

[1:36:12] services program thank you and i appreciate very

[1:36:15] much that that our staff reached out to our other

[1:36:18] neighboring nations that's important thank you very much um so with any

[1:36:23] further discussion i'm seeing none i'll call the question on the motion as

[1:36:27] uh moved and seconded all those in favor any opposed

[1:36:31] none opposed motion carries thank you for that um

[1:36:34] ms lego now i think we're on cr5 i was excited to get there uh ms lego thank

[1:36:41] you cr5 report and recommendations of the electoral area services committee

[1:36:44] meeting of january 20th

[1:36:47] directory annie dinardo take it away thank you mr chair

[1:36:51] i would like to move um one through ten please

[1:36:55] and i just have a correction on number nine

[1:36:59] first of all so these are grants and eight so one through ten

[1:37:03] thank you uh so i i thought you were going to read them out so i was running

[1:37:07] over to grab something and come back but i'm not i'm not reading them out they're

[1:37:11] all in front of us i hope okay everybody's okay with that it's one

[1:37:15] through ten and i have a correction on number nine if that's

[1:37:18] okay go ahead and make the correction in number nine and then we i did

[1:37:21] have um the 2 500 for the nature center it's actually 450

[1:37:27] dollars for the sea squirt program and 2050 dollars for an outdoor interpretive

[1:37:33] signage so the total amount wasn't just for the um

[1:37:38] preschool program it was divided up i just wanted to make that correction

[1:37:42] okay thank you that staff got that all right and then the block is being

[1:37:46] moved as amended by director yanni dinardo

[1:37:49] do we have a seconder seconded by director wilson

[1:37:53] any discussion on those seeing none all those in favor

[1:37:57] any opposed and unopposed motion carries back to your directory

[1:38:02] chair i'd like to move 11 through 13 please that's been moved seconded by

[1:38:09] director smith any discussion on those seeing none all those in favor and

[1:38:14] opposed non-opposed motion carries directory

[1:38:17] annie dinardo thank you mr chair this is area directors only and it's 14 through

[1:38:22] 21 i move those items thank you second

[1:38:26] by director wilson discussion on any of those

[1:38:30] seeing none all those in favor any opposed non-opposed motion carries

[1:38:38] that is my report mr chair thank you uh director marsh a question

[1:38:45] i just wanted to congratulate uh director

[1:38:48] yanni darnito for the shortest

[1:38:53] going through of one of the longest committee agendas i've ever participated

[1:38:58] in well done thank you

[1:39:02] uh moving on to sr2 because we've already dealt with sr1 ms lego

[1:39:06] thank you mr chair report from the legislative services division

[1:39:10] on setting a date for the parcel tax world review panel and the

[1:39:12] recommendation is that the reparcel tax rule review panel sitting be scheduled

[1:39:16] for wednesday february 17 2021 at 12 30 p.m to be held virtually

[1:39:21] via the cvrd ingram street office

[1:39:25] moved by director smith seconded by director

[1:39:30] duncan and discussion seeing none all those in favor any opposed

[1:39:37] unopposed motion carries missed the goal another staff report from legislative

[1:39:42] services on virtual meetings and live public participation

[1:39:46] and the recommendation proposed is one that virtual board

[1:39:49] select and standing committee meetings be continued and two that live public

[1:39:53] participation in public input period and question

[1:39:55] period for virtual board select and standing committee meetings

[1:39:58] be implemented as outlined in option one of the staff report

[1:40:03] thank you is that moved by director acton

[1:40:06] okay and seconded by director wilson and discussion

[1:40:10] um i just want to make some comment based on some of the feedback from the

[1:40:14] public uh and i'll go around the directors

[1:40:17] i think i saw directors nicholson salmon marsh

[1:40:20] did i miss anyone i didn't uh just uh i think we're trying to find a balance

[1:40:26] um so those are some good comments at the beginning

[1:40:28] um but i will say that there has to be some limits

[1:40:32] i think it's always sorry

[1:40:39] i couldn't figure out who was cut me off uh was there a point of order did i do

[1:40:43] something wrong no okay i'll continue uh the um

[1:40:49] you know it's always about balance i think that there's uh limits to

[1:40:53] public input just like there would be an in-person board meeting

[1:40:56] i respect that people have uh challenges possibly with technology

[1:41:00] um so i think that there's some good um the committee and the board chair can

[1:41:06] make some decisions during that public input

[1:41:09] but unfortunately if somebody sends an email in

[1:41:12] but we have more than the allotted time of live in person public

[1:41:17] input um you know i think it's really up to the committee or the board to decide

[1:41:21] how they handle that if they either extend the public input period to allow

[1:41:24] additional submissions to be read or those are forwarded on to the board

[1:41:29] again my my personal comments i've always maintained that last minute input

[1:41:34] on items on an agenda is not the way to influence decision

[1:41:38] makers that the best way to do that is to send an email well in advance

[1:41:42] if possible to help them give give them the opportunity to

[1:41:46] think through it so i would always recommend get as much input as you can

[1:41:51] as far in advance as possible to your board members so that they can really

[1:41:55] consider that in the decision-making process

[1:41:58] and i know that i will as chair and i believe that community chairs will do

[1:42:02] whatever we think is reasonable to help support good engagement and

[1:42:06] community input and question period uh but i'll turn it over i have directors

[1:42:10] nicholson salmon and then marsha i believe on my speakers list

[1:42:14] and then act and sorry if i missed you so i guess i um i'd like to speak to

[1:42:21] that i i would like clarification on whether

[1:42:25] in our policy which allows us to extend the um period is is still going to be

[1:42:31] possible and um that people

[1:42:36] if they i don't know will they be advised if they were they've made it

[1:42:40] they're the first five or the first ten or whatever

[1:42:43] so that they can write in their submission if they if they can't

[1:42:47] because i really appreciate getting um a cross-section of what the community is

[1:42:52] thinking on topics i don't wanna miss anything

[1:42:57] uh i could put that through to staff i believe that policy allows the board

[1:43:00] or the committee to extend or public input or question period

[1:43:04] by resolution um so i think that would remain

[1:43:08] um i seen staff nodding but if you can just uh

[1:43:11] provide us further clarity on those questions

[1:43:14] well again it will depend on how the board chooses to proceed in this way but

[1:43:17] if if we are limiting the number of

[1:43:19] submissions to five for live public participation

[1:43:24] in theory each of those participants would have three minutes

[1:43:28] which would be the full 15 minute submission so if you wanted to allow one

[1:43:33] of those speakers to speak for longer but it wasn't anticipated to you know if

[1:43:38] we received 10 requests for public input period

[1:43:43] to facilitate meeting management putting some parameters around the

[1:43:49] number of participants would be helpful for staff to manage the

[1:43:52] meeting

[1:43:55] good point thank you go ahead director nicholson follow up

[1:43:58] yeah i i think that we have to think this one through because i think

[1:44:01] um people the the people who would like to participate need to know in advance

[1:44:06] if they will be able to because you know otherwise they may

[1:44:10] choose to watch this later [Laughter]

[1:44:15] so i think we have to make it you know reasonable for everyone

[1:44:19] yeah i think the challenge is it's just like people who show up for a meeting

[1:44:23] right there's no guarantee that if they're 10

[1:44:25] deep in the speaker's list for community for public input

[1:44:28] that they'll be allowed to speak so i don't know

[1:44:32] suggestions are welcome go ahead i i i know and that's the challenge but it

[1:44:37] also there are sometimes we could get a very contentious issue

[1:44:41] um you know like the estuary thing or or something or a motorsport thing or

[1:44:46] whatever it is something as contentious as that and it

[1:44:49] would be a real shame to limit um because we weren't able to

[1:44:54] accommodate so i just think we need to to be flexible and figure out ways of

