Transcript: Capital Regional District Board - 2026-06-10

Speaker A · Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order our Capital Regional District Board meeting. It's good to see everybody in the meeting today. I want to acknowledge Alternate Director Wagner and Alternate Director Geary, both from Langford and want to acknowledge Director Tate's participating online. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. To members of staff. We do introduce staff as they are speaking to reports or taking questions. And good afternoon to to our guests who are here as part of two presentations coming shortly and to delegations and members of the public at large. We did have the territorial announcement at our previous meeting just concluded. I would now seek a motion to approve our agenda moved by Directors Coleman and Murdoch. Oak Bay. Any discussion? Seeing none. All in favor? Thank you.

Speaker A · Opposed and unopposed carries. And I'll next seek a motion to adopt the minutes of our previous meeting on May 13. If we have the same movers, Directors Coleman and Murdoch. Any corrections to the minutes? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Any opposed? Non opposed. Carries. Turning to report. Report of the chair. My remarks today, they'll be brief and verbal. We do have a full agenda. But colleagues, directors. You'll recall when we did the provisional budget last fall, one of the projects that was approved in the budget was the renovations of this very boardroom we are sitting in today. Important upgrades to take place. There will be a realignment of the desks in the room to allow for additional directors to allow for additional staff and rearranging more accommodation for members of the public as well.

Speaker A · And importantly, our aging audio visual elements will be replaced as well. So the time some of our meetings will be a little different. And I just want to touch on that briefly today. We will continue to have committee meetings in the boardroom and our board meeting on July 8. But you will start to see through those meetings some of the furniture changes occurring in the room. After the July 8 board meeting, the boardroom will be closed until September to allow those audio visual upgrades to occur. So any committee meetings occurring in the latter part of July or early August will occur virtually. And staff have made provisions for everyone to participate, including potential delegations and presentations. And members of the public will have an opportunity to attend. Come to fisguard and watch the meeting on location and then we will come back.

Speaker A · We don't have a board meeting in August. We'll come back to our regular scheduled board meeting at the beginning of September to hopefully completely refurbished, refurbished boardroom. And we do have a second. A second board meeting in September. You'll recall we'll be doing this year because of the election. We'll be doing the provisional budget on the 2027 provisional budget five year plan on the fourth fourth Wednesday in September and then we have our final board meeting in early October. There'll be no committee meetings in the latter part of August or September. Any any reports will come directly to to those board meetings at the beginning of September and October.

Speaker A · So our Deputy Corporate Officer Lagoa will be forwarding a memo with more details with regards to the changes and the meeting schedule for committees and board through to the end of this term and that will come through to the Board portal. So I know some in the room have attended meetings longer than my eight years in this room and that if you if you have some memories, take a visual snapshot now because the next time you attend it will likely stop start to be the changes. And thank you for staff for taking this initiative forward. I'll conclude my remarks there and I'm pleased to turn to presentations and it's my pleasure to turn to Vice Chair Little to present the Ed McGregor Memorial Bursary.

Speaker B · Thank you Chair McNeill Smith. As you may know, this bursary was created in 2003 in memory of Ed McGregor, the first mayor of the District of Sooke. It was awarded annually on the rotating basis to one of the four school districts in the Capital Region. The birth $2,500 awarded based on financial need to assist a grade 12 student of post Secondary education. Principals of the eligible school district collaborate to make the decision and this year the Senate School District 63 has selected District Darian Barr, a grade 12 student from Parkland Secondary School, as the 2026 recipient of the Ed McGregor Memorial Bursary.

Speaker B · She's standing back at the end of the room. Thank you and welcome. Darian is in attendance today along with her father, Darren Barr. Before the start of this meeting, I had the pleasure of meeting them and presenting Darian with her check. Here are a few highlights, only a few of Darian's accomplishments and plans for the future. Darian is an exemplary student, demonstrating strong academics, making the honor roll and achieving over 90% in all her grade 12 courses. She joined leadership class in grade 9 and organized many school events and fundraisers, which include a social responsibility project with CFAC Santas Anonymous, where she spearheaded an annual fundraiser collecting cash and toy donations for families in need over the last four years at Parkland Secondary.

Speaker B · In her grade 12 year, Darian began volunteering at the Saanich Peninsula Hospital and the Step Up Youth Program through Island Health. As a volunteer, she quickly built positive relationships with residents. After graduation, Darian will be attending the Registered Nursing Program Yahoo. At UBC Okanagan this September. After obtaining her license as a registered nurse, she has a further goal of pursuing a graduate degree and becoming a nurse practitioner. This is music to my ears. Please join me in congratulating this exemplary student on being selected as the recipient of the 2026 Ed McGregor Bursary. Thank.

Speaker C · You.

Speaker A · Thank you. Vice Chair Little and I will turn back to you. A pleasure again to present the Niels Jensen Memorial Pursuit. Please.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker B · This is the best time of the year. The Capital Regional District the CRD is pleased to acknowledge that the family of Nils Jensen, former CRD Board Chair, has established an annual memorial bursary in his name. As you may know, Nils was a councillor for 15 years on the Oak Bay Municipal Council before becoming the Mayor of Oak bay in in 2011, a position he held until 2018. Nils also served the broader community by acting as Chair of the CRD Board and as Chair of the Regional Water Supply Commission for 12 years, during which time he helped preserve water security in the region. The 2,500 annual bursary is funded by the family and administered by the crd. It is awarded annually on a rotating basis to one of the four school districts in the Capital Region.

Speaker B · The bursary is awarded based on financial need and an interest in environmental protection or water security to assist the student in pursuit of post secondary education. Principals of the eligible school district collaborate to make this decision and this year the Saanich school district number 63 has selected Jaden Yu, a grade 12 student from Claremont Secondary School, as the 2026 recipient of the Nils Jensen Memorial Bursary. And Jaden is at the back of the room along with his parents, Cindy G. And Ken Yu, And they are joined by Wendy Law, the Vice Princip at Claremont Secondary School. Wendy, where are you can stand up because you've done a lot of good and a lot of work. Thank you. Before the start of this meeting I had the pleasure of meeting them and presenting Jayden with his check.

Speaker B · I will touch on only some of the brief highlights of Jaydn's history. Jayden is a grade 12 student who has demonstrated strong academic achievement while balancing part time work and family responsibilities. Staff at Claremont Secondary describe him as a dedicated, responsible, collaborative patient and quiet leader. Jaydn's many interests at Claremont include acting in the school drama productions and excellence in technical and artistic skills in digital animation. Looking ahead, Jaydn will be attending Camosun College this fall to begin his studies in the Certified Medical Laboratory Assistance Program which is the first step in his journey to becoming a medical radiographer. Please join me in congratulating this exemplary and accomplished student on being selected as the recipient of the 2026 Nils Jensen Memorial Bursary.

Speaker E · Thank you.

Speaker F · So much.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Vice Chair Little for presenting those those bursaries. Congratulations again to the recipients. You are inspiring to myself and my colleagues in turning to delegations. We have two delegations on the agenda. But we also have a late delegation request from Bob Colson regarding the Magic Lake property own which is item 8. 7. I would look for look for a motion to approve the late delegation moved by directors Blackwell and Desjardins. It does require 2/3 majority. All in favor? Browneff. Sorry, that's the second time I've done that. Sorry. My apologies. I will look to call a question. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed. That carries. And I'll turn to Dcolagoa to introduce please.

Speaker E · Chair McNeil Smith. I do believe our next delegation, Marcy McLean who is a councillor. Marcy McLean, who is a member representing the District of Highlands on the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee has a request for extended time which would require a vote of the board. I did not get what that extension was.

Speaker G · I apologize for that. I don't have Internet at my house. I just would really appreciate a couple extra minutes. I don't know if I'll need it.

Speaker H · For sure.

Speaker G · I will speak as quickly as I possibly can without passing out. Thank you.

Speaker E · Standard is three minutes.

Speaker A · Okay. I would entertain a motion to extend to five directors Planned. And Murdoch. All in favor? Thank you. Unopposed Carries. Please proceed. Good afternoon.

Speaker G · Thank you, Kailey. Good afternoon, Chair and directors. I won't bother introducing myself again. I am the council rep for Highlands on Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee for a while now. And I'm also chair of its granting subcommittee. I was present and involved with the CRD's past review of this committee. At that time the committee decided to do its own internal review of our various aspects and processes, received CRD staff's review of the committee and provided input back on that. Our recommendations were adopted by our main committee that we had made. And we had a joint committee who also reviewed the draft crd, delegated commission bylaw and provided suggestions for some minor changes to staff.

Speaker G · And this is all documented by emails and past reports that the members have prepared. At that time, the vast majority of CRD staff's recommendations were already being implemented by the committee or well underway by our own initiatives. The only matter out of that review that really needed to be taken care of from my recollection was public access to our adopted minutes. CRD staff started posting those minutes on CRD website on January 26, 2023. The delegated commission bylaw number 4450 was signed off February 9, 2022. I've read your service review agenda material and when I read the CRD staff's inserted written comments, some of my similar past concerns started up again.

Speaker G · Victoria Family Court was created by the province of B. C. by letters patent. Victoria Family Court was added at a later date. We also function under section 18 of the Youth Criminal justice act as a Youth Justice Committee and we have had a servicing establishing bylaw with funding to be provided for operational services by the participating municipalities. $15,000 a year for many years now the committee pays for its own recording secretary and recently for our website oversight and maintenance and this will all start to add up quickly. Unfortunately due to not physically meeting during COVID and the past review, the committee had a small surplus that we have been putting towards a few small resource agency grants a year who operate in Greater Victoria.

Speaker G · The Committee's mandate is more broadly applied within extensive strategic plan where their goals are outlined and can be found on our website and within our annual reviews as well on our website. Section 5 parentheses 4 the provincial code Act Sorry Provincial Court act states if a court municipality, sorry, if a court facility is in which family matters are dealt with serves more than one municipality or area not in a municipality, the Family Court Committee must be composed of representatives from each area served.

Speaker G · As chair of the Granting Subcommittee, I can say with confidence that considering grants has not been considered one of our primary mandates. As staff have indicated, the granting Subcommittee is thorough and diligent. We do our level best with taxpayers money. I believe we took the granting application and process to a better level and CRD staff helped out with that a long time ago and some template letters as well and approved applicants are now required for the last couple years to report back to the main committee for our committee meetings.

Speaker G · It seems we meet in this board meeting that it is almost essential to have CRD staff to help with the teams or zoom aspects of our meetings due to a hybrid meeting and we appreciate their assistance with that. We have a steering committee that meets regularly to discuss and set the monthly agenda and we are indeed a working committee. Specific people of the committee and the Secretary pull together our agendas, post and distribute it by email to our members. We are required by our bylaw to follow the CRD Board Procedures. I believe for the past several years our membership and attendance has been acceptable and not of concern and we do not receive remuneration. We have never accepted.

Speaker A · Ms. McLean, your extended time has come to an end. If you could finish with a final sentence, please.

Speaker G · Okay.

Speaker H · Sorry.

Speaker G · We've never exceeded our. Our expenditures and I guess I'm done. Thank you for your attention. I appreciate it so much.

Speaker A · Thank you for your delegation today, Ms. Laglon.

Speaker I · Okay.

Speaker E · Our second delegation is James Anderson, resident of Saanich. On agenda item 620, the aligning the regional transportation and growth planning.

Speaker J · Would you like.

Speaker E · We can jump to Bob Colson, give you a moment. Sorry, would you like a moment? We could have the other speaker.

Speaker A · Yeah, go ahead. Just give me a minute.

Speaker K · Okay,

Speaker E · We will just give James a

Speaker B · moment to collect his notes.

Speaker E · We're going to go to the third delegation. Bob Colson, Magic Lake Property Owner Society on agenda item 8. 7, which is the governance and services study for Magic Lake estate.

Speaker A · Good afternoon.

Speaker L · Good afternoon. My name is, as you know, is Bob Colson. I'm the. I lost my voice already. I'm the president of the Magic Lake Property Owner Society, Magic Lake on Pender island. And I've come here today to ask you to support Director Paul Brent's motion to adopt and send forward the governance and services study to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. I'm just going to give you just a few reasons why and I better go fast here because this is longer than the previous lady. So Magic Lake is a community of about over 2000 people in about 4 square kilometers. You may have heard of it as in the early late 60s, early 70s, it was considered to be the reason the honest trust was set up was in reaction to Magic Lake being developed.

Speaker L · It was called Magic Lake Estates when it was by the developers with 2,200 people almost in 4 square kilometers. It's a very dense community, more of a suburb than actually a rural community and it has suburban problems. But because it's a suburb of a rural island, it's governed by ministries, agencies and everybody under their rural protocols, which are not a really good fit for that dense community and causes us some problems between the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Transportation, agencies such as the rcmp, Crown corporations that we deal with such as BC Hydro.

Speaker L · What they're expecting to be dealing with and what we want are always two different things.

Speaker C · So

Speaker L · just moving along. Yeah, and also with the Islands Trust, who we were, the reason for setting up. I understand this kind of a study is quite a. Honor us on staff time and I just wanted to let people know or let the staff know that MLPOS and the Community Resource center on Pender island are able to assist with a lot of the basically legwork and grunt work and doing this kind of study.

Speaker L · You know, from knocking on doors to setting up meetings to setting up zoom things. We do it all the time and we get pretty good at it. So we could help the staff that way. So I'm just going to skip to my conclusion here. Because of the density of the community of Magic Lake makes it a candidate for the establishment of a more effective form of governance. Magic Lake is more suburban than rural. Being governed under rural protocols leaves the community and its residents at a distinct disadvantage compared to other similar communities. Skip that one. We understand that the CRD staff, as I've said, is this will be a lot of work and we're standing there ready to do it. And we please urge support of the board when Paul Brent's motion comes to.

Speaker L · On the agenda to get. Get us a community governance and services study from the Ministry of Municipal affairs.

Speaker A · Thank you, Mr. Colson.

Speaker L · Thank you very much.

Speaker M · You're welcome.

Speaker E · And now for the delegation from James Anderson on agenda item 620, the regional transportation.

Speaker A · Good afternoon.

Speaker N · Hello again. I've come out of retirement, I thought. I remember being here and celebrating particularly with Directors Bryce and Colin, that the bylaw on transportation and in many ways it seemed like the job was done. And at the time you had a document talking about governance and how you were going to implement the plan for a transportation service. Well, now the first test is going to come to you and I'm here, I think, a little bit sadly, to advise you of that. The agenda item is updating the regional transportation plan. But one of the things that your plan and the documents you have before you is it ignores the problem of governance.

