Transcript: Council - 2026-07-06

Speaker A · Sam. It's.

Speaker B · Welcome, everyone to council meeting on July 6th. And for your information, Belgium, one for four to one. All right, Council, I need a motion to reconvene the regular meeting of council. So moved. Thank you. All those in favor?

Speaker B · Any opposed? None opposed. I will look to Councillor Boardman for the territorial acknowledgment.

Speaker C · Thank you so much. We would like to acknowledge the Le Conguin speaking people on whose territory this township building stands. We recognize and respect the First Nation governments of both the Kasapsum, known as the Esquimalt Nation, and the Songhees Nation. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. And before I move down to the agenda, as I sometimes do, I want to acknowledge the loss of a resident who was just days short of his hundredth birthday, Mr. David Owen Jones. And he lived on paradise street, right across from Captain Jacobson Park. And if you ever walked by, he would be there with some candies, he would hand you some of his dahlias, and he would talk to you about the history of that area. And he lived and worked in Esquimalt since 1940. When he returned after the war and his time at sea with the Merchant Navy, he rented a house on Wollaston and then bought the house on paradise street from his mother.

Speaker B · So this house has been in the family for many, many years. He has resided at this location for over 72 years. He worked at Dockyard harbor craft, boiler shop, riggers, stores, and motor transport. And he was very proud of being a member of the royal tour in 1971, where he was tasked with driving the Queen's Ladies in Waiting. Dave loved being a part of the Esquimalt community, and he loved when people stopped by to admire his garden. He always shared his stories and always had a candy in his pocket and ice cream for the kids in the neighborhood. And my memory is when he would tell me about that area. Captain Jacobson's park is infill.

Speaker B · It used to be where Captain Jacobson kept his boat, and Dave lived there before it was filled in. So he had lots of stories about what the contour was in the past. So he will be missed. And certainly West Bay is feeling his loss. All right, we're going to move down. And we do have some late items to add to the agenda. Under item seven one, we have an email, and under item seven five, we have a significant number of emails. So, Council, with those additions, if I

Speaker D · could get a motion, I'll move approval with the additions.

Speaker B · Thank you. Second, thank you. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions Carried. We have the adoption of the minutes of the regular council meeting held on May 4 and the minutes of the regular council meeting held on June 22nd. Move adoption seconder please.

Speaker E · Second.

Speaker B · Thank you. Any errors, omissions or changes? All right. Seeing none. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. We have bylaws for adoption or first and second reading that are subject to a public hearing. And so for adoption we have the adoption of the development application procedures and fees. Bylaw council, there is a recommendation for you.

Speaker F · Second.

Speaker B · Thank you. We have seen this before. I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. We are down to public input. And this is on agenda items 7 and 8, 7 being staff reports which are the recreation Strategic Plan, the facilities Asset Management Plan, Kimver Street, Heald street and Swinford Street. Sidewalk and Swamult Road. Phase 2 construction contract, development permit application, 903 Admirals and then bylaw readings not subject to a public hearing. Are there any members of the public that wish to speak? If you do, please come forward. The first person gets to turn the mic on and you will have two minutes and provide your name and address for the record. Are there any members of. Please come forward.

Speaker B · And if you are thinking you want to speak. We have a pretty heavy agenda tonight, so it would be really helpful if you want to come forward and line up so that we're not waiting for people to get up. Welcome.

Speaker G · Thank you.

Speaker A · Good evening.

Speaker G · I'd like to speak tonight in support of the development permit application for the proposed eight townhome development at 903 Esquimalt

Speaker H · Road or Admiral's Road.

Speaker I · Excuse me.

Speaker G · I have known the builder Vijay bangu for over 35 years and have firsthand experience with the quality of his work as he built our family home at 439 Fraser Street. Throughout that process, he demonstrated professionalism, integrity and a commitment to building a quality home. After reviewing the proposed plans for this project, I believe these townhomes are exactly the type of housing Esquimalt needs. Many condominium units have been built and are currently available and there continues to be a shortage of family oriented townhomes. I believe this project is well designed and suitable for families who want to live and remain in Esquimo. The location is ideal.

Speaker G · Situated close to the Canadian Forces base, one of the region's largest employers, these homes will offer convenient housing for military members, civilian employees and other local families who want to live close to where they work. I also understand that the landscape plans have been significantly improved following the feedback from the Advisory planning Committee. The revised plans provide greater protection for existing trees and rock outcroppings. They increase the number of replacement trees, improve stormwater management and incorporate more native and climate adapted landscaping. While no one likes to see trees removed, responsible growth requires balancing environmental stewardship with the need for new housing. I believe this proposal achieves that balance. In addition to planting replacement trees on the property, Mr. Bangoo has committed approximately $16,400 towards community tree planting, helping to fund many more trees throughout Esquimal for future generations to enjoy.

Speaker G · This project represents thoughtful responseful development that will provide much needed family housing while respecting the surrounding neighborhood and natural environment. I respectfully encourage your honor and counsel to to approve the development permit for 903.

Speaker B · If you could give your name and address for the record, it's Robert MacIsaac. Thank you Robert.

Speaker G · 439 Fraser Street.

Speaker B · Perfect. Thank you very much. I'm just going to remind members of the public if you are speaking to the development permit, your comments should be around the form. The character energy conservation, Water conservation, protection of the natural environment and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Welcome.

Speaker J · Hi, my name's Graeme Tarling. I live at 455 Sturdy street and I am also speaking to the development permit application for 903 Admirals. The Development Review Committee recommended that the DP application be denied. The motion required the proponent to look at developing a new footprint to allow for greater preservation of natural features, existing trees and rock outcrops. The applicant has not addressed this recommendation. The development's footprint remains unaltered from the plan that was submitted at the start of the DP process. The staff report states that there is very limited opportunity to alter form of the site without variances. At the committee of the whole meeting on 15 June, I provided an option that could do do this primarily by reworking the parking on the site to be appropriate for a high transit area that is well served by good biking and walking infrastructure.

Speaker J · This concept was inspired by a recently completed development in Victoria on a laneway at 1224 Richardson which demonstrates that these types of development are viable with respect to development permit area number one, natural environment. The staff report presents a very positive picture of how the applicant's design succeeds in meeting the guidelines by saying generally the updated plan addresses the DPA guidelines very well, but it then qualifies this by saying that the application is being measured against what is expected through the rezoning process.

Speaker J · That process did not allow consideration of tree preservation, hence the bar being used to measure the application's compliance with these guidelines is artificially low. Given these issues, Eco Esquimoc Climate organizers urges Council not to approve the DP application in its current state. Thanks so much for your time.

Speaker B · Thank you. Welcome.

Speaker K · Hello. Good evening Mayor and council. I'm Frances Lippman, 474 Nelson street creatively united for the Planet nonprofit society is a free community sharing hub and a member of the Esquimaux. Clyde and organizers. For the past decade, Creatively United has consistently advocated for urban tree preservation, supporting this work with webinars, videos and educational literature compiled with experts on dozens of reasons for protecting mature trees and ways to plant trees successfully when removal is needed. The Creatively United community urges Council to deny the development permit application for 903 Admirals for the following reasons. 1. Council convened a development review committee with specific expertise in minimizing tree loss and tasked the committee to review all development permit applications with the intention of protecting the natural environment.

Speaker K · This advice has been disregarded twice at both the rezoning and development permitting stages. 2. The development is located on a frequent transit network area designated in provincial legislation. The Province explicitly has either prohibited or subject limited on site parking for such areas. As you heard from Graham, restricted parking needs to be put into place to save at least eight trees. 3. Council has requested an update on its tree canopy inventory. It is essential that this update is completed before any decision is taken on 903 Admirals given that dozens of mature trees on the lot are at risk of removal.

Speaker L · 4.

Speaker K · Council needs to reconsider its zoning and development permit process in light of protecting urban trees. Saanich Municipality has a much more rigorous process ensuring only trees absolutely essential for the development's footprint viability are permitted for removal. Saanich recently completed its tree canopy inventory and stated as part of its climate action plan that they are going to plant 100,000 trees by 2016.

Speaker L · Thank you.

Speaker B · Welcome.

Speaker H · Two minutes goes quick, doesn't it?

Speaker M · Hi Danny Gaz. 625 Admirals Road Mayor and Council, the Design Review Committee has recommended that you deny the application for 903 Admirals Road due to environmental concerns. Staff recommend approval suggesting that because rezoning was approved last November, there's now very limited opportunity to address the concerns without variances. Here's what Council was told during the rezoning meeting last year when trees were brought up. This is a rezoning, not a development permit. Tree protection and all these things are considered at the time of the development permit. So Council's in a weird spot here because during rezoning it was don't worry about it until later and now it's too late. There's not really much we can do about it.

Speaker M · This is the same logic that's being applied to dpa. One, that this application meets environmental guidelines, but only if we interpret those guidelines through the lens of the decision that Council made last year when you were essentially told, hey, don't worry too much about environmental guidelines just yet. It seems to me that this important conversation about tree protection and now the DRC's other concerns is trying really hard to not happen, and I hope you don't accept that. I also disagree with the implication that it's too late to do anything meaningful. Firstly, variances are fine. They're a regular process that we have. Avoiding one shouldn't be a main catalyst for pushing this through.

Speaker M · Second, plenty can be done without variances. What Council approved last November according to the wording of the bylaw, were maximum limits not required outcomes. You can operate under those limits as much as you want without needing a variance. Now, the developer may have very good reasons not to pursue these options. And most of us really do want townhomes on this lot. And that's exactly why this discussion needs to happen, to try to find a solution that works for everyone. I worry that that discussion isn't going to happen. My point is it's not too late. There is still opportunity to explore whether a different design could better meet DPA guidelines, DRC recommendations and developer needs thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. Welcome.

Speaker N · Thank you. My name is Greg Rabsky and I live at 1131 Witchbury Ave. I am here in support of the development permit for 903 Admirals Road. I have looked at the presentation from the developer and after studying it I have made the following points. This is a well thought out development. It is the right size for young families to grow into and not have to move because they are running out of room. The proposed townhouses will fit in perfectly with the neighborhood. Presently the current house is surrounded by townhouses and it looks totally out of place. The property needs to be brought up to modern times and this is the perfect opportunity to do it.

Speaker N · The developer has mentioned to me about the original landscape plan needing some work and the APC and DRC making recommendations and the plan is now in its third version after considering all the comments from all the committees. The developer has also made a conscious effort to plant future trees in the township. By leaving the township $16,400 for trees to be planted, 5,000 of which is just a gift from the developer. The other 11,400 is from security deposits for the trees being removed. We need homes like this one proposed. We have a real shortage of homes of this size. Presently there are only around less than half a dozen homes for sale in this category in the area and even those are undersized.

Speaker N · For all of the above reasons, I strongly encourage mayor and council to approve this well thought out development. Thank you for your time.

Speaker B · Thank you. Welcome.

Speaker O · Thank you.

Speaker P · Good evening. Yes. Andrew Holonchuck, 629 Frenell Road. Good evening Mayor, members of council and everyone here this evening. My name is Andrew Holonchuck. I've proudly called Esquimo home for over 50 years and I've a local realtor since 2006. Through both my professional lens and as a realtor in my personal lens through someone who has lived here my entire life, I've helped hundreds of families buy and sell homes throughout greater Victoria while watching Esquimo grow into one of the most desirable communities in our region. Tonight I'm here in strong support of the development permit for 903 Admirals Road. From my perspective, the project represents exactly the type of thoughtful, responsible development our community should encourage. The biggest reason is location.

Speaker P · 903 Admirals Road sits on one of Squamont's major transportation corridors. It has transit at the door, direct access to E N L trail and is within walking distance from schools, park, shopping, cfb, Esquimo, employment and everyday amenities. To me this is exactly where sensible density belongs. I believe properties located along major transportation corridors and within approximately 100 meters of those corridors are logical places for thoughtful higher density housing. By focusing sensibly density along these corridors, we can better preserve the character of quieter residential neighborhoods farther away. To me that's smart planning. This property is already surrounded by townhouses and other high density housing making these eight family oriented townhouse a natural fit. For my professional lens as a realtor, this is exactly what missing middle housing looks like.

Speaker P · Buyers often have to choose between small two bedroom townhouses or three or much larger detached homes many families can't afford. As of today, There are only four comparable townhouses for sale. In a scramble between 800,000 and 1,000,125. Two are 1130ft, another is 1235 square feet with only two bedrooms. While fourth, the fourth one is 2200 square feet. These proposed homes are approximately 1400 square.

Speaker B · Time's up.

Speaker E · Time's up.

Speaker P · I thought I had five minutes so thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker P · I strongly support this.

Speaker B · Are there any other members of the public that wish to speak? Welcome.

Speaker I · Thank you. Cam Harris, 527 Prince Robert Drive. I think a lot of things have already been said about the proposed development. I do support it, particularly the fact that they're providing extra park in two spots per unit. The reality is many families purchasing homes in B. C. are dual income households with two working adults. Often comes two vehicles. I think it's impractical. And a lot of the developments we're starting to see now have one spot and that's causing an overflow of parking onto the street, particularly for other neighbors in this area. With the panhandled lot on Admirals Road, it's just not practical to see additional cars kind of creating more of a burden with the rest of space there. So I think the parking plan with it is quite, quite strong.

Speaker I · I also support the idea of having the generous exterior decks. I think it's practical. Again, with the type of families that are going to be buying these units. I think having extra space for young individuals to be safe and play is a huge benefit for this particular development. Again, there's not really a whole lot of walkable parks in and around that area. So I think having that is just a huge benefit to the, to that particular area. Again, it's surrounded by townhouses, so I think it's, it's, it's only practical when you have a panhandle lot. A single family home on that area isn't, isn't really a strong use of the space. So I think the density is quite beneficial. Thanks.

Speaker B · Thank you. Are there other members of the public that wish to speak? I'll call a second time and I will call a third time. Seeing none, we will move on. And we are down to the recreation strategic plan. Mr. Schnauke.

Speaker Q · Thank you, Worship. So I'm going to hand it over to our consultant. His name is Quinton Talbot Kelly and he is from Cornerstone Planning Group. He's currently on the phone and he's going to walk through a brief presentation for council on this topic. Quinton, can you hear us?

Speaker A · I can, yes. Thank you.

Speaker O · Can you hear me?

Speaker Q · Yes, thank you.

Speaker R · Perfect.

Speaker A · I'll just jump into it then, Steve. I will share my screen and if you folks are just able to let me know that you can see it right now, then I can jump into the presentation.

Speaker B · We do. Okay, there we are.

Speaker R · Perfect.

Speaker O · Great.

Speaker A · Sounds good. Okay. Hello, Mayor and council, thank you for the opportunity to connect with you today. I'm the lead consultant on the recreation strategic plan that Steve has Just introduced. And so I'm to be taking you through the process today. The context that got us to the necessity for strategic plan. Some of the current situation findings, some future planning factors, and then lastly finishing up with the strategic directions that we're making for recommendations. This is probably new to anybody in the room, but really just the community recreational needs and preferences are changing all the time. And with this change, of course, there needs to be some sort of necessity to update the recreation landscape.

Speaker A · And so with that, and also acknowledging that the existing system does face some known program and infrastructure limitations, there was a need for a clear evidence based prioritization exercise to allocate resources effectively going forward into the future. This all on top of the fact that Esquimalt, of course, is the recreation facilities within Squamold are a regional asset. And so the growth of the region is putting increasing pressure on the assets that you call call your own. So there were three key goals as part of this recreation strategic plan. First was to develop a comprehensive overview of what's happening in the recreation system today. So that's what's happening within your existing assets, but also on a regional basis. Second was to collect insights from stakeholders and the community.

Speaker A · So to ensure that all the recommendations we're putting forward are informed by community itself. And then lastly was to define the future community needs and identify actionable recommendations related to programs and the infrastructure itself. So the approach that we have taken included five different stages, beginning with pretty basic things, which is project foundation. So looking at existing documentation as well as data from there, trying to collect as much community and user group information as we can at that point, then we're able to do our current state analysis, which we did, and then we jump into the future needs and strategic directions. So this whole process started in December of 2025, so late last year. And the final report was produced in June of this year.

Speaker A · So in terms of the current situation, we have considered the regional infrastructure, of course, but at a local level, we focused on the Squamil Recreation Center, Archie Browning Sports center and the Gorge Park Pavilion. Knowing that these are the three recreational assets that the township owns and operates. The methodology that we use to assess recreation depends on and is related to 10 different categories of recreation services. And so here they are here. But just to say that we've. We've tried to organize all of the different categories of recreation service into these 10 different categories so that we can ensure that when we are doing our assessment, we have a sort of a holistic lens of everything that you do have, but also potentially some aspects that you currently support fully today.

Speaker A · So I will probably go through the current situation pretty quick because I think mayor and council and members of the public are probably fairly well oriented to what's happening today. Really just to say is that the Esquimault Recreation center, it was built in 73, so it's over 50 years old.

Speaker S · Now.

Speaker A · The facility, as per its most recent building condition assessment was given the score of reasonable. And this translates into about $8. 5 million in spending to support the capital maintenance and renewal projects over the next 20 years. In terms of utilization of that center, we took a look at all of the Data Looking back 6 years I believe for this data set. And what we were able to see is that overall the facility is quite well used for its programmed and fitness spaces. And so we can see with the year over year average annual utilization, we can see that Pioneer B, Constance Cove, Jubilee multipurpose rooms, a multi purpose room and Pioneer A all around about 50% of its maximum utilization on an annual basis.