[1:44:58] managing this ahead of time um

[1:45:04] okay so i'll take that as a good comment we can think on it

[1:45:08] but i would suggest that a recommend a a solution to that issue

[1:45:12] might be a way for us to help shape the discussion and i do recognize that we've

[1:45:16] moved and seconded the option so an amendment

[1:45:19] would be necessary but i'll keep my eyes open for that

[1:45:22] amendment to be forthcoming i think i have director salmon and then

[1:45:26] marsha and then acton yeah thank you so yeah just a question about question

[1:45:33] period i was thinking about this particularly

[1:45:35] with my chairing debut earlier today but um i believe our

[1:45:40] policy says that only the chair can respond to questions but i'm

[1:45:45] thinking that um you know in the case or i was thinking

[1:45:49] today if i got a question about the uh the climate adaptation plan drinking

[1:45:54] water policy i i'm sure that staff would know

[1:45:58] and i might not so i'm wondering if it's uh

[1:46:00] within the chair's latitude if if he sees a staff

[1:46:04] staffer wanting to you know volunteering to answer if that's uh

[1:46:08] find it i think it would improve our public service and responsiveness if we

[1:46:12] could just uh make that decision on on the spot

[1:46:20] i i'm taking that as input or is that a question for someone in particular i'm

[1:46:24] just making sure that's okay if the chair

[1:46:27] decides to do that that's i i would put that through the staff i

[1:46:30] know in the past they felt put on the spot by unexpected questions kind of

[1:46:34] tossed over to them but i would put that over to staff

[1:46:40] yeah thank you mr chair i'm i you know i i have mixed feelings about that i

[1:46:44] you know clearly there are the odd questions that come up that staff can

[1:46:47] very easily answer uh we have the you know we have the

[1:46:50] answer but often that has been the experience that there's been some fairly

[1:46:55] controversial questions or questions that staff haven't been prepared for and

[1:46:58] are expected to answer on the on the fly and that's not a good practice so i

[1:47:04] wouldn't mind chatting with the board chairs about

[1:47:07] about a process to deal with that because i appreciate what director

[1:47:10] salmon's saying is that you know if we can simply answer a question

[1:47:13] uh for the public it it makes it easy so it would have to

[1:47:17] allow staff to have some discretion on whether they feel comfortable answering

[1:47:20] that question at the time in a brief way um or whether more research would be

[1:47:24] required and i think we we shifted the pendulum to just the

[1:47:27] chair answering the questions so that that staff weren't put on the spot in

[1:47:31] those occasions okay okay thank you sorry and just an

[1:47:35] observation was uh municipally we had this issue where staff were

[1:47:38] accounting for significant overtime waiting for question period

[1:47:42] so for example their item would come up at the beginning of a council meeting

[1:47:45] and then four and a half hours later question period comes and there was some

[1:47:49] expectation that they would remain for another four hours past their item

[1:47:54] meanwhile the municipality was being charged for that staff time where they

[1:47:58] couldn't be doing either other duties or going home for the evening

[1:48:01] and that was putting a significant burden on the resources of the

[1:48:04] municipality just to pay staff just in case

[1:48:07] a question came forward on their item that came up at the beginning of the

[1:48:10] agenda so it's just another consideration

[1:48:13] when we look at those those bigger issues and i've always said if the goal

[1:48:17] is really to get an answer the fullest answer they could

[1:48:20] possibly get isn't necessarily from anyone at question period is

[1:48:24] actually to have them get a fulsome response

[1:48:27] via email so it just becomes the question is it about answering the

[1:48:31] question and getting an answer or is it about

[1:48:34] an opportunity to to express some feelings in a public meeting right

[1:48:38] so um that being said um all good information i have director marsh then

[1:48:43] act and then wilson

[1:48:51] thank you mr chair i don't know why i'm challenged about muting and unmuting

[1:48:58] i agree with what mr carruthers said i'm sure that the chairs and the staff

[1:49:02] can come up with a a smooth way that uh the chair can answer a question

[1:49:10] even if they don't know the answer and that the public can get a fulsome answer

[1:49:14] i i'm very appreciative that this report

[1:49:17] allows for video coming in

[1:49:21] as well as phone calls and i wondered what it meant

[1:49:25] by real time back and forth okay i'm trying to find that place real

[1:49:32] time question and answer

[1:49:38] i guess that's um i don't know who would answer that but i guess that's

[1:49:42] at question period it's live on the phone or it's live

[1:49:47] they get the answer just like if they were in the room

[1:49:50] yeah i would put that through the staff but that was my interpretation

[1:49:54] okay so the the last thing i would say is just

[1:49:57] um i have a different view than chairstone about

[1:50:02] the public giving information at the last minute not being the best time to

[1:50:05] do it because i have this thing that i learned from

[1:50:10] the former executive director of wormland

[1:50:14] that there's pockets of brilliance everywhere and when we come here

[1:50:18] hopefully we haven't been talking beforehand about how we're going to vote

[1:50:22] and we listen to each other's viewpoints and sometimes it changes

[1:50:26] what we're thinking and i think that our public deserves that same

[1:50:30] respect because any one of them in any election could end up

[1:50:35] being at this table so if they at the input period have an idea that is

[1:50:42] like a brilliant pocket of brilliance i would

[1:50:45] think that we would um you know be swayed by that if it

[1:50:50] if it made sense to us as individuals thank you

[1:50:53] thank you and i'm always loathed to respond to others comments but i said

[1:50:56] always the more time we have to consider it the better i've never

[1:51:00] been against question period nor public input

[1:51:03] just the more time we have to consider points of view the more time we can

[1:51:06] incorporate it in our decision king all right moving on to director

[1:51:10] can i reply to that mr chair sorry director marsh i know that that that

[1:51:14] that again you you made a statement about my statement but you

[1:51:18] mischaracterized my intentions and i was just clarifying that

[1:51:21] thanks well i wanted to clarify my did i okay that's okay

[1:51:29] thank you director acton thank you mr chair

[1:51:34] i'm asking myself some questions um with the perception that

[1:51:41] i understand that you know i respect that we have people who want to come to

[1:51:47] our meetings and but then i'm asking what is our goal

[1:51:51] here and i'm also asking are we just creating

[1:51:56] more ways for the same input so that is a question i have

[1:52:01] but what's our goal here is it to create more diverse public input i that's what

[1:52:08] i hope it is and that's not real i don't think this

[1:52:11] is going to accomplish it if we really want to try and get more

[1:52:14] input from people i think we could have a thorough uh discussion on that

[1:52:20] and figure out ways of how to get people interested

[1:52:23] in and i can actually think of a couple different ways right now but i won't

[1:52:28] share them because it's not exactly on par with the discussion

[1:52:33] but i also i don't know if it was in the public comment or that you know some

[1:52:37] people don't have email but that is pretty much the only way

[1:52:42] people are getting agendas right now i i would

[1:52:46] i highly doubt there's very many people who show up at the cbrd to look at the

[1:52:51] printed agenda so that people already have

[1:52:56] email i just don't see it in here too where

[1:52:59] we don't want to like i don't think it's good

[1:53:03] for us to be receiving an email then the public input and then the question

[1:53:09] and it's just a constant because i in my opinion we've already made some

[1:53:14] bad decisions around all of this by pressure uh to make certain decisions

[1:53:20] on the fly so again my overall

[1:53:26] is what is the true goal here and

[1:53:31] are we accomplishing it and i think what our true

[1:53:34] intentions are is to create more public input

[1:53:37] but this is not necessarily the way in my opinion thank you

[1:53:45] um i will note that it feels like we've had this groundhog day discussion on

[1:53:49] public input for a long time and i would always appreciate that if people

[1:53:52] have other thoughts about how we can more

[1:53:55] get more meaningful and varied public input that we need to bring them forward