Speaker N · And governance, your previous reports, you indicated the problems of the fragmentation of the administration of land resources here in the region and that you have 13 municipalities and you got a CRD. How do you coordinate things? Well, last Tuesday I went to an open house in Saanich on the Wilkinson Interurban Road intersection. And I was disturbed to find out that the purpose of the meeting was how the intersection works while responding to community priorities and district policy direction. There is no mention there. And the word. It's almost as if it's impossible to use the word arterial. It's almost impossible to use secondary routes, escape routes.

Speaker N · If you look at a map and even Google for tourists coming down the highway, it will say, here's A shortcut to Butchered Gardens. That road, that corridor is anchored by Butchered Gardens, Heartland Road, Camosun College and the hospital. Can you think of four bigger, more important targets? And the road that links to them has this one little pinch point in the middle. One municipality wants to deal with that. It is now time. And I think you need to amend the terms of reference of the update of the regional transportation plan to consider. And you now have an actual real project. You're not talking about policy in a theoretical man.

Speaker N · You actually got one underway that you need to figure out how you're going to coordinate with it. And your plan, I think said Court. I think it's quarter number four of next year after the election with the new board. And good luck to all of you that you're back again. Mr. Anderson wants to come forward to you and I plan that comes forward to you at that date.

Speaker A · Mr. Anderson, time has conc your delegation. Time has concluded. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're next. Turning to consent agenda. I have been made aware that at least one director would like to raise an item. So I will turn to directors if they could identify any items they would like to raise from Consent. I'll begin with Director Tate, please.

Speaker J · Thank you, everybody. It would be item 6. 6. Recycling in Schools. Opportunities for diversion. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. That came from the Environment Services Committee, D. C. oligo.

Speaker E · That will go to 8. 10.

Speaker A · 8. 10. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to raise an item for consent? Director Tobias, please.

Speaker O · Thank you.

Speaker L · Chair.

Speaker O · 611. And 6, 2, 0, please.

Speaker A · We'll begin with 6, 11, which is from the governing finance D. So becomes 8, 8B. 8, 8B.

Speaker E · Yes.

Speaker K · Okay.

Speaker A · And the second one, Director device.

Speaker O · 6. 20.

Speaker E · That will just become 8. 11.

Speaker A · 8. 11. Thank you. Are there any other motion or items to be raised? Seeing none. If I could have a motion to approve the remaining consent items moved by Director Thompson and Vice Chair Little. All in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed? That carries. So we're next. Turning to admin reports. We have four, four on the agenda today. The first is the 2027-2030 CRD Board remuneration and Travel expense reimbursement policy update. And I'll turn to Senior Manager Nielsen to introduce. Please.

Speaker P · Thank you. And through the chair, the CRD Board has established and approved a CRD Board remuneration and travel expense reimbursement policy which recognizes the significant commitment and expectations of a CRD Director and which is reviewed regularly to ensure it remains aligned with the remuneration philosophy. The philosophy aligns remuneration to define comparable organizations and roles and those comparisons are highlighted in the report in front of you. By Policy the regular review occurs every three to five years and most commonly in the final year of the Board term with any amendments to be effective for the new board term. The most recent review occurred this year to be effective starting 2027 using the third party professional services of Western compensation and benefits consultants and the results of the review were provided to the board at the May 13, 2026 meeting.

Speaker P · At the meeting the Board approved the recommendations and moved that staff update the policy for board consider for board consideration. That updated policy is attached in Appendix A. In addition, staff are also recommending that the remuneration philosophy and policy be amended to remove the additional stipend paid to see directors appointed to local and sub regional commissions and rather enable commissions to consider payment to all commissioners from service budgets at the per meeting rate should they elect to do so and were approved by the CRD Board.

Speaker P · Currently this stipend is provided in only a small number of circumstances and not to all of the commission when it is since the policy was implemented, several CRD commissions have expressed desire in considering per meeting payments recognizing the significant commitments and expectations of many of the commissioners. Currently, payments are only provided to Commissioners of the Regional Water Supply Commission and the Salt Spring Island Local Community Commission in addition to the small number of director circumstances. With this then, staff are recommending that the Board remuneration philosophy be revised to remove the per meeting payments to CRD directors appointed to local and sub regional commissions and and that the CRD Board remuneration philosophy be revised to authorize all CRD commissions to provide per meeting payments to all Commissioners as may be approved by the Commission and the Board and paid at the per meeting rate from the Commissioner from the Commission service budgets and that the CRD Board remuneration and travel expense policy be approved effective January 1, 2027 as attached.

Speaker P · We're happy to answer any questions.

Speaker A · Thank you Mr. Nielsen for the introduction. I'll turn to questions and begin with Director Plant please.

Speaker Q · Thank you. I was away last month when the main part of this policy was adopted, but you did refer to it again today so I think it opens the door for me to ask the question and I did send it by email about half an hour ago. I'm not sure you saw it. Just wanting to draw attention to the three to five year review for external comparators and I'm just wondering if we were to adhere to the five year then in theory that would apply to the first year of a new board term where they would be essentially setting the remuneration on other comparators in their first year.

Speaker Q · I'm wondering, is there a way that we can direct that it would only occur in the final year of the board's term rather than having the window of three to five?

Speaker A · Mr. Nielsen?

Speaker P · Yes, through the chair. We could either do that administratively or if the board chooses to amend the remuneration philosophy to be clear that the review would occur in the final year of the board term to be effective for the new board term.

Speaker Q · Mr. Chair, that was the only. Well, actually I have a second question, but that is something I would want to do. The second question goes into the substance of really what the report is about today, which is the commission's being able to remunerate their own directors. What I heard was that it would still come to the board for endorsement. Is that correct, Mr. Nielsen?

Speaker P · Yes, through the Chair. The intent would be that it would come through the board for final approval.

Speaker Q · And would those votes for final approval of commissions deciding to pay their own commission members be weighted to participants or would the whole board weigh in? Given that it's a. It's a remuneration philosophy item,

Speaker A · I might turn to GM Morley

Speaker K · through the Chair.

Speaker G · I'm.

Speaker K · I'm not sure I can answer that on the spot. I think we'd have to consider whether or not this would be a policy amendment. If it would need to be written to the policy, I suspect it would be a non weighted all decision of the board.

Speaker Q · Okay. Those were the questions. If it's helpful, Chair. If there are no other questions, I'll

Speaker A · just look around the room if there are any other questions. Not seeing any.

Speaker Q · Director Plant, I'd like to start by moving the recommendation.

Speaker A · Yes. And all three parts can be moved as one motion. Do I have a seconder? Second by Director Murdoch.

Speaker Q · Ok Bay, I'd like to propose an amendment to the remuneration policy that sees the external comparator review move to the final year of the board term to take effect into the following board's term.

Speaker A · We have it seconded by Alternate Director Wagner. Turn to you to motivate further, colleagues.

Speaker Q · I think we all can acknowledge that the topic of remuneration is controversial. I wasn't here last month and it sounds like it went through fairly easily. I think the potential of it happening in that year five, even though Mr. Nielsen said it could just be done operationally is potentially a problem that we can avoid. I think this Board for the last 10 years has largely avoided the controversies of remuneration because we've done the external comparators in the last year. And the philosophy has been, whatever the cost of living for the region is, this just provides absolute certainty to the public and for future boards that they would know it's going to happen.

Speaker Q · They don't need to plan for it, it's going to happen, and then they can accept that it will not be seen as gerrymandering if you were to do it, for example, in the first year of a term. So I think that makes logic sense. And if I was here last month, I probably would have proposed it.

Speaker A · Thank you. Director Wagner, please.

Speaker R · Thank you. Yeah, I'm wanting to support this as a measure of good governance.

Speaker S · I see.

Speaker R · Fairly straightforward. Having clarity is really important. I think it's important to the public, it's important to the board. I don't see a reason to do it in a larger window or have any variability there. It makes complete sense to me to have these discussions be regular, planned and always apply to the next board. Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you. Are there any speakers, any other discussion? Seeing none. I'll look to. I'm sorry.

Speaker E · Just wanted to confirm that's the correct wording,

Speaker A · that the next review occurs in the final year of the next board term,

Speaker Q · if I may.

Speaker L · No, it's.

Speaker A · Sorry, it's not just the next review. This is to be an ongoing policy. If we can just take the word next out, I believe, In the following year, reach board term, Is that acceptable?

Speaker A · Director Plant and I'll direct Wagner. Thank you. I'll turn to Ms. Marley for a moment, please. No,

Speaker K · through the chair. I would just offer that. I did hear that there was also an indication by Director Plant that it would then take effect for the following board. I'm not sure if that's important to include.

Speaker Q · Let's add that.

Speaker K · Yeah,

Speaker A · thank you for that. That's helpful. We have concurrence. So I'm now calling the question on the amendment. All in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Seeing none opposed. That carries. Any further discussion on the main motion as amended?

Speaker Q · Yes, I do think this is supportable, that we allow our commission members and some of us may serve on those commissions to determine their remuneration. But I think we're going to have to be very careful when those recommendations come here because it's going to be hard for us to reject them. And so when I asked, like, do we have to approve them? That was why, in some ways, I almost wonder if we should delegate this to the commission. That they can determine it and that if there was ever a problem we could review it. But I'd say let's see how it works in the interim and if it becomes a problem, we can always look to address it in the future.

Speaker A · Thank you. Any further discussion? I have a question through to staff and that is I'm sorry if it was covered in the introduction, but with this approved and the commissions take it up at their. At their regional or sub regional commissions. Would. Would they be advised by staff of the. Of the guidelines that we've received from the consultants report in turn in terms of those payments aligning with. With what the work that has just concluded?

Speaker P · Yes, through the chair. The intent would certainly be that staff would advise the per meeting payment rate and that has been what's been established by the commissions and now and would be approved by the board through this policy.

Speaker A · Thank you. Seeing no further discussion. I'll call the question. Oh, Director Holman.

Speaker T · Yeah. Chair.

Speaker C · I'd like to move a motion to. To eliminate the recommended $12,000 increase for the Salt Spring Director.

Speaker A · Okay. Do we have a seconder. Director Tobias, Seconds. I'll turn to you as the mover or as to motivate.

Speaker C · Yeah, thanks, Chair. And I. I should have asked this question or clarified this when the consultant was reporting, but I. There is no comparator in British Columbia to the local community commission on Salt Spring and that substantially changes the responsibilities of the Director. So for that reason I can't support the recommendation as tabled and I'm moving this amendment.

Speaker A · So I'm just seeking clarification before turning to the seconder on the intent of the motion. So we do understand from the report that came to us at the previous meeting and then is here today is that currently the Salt Spring electoral air Director receives remuneration $10,000 less than the southern Gulf Islands and Juan de Fuqua, electoral area Director. The work that was done in the recommendations from the consultant were to provide an increase of $12,000 to all three directors. You're requesting to leave that. You're not requesting to change that 10,000 decrease? That is already in the policy. The policy was amended. But to further have a further reduction of the $12,000 just for Salt Spring.

Speaker C · Yes. And the cola adjustment, which still applies. I understand. Thank you.

Speaker A · I'll turn to the secondary Director Tobias.

Speaker O · Nothing further to add.

Speaker A · Chair.

Speaker O · Just always liking to support a politician who wants to decrease his salary for the benefit of the community.

Speaker U · Thank you.

Speaker C · Chair.

Speaker A · Sorry, your microphone. Your microphone please.

Speaker Q · Director.

Speaker A · Thanks.

Speaker M · Okay.

Speaker A · Your microphone. Go ahead.

Speaker C · Oh, just it's not my salary because this is my last term, but it is a matter of principle and it is in recognition of the uniqueness of the local community commission. But I appreciate the secondary remarks.

Speaker A · Thank you. I'm going to turn to Director DeVries and then Director Plant Director.

Speaker F · Thank you. And I appreciate the rationale. I'm not going to support this, though. I don't think that something as sensitive as remuneration should be based on. I'm going to call it Vibes in this case. I think that, you know, we don't know who comes next. I think I've supported an individual director reducing their own salary in past, but to prevent and create barriers for other people potentially putting their names forward in the future because that remuneration is artificially reduced, I think does a disservice to our democracy. And I just can't support something like that. I think it's not rooted in enough evidence for me. I respect the work that was done to establish what staff have brought forward with the consultant, but I don't support any kind of arbitrary reduction as I know that will limit the potential candidates to come forward to serve the community.

Speaker F · I don't think that should be a barrier. So I'll be voting against this.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker V · Director.

Speaker A · Director Plan. Thank you. Director Caradano, please.

Speaker W · Thanks very much. Likewise, I also oppose the amendment, and this is. I agree that it's a matter of principle, although I might see it differently than the mover and seconder. It's. We're in a situation in which it has at least been reported that of all of the mayors and councilors and electoral area directors in this entire region, two are renters. If I'm mistaken in that, I'd love to be corrected. But to my knowledge, it's two. It's Susan Kim and Krista Loughton, my two colleagues at the city of Victoria. If there are any other renters, please let me know, because that's what I've been told. Compare that to the fact that, at least in the city of Victoria, 62% of residents are renters.

Speaker W · Renters are wildly underrepresented in electoral office, as are young people, as are single parents, et cetera, et cetera. If we want to have elected officials around the table who represent the breadth and diversity of this community, we can't be slashing the already meager salary. The pay is ridiculously low. And I know it's somewhat controversial in the community, but the fact is it's quite low when you compare it to the work that a lot of us were doing before we became elected officials. So I don't think that the meager pay should be reduced any further. I want there to be opportunities for a diversity of candidates on Salt Spring island and around the crd.

Speaker W · So I don't think that this makes any sense and it would only further enshrine the status quo which does in a lot of ways limit who can realistically afford to be an elected official in this community which is not equitable.

Speaker A · Thank you Director. Director Brent, please.

Speaker V · As much as I would love to support my fellow electoral area Director, I don't think I can in this case. I know electoral areas do a heck of a lot of work and they travel a heck of a lot and and I think the remuneration needs to reflect what an external consultant recommends. I'm not motivated by the cost of living adjustment clause. I note that I won't be here so I want to make sure I

Speaker A · don't create a barrier.

Speaker V · But I'm going to run as an Islands Trustee and the Islands Trust has passed a significant remuneration adjustment to the tune of about 40% increase. I know on Saturna Island I'll be looking at an 80% increase. So it just doesn't seem there's some irony here that I just can't live with. So I'm not going to support this.