Speaker A · And we can see in the gray lines, those would be the peaks in the past six years. And so when we look at the program and fitness bases, very well utilized, you can see some of the other spaces that aren't necessarily designated as programmed are less utilized for scheduled activities. And that would be expected just given the orientation and type of space that those spaces are. So a good example of that would be the atrium. We can see that it's only booked on average annual utilization point about 6%. But of course we know an atrium supports much more than just booked programmed activities. The next thing that I wanted to just flag is that the year over year utilization in terms of its seasonality, we can see that it's pretty consistent over the last year.

Speaker A · And so very few changes in terms of what's happened over the last year here. And again, this would be fairly consistent for a major recreation center like what we see at ERC in terms of its financial summary, we can see that we looked at data going back all the way till 2017. And what we can see here is a fairly flat cost recovery curve which represents about on average about 50% cost recovery. The second thing worth noting is that there is we are on a bit of a slightly increase cost recovery since 2022. So in terms of Archie Browning Sports center, this building was built a little bit earlier than ERC.

Speaker A · So this was in 1960. We know that the building condition assessment, as per its recent building condition assessment scoring was given the scoring of serviceable and this translates to about $7. 7 million in spending for the next 20 years, again related to capital maintenance and renewal projects. The utilization of this building again is fairly high and well utilized. We can see here that the arenas on average are about 84% of its maximum. And this is the theoretical maximum from open to close every single day that it is open. And we can also see quite high utilization across the curling sheets. We've broken it down into the ice activities and the dry floor activities. So you can get a sense of scale here.

Speaker A · But we can clearly see that over on an annual basis, roughly about 60% utilized across the curling sheets. Similar to my comment, in erc, there's a number of spaces also that are less utilized, but also they would be expected to. Those are the lounge boardrooms are sort of hit or miss. Crow's Nest is one room space that potentially could be see increased utilization. That's a little bit lower than what we would expect. And the other spaces are fairly common for this type of facility. The utilization by season is a little bit more interesting on this one. When we look at the arena, again, no surprises. Winter and fall are quite busy.

Speaker A · And if we look at the curling sheets, we can see that actually the spring and summer are busier than the winter and fall, which is interesting. And this speaks to the dry floor conversion, which is supporting pickleball primarily in terms of the cost recovery for Archie Browning, it's not quite as high as what we'd seen at erc. We can see here that the trend is actually slightly downward and the cost recovery over the last 10 years is closer, between 40 to 50%. Gorge Park Pavilion is the newest facility in the recreation infrastructure. We can see this is a good overall building condition. And this one actually didn't have a formal building condition assessment because it is so new.

Speaker A · But we would expect in the next coming years that this would be added to the asset inventory system for building condition. When we look at utilization over the period that this has been open, we can see that the halls. The pavilion does have strong booking activity across its rooms. So about 60% utilization across all of the halls. And we can see some of the spaces that are more supportive in nature have less booked activities. So some opportunities there for increased use going forward. In terms of the utilization across the season, this one is interesting as well, but maybe you folks already know this, but it is busier in the fall, in the summer and the fall seasons.

Speaker A · And we can see that it's basically in every one of those spaces. It's winter and spring have the lower utilization periods. The financial summary here looks a little bit better in terms of the cost recovery nature. We can see here that the facility operates at a net revenue positive basis and has historically exceeded some cost recovery benchmarks. We can also see that some recent trends are sort of suggesting a gradual narrowing of the operating surplus as costs increase over time. Okay, so that was a very high level overview of sort of the three key assets that we have considered. We also did a number of different community outreach and engagement processes. So a public survey.

Speaker A · We had a number of interview sessions with user group members as well as general, general group, general community members. We spoke to a couple of different committees and we did have a public open house at the 5K run on April 11th. So the key findings here is, I think, a pretty good story, pretty much consistent across many of the different engagement platforms that we completed that was considered that recreation services and facilities are very highly valued and widely used by community members and user groups. We can see that there is high participation, creating some capacity constraints definitely during peak times. We've also heard from several engagement data findings that number of residents do rely on neighboring municipalities for select programs, but overall it's really high satisfaction.

Speaker A · So though there are some challenges, but overall we did hear fairly consistent messaging that the community does really value their existing infrastructure and programs that are available to them. In terms of the areas for what can change in the future, Aquatics and fitness services were the top priorities with of course, strong demand and ongoing pressures on the existing side of things. So once we had all that information, we were able to, we were in a position where we could start looking at sort of a level of a service assessment where we rank how a squamold is doing in comparison to four key categories. So capacity and provision, condition, functionality, access and inclusion and demand and utilization. And then from there we were able to identify a qualitative rating scale between does not meet needs to fully meet needs.

Speaker A · To get a sense of, you know, if we are going to suggest any improvements into the system going forward, let's consider these four categories and assign this type of scale. And so what we can see Here across the 10 different recreation categories is that aquatic services does partially meet the needs of the community. Arena services is in that same category. Curling services is fully meeting the needs with a few exceptions. Same thing on the community events and rental side. Supporting recreation, fitness and wellness is another group that is in the partial category. So partially meets needs. Dry floor recreation scored a little bit lower than the others and partially meets needs as well as multipurpose arts and arts, culture and education and youth services, all adequately met needs today.

Speaker A · And then lastly, senior services in the partially meets category as well. The last sort of piece before talking about future trends that we wanted to flag is that we do note that there is significant regional pressure on the existing infrastructure in esquimal. And so 12 recreation facilities sit within a 20 minute drive radius. And so of course there's quite a lot of population within those areas as well. And so we know that although Esquimalt has a tax base of about 20,000 residents, these facilities are sort of serving quite a bit larger, larger populations. And the same can be said with the other facilities within that 20 minute drive radius as well.

Speaker A · And so, for example, GR Parks we know supports a number of Esquimalt residents for the arena side of things there as well. We've also done some benchmarking just to get a sense of scale as to sort of how things are shaking out in terms of your regional counterparts. And so we can see here is that a few different things to take away. One, that the ERC does keep the longest hours in Greater Victoria, so about 5,000 bookable hours annually. We can see that when we are comparing the township, again, pure municipalities, that per 10,000 residents facility provision consistently tops both regional and external comparators. So you're doing quite well in terms of the provision of infrastructure.

Speaker A · And then lastly, that the township surpasses the CRD averages for aquatic facilities, arenas, curling rinks, fitness centers and gymnasiums at a per 10,000 residents level. The last metric that we checked on was one that a number of municipalities are starting to consider when they're looking at their recreation space. And so across the erc, RT Browning and Gorge Park Pavilion, we can see that the net usable recreation space totals about 1. 3 square foot per resident, which is higher than the benchmarks that City of Burnaby and the City of Vancouver have set for themselves. And I know that the resort municipality of Whistler is also considering this benchmark when they're thinking about their future provision of recreational infrastructure as well. So in summary, we can really see that the system is fairly well established.

Speaker A · We know that it's effective and it is highly valued. We know that there's strong service being delivered, satisfaction is high. And we also know that two things can be true. And so we also know that there are some peak time capacity issues within the existing infrastructure system. We also know that some portions of the existing facilities are outdated given their age of construction. ERC and the Archie Browning. And we know that as population continues to grow, as a number of those residents mentioned in the, in the speeches beforehand, that there's going to be increased pressure on recreation, most certainly. So yeah, when we look at the population, we considered a couple of different growth scenarios. So one growth scenario that most planners will look towards is BC statistics.

Speaker A · And so the data that we used for this projection was based off of February 2026. They expect a slight dip in population before it continues to increase to just over 20,000 residents. But if we look at the historical population, we can see that it's a slightly different trend. So it's a little bit more aggressive in terms of its growth profile. And so it's likely that the truth lies potentially somewhere between those two lines. But we do know that there's going to be continued growth. And this is just for the local community, of course, not the region demographics are, I would say, fairly consistent with where they are today.

Speaker A · There are going to be some swings, as we can see, in the percentages in the right hand side of this figure. But in terms of absolute scale, I wouldn't say too many significant shifts from where the community lives today in terms of its demographic distribution. So layering on top of all of that analysis, we also looked at some recreation trends. And so we've identified a number of these in our report. But just sort of commenting on the most highest level version of these. We can see in aquatic services that there's going to be high demand for swim lessons. We know that aquatic fitness and leisure swimming is all sort of increasing.

Speaker A · And we can see at the same time that organized sport activities are stable or declining. That's the trend there. And in terms of arena services, similar sort of trend profile here is that the demand for leisure ice is increasing and then organized ice sports is actually overall declining. We know that there's some exceptions to that, of course, but if you look at all of the organized ice sports, there's a general decline in terms of curling, very stable or slightly declining participation as time goes on. But we do know that this is still very popular among older adults, community events and rentals. There's increasing demand for this and this is truly brought on from the need for social connection.

Speaker A · And there's also the chat challenge here that there is significantly declining support from volunteers, which is absolutely essential in the delivery of community events. In the fitness and wellness category, we see rising demand for fitness training, wellness opportunities, and especially drop in programming. And that's probably why you see the Esquimo Recreation center, fitness center, quite busy a lot of the time. The demand is very high in that category as well. In terms of dry floor, this is also an area that we're seeing demand across different municipalities and across the country. And this is for low barrier drop in court sports, so pickleball, badminton and those sorts of things. But there's lots of other things that can go in that category as well. Arts, culture and education.

Speaker A · There's a shift towards more informal, social and flexible activities. Again away from the structured pieces, multi purpose similar trend. We're really looking towards that sort of flexible, affordable types of spaces for the community to utilize when required. Seniors, we know this is of course there's demand for age friendly services being driven by that population shift across the country. And so that has that here as well. And then lastly, the youth inactivity level still remains quite high. And so trying to increase accessible, attractive recreation opportunities for the youth is still a high priority for municipalities across the country. Okay, so there's a lot of implications on the infrastructure in terms of those trends. I'll just do the high level summary here.

Speaker A · So we're really starting to look at these facilities as more sort of multi use community hubs rather than sort of, sort of specific sports and recreation providers. We're really considering the sort of provision of flexible convertible spaces. Just knowing that there is sort of that larger need for increased inclusive, inclusive inclusivity across recreation activities. There's expectations towards renewing and replacing your aging infrastructure. So of course through the life cycle that this is going to be something that's applied across all different municipalities as well. And then really just municipalities are really starting to look at some of the revenue generating opportunities that exist within recreation spaces where historically they have not been considered previously.

Speaker A · Okay, so now we get to some of the new things and our recommendations. And so before we get into the actual recommendations, just a couple of notes here on what we were trying to do here and the directions that they were towards. And so first, so at some level all of the service areas did meet needs, but we did identify that several face moderate pressure prompting recommendations for targeted improvements. So not an overhaul, but instead a targeted improvement. And then in terms of focusing solely on expansion, which I think as the cost of construction continues to increase, gets harder and harder to do, there are always opportunities to optimize within the existing facilities and programs.

Speaker A · There are opportunities potential to address capacity constraints through the allocation of the types of space that exist already. There are opportunities for modernizing and increasing the system flexibility without significant changes. And then lastly, knowing that there's a number of different partners within the community that provide recreational types of spaces, there's also the opportunity to maximize some of those partnerships. So we've broken down our strategic directions into two different buckets. One is program and activity, strategic directions and actions, and the other is infrastructure related. So this, these first 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 apologies strategic directions focus on the program side of things.

Speaker A · And so the first one that we think should be completed within the short term, so the zero to five years is to consider and develop and expand the use policy that already exists. Really the driver here is that through a lot of the engagement that we've completed there, it was identified that there was a number of groups that would like to access these types of spaces that already exist in the community, but because of the long term historic precedence of other user groups is that there's no opportunity within the existing schedule.

Speaker A · And so it's very hard for anybody to have any sort of new idea and actually deliver that program because of the space challenges. And so if there's a more structured use policy in place, there's opportunities to shift that in the years to come. We also think there's more opportunities for increased partnerships. And so we know in the community that the local school districts, for example, do have access to suitable spaces for arts and culture programming, dry floor recreation and also multi purpose rental space. And so we think that potentially some additional conversations with the school district could alleviate some of those existing challenges. We also think that there are some really high value and high demand programs that will not be a surprise.

Speaker A · So swim lessons, Aquafit and some dry floor recreation, that with some shifts in allocation, there's potentially some opportunity to alleviate some of that demand. And the last one does talk to some optimization in terms of programming that's taking place at the Archie Browning Sports Center. So we know that the Crow's Nest, for example, does provide some programming there, but it's not well attended. And so we do think that there's some opportunities to increase that with some increased marketing or targeted focused engagement. In terms of the midterm, we have three different recommendations here. So one, towards the youth and center, youth and seniors, we do think that while they do have space allocated to them within the existing infrastructure, we do think that the programming could be enhanced.

Speaker A · And so we're making a recommendation to consider that area for enhancement. The other one that I did allude to earlier was that the volunteer framework that's required to support the highly valued community events that take place is deteriorating. I should say so not as many volunteers are willing to participate and so we do know that it's a crux and so we do think that there should be a formal strategy there to address that concern. And then lastly, we know that the curling use agreements that exist are fairly dated and we do think that there should be a modern revision to that use agreement to speak to some of the more modern realities and costs of operating a curling rig.

Speaker S · Cone

Speaker A · okay, almost complete. And then we can ask some questions. So in terms of strategic directions, in terms of the facility infrastructure, we have a number here, a lot of them are speaking to the renovation or modernizing of existing space space within the existing infrastructure. So within that category, the recommendation to update the washrooms and change rooms within both the ERC and Archie Browning, we also think that there's an opportunity to expand the fitness space to sort of respond to the high demand today as well as what's projected into the future. We think there's an opportunity also to redevelop the lacrosse box to become a covered lacrosse box.

Speaker A · And maybe I shouldn't say covered lacrosse box because in this case a covered box does have the opportunity to support a number of the different initiatives that were identified as sort of partially meeting needs. So for example roller derby, for example, that has challenges getting spaced today, they could utilize it. It would support the youth potentially with basketball courts added within that space. We know that covered space for pickleball of course is in high demand. And so. So we really do think that even though it's a very low utilization today, I think it was 5 or 6%, this is one of the highest sort of opportunity areas to address some of the other service categories for dry floor.

Speaker A · We also think that there should be an accessibility audit and upgrade where required to be done. And then lastly, in terms of the 0 to 5 term, we would recommend also that the outdoor youth amenity be explored. And this is one that could be explored in partnership with the covered box in the midterm. We think a more significant renovation to the youth spaces would be justified as well as reimagining the Archie Browning sports center lounge space to meet modern needs. And so that potentially could consider the conversion of the lounge to some other type of space or potentially just the service provision from that space to more modern requirements.

Speaker A · A couple of other things that were sort of low hanging fruit, upgrade the Abu equipment in Archie Browning. And then we do think that there's some opportunities to change some of the multi purpose bases so that they're more flexible in the future. And then lastly in the long term category, we think if the township works through a number of these short and midterm strategic directions, then there's likely a need for a more formal master plan in the 10 plus year category. So I have talked for probably more than I was supposed to, but now I would be very happy to take any questions that mayor, council or members of the public have for myself.

Speaker B · Thank you very much. Mr. Canoka, do you want to add anything before I go to questions?

Speaker Q · No, I think. I think it'd be a great time to ask questions to. Quinton and staff are also here to answer questions.

Speaker B · All right. Question

Speaker D · maybe, I'm not sure. Better question for staff. But you just mentioned in your last little part there about the covering of the cross box. And I think one of the issues that was probably pretty clear and throughout your presentation is that at some point we're going to have to expand our rec center physically. I think maybe not in the near future, but certainly looking long term. The rec center right now is surrounded by the playing field on one side, a dedicated parking on the other side, and then Fraser street right in front of it. And so if we were to expand physically the rec center at some point, it seems like the only direction would be to go south towards where the La Crosse box is.

Speaker D · So my question is, rather than invest heavily on a covered lacrosse box at its current location, have you looked at maybe, perhaps, maybe that it'd be more logical to look at moving the lacrosse box over to Archie Browning if that's. I don't know what the cost of that would be involved, but obviously there's a large parking lot there where it

Speaker T · could fit,

Speaker D · and then that would allow us the freedom to look at expanding the rec center on that freed up space long term. So I guess the question is why invest heavily on the lacrosse box now, where it is, and then limit our ability to expand the rec center as a result? Because it sounds like if we put a cover on the lacrosse box, we're pretty much committed to that's where the lacrosse box will always be. And is it even feasible to look at moving would seem like it would fit better with the Archie Brownie.

Speaker B · Dr. Marthin, we'll get the answer to your question and then you can follow.

Speaker T · Sure.

Speaker Q · Through the chair. I think a site plan or like the analysis of the space would be important to do before undertaking any type of construction. But I think what the report's identifying is the opportunity is there. And when we have increased costs and we have more population and there's more pressures being put on, we're really looking for those Opportunities. So I do totally understand the logistical, but this, that's kind of outside the scope of what we were looking at. We were looking at where there's opportunities. I do think that is something that needs to be addressed. Should we proceed with, you know, some type of expansion?

Speaker D · So just for the chair. So is it. Is it. Is it even feasible to look at physically moving the lacrosse box, or is it. Is it quite expensive to do? It looks like from the outside, it's a cheap facility to build because it's concrete with a, you know, wall around it, compared to like building a swimming pool or whatever else we'd have to build ice rink.

Speaker Q · So I think the question that you're asking is could it be moved? And I'm sure it could be moved. The cost of that, I don't have that at my fingertips, but I think that space is the issue. So they're quite large, they consume a lot of space, and right now our space is underutilized.

Speaker B · Councillor Hallowell, thank you very much.

Speaker F · I have many questions, but I will do my best to behave myself and only do a couple. The first is I actually took away something a little bit different from Councillor Morrison in that I read this more as an optimize and update or sort of modernize and review to work as best we can within what we currently have with a few capital enhancements here or there.