[1:53:58] not just allude to an ethereal idea of how do we

[1:54:03] support better public input so if you have recommendations

[1:54:07] you can put it forward as an amendment to the resolution or whatever whatever

[1:54:10] way you think might work better well so are you saying that our goal is

[1:54:15] to create more public input or is it just to facilitate

[1:54:22] the digital forum for the same uh input that we're already

[1:54:30] getting well i don't know i think i think from

[1:54:33] my perspective and we all may have different

[1:54:35] perspectives was to try and simulate the live experience as best as possible

[1:54:40] and i thought that's what what was delivered here but if there is

[1:54:44] ideas that can better support you know uh

[1:54:47] more meaningful public input that the directors could always put that forward

[1:54:51] as either an additional motion or a an

[1:54:54] amendment to the existing motion so that's all i was saying

[1:55:01] thank you i do have ideas but i don't feel comfortable sharing them right now

[1:55:05] because we're not in the process of brainstorming uh ideas

[1:55:08] on how to conduct business at the moment in a more

[1:55:13] uh interactive and and way for the community

[1:55:16] to engage further community members but when i'm happy to have that discussion

[1:55:22] with everyone when they're when we're all on that page okay

[1:55:27] well um we can have further discussion about maybe if we try this out for a

[1:55:31] couple meetings and we reflect on how it works we can look

[1:55:34] at amending it further i'm not sure but uh i have

[1:55:38] director wilson i think next

[1:55:42] thank you mr chair i almost lost my train of thought with all the

[1:55:45] meanderings and wanderings that's going on here with the

[1:55:48] various bits and pieces um i'd like to respond

[1:55:51] first of all to mr carruthers there is no intention here at all on question

[1:55:56] period to put anyone on the spot the intention is

[1:56:00] that if and and i for if i'm the chair and i ask the staff

[1:56:05] if they're anybody here who feels

[1:56:07] comfortable with answering that question sure let them go

[1:56:11] why not i'm not going to put you on the spot and if they don't feel comfortable

[1:56:14] they will say so this is not a question of putting

[1:56:16] anybody on the spot public input is an integral part of this whole

[1:56:21] process and any chance we get to give the public

[1:56:24] an answer straight away i will take and i'm not

[1:56:29] going to put anyone on the spot it's not the intention i i'm looking just

[1:56:33] purely for somebody with the expertise and with the

[1:56:37] knowledge who feels comfortable with answering a question which is put

[1:56:41] by the public thank you okay thank you uh director yanni dinardo

[1:56:48] thank you mr chair i i have learned through experience if you are a chair

[1:56:52] that it is best to direct them to the staff

[1:56:56] that they need to speak to that they could speak to one-on-one

[1:56:59] because it makes it it makes it much easier and much clearer

[1:57:03] to do that so it's not about not um like putting people on the spot or it's

[1:57:08] not insulting anyone it's it's it's clearer if you're a chair

[1:57:12] that if i could direct that person's question to the

[1:57:15] because i can't answer it if it goes to the staff person that they can contact

[1:57:20] so i don't see a problem we're not trying to

[1:57:24] not answer it it just makes it much easier than you get the exact answer

[1:57:28] from the person who has the knowledge of that question

[1:57:34] thank you um director mcgonagall and as a chair of a very long

[1:57:42] committee and very pointed questions i find it difficult to to answer some of

[1:57:48] those on the fly if i do not have the appropriate answer

[1:57:53] i don't want to give an answer that is untrue

[1:57:55] or unsubstantiated if i don't feel comfortable answering the question

[1:58:00] i would encourage that person to contact the appropriate staff person

[1:58:05] for a affirmative answer through email i believe that would be the best policy

[1:58:12] moving forward instead of giving the wrong answer no i

[1:58:15] think that is the policy at present if the chair doesn't feel comfortable with

[1:58:18] the answer they can refer that to staff and staff

[1:58:22] can follow up with the the question i believe but mr crothers

[1:58:25] is that not the case it's more about making like calling on a

[1:58:29] staff member in the moment that may not be ready but is go ahead

[1:58:34] you're correct mr chair and my my comments earlier were

[1:58:36] were span a number of years of of doing this and and having various issues come

[1:58:42] forward to the board and there's many times that questions are

[1:58:44] straightforward but there's often times where the questions are designed in such

[1:58:50] a way to create a certain amount of debate back

[1:58:54] and forth and that's really where it gets awkward for

[1:58:57] for staff so if the if the person asking the question is truly interested in

[1:59:01] getting a good answer to the question referring them to staff so that we can

[1:59:05] answer them like we would for anybody else

[1:59:07] in a controlled environment would be great with that said there are lots of

[1:59:11] questions that come up that uh myself or any of the senior managers would be more

[1:59:16] than happy to put our hand up and answer the question very briefly and

[1:59:19] and succinctly um but it has caused problems in the past and i've i've

[1:59:23] watched meetings where staff may not and i didn't mean that any chair

[1:59:27] or somebody was putting staff on the spot but

[1:59:29] it happens and and staff naturally want to respond

[1:59:33] but they're they're awkward situations sometimes and so we just need to be

[1:59:37] cognizant of that and find a balance between

[1:59:40] those questions that are better answered when they have time to research and give

[1:59:43] a thoughtful answer versus those that i could put my hand up

[1:59:46] as a cio and very simply ask to answer a question for the public okay

[1:59:51] thank you director yanni dinardo thank you mr

[1:59:55] chair and also when you've sat through five hours or four hours

[1:59:59] and you're not thinking clearly yourself because i know we did have a comment i'm

[2:00:04] not sure if it was email from a public from a member a resident that said that

[2:00:09] the chairs are not knowledgeable enough that they need to

[2:00:12] you know it's really difficult in these in these positions so

[2:00:16] it's much better to give a clearer i don't know

[2:00:19] can i direct you to someone else because you're now exhausted so

[2:00:24] you know there has to be leeway both ways and um

[2:00:27] i just wanted to make that comment thank you any further discussion on this

[2:00:33] director nicholson

[2:00:37] well i'd like to come back to my problem that i'm having about the

[2:00:41] length of time if we have a contentious issue so i i'm assuming if we have a

[2:00:45] just a regular the people that are paying attention to our meetings who

[2:00:49] like to provide input at the beginning that we can easily

[2:00:53] accommodate them with five people in the 15 minutes and

[2:00:57] if um we have any extra time there i suggest that if we get

[2:01:01] written submissions because it's nice that people have the option to either

[2:01:04] write in or to request to to come in person um i i

[2:01:08] suggest that we try and cover those in that period as well

[2:01:12] because i agree with um the comment of miss kaufman it is

[2:01:17] this is this is more about a community a community dialogue really than than

[2:01:23] just a cbrd uh board thing um so

[2:01:28] that said it i i guess i need clarity on whether the the board is

[2:01:34] willing to if ms lego receives

[2:01:38] many requests if she if we're willing to automatically move to uh

[2:01:43] 10 people as opposed to five people extend it without or do we ask people to

[2:01:50] put them on hold or

[2:01:54] while we while we debate it at the time i'm not quite sure how that could

[2:01:58] that can be handled but i think we need to be clear so people understand and if

[2:02:01] we're changing our policy be very clear about that

[2:02:04] thank you i would put that through the staff i wonder if there's a way that we

[2:02:08] could say you know that we up the limit from five to ten or

[2:02:12] whatever the number is but let people know that the

[2:02:15] you know again i i'm loath to start 30-minute start every meeting with a

[2:02:20] 30-minute public input period like i know

[2:02:23] hearing the feedback about how long the meetings are already

[2:02:26] um but i wonder if we could say 10 people can register but keep in mind