Speaker A · Thank you Director. Director Brent Seeing no further comments, I will comment briefly. When the policy was changed previously to reduce the Salt Spring Electoral area director by 10,000 and to allocate that to the LCC commissioners, the rationale provided at the time was that the electoral Director's duties and responsibilities reduced somewhat by having the other commissioners in place and that there was additional responsibility or new responsibility for those commissioners.

Speaker A · And while I had some concern in terms of that being a precedent, it is unique within our regional district and it was supported. But in terms of just reducing after receiving the consultant's report and having approved the comparators going into the process, I do have concerns just in reducing a salary by a further 12,000 which would be a $22,000 reduction which I think is quite significant and doesn't really align with the consultants report that came back to the came back to the board seeing no further discussion.

Speaker A · I'll call the question on the amendment. Those in favor? Opposed? I'm going to call these out. Directors Desjardin, Plant, Coleman, Brown Off Kobayashi, Alt. Director Wagner, myself, Vice Chair Little, Director Devries, Caradonna, Bryce, Murdoch, Saanich, Jones, Williams, Alt Director Geary and Director Brent and Director Tate Online thank you. That motion is defeated. That amendment is defeated. So we're back to an amended motion. It was amended successfully with the previous amendment. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Any opposed? Director Holman is opposed. Seeing no others, the motion carries. Thank you. Thank you, Senior Manager Nielsen. We're turning to item 7. 2 and I will turn to GM Morley to introduce the item. Please.

Speaker K · Thank you. Through the chair. This report contains the requirements to launch an alternative approval process for Bylaw 4699, the Core Area Wastewater Treatment Plant Loan Authorization Bylaw 1, 2027. This is a borrowing bylaw to authorize borrowing of up to $34,840,000 for the purpose of capital renewal and upgrading of the wastewater treatment and conveyance system. It includes up to $2 million for advanced thermal design for processing of class A biosolids. The participants of the service are Colwood, Esquimont, Langford, Oak Bay, Sanich, Victoria and Vroyal. Debt servicing will take place over a period not exceeding 15 years. The board introduced and provided three readings of the proposal and authorization bylaw at its meeting on March 11, and it was approved by the inspector municipalities on May 5.

Speaker K · The bylaw third meeting is attached to the report at appendix A. Because this is a borrowing bylaw and the capital works are not included in liquid waste management plan, it requires electoral approval. The board has already resolved to proceed by way of an alternative approval process for the entire service area. If less than 10% of the electors submit a response, the loan authorization bylaw may proceed and would be brought back to the board for adoption. So in order to commence the aap, the board needs to approve the following items that are set out in the recommendation of the staff report. So confirmation of the AAP dates which is proposed to start on June 18 and to close on July 31. There is a synopsis of the bylaw that is attached to appendix B.

Speaker K · The form of notice that we will publish in order to meet the statutory notice requirements is attached at appendix C and the elector response form is attached at appendix D. Further, the board has to approve the number of responses required to indicate that residents do not consent to the bylaw, which is 10% of the registered electors for the service area and that number totals 25,259 electors. The total population of electors is calculated at 252,590. So Appendix E outlines the communication channels that will be used to advertise the AAP and that includes the Times, Colonists, the Black Press, the CRD website, as well as promotion on CRD social media. Thank you, Chair.

Speaker K · I'm happy to answer any questions the board has.

Speaker A · Thank you, G. Morley, for the introduction. I will turn first if there are any questions. Director Brownhoff, please.

Speaker J · Thanks.

Speaker E · Mr.

Speaker B · Chair.

Speaker A · Through you to staff. With respect to this amount of money,

Speaker B · would there be communication that would show

Speaker A · what proportion of the amount would be

Speaker B · applied to the municipalities within the service?

Speaker A · I'll turn to GM Fraser. Good afternoon.

Speaker X · At this point in time that wasn't going to be specifically in those. Some of it will have to be dependent on the. I think the annual budgets and the. Ultimately the formula that's within our allocation model as well.

Speaker A · So we weren't going to put anything in communication how it would be divvied up.

Speaker X · We are putting information in terms of the overall borrowing but not the split

Speaker K · on a per municipality basis. No.

Speaker J · Okay. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director. Seeing no further questions. This is a non weight at all, but I would perhaps seek a director from the core area to move the recommendations. It can be read as one motion. But they're bylaws and should be read. Or there is bylaws. If it could be read in, please. Director Coleman, do you want it read

Speaker Y · in in its entirety or can I

Speaker A · just move the recommendation in its entirety? I'm sorry, in its entirety.

Speaker Y · That the recommendation is that one, that in accordance with section 86, 3 86, subsection 3 of the Community Charter, the date of July 31, 2026 be confirmed as the deadline by which elect electoral responses under the alternative approval process for the CRD bylaw number 4699 be submitted to the capital regional district by qualified electors within the service participating area.

Speaker Y · And 2. That the attached synopsis of bylaw number 4699, appendix B, notice of alternative approval process, appendix C, Elector response form, appendix D and AAP communication channels Appendix appendix E be approved. And three, that the total number of registered electors within the service participating area is 252,590 and that 10% of that number is 25,259 electors.

Speaker A · Thank you. Do we have seconder, please? Director Desjarda, Is there any discussion?

Speaker Y · You don't have to read it.

Speaker A · Is there any discussion? Seeing none. I'll call the question. All in favor? Thank you. Any opposed? None opposed. That carries. We're next Turning to item 7. 3, another bylaw. I'll turn to Acting CFO Somerset, please.

Speaker D · Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a temporary borrowing bylaw authorizing short Term financing for capital projects which are already identified in the approved five years plan for the Lyell Harbor Boot Cove water Services.

Speaker D · On May 13th the board adopted the Loan Authorization Bylaw 4678 which authorized the borrowing of the funds to fund those capital renewal and upgrades for these services. This temporary borrowing by law is now required to actually provide interim funding financing for this capital expenditure until the long term that it's issued. The temporary borrowing will not exceed the 2 million balance authorized in the loan authorization by law. And just as a note as the July the current date, no funds has been drawn from that authorization. The associated financing cost has been already incorporated in the approved financial plan and long term debt will be issued closer to the project completion at which point in time the staff will bring forward a security issuing bylaw for board approval.

Speaker D · The recommendation before the board is to that the bylaw number 4764776 temporary borrowing be introduced read first, second and third time and also that the bylaw 4776 be adopted. Thank you Chair. Happy to take any questions.

Speaker A · Thank you for the introduction. Are there any questions? Not seeing any. I'll turn to Director Brent.

Speaker V · So I will, bylaw number 4776 Temporary Boring Bylaw start a bracket Lyle Harbor Boot Cove water and a bracket bylaw number one 2026 be introduced and read a first, second and third time and

Speaker A · seconded by Vice Chair Little. Any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Non.

Speaker V · Opposed Carries and that bylaw number 4776 be adopted.

Speaker A · And if we have the same second or vice chair Little, Any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Opposed? None. Opposed? That Curious. Thank you. We're Turning to item 7. 4, the biosolids beneficial use management. The May update. I'll turn to GM Jones, please. Good afternoon.

Speaker S · Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon. This report provides the Board with the monthly update on biosolids beneficial use activities and implementation of the long term biosolids management strategy. Through May, all biosolids produced at the residuals treatment facility continued to be beneficially used through out of region non agricultural applications consistent with the board endorsed strategy. I'll note that quarry reclamation in Cassidy remained the primary beneficial use outlet this month. Also, the residual treatment facility began accepting residuals from the Sook wastewater treatment plant in May, building upon the successful integration of the Saanich Peninsula residuals from previous months and. Sorry, my bad. So. And the benefit to that is it ends disposal at the Heartland Landfill and supports a coordinated regional approach to residuals management at the same time. Chair.

Speaker S · Work on the advanced thermal treatment project continued to progress and remains on track. And I'll stop there. Staff are available for any questions.

Speaker A · Thank you for the update. I'll turn to Director Dijarnan.

Speaker H · Thank you very much and thank you for the update. With the addition of Sooke and Saanich Peninsula biosolids, how does that change the funding mechanism for facilities going forward

Speaker S · through you, Chair. Thank you for the question. I am going to look to Senior Manager Rory Took to help us walk through the details.

Speaker A · Good afternoon.

Speaker Y · Good afternoon.

Speaker Z · Through the chair. So the funding mechanism, the residuals treatment facility continues to be an asset under the core area. And ultimately the sludge that's brought from other wastewater treatment plants are brought in basically as a tipping fee. So they're seen as really just clients to that facility. And effectively that tipping fee is set roughly equivalent to the cost of processing that material. So it's really a net neutral overall financial situation with accepting this additional material.

Speaker H · Thank you. And then moving forward to the thermal facility, which we will all benefit from. Will that have any change in financing

Speaker Z · through the chair at this time? We don't anticipate that it would be under the same model. So of course all those that sludge will result in additional class A biosolids which would be fed into carbonization process to create biochar effectively all the materials still going through that process. And as has been noted to this board in the past, current estimates are that that's pretty much cost neutral to the current cost that we're paying for disposal of biosolids. So effectively it would net out very similar to how it is now with our current information that we have.

Speaker H · Thank you. It's my hope that the board in the future will look at this as a more regional approach and therefore look at allocation of the cost of that next facility be born in a broader fashion, particularly if we are going to consider solid waste addition.

Speaker H · And so I will leave it to you, those going forward and those that get to sit around the table again to really think regional on this core area has moved things forward through a lot of bumps. But we got there and I think thermal processing is going to be really good for the region. So I hope you'll consider that. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director. Any further questions? Director Holman, please.

Speaker C · Yeah, thanks, Chair. Through you to staff. So the hauling from the Peninsula plant and Sook, is that done by a private contractor?

Speaker Z · Through the chair. So there are two separate haulings. So Sooke wastewater treatment plant does their own Hauling of their sludge to the residual treatment facility. And then the Saanich Peninsula wastewater treatment plant uses Kiwanis trucking contract which also provides our transportation of biosolids to their end uses as well as screenings haulings from Clover and McCauley pump stations. And that is a majority first nations owned business that we currently have contract with.

Speaker C · Yeah, thanks chair and could staff remind the timing of the thermal processing the biochar kind of what is the current estimate of when that would be in

Speaker A · place through the chair so the current

Speaker Z · process we are in negotiations with the provider and ongoing technical work needed for the air permitting regulatory requirements. We'd anticipate a decision back to the board sort of early mid-2027 where we'd have updated numbers and direction to proceed. Should we get that direction to proceed at that time, our current estimate would be roughly a 2030 commissioning timeline for the actual plant itself.

Speaker C · Thanks. Here just one last question I think it probably has been asked before but the cement plan plant, did the CRD not provide a capital contribution to in order to help fund changes they had to make to their process and given that over several years they've not been accepting material, have we broached the possibility of a return of that contribution?

Speaker S · I'll turn to Scott Chair Yes, I'll start but I will look to Rory to complete the information. So staff have been looking at this possibility. However, the terms of the agreement at the time because it was a time for a new and emergent technology did not have the term sufficient to necessarily abhor that. And I will look to Rory to walk us through a little bit more detail on that

Speaker Z · through the chair. I don't have too much more to add to that. That's something we can and plan to look more into. We still do have that contract although it's expiring soon with currently named amrise Previously Lafarge cement plant as you noted they have taken material in the past but it has been unreliable and variable with that equipment on their side going offline on multiple occasions. So it's something where we continue to actively engage with the staff and operational staff at the cement kiln in trying to remedy and should we come with a remedy that would be brought back to this board in appropriate channels.

Speaker A · Thank you Director. This is for information there any other comments, questions or comments? Director Kobayashi, thank you very much through the chair. Just further on to that question. How much did we pay that cement company for that technology?

Speaker Z · By the way, through the chair the, the cost. I don't have the exact cost it was roughly $800,000 for them to set up that capital.

Speaker A · Thank you very much. Thank you, Director. Seeing no further discussion, we'll turn to now turn to the next item. We're going to reports of committees and the first is the arts Commission under 8. 1. And I will turn to Chair Aalto of the commission to consider moving the recommendation, please.

Speaker T · Yes, I'm happy to move the recommendation. Would you like me to read it or is it.

Speaker A · I think it's helpful.

Speaker T · It is not the staff recommendation, but is in fact the alternative to that. The Arts Commission recommends to the Capital Regional District Board that the View Royals request for a change in its membership level to Tier two to be denied due to financial impacts to other participants and a lack of alignment with existing CRD plans and strategies.

Speaker A · Thank you. Seconder, please. Director Caradana. So I will note that this is a weighted participants. There are 10 participants. And given that's weighted, it would be all the. All the members from each of the participants. Esquimaut Highlands, Machosin, Oak Bay, Saanich, Sooke, Victoria v. Royal and Southern Gulf Islands electoral area. I'll turn to the movers, please.

Speaker T · Yes, thank you. I want to just be clear that the Arts Commission had a very fulsome discussion about the staff report recommendation and the situation that V. Royal found itself in and its decision. And it is, I think, important for the public to know that the Commission took that conversation very seriously. We understand that there is a significant challenge for a variety of different municipal partners in making determinations about the expenditures that they can merit and warrant in these difficult times. But on the other hand, the commission very clearly took the position that the value of arts and culture, I think, has been repeatedly and well proven in various studies and facts and experiences over the years.

Speaker T · And that this change, as requested by View Royal, would in fact have an unfair impact on the rest of the participants. By, of course, the fact that this doesn't reduce the overall expenditure, it simply redistributes it. And so, while being cognizant of the needs expressed by V. Royal, the I guess what the Commission believed is the greater responsibility and good for the region as a whole took precedence. And in this case, we believe that it would set an unfortunate precedent and that it would be unfair to the other participants to allow the change that was being requested. So that's the root of why this recommendation is here.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director Aalto. Director Garadon, please. Nope, nothing further. Further discussion. I'll turn to Director Tobias.

Speaker O · Thank you, Chair. I recognize that every director will not agree with V Royal's decision. Respectfully, that is not the question before us today. The question is whether municipalities retain the ability to review their participation in a discretionary regional service and make amendments when local priorities change. Every council around this table has a responsibility to balance competing priorities and to be accountable to taxpayers. View Royal undertook the review and determined that Tier 2 participation better reflects at which our community wishes to support the service. This board has accommodated changes in participation before. In 2018, Sydney chose to withdraw from the ART service entirely and the service structure was amended accordingly. View Royal is not seeking to remove itself.