Speaker F · But I'm having a hard time sort of reconciling that to some of the things like the really high utilization for some of our spaces and then the increasing potential demand pressures from population growth, both locally and regionally, as well as has pressure from some of the regional facilities that are closing.

Speaker F · So how do we kind of reconcile those two together.

Speaker A · Through the marriage? Councillor, I'm happy to take a crack at that. And Steve, feel free to jump in if you see fit. But how I would suggest reconciling that is that when we do look at the municipalities across the island, we can see really that there are these sort of high demand, select types of recreation activities across all of them. So ones that come to mind. And because we have looked across the island in terms of the arena provision, we know that arena space is in high demand everywhere, so very high utilization. But the counter argument to that is that, you know, in terms of the level of service that you are providing your community right now, at a number of ice sheets per capita basis, you're actually exceeding quite a lot of the region is doing.

Speaker A · And so I'm not suggesting that's something that you should. Should you Know, just put all your eggs in that basket. But how I would reconcile that is that we do think that there still is the opportunity for council to further consider the optimization and true sort of full utilization of the existing assets before considering very costly endeavors in terms of expansion of these large types of space, specifically aquatics and ice sheets.

Speaker F · Thank you. That was a helpful response and it leads a little bit to something else that wasn't a heavy focus of the document but was mentioned in a few places and that is potentially exploring priority access for residents over others. And that has come up around this table a couple of times in the seven and a bit years I've been and there's always been some really important considerations on why we haven't done it. And I'm wondering if any of the those have changed. Like is there, is there a greater emphasis in potentially looking at that now or will we just trying to be comprehensive in putting all of the potential

Speaker U · options on the table.

Speaker Q · Quentin, do you want to address.

Speaker A · Councillor yeah, sure, happy to. Yeah. So I would suggest that as your facilities reach that sort of peak utilization rate which you're, you know, sort of the 75% category plus I think the sort of necessity to consider that prioritize access increases. And so I know there's a number of sort of downsides to prioritize access, but it also could be done in a way that it's only targeting potentially the highest demand programs, for example. So swim lessons being the easy thing to pay to look towards is that I do think that a targeted approach to prioritization could alleviate a lot of the challenges that you're about talking tax base is facing for the existing infrastructure because there's capacity to accommodate them.

Speaker A · But we know that there's challenges because of the regional demands. And so again it speaks to sort of the optimization of your existing facilities to complete before considering the large capital investment required to expand it.

Speaker F · Thank you. And is there in your experience looking at other communities and doing research like this, are there other communities that have put in place priority access or are seriously considering it to your knowledge

Speaker A · through Mayor to Councillor yes, most certainly in our experience there are some communities that have seriously considered it. One that comes to mind is a recent project through Maple Ridge, their close neighbors Pitt Meadows, they're considering developing a recreation center right on the border and they do understand that obviously there's going to be challenges with, with obviously the tax base in Napbridge paying for this 100 plus million dollar facility and then a large amount of the benefit going to their neighboring community in Pittman Meadows, who doesn't actually have an indoor pool.

Speaker A · And so they. I don't think there's been any final decisions on that. But that's an example where communities are starting to turn towards this prioritized access in response to taxpayers in terms of capital dollars but also just the ongoing pressures for the system them.

Speaker B · Thank you Councelor Boardman.

Speaker C · Thank you. I have a question for staff. Potentially the cao. This plan outlines that. Oh, my screen just went off, hang on a second. That if we just look at Archie or Esquimalt Rec center for example, that the facility will require $8. 5 million over 20 years for capital maintenance and renewal projects. So in February we were presented with a 20 year capital plan which included the pool H vac and the roof and some of the pool stuff. So that 20 year capital plan informs the 3% infrastructure investment that we approved for this year's budget and on and will ongoing. So can you explain the difference between these two plans and if there's any overlap and what we're seeing here, approximately 420,000 average annual budget over 20 years. Is that on top of the 20 year capital plan?

Speaker C · That's the question. Thanks.

Speaker U · So through the chair I think the best way to look at that information along this vein is as we do each study we start to refine more and more what we think the final answer is. So about three years ago is when this team started putting together asset management management plans and made predictions that were broader in terms of the like you know, we're saying, you know, this is how much you need to put aside per year to deal with our infrastructure. But then when we finished the sanitary sewer master plan we had much more precise answers for sanitary sewer. And then today, now we've got recreation. A little bit later tonight we've got facilities. In September we have storm.

Speaker U · So what we're doing is refining the numbers and every time we'll do every couple of years we have more building condition assessments that we do, more information about maybe some things last longer than expected or deteriorate faster. So our numbers will change. But generally broad brush we're still kind of hitting that target or identifying. We're doing roughly 4 million of capital work per year. And the target that we're trying to achieve is roughly 10 million per year. And then some years it could be 8, so years it could be 12. And so that's where the 3% comes in. But the real key now is that we do work like what we've done tonight, like in the last few months to deliver this so that we can refine what those answers are and make sure that they're as correct as possible going forward.

Speaker U · Does that answer the question? Okay,

Speaker C · so what I'm seeing here is

Speaker Q · that there's approximately $400,000 center

Speaker A · over the next few years.

Speaker C · So that's like 1%. So are we going to be asked

Speaker Q · when budget comes around for the next

Speaker C · year instead of 3%, are we going

Speaker A · to be asked to contribute

Speaker U · and.

Speaker C · I didn't have my mic on. Apologies.

Speaker U · I heard you through the speaker. I think you did.

Speaker C · Oh, I talk really loud.

Speaker U · So I think in the short term, no, I don't think I can predict right now that staff's recommendation for next year around increasing the amount of dollars that goes towards future infrastructure spending will still be at 3%. Although over time that's going to. We're going to need to come back with more refined information to see is that enough or how many more years is that going to be required. At the moment we know it's at least 10 years and it's roughly 3% per year to try to get there, but that's different. So that's the big picture. Like that's the right answer for the big picture.

Speaker U · It could be 2, it could be 4%. It's kind of up to what council wants to do in terms of how fast. But that's different than the work that staff have to do and that and what we have to bring to you as a council in terms of the specifics because we're not ready to get really into the details yet to show like what happens every year in terms of the 20 year capital plan, what you saw was a really good five year plan with our best guesses for what goes on for the 20 years, which is good enough for now.

Speaker U · But in terms of selecting projects and bringing them forward, it's going to take us. We're going to have to get more sophisticated and more thorough in how we come back every year to give you the, to give you the answers to the questions you're looking for.

Speaker C · I'll save my follow up questions to budget time, thanks.

Speaker P · So quick.

Speaker H · A number of my questions have already been asked by my colleagues. One of them is though I do have, is there are another number of other recreational facilities that aren't included in this. Thinking of some of the baseball buildings, a couple buildings that don't get used very much over by the lacrosse box, also fields. Are we missing, are there significant, I'm curious what was included, what was excluded and are we missing something? From those estimates that Mr. Rand was talking about. As a result, I realized that recently in our capital plan we've had parked out the Lions baseball building was kind of in the three to five year. And it seems like it's always been three to five years away.

Speaker H · So just curious, do those affect this calculation and why were they not included in the report?

Speaker V · So this.

Speaker Q · So this report. So just backing up one of the targets was this to define our levels of service, and it's to define our levels of service over time. And it's to look at what the future demand is. And that's one of the reasons why it puts a pressure on our capital. If you use your arena 24 7, it requires earlier replacement. So in this case, this was specifically our recreation facilities, and these are those facilities that were identified in the presentation. A facility like a ball diamond, like a dugout or a ball diamond like that typically falls into a parks portfolio. And this plan was for recreation services.

Speaker Q · That's not to say that those don't need to be planned for and replaced, but the scope of those is significantly smaller than. Than an ice rink or a pool rink. So I do appreciate the thought because it is something that we do need to include, but we did not include it in this.

Speaker H · And is that considered or planned for updates for a parks portfolio? Is that going to be done or is that.

Speaker Q · Yeah, I would say that Robbie does have planning work in parks that he'd like to complete. I'd also flag that traditionally these buildings were used for sports functions. Functions. They're now just being used for storage. There may be more creative ways and there may be ways for us to claw back some green space where an old concrete building would sit. Also, a lot of them are used for washroom facilities, and washroom facility needs have significantly changed. So those are some of the things that we would have to look at in that domain.

Speaker H · Thank you. I should have said to start off. The report is great. I think it really shows what we're doing. One of the question I. I noticed that there's a big difference between the rec center and Archie Browning in terms of the trajectory of costs versus revenues. And I was just wondering if you could comment on why we're seeing revenues increasing with costs in the recreation facility, but we're not seeing that really at Archie Browning. Is there something there that's happening that we should be concerned about?

Speaker Q · Well, through the chair, we had this discussion earlier, and what you see in 2026 is a reduction in revenues. And that's predominantly because of the major project that's going on. You'll see later on when I bring fees and charges back that we are continuing to adjust pricing for costs inflationary purposes. So our hope is to get that back on track. But there's probably many factors that are involved. It's probably not just one factor and we can look into it. But Archie has been around the 50% recovery for a number of years and I do believe this year was an anomaly because we lost our dry floor and that would indicate why we dipped.

Speaker B · Comments, Councillor Breen?

Speaker W · Yes, thank you. There was some excellent information in this report and I agreed with quite a bit of it. So it was awesome. My one question though is very little and, and you'll know why it's coming from me that I'm going to make this comment. There's very little about the programming and whatnot for children under the age of 10 and we do offer quite a few programs. We have our out of school care before school care programs. Not sure I totally agree with the numbers are dipping in that area. Just looking around and the number of babies that I see in strollers, I don't think that's going away anytime soon.

Speaker W · So I'm just wondering why was that really not touched on? Like I just didn't see it enough in there.

Speaker Q · So Jeff can expand if I can't answer that question. But what we use are we use multi purpose spaces to provide those facilities, those programs. So we will. In recreation in general, if you have a summer camp, you're putting them in the lounge at our cheap or you're putting them in a multi purpose space. So a lot of our childcare programming occurs with the capacity of what we have available specific license rooms are. We actually don't have any infant daycare or any I guess toddler three to five licensed care. So our opportunities are based around our spaces and so when we define the spaces and their capacity we can allocate that and I think Quinton did talk about how we allocate our spaces and creating opportunities but I don't know if, if that answers your question but, but it wasn't specifically a child care need that we addressed.

Speaker Q · It was do we have space to provide programming in these areas? And Jeff, I don't know if you want to highlight anything else. I think, I think you did well.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker Q · But just to reiterate, multi purpose space is what we use for all our community programming. So we follow trends, demographics, needs from the public and we'll change the programming based on that. So a multi purpose space, for example for licensed care, we do have a few licensed spaces. We can license more spaces if we need. If the trends do change and

Speaker D · Euchre

Speaker Q · becomes the most popular thing ever, we

Speaker U · can change the space into that as well.

Speaker Q · So that's why it wasn't identified specifically.

Speaker W · Okay, yeah, great. Because I was gonna say yeah. Because you have the licensed out of school care and I know it's been in the past a struggle for some families to get the out of school care programming before school care is not as big a deal. It seems like that the at the after school for sure. So I'm just making sure that we're not limiting those in our thoughts going forward because those, you know, out of school care. For a while there, there was many years where it was about as much of a raffle as swimming lessons. So great.

Speaker B · My turn. Excellent report. I'm really pleased because it really does show us that there are options before we need to replace. I appreciate the thoroughness of it coming out of it. I just have a few extra questions. One is around our current use of SD61 facilities and the flexibility within that. Because over the years we've used them a lot and then we haven't used them. And so it sounds like they're variable and it's not necessarily SD61 either. It's both of them. So can you just give us an overview of where we're at in terms of what we use them for now?

Speaker Q · So you're correct. There are two school districts. What's the French number? Do you know what that one is?

Speaker B · 80 something or 90.

Speaker Q · 93.

Speaker D · Thank you.

Speaker B · 93.

Speaker Q · Our relationship with Col Produrer and and the French school district is. Is quite strong. We access their facilities on a regular basis and we provide programs and activities in their space. We also reciprocate by allowing them to come into our facilities and access our space. I think there's a lot more opportunity for expansion in SD61. And I think there are conversations that we've started to have that are positive and there's potential for us to return to council with an opportunity. We could talk to the school district about joint use agreement. I know that a lot of work has gone into this with the turf field and the development of a partnership there. So there's a lot of foundational work that's being done.

Speaker Q · But at this point, other than the school district coming in and receiving training through their exploratories and using our spaces, do we have any current programs running on SD61?

Speaker S · No.

Speaker Q · So right now it's still there for the development.

Speaker B · Okay. So there's opportunity there, the lacrosse box, covering it. Yeah, it's such an underutilized facility. But my question is around is the idea that we would cover or enclose it, So I know that would be studied.

Speaker Q · Yeah, yeah. So the strategy in recreation now has been to create opportunities with the low cost barrier. If you add an H vac system, if you start adding cooling and heating to these spaces, it becomes very expensive and then your cost for recovery is much, much higher. And so we have seen a number of these facilities throughout the region, throughout the province. One recently in central Saanich. And so we actually went and attended it. And it's got like a half a half roof, so it comes down quite low, so rain doesn't blow in there, it's well lit and you can barely tell you're outside. So.

Speaker Q · So the idea would be to have the benefits of a low engineered space or a space that's very efficient and all the benefits of an indoor space at the same time.

Speaker B · Great, thank you. And the future look at park space, where would the integration of that come in with facilities as we're looking to the future for replacement? Because we've done a whole bunch of visioning on that years ago and how facilities coming together would be more efficient. So just wondering if there's a thought around that.

Speaker Q · It's a very, very good point. We had this discussion about what constitutes a recreation facility and a parks facility, because oftentimes you can blur the two, especially if it's designed for sport. So in our case, our offices are all connected. So when we talk about a project like for instance, covering the cross box, we could loop in parks and we could look at what parks facilities are under pressure or what need to be improved in that area. But there's definitely synergies and I think the goal would be whenever we develop a recreation space that we loop in our parks department to find out what the impacts are and maybe how we can benefit their department as well.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you. And my last question is around the recommendations around washrooms and change rooms, and those have already been adjusted a couple of times. Do we really feel that there is opportunity to continue to make adjustments?

Speaker Q · So one of the things we've heard clearly from our users is there's inconsistencies in service. And so we want to, we want to prevent that. And we also want to communicate with our users. One of the things we've heard too is that there's GHG reduction strategies that we can employ to reduce water Consumption to reduce wasted energy. And so again, even though they may have been updated, those may be things that we can do to make things more accessible and more efficient. So we've heard that loud and clear though. That was of the clearest things we heard in this.

Speaker B · Yeah, yeah, I, I know, I know that it, it is a constant source of challenge. Okay, thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Morrison?

Speaker D · Yeah, I'm just, I'm mindful of the next agenda item is facilities asset management plan. And it actually talks about the fact that the temporary fire hall of course will become vacant pretty soon, relatively soon. And so I'm just wondering when you're looking at multi purpose space, do you ever look at possibly expanding into using that facility? Look where the, I guess the garage portion is quite large and then of course there's meeting rooms and all, there's some gym facilities in there as well. So is that something that you looked at in terms of expansion?

Speaker Q · Absolutely, Dan. Parks and Rec specifically REC will use anything at any time to do anything. So there's nothing we leave on the table, so to speak. So, so definitely something we are interested in. But Dan, I don't know if you want to touch on the.

Speaker U · Yeah, happy to jump in. Thank you.

Speaker X · Through the chair.

Speaker U · I think you know, the creating that temporary fire hall was a significant investment for the township and the life cycle as you see in the next reports, roughly 20 years and probably, you know, maybe even a little bit more depending on life cycle maintenance and stuff. So we're trying to, as we get close to the end of the fire hall and emergency operations center construction project here at the end of this year, we're working to try to figure out like what do we do with that facility for the next 15 years. So there's plenty of options. So we're working on that right now. And it is in the facilities master plan that that works. Ongoing, you know, expanded program space for recreation, fabulous site, potential temporary police station. Fabulous idea.

Speaker U · And there's like five other things that you could do that would really use that space really well, including decommissioning the facility and selling it. And there's some potential there too that that might be the option. But I think this is one of those things that we'll do the analysis, bring it back to council with some strong recommendations about what to do next. But we're just not ready yet for that.

Speaker B · Council, you do have a recommendation, Councilor Armour?

Speaker T · Thank you. Yes, I'll move the staff recommendation that council receive the recreation strategic plan presentation for information, direct staff to incorporate the strategic plan directions and actions into future financial planning, capital planning and service delivery frameworks. Second, thank you.

Speaker B · Do you wish to speak to it?

Speaker T · I just want to echo what others said. This is an amazingly comprehensive plan. It's nice to see it all laid out like this and, and it's so clear for us and for the public to see what we've got now and where we may need to go in the future. And, and I also appreciate that what we're seeing right now is very much for the most part a good news story in terms of our REC facilities. So thank you.

Speaker B · Councilor Morrison, anything to add?

Speaker D · Yeah, again I think it's been said that it helps. It really identifies what we have and working with what we have to to kind of quasi expand within our current footprint. But as I said in my first question is at some point we're going to have to look at physical expansion. Probably not in the immediate future, but long term wise, perhaps that's the next phase of where we go next is making better with use of the space that we have and investing in that as needed. But also looking at long term the fact that probably our most popular space service in Township Esquimo is our parks and recreation, which would drive the need to continually expand as well.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor Cavins.

Speaker H · Yeah, I just want to talk a little bit about the idea of expansion and I think this is what Councillor Helliwell mentioned is that when you read the report it's actually quite striking and I really appreciate seeing how much more facilities we have than almost all of our regional peers and even into the lower mainland in that we are really overserved, not overserved.