[2:02:31] that it's up to the board or the committee to pass a motion to

[2:02:34] extend it director martin i do have you on the list

[2:02:37] i was just trying to clarify the question through to staff

[2:02:45] so as the person who facilitates the meetings

[2:02:48] um and knowing that the number of sound checks

[2:02:55] that we go through for applicants at electoral area

[2:02:58] services at the beginning of the meeting i would not have the opportunity to do

[2:03:02] that with submissions for public input period so anyone who had technical

[2:03:06] issues we wouldn't be able to address them like

[2:03:10] the greater the volume the greater the challenges for managing

[2:03:13] those sorts of issues

[2:03:22] okay follow-up director nicholson

[2:03:30] so i i understand that you ms lego could manage five but not necessarily ten

[2:03:36] easily so um maybe we need to change our policy if

[2:03:40] it will not work for 10 people

[2:03:44] i think our policy that's recommended is five

[2:03:48] well the uh the actual policy on the on the uh about public input period

[2:03:56] has it that the board can uh decide to extend it right yeah i was thinking more

[2:04:02] about time periods but um ms lego i feel like this might be a

[2:04:07] referral back to staff again by the way the discussion is forming or we could

[2:04:11] possibly adopt these motions and continue to discuss other

[2:04:15] alternatives because i feel like i like i said we do we have had long

[2:04:20] discussions about this before but i i appreciate that we're trying to

[2:04:23] balance technical challenges um i don't know if staff ms lego if you

[2:04:29] have any ideas around what we might be able to do so i also

[2:04:34] see this as an interim step this isn't necessarily a

[2:04:37] long-term policy this is something we're doing well um

[2:04:40] you know we're in this current situation with kovid where we're not even allowed

[2:04:44] to bring public into the into the boardroom for a meeting to

[2:04:48] you know help those folks who don't have internet access and might have something

[2:04:52] to say so i see this as an interim step and

[2:04:56] perhaps it's an option to test the waters and reevaluate

[2:05:01] after we try this

[2:05:04] thank you um go ahead director nicholson you still have the floor

[2:05:11] no i don't think i have anything to add thank you okay i'll go to director

[2:05:15] martman next

[2:05:19] and thank you chair and just to follow up on this discussion then

[2:05:23] um if you go to the guidance document that was provided

[2:05:27] under best efforts bullet 5 it talks about adjusting agenda and

[2:05:32] meeting schedules so that matters that are likely to be controversial

[2:05:35] or attract high public interest or the subject of a separate meeting

[2:05:38] so i'm wondering if we're trying to make everything fit into one standard type of

[2:05:42] meeting rather than taking the ones that are of

[2:05:45] controversial issue and make them separate have a separate

[2:05:48] set of rules maybe 10 people just so that you know then staff can

[2:05:52] know okay this is the parameters and let's manage it that way

[2:05:55] yeah that's a good point like a special regional services committee on parkland

[2:05:59] acquisition it came from your mouth you're brilliant

[2:06:03] so i i that's that's a good solution uh

[2:06:06] keep coming to the table with good ideas um but i wonder if that's you know

[2:06:10] something we can definitely consider about um specific heavy items or that if

[2:06:15] we kind of flag an item as an important item that would be scheduled

[2:06:19] as a separate meeting and and maybe we can talk about a policy for

[2:06:22] those special uh occasion meetings where we have a

[2:06:26] little bit more uh broader rules for public input

[2:06:30] um so we'll take that as under advisement and we'll go back through the

[2:06:34] speakers list and then uh maybe we'll come with a subsequent

[2:06:38] resolution to recommend that staff come up with

[2:06:41] another uh specific policy around special meeting agendas

[2:06:45] um which might be a good idea i i like feeling like we're closer to a solution

[2:06:50] director martian and smith

[2:07:00] um

[2:07:04] well it's it's challenging for me to uh say what i'd

[2:07:08] i'd like to see because i hear miss lego say it will be a problem for her

[2:07:14] and i certainly don't want to make that happen

[2:07:17] but i expect from the number of phone calls

[2:07:20] and emails i've been getting the way the board's been jumping all over the place

[2:07:25] on parkland acquisition fund that when it comes to that board meaning

[2:07:30] either there's going to be we didn't have this at that time

[2:07:35] but with word gets out that we have this i would suspect there's going to be

[2:07:40] people calling and and trying to zoom in however you do that as well as

[2:07:47] perhaps writing and um you know given that that

[2:07:51] was a people's uh choice by 82 percent i really do

[2:07:56] think we need to hear um how they're feeling about it now of

[2:08:01] course that wouldn't necessarily be a select

[2:08:04] sample so i'm not sure if i really have anything constructive

[2:08:08] to um to add at this time so i think i'll just

[2:08:13] stop thank you

[2:08:16] uh thank you i'll go back next to director smith

[2:08:20] uh thank you one of the things that i think about

[2:08:24] is on our agendas we have many items and if uh people

[2:08:30] can sort of jump in because they only have

[2:08:34] they're very focused on uh specific and then we have time slots like how do

[2:08:39] we decide is is it one if it's one item on the

[2:08:43] agenda and then there's something else on the

[2:08:46] agenda is it read one for one item on the agenda one

[2:08:50] for the next item on the agenda and the next and the

[2:08:54] agenda or do we just pack all of it to the front for just one item on the

[2:08:58] agenda so then we're not actually hearing from

[2:09:02] the community we're hearing just about one item

[2:09:06] within a time frame so i think there's some logistics need to be

[2:09:10] sort of worked out on how how we work through that

[2:09:13] and and that's just something i think about is something that might be really

[2:09:19] small on the agenda may have a very important

[2:09:24] input from someone in the community that we

[2:09:27] need to hear and i think that's important

[2:09:31] thank you thank you very much and i do recall a situation that we

[2:09:36] ran into that recently where we had a significant amount of input but it was

[2:09:40] on varied items and some of the items input was harder to get to i think in

[2:09:45] that case we extended it so that we could hear it all but that is a good

[2:09:48] point that uh that we may miss items on other or miss

[2:09:52] input on other items if we don't get through it all um so i don't know if

[2:09:57] staff maybe think on that for a moment other other suggestions other than

[2:10:01] extending the time period uh i think i saw

[2:10:04] director duncan

[2:10:07] thank you mr chair just because i haven't been here all the time

[2:10:11] and i'm curious in the last three meetings how many requests did you get

[2:10:15] like like today's it was one one request i'm just curious as to like are you

[2:10:21] getting 20 every meeting if you're not getting 20 then maybe you

[2:10:25] should pass this and try it for six months

[2:10:29] thank you director duncan i'll go to director morrison next

[2:10:33] um and then director wilson and then maybe we can call the question on this

[2:10:37] one or an amendment will be coming forward

[2:10:41] so i i don't want to um you know get into a lengthy discussion

[2:10:46] and debate about this but you know i'm harkening back to some of the first

[2:10:49] comments that were made around this discussion is

[2:10:52] what is our purpose what are we trying to achieve and i too

[2:10:55] like the chairs mentioned uh i generally read my agendas on the weekend

[2:11:01] i i see clarification from staff on monday

[2:11:05] and tuesday if there's been emails that have been sent

[2:11:08] around by people that want to provide input to uh

[2:11:11] to myself and the the other committee members or board members i

[2:11:15] read those over i review the the agendas and and that's my my way of preparing so

[2:11:23] that i can i can give thoughtful consideration of

[2:11:26] the input that's provided what i'm not understanding is this idea

[2:11:32] that we're we're now getting requests or we have been getting requests

[2:11:35] where the email is being sent forward to to committee or board members and the