Speaker O · It's seeking for a more modest change. We are not asking to leave the service. We are choosing to remain participants and continue contributing through an existing participation level already contemplated in the bylaw. Today it is the View Royal and the Arts service. Tomorrow it may be your municipality and another regional service. The CRD regularly asks municipalities to join new initiatives and services. The cooperation depends on trust that future councils will retain meaningful flexibility to reassess participation as circumstances evolve. If councils cannot adjust participation in a discretionary service, future councils may well think twice before joining 1. Supporting this request is not a vote against arts and culture. It is a vote in favor of municipal autonomy, local accountability and the flexibility that has long been the strength of the CRD.

Speaker M · Thank you, Mr.

Speaker H · Chair.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director Tobias. On my speaking list, I have next Director Murdoch Obey, Director Tate Online and Vice Chair Little.

Speaker U · Thank you, Chair. I guess I'll probably just highlight, I think, what Director Tobias said. I disagree with the decision to remove or to reduce the contribution, but I support their right to do so. And I do think that. I think it's incumbent upon. There isn't a lot of feedback loops available to us and I think as we do service reviews, one of those feedback loops is, you know, if the member. Participating members of different services don't aren't seeing value, there are mechanisms to provide that feedback and probably the most effective way is either to give notice in situations like this or to request a reduction in that participation, which this particular service does allow.

Speaker U · So I guess I said I do not agree. I don't support the reduction, but I support the reduction, the right to do the reduction. And I think Director Tobias points are excellent that any one of us sitting at our council tables really has to balance the value and the benefit and the cost of anything that we're providing and I think the right to control that. I think this is a. There is a notification period and I think, you know, if this fails the motion on the Table. Which is to say, no, I would suggest that one of the things we could do is make this change effective in 2027, so that things this year is dealt with and to reduce, perhaps look at reducing the overall budget by the Delta so that the service participants are not impacted negatively, but just the number of grants and so forth next year would be reduced commensurately.

Speaker U · So I think there are ways of allowing for this without. Without just refusing, without removing the ability for a local council to reflect their. Their community effectively.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director. Director Tate, please.

Speaker J · Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the comments. I've been back and forth a bit about this because naturally, if anyone leaves, I don't want our home community to pay more. But I appreciate what Director Murdoch is indicating, and I think that's the challenge that the Commission is going to have, that if a group exit, the amount of funds available would need to decrease because it would not be fair for those remaining to pick up the balance. It would be a discussion point, though, at that time. And I do agree with View Royal that if they feel that it's no longer reflecting the needs of their community, that they have the desire to leave.

Speaker J · This has come up here in Sooke. There's been questions every year as to whether or not the participation is worth the cost, and it remains something under review. The intention of when Sup joined was that we would join it, we would evaluate, and if it didn't work, we would depart. So I appreciate that, what the Chair had indicated, but at the same time, local governments have the ability where we should be able to exit a service if it's not meeting the needs of our community. It's not. It was never the case to me that once you're in, you can never exit.

Speaker AA · So I'm.

Speaker J · I will support the Director from View Royal and their desire in. In that regard. So in that case, I will be voting against the motion. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director Tate. I'm turning next to Vice Chair Little.

Speaker B · Yeah, thank you. And to the Chair. I appreciate the member for bringing forward this. This motion. I will vote against it because although it does provide value for the region, and I recognize that, as you remember, when I spoke, I spoke in favor because the majority of my council wished for me to speak in favor of it.

Speaker B · It was with great trepidation, though, because I also posit that perhaps the District of Muchoza may want to change our membership from Tier 1 to Tier 2 in the future, giving our sobering financial outlook for the future. We too have very similar issues to view Royal and other communities. But I do support, as mentioned by the director from Oak Bay, the right of a particular municipality to choose for themselves. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Vice Chair Little. Are there other speakers? Director Plant, please.

Speaker Q · I'm going to start with a question through you to staff. This isn't the deciding day unless it was to be a successful outcome on this motion. If this motion fails and the initial recommendation that staff provided for the commission to consider, which by the way, was not a staff recommendation, but rather a potential recommendation for the commission, it's going to then go to the other service participants to seek their permission to let the town of View Royal out. Is that correct? So if I could just get process on. If this motion is successful, it dies today. If it's unsuccessful and then the alternate wording is put forward, then it does have several steps, which then means it comes back here. Here again.

Speaker A · Anyways, yeah, I would. Thank you for the question. I'll turn to staff, perhaps GM Morley on. On the process.

Speaker K · Yeah, thank you. Through the chair to confirm that if the motion is successful, then yes, it would die today. There would be. There would be no further consideration coming back if the staff's recommendation was then put forward as an alternative. The direction would be for staff to prepare a bylaw, an amending bylaw to. To remove, Pardon me, Viewerl as a participant, and then that would go through the regular amending bylaw process. It would then get referred out to the other participants to provide consent or not, assuming the board chose that as the approval process.

Speaker Q · Thank you. So of the nine, two thirds would have to approve at their council table. That, and that is regardless of whether you're a Tier one or a Tier two, is that correct? You would have the same amount of sway

Speaker K · through the chair. My understanding is that it would require a 2/3 approval of participants. Correct.

Speaker Q · Okay, thank you. One of my colleagues said that there was interest in Machosin potentially becoming a tier 2. My understanding is Machosin already is a tier 2, is that correct? And maybe for.

Speaker A · We do have Arts and Culture Manager Gilpin with us today. Please go ahead through the chair.

Speaker AB · Yes, that is correct.

Speaker Q · Thank you. The other piece I'd like to have some clarification on was the Sydney comment made by Director Tobias about Sydney wanting to withdraw. My recollection was Sydney had joined, had then chosen to withdraw within the two year period where. Which optional withdrawal was automatic. Can we. Can Chris provide clarity on how Sydney

Speaker AB · withdrew through the chair? Yes, that is correct. The bylaw had been amended at that point and so Sydney was still within the two year withdrawal period written into the bylaw for two Tier 2 participants.

Speaker A · Sorry, if I could see clarification. Sidney joined in the 209 to 211 period but didn't withdraw until 218.

Speaker AB · That's correct. The bylaw was changed very close to 2018. I don't remember the exact year and at that point the two year withdrawal period was introduced. So everyone going into the bylaw at that time when it was changed had into the Tier 2 level had two years to choose to withdraw.

Speaker A · Thank you for the question and the clarification.

Speaker Q · Yeah, so those are my questions. Now I'm going to move into my comments and I'm going to support the recommendation on the floor. But I think there is an important discussion that needs to happen regarding the notion of being able to withdraw from a service. And I think there has been so little of it around the board table that when we see it as being presented by my colleague from View Royal, that you just assume, well, of course you should be able to leave a service if you don't think it provides you community value. I would ask you all to just put yourselves in the situation of regional parks.

Speaker Q · The city of Victoria, and I'm not a councillor for the city of Victoria, so I can say this has no regional parks in the city of Victoria. It would be very fair for their councillors to say, you know what I want out of that Regional Park Service. We don't have any parks in my municipality. We should just say that it's not a priority. We're going to spend all our money on public safety and perhaps on our municipal parks. So it's not simply a fact that you can determine your community's interests without realizing that there is cross jurisdictional consequences. The situation with Vroyal, to be clear, is about a $90,000 situation.

Speaker Q · It would be hard pressed for all of the other four Tier 1 participants to not potentially go, you know what, we should go down to Tier 2 as well. For Saanich, we're paying $1. 35 million. So the increase we're going to pay this year based on the proposed budget of around 2% increase would make up the difference for View Royal's withdrawal. And so I do recognize that. But it goes back to this principle of withdrawal. You would not let the City of Victoria out of the regional park system because you would say, are you kidding me? You walk around Elk Lake, you go up around Mount Tombi. Well, not Mount Tomey, that's Municipal park, sorry.

Speaker Q · Around all these other regional jurisdictions So I do think, while there may be some perspective of, hey, let a municipality out if they don't want to join, if the principle is, a municipality doesn't want to belong to something, you're going to let them out. What are you going to say when someone does come along and say, we want out of regional parks? Or you know what? We actually don't think the Housing Corporation benefits us because we are in a municipality that has no housing corporation projects in our small municipality of Highlands, why are we paying for the Capital Regional Housing Corporation? So I respect that every municipality has the right to ask, and that is a key distinction. View Royal has the right to ask. But ViewRoyal, in my opinion, is going to have a negative consequence on this service.

Speaker Q · $90,000 is the equivalent of a whole funding stream for something called the IDEA Grants. A whole stream of granting would be eliminated if we have inflationary costs elsewhere included. So I would be more inspired to support if they had said, by the way, we're going to fund a View Royal Arts Council to the tune of $90,000 more. We're going to have arts programming within our municipality of $90,000 more. But what they are asking us to do as commissioners, is to absorb their loss of revenue, as if somehow the amount of people participating is going to change. I do not think this was equitable and I do not think that this is a reasonable request. For those of you who are wondering, ooh, this must have been awkward at the Arts Commission. It wasn't.

Speaker Q · All nine of us had this conversation and every participant, with the exception of you, Royal, whose commissioner excused themselves from participating in the discussion, voted for it. So my colleagues who have said they don't think that they can support the recommendation on the floor, their council colleague, who is appointed to that commission, who spends all their time each year thinking about that commission, has recommended it. And your colleague did. And your colleague did. So I would ask that we do consider how we value our commissions to make recommendations to us and not just bring our own personal ideology to how services exist. Trust that your Arts Commission was making a recommendation to not support View Royal to leave. Not because we didn't want to be respectful to our colleague from View Royal, but because it's going to do damage to this service.

Speaker Q · There will be less funds for this service, and if you can point to me to any other service this year that we reduced our budgets to, please tell me, because we didn't everything else at inflationary increases, this would be a cut because someone's going to pay less and I'm not interested in seeing less.

Speaker Q · I do acknowledge that what Director Tobias said is that we'll make people have second thoughts about joining a service. Yes. And you should. You should be very careful when you join a service, because this is what happens. You are a part of a fraternity or sorority of participants in a service that make a meaningful difference. And I would also ask us to just. I'm going to end with, remember our strategic priorities. We talked about growing our art services, and so we just did the facilities service. And I thank you all for those of you who are on the fence about whether or not you were going to support that, who did. And now here on another one, we're going to do a cut. Please don't.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director. On the speaking list, I have Director Plant, Director Devries, Director Caradana.

Speaker F · Thank you. I'm not going to say too much more. I think Director Plant said much of what I wanted to say. I am going to support the recommendation that's on the floor. And the reason for that is this is a regional table. We look at sub regional and regional services. And while I respect the ability and the right of any participant to bring forward a request, I will look at that request in the context of what's. I think is in the best interest of the region. And I haven't heard a compelling case about why the withdrawal of your oil from the service would be. Well, not a withdrawal story. Reduced into Tier 2 would be of benefit to the region as a whole.

Speaker F · I can see the attractiveness. I'd like to see Sanchez receive all the benefits of being part of a regional district and pay less. I think that would be fantastic. I think we all would from our own jurisdictions. But that's not the situation that we're in. And it leads to, I think, a race to the bottom. And so I would be willing to consider a strong regional rationale for why a change like this should occur, but I'm not hearing that. And so I'm looking out for the broader interest of the region, which I think is stability in this service is one, as Director Plant pointed out, where the board said, we want to do better in this area and we want to increase the impact that the regional district has on the region.

Speaker F · So I will be supporting the motion on the floor as is. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director Caridon.

Speaker W · Thanks very much. I seconded this motion, but I didn't speak to it because I wanted to hear the debate around the table. And. And despite having seconded, I do have. I'm feeling a bit on the fence here. And I feel that the motivation that was given by Director Tobias is in many ways very compelling. And also the motivation given by Director Plant is also very compelling. This is a difficult decision. And the challenge for me is that I am sympathetic to the crunch that our taxpayers across the region are facing, including those in V. Royal. The challenge for me is that this would imply a slight tax increase to the taxpayers in my jurisdiction.

Speaker W · And it's difficult to go and look them in the eye and say there's going to be a slight increase after having come through probably our most difficult budget in living memory. That said, this feels a bit of an extreme move at this point. And so, through the chair to staff, I'd like to ask a few questions about when it was the last time there was a service review for this service. When was the last time that we actually took a look at the Arts Commission and the allocation of funding to different jurisdictions? Has that happened in recent times?

Speaker A · Mr. Gilton, please, through the Chair.

Speaker AB · Thank you. In terms of a formal service review, in the sense that a submission to the province in a full formal service review, it has not had a full service review. However, I would note, because I think it's important to do so, that it does have a large community consultation and strategic plan review every four years.

Speaker W · And when was the most recent one to the Chair?

Speaker AB · The most recent One was in 2023, was the community consultation with the plan launched in 2024.

Speaker W · Thanks. And through the chair to staff, Given that there's questions about the cost of the service by at least some members and the question of equity, is it in the estimation of staff, is there an appetite or an interest in doing a full service review to make sure it is equitable?

Speaker AB · Through the Chair, I think I would have to refer to my colleagues about our process for service reviews. There has been a considerable amount of work done on the process and eligibility for formal service reviews. So I might refer this to other staff.

Speaker A · CEO Robbins. Yeah, thank you, Chair. And further to Chris's comments, of course, there is a report on the agenda today contemplating which services might be potential candidates for review. I think in this case we would, if interest, if there's interest, we would take a report to the commission and have the commission consider providing direction around whether or not there's a case to be made for a more formal and comprehensive service review. I think that would be the first step. I know there was some discussion at a previous committee, committee meeting around whether

Speaker Z · or not, if service reviews are being

Speaker A · contemplated, whether or not the respective committees and commissions would have an opportunity to weigh in. And my response to that question was, yes, absolutely. So I think that would be the starting point in this case.

Speaker W · Okay, I'm not on the commission, so I'll leave that to them to deliberate on. But when I was reading this staff report, my initial reaction was that. And maybe this is a little bit speculative, but it was that ViewRoyal is not feeling that they're getting the value out of this. Because if you're feeling like you're getting full value, you're probably not going to go to look from Tier one to Tier two. So the first the reaction I had was what kind of conversations have happened hitherto at the Arts Commission about ensuring that not only View Royal, but all the participants in this service are getting the value that they should get out of it?

