Transcript: Council Meeting - 13 Apr 2026

Check. Check. Check. Hey, David. Can you hear me? Thanks.

Check, check, check. I can hear you. So, online audio check. Oh, there you go. Oh, can hear you fine. Thanks, David. You're a little quiet. I'm talking through my computer mic. I'll try the council room. How does it sound, David? That sounds better.

Go.

Hi, Council Watson. This is just an audio check. Thanks. Hopefully, you can hear me. Yes, I can. Thanks so much. Perfect. He sounds great. Thanks. Good.

Councelor Appleton and Watson online. Are you able to hear me? Okay. Yes, I can. Thank you. Okay, good. Yeah, very good. Your worship. Thank you.

always hate this weird awkward silence. It always seems to descend about a minute before the start of the meeting. But we do have to wait for the hour to start. So, give us a second here. 10 seconds to be more precise. Okay, and welcome everyone to our regularly scheduled council meeting for April the 13, 2026. As we call the meeting to order, we always just like to take a moment and acknowledge that we gather on the traditional territories of the coast and straight salish peoples, specifically the Lquungans speaking people known today as the Songhes and Aquaalt nations and that their historic connection to these lands and waters continue to this day. Uh, first order of business is approval of the agenda. Can I have a mover and seconder? Any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh I just want to pass on that councelor Braithweight is unable to join us this evening. Um but we have two members of council, councelor Appleton and councelor Watson joining us electronically. Uh I can see them even though and they will appear on the screen when they speak. Um but uh just so people know we are we do have quorum here this evening. Um next order of business is adoption of the minutes. These are the two regularly scheduled meetings of March 23rd. Same move and seconder. Thank you. Any changes or corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then receipt of the three uh committee minutes in the record. Move seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Uh my remarks are fairly brief tonight. We had a little bit of a break between the last meeting and this meeting. Um I just wanted to highlight a few uh items that have been happening. Uh one just want to congratulate Canaran baseball for having

their grand opening this weekend. Um off to a great start. The uh Greater Victoria Sports Awards were held uh and some really fantastic examples of local sporting uh people uh young and old really quite fantastic. And I really I want to extend my appreciation to Greater Victoria Tourism uh who we have a they have a sports tourism uh group that does that work and organizes it and it's a fantastic uh way of celebrating sports excellence. Um also want to just acknowledge the artist studio tour that happened this last weekend. Um amazing grouping of artists that people that open up their homes and share their artwork. Uh several new ones that had did it for the first time this year. uh and several who attended at the uh a new format to kick it off which was a uh a little cocktail evening meet the artists over at the Mterrey Center where many of the artists were there uh both meeting with people but also selling their their arts. Um I got my mom a birthday present

there so it was great. Um also want to just point out that Newsies which is the Canadian College of Performing Arts which is located here. It's their uh season ending performance always fantastic is happening at the McFersonen Theater starting this week as well. Uh in terms of uh items that just would be of general interest to uh members of the public and council uh at the CRD meeting last week uh there was a final vote of adoption for the regional arts facilities service. Uh so this is a new service. Uh it takes an existing service which is the um uh Royal and McFersonen uh uh management which is at the the day-to-day handling is handled by the Royal McFersonen Theater Society. Uh but for those who don't know the Royal Theater uh when it was closing down was bought by Oak Bay, Sanich uh and Victoria and has stayed in ownership of those three organizations for the last years 40 some years. uh and the McFersonen uh was gifted to the city of Victoria and is sat with just singly

ownership for all these years. And so what the service establishment uh does is it uh takes ownership essentially uh of that those two organiz those two buildings um and Mary Windspear all three regional significant theaters um and allows a service to kind of help just from a a capital uh management perspective uh share the cost of those more regionally um but also allows for the establishment of grants. So what we have found is that particularly the McFersonen Theater is underutilized because the cost of operating the theater is quite high for nonprofits to to hold events there. Uh so this will be a granting agency that will allow some of the schools and other things that want to put on performances uh to be able to do that in a cost-effective way uh and in that way help drive some of the utilization back up on the on the on the facility. Um and that will greatly help just the the revenue will help with the capital maintenance cost of those two very important heritage buildings.

So uh that was gone through a multi-year process. Uh it actually extended back into last term uh when this whole process started. So that is uh was finally adopted uh at the CRD last week. Uh and that's it. That's my that concludes my comments for this evening. Uh our next order of business is a public comment and question period. Um this is an opportunity for members of the public if you wish to address council on items not on the agenda tonight um and not related to land use items which will have public input uh to come talk to council. So you can ask questions or uh make a statement um and if people are online or in person you can do that. Uh we have someone with their hand up online uh Mr. Zelka please uh uh unmute yourself if you could just demonstrate uh we have you could give your name your municipality of residence. You don't have to give your address and then you have up to three minutes to talk to council. Welcome.

Oh, Mr. Zulka, you have unmuted, but we can't hear you. Are you speaking? Let's see. Can you hear me now? We can hear you now. Yes. Wonderful. Hello, uh, council. My name is Eric Zelka. Uh I live in the municipality of Oak Bay in the northern part of the district and uh I wish to uh address some items on the agenda with respect to the um I think it's called let's see if I can get this correctly the draft indigenous relations and reconciliation framework that you're you're considering adopting later on in the in the meeting. I'm quite alarmed uh by what I've read um uh in that uh it appears to um suggest that uh that staff, you know, valuable staff and valuable staff time will be um working to promote tell we're not that's not on the agenda this evening.

It's not on the agenda this evening. Just Oh, sorry. It's it's a result of uh so that is subject to public input. I I'll let you speak now, but go ahead. It is sorry. It's just it's adoption of of the committee of the whole discussion that happened uh at the last meeting. So, please go ahead and speak. You're welcome to do so. Well, I really appreciate that. I it was absolutely unclear to me as to whether this was going to result in a bylaw, whether this was going to result in some budget allocation or or whatever. But I find I as I say I'm quite alarmed by uh the framework and also by the fact that this is being endorsed as it is in light of the current um uh uh changes that are occurring in the province. Uh most of you may be aware that the province is about to put on hold the whole application of DRIPA with respect to um uh its impact it's it's rather negative

and severe impact not only on mineral uh rights not only on private property rights but on on negative impact on every single law within the district within the the province of British Columbia. So uh that would be one concern I would have with this and I would suggest that this not be endorsed until the province has settled what's happening with DBA because uh as as I say it's going to be put on hold. The second thing I wish to put forward is this report makes no reference to the fact that this land is seated. Unlike 95% of the pro provincial lands, 5% of British Columbia is fully and legally seated lands including all of the lands under the Douglas treaty as affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1965.