Speaker H · We are well served by our recreation facilities. And as right now is budget season, I think it's important that we remember that even with 50% cost recovery, those services are a really significant driver of our budget. And I think it's something that our residents appreciate and value. But I also think it's really important that we and in our political role remember that when we're discussing other communities and other that other parts of the region are not really pulling their weight to the extent that Esquimaut is in terms of providing facilities for their residents and spend a lot of time in the hot tub talking to people.

Speaker H · It's amazing how many of them are coming from Victoria for their kids in swimming lessons. And there's a regional. We want to be part of the regional. We want to provide service to other. But I think we really need to be out there advocating and saying whenever we're having discussions about what different communities are doing or not doing. I think it's important that we remember that we are really pulling our weight whenever there's a talk about expansion. I think we need to really start thinking about what Councillor Hywell hinted at. Are there ways of either encouraging them to provide more services or looking at differential in terms of access as we get to a full facility?

Speaker H · If we're paying for and providing more services than anyone else, we might want to be thinking about what that means for our residents in terms of what they're paying for as well. So it's a political discussion longer term. But I think this report really gives us some detail that we can use in those discussions with our colleagues across the region.

Speaker B · Further discussion. Councillor Armour.

Speaker T · I wasn't going to comment on what Councilor Hiller while I was driving at and but now that Councillor Cavins has raised it, I hear that perspective and I just, and I know it's not a discussion for tonight, it's for longer term. I also want to, you know, we have to be aware of the other side too, at what, you know, yes, we represent Esquimo and the tax dollars that are supporting this are coming from Esquimo residents. But at the same time I'd be concerned about overly fragmenting the greater Victoria area and I wouldn't want to wind up in a scenario where all of the municipalities are looking at differential fees for residents versus non residents.

Speaker T · I just, I think it's just I can see the merit from a cost perspective, but I, from a, I don't know, from a more looking at, from a more holistic, you know, perspective of we are part of a larger community. I just have, have concerns about it too. So not disagreeing, just want to present the other side as well.

Speaker B · I have to throw my 2 cents in on this one as well because I was going to follow Councillor Cavins and what we hear and what this report says is there's opportunity still to be more efficient. That being said, we also know that there are several facilities that are going to, to close down. And that added pressure plus the growth within our community may become that much more of a challenge for our residents who are paying for the facility. And so things like swimming lessons, I think we can be discretionary with it. But I really hope that we are looking at this not in the long, long term because these effects are going to hit us very soon and we have to have thought about it and how we're going to meet residents needs.

Speaker B · They had a significant tax increase this year they've also told us they love these facilities. We're providing facilities at long hours. Let's keep up doing a good job. But doing it for our residents is really important. Unless there's further discussion, I'll call the question.

Speaker D · So just a point of information. So we had a little mini discussion on that issue. Am I understanding correctly that that would be a budget discussion at the next budget or would that be a policy discussion that staff will bring back at some point for us to have a policy discussion? I wasn't clear on that.

Speaker B · How. How this. This report will go forward to next council for priority discussion. Out of that may come policy work as well. So you know that that is my understanding that as we move this forward it will being utilized as for the next council.

Speaker Q · Yeah, sorry. Through the chair we would bring this to our EPRA committee and then council would also be looking at this in the fall for your strategic priorities.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Again, thank you very much and thank you, Quentin. All right. Councillor Armour has a suggestion to move development permit application 903 forward and we did not do that at the beginning of the agenda. Is that a possibility should council want to dis. Consider it, Ms. Hopkins?

Speaker B · Thank you, your worship. Yes, that's a possibility.

Speaker W · You can table a few. A few of these items to deal with the application of 903 Admirals Road and then once resume your agenda once you've.

Speaker B · You've dealt with that. All right, so councillor, if you wish to. To try and propose that for council, it would be to table the other motion, other agenda items until after dealing with 903.

Speaker T · Okay. So I'll move that. I would. I mean the intent is not to defer discussion on the other items to

Speaker B · another night, but you don't have to motivate yet. Put the motion on.

Speaker T · I move that as the next item under staff reports we address the development permanent application for 903 Avenue.

Speaker D · I'll second request that. Can we have our break though first? Because it's probably going to be.

Speaker B · Yeah, I was going to long. Okay, so we have the motion on the floor. Do you want to motivate?

Speaker T · Just. I know there's a number of members of the audience who are here to listen to the discussion on that. I think the next agenda item, the scheduled item facilities asset management plan could also take a bit of time. And just in fairness to the audience, I'd just like to address this item next.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker D · And Councillor Morrison, you heard my request there. So I Think you said we'll take a break.

Speaker B · You seconded the motion.

Speaker D · That was my question. Question.

Speaker B · Okay, Any further discussion? All right. Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. We will take a five minute break and come back to 9:03 Esquimo or Admirals Road.

Speaker C · She.

Speaker Y · It.

Speaker J · Stop.

Speaker X · It,

Speaker Q · Pam.

Speaker B · All right. What's out, right. Welcome back, everyone. Welcome back. Welcome back. I haven't had enough use of this in the 18 years. So I'm going to use it at any opportunity now.

Speaker K · All right.

Speaker B · We are at development permit application 903 Admirals Road. And I will look to Mr. Brown.

Speaker Y · Your worship, members of council, this evening. You're looking at Admiral's. I think it's very important that council clearly understands the decision it's making this evening. The rezoning which established a bundle of rights, development rights on this property was adopted last year by council. It established setbacks, building heights, density number of buildings and number of units. So that is not open for discussion this evening. What is open for discussion this evening is the development permit. And what council is adjudicating this permit against is the development permit guidelines. Council does not have the discretion to refuse a development permit. Its discretion lies within its interpretation of the design guidelines and whether or not, in the opinion of council, this particular project, the development permit application before you meets those guidelines.

Speaker Y · If council does not believe it meets the guidelines, it must tell the developer what he must do in order to meet the guidelines and then he will come back with a revised proposal. But a development permit cannot be refused. The only thing you're dealing with tonight is adjudication of development permit guidelines. All right, so there are four development permit areas for consideration with this application. They are DPA1 for the environment, DPA number six, townhouse residential. DPA number seven, energy conservation, greenhouse Gas reduction and development. Permanent area number eight, Water conservation. The parcel, as we know, is located on a panhandle lot at 903 Admirals Road, in amongst a number of other townhouse developments. The proposal is for eight townhouses.

Speaker Y · This slide shows the approved setbacks and how the applicant proposes to develop the site with the eight approved townhouses. The landscape plan has been reviewed by our artist who used to be a gardener, and he has no issues with the proposed landscape plan. This is just. And then we have some. This is the west portion of the landscape plant and this is the east portion of the landscape plan. And it is in your package for your review. These are the elevations. Again, the design features, significant articulation, some nice roof lines, a nice Fenestation and rhythm and harmony of the development. So there's this is. There's two groups of four units.

Speaker Y · This is one group and then there's opposite group, opposite with same design. And this is the rear elevation and the side elevation. Staff's recommendation is that council Approved permit number 000266. The applicant is here and is prepared. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. Are there questions for staff?

Speaker D · Councillor Morrison, my question's for staff, but it might be not. Not for development services. Maybe for the person sitting next to you. Parks and Recreation. Just where we have the benefit of having you still with us. So it's around the tree replacement and either one of you can answer this, but I just wondered if Parks and Rec could comment more on how that works. So the developer obviously will compensate the municipality for tree replacement. Do you try to. I mean, looking at that whole area, it's mostly private property. So other than the boulevard, there's not many opportunities to plant in that vicinity. But do you try to aim to have the trees, the replacement trees, be at least somewhat adjacent to where they are going to be removed? Somewhere in that vicinity? Like I said, the boulevard or what have you.

Speaker D · And you also try to match the species. So if they're Garry Oaks, would you try to replace them with Garry Oaks? I'm not sure. Who best are you best to answer that?

Speaker Q · No, because that would have gone to our arborist team for review and they would have provided recommendations. I don't have those recommendations in front of me and I don't want to recall the wrong information. I can say that whenever we remove a tree or a tree is required to be removed, that our arborists and our gardeners would look for a location that's appropriate for that tree. I can't tell you whether it would be on a boulevard or if it would be in an island or if it would go in one of our parks. But we have a very robust tree planting program and we replace the trees that are removed and it's funded through the tree replacement fund. I don't think I can provide any more information unless.

Speaker Q · Bill, you have more data on this.

Speaker Y · Sure. So before any trees are cut down, the applicant will need to get a tree cutting permit. At that time, the arborist team will analyze which trees are getting cut down and how many replacement trees are due. For each tree cut down, it's typically three to one. But again, the arborist, they review the tree cutting permit application and they're the ones who make the determination on replacement trees.

Speaker D · So sorry, just for the chair Then would the arborist also try to match species?

Speaker Y · Again, I'm not certain.

Speaker A · I don't know.

Speaker D · Okay. There's no. There's no bylaw requirement around that aspect of it. It's just a tree.

Speaker Q · Yeah. So I don't have that information in front of me, but I can say that there are certain species that don't replace. Well, I know arbitus trees are very difficult. However, we do try and plant them and we try and stay with the native species. There are ornamental trees that sometimes are placed. However, trees like plum trees that aren't natural to the environment won't thrive as well. So we do probably. We do have a schedule of trees that we can use that are approved and sometimes homeowners pick if they're planted on their property. But I'd have to get you more information because I can't tell you specifically if an oak tree is removed. If we're going to plant three more oak trees because of that.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you, Councillor Armour.

Speaker T · Thank you. I'm going to build on Councilor Morrison's question. I will note in the. At the table 2, at the back end of the arborist report, there does seem to be an indication of the replacement trees that are going to be used. So I just noticed that there. My question, though, is further, just building, as I say, on what Councillor Morrison was asking. If you look at the applicant's presentation, and I know the applicant, second, will be making the presentation, but there's a question there that's more for staff. So on page 11, they mentioned that there's 44 on site trees, 21 will be retained, and so 33 will be removed. Of the 33 removed, 28 will replace the 33.

Speaker T · And then there'll also be a provision of $16,000 in cash to the township. So a couple of questions around that. First of all, what. So the $166,000 that'll be coming to the township, to be precise, 16,400. What. What does the township do with that one?

Speaker Y · It goes into a tree planting fund, which. Yeah, C is probably better to talk about.

Speaker X · Yep.

Speaker Q · It goes into a tree placement fund and we hold on to that money and when we have an opportunity to plant a tree, we can access that for a tree. A good example of that is all the trees in the pavilion parking lot. I think we have like over 20 or 50 trees that were planted. They all were funded from that.

Speaker T · Okay, thank you for that. And then my second question is, and again, this may be to some extent in the ARBUS report, But so what, 33 trees are being removed and 28 are being offered as replacement. Can you speak to, you know, looking at the arborist report, most of the trees being removed were in poor to fair condition. Can you speak to the advantages, disadvantages of removing those trees and providing and replacing them with the newer trees? I know that's an arborist question.

Speaker Q · Yeah, I don't have. Have the expertise to answer that. I mean, I could get the answer for you. Yeah, but our arborist would have filled up or would. Would provide that information because presumably the

Speaker T · trees are going to be smaller, but they could be in better condition. But. Okay, fair enough. Thank you.

Speaker B · Councillor Cavins.

Speaker V · Yeah.

Speaker H · Two questions for staff. We just a reminder, we don't have a parking maximum, nor have we ever talked about one. And my understanding is we couldn't impose one at this point if we wanted to on this particular project.

Speaker Y · That's correct.

Speaker H · Another question that I have, a different topic is around our procedures for tree removal permits and timing on that. Do we, when do we, should we approve a development permit or this one or another one? When does a tree removal permit, is it granted and how is that tied to when a developer is actually starting? And I'm just wondering if there's a way that we can ensure that it's done so that we know that development's going to happen. Because I think the worst possible situation would be trees are removed, development decides it's no longer viable and it sits there empty for decades, five years, whatever it is.

Speaker H · I'm just curious, what, what are, what is our process on that and is there a way that we could ensure that that doesn't happen?

Speaker Y · Thank you. It is a bit difficult because the tree cutting permits are done under the tree bylaw and the development permit and building permit are done under their, their own bylaws. But we do communicate, I believe that the building permits are sent to parks and Recreation and then that triggers the arborist to contact the owner, the applicant, to get a tree cutting permit. So there is interdepartmental communications, but they're not tied in exactly the same process.

Speaker H · So a tree cutting permit is not approved or released until the actual building permit has been created. And that's our.

Speaker Y · Typically you can get a tree cutting permit whenever you want. The applicant could get one now, but without a development permanent enhanced, unlikely they would do that. But they can come as soon as the own permit is issued. They can come and get a tree cutting permit or they can wait for the building permit, but it's. The arborist will Contact the applicant to talk about when this tree cutting permit is going to.

Speaker T · Yeah, okay.

Speaker Q · So the question is. The question would be, if you had a demolition permit or you had a development permit or you had a building permit, at what point would the trees be removed? And obviously the target for our arborist would be not until the building permit is approved, because in which case you could remove the trees and not get a building permit. And therefore the lot's been cleared to trees and there's nothing that's going to be built. So I believe, just with my knowledge, we wait for a building permit. However, Bill made the point that the development permit is what's triggering the tree removal. It's not sick, it's not a dying tree. It's not. It's. It's because we're developing the property or the property's been developed.

Speaker B · Councillor Boardman,

Speaker C · I also have a question about process and sequencing. So when this came to us late last year for the rezoning, we were advised that we were to talk about the trees. So the tree protection was to be considered at the time of the development permit, which is today, and then today we can't refuse the project at this point in time. So we seem to be quite limited in our ability to influence tree loss in a project such as this. So my question is, do some municipalities do rezoning and development permits at the same time? Which could probably provide a more. More fulsome discussion if they were both discussed at once. Because I feel like it's almost like the cart before the horse a little bit on this.

Speaker Y · Some do, yeah. If a municipality has a rezoning and development permit at the same time, and that development permit is discussed in the public hearing, that is unlawful and puts everything at risk. Also, this council knows that during the rezoning process, often things will be changed. Council will ask for this change here or that change here. If you spent all your time and effort for a development permit at the same time, you're doing rezoning, and then suddenly the rezoning is not what you expected. You've wasted a tremendous amount of time on doing your development permit, you're going to start again. So we don't do that.

Speaker Y · We do what I believe is the property method, rezoning development permit, because that's the way legislation is set up and it avoids a huge waste of time. If council, in their deliberations on the rezoning, decides they don't like what the applicant is proposing, and it absolutely avoids discussion of a development permit in a

Speaker Q · public hearing, which is off site.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor Morrison.

Speaker D · Yes, sir. Just back to trees again. This may be, I'm not sure without the arborist, if you have this information, but when we look at calculating the cost, the contribution for replacement of trees, that financial amount, is that sort of estimated based on the cost of a very young seedling just ready to be planted for the first time, or does that, because there are other trees that are not fully rooted yet, but still are transplantable, but a little bit more mature, but obviously probably would have a higher cost.

Speaker D · How do we, what exactly are we seeing ourselves paying for in terms of replacement trees? Is it generally seedlings or does it expand a bit to slightly more mature replacements?

Speaker Q · Yeah, specifically the question is how mature the trees are and how much they cost that we replace with.

Speaker U · Yeah.

Speaker D · And that's how, like the amount that we were asking for the financial contribution, as per our tree bylaw, does that. Does that. Is that based on seedlings mostly, or is that based on having maximum, you know, flexibility as to what we replace those trees with in terms of the maturity of the tree?

Speaker Q · Yeah, unfortunately, we would have to ask. I'd have to talk to arborist about that. The, the cost. So in a tree permit process, the cost varies depending on the age of the tree, the maturity of the tree. So you're right, but I, I'm, I, I don't have the value specs in front of me on how they do that, but it is something that, that we do.

Speaker D · Okay. So I, I guess the question in another way would be like, would the, would the tree replacement basically be seedlings? But the answer is, it depends. Is that, is that what you're saying? It's not a one size.

Speaker Q · We wouldn't approve a replacement with a seedling.

Speaker D · Okay, yeah. Good, good. Okay, thank you, Councillor Brain.

Speaker W · Similar line, but slightly different. Can we mandate. So when they take trees down and they're replacing trees on site, can we mandate the size of the trees? Like, do they have, is there a minimum size that they have to plant?

Speaker Q · There's an industry standard, a certain caliper size at a certain height that you would require for the replacement. If it's on private property, our own trees, we can pick the size and dimensions, but yeah, we would require, and it has to be healthy for a certain period of time. It has to be watered, has to be maintained, and there's a deposit that's left on that tree and we would keep the deposit if the tree doesn't live. And I apologize, I don't have the tree bala in front of Me, but no.

Speaker W · Yeah, and I seem to remember that, but I just couldn't remember whether there was a set size that had to be planted. Just because I think some of the concern of the residents is we are losing mature trees to put in smaller trees. And I don't even mean in our parks land, I mean on this property. So I know that's one of the concerns. So I just want to know if there's a minimum size tree that needs to be, you know, like it, it can't be a sapling. It has, has to be, you know, basically a two, three year old tree or whatever that, whatever the standard is.

Speaker W · And then following along the same line, has to, has to live past a year and be taken care of before the deposits are back.

Speaker C · I get that part.

Speaker W · But just a size aspect.

Speaker O · Yeah.

Speaker Q · And, and the size directly correlates with the lifetime. Like if the tree's going to survive the old the tree, more mature the tree, the more the tree will, the longer the tree will last. So yeah. So it makes sense for everyone to have a healthy tree.