[2:11:42] person is requesting that it be read out at the meeting as well

[2:11:46] so are are we going to be begin to get people

[2:11:50] sending us an email so that we can consider it in advance

[2:11:54] and then be in addition asking that they be able to

[2:11:58] avail themselves of of the ability to live live address us as well

[2:12:05] and and you know i just i just go back to the thought that

[2:12:09] we're in the middle of a pandemic and the province has said

[2:12:13] do the best you can to accommodate people keep open and transparent

[2:12:17] meetings and and i think what director martin

[2:12:20] brought up about you got something contentious go to a

[2:12:23] whole other separate meeting but we're you know i'll i'll i'll say again

[2:12:28] the best question that i ever had was as chair at the end of a meeting was

[2:12:33] someone who had an application before us and this woman got up at the end of the

[2:12:37] meeting and she says well i understand you're moving this

[2:12:40] forward what happens next it was a brilliant question she

[2:12:45] didn't know what was going to happen next

[2:12:47] and that was the type of question i think that was initially envisioned

[2:12:50] when question period came up so i i put that out there

[2:12:54] do we really need you know the input provided from us two and three different

[2:12:59] ways for us to get it

[2:13:05] thank you that's a good point was that rhetorical or should i go to staff for

[2:13:09] an answer i think i think you know we are running

[2:13:13] into these covid related issues and like you said

[2:13:16] usually it wouldn't be uh um you know someone would attend the meeting and

[2:13:21] stand up to the podium and ask the question

[2:13:23] right so um i i can put that through for anybody who wants to comment i just feel

[2:13:28] like i'm in the spin cycle here going around the

[2:13:30] horn again and again i have directors wilson and then acton i

[2:13:34] believe and anybody else i've missed and marsh

[2:13:40] sorry i i may have to uh just seed the chair for a moment i really have to go

[2:13:44] to the washroom but i'll try and get through this item

[2:13:47] director wilson and then acton and then marsh

[2:13:50] i thought i was going to be able to close on that one but no not to be never

[2:13:53] mind um regarding what um alternate director

[2:13:58] duncan said just now it's a good point that he's brought up there

[2:14:00] the number of things that we've had and and really it depends on how contentious

[2:14:04] the uh the the problems seem to be i mean we

[2:14:07] know that we've seen people queuing up outside the uh the boardroom

[2:14:11] doors to uh to have their chance at public input and other times it's the

[2:14:15] same people over and over again so really there's there's no real answer to

[2:14:20] the question of do we have three or four or 20 kind of thing

[2:14:23] it's it purely depends on the circumstances and i hope that

[2:14:27] and i'm sure he appreciates that as well thank you director acton thank you

[2:14:35] um i'm going to vote against this or i would like to see it deferred back to

[2:14:39] staff because the the the um

[2:14:44] technology side of it for staff is a real issue like we

[2:14:47] we talk about being fiscally responsible and we don't even know what kind of

[2:14:51] workload we're adding here uh and it's we

[2:14:57] it's so so challenging when we have guests

[2:15:00] actually like during electoral area services

[2:15:04] and we're already staring at this screen so screen so much

[2:15:07] i added up 10 minutes every meeting uh for the next year at the for question

[2:15:13] period just that delay is a whole is 24 hours of our lives so

[2:15:18] for an electoral area director so it's kind of like

[2:15:22] i would like to see some of this electronic stuff reduced

[2:15:25] it would improve our mood it would improve all kinds of things our decision

[2:15:29] making but because when we start the meeting

[2:15:31] off and it's and we're already completely drained

[2:15:34] by staring at the screen and and and just listening i think if if people

[2:15:40] have access to electronic to be uh here and and

[2:15:46] that's assuming there's no struggles with it

[2:15:49] then what if they didn't get to give their input because they couldn't get on

[2:15:52] et cetera et cetera but if they have that technology they easily have an

[2:15:56] email and it would i would feel so much more comfortable

[2:15:59] getting an email we can i can verify some of the facts because sometimes it's

[2:16:04] not always factual not to to to disrespect input but

[2:16:09] sometimes they're they're not everything has been considered so

[2:16:12] at least we can see their point of view and have it ahead of time

[2:16:16] and so i would like to just leave it as email we're allowing the public to give

[2:16:20] their input and and they can watch the videos it's

[2:16:23] very transparent we're all very accessible

[2:16:25] any one of us can pick up our phone they can call us or

[2:16:28] or whatever so anyway that's my thing i hope i didn't repeat myself too

[2:16:33] many times chair stone and thank you nope that was that was

[2:16:38] good uh director marsh

[2:16:44] yeah i i kind of liked uh mr carruther's idea

[2:16:47] that the chairs uh speak about it um i think that

[2:16:54] i've made my preference known over the years but just to reiterate quickly

[2:16:59] i think that if people want to take time out of their lives

[2:17:05] to give input to their local government or any level of

[2:17:11] government that there should be a way for them to do it

[2:17:14] and um if if it's impossible to if it's too

[2:17:20] onerous to do it this way maybe we do need to go back to emails

[2:17:25] but i would remind you that there are municipal directors who may have

[2:17:30] meetings the night before a meeting here or meetings a whole day

[2:17:35] before a meeting here so i think if you're going to do it that

[2:17:38] way by email in order for i want to read the input i'd like to

[2:17:43] have it a little bit even earlier then because i can't always

[2:17:49] read all the agendas for everything i have to do that week and

[2:17:52] a bunch of public input but i don't understand technology

[2:17:57] and i agree with uh director acton that if it's going to be onerous and

[2:18:01] time-consuming and stressful uh there is that piece

[2:18:05] too so it i think i trust that staff and the chairs can come up with

[2:18:12] something that will give the public the message

[2:18:16] that we care about what they have to say and i understand people get irritated

[2:18:22] with the same people over and over again but if we stopped doing this as i said

[2:18:29] earlier um we might miss something really really

[2:18:32] important so i don't think you it's kind of like when you're in school

[2:18:36] and the two people who are disrupting everything

[2:18:40] change all the rules and and it just doesn't seem just to me

[2:18:44] so i but i don't right now having heard everything

[2:18:48] particularly from the staff i don't i feel like

[2:18:51] i agree with director act and i think we should have a look at it

[2:18:55] after they've had a thought about it and um

[2:19:01] that's all i have to say

[2:19:04] thank you um did staff want to maybe just comment i i recognize that what's

[2:19:08] on the floor is the staff recommendation i just want

[2:19:11] to get clarity from staff if you're comfortable with this level

[2:19:14] at this point um or if you're more speaking towards the you know

[2:19:18] expanding it further

[2:19:24] sorry i'm not sure i understand your question sorry there was

[2:19:27] i i was just the the staff recommendations come forward it's been

[2:19:30] moved and seconded but there was some desire based on

[2:19:33] staff's comments that we wouldn't adopt this

[2:19:36] but we would re go i guess discuss this further

[2:19:40] are you are you okay with this baseline of five people to start out with

[2:19:44] it from the technology perspective or is it an untenable administrative burden

[2:19:52] i think i wouldn't have recommended it if i didn't think i could manage it

[2:19:56] i mean clearly electoral area services is the more difficult meeting to manage

[2:19:59] because of the number of applicants and and such but

[2:20:04] thank you okay any further discussion seeing none i'll call the question this

[2:20:10] is on the motion that's on the floor oh director nicholson

[2:20:15] well could i um amend the emotion so that we do

[2:20:18] a we do review how well things are going in three months

[2:20:22] i i was going to suggest you could either i come right back to you for a

[2:20:25] subsequent motion on the review piece or you could

[2:20:28] okay i'll do that any further discussion or amendments on the motion that's on

[2:20:32] the floor seeing none i'll call the question all

[2:20:35] those in favor and those opposed directors morrison

[2:20:41] [Music] acton

[2:20:45] and i'll come back to you director nicholson for a follow-up motion

[2:20:52] i move that we review [Music]