This report makes no reference to that. That is a fundamental and legal difference that must be I believe uh reflected in this uh draft report from committee of the whole uh as authored by Michelle Hunt CEO. uh I wish uh uh that would it would be please be amended in there and obviously for the 5% of lands that were fully seated the uh the first nations there um who were properly at the time um uh um um um the the the the arrangements that were made at the time uh should be reflected in in in the different arrangements for those 5% versus the other n 95% and and this appears to makes no no distinction between the two. So those are the my two fundamental objections to this uh entire approach going forward and please I would highly ask highly recommend you do not um endorse uh this report as is.

Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Zelka. Anybody else wish to speak? Again you can raise your hand on the online or if you're in the room you can just stand up and come forward if you wish to address council on an item not on the agenda tonight. Uh if there is on the agenda normally I would just push that back to the to the open portion. Okay. I don't see anybody wishing to speak to council. So we will then uh conclude this portion of the meeting and move on to our presentation this evening which is from BC Transit and they're here to present the draft Victoria regional transit plan. And I we're welcoming Levy. I haven't ever Levi. I don't know. I'm not sure I've ever pronounced your last name, but is it Megan Beer?

Very close. Okay. And Elise Ren are here from BC Transit. Uh welcome. Excellent. Well, thank you so much to your worship and members of council and staff for having me here today. Uh I will do my best to be brief uh because I know this uh content is pretty uh verbose uh or or could be um really pleased to provide an update of the draft Victoria Regional Transit Plan. Uh before I dive into the details, first of all, what is the plan? What what is the context? So this plan is looking to update the previous 25-year long range strategic plan for the region that was completed in 2011. Uh so this will be looking over the next 25 years up to 2050. Um beyond sort of looking at that long range future uh there's also another significant component of this plan is developing comprehensive network and route design guidelines. We recognize there's been significant change within the region uh over the last 5 to 10 years in the policy world as well as uh around development and we want to make sure this plan is flexible

and nimble so that as the region continues to change the transit network can keep up. Uh another key element is we want to update the rapid transit context within the plan. Uh we heard a lot of feedback through the engagement process, a desire to expand rapid transit much more quickly and aggressively. Uh so we have plans to look at expanding the mandate of rapid transit within the transit system over the next 25 years. And then finally uh guiding future investment and prioritizing it whether that's operations and maintenance facilities, transit exchanges, uh dedicated transit infrastructure on street. Uh the plan will look to lay the roadmap for for infrastructure improvements within the system uh over the next 25 years.

Uh this plan isn't uh being built from scratch. It's built on the foundation of previous plans including the 2011 transit future plan, the 2024 regional corridor strategy as well as the 2021 rapid bus implementation strategy. So it's uh it's building on a foundation of existing plan frameworks. Uh we know the region has changed significantly since 2011 uh when we last looked at the long range future for the transit system. Although there haven't been massive changes in population within the Oak Bay area, there's some areas we know that have changed significantly, the West Shore in particular. Um but we want to make sure that this plan is able to continue to evolve and adapt uh as the region continues to grow, change and and adapt and adjust and as demographics continue to change within the region.

Uh there's been significant uh I would even say seismic shifts to the landscape transit land use transit policy framework uh between the province's bill 44 and 47 that has some pretty significant implications for collective uh interreationships between land use decisions and transit and vice versa. Uh the CRD with their new transportation service and updating their regional transportation plan of course creates uh new discussions within the region and we continue to collaborate with them. And then finally, we know uh with with bills 447, all municipalities have been updating their OCPS. So, we've been having two directional conversations with uh our municipalities about how we can co-shape uh land use and transit uh collaboratively together.

I'm going to skip over this and that. Uh in terms of engagement, uh we had an open sorry, an online survey open for about 3 weeks in the fall. uh we got almost 1,900 survey responses which was fantastic. Uh we hosted around uh eight openhouse events and talked to over 350 different people through the process. Uh we also hold uh held two stakeholder groups uh one for all neighborhood and community associations within the region and then one for major employers and key regional institutions. And then we also had three workshops with local government staff from all the municipalities in the capital regional district. Once again, just to make sure that we're planning in alignment with all the other uh local governments within the region. In terms of key themes, uh I could probably talk for 30 minutes on this, but we'll keep it brief. Uh improve service frequency, reliability, and more direct and simple routes. Uh people want to be able to not reference the schedule, hop on the bus, and have it get them to where they want to go more quickly and more efficiently.

As I mentioned, there's a significant support and desire to see more rapid transit within the region. So that's a key theme for the plan. Um there's a support for a more connective network in certain contexts. So that potentially means if service is more frequent, people are more willing to consider making a transfer. Uh and then finally, strong support for uh limited stop service or express service between key regional origins and destinations. And we heard a lot about YJ airport service. So there will there will be clear reflections in the plan about improving airport service. I won't spend too long on the network and route design guidelines beyond what I've already shared.

And so that brings us to the crux of the plan, which are really what are the big moves for the transit system over the next 25 years. Uh at this point, we've got 10 draft big moves. everything between uh establishing the frequent transit network and modernizing the network to improving interreional transit to uh establishing key uh infrastructure such as the uptown mobility hub. Uh and then as well a whole bunch of different rapid transit initiatives um that we'd be looking to build upon over the next 25 years. Uh so the frequent and network modernization is probably the most challenging to unpack. Um through conversations with local governments and looking at existing and planned future land use, we've identified where where within the region uh we can support uh frequent transit service um based off projected ridership. And so that's the map you can see there are all the future frequent transit alignments. Minimum 15-minute all day service. Um, we need to look at opportunities to reduce service duplication. As an example, we have about 19 routes that

operate on a certain sections of Douglas and many of those uh are not are half full at certain times of the day. So, can we use our resources a little more efficiently, effectively and spread the peanut butter a little more evenly across the region. Uh, for example, um the potential to make some minor adjustments to stop spacing. Um, we have local transit on major corridors that stops every about 200 meters, whereas our frequent rapid stops every second stop and it creates confusion and slows transit service down. So, there's an opportunity to to speed things up a bit. Uh, and I'm just going to keep it really high level. Digital and demand is a new tool in our toolkit that we can consider rolling out throughout the region. I think in particular Oak Bay could be a candidate in some lower density parts of Oak Bay in the future.

Consideration for 24-hour service on a limited portion of the network. We got a lot of feedback about service span and service span limitations. So that's another key consideration. Handy dart modernization. So last year we completed the uh view royal handydart facility which is a huge milestone. Uh we haven't been able to expand handy dart service for the last 10 to 15 years and we know there's latent demand. So this gives us the opportunity to start investing in handy dart again. We also have um a custom transit solution which is a digital tool to help us with scheduling trips and booking trips and making connections easier for people using Handy Dart. So, we're looking forward to opportunities to improve Handy Dart into the future.

Uh, and then higher order rapid transit. Uh, so this is a theme that was discussed originally back in 2011 and it was studied again by the Ministry of Trans Transportation and Transit. Uh, and we we know based off that study that sections of Douglas Street will be at capacity for traditional transit uh by the mid2040s. So we really need to be looking to higher capacity transit, larger vehicles, whether that be rail, uh trackless trams. Uh and so in order to build towards that future, we need to start planning today or very very shortly. Uh so that's going to be a key theme coming out of the plan is planning for that higher order transit between downtown Victoria and Langford.