Speaker B · All right, I'm going to ask the proponent to do their presentation and perhaps some of these questions can then be answered by the proponent. Welcome.

Speaker L · Thank you your worship council. My name is Rachel Sansom and I'm here this evening representing Mr. Vijay Bangu, who is the owner of 903 Admirals Road. Mr. Bangu again is a 36 year resident of Esquimalt. He's lived here, raised his children here and is a proud developer in this region and really hopes that this development is going to be something we can all be proud of. I'm also joined here today with our biologist, Mr. Don Skinner, our arborist, Keegan from Capitol Tree Service and Erin Renwick, our landscape designer. And they're here to answer your questions as well. Well so please feel free to ask or bring them up at any time during the presentation. As you wish. Do I have a clicker? Yes, I do.

Speaker L · So again the location, we know where it is now surrounded by to the dockyards. So lots of jobs, places to walk to work. Bringing this slide up, we did take into consideration the comments we heard at the committee of the whole regarding the footprint of the this development. And we found that overlaying it on ours, it didn't really actually save that much green space and it did eliminate some of the servicing features that we've really tried to incorporate including emergency access and turnaround. So we certainly had a look at different configurations. This project originally started with 10 units and it did get to eight in order to keep that sort of green perimeter around this, all the while preserving access and safety and mobility around the site.

Speaker L · So those are all very important components. Certainly it's an iterative process and lots of thought and expertise went into this final plan you're seeing today. So we did take again the committee's comments to heart and again noting that we're trying to balance housing with preserving the environment that we have. So we're protecting as many existing trees as we can with our project. Arborist would be on site to ensure that those are adequately protected with correct fencing, watching out for root damage, etc, evaluating the health of the trees as we go. They have now been correctly identified on plan. All our new landscape material and tree plantings complement the existing plantings and are native as much as they can be and they are climate adaptive.

Speaker L · So that I'll work into our upcoming development permit guidelines in all the categories we've been working with. We've also increased the amount of permeable area in the drive aisles, which will help with stormwater management and the need to send stormwater into the municipal system. So that's reduced that. So we did take heed to those requests that were made at the committee level. So for our natural environment DPA checklist, again, retaining as many existing trees as we can on site. As noted, the trees aren't in the best of health because it is an impacted site. There's been residential use for many years, but we are trying to preserve and enhance the native trees and shrub clusters, reduce the blasting and retaining walls.

Speaker L · So we're grading the site upwards and we've removed the retaining wall that was on the north side of the site and preserving a rock outcrop there. We're narrowing the driveways and reducing the number of parking stalls. We do have two under building parking stalls. They're not out creating more impermeable surfaces. You don't have to have two cars. It does provide a lot of nice storage for the residents as well if they want to have cargo bikes or kayaks or whatever. So it's actually nice to have that extra storage in those two car garages. It just worked out that way with the design of the site that two car garages were possible if needed. Certainly the landscaping that we are providing will provide habitat to small creatures and birds and butterflies. We're avoiding monoculture.

Speaker L · We're protecting and minimizing root damage to the trees, again under the supervision of our arborists. And everything will be planted and maintained in accordance with Canadian landscape standards. And this Also speaks to the size and spacing of trees we can have on site to make sure they have enough room to safely grow, as well as adding other plantings around them, again, preserving and restoring, enhancing the trees that we have, our stormwater retention and our increased permeable surfaces. You can see here the existing conditions. This was somebody's backyard, still is. The house is still there. You can see on the upper right hand side, there's a hedge that will remain to provide screening for our neighbor to the east, and on the upper left, the rock outcrop to be preserved.

Speaker L · And sort of in the middle slide, you can see how this yard has been impacted and that the health of the trees has been impacted by these uses. And then our driveway, which will be widened and trimmed up to provide safe access. So our new landscape plan. Included in this are three Garry oaks and one Arbutus. So those would be the bigger replacement trees, along with Pacific crabapple, vine maple, dogwood and mountain ash. So those are the native tree species we're working with, as well as many native shrubs listed here. And again, we've increased the permeable areas by tightening up the dry vials and allowing the stormwater to seep into the ground naturally, again using Canadian landscape standards. So this speaks to the soil volume.

Speaker L · Every tree requires a lot of soil to survive, so we have to make sure that those are provided as well as irrigation for specific period to ensure that they survive. And once that the tree is in place, the irrigation doesn't have to maintain for the long term. We've also defined the walkway along that panhandle access, so you can drive on that, but it also gives pedestrians a safe access to Admirals Road. And again, some visuals of our landscape features, including a little bit of a sitting area and our native plants that we're hoping to include. So there was a bit of conversation earlier about the tree preservation and replacement plan.

Speaker L · So we are retaining 21 trees on site, including four which are bylaw protected. And we are planting 28 trees on the site, three of which are the Garry Oaks and the one Arbutus, and then the cash in lieu. So essentially, we bond for the number of trees that are being removed at the 19th. $800. And then once the 28 replacement trees are planted and established and healthy, and that will be confirmed by your parks department, the developer will get the refund of $8,400 for that. So that leaves you at the $11,400 to plant trees elsewhere. On top of that, he's also offered an additional $5,000 towards a tree planting fund.

Speaker L · So that's a total of $16,400 to Esquimo for planting trees anywhere in the community. And again, in our tree preservation and planting plan, you have this in your package. It's probably a little easier to see in your materials than it is on screen, but you can see where we're planting trees in and around the new buildings. So going to DPAs 3 and 6 are enhanced design control and multifamily residential. We are working with a traditional design scheme with articulated front facades, windows and roof lines to break up the massing of the buildings. The buildings are staggered to add dimension. We do have usable outdoor space in the patios in the rear yards of these homes and using traditional materials to suit their surrounding neighborhoods, including the roof lines.

Speaker L · So in driving here today down Admiral's Road, I noticed that this is very typical architecture in some of the new buildings here in Esquimo, adding a variety of planting and trees within the landscape plan. Our double garages with carriage style doors and our complementary roof pictures. So they all look the same as noted, minimal blasting and grading. We're working with the land. There will be a little bit of blasting for services, but that will be minimal. And if neighborhood residents have concerns, the blasting company does have to notify neighbors within a radiant before they start as part of their insurance process. And then the lighting on site exterior will be night sky appropriate.

Speaker L · So as the planner noted, we have two blocks of four and they are articulated with different facades using hardie board, board and batten, our fenestrated windows. And then the interesting roof lines with the carriage doors at the lower level. And really important I think too is the rear of the homes also have interest. Quite often you see a blank canvas in the backyard with boring windows. But they really tried to make the rears of these buildings interesting as well. And across the way, slightly different form and character with more of a horizontal facade just to break things up so they don't all look the same.

Speaker L · But again, giving the rear of the buildings a treatment as well for energy and GHG reduction. Again, tree retention, replanting a variety of trees that provide shade and water retention on the site, we can be solar ready. These are strata buildings, so individuals wouldn't be able to put up a solar panel on the roof because the roofs are owned by the strata. But if the strata wished to do solar, they certainly could. There's good exposure here. The windows are placed for privacy, but sunlight will reach into the home and of course they open for natural ventilation. So we do have private patios for each home parking in building to reduce those paved surfaces, exterior lighting, dark sky criteria and safety.

Speaker L · Of course, we want people to feel safe in their neighborhood using electric heat pumps instead of gas. The durable exterior cladding Hardy Plank holds paint really well and is easy to maintain so it won't need replacing. Adding to the longevity and and environmental benefits of these buildings. And of course, wood frame construction using local products where we can Energy star rated appliances and step code 3 or higher depending on your step code of the day for water conservation. Again, stormwater management systems are designed and certified by professional engineers in accordance with your bylaws. We have permeable landscape areas and pavers to reduce the amount of storm water that will leave the site.

Speaker L · Trees again being retained and replanted. Native and native compatible species for reduced irrigation needs, which is really important in the hot summers. Again, all irrigation will be the Canadian landscape standards, so they will have to be on timers so you won't get overuse of water. They're only watered enough to let the plants survive. And all the plumbing fixtures in the buildings will be low flow. Thank you so much. And our team is here to answer your question.

Speaker B · Thank you. Questions, Councilor Bream. Thank you.

Speaker W · When you. If you look at the Garry Oak Meadow assessment, they talk about in there, you know, a lot of what's going to happen is unavoidable. But there's ways to take some of the natural stuff that's in there and salvage it for other places. Where was it in here? Ecological benefits can be recovered through plant salvage. Has the developer decided to connect with anybody about some of those plant salvages that can't be used on the site here but could be used somewhere else?

Speaker L · Oh, we certainly could do that. We haven't done that yet, of course, because we didn't know the timing of the receiving the permit. But certainly we can add that to the requirements to connect with the local group. Yeah, it's done quite a lot. I know there's lots questions of groups available.

Speaker B · Exactly.

Speaker S · And.

Speaker W · And I think it would, you know, it helps with offsetting some of the other.

Speaker L · Absolutely. Now we'd be happy to add that to our list of requirements.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you, Councer. Councilor Morrison.

Speaker V · Thank you.

Speaker D · Could you go back to the landscape plan? I think there's a couple of slides. You have a few slides here.

Speaker Q · Yes.

Speaker D · Okay. That, that's so.

Speaker O · What?

Speaker D · Just at the bottom left corner there, there's that. That concrete surface just very end of the row of housing there. It wasn't clear to me in the plans, it doesn't say, like, is that a visitor spot or is that, like, why is that not landscaped?

Speaker L · Thank you. Through the mayor, that is a seating area for the residents. So it's not actually paved. It's either going to be a gravel or some other permeable surface, a little walkway to a couple of seats.

Speaker D · So that you're looking. I just want to be clear that you're looking at. Are you talking about that sort of brown pathway is this.

Speaker L · Yeah, the very lower left hand corner.

Speaker D · Yeah, I'm talking actually, just before that, there's a gray space in between the driveway and that way. You're talking about.

Speaker L · Forgive me, sir. That is part of our turnaround for the emergency vehicles. They'll have to nose in there and then back into between the buildings to get out. So that's actually part of. If you refer to the earlier slide where we show the fire truck turnaround, I think it's slide four. I'd be happy to go back to that.

Speaker D · Okay.

Speaker L · It shows the path, the wheel path of the emergency vehicles.

Speaker D · And that's a requirement.

Speaker L · Yes, but that can be done with permeable brick. It doesn't have to be solid paving if I think we actually show it as permeable brick in that location.

Speaker D · Okay. Because it just looks like an extension of the driveway on your car.

Speaker L · It is. And it's meant for emergency vehicles and other vehicles, Amazon trucks, whatever, to turn around in that location.

Speaker D · Okay. I guess through the chair, a question for staff. If we wanted to make that requirement to make it a permeable service, is that something we can require, Mr. Brown?

Speaker Y · Yes, you could. Although I think it's probably better off as a turning radius, given that this is a panhandle lock and you might get a big moving truck or something stuck in there. But then the yapkin did say it's going to be permeable pavers. What you could, we could ask for is like concrete tracks for the tire with landscaping between the tracks, if you want to do that. But I think we should retain an ability to get large trucks turned around.

Speaker D · Okay, I'll just set that aside for a moment then, but thank you.

Speaker B · Councillor. Hello.

Speaker F · If you go back one more time to the slide, you were just on the landscape one.

Speaker L · We have several.

Speaker F · The one where you have some of the trees that are going to be removed.

Speaker L · Oh, there we go, the tree.

Speaker F · This one here?

Speaker P · Yeah.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker F · I know this is probably a challenging question to ask in the theoretical, but the two most significant areas of the Garry Oaks, if I am correct, are sort of to the top left and the top right on sort of the two most northern units on both building six.

Speaker F · Am I correct? I'm testing how good my eyes are.

Speaker L · Thank you. Through the chair. I believe so. And certainly I can ask our arborist to speak to some of this, if you would like.

Speaker F · It's less about the trees. I was more curious. I just wanted to confirm that I was reading this correctly.

Speaker V · So

Speaker F · a lot of the ecological value for the Garry oaks and the woodland area here, if there was more protection of those Garry oak trees, I guess my question in terms of what does that mean for design, considering those trees are sort of right in the middle of four of the units, if there was a requirement to try and protect those trees,

Speaker L · again, the root zones of the trees also come into play. So it's not just the little X's of the trees that are impacted. It's actually a broader area, which is why many of them, you know, appear to be outside a building envelope, but actually can't stay. Yeah. That you would lose units, I think, doing that if you had to retain those trees. And again, the health of these trees, you know, Port au Fair, generally, because it is an impacted site. And I believe we did provide a environmental report that spoke to the value of this as an ecosystem. It's more of a just trees in a backyard.

Speaker L · It's not an intact ecosystem anymore due to the years of residential impacts on this property.

Speaker F · And then perhaps one more question that may actually be for your arborist, considering I understand in some of the materials there will be some blasting on the site and a few other areas for the trees that you're working hard to retain. What is sort of the significant of the risk to them, considering the extent of the construction area and the potential blasting.

Speaker L · Thank you through the mayor, I'll ask their arborist, Keegan, to answer that question

Speaker X · through the chair. So my biggest concern would be in the northern right upper right hand corner of the site. That's where a large Garry oak and a Douglas fir is situated. My concern is less to do with blasting as much as it would be with excavation. However, there is the existing rock outcropping there that kind of holds that root system back towards that northwest corner. So that helps mitigate the impacts. As far as blasting impacts, you're really looking at shockwave impacts to the cambium of the tree. So mitigation measures that I look for are heavy matting to reduce the load or the amount that actually comes up, as well as reducing the Frequency or the intensity of that shockwave to start with.

Speaker X · The other thing, in this close of proximity, I would look for usually plywood blasting boards to be put up right against the tree protection zone to act as a barrier to buffer anything that does get past those heavy matting. Again, however, because of the proximity of the nearby townhouses on the other side, the blasting contractors have to be super careful of the windows on those buildings. So that's an added feature that helps protect the trees in that matter. There is also a provision that I include in all of our arborist reports that blasting should be mitigated just to fracture the rock and using HO ramming to break up the rock further so that it can be removed, as well as exploring the options of using substances like geobreak, which are expanding grout that you drill, you fill it in, and then actually expands the hole, and then that fractures the rock itself.

Speaker F · So in your professional opinion, for the trees that we're trying best to retain, there's a good chance with those mitigations that they will survive construction?

Speaker X · Absolutely. That's my obligation, is to make sure that they are retainable, because I would not be doing my due diligence if I send a report up here that is not accurate.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker B · Councillor Kavith.

Speaker T · Yeah.

Speaker H · Just staying on this slide. You described in text a little bit the changes that have been made since the DRC meeting. And I just wondered if you could explain a little more visually or. Because it looks similar. But my sense of it is that the setbacks are different. The units have shifted a little bit. If you could just confirm that or just describe what the changes are spatially on this, from that, from what was presented to the DRC meeting.

Speaker L · Thank you. And again, through the chair, we actually changed our landscape consultant, and we have a much higher quality now of landscape plan than we did before, and underestimating the scrutiny we would be under. So we really put a lot of time and effort into these new plans for your replacement review and approval. We've added that rock outcrop at the northerly portion of the site. We've increased the permeability, as you can see, by the two different colors of gray in the dry vials. And we've shifted patios around to retain trees, added more native species, really added a lot more trees on site as replacement trees. And I just think it's a.

Speaker L · It's a more robust, robust plan that'll be to Canadian landscape standards. Everything will be planted in accordance with that, so it has the best chance of survival. And again, this Development permit is on title to these properties and they'll be obligated to upkeep the plantings over time. So they're not going to. The strata won't be allowed to just sort of let it go. You know, they have to keep it up because this development permit will be there for life. So I don't know if that's that fully answered your question about the specific changes.

Speaker H · So there weren't changes to the actual buildings themselves or the setbacks. You mentioned reducing the parking. I'm just the parking width. Is there more green space than there was when I went to drc?

Speaker L · I think that the drive aisle got a little bit tighter. But we again, we could only tighten it up so much that we could maintain emergency access. I think again, adjusting the patios, increasing the permeable surfaces and improving the quality of the landscaping achieved those goals.

Speaker H · This is a question for Mr. Brown. I think I've asked this on other projects, so I just want to confirm for this one is that we don't have under our current procedures the ability to go back to DRC to ask, ask if this meets their needs of what they talked about as well, what they requested.

Speaker Y · That's correct. The bylaw says it can only go once.

Speaker B · Further questions.

Speaker D · Councillor Morrison, on the same topic you talked about, obviously maintenance would be very important for the landscaping to survive and to thrive. Is there a sprinkler system included in this design or landscape or like would it just be on the onus on the new residents to have to water things with hoses knowing that we're getting less and less rain than we used to get as a. We're not as much of a rainforest as we originally used to be. So just wondering what the plan would be around maintenance in terms of watering.

Speaker L · Thank you. And again through the chair. So the irrigation systems will be to Canadian landscape standards. So they'll be professionally installed and specific to the planting plan. So they're very sophisticated now. They're on timers. You can operate them remotely and they'll respond to different times of year. You can even get them that know what the weather's going to do. So you're not watering during a rainstorm. So those would be part of the maintenance of the landscape plan that is approved as part of the dp. And, and yes, we're using as many drought resistant native species as we can. But you're correct they will need some water over time and specifically during establishment of the landscaping and the trees. So you don't want to leave them hanging with no water.

Speaker L · So this will be part of the detailed design that will be provided at building permit will be the irrigation plan and the system and it'll be on the strata to keep it maintained.

Speaker H · Councillor Cabins, I have a question for your landscape designer. This is perhaps a little too specific but I'm just curious about the size of the trees and the species in particular that are being proposed on the right hand side of this thing. The Edius white wonder and the Acer Ciceronetum. Just curious as to why there isn't room there or proposing anything larger. Because Eddie's white wonder tops out at about 20ft.