Speaker W · Has there been a conversation about, for instance, increasing the arts representation in View Royal? Is there opportunity to have more events or festivals or artistic performances there? I mean, there should, to my mind, there should be an escalating series of steps before you get to the full meal deal of either reducing a service or leaving a service. There should be other conversations that are happening first. Have those conversations happen. Was there an opportunity for viewroyal and all the members of the Commission to say, hold on a minute, maybe there's an opportunity to deliver more value to that community so they feel like they are getting what they're paying for?

Speaker AB · Mr. Gull, through the chair, and I believe the Chair of the Arts Commission could provide additional context to this. But I will just note that we, the Arts Commission has had extensive conversations about providing value to all participants and that we have even done presentations to participating councils, including to view Royal Council about the value that the service provides to view Royal Council. And we'll be also providing our impact report this month that shows the full value to all participants.

Speaker A · Sorry, Chair.

Speaker W · It looks like the Chair of the Commission wants that.

Speaker A · Please.

Speaker T · Director Alton, just in answer to that question and following up from Mr. Gilpin's comments, the Commission at every meeting has very thoughtful and very fulsome discussions on what is provided through the Commission and through the funds the Commission actually oversees. And as Mr. Giltzman noted, there have been extensive conversations over the last few years with the participants and also, to be fair, with non participants, trying to encourage them to consider participating, that go back to how much is actually delivered through the relatively minimal amount of funding that the Commission actually oversees.

Speaker W · And if the folks on the Arts Commission are willing to answer it, is there a feeling that there is an opportunity to redress any feelings of inequity. Is there a pathway towards returning to a feeling of full value? How do we deal with not only this issue, but similar issues moving forward where a jurisdiction might say we're not entirely sure that we're getting our value?

Speaker T · I'm happy to just, I'm happy to have Mr. Gulfman as responder or anyone else as well. But certainly there is, as I say, a highly developed sense of discussion and thought and commitment, I think is the right word to ensuring that the funds that the commission does oversee are well used and used in a very diverse and fair way. There is always a conversation. There has always been a conversation as long as I've been involved with understanding how much more could be done with a little more and what the impacts of a little less would be on all of the potential receivers of the grants that are put out through the Commission.

Speaker T · So I think it is fair to say that it is a constant source of conversation about how to use the money better, more fairly, more equitably, but also how we can persuade other members of the board participants and not to grasp the critical nature these relatively small amounts of money make to some incredibly worthwhile organizations that contribute to the arts and culture of the region.

Speaker A · Manager Gilpin, did you wish to comment?

Speaker AB · Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to add one point which I think is relevant here, which is that there is an Arts Advisory Council body which reports to the Arts Commission. The Arts Advisory Council is made of community members which makes recommendations on the grant funding and recently they undertook an evaluation of our project based grants and they have added additional criteria around regional distribution, saying that any grants that are, that contribute highly to regional distribution will be prioritized. So what this means in terms of our actual funding process is that when we get applications from participating jurisdictions that perhaps don't send us as many applications, those applications are going to the top for the pile.

Speaker W · Thank you for. Thank you for all that. That's I think a really important context and food for thought. And I guess my final comments as I deliberate here is that I want all of the participants in a service to feel like they're getting value. It's hard to hear, it's just difficult to hear from a member that they're not feeling like they're getting what they were paying for. And so that's challenging because we're all trying to deliver value to our cash strapped taxpayers. So it's for me a just more to deliberate and I appreciate those answers.

Speaker A · Thank you. Director Cardano. I have Director Desjardins, Brent Thompson and I do have at least 1/2 time speaker.

Speaker H · Thank you. There's so many avenues to

Speaker A · put forward

Speaker H · points on, but my first will start with the fiscal challenge that we are all having. Having Squimalt had the highest tax increase ever, well, at least in 18 years. And we have looked internally and we have to look externally at that because it's not looking like it might be any better next year. So that is important to me that the township has the ability to do that as other municipalities can do that as well, knowing their own situation. So in that respect, I am fully supportive of View Royal reviewing this as a place where they may need to reduce. Let me say, when it comes to arts, and that being the area that is reduced, we know it has so many more benefits to the world than just producing music or plays or whatever.

Speaker H · It is a health issue to have the arts. So I want to say that I'm fully in support of the arts. Third point I just want to make is that Esquimalt went through a similar process years ago because we were not seeing value. And when we did the review,

Speaker A · it

Speaker H · probably wasn't miraculous, but we all of a sudden started receiving better grants, more grants, and we have continued to see that increase. And so to do a review, and if you're not feeling you're getting the service, to be able to come to this board and be able to say, I don't think we're getting our value for our money, we are challenged fiscally.

Speaker H · I think these are all things that support View Royal in terms of their request. And I would hate to see this board not be sympathetic to a member. I've seen it in the past and it's very divisive. This is, yes, a regional partnership, but it is also that we are 13 municipalities and three electoral districts that have to make our own decisions as well. So I am not going to be supportive of the motion.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director. I'm turning next to Director Brent. I have to say I get a

Speaker V · kick out of the whole discussion around equity and value, because it's pretty clear to me that in respect of some of the services that the EA contributes to, we haven't received that yet. But I can be patient. I sit at a regional table here. And so I have been supportive of regional initiatives. I've been supportive of regional initiatives where the likely value for money that I'm going to receive, that the electoral area is going to receive in the short term is not going to be very high at all. But I like to think long term. And while I totally appreciate View Royal's position and the fact that, you know, they should be able to leave anything they want to if they don't feel they're getting value for money, if we all felt that same way, this effectiveness of this region would disappear.

Speaker V · So I am going to support the, I am going to support the motion as it stands. Southern Gulf Islands supports things that I guess we don't see a lot of value in, in the short term. And so, but I think we're here in the long term and we shouldn't be influenced by what might be a short term decision.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director Brent. Director Thompson.

Speaker M · Thanks, Chair. I find this a very interesting discussion. There's really compelling points on both sides. Certainly my colleague from View Royal, I think put it best on his side of, you know, if you don't allow participants to withdraw or reduce their contribution, then you might get the situation where nobody joins a service. And my colleague from Zanich who put the other case well by saying, you know, you should actually think carefully about joining a service. This is a commitment, you know, this is about regionalism. It seems to me that that's the core of our decision. And through your chair, I wanted to ask staff if they could comment on that and specifically if they could address the point that I heard earlier about, you know, a two year window for withdrawal.

Speaker M · And also, is this idea of withdrawal or reduction of service specifically governed by each service's bylaw or is there a more general bylaw or general set of governing documents that control or guide withdrawal or reduction of participation?

Speaker A · I might turn to two part question,

Speaker M · maybe two different steps, perhaps.

Speaker A · General Manager Moreland,

Speaker K · through the chair, I can start to address the latter part of the question and then I may look to Chris Gilpin to help me out on that two year window aspect of it. So generally speaking, under the Local Government act, we can incorporate provisions and bylaws that allow for terms of withdrawal or termination of a service. So for example, you could have a service establishing bylaw that says that the service will wrap up in two years, for example, and then it will automatically wrap up at that time. We have had bylaws where we've allowed sort of these exit clauses, for example, where participants can signal that they wish to exit a service and provide notices of that.

Speaker K · I will say though, that last time we had a participant that tried to exercise that authority that was in a bylaw, we had discussions with the ministry and it, it's not quite as automatic as it seems like it should be because to change the participants in a bylaw, it still requires an amending bylaw be drafted with a new list of participants that the board consider that amending bylaw and that each participant give approval.

Speaker K · So really the board process is the same. So I will say that the. The idea of adding sort of exit provisions in a bylaw probably doesn't change the process. Based on what we've learned recently from the ministry in terms of this particular service and the changes that were made, I think Chris said around 2018, you know, Chris may be able to add a little bit more on that. But I, I believe, as I recall, call, we did something a little bit unconventional with the way that this bylaw was structured to try to, I think, encourage participants to join the service, I think, at a. At a Tier one level, but providing some assurance that there could be some latitude to make some changes within a specified window of time. Just look to Chris to see if he has anything to add.

Speaker AB · Mr. Grilman, through the chair. Yeah, thank you. Just to build on that. That is correct. So when the bylaw was amended around 2018, the provision that was added was that Tier 1, which is the higher rate, were the five participants listed in that, and then the lower tier, which is Tier two, those participants would have up to two years to withdraw. There's a provision there for the Tier two participants to withdraw. There is no language within the bylaw that talks about changing tier 2. But the purpose of the withdrawal provision that's in the current bylaw is to allow new participants to join the bylaw at tier 2, test it out for two years, and have the option to withdraw.

Speaker M · Okay, thank you both for that clarification then. So I just want to confirm on part number one of that that for each service where there's a question about either withdrawal or reduction of participation, it's solely governed by that service's bylaw. And there isn't some other set of policies or governing documents I'm seeing nodding through the chair.

Speaker K · That's correct. It is. It would have to be set out specifically in the bylaw for that service.

Speaker M · Okay, thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director. I'm not seeing other speakers. Sorry. Director Murdoch, have you spoken for the first time? I have, yeah. So I'll put you on the second time speaker list I'd like to speak for for the first time. And there's a couple, three things I'd like to say and then motivate, is that this is a unique service in terms of how it's funded to have a Tier one and Tier Two, I don't think in any of the other CRD services, in regional or sub regional services, there is a tier system in place and I'll come back and comment on that in a moment.

Speaker A · The second is that when I learned of the I wasn't serving on council in the early 2000s, but I learned of the services and I was sitting on the board of the Mary Winspear Center, I was excited to see the opportunity that local arts group would have an avenue. But for eight years, city council didn't want to join the art service. And serving on council from 209 to 211, that council unanimously supported joining the art service. And I couldn't have been happier at the time. And then I was not on council. And in 2018, the Council of the day chose to withdraw from the service. And so coming into office in 2019, I sought to have us rejoin the service.

Speaker A · And I thought about it and I was learning about the crd. I was a new director and that sort of thing. And is a service working well, if participants can not join at the beginning, join along the way, then withdraw, then a new council can consider joining again. To me, there has to be something considered further about the way the service operates. And that turned me to this Tier 1, Tier 2 aspect to the service. And when you see Tier 1 is apportionment based on 50% population, 50% converted as well assessments, that is used a lot. For example, we have a sub regional recreation service on the peninsula with three municipalities and that's how it's used. There's an equity, there's a fairness to that.

Speaker A · But then we have this tier two and that's 30% of tier one. I don't know how the math works out in terms of it being equitable amongst the Tier one and tier two participants. And so I'm not going to make a motion arising today. I would just, you know, perhaps look to the commission to consider this going forward or next term is maybe a partial review of the service in terms of how and it's been spoken to is this equitable? For are the others getting benefits? So let's set that aside for a moment. And what did we just finish? After eight years or seven years, we established the Performing Arts Facilities service. Why did we initiate that?

Speaker A · We initiated it because of substantial inequity from the few participants in the service. And we voted unanimous. It wasn't the entire board wasn't present. But for the 21 or 22 directors that were here, we voted unanimously to support it and we felt it was equitable in doing that. My second comment is going to be, and this again, I've had for 25 years being involved in different organizations. And the difference between recreation and sports and how it is funded and how the arts are funded is dramatically, pun intended, different. And the arts have to raise so much of their own money through grants and donations. You go to a performance of the symphony and half the booklet is the donors. If you go to a hockey game at Panorama, you don't see that in the thing.

Speaker A · So the arts are always kind of at the end of the funding in terms of that. But we know the value, or many of us know the value of arts and Director Desjardins spoke to it. That is multiple. And so I have long advocated for more taxpayer support for the arts because to me it's not. Recreation and sports provides enormous benefit to our citizens, to our communities, and the arts provides enormous. But they're funded very, very differently. And so I absolutely respect the right to request to withdraw from a service. But when I gave the Sydney example, I have some concerns about how municipalities may or may not, you know, be able to join a service or withdraw for a service.

Speaker A · So I will support the motion on the floor and hope so some consideration for the future Arts Commission. The future Arts Commission can give some consideration to the. How equitable the funding mechanism is within the service. So I do have, I don't see any first time speakers. I do have two or three second time speakers. My first is Vice Chair Little. Director Tate. Vice Chair Little.

Speaker B · Yeah, thank you. Through the chair, I just wanted to comment on some of the comments, comments that were made. I just want to make it clear that I am a champion of the region. I am a regionalist. I don't go to hockey games, but we are my family's past season ticket holders of the Victoria Symphony. I do understand the value and I don't think we're talking about the value of this right now. I understand the value of arts and culture. As I said before, if you take two humans, we are 99% identical genetically. But what changes? That is our culture. That's how we are different in Victoria to Indonesia.

Speaker B · It's our culture. I understand the value. That's not what we're talking about today, what we're talking about, and I respect the right of a municipality to change their minds based on the circumstances. What View Royal has requested is a change in its membership from Level one to Level two. Just like. And if my recollection is correct, the Southern Gulf Islands director requested to opt into the service. Yes. I'm seeing nodding of heads, so my recollection is correct. So they've elected to opt in. I'm saying a municipality, based on their circumstances, should have the right to ask to change their membership. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Vice Chair Little. I have second time speakers Director Murdoch. Obey. Sorry, I'm going to go to Director Tate next, but I also have Director Thompson, so Director Tate next please.

Speaker J · Thank you, Chair, and thank you everyone. I really appreciate the dialogue that has been said. We do have the new service that is starting and it was unanimous at the board, but it was done through an aap. And I wonder if we had resolved to do it differently. There may have been a different outcome because it's not landing well out of our community. And I think similar to Vroyal, it's because residents are not seeing the value in themselves. That's fine. We're forging ahead. And I even question sometimes when and if a benefit to suit. There's a way to share it, but geographically we are separate. We have supported this while at the same time increasing funding locally for the groups that are not receiving funding through this service.

Speaker J · In some ways, when we initiated it, maybe similar to View Royal, I don't know, it was to have another opportunity and a place where local groups could go. And in some ways, some have had success. But not everybody, and not every group is will be able to showcase a regional benefit. So again, we will continue to fund those locally on our own. Just like we've also funded other groups from core and other areas that have been rejected for funding that have come to sook and apply through our own community grants funding. This was a tough year where we had to deny all many of those groups funding because we could not make the local connection. But we had supported them in years past.