Uh and then in terms of other rapid transit, uh we still retain McKenzie and Peninsula as future rapid transit corridors. We've identified a strategy for express service as a stepping stone to that future vision for for rapid transit. Uh James Bay and Jubilee areas have been added as a potential future rapid transit connection recognizing their significant density and and ridership demand currently. Uh and then additionally there may be add like more than one rapid bus corridor to within and to the west shore long term depending on where that higher order alignment ends up. Uh in terms of next steps uh so we are presenting to all the municipalities within the region and the capital regional district. Um soon after that we'll be integrating some minor changes uh and tweaks and we'll be bringing the revised draft plan to the commission at the end of July at which point we hope to have that endorsed. Uh so with that I want to thank you very much for having me here today and look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Thank you very much. I'm sure there'll be some questions. Can you go back one slide and I'm just maybe if you could just for the benefit of those here uh I think James Bay is clear. Can you just explain where Jubilee is considered by by transit standards? For sure. Great great question. Uh so through um essentially sort of around where the uh Jubilee hospital area is. No, I know. I'm just uh making sure that it's clear question. Yeah, because that used that term somehow gets applied to some other weird little places in the region. Uh so just make sure that people understand that that's where we're at. Uh go ahead, councelor Green Smart.

Thank you. And through you to um to Levi. I'm sorry to you. I I almost called you Levi. Um I I just wanted to first of all thank you for the presentation and I just wanted to clarify you talked about rapid transportation to Langford but I'm thinking Langford is a hub by itself but the whole west shore is um is challenging I think in terms of volume and traffic and and congestion. So I just wondered if you're looking at not just Langford but the west shore as you know as a broader um area. Thank you. There's a big great great question. So through the chair, um right now the alignment we have locked in is essentially between Victoria and the sixmile area via Uptown. Um based off significant changes to official community plans in the West Shore, we need to revisit what the alignment what the best alignment is between the six mile area and downtown Langford is, we recognize that wherever that alignment ends up being, there's other really key growing areas within the Westshore that we need to be considering from a rapid transit perspective. And so that's largely why

we've added this additional rapid transit to the west shore component. The other thing I'll share as well is that the west shore is growing very rapidly and some of the biggest changes to the plan frequent transit network uh that we made through this plan are in the west shore to reflect that rapid pace of growth. So really looking to make some investments and improvements in in transit to the west shore over the next 25 years. Thank you. Thank you councelor Green. Go ahead councelor Smart. Uh thank you um three mayor to our presenter. Um thank you so much uh Oak Bay um residents are such a huge fan of public transit so it's great to have the presentation today. Um my first question is just with regards to you know the excitement of having increased rapid transit. Um one of the biggest challenges that I hear from our residents is being able to access uh that rapid transit. Um for some of our neighborhoods it might be a you know a kilometer uh to get to that rapid transit and then the transit in their community um may be only 30 minutes or

an hour during the day which makes it not very dependable for them. So I guess my my big question is will there be some guiding principles in this plan going forward of at least maintaining the service levels for those local routes that then allow people to access the rapid transit? Um and are there potentially going to be um guidelines to you know increase um the frequency of some of those local routes um particularly for our seniors that can't walk a kilometer um to get to these um frequent uh rates. Thanks. Great question. So through the chair uh I'm wishing I elaborated more on the network and root design guidelines now.

Um at the end of the day uh we are developing some comprehensive guidelines so that we're treating the entire region equitably in terms so what we plan for in Oak Bay is the same approach strategy and methodology that we would consider for for the Westshore uh Sanich etc. Um I will I will say that it is more of a demandbased framework. So we are looking to prioritize service where we're we know we're going to get the most ridership. That that being said, maintaining current access and coverage is really critical and is also maintained within our current guidelines. Um I would say for lower density areas where we see lower ridership um like some uh lower density areas within Oak Bay, there's going to be some new tools we can look at to potentially improve the service experience. Um and and so one of those tools could be digital on demand. Um, so currently that concept is that it could replace a low frequency fixed route service where there's a bus available

and someone can book a trip. And right now what we're contemplating is about within about 30 minutes, you should have a vehicle that shows up maybe not right in front of your door, but down the street, pick you up and take you to a key connection point or to your destination. So um, we're really excited about the potential for um, that type of service in in areas such as Oak Bay. uh cat um Cordova Bay and there's North Sanich Souk, there's some other areas that that potentially could be really uh appreciated by members of the community. Um but maintaining that base coverage and access is really critical and it's going to be a clear um goal within the plan.

Thank you um through thank you for those comments. Um, uh, I guess I just would like to just, um, share, um, with some of the experiential stories I've heard. The tricky thing with the demandbased service is when you have communities that have had their transit reduced um, over the years, of course, there's going to be less people using it because you can't rely on taking a bus that is every 30 minutes or an hour and know that if that bus doesn't come, then you have to run back and and call a cab or your bike. So, the fact that, you know, some areas in Oak Bay might not have great ridership numbers might be due to the fact that the service provided is so minimal that people can't rely on it enough to use it. Um, so I'm really grateful to hear those equity um guidelines that may come in and I hope that they're relied on more than the demand-based service because once service is taken away to a point, people won't use it. Um so generally I feel really excited today to see this plan

coming forward especially with the um comments around the equity and I just love to my next question is just with regards to future engagement opportunities will there be an opportunity to review the proposed network and reading guidelines and particularly those rapid transit stop locations because if people have to already go a kilometer and then that nearest bus stop isn't one of those rapid stops I think our residents would love a chance to um have some say on those particulars. Thank you. C certainly uh through the chair. Um so this is really just the first step is like establishing that strategic long-range plan and the guidelines. Um after the Victoria Regional Transit Plan is endorsed, we'd be looking to go through a network review process where we would conduct significant public engagement uh to support that. So, we recognize this is really just a first step and we need to be having a lot more conversations with the region as we look at potentially uh designing transit in a slightly different way to make sure it's it's meeting the broader region's needs.

Um, so look forward to continuing to have those conversations and and also stay tuned. The draft plan should be uh posted with the commission agenda for the July 28th meeting. Um, and we can certainly circulate that uh uh out to councils afterwards once it's been endorsed. Thank you. I have councelor Patterson and if councelor Watson or if you wish have any questions you can raise your hand in the app or just speak up. Okay, councelor Watson I have you. Thank you. Go ahead councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you mayor and thank you so much for the presentation. I did participate in the the workshops and I participated in the surveys for uh uh so I have um and I'm a frequent user of it.