Speaker B · Yeah.

Speaker S · Through the chair.

Speaker B · Those are trees that can handle the

Speaker L · big hedge that's along that whole side there too. So that hedge is quite large and so we couldn't plant a large tree in there and expect it to do well.

Speaker H · Okay, thank you.

Speaker R · Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. Seeing no further questions. Council, there is a recommendation for your consideration.

Speaker W · I'm going to move that. Council approve the Development Permit DP000266 authorizing the form and character of the proposed townhouse. Residential development consistent with the architectural plans provided by Adoption Adapt Design Inc. And landscape plan provided by Greenspace Designs to be located at 903 Admirals Road. Attached as Appendix A of Staff Report DEV 26 030.

Speaker B · Thank you. I'm looking for a seconder. Thank you. Do you wish to speak to it Councillor Brain?

Speaker K · I will.

Speaker W · You know this was, this was a tough one because you know there are you know, Gary oaks being removed and big Douglas firs. But I also read very carefully the arborist report and the about the garret, you know, was it a meadow or is it a backyard? More of a woodlands. And then I looked at what was sent to the design review committee and where the proponent has gone, added extra trees, added more permeable surfaces. They you know, are you know talking to them about, you know, are you going to salvage some of the native plants that you can't use so that they can go somewhere else and you know they've, they've agreed to look at that and do that.

Speaker W · I just see that there's been a lot of work going forward and this is exactly the housing that we need. I look at, you know, not everybody wants to raise their family in a two or three bedroom condo. They want a townhouse. That entire area is filled with townhouses and filled with multi generational, you know, ages in there. There's seniors, there's young families. It's the right location for it and I do feel that the proponent has worked hard to try to find that balance, balance between the trees and what the community is needing when it comes to that missing middle housing. So for those reasons, I will vote for you.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor Hallowell.

Speaker F · Yeah, thank you very much. These are obviously not the easy decisions around the table when there's, you know, such an important balance in these developments and, and some significant concerns shared, I think, around the table and certainly with a number of people in the room. On whole though, looking at sort of everything in front of us, development permit sort of substantially conforms with the framework that we've set out in our, in our areas, doesn't have variances.

Speaker R · And

Speaker F · for the most part I agree with staff's conclusions about satisfying the applicable development permit area guidelines as we have articulated them. And while there was not substantial changes to the proposal in terms of density or orientation or anything like that, the revised landscape plan did make some strides towards addressing some of the concerns of drc, particularly around permeability and some of those other other components.

Speaker F · The loss of the mature trees, particularly some of the more protected ones like Gary Oaks and others, obviously quite concerning, but I don't see a lot of sort of evidence or comfort that, that if we were to deny the development permit that we would have a materially better outcome in front of us later based on where the trees are sort of scattered throughout the site and what we've previously approved for zoning and having our stated housing objectives.

Speaker F · So I think everything that Councillor Bram said and then more the sort of nitty gritty in terms of whether or not the development permit complies with our areas. I'm leaning towards support, but open to hearing from my colleagues.

Speaker B · Discussion, further discussion. Councillor Cavins.

Speaker H · Yeah, I find this one frustrating. My mom reminded me that I've been protesting cutting down trees since I was about three years old. So that's kind of been where I come from initially. But I, I'm also really cognizant about not changing the rules midstream on someone. And this is what our official community plan, for good or for bad, has designated as townhouses. And when I look at what the DRC comments were and I look at the outline, I visited the site, peered over the fence, really have a hard time seeing how you could bring a townhouse house type development in here without impacting the trees that are there, we would have to substantially reduce density.

Speaker H · It's already below the density that's envisioned in the ocp. And I also think that the landscape plan is a big improvement for what was presented at DRC and I am a little frustrated that we're not allowed to go back to DRC and ask because I think that the professionals on that may have, have a different view than what they did originally. And I would like to hear that and would like to have that brought back to us at some point. I do think that this, as I said, I think in November this points out all the areas where I find our OCP and development permit areas frustrating. They're a laundry list.

Speaker H · And you can rightly look at the development permit areas, you can look at this site and say it meets them all. And you can also, I understand the people in the room who think that it doesn't and I don't think that's a helpful form of regulation and a helpful form for us. And so when we're doing our next OCP review, we really need to focus on tree retention on urban tree cover and really get down into the details as to what gets prioritized over what because I think it's unfair to both the developer, the proponent. We had dozens of emails talking about how his projects have been, been great in the community.

Speaker H · And so I can see that perspective and the need for housing, but I can also see the need and if there are sites like this that need to be park or need to be some other form of housing and not what they're designated, I think we should really be taking a fine toothed look at our tree inventory.

Speaker H · So we really need to get on that and change that. But I think this is for what it is. This is actually a pretty good layout. I think that the tree, the landscape design is much improved and I appreciate the, you know, it's all native understory. There's lots of great things going on there. It's going to be successful over the long term. So for that I will support it. But it's not an enthusiastic support. It's a frustration with our OCP and development permit areas that we really need to get moving on changing so that we don't have this conflict going forward.

Speaker B · Thank you. Are you ready for the question? Do you wish to comment?

Speaker C · Yeah, I'll just make a little comment. So I understand the frustrations of some of the speakers tonight and also those that have written in and I, I do share some of those concerns. I'm not keen on the sequency, the sequencing of some of these discussions and I think we could definitely improve on that in the future. I'm also not happy about such a loss of trees. But having said that, I feel this project meets the guidelines that we do have in place at this time and as such I, I provide my support. But I do look forward to further refinement of our policies in the future as we start the OCP review at the beginning of next year.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor Morrison.

Speaker D · I'm not. I'll ask the chair whether I'm on topic or not. But, but related to this being a case study, we received a very good presentation at our last committee of the whole around some recommendations based on this property or this development permit that could be more general about how we should approach.

Speaker B · I would ask you to bring that up after we make the decision on this.

Speaker D · Okay, so that was one question. Can we action that tonight?

Speaker B · I will allow you to bring it up after this to ask the question how we. What could be done.

Speaker D · Okay, then, then I'm. And then. Okay, I'm fine with that. Thank you.

Speaker B · Okay, are we ready for the question? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. The motion is carried. Yeah, and Councillor Morrison, go ahead and ask, ask your question of staff.

Speaker D · Okay. Maybe I'll have to go and look up our committee the whole to get specifics, but I think staff are familiar. Last committee hole we had a presentation, as I said, using this development permit as a case study and some very, you know, sound recommendations going forward. So that although what we heard from council and from the public around being somewhat frustration of lack of guidance or, or even bylaws or anything that we could, whether you're the developer or whether you're a council, whether you're the public that can point to as concrete processes around natural habitats, what is the question?

Speaker D · So is that something that we could ask staff to look into providing us a report on as a result of this vote we just took? Or is that something that required no submotion?

Speaker B · What would be the process or should it come forward at the OCP review view?

Speaker D · I think we asked that question, actually asked that question and it was answered. That's not necessarily OCP.

Speaker B · We'll let Mr. Brown answer.

Speaker Y · So first of all we need to put this in the context of the community charter which says you cannot use tree preservation bylaw to thwart density. So there's a lot of things to think about in all of this discussion and I've heard everybody's comments tonight. It's much, much broader than just trying to protect trees, which my undergraduate degree is in biology. I agree with protecting trees, but it's a very, very broad subject. So I will go back and look at the presentation that was made at Community whole. And I will let the CAO know what I've found and he can communicate with council.

Speaker B · Thank you. Do you wish to speak, Mr. Horan?

Speaker U · Yes, thank you, Chair. I think the question really does come down to look what's Council's wish when it comes to whatever project. So when it comes to defining what you're going to do for the ocp, what policy discussions do you want to have, what analysis you want to do, what input all those things factor in to what that project's going to be. So it's not, I think where Mr. Brown is and where I am at the moment is we're not saying yes, no, yes. You can't, you can't. It has more to do with how does council want to shape that project when it's time to look into those details.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you.

Speaker D · And I just had one last request of staff to. I know in our period reports like from Parks and Rec, it'll talk about tree plantings and whatnot. It would be nice to be able to get a correlation between specific projects or contributions from projects for tree replanting and then have that, you know, for example, down the road at some point we'll get a period report about new trees being planted. It would be nice to be able to align that with this project so we know where those trees went, whether they were in the vicinity of this neighborhood or somewhere else, and what kinds of trees, what species, all of that.

Speaker B · I will believe that staff have heard your comment.

Speaker J · Thank you.

Speaker D · Great.

Speaker B · All right, we're going to move on. And Council, we, we still have some heavy agenda items, but we're going to go right to facilities asset management plan. Those that are leaving, I'll ask you to do it quietly so that we can keep going. Thank you. Councelor Arm.

Speaker R · All right.

Speaker B · Yes, sorry Mr. Clary, go ahead.

Speaker V · Thank you. Your worship, before you tonight is the township's facilities asset management plan. The plan builds off previous high level assessments we've done on our assets as well as more recent detailed building condition assessments to create a long term plan for managing facilities in the township. We do have the consultant on the line, but before I turn it over to them to provide the presentation, also just note that as part of the report tonight, staff are also seeking direction on initiating feasibility study to explore future uses of the temporary fire hall which was spoke about earlier tonight, to explore what those options may be as the building still has approximately 15 years left of life.

Speaker V · And so with that I will turn it over to the consultant who is Colliers project leaders to present the facilities asset management plan.

Speaker R · Thanks, Joel. Can everyone hear us okay?

Speaker B · Yes, we can.

Speaker R · Great. Okay, well, thank you for having us here this evening. I'm going to take us through and then hand it over as well. Go ahead, Cam. If you want to move to the first slide, today's agenda for the plan is I'll do some introductions of our team. We'll talk about the background of the project that we worked on with your team, the methodology that we followed, the facility portfolio scorecards that we prepared and some next steps as well. So our team at Collier's, project leaders, we are a part of the infrastructure advisory team. Our managing director is Dean Plater. He couldn't join with us this evening. He's located in Ottawa along with myself. I'm Rhonda Henry.

Speaker R · I'm a senior manager on the infrastructure advisory team and I was a project lead working with your team as well. I have my colleague Justin McDonald. For the very first or second time, we're actually in the same room together. We're traveling together this week on a different project and Justin was the project manager. And we have Cameron Lansky who is also on the call this evening who was our project analyst.

Speaker O · I'll jump in here folks, and thanks for having us tonight. I'm going to give everyone a brief overview of the project background as well as a bit of sense of what our objectives were as part of this engagement. So we were originally engaged by the engineering and public works and parks and recreation departments who operate a portfolio of municipal facilities where the maintenance approach for each of the facilities have been both a combination of preventative and reactive strategies. We can get into some greater detail about what that might look like downstream here. In seeking to more proactive, we prioritize the current and future investment needs for these assets.

Speaker O · The township has engaged us to do an assessment of the asset management assets in management and to develop a plan itself. So our objectives include identifying and filling gaps on the facility portfolio. This includes expanding on existing BCAS building condition assessment findings. The second piece here is to advise on improvements to the current facility management approach and methods. And the last piece is the development of short, medium and long term actions to guide guide successful planning and execution of said improvements. We can jump over to the next slide here. I'll give everyone a quick overview of what our methodology and approach was pertaining to the development of the asset management plan. So in the first phase, we did a current state assessment of the existing assets within the portfolio.

Speaker O · Part of that included validating the portfolio as well as the data that was Tied to these assets. We conducted an index analysis of documents that exist within the departments that were provided to us. We had a bit of a consultation exercise where we conducted some interviews to gather some perspective and information. And we drafted a current state assessment report which essentially summarized the learnings from those three initial pieces. Stretching over to phase two, we actually got into the process of developing the facilities asset management plan. So the number one component of that was closing information gaps, conducting a workshop with various esquimo key resources to make sure that the information that has been gathered is correct.

Speaker O · The approach that we put together was effective, which is in the appendix if we would like to check that out at some point. And then we put together our operating model and the asset management plan itself as a final deliverable. Jumping over to the next slide, I'm going to hand it over to my colleague Cameron. He's going to go through the high level portfolio scorecards for each of the facilities that were assessed.

Speaker S · Perfect. Thanks, Justin. So yeah, the facility scorecards here are really just serving to provide a high level snapshot of all the 10 facilities that we've been assessing. So I'll go through things quickly. I'll spend a little bit more time on the first one here. So we kind of break down what this table means and the same table format is going to repeat through the subsequent slides. So the Archie Browning Sports center, we're looking at year of construction. This would be 1960. The anticipated replacement year of 2060. The facility condition index of 9. 46%. So what does this mean? And FCI is basically a quantitative measure for understanding the condition of a, of an asset. So we have some possible ranges here. Being 0 to 10, this is our good range. This is where we want to be.

Speaker S · We have fair, which is 10 to 25%. Poor is 25 to 60%. And then anything above 60% is kind of a critical range. Following that is the estimated replacement cost in today's dollars. So in 2026, what would this cost to replace? Like for like replacement of the asset, we're looking at $80 million. Then we have our projected replacement costs. So this is in 2060, this is the end of life and it would be $257 million. So how we got to this number and it's consistent for all the other facilities. Here is a 3. 5% average annual increase that's been applied. Then we have our prioritization ranking. So this is here at number one. This has been determined two part process here.

Speaker S · So taking fci, which is our condition quantitative Condition plus a qualitative piece which was determined through that workshop with township resources. And one last thing to note, on the prioritization ranking, we have it one through five. However, the other five facilities we assess are not included in the prioritization as the data was unavailable to us to complete that. And the last item on the table is facility capacity. So what this means is the physical capacity. So in terms of having enough storage, equipment space for your resources, whether that's people, residents using the space or staff as well, and this was highlighted as a minor deficiency efficiency, meaning there's some capacity being hit here.

Speaker S · Moving on the second side of the screen here, the right side is Squamil Rec Center. So we're looking at anticipated replacement of 2053, also in that good range for FCI at 9. 3%. Projected replacement in the year 2053 of 140 million. And facility capacity similarly with minor deficiencies as well. Over to the Public Works building, we're looking at a replacement of 2056 as well. In our good category for FCI, this is a grade score of 0. 53%. Projected replacement of 36 million. And the facility as it stands is currently meeting its needs. The municipal hall a 2073 replacement, also good for FCI at 1. 04%. There replacement in 2037, 2073 rather of 43 million. And minor deficiencies being highlighted for facility capacity. Carrying on the Parks Nursery building.

Speaker S · This is a bit of a sooner replacement here. We're looking at 2044 for this asset. Still good SCI for this building. And because of the square footage and the needs of this asset, the replacement cost is lower at 2. 2 million here and also currently meeting the name needs. Then we move into the Public Safety building, of course still in construction, but we're anticipating an 80 year useful life of this asset. So therefore we're unable to now determine SDI at the stage without being constructed. Same for the capacity in prioritization ranking. We do know that it's a $45 million project cost and if we inflated this to the year 2106, it's 705 million, which I understand is a big number to look at.

Speaker S · Well, we have to keep in mind that over an 80 year period, we're looking at a year over year escalation of 3. 5%, which is going to add up. And if we look backwards 80 years in the past from now, we're going to see pretty similar figures in terms of inflation. Next up is the recently constructed Gorge Pavilion, anticipated replacement of 2082 at that point is projected to be a $94 million replacement at that year and the facility is currently meeting its needs. The temporary fire hall, another one that's coming up closer on the replacement side here of 2042. Looking at the replacement, assuming if it was like for like replacement, this would be about $10. 9 million.

Speaker S · And the final two for the scorecards would be the public library at 2092 for the anticipated replacement coming in at $52 million at that point in time. And then lastly our Chafe House, which is at 398 Fraser St. So the replacement is not anticipated at this point, or at least I should say a like for like replacement is not anticipated. Therefore, the values have not been projected into the future. However, as it stands, the facility is meeting its current needs and I'll pass it back over to Justin now.

Speaker O · Thanks, Cameron. So this slide here summarizes sustainable funding level. If you look over to your left in the lighter blue, you'll see that There is a FIT Consulting report that was developed in October of 2024 and the estimated annual sustainable funding for facilities would be 2. 4 million from their perspective at that time. Having said that, after going through this exercise, the number that we've discerned is 1. 8 million as of June 2026, and that is for the next year and remaining years moving forward. This is assuming that a 30% funding requirement is provided as equity for each facility at the time of replacement. There's a number of funding sources. You can, you can go through grants as a potential avenue as well. So that number is sort of a rough order of magnitude of the distribution, but that's where this number comes from.

Speaker O · And the reason for this change between 2024 and and today would primarily be the difference in debt equity ratio that we modeled. The second piece would be the replacement value. So the method that we use to calculate the replacement value was different from what was taking place here with the Fed consulting report previously. And then the last piece here is the actual replacement year. So we have differing assumptions around the actual life cycle of the assets themselves, which is influencing the total cost of construction that you adjusted for inflation in future years. And the last piece here, we'll hand it over to Rhonda for our next step summary.

Speaker R · Yeah, so essentially coming out of the work that we've done, some next steps that council might consider are to conduct building condition assessments for the entire portfolio. So as you saw, we did not have them for every single one of the facilities. And so to Effectively understand, quantify and compare the the facility conditions across the portfolio. BCA should be conducted for the Gorge Pavilion, the temporary Fire hall, the Public library and the Chafe House. Then next we would consider preparing feasibility studies on future facility uses. There's been some talk about that as well this evening. So to complete feasibility studies for the Fire hall, the Municipal hall, the Chafe House to evaluate potential future uses and or viable interim uses over the remaining useful life of these assets and then to implement the next steps in the operating model report which are intended to strengthen the practices including building plans, KPIs, SOPs, improve record keeping, regular reporting and business continuity planning.