[2:20:55] whatever this is called um the public input and question period uh

[2:21:01] virtual changes that we've made um in three months

[2:21:05] thank you is there a secondary i'm seconded by director marsh

[2:21:08] discussion on that motion director mark

[2:21:17] so it's been a bit uh confusing day so i just want to clarify that what we

[2:21:23] are we are limited limiting things to five

[2:21:28] unless it's a contentious issue and then we're going to

[2:21:32] either have a special meeting or do something special

[2:21:35] am i correct about that or not that was part of the discussion not part

[2:21:40] of the motion i'd put that through to staff but

[2:21:42] uh i i think go ahead mr crothers yeah that's that's that wasn't part of

[2:21:49] the motion um okay okay majority of our meetings

[2:21:54] are are manageable and uh i think we will

[2:21:58] move forward with this if we appear that we have a highly contentious issue

[2:22:01] uh i would imagine that we'll be having a chat with the chairs

[2:22:05] and discussing a strategy for moving forward in those

[2:22:08] rare occasions thank you that was going to be my add-on that i think the chairs

[2:22:12] heard that uh pretty clearly and we can uh discuss

[2:22:16] at a gender review if we feel there's an item that should be separated out and we

[2:22:19] could put that on a special meeting agenda

[2:22:21] perhaps mr chair any chance of a break please

[2:22:26] yeah as soon as we get through this item i have uh

[2:22:28] i believe unless director marsh has a follow-up for now i'll go to director

[2:22:34] morris thank you mr chair you know i arbitrary

[2:22:38] deadlines drive me crazy can't we make a review

[2:22:42] upon the change of the public health orders

[2:22:47] makes more sense to me i appreciate that i believe we have a motion that's been

[2:22:51] moved and seconded is that an amendment that you're proposing

[2:22:55] okay yes all right so the amendment would be to not be three months but when

[2:23:00] the public health orders are amended okay so do we have a second

[2:23:05] order on that looking for a seconder on the amendment

[2:23:09] oh director yanni dinardo seconding on the amendment on discussion on the

[2:23:13] amendment director sebring yeah i've been fairly quiet on this but

[2:23:18] um um i i wouldn't support the amendment

[2:23:22] because i think the the object of the motion

[2:23:24] here is to review how it's going and to say well we're just going to

[2:23:30] review this one when the pandemic is done well then we don't need to review

[2:23:33] it because we're back to our face-to-face meeting so

[2:23:36] this amendment makes no sense to me let's have a look at this

[2:23:39] sorry for clarity i believe the motion was when public horse orders are amended

[2:23:43] which could be next week by the sounds of it but my my

[2:23:48] argument was actually the opposite way was that we could have the

[2:23:51] public health orders be amended five times between now and summer depending

[2:23:55] on how things go so i think that's the intention of the

[2:23:59] motion though is when public health orders are amended

[2:24:03] okay so that is the intention of the amendment to the amendment

[2:24:06] any other speakers seeing none i'll call the question on the amendment

[2:24:11] all those in favor any opposed uh director sebring nicholson martman

[2:24:18] salmon marsh smith mcgonagall

[2:24:22] duncan opposed i'll make sure ms lagos got those names

[2:24:28] before we move on motions defeated our amendment is

[2:24:32] defeated so we're back to the main motion which is the three-month

[2:24:36] review of the policy change any further discussion on the emotion

[2:24:41] seeing none i'll call the question all those in favor and those opposed

[2:24:46] directors martin kuhn opposed seeing no others the motion carries you

[2:24:53] got those ms lego all right so we will take a 10 minute

[2:24:57] break and we'll be back at 4 15 p.m miss lagos sorry i was just

[2:25:02] wondering if you'll be taking another recess after the bylaws

[2:25:05] before question period uh i believe we will uh as per

[2:25:10] our policy up until the end of this meeting

[2:25:16] thank you yeah so maybe we should wait

[2:25:20] no sorry i definitely need to go to the washroom so i'm taking a break

[2:25:25] um if you all get back quickly turn your cameras on if you're back within five

[2:25:29] minutes i'll start the meeting again sorry i i need to start

[2:25:32] or mr chair couldn't the vice chair just chair while you go to the washroom

[2:25:38] by the time you ask the question most people had already left already yeah

[2:25:58] camera's live thank you apologies for the uh

[2:26:02] the break before uh pending break i believe we are

[2:26:06] on uh item r sr4 ms lago that's correct staff report

[2:26:12] from finance on spring security issuing bylaw for

[2:26:14] information thank you pretty uh standard issue any questions

[2:26:19] from the directors

[2:26:23] thank you miss soldera for waiting for this moment and i do not see any

[2:26:27] questions from the directors so uh we will then move on and thank you

[2:26:31] for attending is lego onto bylaws item b1 cvrd bylaw

[2:26:38] 4344 saltier water system service amendment bylaw 2020 for adoption

[2:26:44] thank you moved by director smith seconded by director mcgonagall

[2:26:48] any discussion seeing none all those in favor

[2:26:52] any opposed not opposed motion carries big step uh moving on ms lego

[2:26:58] cbrd bylaw 4351 couch and base sewer system

[2:27:02] service amendment requisition limit increase bylaw 2020 for adoption

[2:27:06] moved by director yanni dinardo seconded by

[2:27:09] director wilson any discussion seen none all those in favor

[2:27:14] and opposed an unopposed motion carries item b3 cvrd bylaw 4354 cobble hill

[2:27:23] village sewer system management amendment bylaw for first second and

[2:27:26] third readings moved by director wilson seconded by

[2:27:30] director smith any discussion seeing none all those in

[2:27:34] favor any opposed unopposed motion carries

[2:27:39] this will go and bylaw 4354 cobble hill village sewer system management

[2:27:43] amendment by law 2021 for adoption moved by

[2:27:47] director wilson seconded by director yanni dinardo any discussions seeing

[2:27:51] none all those in favor any opposed unopposed motion carries

[2:27:56] miss lego cvrd bylaw 4361 regional district delegation bylaw 2021

[2:28:02] for adoption moved by director acton seconded by

[2:28:05] director martin oh sorry moved by director martin seconded

[2:28:10] by director we have a sector on that we don't okay

[2:28:14] oh sorry seconded by director wilson i think we have speakers to this

[2:28:18] director acton and then salmon

[2:28:23] yeah i i would like some clarity on this i this is um pretty interesting bylaw

[2:28:30] that somehow i do not remember

[2:28:35] all of the details around this the report

[2:28:38] or what exactly what what are we delegated what power

[2:28:42] to who and what some examples please

[2:28:47] uh ms lego or mr carruthers do you want to speak to it i believe we had a report

[2:28:51] not that long ago but maybe you can remind us

[2:28:55] there's also a report mr chair attached to the item

[2:29:00] so this originally went to the corporate services meeting

[2:29:03] and received three readings at the last board meeting it's

[2:29:07] formalizing our delegation of authority for expenditures that are currently

[2:29:11] contained in our procurement policy uh it itemizes some

[2:29:16] areas around signing authority i'm not sure if there's specific

[2:29:20] questions that would be better to address that way

[2:29:23] thank you and i believe there was some issues with us having a policy not an

[2:29:26] appropriate bylaw and this is why the bylaw was brought

[2:29:29] forward follow-up director acton yeah so i guess i'd like some examples

[2:29:34] if there's anything that would have normally come to the board but now it's

[2:29:38] not uh go ahead through to staff

[2:29:45] yeah i don't i don't believe there's anything that has changed

[2:29:49] the the if you're referring to land use type decisions those fall under

[2:29:53] a different bylaw these are more administrative uh delegations around

[2:29:58] signing and purchasing also you a lot of purchases do come through

[2:30:06] us so i guess give me an example of of

[2:30:11] some of

[2:30:15] has without this agreement has it prevented

[2:30:19] is it for yourself to have delegation and for the procurement officer to have