So, and I certainly do appreciate and and support councelor SM's um uh comments because I think if I I I understand what you're saying about trying to respond for demand criteria and that's how it gets developed and it's kind of which comes first the card or the horse I guess in all of this. We talked about reliable and frequency of of bus service being very important to that and it is uh but there are other things that weren't uh talked about and that's safety and cleanliness of of the vehicles themselves. Um and certainly the the price factor and the ease of just paying fairs and all of that. So, I I I have noticed that the newer buses are really built for people my size the seat wise, which um is probably not quite the norm anymore.

And so, so there's a lot of issues that either encourage or discourage um the the ridership use. And it has as the root as the roots, especially as we go to the rapid transit routes and the um and and some of the hubs, you actually have to be in quite good physical shape to use the transit system because getting there is is challenging. Um and also the way that we are designing communities now for for more um variety of active transportation accommodation for people. the um the concerns around safety aspects. Uh certainly exiting the buses are a concern and it it would seem also that somehow the the islands where the bus stops are are somehow not connected with the same demand of ridership because at peak times you spill out onto the roads. Um, and so I think I think there's, you know, there there are an a number of of things that will have to evolve over time if we truly wish to encourage ridership. And I believe that public transportation is a way to get a

lot of the motor vehicles off the road that we need to. We really do need to find better ways of managing our our our streets. So I think all of those things are important and some of them you didn't touch on during your presentation but I hope they are part of the criteria. The other thing that you didn't touch on during your pres presentation and I will just um ask about it is improvements to the Yumo system and um uh the use of it, the upgrading of uh of amounts on the passes and just have we fixed the hiccups in the EMO system. Sure. You want to speak to that?

my welcome to welcome to the meeting, Miss Ren. Hello. Um, I'm the government relations manager for Victoria Regional Transit System. So, while Levi knows everything about planning, he doesn't know everything everything about BC Transit and I just pretend to. Um, so yes. So, um, I worked on the Yumo project when it rolled out in 2023. Uh, and Victoria Regional Transit System was the first to receive Yumo when we were really the guinea pig, um, before it rolled out to the rest of the province. Um so I can confidently say that a lot of those hiccups uh that we did see in those early days um have been removed and mitigated. It is software um and software comes with app upgrades and things like that. So um we do see the the normal amount of hiccups that one would see with a software program. Um but uh we we are seeing um across the province, we're seeing municipalities and local governments that are happy and constituents that are that are happy with it. Um and what's coming out next

is um at the end of May, we'll be rolling out debit and credit tapping as well to make it even easier, especially for our tourist populations that come. So you don't have to fiddle with a pass or or an app. You can just tap with your your debit or credit card. So we continue as with any software project continue to move through the phases and and make it better. Yeah. Thank you. Uh before I go to councelor Watson, I'm just maybe it's worthwhile uh to share. So if there are because I think any user of the system uh goes, "Oh, wouldn't it be better if we did this or I have a question." Where do people go, the public, members of council, if they have a suggestion or a uh or a concern or anything of that nature?

Yeah. Um, and I was happy to hear those subjects that you brought up that aren't part of plan planning, right? But are part of safety and security, we have a whole team for that. Infrastructure, we have a whole team for that. So, you're touching on all these things that I just wanted to tell you about. Um, so um I because I'm the government relations manager, my job is to keep councils happy. Um, and then also to run the commission. Uh so you're I'm happy to answer any questions uh that that you may have and part of my job is to receive questions from elected officials and then disperse them where they need to go. It's a large or organization with 600 administrative people. Um so I I find out where the question goes or find out the information for you.

Yeah, thank you very much. Go ahead, Councelor Watson. Uh thank you. Um, first of all, just before I ask my question, I just wanted to uh just say I'm really pleased to hear that there will be integrated um um tap uh service for writers using credit and debit. I'm in Australia right now and I guess in the last 3 months I've used transit services and now Perth, Brisbane and London and they all feature that and it is a fabulous way to um u move around um these regional transit systems without having to get special passes like the Oyster card or what have you. So, I'm really pleased to hear that's coming to Greater Victoria. It will make it a lot easier for every writer. Um, my question really was about um the amount of in public engagement in devel I saw the the survey responses and the openhouse participants. The numbers seemed small to me given the size of the writership and I just wondered if you could comment on that and also let me

know let us know how you advertise these opportunities. Were there QR codes in buses? Um um h how did people how did writers know that they could engage with a survey or attend an open house? Thank you, councelor Wson. Please go ahead. Uh certainly. So through the chair, I will say this uh engagement process up until the subsequent process where we engaged with the airport was actually the largest response we've ever received for any project at BC Transit. Um so I will say that overall in comparison to previous uh projects we've we've done this was a huge success in terms of turnout. Um we advertised uh we had a project web page. Uh we had a media release. We did uh digital uh social media uh promotion. Uh I believe we had a couple of newspaper uh ads that were put out. I can't recall if we had radio ads on this one. I know we often will do radio ads as well. Um, so I wouldn't be surprised if that was part of the suite of advertising on this one. Um, and then we also had quite a bit of media

attention. So we had articles written from a number of uh local newspapers beyond the advertising that we did. Um, so overall the promotion was pretty significant and and the results once again second largest response rate we've received at BC Transit. Councelor Watson. Uh um yeah, just but I did I did wonder were there QR codes on buses? That's an that's a a common place to reach people where they're actually using the service. So I I did I I write occasionally, not a lot, but I do write occasionally and I can't recall that. Great question. So through the chair, we have what we call interior bus cards.

Um, I don't know if the there was a QR code on there, but there was definitely a survey link and and we generally try to put those out on every single bus, but it's possible there were a handful of buses that may may have missed the the cards, but it was it's definitely part of our standard um advertising program, whether it's for service change or for a planning project like this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councelor Watson. I don't see any other hands at this time. Um I'm just so uh on behalf of council thank you very much for coming and doing this.

I think it's uh we rarely have a chance to uh to get these have these conversations council to to transit and it's a very important part of our community like it is with all understanding going to all 13 municipalities. So uh have fun with that and uh very much appreciate you appreciate you doing all that work. I think it is really important. So so thank you for your time. With that I think we can let you go. Have a great evening. We now move on to other items of business in section 8. Um so we already had one person uh speaking through the public input portion on section 8. So these are there's two items that came with recommendations from uh the committee of the whole one was the uh on the task force in derelic vessels with some recommendations. Another on the indigenous relations and reconciliation framework. Um, we've had one piece of public input on that. Is there anybody else either in the room here or online who wishes to talk to council about

either of these two items? Uh, we did also have public input at the committee as a whole. So, it's a sort of a double whammy here for opportunities for public input. Just if you're online, you can raise your hand. If you're in the room, you can raise your hand. Don't see any. Oh, I do. Uh, Miss Matthews, please go ahead. I just um when I was listening to Zelka talk, uh, I read this morning that there's been a the the NDP government is going to pause the DRIPA update um, process. So, just I don't know if he's aware of that, but I think that needs to be factored in as well. And also about I don't know the Douglas treaties. I mean, there's vacant land in in uh all over the lower I'm just going to ask just I I think it's bad form for us to have members of the public debating with each other through the public forum. So why don't you just relate to relate to the items that we have, not what other people are saying. So yeah.