Speaker R · And that concludes our presentation.

Speaker B · Thank you very much. Mr. Clary, do you want to add anything at this point?

Speaker V · Nothing to add but we're here for questions.

Speaker B · Okay. Councillor Armour,

Speaker T · thank you. Thank you very much for that very comprehensive report and presentation. I have a couple of questions. I think they're probably more likely to be aimed at staff. In the recommendation part B says direct staff to request increased infrastructure funding as part of the annual budget process us would that be over and above the 3% that staff are already seeking to go for infrastructure funding in the budget

Speaker U · through the chair? No, I think that's meant to reflect the fact that we've been briefing that each year, at least for the next 10 years there's going to be an increase tied to sustainable service delivery. So we're just trying to by. By delivering the facilities asset management plan. There's a bunch of AB to E there or F but B is around saying this just reinforces what we've been recommending and we'll continue to recommend going forward in terms of increased funding requirement to achieve that.

Speaker T · I find that to be frank and we can talk about it later. That recommendation on the bazaar it's like we're directing you to come back to us for a decision that will be anyway. Okay. So parking that my other question is is it's mentioned in a couple places that the the Vic PD space is currently underutilized and could be right sized. Can you clarify that a bit?

Speaker U · Absolutely. So through the chair when the. So we have to go back a little bit just to talk a bit of history. The original concept for the public safety building in the current where the current site where it's going to be was a fire hall plus a police station plus an emergency operation and then because of construction cost escalation that building was not affordable. So the council rescoped it to build what we're building now which is the fire hall. And the emergency operations center. And at the time, so that would be 2023 when that decision was made. You know, the idea was okay, the police had moved out of the old public safety building into downstairs that was vacated by the library.

Speaker U · And the idea was to have them be there for the length of the construction project and then on completion they were meant to go into the new public safety building. And we recognized that there is no place for them to go. So the original renovation that occurred downstairs to make the space usable and effective operationally for police was done with the original concept in mind that they'd be out in two or three years and then and it would be re renovated again to meet whatever the township's needs are. So now there is still an unanswered question about where are police going in the short term or even the medium term, like is there a new police facility in the future or do they stay where they are or whatever that is, which is what we talked about when we re scoped the public safety building.

Speaker U · And so now the question is what we have to do is that one work is to figure out okay, what are the operational needs of police? Can they be met with the space downstairs? We think there's a lot of extra space downstairs which was kind of not optimized because of the original concept was not needed. But now with a fresh look we can still meet police needs but then and potential future or change in municipal staff because we're tight up here or police can move out to potentially where the new fire hall is or the temporary fire hall is and then open up the space downstairs for complete new use or whatever.

Speaker U · So there's a bunch of options that need to be looked at costed and then also just from a perspective of well, what does the municipality want in terms of like service delivery and what makes sense from those perspectives.

Speaker T · Thank you. Just so that was more comprehensive than I was looking for, but that was very helpful.

Speaker B · Helpful.

Speaker T · But specifically in the report then when you talk about the VIC PD space being underutilized, the current space, what you're saying is, and just from what I think you just said is that if they did stay there, there's still potentially space down there that could be used for something other than the police through the chair.

Speaker U · Apologies for my long winded answer. The short answer is if you just walk through their space, they have they, we can meet all of their operational needs needs right now and there's still extra floor space, you know, like where that you could, you know, if you were willing to do a Renovation to change where walls were. You know, in. In conjunction with Vic PD's needs and desires and requirements, we could recover some space to. To alleviate some of our other municipal challenges in this building which we've been kind of waiting to look at.

Speaker B · Councillor Cavant,

Speaker Q · I'll start with a light hearted one.

Speaker H · I as the. My mic is off for the first time ever. It's usually on most of the time. As the chair of the library board I have to take some offense at the fact that the library is scored under non financial values quite low. And I mean it's kind of a question. Question is why was that done that way? Why is it giving a score below a temporary fire hall?

Speaker V · I can take this through the chair. So part of it comes down to the criteria that was being used. The library is a relatively new facility so it doesn't score particularly high from a historical or cultural perspective compared to some of our other facilities. It also doesn't generate the same level of direct economic activity as other facilities like the rec center and the support center which we talked about earlier tonight. And as a result it may rank lower even though it still is obviously an important asset for the community. I'd also note though that this isn't a one time evaluation. This is asset management is an iterative process that definitely will be reviewed over time and changes to the ranking could happen.

Speaker J · I'll just.

Speaker H · Next time it gets reviewed in a 70 year lifespan I think it should go up a little higher onto a more serious question. In the staff report there's some discrepancy between that. What the modeling is showing that there's an escalation rate of 3. 5%. And then it says in the report, the staff report, that there's no investment interest that would be earned over time. And in the consultant report it says that the investment report is 4. 5%. Just want to make sure that we're not getting numbers that are wildly out of whack here through the chair.

Speaker V · I can answer that as well. So that was an oversight on staff's behalf. That was an error in the staff report. So the numbers provided that you had identified by Colliers at three and a half percent of the construction escalation costs and then the 4. 5% return is what were factored in. And Colliers, if one of you did have anything else to add, feel free to add on why those particular rates were being used.

Speaker H · Okay, one other question and else I have a couple more but where were

Speaker B · we waiting for a response from.

Speaker H · I totally. I thought he Answered

Speaker O · yeah, apologies. So the, the estimate on our end from, from the 3. 5 escalation is an order of magnitude. So if there any, if there's any need for an adaptation to that value is certainly something we could incorporate with rationale. But for the sake of long term estimating, looking at example of 2106 as a specific assets escalation end date, that that was the rate that we selected. For the sake of modeling and in

Speaker R · terms of the interest, we just again used an order of magnitude that we're seeing with other like municipalities average figures.

Speaker H · And for me at least hearing that it's 1% above sort of makes sense that any of those numbers. Last question is this 30% savings, 70% debt ratio which, which was obviously difference between what was modeled before. How do we determine that and how does council wrestle with that? Because that'll have a huge impact over our savings over the long term. And what we do when a facility needs significant upgrades

Speaker Q · through the chair.

Speaker V · If Colliers could jump in on this one as well.

Speaker O · Yeah, so. So we consulted with subject matter experts within our advisory practice on general long term ratios when it comes to debt structuring within financing facilities and 30, 70 as a ratio is commonly seen within municipalities. Having said that, again, rough order of magnitude estimate and the source of that equity may be coming from not just cash reserves but also grants and other funding sources sources as well for consideration. So that will have some impact on the total percentage that's coming out of accounts.

Speaker B · Councillor Morrison then Boardman.

Speaker D · Thank you. So council recall that I cheated a little bit earlier by skipping ahead to this agenda item when we were doing the recreation facilities. But it was. My question was on. On the question that you're asking us in terms of your recommendation about the temporary fire hall use. I want to know a little more about what is the market for. I'm assuming this is a completely mobile facility that you just take it apart and you can sell it to someone else and they can relocate it and put it back together the way it is now for their use. So is that true? My premise.

Speaker O · Correct.

Speaker T · Sorry.

Speaker V · Through the chair at a high level it is. Every part wouldn't be reused, but some of the major components could definitely be repurposed that could be dismantled and reset up in other locations.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker D · Has there been any interest in the region or queries about potential purchasers

Speaker V · to date? There's been a couple inquiries, but it's not something that we've advertised or pursued at this point. We just want to explore all of the potential options.

Speaker P · Okay.

Speaker D · So we're not assuming that we're actually holding onto it. I mean, the question sort of says, what's going to be our future use? That could include actually selling it to someone else to take it off our hands and we get our parking lot back for something else through the chair?

Speaker V · That's correct. And the intent being that after we've done the review, we would bring it

Speaker Q · back to council to move it forward

Speaker V · one way or another.

Speaker D · And then just one last question on that facility. So the CEO talked about one possibility is relocating our policing services there. But we also heard that the policing services doesn't need all the space they currently have. So it would be the vision, if it were to be policing services, it would just be policing services, or would there be a lot of excess space like that large, huge storage garage for the trucks and whatnot? It seems like there'd be a lot of space there that perhaps could be used. A mixed use. Is that something? Or does a police services facility have to be kind of standalone in that regard for security or whatever?

Speaker U · So through the chair, it's likely standalone, although not necessarily so. I think you. It's a great question. We're too early on in the stage, so we really have to explore the options. And it's a good example of something that we wish we were farther along on, to be frank, but just our focus has been on delivering the public safety, building on time, on budget, those kinds of things. So now we're kind of getting to the point where facility mash plan is done. We're working on this temporary fire hall to figure out what's next. So we can't get too far ahead, but we do really need to look at the options and try to present, make a business case for what's available, what makes sense, what are the costs, what are the benefits?

Speaker U · And think ahead too, because there might be some decisions we make now or recommend now which wouldn't make sense in 15 years. So it's part of what we're trying to do professionally here in the next, oh, gosh, at least six months here to do the work and bring it back to council.

Speaker A · Okay.

Speaker D · And then just with that. So if the current space downstairs is too much space for the policing services, would it be logical for me to say that. That the temporary fire hall would also be too much excess space for their needs?

Speaker U · No, because when you think about through the chair, when you think about the space downstairs, you have to also incorporate the fact that there's parking arrangements being done in the public parking space.

Speaker D · That's out here?

Speaker U · Well, it's not public. It's part of the town square development next door. There's also parking in the parking garage underneath the development next door, which is factored in. And then there's other, you know, potential operational needs that aren't factored in, which. Which. Which might be valuable from an esquimalt perspective. And we just don't know what those are yet. And we haven't done the work fully yet with the police department as well to map out, you know, we know that it could work, but there's also changes that would need to be made to that building to make it work. And we just don't know the cost benefits of those yet. And we have to do the homework before we can bring it back to get council to weigh in on what the way ahead looks like.

Speaker B · Councillor Boardman, thank you.

Speaker C · I just have a question about Chaff House. So this plan suggests that we do a feasibility study in the medium term, which is six to 10 years. So I have some concerns about waiting this long to have it discussion about this asset. So to that end, I'm prepared to make a motion after this discussion ends, if that's okay. Thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker F · Councillor Hallowell, I just wanted to ask one. It's a little bit theoretical. I appreciate the report was well done. Good methodology in there. But some of the numbers in terms of sort of funding gap and those sort of sorts of things are fairly finite single numbers. And in these sorts of analyses, you know, assuming what you assume for your useful life of the building, whether you do a few large Renaults rather than a full replacement after a certain number

Speaker S · of years,

Speaker F · the escalation rate that we assume, they can have really significant differences in what that funding gap is depending on, you know, how you play with all of those different variables. So I'm. I'm curious for the consultants if they have any sort of thought on that in particular, or if they did any sort of scenarios or sensitivity analysis around that, or if they. If this is more just meant to be sort of an indicative direction for us,

Speaker O · I think a good thing to look back at would be the total cost of construction and the escalation of costs during the pandemic period as a sample of volatility in the short term for when it comes. When it comes to developing cost estimates. Our idea when approaching this was looking at a rough order of magnitude, something like plus or minus 25 to 50% as a range. Having said that, when we mapped out all the for costs per facility, we took the Annual consolidated total across all of each of those facilities. Although they have their own unique values tied to them. The difference that needs to be considered as well here is the total life cycle of each of the buildings is different. You can do minor maintenance, renewal and replacement activities within each building to extend its life cycle.

Speaker O · That's another factor to be considering here as well. But to sort of pin down the response here to your question, I think that the big takeaway is that each was priced individually based on its end of life cycle estimate, and that's what gave us that finite discrete number. But if you were to apply the logic of plus or minus 25 to 50%, that would give you a much broader range to operate within.

Speaker F · Thank you.

Speaker R · I think that, you know, we began this project in terms of the fact that staff felt that they were having to be more reactive than they were able to be proactive. And to your point, if there was a more proactive life cycling of each of these assets, then you absolutely could reduce some of the replacement costs into the future because you would be, you know, the annual maintenance would be, you know, much more looking and forward thinking.

Speaker R · Right,

Speaker F · thank you.

Speaker B · I just have a question around. Why the anticipated replacement year for Archie Browning would be further out than the rec center. How did that work?

Speaker O · Dan, let's jump back to that slide really quickly. So we have the data in front of everyone.

Speaker B · Yes, slide six.

Speaker O · So that is influenced largely based on the benchmarking assets like we compared to and we looked at their general total life cycle. And for facilities like a Sports Center, 100 years. Years is reasonable. Having said that, the replacement year for a squamil on the right side is 80. And I think that comes down fundamentally to the factors of the maintenance and renewal activities of the assets and the differences between them.

Speaker B · Okay, I'm glad we kept Archie around

Speaker L · also.

Speaker R · And staff also told us they expect their arena to last 100 years.

Speaker C · So.

Speaker B · Okay, that is best ice in town too.

Speaker Q · 100% true. As a manager of these facilities, the rec center is much more complicated with humidity, moisture. It takes a lot more to keep that facility going. So from like a building envelope perspective, the roofs don't last as long as the building is under much more stress with all that water. So I could highlight that as something that would reduce the life of that facility.

Speaker B · Okay, thank you, I appreciate that. Councillor Cavins, you had another question. And then council, I think we should try and move toward a motion so that we can add comments just around

Speaker H · the end of life. Just trying to understand what that means. And are there, you know, are there ways to mitigate that? I think about the recreation center knowing it's the same age basically as Crystal Pool, which was declared being at the end of its life. And I know that we've done at least two significant upgrades over the life. Is it possible to keep it going by investing earlier? And how do you make those kind of decisions? Because obviously they didn't invest for 60 years and now they're spending $200 million, which makes us look like we made very good choices over the time. I'm just curious how we have those kind of discussions.

Speaker H · And does it change how much we need to put aside?

Speaker R · The short answer is that forward thinking, proactive building maintenance will always save money in the long run. We've seen it in all manners of municipal infrastructure. Really, you know, annual maintenance, that is ensuring that the facility is being maintained all of the time is going to save those very large replacement costs or buildings being at their end of life much sooner than expected.

Speaker O · And if I can add to that, I think there's within an asset, you're going to have a list of items that have been prioritized and they have a certain lifecycle attached to them. Like as an example, you have a boiler within a boiler room that might have 25 years or 15 years attached to it.

Speaker A · So what you start doing is you save and plan for its replacement today.

Speaker O · And that gives you that proactive foresight on what your cash flow requirements are going to be in some future year. Another thing you can consider, sort of like a broad picture perspective, would be goals around environmental impact and efficiency of the building. Right. So making these kinds of upgrades in addition will also provide you quite a bit of favor in how money is spent within that facility as it's operating.

Speaker B · All right, Councilor Armour, thank you.

Speaker T · I'll put forth the recommendation. A quick procedural question. I want to slightly modify B to redirect staff to continue to request infrastructure funding. Can I do that on the fly?

Speaker B · No, put the motion forward and then amend it.

Speaker T · I will move that Council A, receive the facility's asset management plan for information. B, direct step.

Speaker B · I'm asking him to put the motion forward. It will be seconded. And when he wants to motivate, he can say put his amendment. Councillor, we are going through this procedure. Well, it's not being faster because you're arguing with me at this point. So he's moved the motion. Who's seconding?

Speaker T · You don't need me to read it all up?

Speaker B · No, no.

Speaker T · Okay.

Speaker B · Staff, do you need it read? Out. No. Okay, so now I have. Councillor. All right, Councillor Armour, I'm going back to you now.

Speaker T · For what purpose?

Speaker B · For your amendment.

Speaker T · I would propose to amend the section B of the motion to read, direct staff to continue to request infrastructure, your funding as part of the annual budget process.

Speaker B · Is there a seconder for that? Thank you. Okay. Do you wish to speak to it

Speaker T · other than to say it's, you know, as we clarified earlier, we're not requesting increased infrastructure in the sense. We've already approved 3% last year. We're just requesting that they continue to put forward infrastructure funding requirements, but this increase.

Speaker B · Do you wish to speak?

Speaker H · I just want to say that I had almost the same reaction and so

Speaker Q · I appreciate you doing this.

Speaker B · Okay. Discussion on this call. The question on the amendment. All those in favor? Any opposed to the main amendment? Do you wish to.

Speaker T · I mean, other than just to say, I think as amended, again, like the. The recreation strategic plan. This was a very thorough report. It very nicely laid out where we are with all our facilities and where we may want to go in the. In the future. And particularly looking forward to the discussion depending on when it occurs, on the temporary fire hall to the future use of that. So just a job well done.

Speaker B · Thank you, Council.

Speaker H · I just want to add that I think this, this plan, when I read it as showing that most of our major buildings are in very good shape and that's a testament to staff and doing ongoing maintenance. And it's a reminder what we heard tonight is that putting what seem like large amounts of money aside, but for maintenance and ongoing work is going to prevent us from having to spend even more money later on. So I think it's a great news and great to see it laid out so clearly, really.

Speaker B · Discussion.

Speaker D · Councillor Morrison, maybe this is probably more of a question, but. Well, I guess I'll state my preference would be in terms of the. Is it letter D? Yeah, D. The temporary fire hall future. I think that that could actually become a very interesting dialogue during the election campaign. And just hear from the public what would be that, you know, desire from our residents around. Around that asset because it does have a long shelf life ahead of it. And then I guess logically from that, you would have the strategic planning priorities being done by the new council starting around November, December into January, February. So would that be the timeline that would make sense for staff because that would allow us to have that kind of election discussion with the public in terms of engagement, or are you looking at something more immediately, as I think.