Speaker J · This the conversation about, you know, once you're in the sorority, you can't leave. It's a bit frightening, I think, for those that may or may not question in the future whether or not they should join any service at all. If that is sort of the sentiment. Once you're in, you can never leave. In terms of sports and art, I am a hockey, hockey mom and it's not an equitable game. Those that can afford the registration pay, those that cannot are left behind. That is the sad reality of hockey. It's an expensive sport. You're fundraising all the time and the equipment is. Is also pricey to buy. Kids grow very quickly. It's an expensive game.

Speaker J · So we're doing our utmost to have arts equitable. So, I mean, it's. They're not equitable. They're not the same, though, unfortunately. And there's a lot of work that can be done. That all said, this conversation is around local government autonomy, being part of a region when it makes sense, contributing and bringing your local spirit and flavor. In this case, one local government is not seeing that and wants the ability to make a decision that they will then wear a bag at home. So, again, I appreciate everyone's various perspectives on this, but I still stand with you, Royal, unless they change their mind, in which case we'll hear from that speaker at the time.

Speaker J · And in terms of regional parks, yes, we do pick up the bill when the garbage and the trash is left behind from everywhere else in the corps. We don't make you take it home with you, but we'll deal with it on the ground and so forth. So I'll just end there because I'm rambling. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thanks, Director Tate. I do have two more second time speakers, but I have a first time speaker, Director Williams. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, listening to both sides of the argument here. Neither seem to be really addressing the major issue to me, which is the continuity of service over the long frame. You can't keep depending. You can't just base a service on, well, the way you can change a whole council at an election time, where things get removed and they get added and they get removed and get added because it creates a cost to the participants in the service. It creates at cost to the people who receive the grants. It creates their lives. Could stop because the grant ends because of why, oh, we don't have the money that time.

Speaker A · But I think there's a certain level, a certain argument for if you're going to have it, you know, there's got to be some kind of, some kind of basis there that'll make it work for people over successive administration, is what I'm saying. And I could see a person being involved in the Arts over 20 years of their life, and why should this thing be taken and given and then taken away and given and taken away? So that's all I'll be supporting. Thank you. I have two second time speakers next, turning to Director Marek Obey. And then Director Thompson.

Speaker U · Thank you, Chair.

Speaker O · I'll be brief.

Speaker U · Really appreciate the conversation, though. It's an interesting philosophical discussion debate. Yeah, I think there's a couple of things. One is I do want to just acknowledge the recommendation that came out of the Arts Committee. I think that's an important guide. But I also Recognize, I think if I was on that arts committee, I would be making the same recommendation because the hat they wear is the responsibility of the success of that, of that service, not the broader picture. And I think we have to take that. At the end of the day, this is sitting here to look at the broader picture. As we consider this piece.

Speaker U · I think there's a little bit of, I think also just a blurring of lines here when we're talking about Regional parks. Regional Parks is a regional service. We are talking about a sub regional service with a limited number of participants. They have different approaches. You cannot opt out of a regional parks because it's a regional service. There is a very significant difference between the approaches being looked at here. And the third is just that if this. And it goes through the original recommendation to go out, it will go to the councils and the councils are the ones that will have to consider the weight of cost to those individual communities at this table.

Speaker U · We're looking at this in the interest of the crd, but the discussion around cost will come to those councils. So all nine councils that are participating members will look at this request from view, Royal, and will consider the merits of, of that based on their own adjudication of those costs. And it does have a high threshold of 2/3 to approve. I think that's the boundary that. And that's the process that we have established for this process. It's not opt in and out. And I think Director Williams point is exceptionally good that we don't want this to be easy, but we should make it possible. And to my mind, making it possible is defeating this motion, letting it go through the process, letting it go to the councils and getting that feedback.

Speaker K · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. Thank you, Director. I'm now turning to Director Thompson.

Speaker C · Thanks.

Speaker M · Thanks, Chair. And really happy to have heard the discussion by my colleagues and the input of staff. It's a really difficult decision. We, in my opinion, we are not. We are faced with making this decision, decision here, all of us. We're not allowed as a board to delegate our decision to the participants in question. In this case view, Royal, we have to make the decision. We can't fetter our own decisions here by saying whatever a participant wants will go along with that. Now, whether I'm using the terms delegation and fettering in a strict legal sense, I'm not quite sure at all. I don't see GM Morley making any faces about it. So.

Speaker M · But anyways, we have to turn our minds to whether to support this motion and whether I'm wearing my Victoria hat or my CRD hat, I'm compelled to go in the same direction wearing my Victoria hat. This would have a negative impact on the taxpayers of Victoria or on the services that, that they receive. And so that would militate against the reduction in favor of supporting the motion if I wear my CRD hat. Regional government needs to work and it needs to work in the long term. It needs to have stability and to not have people potentially facing reductions in their grants, as was pointed out by the, the director from Highlands.

Speaker M · Also, if we start chipping away without a bit more policy guidance on this, and I don't think we have a lot of policy guidance, talk about that some more. Once you start chipping away at things where there's a consensus, you can lose it through the domino effect. And I'll just point out an example from a completely different realm. The federal government a few years ago decided to chip away at the carbon tax on the east coast of Canada. And then the dominoes fell all the way across the country. And now there's no carbon tax, no consumer carbon tax anywhere in Canada. And I think that, you know, there is a risk that if we say, okay, well, it's tough times, municipalities, you can just reduce or even withdraw from any service, whether it's regional or sub regional, I think we'd have a serious problem potentially for the CRD in the next two or three years.

Speaker M · So we heard from staff that the Local Government act allows regions to pass bylaws that have withdrawal provisions and reduction of services provisions. There is a transitional provision in this bylaw, but it doesn't cover the request. It just covers a different situation and it's limited to two years. So I think that given that there isn't a provision in the bylaw that also militates in favor of the motion that's on the floor today. So for any number of reasons, I'm going to have to support the motion that's on the floor today. I hope that the Governance Committee will consider this debate and perhaps put in its work plan for next year or the next term, addressing this issue more systematically for all of the services in the CRD and having a kind of a general rule or at least a set of general guiding principles on how, how to address these issues as they come up in the future.

Speaker M · Thanks, Chair.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director. First time Speaker, Director Coleman.

Speaker Y · Thank you. I'm always saddened by discussions like this because it becomes the two solitudes. 25 years ago, I was surprising to me, I was asked to take over the Maritime Museum of British Columbia because their ED had left. And I said, I won't take it over, but I will help you for five months and take you through an ED search. It was the beginning of the year and February was be a tourist in your hometown. So we started a process of it's free free admission to the facility. Then in Bastion Square for any resident who comes from a municipality in the region that gives a grant to the Maritime museum.

Speaker Y · There were five grants out of the 13. Actually, admission went up because we made it. And people came from the other municipalities saying, well, we're supportive of you. We don't know why our municipality doesn't give a grant. And I learned something from that. Sometimes when we go through the economic discussion at these tables and we say we don't think we're getting value for the money we're putting in, we haven't always talked to all our residents who actually do support some of these programs. And that makes it difficult because we're making decisions on a budgetary process that is never complete in terms of how many of our residents support a program like this.

Speaker Y · So I look at it and I think, ooh, this just reminds me too much of 25 years ago. And I think there are residents from a number of areas in this region who aren't part of the process who still see value. So I think it goes back to comments that were earlier made about the integrity of the process and the program moving forward. And while that it saddens me that we're in this discussion, I think the recommendation put forward by the committee is the correct one. And I know that that's a hard decision for everybody, but that's where I will fall.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director Coleman. Thank you, directors. This has been an important discussion and I think, you know, some of the comments with regards to further consideration, whether it's with regards to the financial model or just the governance aspect or the process for withdrawal, is something that should continue into. Into the future. Seeing no further speakers, I will look to. Sorry, I just want to. I misspoke at the beginning and said there were 10 particip. That's because View and Royal were on separate lines. That's a very poor excuse. There are nine participants and it is awaited all and all the members from those participants are in the vote. So I know diciolog will need to record this.

Speaker U · Boarder Chair, I think you said it was weighted all. It's weighted participants.

Speaker A · Weighted participants. I said did say weighted participants at the beginning, but then I weighted participants. We're going to give time To DC Olago. I'll call the question for the weighted participants.

Speaker A · Those in favor, Director Thompson, Director Plant, Director Coleman, Director Brownoff, Director Devries, Director Caridona, Director Bryce, Director Murdoch Saanich, Director Aalto, Director Williams, Director Brent and myself. Oh, sorry. I'm sorry, I don't get a vote. Okay.

Speaker A · No, you do have those recorded who are participants. I now need to call those opposed.

Speaker E · Yes, we have 16. There's nine participating municipalities. We have 16 directors who are eligible to vote.

Speaker AB · Thank you.

Speaker A · Those opposed? Director Tobias, Director Dujarnem, Director Murdoch, Oakbay, Vice Chair Little, Director Tate.

Speaker E · So with 5 opposed, that only equals 17 votes opposed weighted. And we have 48 weighted in favor.

Speaker D · So it has passed.

Speaker A · The motion carries. Thank you again. Directors for that. Directors, as I indicated at the beginning of the term, I did want to implement a practice where we take a break, a recess after about two and a half hours and it happens to be that time.

Speaker A · So I'd like to call recess till 2:40, please. Thank you. Okay, we'll. We'll look to reconvene now, please. Okay, we'll look to reconvene now. Just want to confirm. Director Tate, you're still. They're still online. That's great, thanks.

Speaker A · And so we're still on reports of committees. We're turning to the Electoral Areas Committee and I'll going to be turning to Director Brent. Director Brent, please allow yourself to pace yourself through the next six motions which are bylaws and I think there's umpteen separate recommendations. So as we get to each one, I'll just indicate confirm the number of motions.

Speaker A · Motions under that. So under the first under 8. 2 is bylaw 4752. And there are three motions separately, please.

Speaker V · Okay, so I'm going to move that the CRD board move the attached certification of results, a petition for borrowing Bettis Water Treatment Plant be received.

Speaker A · And second Director Holman, if we could keep the same second or through any discussion, seeing none. Those in favor? Thank. Opposed?

Speaker Y · Non.

Speaker A · Opposed. Carries.

Speaker V · That bylaw number 4752 Bettis Water Service loan authorization bylaw number one 2026 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman. It's awaited. All those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed? Carries.

Speaker V · And that bylaw number 4752 be forwarded to the inspector of municipalities for approval.

Speaker A · Unweighted. All Director Holman. All in favor? Thank you. Opposed. None opposed. That carries. Okay, next 8. 3. Bylaw number 4763 move that bylaw number

Speaker V · 4763, Capital Regional District Fire Services Operational Fire Prevention Administrative Bylaw Number One, 2026Amendment Bylaw Number One be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

Speaker A · And seconded. Director Holman. Discussion. Seeing none. Those in favor?

Speaker Z · Thank you.

Speaker A · Opposed? None opposed.

Speaker V · Carries and that bylaw number 4763 be adopted.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Non. Opposed. Carries and we're under 8. 4, which is bylaw number 4758. 2.

Speaker V · Two separate motions move that byline number 4758 fire regulation bylaw number 2, 2022amendment bylaw number 1, 2026 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman discussion. Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed.

Speaker V · Carries and that byline number blah, blah blah be adopted.

Speaker C · Oops.

Speaker O · Went ahead.

Speaker V · Bylaw number 4755 be adopted.

Speaker A · Sorry, are those new numerals? Bylaw 4758 it be adopted. Second Director Holman those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Non. Opposed. Carries 8. 5. A couple of bylaws, two bylaws. 4755, 4756. Four motions separately, please.

Speaker T · Yeah.

Speaker V · That bylaw number 4755, Capital Regional District Ticket Information Authorization Bylaw 1990Amendment bylaw number 88, 2026 be introduced and ready. First, second and third time.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman discussion. Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed.

Speaker V · Carries that bylaw number 4755 be adopted.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman those in favor? Thank you.

Speaker N · Opposed?

Speaker V · None opposed. Carries that bylaw number 4756 bylaw notice enforcement bylaw number 1, 2025amendment bylaw number 2, 2026 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

Speaker A · Thank you. Director Holman. The discussion. Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you.

Speaker L · Opposed?

Speaker M · Non.

Speaker A · Opposed.

Speaker V · Carries that bylaw number 4756 be adopted.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman those in favor? Thank you. Opposed. Non. Opposed. Carries 8. 6 is bylaws number 4759 and 4764. Separate motions, please.

Speaker V · That bylaw number 4759, Capital Regional District Ticket Information Authorization bylaw 1990Amendment bylaw number 89, 2026 be introduced then read it first, second and third time.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman discussion. Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed.

Speaker V · Carries that bylaw number 4759 be adopted.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed. None opposed. Carries.

Speaker V · That bylaw number 4760. Bylaw Notice Enforcement bylaw number 1, 2025amendment. Bylaw number 3, 2026 be introduced then read a first, second and third time.

Speaker A · Second Director Holman. Discussion. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed. None opposed. Carries.

Speaker V · And that byline number 4760 be adopted it second discussion.

Speaker A · Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed. None opposed. Carries. And then 8. 7 is a. A single recommendation. Sorry, it's your notice of motion. Director Brent, Would you like to. We're bringing it up on the screen. If you could just read it out, please. And it is amended from this morning's EAC meeting with what is highlighted in yellow.

Speaker K · Right.

Speaker V · A rather important amendment, I might add.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker V · And the motion is that the CRD board requests funding from the province to complete a governance and services study for the Magic Lake Estates on North Pender island that would provide the technical and financial details of the current system and would inform consideration of structural changes in governance, which could include changing electoral area boundaries or incorporation as a standing standalone municipality.

Speaker A · Thank you. And we seconded Director Holman. I'll turn to the movers.

Speaker V · Okay, so there are, there are known governance issues in the electoral areas and specifically in the southern Gulf Islands. As example Islands Trust, it's the land use planning body for the southern Gulf Islands and Salt Spring Island. I can tell you that in terms of my tax bill, the tax bill is over 25% higher than my CRD tax bill. So it's a fairly hefty amount of dollars. And I can also tell you since I was trustee last term that the trustees that term, over 90% of them went to the province and passed a motion that said they want a full governance review of the entire act and everything.

Speaker V · And the province rejected it and said we'd like to hear from the next council, which is the one they're trust, Trust council right now. And over 90% of those trustees said to the province, yeah, we're dysfunctional. We would like a full root and branch review of the Islands Trust act, its governance and management structure. And the province said, sorry, we've got bigger fish to fry. Figure it out yourself. And so that's one issue. Have major issues with other organizations. For instance, Ministry of Transportation and Transit Transportation. As you heard from Bob Colson, the president of Magic Lake Property Owners association or society. They've been trying for many, many years to make fundamental changes in this very tight knit community. Simple things like we need 30 kilometer an hour signs.