[2:30:23] the delegation um through the chair we've always had

[2:30:27] that delegation uh our purchasing policy has always delegated authority very few

[2:30:32] of our purchases come to the board uh once the budget is approved we have a

[2:30:36] procedure and process in place for for approving and signing off on

[2:30:39] expenditures i don't know if you have anything else to add to

[2:30:43] ms lago this is a very procedural uh bylaw um and it basically

[2:30:50] addresses it updates uh our existing bylaw

[2:30:54] and and takes some things out of policy and puts them in

[2:30:57] in bylaw that were previously in policy but go ahead mrs loco

[2:31:02] yeah i agree with the cio and and it is a requirement that these um

[2:31:09] delegation of authority for expenditures be contained in a bylaw

[2:31:14] thank you that was my recollection was that we were doing it by policy and it

[2:31:17] rightly needed to be done by bylaw under the that it wasn't a change in the

[2:31:21] policy but actually just putting it into an appropriate bylaw but that would be

[2:31:26] my recollection of the the report that came forward previously

[2:31:31] uh any further questions for ms lego from

[2:31:34] director acton and then director salmon's next

[2:31:37] director salmon thank you yeah i was sort of in the same vein i

[2:31:42] was just uh i wasn't sure how big a change this really was although it does

[2:31:46] seem like something that could come back to haunt

[2:31:48] us in future if we didn't really go over and i i remember

[2:31:53] from i believe that uh director sieben said

[2:31:55] they had one north couch i'm surprised we did not so

[2:31:59] um but for example signing authority i see uh

[2:32:04] now we're delegating the say collective agreements and severance agreements

[2:32:09] although i don't remember those coming specifically to the board

[2:32:13] anyway for example severance agreement i don't think i've ever seen one so no

[2:32:17] no because they were part of the policy it's just that now they're included in

[2:32:21] the bylaw as legislative appropriate legislatively appropriate so i think

[2:32:27] that was why it wasn't in there before but

[2:32:30] and then let's go ahead mr well mr chair yeah we went through this

[2:32:36] bylaw in quite a bit of detail when we when we brought it forward for the for

[2:32:39] the committee to consider um when you're talking about things like

[2:32:42] collective agreements obviously the board approves the

[2:32:45] ratification of a of a negotiation with our union the

[2:32:50] delegation bylaw simply authorizes staff to sign

[2:32:54] the finished agreement on behalf of the cvrd

[2:32:58] those are the types of matters that we're talking about here

[2:33:01] so there is nothing new uh it is it is basically an updating of our delegation

[2:33:06] bylaw which we're required to have we've simply reviewed it it's been many

[2:33:11] years we've updated the numbers we've moved some items from policy into the

[2:33:15] bylaw but i can assure you that there's

[2:33:18] nothing new or anything that's going to come back to

[2:33:21] bite the board as a result of this uh bylaw okay just one follow-up

[2:33:28] go ahead so from that i understand so for example we take

[2:33:32] expenditure limits for goods and services so

[2:33:36] what you're saying is we already had a policy that said anything over a hundred

[2:33:39] thousand i had to come to the board because

[2:33:43] that's what it's gonna be after after this bylaw no

[2:33:49] ms lego i think you can i don't have a specific sorry to interrupt that

[2:33:55] anything over a hundred thousand dollars rests with the cao yes yeah

[2:34:01] so i i would recommend that if the the committee

[2:34:04] would or the board wants to look at this i know we're here on adoption

[2:34:09] um we did have a staff report i can't remember

[2:34:12] how many meetings ago but i believe it was only maybe

[2:34:16] three meetings ago that staff could bring it back

[2:34:19] um but having gone through it in detail at that time i don't feel the need but

[2:34:24] if directors do they can make a referral back and we could bring that report back

[2:34:29] again to the board

[2:34:32] uh director marsh

[2:34:35] yeah i recalled it that anything up to a hundred thousand dollars

[2:34:40] was um signal by the cio if it is anything

[2:34:45] over a hundred thousand dollars is there a limit

[2:34:51] through to staff there's not currently a limit

[2:34:57] no i think that it would probably be wise to have another look then because

[2:35:00] i mean could it be two million or three million dollars i mean i doubt

[2:35:05] that i know brian would never do that without bringing to the board but

[2:35:09] we're making a bylaw that his successor will be

[2:35:13] um able to utilize so i think it deserves

[2:35:18] uh deeper thought certainly on my part because i misunderstood it and i

[2:35:22] apologize for that i thought it was up to

[2:35:29] sorry director or mr carruthers you're muted so i think you're trying to

[2:35:33] respond but yeah sorry mr chair thank you um this

[2:35:38] delegation bylaw is consistent with what any other local

[2:35:42] government would do in terms of expenditures

[2:35:44] um the board's power essentially is in prescribing the budget and once that

[2:35:50] budget is prescribed we have checks and balances throughout our

[2:35:53] financial system to ensure uh appropriate expenditures through our

[2:35:57] chief financial officer uh signed off by the cao you know

[2:36:03] you're welcome to bring this back for further review i'm i'm just gonna

[2:36:06] suggest to the committee that there's nothing

[2:36:08] unusual about this delegation bylaw it is it is

[2:36:12] fairly standard and uh but by all means if you're

[2:36:15] uncomfortable or want more information you're welcome to bring it back for

[2:36:20] further consideration just a quick follow-up mr chair yeah yeah so

[2:36:24] i think i heard you say mr cruthers you wouldn't be signing anything that

[2:36:28] you hadn't already gotten direction from the board

[2:36:30] to pursue there's nothing that would come from my signature

[2:36:34] that wouldn't have been approved and the chief financial officer ensures that so

[2:36:39] so i've twice misunderstood and i'm fine with it the way it is and i will support

[2:36:43] it thank you i saw mr kieber's hand up and

[2:36:46] i think i have director morrison and director sebring

[2:36:50] thank you mr chair so i just wanted to give the board a little bit of um

[2:36:55] comfort letting you know that no expenditures are incurred

[2:36:59] without the that's not included in the budget already that the board has not

[2:37:02] already improved so as mr crothers mentioned there's

[2:37:07] there's checks and balances in the finance department that prevents

[2:37:11] anything that's not already um approved and the

[2:37:14] ones that do come back to the board are items that have not been included in

[2:37:18] the budget sometimes it's prior to budgets adoption

[2:37:21] or something's happened throughout the year

[2:37:23] and there's been grant funding and there's new expenditures

[2:37:26] those items coming for the board but other than that

[2:37:30] um as long as it's in the budget mr crothers and the staff have authority up

[2:37:34] to their limits

[2:37:41] sorry wrong button director morrison and then director sebring

[2:37:47] so um a quick question given that we've been

[2:37:51] operating under uh policy and the likes to this point is is there is there

[2:37:57] anything that requires that this need to be you know accomplished in

[2:38:02] the next two to four weeks or or is it well let

[2:38:06] me ask that question first we lose director morrison

[2:38:17] sorry i think he cut off at the end i couldn't hear you at the end there

[2:38:21] can you hear me now yeah so mike my question was

[2:38:24] is is this time sensitive i realize it's got for second and third

[2:38:29] um but is could we continue to operate at relatively low risk for a period of

[2:38:36] time where this could be uh reviewed after we've adopted the

[2:38:39] budget 10th through to staff

[2:38:46] i'll answer that um there's nothing urgent no you can't we've been going on

[2:38:49] so long as it is um but it is something that we do need

[2:38:52] to become compliant with and should do eventually um we can wait

[2:38:56] to the adoption of the budget thank you director morrison so i'd be

[2:39:00] i'd move that this item be referred to the next board

[2:39:04] meeting with uh bring back the report following the adoption of the 2021