Speaker U · Mr. Horan, thank you for the Question through the chair. We're going to kick off this work here shortly in terms of like we need extra support consultant wise to to help us with the expertise to lay out the what some of those facilities might look like and help us put together the options analysis. But it's going to take us a few months to put it together. So if council feels like public engagement, public inputs required, we can do that the way we would in our normal processes are recommended. Keeping that separate from any election campaign that go on doesn't preclude candidates from gathering whatever info you want. But it will be brought to council as a council decision and not as a as any other kind of issue.

Speaker D · You said that would. Would that be before the next council does their priority strategic planning?

Speaker U · No, this will be the. The work will be probably about halfway done by the time time the new council is wrestling with council priorities.

Speaker D · Okay.

Speaker U · So I suppose if the new council doesn't want us to continue with the work, that that's something they can weigh in on the time. But I have a feeling they'll be very interested in the results and we'll be within a couple of months of being able to deliver it.

Speaker B · Councillor Hallowell, thank you.

Speaker F · I don't want to take extra time, but I do just want to reiterate what Councillor Cavan said. It's relatively good news in this facility study. Our assets, while they are quite old, are in relatively very good shape compared to a lot of the other assets that we've been reviewing in the last number of months. And I take a lot of solace in that because we have a lot of funds we need to expend in the short term to repair old infrastructure while we have our ongoing repair and maintenance on our facilities. Of course. And we can't lose sight of the fact that they are expensive assets to replace at some point in the future.

Speaker F · It is not in my view anyways, it is not adding to the more short term requirements that we need to do. So I just thought that was important to really reiterate and just to finish the story arc, it aligns quite well with the strategic plan piece which really is focusing on that modernizing and optimizing as opposed to expanding. Because we have good facilities, let's find the best way to use them for our community rather than making significant additional investments.

Speaker B · Thank you Councilor Brain.

Speaker W · I'll finish up. The fact that, you know, circle the arc. I'll circle here only because I ran 18 years ago on saving that arena because they wanted to rip it down and for Me to see that it's that lifespan like holy cow. But it's all very much the fact that we are being proactive. And what I'm hoping, because we've been proactive and we've been working on our equipment, that our facilities is that so that we're not stuck in a position of crystal pool we can have, maybe we can keep facilities running while we build another facility when we have to. And that's the kind of proactive thinking I'm hoping that we continue going forward because sometimes if you take it down, it never comes back. So let's continue to be proactive.

Speaker B · Further discussion. I just want to add my 2 cents. The report is really interesting and does speak to the maintenance that we've undergone and to Councillor Brehm's point, you know, there was a time when we weren't going to do that maintenance and we didn't know what we were going to do with the facility.

Speaker B · And it will. It has proven over and over as we put in the funding we can maintain these buildings. So that's a good news story. And, and I will be leaving without worrying about that. We never got to the story of replacing Archie Browning. So I'm pleased with that. In terms of the temporary fire hall, I think it is a significant opportunity and I hope that as staff, as you explore it, don't, don't set your boundaries too tight. The opportunity for everything from potentially moving daycare there and opening up the rec center, which helps to alleviate the problem that we discussed earlier in terms of space, to the potential for a future medical clinic for Esquimalt.

Speaker B · Should we go the Colwood route? The opportunity is there, but what I think we want to make sure of is that we're looking at it with the restriction it has, which is 15 years and 15 years is not a very long time. And so I'll look forward to watching for that report. Council, are you ready for the question on the amended motion? All those in favor and any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Okay. We are on the home stretch and it's 2010 after and we have 20 minutes before we have to extend the meeting. Yes, I'm. Let's go to your. To your motion. Thank you very much for reminding me.

Speaker C · I would just like to move that. Council. Council, provide direction to staff to do an options analysis for chafe hosts to be completed prior to next Council's priority setting workshop.

Speaker B · Thank you. I will look for a seconder. Thank you. And do you wish to speak to it?

Speaker C · No, I just feel like there isn't enough information in this report for us to really understand what's going on with that house. And I think a number of us are looking for some on more information.

Speaker W · So.

Speaker B · Okay. Councillor Brain.

Speaker W · Nope, that's fine. Yep.

Speaker B · Okay. Councilor Armour, I just want to fully support.

Speaker T · Just want to double check the staff on time.

Speaker C · Yeah.

Speaker U · Through the chair. I think it will be. It'll be a challenge to get an options analysis done before the. The process, but if it can be done during, like, like if there's a way to tweak the end result, like if the next council wants to know more information about what to do with Chase House while that council is wrestling with priorities in the first six months of the next term, then it's completely doable. But trying to have it done. You know, our schedule right now is elections mid October. The first week afterwards is when we're doing council priorities. So I don't know that we can finish and deliver a report to a council that hasn't been inaugurated yet until. Because some of that priorities development is happening before inauguration.

Speaker U · So I just, I'm struggling with the timeline there, but I recognize the sense of urgency as well and what. In what Councillor Boardman's asking for.

Speaker C · How can the new council make it a priority if they don't have the information to base that decision on? Do you have, is there something else we can do?

Speaker U · Well, if it wasn't for the timeline aspects of the motion that you've just talked about, I think that what we would owe the council at the priority session is the impact assessment. So it's the. What does an options analysis look like? Why does it exist? How long is it likely to take? What are the costs? And then if this council feels like it's important, it becomes in the council priorities plan in the future projects list so that new council gets, you know, right at the very beginning, here are the things that the last council thought were really important. So that'll be things like ocp, that'll be things like policing, that'll be things like Chafe House, if council supports that here tonight, etc.

Speaker C · So is it more appropriate for me to say that council provides direction to staff to do an impact assessment for Chafe House to be completed prior to next council's priority setting workshop.

Speaker H · Yeah.

Speaker U · An impact assessment for an options analysis on Chase House. Absolutely.

Speaker S · Perfect.

Speaker C · Let's do that then.

Speaker B · Did you get that, Ms. Hopkins? All right, thank you for the clarity. Any further discussion, I'm fully supportive of the this. There's not enough information on this building. All Those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. All right, we're moving along. And we're at Kinver Street, Heald street in Swinford. Who's speaking to this?

Speaker E · Charles, through the chair.

Speaker B · Mr. Davies. Sorry.

Speaker E · Through the chair. Staff are presenting this report to award a construction contract for the Kinver Heald Swinford sidewalk upgrade to sparker construction level. But this project, if awarded, will complete the number one pedestrian priority project in our active transportation network plan and provide continuous access from Monroe street to Bullen park and our town core. Staff are here.

Speaker B · If you have any questions, Council, any questions? If not, I'll look for a recommendation. Councilor Boardman, since my mic's still on,

Speaker C · I will move the staff recommendation that council award a construction contract ENG 2602, including provisional items and future change orders within the approved budget to Sparker Construction Ltd. In the amount of $561,519. 52 for Kinver Street, Heald Avenue and Swinford street sidewalk upgrades as described in staff report epw26006.

Speaker B · Thank you. Thank you. Do you want to speak to us? IT no. Okay. Do you wish to speak to it?

Speaker W · Can't wait for it to be done.

Speaker B · Thank you. So I will ask the question. It says that this would start this summer. So it's basically press go with this

Speaker E · decision through the chair. There's a two to four week process for ST Metals, but for a project of this type, you will see construction start in the coming weeks.

Speaker B · Okay, fantastic. Thank you.

Speaker R · You.

Speaker B · All those in favor? Any. Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. Next up, we have esquimault Road Phase 2 construction contract award through the chair.

Speaker E · Staff are presenting this report to award a construction contract for esquimalt Road Phase 2 active transportation and underground improvement project to Hazelwood Construction Services Incorporated. If awarded, this project will continue the progress from phase one to establish protected bikeways and asset renewals from Lampton to Fraser and from Admirals to canteen, and to advance the number two cycling facility priority within the active transportation network plan.

Speaker B · Thank you. Questions? Councillor Morrison?

Speaker D · Just the same question that was just asked earlier. Timelines. So under timelines, you said that most of the work would be substantially completed by December 15, but it doesn't say when it would start. So the reason I ask is I'm thinking if a project this size, it might not start this summer. Maybe it will.

Speaker H · I don't know.

Speaker D · You can answer me. But if it's more likely to be in the fall, that September, is that back to school Traffic is crazy. Are they Looking at timing around that, just to try to. If you're going to try and get everything done by December 15, to look at when would be the least impact. Obviously summer is when everything's being done. But is it too late for summer to start this or it would be more likely September. Post Labor Day.

Speaker E · Through the chair, there is a provisional item that the substantial paving of the entire corridor be completed by the end of September. So it is an aggressive timeline to be started within the coming weeks and to also complete the large majority, majority of it by that time, with remaining items happening until that December 15th date.

Speaker D · Okay. Sorry, did you say early December or September?

Speaker E · End of September.

Speaker D · Oh, end of September. Okay. So does that mean like most of the traffic delays and whatnot would still be happening during August?

Speaker E · Through the chair? Yes.

Speaker D · Okay, that seems a little more considerate.

Speaker B · Anyway, for Councillor Armour,

Speaker T · this. It's not an essential question, but I just noted with interest that when you look at the bids, one of the bids is significantly higher than the others. Most of them are around 3. 6 to 3. 8. One came in at 5. And interestingly the one that came in very high was one that won the previous contract. These things just happen. Any rhyme or rationale for that?

Speaker E · Through the chair. The sidewalk project is quite a rudimentary construction. It can allow for multiple different types of bidders. The Squamilt Road Phase 2 has many layers of subcontractors, underground utilities, so waterworks, lining contractors, as well as electrical renewals. So it's a much more complex project and it could have perhaps had subcontractors values that increase.

Speaker T · Okay, okay, thank you.

Speaker B · Thank you. You answered my question, Councillor Boardman.

Speaker C · Thank you. I apologize if this is in the fine details here somewhere, but this phase two is between Lamson and Fraser and then Admirals of Canteen. But also we talk about infrastructure improvements along Esquimaux Road between Lamson and Admirals. So in that middle bit there'll still be some construction work to do with the water infrastructure, Is that correct?

Speaker E · Through the chair, that is correct. We did work with the city of Victoria on this scope and at times we were. When it was a larger water main project along the whole length, we were planning to phase that. But now with the current phase of moving the services from the very old hundred plus year main to a newer main, the effects will be much more easier to mitigate. So it made more sense construction wise. And for tendering the project to complete all the waterworks as a whole, knowing that there is a future phase between Admirals and Fraser that will be a future deliberation for council for a priority.

Speaker C · Okay, great. Thank you,

Speaker B · Councilor Armour.

Speaker T · I'll move the staff recommendation and I will wish direction on whether you want

Speaker Q · me to read it or not.

Speaker B · No, I'll. I'm looking at Ms. Hopkins. Do you need it read out? Oh, gee, I missed that one.

Speaker C · Want me to read it?

Speaker T · I know I can read it. Thank you, though. The council award a construction contract, Eng number 26 03, including optional provisional work and future change orders within the approved budget to Hazelwood Construction Services in The amount of $3,616,759.

Speaker T · 80 for Squamot Road Phase 2 active transportation improvements and underground utility renewals project as described to staff report EPW 26 007.

Speaker B · Is there a seconder?

Speaker W · I'll second.

Speaker B · Thank you.

Speaker W · I'll second.

Speaker B · Do you wish to speak to it? Do you wish to speak to it? Is there discussion going ahead, Councillor Cavins?

Speaker C · Just that.

Speaker H · The active transportation plan or project. I think it's really important when you look at these big numbers that if you multiply out, and I realize our estimates, and it's not an exact science, we're spending about $250,000. That's us four cycling improvements and 150,000 for pedestrian improvements, signals or probably both. But the bulk of this is infrastructure and paving. And so when this inevitably gets quoted as saying we're spending many millions of dollars on cycling improvements, it's really important that we make sure that that is being distinguished in the public's mind.

Speaker B · Thank you. Other discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Motions carried. We move down to bylaw readings not subject to a public hearing. Parks and Recreation 2027 fees and charges bylaw.

Speaker Q · Thank you, Worship. So staff have prepared a report tonight with recommended changes to our fees and charges bylaw, then their recommended increases. This is an annual process that staff typically do each July. This. These changes presented in the report have gone to our Parks and Recreation advisory committee for endorsement and they do support. I can point out some of the significant changes for council's consideration and then I can take questions. I do think any. Any of the fees where you see they're going up, up more than 10%. Those are market corrections. We're either behind in that market or the market has increased at that rate.

Speaker Q · So a good example, I could just pick one of the youth adult non prime rate with a 25% increase. That brings us to the market rate. So there were areas in our fees and charges were behind and so we're catching up to the region. We're aware of that. This is always a tough balance for Parks and Rec because we want to create affordable, accessible spaces for the residents to enjoy. But we also need to be mindful of our recovery rate, and that is also identified in the report. I don't know if there's any specific questions, but I'm happy to answer them. I do see that in the admission fees in schedule B, those are recommended changes. The 2026 rates have been identified, the increase has been identified, and our 2027 rates, which would come into effect in January of 2027, that's.

Speaker Q · That's all I have. I'm happy to answer Questions.

Speaker B · Questions. Councillor Cavins, there was one

Speaker H · thing in the recreation master plan about need needing to adjust the curling agreements with our users. And I'm just curious if that's related or would that change the fees over time?

Speaker Q · So, through the chair, I have two answers for you. One, we have identified that we are behind the market rate in curling, and we currently have a 10% market adjustment that's happening currently. So curling rates are, by next year will be up only almost 30%. And we're also eliminating prime time curling. So we're going to go to one rate. So that's one aspect of this. So we're aware of that. The second is that curling rinks typically are operated or they're operated by an anchor tenant, which is their curling club. We have a hybrid approach where we operate it. So we rent ice to them rather than them having the contract to rent the ice. That's likely what the recreation plan is referring to. That's something that council can consider.

Speaker Q · I think it was just flagged because the curling in the region is being delivered through nonprofits or through agencies like that.

Speaker B · Councilor Boardman, thank you.

Speaker C · Just a quick question. So you talk about the main driving force is inflation. So does this mean that this is mostly cost recovery or is there also some revenue generation in this?

Speaker Q · So through the chair, it, it, it's not. We're not trying to raise rates to generate more revenue to lower taxes. We're trying to raise rates to recover what we would normally recover, which right now is between 50 and 55%. That's what our target is. However, costs for repairing services and capital costs, costs and supplemental costs are also going up. And so there is money that we've factored into this. We know that it costs more for our electrical, for plumbing, cost more for maintenance, and those come over operating budgets. So that is reflected in Here.

Speaker C · Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Speaker B · Councillor Hallowell,

Speaker F · My question is not important.

Speaker L · Thank you.

Speaker O · Yeah.

Speaker B · Are you sure?

Speaker Q · I'm okay.

Speaker U · I'll ask him separately.

Speaker F · It's not going to change.

Speaker B · Okay. Councillor Morrison, just curiosity.

Speaker D · I seem to recall that we for families or for individuals that have financial hardship every time we, you know, adjust these fees, particularly the admission fees and the annual passes and whatnot, we have a program that we, we. They basically can get free passes. Could you remind us how that works or am I right?

Speaker Q · Yep. It's the life of the program. Leisure, involvement for everyone. And it is right now it's currently unlimited. So where you once got 52 free passes, you can use it unlimited. And it went from one year to two year. So there's been changes that have been invested in that program and we're monitoring it. And I think we've had this discussion in the past. I think it was at the EPAC where we talked about how things are changing and the impacts to those just basic subsidies and we haven't seen a huge increase to our subsidy on that. There hasn't been a major investment in that.

Speaker D · So just in terms of how the process would work are staff coach to like if someone expresses that they can't afford these fees then they are directed towards this life program is that we don't normally advertise it widely or anything. Right.

Speaker Q · Yeah. So through the chair we do offer this information to the public. It's a well subscribed program. It's actually very confidential. It's very discreet. You would never know who's on this program. We actually have one individual who's responsible for delivering the program at our front desk. So it's well subscribed. If someone does experience trouble or someone is the social services in the region will actually offer the program. So if you're already collecting the social service or if you're already involved in something like that, you can ask and they'll provide it for you.

Speaker E · Okay.

Speaker D · I think that's just important to note when we're increasing fees that there are options for those who can't afford any of the fees.

Speaker B · Thank you, Councillor Harmer.

Speaker T · I'll move the recommendation recommendation that council get first, second and third readings to the Parks and Rec Regulation Bylaw 2007 number 2 665Amendment Bylaw 202026 number 3192. Got that, Deb.

Speaker R · Second.

Speaker T · I, I will, I will shut up. I will motivate a little bit. I just further to Councilor Boardman's question, you know, I know this isn't necessary revenue generation. We're not necessarily trying to reduce taxes through this, but at the same time it's putting us in a position where we don't necessarily need to increase taxes. And you know, for the Councillor cabins, you know, position on a reg that he points out on a regular basis like we do need to look at alternative sources of revenue. So while as I say it's not an increase, I think it is important that we use user fees to the extent we can. Given the. The offsetting program we've got to to try and ameliorate cost of property taxes.

Speaker B · Councillor Bram, do you wish to say anything?

Speaker W · It would just that, you know, we always hate to raise, you know, a recreation service like that, but we don't really have a choice for all the reasons that Councillor Armor said.

Speaker B · Okay, further discussion. Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. We're now down to public public comment period. I'll just warn you, you have three minutes and then I have to request an extension of the meeting which might not go well. So if anyone would wish to speak, please come forward and I will call a second time. And we really appreciate you sticking it out with us. It was a great agenda tonight. Lots of information. I will call a third time and seeing none, I will request a motion to adjourn.

Speaker W · So moved.

Speaker B · Seconded by Councilor Boardman. All those in favor? I think we got it. Those opposed? None opposed. Thanks everybody. What it is.