Okay, that's fair enough. I'm just letting you know. Yes, that there's been an update. The NDP government has is pausing the DRIPA process. So I'll let you know and I you know just I I thought of it as Okay, that fair enough. I won't say anything. No, that's fine. and anything that in the report certainly welcome your your comments on. So I just didn't want I just want there is I just that the update or or this update is important if you're considering whatever you're going to consider. That's all fair. Thank you so much. You may all know about it anyway. So sorry. No, please don't apologize for informing us. That's great. Uh I think we do are aware but not probably not of all the details. Any other members of the public?

Uh seeing none, we'll come back to these two items. Um uh just because we've had uh public input on them on one of the two things, I think we'll just take them in order. So can I have uh 811 which is uh and just have moved the recommendation? Moved seconded. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? And opposed. And then can I have someone move 812? It's the indigenous framework moved and seconded. any discussion. I'm just going to make I'm going to make a brief comment just because I think it's important. I I I appreciate both the public people from the public who spoke to this. Uh I just kind of want to point out from I think from council's perspective on this. This this is this framework is not not a DRPA framework. It's not uh it's not laying out obligations. It's entirely a mech.

His intention there is to make clear what is our what are our obligations or our intentions as a as a government-to-government entity and our relationships with First Nations and what is what is uh the community's uh role and how we might support them or not support that and so it just lays out sort of the roles of responsibilities. It's not intended to set policy related to obligations or anything else to do. So the existence of dripa or not dripa actually doesn't factor into this um it is really directly related to just that just how are we managing it as a community and as a as both the elected and non-elected peoples. So that's I just wanted to make that give that little sort of summation. Any other discussion at the table before I call the question? Go ahead councelor Green.

Um excuse me to to follow up your comments. I I just want to say the focus is really on in my opinion relationship building and reconciliation. So thank you. Thank you for that. Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you. Our next session section 9 is not subject to public input. We have a report here for council remuneration. We have with us Vicky Ganon uh who is a director of human resources. Miss Ganon, welcome. Thanks very much. So in addition to the report that uh is provided in your package, I just wanted to summarize that staff are looking at direction on three items. First uh the comparator municipalities use for the council remuneration review. Uh secondly, um direction on using a qualified independent consultant or staff rather than an independent task force as previously recommended to complete the council remuneration reviews. And third, we are seeking direction as to when to conduct the reviews. staff have recommended that the reviews be done at the beginning of the final year of a council term rather than

the year prior for implementation after inauguration. And so in terms of next steps, a report will be brought forward at a council meeting in May uh with uh remuneration information from the comparator municipalities as agreed to along with a draft council remuneration policy for approval that will incorporate the resolutions made today and also an updated council remuneration bylaw for first, second, and three third readings. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Miss Ganon. Uh so this is today directing a process not the not the decision- making on the on the amounts. Um thank you for that introduction. The question for Miss Ganon. Go ahead councelor Smart.

Yeah thank you um through you mayor. Um my um question was just with regards to the process of um determining uh salaries based on other municipal um salary levels that may or may not have been reviewed regularly. And I'm just wondering, it sounds like a far from perfect way of setting a salary. So my two questions around that are how do other municipalities determine their salaries? And is the is this why a task force was suggested? Um and what is the anticipated cost of a task force versus a consultant? Thanks. Go ahead, Miss Gon. Uh through the mayor. Uh first of all in terms of um why a task force was recommended my understanding is um as per a previous report in 2022 uh UBCM had recommended that uh in my opinion um and also the CAO we believe that to be for a big uh municipality having task force um they don't necessarily have the knowledge of how councils run you know what the governance structure is what you know so basically you're looking at indep dependent people making recommendations on salaries on on

something that they don't necessarily know. And so, you know, in my review of what's happening in the region anyways, people uh typically use a qualified independent consultant to help gather data together with staff. So, I'm not sure if that answers all your questions, but yes, thank you. Uh, did I see another hand? Councelor Patterson and then councelor Watson. Yes. Thank you, mayor. Thank you so much for the report, Miss Ganon. Um just uh a couple of things. I I I will um be a bit of a stickler for this because I don't call it salaries. I do call it remuneration. It um while it is appreciated, I definitely do not consider it to be a salary as such. Um uh and I I I agree that using the a consultant probably does make sense, but I guess it does dep you know the cost of the consultant versus the total remuneration for council. Um I'd sort of like to have a feel for what that looks like proportionally.

Um go ahead. Thank you very much uh through you your worship to councelor Patterson. Uh I think you know if we were to convene a task force there's a significant amount of staff time that would have to be involved in that. Uh we haven't you know quantified the number of hours but you know recruitment through corporate services and uh staff reports to uh to council in terms of consideration of that task force the management of that task force. Uh so I think the you know the costs of that and the time of that uh would add up to to be more than the cost the direct cost of a consultant that typically has the the data at their hand because they do do it for other municipalities.

Yes. Thank you, Miss Hante. That I think um answers it gives a good uh indication of why why to uh go that route. Although certainly the cost of the consultant may still be proportionately very high for the total of remuneration. Um uh on this report also it does talk about um well B is what I was looking at which municipalities in the capital region with populations larger than 10,000 and total expenses exceeding a certain amount but I I guess my um my understanding of this is also a big factor is the complexity of the decision making. Oak Bay is um a lovely but still uh ra not as complex as some of the municipalities that have might have industrial and light industrial, heavy industrial, more agricultural um just uh a bigger variance of uh and range of information that is required in order to do make the do the decision making. How will that be taken into consideration in this evaluation?

Miss Genman, thank you. and uh through the mayor. Um ultimately it is a council decision in terms of what uh comparators to use and uh in 2022 the recommendation had been used to use the entire CRD including those two smaller municipalities that I had recommended that potentially may not be a good fit. in terms of looking at the decisions that you know the other councils make um and comparing them to the decisions that Oak Bay make I I haven't done that that um dive yeah um to council Patterson through your worship I you know I think the reason we um included the or you know potential to exclude the the the two smaller ones is because we're just sort of recognizing the scope of the services and the governance role is that much smaller. The ones that are rest uh the the ones that are left obviously have a wide variety of different services um and the scope of them yeah Sanage and Victoria would be um you know

significantly more than what Oak Bay has um but uh you know the majority of them you know have similar levels of service. Um, Oak Bay in at Chact has, you know, a number of rec centers, we have police, we have fire, um, you know, a large capital program. And so I think the idea was that, uh, just those two those two that are very small have, um, are significantly different. And that was why Miss Ganon had recommended or put forward one of the options for removing them. But as she mentioned, council, you know, can include them all and then you would have the full scope um, versus those two.