[2:39:09] budget so we have a second or for that director

[2:39:13] salmon uh direct uh discussion on the motion i

[2:39:17] have dropped do you have a motion on the floor

[2:39:21] it's a referral motion though i believe okay yeah so a referral motion is in

[2:39:24] order um so this is a referral back to staff

[2:39:28] and it'll be brought back uh after the timeline which is after the

[2:39:32] adoption of the budget um so again i had a speaker's list of

[2:39:36] director sebring did you want to speak to this referral

[2:39:40] nope okay and to the referral any director

[2:39:43] marsh yeah i won't be supporting the referral

[2:39:47] because now i have it clear and i'm remembering

[2:39:50] back and i think that it's it's gonna we're gonna do it anyway so

[2:39:55] i'd rather not rehash it again thank you okay so on the referral motion

[2:40:01] seeing no further discussion i'll call the question all those in favor

[2:40:05] and opposed uh directors nicholson sebring

[2:40:12] yanni dinardo marsh smith mcgonagall and duncan and stone opposed

[2:40:20] i believe the referral fails but miss lego if you've got that

[2:40:28] so can i go back to moving into the community wait for miss

[2:40:31] miss lego to respond i believe i recorded eight names uh

[2:40:37] nicholson c rinpoon jani dinardo uh marsh smith mcgonagall and duncan

[2:40:43] and stone stone so that's nine so the motion fails um i'll go back to

[2:40:49] the previous speaker's list i had director sebring and then director marsh

[2:40:52] i believe

[2:40:55] thank you mr chair you don't but

[2:40:58] it's interesting i'm a bit surprised that that

[2:41:03] there's no limit on the ciao signing authority

[2:41:07] and maybe i wasn't paying attention because i know in the north carolina

[2:41:10] context there are limits some stuff does come to

[2:41:14] council big tenders for example come to council

[2:41:17] for awarding i mean mr kieber said uh you know mr carruthers and his staff

[2:41:22] uh have authority up to their limits what is

[2:41:25] mr carruther's limit and and this has nothing to do with trust i'm just trying

[2:41:29] to figure out process here so i can maybe turn that over to staff

[2:41:33] but when a budget is set for a project if the tender comes in within budget

[2:41:37] it's up to them to be able to sign it but i don't know

[2:41:40] if staff can provide more detail well then that's correct i believe what

[2:41:44] mr kieber was referring to is staff below me have limits i

[2:41:47] am the ultimate signing authority for the organization and and provided that

[2:41:51] the budget is is approved by the by the board i have

[2:41:55] the signing authority on behalf of the organization to sign

[2:41:58] off on any of our invoices um uh other staff below me have limits

[2:42:04] which which is what requires things to come to

[2:42:06] me for final signature so to be clear your limit is what is set

[2:42:10] by the board in the budget correct yeah not not like the parkade

[2:42:16] and prince george sorry that's what i keep thinking about

[2:42:20] but i think i have director marsh and then director salmon

[2:42:26] yeah i'm nothing new i i think that we should support this now because we're

[2:42:30] going to support it next time after an another long

[2:42:33] conversation thank you i believe i have director

[2:42:37] salmon next yeah thank you so just for for comfort

[2:42:42] so is this why is this based on a template from uh

[2:42:46] other local government or how did we come up

[2:42:48] with these three pages of legalese through to staff thank you mr chair i

[2:42:54] did review delegation bylaws from another

[2:42:57] a number of other organizations

[2:43:02] and discussed it thoroughly on several occasions with the senior management

[2:43:06] team okay thank you thank you any further

[2:43:11] discussion on the motion seeing none all those in favor

[2:43:16] and opposed none opposed motion carries miss lego

[2:43:26] uh next item is b5 cvrd bylaw 4364 thetas island wharf service amendment

[2:43:32] requisition limit increase bylaw 2021 for adoption move by director smith

[2:43:36] seconded by director yanni dinardo any discussion seeing none all those in

[2:43:41] favor and any opposed non-opposed motion

[2:43:46] carries miss lego item b6 excuse me cbrd bylaw 4368

[2:43:51] security issuing bylaw spring 2021 for first second and third readings

[2:43:56] moved by director wilson seconded by director morrison

[2:43:59] any discussion seeing none all those in favor

[2:44:03] and opposed an opposed motion carries miss lego

[2:44:07] and cvrd bylaw 4368 security issuing by last spring 2021 for adoption

[2:44:13] moved by director yanni dinardo seconded by director nicholson

[2:44:16] any discussion seeing none all those in favor

[2:44:19] and opposed none opposed motion carries miss

[2:44:23] mr chair oh sorry yes i don't maybe i missed it but when we went

[2:44:28] through b3 i think we only voted on the readings i

[2:44:32] don't know if we voted on the adoption day mister

[2:44:34] we did we did vote on the adoption yeah okay uh sorry where are we at ms lego

[2:44:43] is this the adoption of b6 i think we've um i think you've called the result of

[2:44:49] that one okay and so that means we're moving on

[2:44:52] to question period correct thank you uh

[2:44:56] 10 minute recess please make sure you send your emails into legislative

[2:45:00] services at cvrd.bc.ca and we

[2:45:04] will be back or i definitely will be back at 443

[2:45:08] on the button to go through those questions thank you

[2:45:25] we're live okay so our question period is lego

[2:45:29] the first submission is from devin de grute

[2:45:33] i believe it would be a good idea to require that all questions submitted to

[2:45:36] be responded to completely and fully but not necessarily

[2:45:39] in the meeting for example if a question is not easily answered it can be put off

[2:45:43] for a day or two but both the quest but

[2:45:48] both could both the questions and the answers be posted to the minutes or

[2:45:52] another forum when a community member asks a question

[2:45:55] to your board it's not just the member who needs to hear the answer it is often

[2:45:58] the whole community who is interested in the answer

[2:46:02] thank you i i think that i can't make any commitments from

[2:46:06] this chair but i know we will review the progress of this new system

[2:46:12] and i guess we can take that under advisement and directors can bring

[2:46:16] forward ideas such as that in the future

[2:46:22] the next submission is from cliff evans and it's uh

[2:46:25] kind of a series of questions all about the same thing but

[2:46:29] uh so i'll read them as a group do you not have a great amount of knowledge

[2:46:33] in front of you that is not being used isn't the sum of the knowledge of the

[2:46:36] group always more than any one person in the group

[2:46:39] why not use all the directors and staff if they happen to be present to help

[2:46:43] answer the questions and if they can't just say so and get the answer for the

[2:46:46] public for the next meeting didn't the board ask us to send

[2:46:50] questions in advance at the meeting and then a director complains about it

[2:46:54] what do you want

[2:46:57] i can't represent all the varying viewpoints of the different directors

[2:47:01] around the table i can only speak to the policies that

[2:47:03] we've adopted the policy we have now is as as it's

[2:47:07] been adopted and we hope that will support

[2:47:10] better public input and i appreciate mr evans point of view but

[2:47:14] i can't speak to individuals directors opinions once we've made a decision as a

[2:47:19] board we all work together as a board and support those decisions

[2:47:25] there are no further submissions for question period

[2:47:28] okay thank you very much and we'll see how the

[2:47:32] new system goes and we're always looking for input so you can always email the

[2:47:36] board at board.cvrd.bc.ca i believe

[2:47:40] on any items of concern within the region and we'll all see those and be

[2:47:44] able to take that advice and input or questions accordingly thank

[2:47:48] you very much for that and i believe ms lego that takes us to adjournment

[2:47:51] motion to close the meeting uh sorry a motion to close the meeting moved by

[2:47:56] director mark seconded by director wilson all those in favor

[2:48:00] and opposed not opposed we are adjourned i believe

Regular Board - Wednesday, January 27, 2021

Transcript