Speaker V · We need a stop sign at a critical and dangerous corner right beside Danny Martin park, which is a very popular park for kids to use. And so far they've had very, very little take up. So it's extremely frustrating. And there's governance problems in these areas. And I would really like to see the province support a study that might identify solutions to these governance issues. And there's some strategy here, frankly, because we have provincial elections in two years and I could see whether it's a reconstituted existing provincial party or a new provincial party that takes over the lead. Might be more motivated to look at reviews where you're getting that value for money that we talk about around this table.

Speaker V · And this is a little bit of an aside and a little bit of self promotion of the crd. But the CRD is well run in my perspective. I've been involved in organizations, big organizations, small organizations. I've been part of the executive leadership team and we run a great shop. And I think our electoral areas deserve that. I think you would hear from Bob Colson that if there was a change, they would want to have CRD continue to provide services. So that's a heck of a gold star for us. So I think this is important. Whether the province funds it or not is up to the province.

Speaker A · Province.

Speaker V · It's not up really to us, but I would like us to endorse that and ask the province to do that on behalf of what is effectively. Just about half of my constituents live in Magic Lake. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you, Director Brent. Director lman will pass. Any other speakers, Director Caradano, please.

Speaker W · Thanks. I'm happy to support the motion. Just wanted to put it to the mover, if he's willing to answer it. Is it worthwhile framing this more broadly if we're going to approach the province? Because right now it's framed around Magic Lake Estates. But as you read on, it becomes more about changing electoral area boundaries, incorporation as a standalone municipality. Is there an appetite to ask for a more broader governance review on the southern Gulf Islands, or do you want to keep it narrowly focused on only the estates?

Speaker V · I think it would be appropriate to keep the focus narrow. The province has already funded, I believe, a whopping $15,000 study for Magic Lake. And you know, it's really the. It is in the way, the tip of the iceberg because it's so much different than the other rural areas of the southern Gulf Islands. It truly has. It truly has some significant issues that are not being addressed appropriately by those bodies that are not the crd.

Speaker A · Thank you. Seeing no further discussion. I'll call the question. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Seeing none.

Speaker T · Opposed.

Speaker A · That carries. Returning to 8. 8. We're now governance and First Nations Relations Committee. I'll turn to Vice Chair little on item 8. 8, bylaw number 4781.

Speaker B · Thank you. I'll read it in then. Thank you.

Speaker A · Two separate motions.

Speaker B · Okay. The Governance and First Nations Relations Committee recommends to the Capital Regional District Board that by Law 4781 Capital Regional District Election and Voting Procedures Bylaw 2008Amendment, Bylaw Number 5, 2026 be introduced. Read a first and second and third time.

Speaker A · Seconder. Director Williams, any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed. Carries.

Speaker B · And that bylaw number 4781 be adopted.

Speaker A · Same seconder. Director Williams, any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed?

Speaker L · Non.

Speaker C · Opposed.

Speaker A · Carries. So we're now turning. That was 8. 8. We did have item 6. 11. 6. 11 raised by Director Tobias. It became 8. 8B. So I will turn to that now. It is the Public Engagement Policy and Framework. The recommendation from the Governance and First Nations Relations Committee. Director Tobias, please.

Speaker O · Thank you, Chair. Because my first argument triggered conversation that was fairly brief, I figured I'd elaborate

Speaker Q · a little bit more.

Speaker O · Now, I just have a couple of questions to staff. Overall, I'm very, very happy with where the engagement framework is right now, but I've got two questions, if I may. Does the framework require every engagement process to explicitly identify the IAP2 level being used, whether it's inform, consult, involve, collaborate, or empower, and communicate that to the participants at the outset. Does the framework provide for that right now?

Speaker A · Thank you. I'll turn to Steph, please.

Speaker I · Yes, thank you for the question. Through the Chair. My name is Zoe Gray, and I'm happy to speak to the platform, how we use it, and the engagement framework. So to answer your question. Question. Yes. The framework has the use of the IEP2, but we've also created a summary template for us to bring forward to whatever committee may be of interest and then make it publicly available what the overall objectives are, the level of engagement, to help build that understanding of how we're applying it.

Speaker V · Thank you.

Speaker O · And just to be clear, so it will be projected so that on each engagement we do that, when we consult the public, we'll know what type of engagement that they're going to provide feedback, so their expectations aren't changed.

Speaker I · Thank you. Through the chair. Yes, I would say, though, we have to also be mindful not everyone's familiar with the platform. So there's two pieces. One, having something on the website that says what we've committed to, but then also in our communications explaining what type of feedback we're asking for or input and how it will be used and what it will influence or not influence.

Speaker O · Thank you. And my second question is, does the framework require staff to clearly identify what aspects of decisions are open to public influence and what aspects we've already decided on.

Speaker T · On.

Speaker O · So we're not asking them to comment on the things that we've already decided on. We're clear on that. So does the platform and the framework provide for that?

Speaker I · Thank you. Through the Chair? Yes. One of the key requirements that's actually embedded in the policy is an engagement plan and that specifically asks for clarification of what's in scope or out of scope. And the framework also has a decision tree as well to make sure people are only engaging on things that it will be meaningful the public will be able to influence. And another thing we learned through this project was that we also have to tell the public what other factors may be at play so they understand the context of the decision.

Speaker O · Excellent. Thank you, Chair. I'm satisfied.

Speaker A · Thank you. If there's no other questions, if I could perhaps, Vice Chair Lilith, if you could move the recommendation and we'll look for a seconder. Moved by Vice Chair Little. Second by Director Tobias. Any further discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None of those carries. We're next turning to Regional water supply commission. 8. 9. There are three bylaws there. And director Coleman, there are eight motions. Separate motions, please. Sorry, I'm turning to GM Fraser for an introduction first.

Speaker X · Thank you very much. I'll keep this brief. The Regional Water Supply Commission is recommending to the Board amendments to three bylaws. The Water Supply Area Regulation Bylaw, the Ticket Information Authorization bylaw and the Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw. Currently, bylaw number 2804 limits First nations access to the Leach Water Supply Area under the terms of a written agreement between one First Nation and the crd. The proposed bylaw amendments aim to expand first nations access for traditional use, traditional and cultural use in the Greater Victoria Water Supply Area. Staff recommend that the specific details of the access be managed through individual agreements rather than through the prescriptive bylaw provisions.

Speaker X · And each access agreement would be significant submitted to the Commission and the CRD Board in the future for consideration. In addition to the access related changes, there are also amendments of more of an administrative nature that have been incorporated. So on May 20, the regional water Supply Commission did recommend to the board the proposed changes to the bylaw. They also added an additional Amendment to bylaw 475053 related to limitations around firearms and hunting.

Speaker K · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. Jim Fraser. Are there any questions? Seeing none. Director Murdoch Kogbe yeah, thank you.

Speaker U · And through Chair, my apologies I did not read through every word in these bylaws but I just want to make sure I'm clear and supportive of the what I've read, which is the intent of these pieces. Just for my clarification, with the expansion of access, et cetera, does the CRD retain like health and safety restriction superiority or authority that supersedes the cultural access? I'm just thinking of situations where maybe there's an extreme fire risk and there may be a scheduled cultural access, but we may want to just say no, there's no people allowed at that time. Is the language in here make it clear should aware those those authorizations sit through your chair.

Speaker X · Through your chair. Yes, there is. Those would be the items that we would be negotiating as part of these future access agreements. We do require check ins through our watershed protection team for anybody that is accessing. There are also insurance requirements for the first nations who have individuals accessing the the watershed and we would be putting limitations in place when there are higher risk activities going on as well.

Speaker U · Through you Chair, thank you for that clarification.

Speaker A · Thank you Director. Director Caradana, thanks.

Speaker W · There's a few of us around the table who are on the commission and we had a pretty long debate and conversation on this one at the commission. I subsequently, as I always do, went onto social media and explained to the public what we're doing and what and I think most people are supportive of this, but there were a number of just abysmal comments that, you know, where it seemed to me in this moment where racism towards indigenous peoples seems to have returned to the public sphere and the mainstream and it was frankly a lot it was frankly demoralizing to see a lot of the comments.

Speaker W · I'm certainly not going to read those out or discuss them in detail, but I just want to give staff an opportunity to talk about what the scope is of this work, what would be allowed, what would not be allowed. What's the intention here? Is it meant to be a free for all? What would access look like in the future in theory?

Speaker X · Jim Fraser, thank you very much for that opportunity. This has been I think well thought out. One of the it's further detailed in the staff report. But the intent would be to allow more access and more activities particularly in the leach as well as the Goldstream which are higher. Which are lower risk and continue to limit activity. Higher risk activities in the Sook watershed which is our primary water supply. Though we would be looking at allowing access for cultural practices, bathing, hunting in the Goldstream and leach. That wouldn't be the intent with Sook. As I noted, those were some of the items that have been brought forward to date.

Speaker X · And just as a reminder, we do limit access to the watershed because this is one of our key steps in our multi barrier approach to maintaining our water quality. So we are going into this with eyes wide open on the risks. But as staff we feel like these are very manageable risks and a really great opportunity to respond to significant priority that has been placed on access from the First Nations. We heard that through the regional water supply strategic plan engagement.

Speaker W · Thank you. Yes. And through the chair can we confirm that drinking water resources will remain remain safe in our watersheds?

Speaker X · That is certainly the intent that we're that we're approaching this with a risk based approach.

Speaker A · Thanks. Director Caradana. Seeing no further questions. If I could turn Director Coleman to take us through the motion separately please.

Speaker Y · Thank you. I move that the regional Water Supply Commission recommend to the Capital regional district board one that bylaw number 4753 capital regional district water supply area regulations bylaw number one 2000amendment bylaw number three 2026 be introduced and read a first and second time.

Speaker A · I'm seconded by Director Wagner. This is awaited participants all except southern Gulf Islands and Salt Spring Island. Any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? None opposed. That carries

Speaker I · two.

Speaker Y · That CRD bylaw 4753 be amended in section 1 subsection O to read in section 30 firearms and hunting be by removing the words in the leach water supply area.

Speaker A · Thank you. Second Director Wagner. This is a non weighted all. Any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor and Q opposed. Unopposed carries three.

Speaker Y · That bylaw number 4753 be given third reading.

Speaker A · We have the same seconder. Thank you. This goes back to weighted all except SGI SSI discussion Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed unopposed carries four.

Speaker Y · That bylaw number 4753 be adopted.

Speaker A · Same seconder. Thank you again weighted participants all except SGI SSI. This is 2/3 on adoption. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed non opposed carries five.

Speaker Y · That bylaw number 4769 Capital Regional District Ticket Information Authorization bylaw 1990amendment bylaw number 90, 2026 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

Speaker A · Second all Director Wagner, thank you. The remaining motions are non weighted. All those in favor? Thank you. Opposed and opposed.

Speaker Y · Carries six that bylaw number four, seven, six nine be adopted.

Speaker A · Same seconder. Discussion seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed. None opposed.

Speaker Y · Carries seven that bylaw number 4770, bylaw notice enforcement, bylaw number one 2025amendment bylaw number four 2026 be introduced and read a first, second and third time.

Speaker A · Thank you. Second alt. Director Wagner. Discussion seeing none. Those in favor? I'm sorry. Sorry. Alt. Director Wagner, thank you.

Speaker R · Thank you. I may maybe should have spoken earlier, but as we're rushing through these, because I didn't have a question, I had a comment and I just wanted to make a statement that this is, this is good news. This is a good step for reconciliation. I think it's important that we acknowledge this. I'm very excited that I am a regional water commissioner. I take that role very seriously and I find that the access for first nations is something they were looking for and that staff have been very thoughtful. So I just wanted to make that comment that if you actually do read the bylaw in its entirety, I like how it's written. I think it's very respectful.

Speaker R · It opens the door for these conversations and for those one on one conversations and relationship building with the nations, which it's not that easy to do, but when you write it, actually it's kind of cool that a bylaw is sometimes a very formal thing, but it is allowing this relationship building to really take that next step. And I'm actually quite excited about it. So I just wanted to make that comment.

Speaker D · Thanks.

Speaker A · Thank you for your comments, all Director Wagner, I'll now look to call the question. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed. None opposed. Carries.

Speaker Y · And finally, and with great passion that bylaw number 4770 be adopted.

Speaker A · All Director Agnes, thank you for seconding it. Discussion seeing none. Those in favor? None opposed. That carries. Thank you so much. So we are now turning to the last two items that were raised from consent. The first One is item 6. 6, recycling in schools, opportunities for diversion. It's now 8. 1, 8. 10. And Director Tate, I'll turn to you who raised the item. Please, please.

Speaker J · Okay. Thank you very much, Chair. And just everyone bear with me. I'm sorry I'm not with you in person. It was the pride day celebrated by our schools today and I just didn't have enough time to get in person. Someone just also sent me a screenshot of the room. I didn't realize my head was so big. Sorry about that, but I just wanted to share like when this was discussed at Environment, we didn't have feedback from SD62 and since that time I have been able to meet with the schools in a bit more of an update today and I just wanted to share that in part I think they missed the letter so they certainly would have replied in normal streams.

Speaker J · I've learned that for the elementary school, similar to Souk elementary, it's all packed in and out except anything refundable is saved by the PACs for fundraising. They do use private haulers and everything is displayed exposed in Anything that is not recycled is then taken and handled in the way in accordance with the CRD or what those independent haulers need to do because we don't have garbage collection out this way. The other piece to share is that any organics are all reused in the gardens. So EMCS in particular, very keen and same with Royal Bay. They do have gardens as part of the culinary programs. And I've also learned that the middle schools bring their organics to feed into the secondary schools programs and are all repurposed in the gardens there.

Speaker J · So in some ways there isn't anything being landfilled because everything is reused, repurposed and dealt with accordingly. So I just wanted to share that information as I didn't have time to provide that and I didn't have an update to when the Environment Committee is met. So I just wanted to add that today. Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. Director Tate, would you care to move the motion? The recommendation please?

Speaker J · Yes, absolutely. To receive. I think it was as per the consent receiver information, I think.

Speaker A · No, there was a recommendation that staff office.

Speaker J · There it is.

Speaker A · Yep.