Thank you. Thank you. I turn to councelor Watson. Oh, thank you. I just wanted to kind of a comment and then maybe a question follows just to follow up on councelor Smart's line of inquiry about using CRD based municipalities as comparators um because we would then just be basing our comp our compensation um on what others in the region are doing and that may not be use very useful if they haven't uh been doing their own updates and they're all moving forward then we're all moving forward together without any scrutiny about how those compensation levels are set. And I just wondered um this is I guess a question for Miss Ganon or Miss Hunt whether it it would be possible to ask the consultant if that's the method we choose to actually in their review provide meaningful ways to select comparators because I'm not convinced they necessarily need to be from the CRD. And this kind of relates to councelor Patterson's inquiry about what are like what are the factors. So what are the factors that should drive um um uh uh renumeration for uh counselors in

a municipality with the particular range of services and uh and budget that we have in Oak Bay and whether that is something that the consultant themselves could suggest some policy on or maybe we should be asking staff for that policy before we select the the consultant. So if you could just comment on that please canon. Yes. uh through the mayor. So typically uh uh consultants doing compensation will look at uh the population of a municipality and the total expenses. So which would include um so as uh as Miss Hunt outlined so our municipality has police and fire. So you know we'd have obviously larger expenses. So that is the are the two numbers that um when doing uh reviews the int independent consultant has used.

Um, and so if I could just continue, what another factor I think that is important is when that municipality has last done their own review. Because if they are like we were up until the last round and hadn't done anything, I think since I read in the report 1989 or something, you they're not really going to be a useful um um comparator to add to the list. So is that something that can be considered too? Yes. Thank you to the mayor uh through to councelor Watson. Yes, my understanding in my uh analysis within the CRD anyways is that Oak Bay was an outlier back in uh 2022 with the with the remuneration being much lower and uh in fact when I was at uh another municipality um in the region and some of the counselors had contacted me and outlined that they were concerned with Oak Bay's number because obviously when a municipality doesn't do reviews it does you know skew the the the data and the analysis.

So what I've been seeing uh in the region is that number one um c um uh municipalities do do these reviews uh every four years. Typically they're done the last year of of the term so in the fourth year with implementation after inauguration and the reason for that is such that the data is up to date and uh in addition the uh municipalities in the region have been using CPI as an annual increase and so if you're comparing the data in this in the same year uh as the other municipalities who do the uh CPI increase in January it is comparing in my opinion, apples to apples.

Okay. Thank you. And then uh finally, and this this does kind of also relate to councelor Patterson's line of inquiry. I did wonder about including um uh Langford, Victoria, and Sanich in the list. um because they are significantly um more um not necessarily complex in terms of range of services but but size of operations and um I just wondered if you could comment on um your suggestion that they would stay in the list of comparators again through the mayor to councelor Watson. You know my recommendation as outlined was to exclude highlands and cho Machosen um for the reasons that they do have a different governance model. They are rural municipalities than rather than urban or suburb suburban and that to include uh the the bigger municipalities and um understandably the scale does differ but as uh outlined earlier the complexity is similar and uh council members within the different municipalities deal with shared issues and it does provide a useful upper benchmark.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Thank you very much, Councelor Watson. Just the other hands, I just a question in terms of the remuneration policy. Is that still anticipated to be essentially a review of like an average of of comparators? Uh and that would just counselor smart sort of original question is that the process that will always be used for this or is the is the consideration of remuneration policy maybe it is looked at to look at kind of the hours required etc for the work and and and basing it more on on some more tangible specific aspects of the of the job at hand. Uh so to to you mayor um you know I I believe that a policy is necessary to capture the data that had been you know to capture previous motions. That's not uh to say that it can't be reviewed at the time of doing council remunerations every four years.

So um you know the the the issue is the timeliness factor because you know if it's agreed that the re that the remuneration is reviewed uh in the final year um we would need to bring that policy back uh prior to you know to January to get the accurate uh or to get the updated information that council directs us to do. Okay. No, that's that's fine fair. I'm I'm personally comfortable with with using that essentially that that approach. I was just curious if the if the policy review is a very broad policy review or a fairly narrow policy review and it sounds like it's a fairly straightforward policy review based on the on the parameters that we provide for inclusion.

That's correct. Yes. The policy will simply outline the the motions as approved um because the bylaw click uh just outlines the remuneration i.e. the CPA CPI increase every year and then it will say for example in 2026 it will outline what the sal the starting salary is after inauguration thank you starting remuteration after sorry did I say salaries sorry remiteration I'm sorry remiteration in everything written here so there yes exactly sorry uh and that's my last question is just the April the 4th of the year uh my observation uh the so April Um yeah so April in the fourth year just cur I mean it's getting the political season is getting earlier and earlier and I appreciate this is always approving a policy for the following council not for the existing one um but is there any mechanism by which that could be done a little earlier than April if the if the data is out in January could we not you know per perhaps do that by the end of January or early February as part of that

consideration uh to the mayor Yes. Uh typically the the data from CPI does come out toward the mid to the mid to end of of January. I'm just going to confer with uh my colleague here and and that is correct. And so if the policy is established and we know what we're you know who we're going out to get the data from. Um I see no concern in uh you know having that report done by you know February, the end of March. And I'm looking to my CEO to make sure I'm not saying anything but yeah. So, so that was just basically you know if there is any you know hiccups to to have you know to the end of a April but understandably it is it is a political season and uh I know that the previous um report outlined that the data be gathered the year prior but I do um believe that that data may be outdated if we do it the year prior. So, you know, if we get um you know, as soon as we get the CPI information in January, I see no reason not to have a

uh staff report um by the end of March at the latest. Okay. Thank you for that. And just because there are sort of as pointed out three different aspects of this, I think what we'll just maybe take any additional comments from people before we get to motions just because the the nature of the motion might get complicated if we move three and then amend and amend and debate. So uh I'll start uh and my personal preference would be probably all municipalities and I appreciate I think the points have been raised that I think you know the the salaries of say Victoria I would consider to be significantly too high.

Um we are very much an average size if you look at that but by you know if you look took the median we'd probably be the exactly the median size uh in the region and so I think including both the larger and the smaller makes sense to me because we we fit right in the middle of those two. Um and uh I think the every four years makes sense uh as proposed and the um yeah I think as early as possible in the year be it would however that wording would look would be would maybe be my preference just to um to manage that recognizing that I appreciate having the actual CPI information is important if we're if we're doing that work. Um any other comments in general going around the table here before I seek motions councelor Patterson and then Smart.

Yes. Thank you, mayor, for your remarks on that. And I think I agree with most of them, but just for clarification, when you're you're talking about all of the municipalities, are we talking about um all of the municipalities in the capital region district as listed under a point a there or yes, under B? Under A. Okay. Thank you, Smart. Yeah, thank you. I just want to take the opportunity um to share that I would be in more in favor of option B. Um I do appreciate the line of thinking that staff have presented. Um the the other reason I'm in favor of that one is um from the point of view of having chatted with a lot of other municipalities in the province of a similar scale. I do think that we need to look at how little um interest we often see for people running for council and um the lack of diversity of those people who run from council. And I think a lot of that is reflected in um the amount of compensation versus the the time that is

taken u by people who are passionate about this uh job. And so I just feel that having comparators that are more in the scope of the um uh complexity of of of the work is is a more fitting place to start. Go to councelor Green and I'll go Thank you. I um I have a particular interest in this topic because I was actually the one who brought it forward in 2022 with the support of our mayor of the day um Mayor Murdoch. This was a tricky one for Oak Bay because we had neglected this area of remuneration from 1989. So I was grateful that we could do this and bring it forward. Um and um and now I am particularly grateful for this report because I think it really lays out a a fair and systematic approach to the issue. I agree with councelor Patterson that salary is and we slip on this. We are not employees. So that's how that's how it works. Um it is remuneration or compensation. Um, and I I also support

option B because I do agree that well, I remember someone saying to me somewhere else in another municipality in the CRD, please do something about your remuneration. You're dragging us all down. So, it was an interesting comment. Um, but it and it was said tongue and cheek, but I think um those comparators are affected by how they skew. So, I would be supportive of option B as well. Um but again, thank you very much to Miss Ganon because um at the end of the day, HR professionals know this area better than any of us and it's it's important to have um HR professionals and consultants involved in in in this area. You can't I've I've experienced the task force approach in another mun another municipality and it became purely political which was not helpful and and you know could be very difficult. So I think this is a great way to do it and I I like the approach.

Thank you. Thank you council green counselor Appleton and then Watson. No, thank you worship. So I would just uh take the opportunity to just further underline my support for option B. Um for essentially the the I I believe very uh strongly in what is laid out actually here in the staff report. But I concur very strongly with the statement that uh Highlands and Machosen in terms of their use as comparators are just fundamentally quite different just in terms of the governance role for those councils and that is not a reflection on on the capacity on the on those communities or the capacity of their councils. Um they do important work. uh it is in in my view slightly different work in terms of the government's role and what they seek to achieve in the scope and scale of municipal operations.

So in terms of the use of comparators um I am in favor of option B. Thank you worship. Thank you councelor Watson before I go to getting motions. Uh yes, I I I I support that line of reasoning too. And uh when the motion's put forward, I would be supporting the option B and I I accept the the arguments from staff around why we would keep Langford and uh and Victoria and Sanich. Um so yeah, that's enough for me. Thank you. Uh thank you very much. So I think procedurally here what I will do is we will take um this the the whole motion here which is I think that's that's reasonable. So the staff direct council direct staff to initiate a review of the remuneration that the comparative municipalities be used and I'll take the motion for that.

It sounds like the motion will be B uh and that uh prepare a remuneration policy and that the date and so what I'll do is I think what I'll do is just walk through each of those one by one so we can if there's any amendments the only one I can probably see an amendment is maybe the the date. Um but we'll just deal with those if there are any or aren't any and that way I'll so I'll take the motion as a whole and then I'll use my chair's prerogative to separate the last the three portions. So um I think that's procedurally a reasonable way of doing that. Uh so can I just have someone move the staff recommendation with the clarity of whether we're using A or B? Councelor Patterson and you're you're recommending option B. Is that correct? Okay move and seconded. Thank you. Uh so that's the whole um I'll call the question on the first part that council direct staff to initiate a

review of the Oak Bay mayor and council remuneration. Uh uh all those in favor any opposed? None opposed. Uh on option on the second part which is that only those municipalities in the CRD with populations larger than 10,000 and total expenses exceeding 10 million. Uh it's already been moved and seconded. So uh I'll call the question. All those in favor and any opposed? Just myself opposed. And then that staff prepare a council remuneration policy including a provision that future remuneration reviews be conducted every four years by either an independent consultant or staff. It's already been moved and seconded. Any discussion on that? Any concerns? So all those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Uh and then that the council remuneration policy include that future reviews be completed by April uh the fourth year of a council term. Um so we had the discussion around we try and do it earlier. Is that is that sort of the piece or should we is uh I'll leave it just if council if anybody wishes to make a motion to to change the language we can do that otherwise we'll leave it as is.

Yeah. So completed by Okay. I don't see a motion to amend. So I'll call the question. All those in favor any opposed? Not opposed. Uh that is concluded. So we look forward to that policy coming back. Thank you very much Mr. Miss Ganon for the report. Thank you. Uh we move now to section 10 which is remorse and memorandums. These are subject to public input. Uh this is the first item of business. The only item of business under section 10 is the long-term borrowing guidelines and communication plan. A very comprehensive report. Uh we have with us tonight Miss Leance, our director of finance and asset management. Welcome.

Uh thank you very much your worship. Uh and good evening council. Uh I will provide a brief introduction to this report. Uh and I want to thank council for the opportunity to be able to present uh guidelines uh on behalf of the district as well as come back to council on the communications plan as requested. Uh it was in council that we uh sorry it was in September that we received that direction from council. Uh we undertook uh development of the internal guidelines as well as the communication plan uh following that direction uh and um have returned now to uh present the guidelines for information for council and to seek um approval of the approach to communications.

Uh staff are providing the first iteration of the long-term borrowing guidelines that will guide staff in prudently managing debt and making recommendations to council where borrowing has been identified. The need for borrowing arises out of the district's actioning uh the district actioning a corporate asset management strategy aimed at achieving sustainable service delivery over time. This means the DI district has commenced work on deferred asset replacements while simultaneously moving forward with sustainable replacement of aging assets. The capital requirements of both reflected in the approved 5-year financial plans and recently reported in the long-term investment forecast reported to council February 2026. The report before you specifically provides in provides information on the long-term borrowing process, exceptions to that process, the introduction of the guidelines, and the communications approach. You'll find attached uh the district's debt management policy, the first iteration of the guidelines in attachment two, and an example public infographic in attachment three. Staff are requesting that the guidelines be received as mentioned and that council approve the communications approach specifically outlined in section three of uh attachment two to assist council.

I just wanted to touch briefly on the communication plan and guidelines. Uh section three of the communications plan contains several key points to highlight. The communications plan is distinct from additional community engagement that will be undertaken dependent on the project. Communication and engagement plans are developed at an individual project level and will be included uh uh and will include detailed borrowing information and options. The approach will differ depending on the type of project and also the type of elector approval process selected by council. messaging focused on why debt is used, how borrowing supports infrastructure renewal, what the financial impact impacts are over time, and how decisions align with long-term planning are key messages included in uh all communications uh considered. This information will be communicated of course in plain language uh integrating into ex existing budget materials, capital planning updates, council reports, and annual reporting. A draft infographic is included in attachment three and staff are happy to take any feedback council has. Uh we have provided it as an early indication. Uh

staff are still working on that as a document. Uh one of a number of uh key messages or highlights uh around the uh borrowing for the district in the coming years. Uh so as I mentioned uh happy to take feedback. And then just before finishing off I briefly briefly want to touch on the guidelines. um they are presented for information to council and are intended to be a starting point to be improved on as the district matures practices uh around infrastructure funding. This work aligns and advances council's priority project for a comprehensive asset management plan where maturity assessments identified priority for the development of reserve and debt management practices.