Speaker J · Sorry about that. The Environmental Services Committee recommends to the Capital Regional District Board that staff offer the recycling program Sports Outline Independence B to all school districts operating in the

Speaker A · Capital Region and the secondary. Director Desjardin, the Chair. Further discussion not seeing the movers. Director Holman, please.

Speaker C · Thanks Chair. I appreciate this being withdrawn because I had a question as well. It's something I didn't fully understand but regional districts do not have the authority to require source separation at the schools. There is. There are requirements for materials brought to

Speaker W · Heartland,

Speaker C · but my understanding is, and it's in the report that staff are will consider. Changes in the solid waste management plan next time around that might include a source separation requirement. Could staff speak to that through the Chair?

Speaker S · Yes. To clarify, the statement is that the Regional District. The capital Regional district does not have the authority to regulate source separation of material materials at the source, meaning at the property line of any waste generator being residents, schools, institutions, etc. That seeking such authority is not within the current solar waste management plan at the moment. Nevertheless, staff are looking into the variables, all the implications. It is a complex process. We will be bringing consideration for that forward as part of the new solar waste management plan process for the committee and the board to entertain.

Speaker C · Thanks Chair. Through you. Is that going to be this term or next term?

Speaker S · Through the chair. I don't have the schedule in front of me, but it will not be on this term. No, it will carry through the following term.

Speaker C · And could staff remind me with respect to the Salt Spring composting facility and the receipt of the CRD bylaw went out for public input. Can you. Whereabouts are we on the timing of that?

Speaker S · Through the chair. I will look to Senior manager Russ Smith to comment on those details.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Yeah, so through the chair, I mean we are in the process of getting an update through legal in terms of

Speaker Q · what stage it is at. It certainly hasn't progressed all the way through.

Speaker A · And we'll provide provide an update to committee once we have that. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, I'll look to call a question. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Unopposed. Carries. And the last item that was raised was 620 aligning regional transportation and growth planning came from the Transportation committee. It's item 8. 11. I will turn to Director Tobias. Could you please first. First just move the motion doesn't need to be read.

Speaker O · I'll move the motion.

Speaker U · Thank you, Chair.

Speaker A · Seconder please. Director Murdoch Saanich, Chair of the committee. I'll turn to you Director Tobias.

Speaker O · Thank you, Chair. I was reading through this with great interest being, you know, I'm glad they call it the Callwood Crawl because most of it is through View Royal. But I just wanted to kind of emphasize the fact that I went through BC Stats. They released new stuff in May. For instance, View Royal is only projected to increase by 1200 people in the next 10 years. The capital region as a whole is projected to only add 19,600 residents between 2025 and 2020. Interestingly enough, the city of Greater or the Victoria actually is predicted to experience a population decline in the next couple of years. And this is all as a result of federal policies limiting immigration as well as an outpouring of our use to other nation. So I think, you know, our focus has been on growth and that's all we've seen.

Speaker O · And building more housing to according accordingly. So my question as it pertains directly to this, to this work is have we incorporated new projections with BC stats into our transportation modeling and our regional growth strategy? And have how you know, because that's what the core of this is about. So that's my question to staff. Have we incorporated the new BC stats projections into our transportation planning or will this also focus on known existing problems with current levels of service for transportation?

Speaker A · Thank you for the question Alternative Jean Larette yes, thank you. Through you Chairman.

Speaker AC · Sort of the context of this report is that the board asked us to undertake some work in 2025 and into 2026. Those body of work that we did undertake was going to inform whether or not we would update the regional growth strategy. And that included four pieces. The first one was updated population and employment projections. Second was an industrial land survey. The third component was the growth and mobility study. And then finally there was some First Nation engagements to understand the interest of them participating in the regional growth strategy. So we will be reporting out on that with the staff report through in two weeks to the June 24th planning and protective Services Committee. And we will have the attachments that will outline what the new growth projections show.

Speaker AC · So you'll see those will inform an update to the regional growth strategy. Should the board direct us to undertake that update. And by all means, we are including updated projections into the regional transportation planning work.

Speaker Y · Thank you, Chair.

Speaker O · If I can ask one more follow up question please. It's interesting to me because I'm trying to wrap my head around the regional growth strategy really talks about population, right? And housing. Do we have a regional economic growth strategy? Does CRD or does a body can they supply us? And the reason why I'm bringing this up is I'll take, for example CFB Esquimalt that it's actually due to increase that is not on the radar of anybody. And the population moving for transportation, transportation to either the base itself or industries that are working at the base is also increasing. But it's, it's hard to make that tangible.

Speaker O · And are we including those types of things for projected movement that we know there's increase in defense funding, we know there's increase in jobs. Are we also including that in our planning?

Speaker AC · Thank you. So through the chair, the regional growth strategy has multiple pillars. Growth is one of them. Transportation is another economic. I believe there's an economic development component as well as environmental considerations. I'll just look to Senior Manager Patrick KLASSEN. If he wants to provide further comments around the economic development component.

Speaker A · Good afternoon.

Speaker AD · Good afternoon to the Chair. Yes, thank you, Director. And an excellent question indeed. The regional Growth strategy does look at a range of economic and population growth considerations. But I think it's clear from looking at it now that there's a number of areas that could be strengthened. For example, it doesn't inventory or consider industrial land. And that is a land use that's incredibly important. Our counterparts in metro Vancouver have industrial land designated within the regional growth strategy, for example. So part of our scoping that GM Lorett referred to is to first inventory and understand the industrial land context within the district. Within the regional district. Our population employment forecasting that we're doing right now does include all BC stats.

Speaker A · It also includes

Speaker AD · census information and Stats Canada information. And so we are underway right now with a comprehensive audit of population projections and employment projections from a market perspective, not necessarily from a statistic perspective, to begin to understand what changes are necessary to the regional growth strategy. This report is trying to frame the relationship between transportation, including goods movement and land use, including industrial land and other employment lands, as being integral and fundamental. It is also noting that that is a gap. That is a big gap right now. The regional transportation plan and the Regional Growth Strategy were developed in silos, somewhat independent, somewhat of one another. And this is an attempt to try and align those two fundamental documents together so that we can have a really holistic look forward to the future. And I just wanted to leave one minor comment.

Speaker AD · While I have a chance here on population projections, it's true that BC Stats is forecasting a slowdown in large part due to changes to immigration policy at the federal government. Those policies will change again and they have in the past. Looking today at the current population relative to where we were when the regional growth strategy was developed in 2018, we're a decade ahead of where population was forecast in 2018. And looking at our preliminary numbers that we have right now from our population forecasting, the CRD will surpass half a million people in the 2000-30s approximately. These may not necessarily align with BC stats because we're doing a comprehensive review that incorporates other data.

Speaker AD · So I think that just reinforces that in our opinion, and this will come forward to Planning and Protective Services Committee that we have a really good opportunity right now based on the work we're doing with transportation and looking at population and economic development to align our two key strategies.

Speaker AB · Thanks.

Speaker O · Thank you, Chair. And just for clarification, do we have a regional economic growth strategy or Is that something that does not exist with our.

Speaker A · I will turn to staff on that.

Speaker AC · Yeah.

Speaker V · Through the chair.

Speaker AC · We do not have a regional economic development strategy.

Speaker A · Thank you, Chair. Great, thank you. I'll turn to Director Murdoch Saanich, please.

Speaker AA · Thank you. Chair McNeil Smith. I just wanted to take a moment to speak as the seconder and as the chair of the committee just to reinforce the importance of this work getting underway and alignment between the plan for transportation and the regional growth strategy. Land use planning and transportation as we all know are integral and ought to be interoperable. I just wanted since a speaker member of the public spoke earlier challenging some of the planning work that's underway within Saanich and perhaps suggesting perhaps that we've missed the boat on a key regional corridor for transportation service. I just wanted to offer an opportunity to GM Lorett or to General Manager Klassen if there's anything they wanted to comment on in of terms terms of how that. Well, I'll leave it at that.

Speaker AA · If there's anything you'd like to remark on based on the public input.

Speaker C · Yeah.

Speaker M · Thank you.

Speaker AC · Through the chair. In listening to the delegation speak about not aligning or the regional transportation plan ignoring governance at this point, I do want to comment that the board's directed us to look concurrently at stepwise governance. So when we attend the work, when members attend the workshop on June 22, there will be a significant discussion around governance and how we can acknowledge that there is a growing area on decision making importance and how we can align that and we should be looking at potential governance changes going forward.

Speaker AC · So that's what I took out that maybe was missing from that delegation's comment.

Speaker AA · Just wanted the opportunity to hear directly from GM Lorett to represent the staff perspective and I think what is the larger objective of considering governance as part

Speaker W · of the transportation service?

Speaker AA · I just want to reinforce GM Lorett's comments that it's not unconsidered or ill considered, but in fact something that is very much part of the next step. And then I finally just wanted to reinforce the invitation for the workshop on June 22nd. As you can hear from the comments provided by GM Lorett, that will be a very significant opportunity for us to evaluate priorities and next steps as part of that planning process. So where you're available to attend, I strongly encourage you to do so and I look forward to seeing you there.

Speaker A · Thanks Director Murdoch. Any further discussions? Seeing none. I'll look to call a question. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Non. Opposed. That carries. We're next turning to bylaws which are bylaws that didn't come from directly from committee 9. 1 adoption of bylaw number 4692. I'll turn to GM Morley please.

Speaker K · Thank you. Through the chair. These are just two bylaws that are coming back to the board for adoption of the approval by the inspector municipalities the board might recall. These are the two bylaws that will enable the construction of an expanded West Shore RCMP building in Langford. So after adoption of these bylaws today, there will be a one month quashing period and then we will come back to board, I believe in July with a temporary borrowing bylaw. We will then apply to the ministry for a certificate of approval and once we have that in hand, we can send the document documents to the municipal finance authority and that will complete the process to establish a service and complete the borrowing.

Speaker K · Thank you Chair. I'm happy to take questions.

Speaker A · Thank you for the introduction. Any questions on this report? If I could turn to one of the three participants in this service. I have directors Kobayashi and Tobias moved and seconded. I'll turn to you as movers. Microphone please, sir. I'll read the first one.

Speaker V · That bylaw number 4692, West Shore RCMP

Speaker A · Detachment Expansion Service establishing bylaw number one 2025 be adopted. Move by second or second by Director Tobias. Any discussion? Alternate? Sorry, Director Tobias Alt. Director Wagner.

Speaker R · I just think this is really significant. So thank you for the board for considering this bylaw and the RCMP building expansion is a really important step for the West Shore. We work together as a region and a sub regional service. So this is a great example of sort of how the CRD can support municipalities. And I just comment on it briefly because I think the public may not understand and sometimes how well we do work together. So I just wanted to again sort of celebrate this moment.

Speaker A · Thank you. Seeing no further discussion. Vice Chair Little please.

Speaker B · Yeah, thank you. Mitchosin is not an owner of the building as is Langford Highlands and View Royal. However, we're renters in the building. But I do appreciate all the work of View Royal staff, Langford staff, Colwood staff, towards this as well as the crd. And this is monumental. And I, I appreciate all the efforts from. From everyone.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker A · Thank you. So we do acknowledge the owners as, as Langford Callwood and View Royal and Mitch Ozen and. And Highlands being part of the. Part of the service or not part of the service, but renters. Renters, yes. And the First Nations. I'll look to call A question. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Non. Opposed. Carries.

Speaker Y · And number two.

Speaker C · Yes.

Speaker A · That bylaw number 4693, West Shore RCMP detachment expansion loan authorization bylaw number one, 2025 be adopted. Second Director Tobias. Thank you. Discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Motion carries. Oh, thank you. And returning to 9.

Speaker A · 2, which is adoption of bylaw number 4750, core area wastewater treatment plant loan authorization, bylaw number 2, 2026, if I could seek a participant to move the recommendation. Director Coleman?

Speaker Y · Certainly. That bylaw number 4750, core area wastewater treatment plan loan authorization bylaw number 2, 2026 be adopted.

Speaker A · Thank you. And seconded. Director Kobayashi. It is awaited all. Any discussion? Seeing none. Those in favor? Thank you. Opposed and are opposed. Carries. We're coming to notices of motion. Have. Do have two notices of motion that have come forward and can turn to others if there are those arising. But I'm first going to turn to Director Caradana, please.

Speaker C · Thanks.

Speaker A · Chair.

Speaker W · Do I need to read it in? I can't remember.

Speaker A · Please, if you could, just for everyone's

Speaker W · awareness and in light of the federal AI strategy announcement, that staff report back on AI data centers, their potential environmental, utility and land use impacts in this region, and potential policy options for regulating data centers within the crd.

Speaker A · Thank you.

Speaker W · And also that was going to be directed to esc. It kind of got lost there, but that's the report. Sorry, that would be deleted. Sorry. That would be debated at esc. Sorry. Not electoral areas.

Speaker Z · Sorry.

Speaker A · So before turning to a seconder, I'll just turn to staff. If wording and intent is reasonable. Yeah, we're turning. We're in a flash. We're changing electoral to environmental.

Speaker W · There wouldn't be a secondary. It's just read in to the record.

Speaker A · Oh, sorry. This is just read in today. Thank you. Thank you. And now I'll turn to Director Plant to read in your notice of motion, please.

Speaker Q · Seemed appropriate, given that we started with some scholarships. I'm still serving notice of motion of the following, that the CRD board requests staff work with the Spock family, the city of Langford and CRD staff to develop an annual CRD scholarship or bursary to honor the contributions of Director Lillian Spock and present a report to the CRD Board with options before the end of this board's term.

Speaker A · Thank you for reading that in, Director Plant. And I was going to do this at adjournment, but I will do it now that I just wanted to note again the memorial service for former Director Lillian this Saturday. Look forward to seeing you all there. Are there any other notices of motion? Not seeing any. Thank you. We are now turning to the motion to close the meeting. I'll turn to D. C. olagoa and we'll

Speaker E · do this as one motion. One, that the meeting be closed for appointments and personal information in accordance with section 90 sub 1 sub A of the Community Charter. Two, that the meeting be closed for land acquisition disposition according to section 90 sub 1 sub E of the Community Charter. Number three, that such disclosures could reasonably be expected to harm the interest of the regional district. And four, that the meeting be closed for contract negotiations in accordance with sections 9717k, the community charter.

Speaker A · Seconded by or moved by Vice Chair Little. Do we have a seconder? Please. Thank you, Al. Director Wagner. All. All in favor? Thank you. Opposed? Non. Opposed. Carries. And so we'll just pause to go into closed.