The guideline uh the guidelines guide staff in providing prudent and consistent recommendations to council. To draw attention uh a couple of notes that I wanted to draw council's attention to. Um one on section uh five document page number four. Staff recommends setting an internal limit on borrowing uh below the maximum of the policy. I highlight this for council uh that while the district policy maximum is aligned with legislation uh interest rate and high costs of borrowing at that level are typically not advised to assist with managing debt and reporting to council. The internal limit has been set at 15%. Uh between 15 and 20% uh the um uh activities would would be escalated. Uh there'll be more frequent mo uh monitoring and reporting to council. So I'm trying to hurry for you your worship.

uh apologies. Uh based on the uh February 2026 long-term investment forecast, debt servicing is not expected to rise above that maximum of 15%. Uh and before it reduces in future years as renewal and replacement demands subside. Uh the second note I'll make is on section 7 document uh page five, staff have included an approach to blending reserves and debt funding. And this is based on a corporate finance theory uh which uh determines uh uh in relationship to cost of borrowing an ideal ratio of uh debt and reserves. Essentially encouraging staff to consider the optimal blend in making recommendations to council. By combining funding sources, the district optimizes its financial capacity while maintaining flexibility.

The guidelines are attached in their entirety. And that concludes my introductory comments. I'm happy to take questions. um uh and hear discussion. Thank you very much. Did not mean to make you feel rushed at all. Uh everybody really appreciate the overview provided. Um as this is really the first item on the agenda where we have our standard public input process. I'll just reiterate it for people. If anybody wishes to speak to this item, uh you can just raise your hand online or um and I'll I'll call when the time is right in person. Uh procedurally we t typically go uh introduction which has just happened. We'll take questions from council to get clarification. Then we'll go to the public for any additional comments or questions from the members of the public on this item. After that it concludes we'll come back to this table and we'll seek direction from council. So there will be an opportunity for public input but first we just go to see if there are any clarifying questions for members of council. So go ahead councelor Smart and then Patterson to start.

Thank you through you mayor. This is a a very um um small question um because I just noticed it with the numbering and I just wanted to ask on between pages three and and four of the the guidelines. Um I just wanted to know so it goes from two when to use debt and then on the next page it seems to go to five borrowing limits and I just wanted clarification on if I was missing part of the report or if it's simply a numbering item. It might be something obvious that I'm missing. Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Chance. Through your worship, I Yes, you're not missing anything. The number uh the numbering sequence is error in formatting.

Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Thank you, mayor. Thank you so much for the report. Um Miss Lashons, I do have one I do have one question on page 15. Um item seven, it does say balancing debt and reserves and it talks about the trade-off theory of capital structure. To me, that makes sense if you are are weighing the difference between using debt or equity financing um and and and using tax advantages to drive valuation. I am not as clear as to what what that would look like if a presentation was done to a local municipal council on on that to aid their decision making. So I'm just wondering if you could shed some light on that for me.

Uh yes, thank you through your worship. Um I would look to uh clarity seek clarity if I am not getting it correctly. Um but I think the uh it's regarding the capital uh structure and uh the theory around lowering overall uh cost of borrowing through debt and reserve use. Is that what your question was about? Uh council pass I think the specific question was related to the um um the trade-off theory of capital structure uh in in this scenario versus one where you're you're doing it based on tax advantage etc. But go ahead councelor Patterson. Yes. I I'm used to I I was reading into it. Oh my god, are they saying we're going to try and issue bonds or something?

You know, because I was looking at debt for and equity and so um that's that's where I I got confused on this. Yes, we're not issuing bonds, but go ahead. No, thank you, your worship. We will not be issuing bonds oursel. We do that uh through the Municipal Finance Authority. Uh so, absolutely. Thank you for that clarification. Uh and yes um uh the um sort of most common use of this structure and theory is within um sort of you know whether to invest or take out debt to invest in some cases and there are usually an after tax consideration. So no uh this is actually a reframe just uh purely for the uh uh internal assessment of how to maintain a capital structure uh with the optimal cost of that uh capital structure. So the municipality is uh just like uh individuals or uh other commercial entities exposed to the cost of borrowing and so paying an interest cost to to borrow and have debt as part of the existing capital structure and then likewise uh also able to earn interest

on reserves. And so typically reserves are likened with um the annual tax uh revenue that's been brought in uh and taxpayers are paying that um money now and are ultimately taking on an opportunity cost for the future. So they're they're departing or parting with their money today and that might be worth more to them. And so you're really looking to balance that um uh loss of investment income if you will or opportunity cost uh with the cost of borrowing. And so it is is possible to blend those and actually report to council uh within a community context around the differing um costs of borrowing blending reserves and debt.

Council Patterson. Yes. Thank you for that. I think I've figured my way through it. I will have to wait and actually see what it looks like on paper um uh to to understand that. Um the the other question I have is uh is around um uh what we talk about as uh particular intergenerational fairness and um uh and balancing how we either incurring debt or using reserves and whatnot. But I guess the um the concern I I have and I think it's echoed by in feedback that I get from the community. Um and this might take some time to to think about, but borrowing doesn't always translate into generational fairness in in older communities like Oak Bay because we're we're starting sort of behind the point where modern communities might. And so um we have the we are already making annual contributions to reserves which are are playing some catch-up time because it wasn't done before. So we have kind of an escalated value of what we contribute to reserves. The higher operational expenses that we experience for repairs

and maintenance because of the condition um and the annual interest cost of of borrowing. So we are at least in the shorter term um to a lot of us it feels that uh we're taking a heavier load of of of whatever it is whether it's debt or contributions to reserves or the higher cost of repairs and maintenance and the cumulative effect of that is higher and probably will be for a while. And there are some of us who who may never in fact experience some of the benefits that will be experienced by others simply because of of the need to roll out a capital plan in some reasonable um order usually based on what our engineering department will say. So I I I guess the importance to me in this public engagement process is being able to to rationalize that in a way that is um palatable, makes sense and and and shows uh kind of the road map, where we're coming from, where we're intending to go to and and um and the route we're going to take along the way. And so I'll just simplify

it with that. But it's right now it it feels to a lot of people that we are taking um uh rather a disproportionate share of the burden for probably the next decade. So I'll make those make those comments and uh I because I didn't really see it addressed in the report. Sure. I'm going to just take and make one just make it into a little bit of a question which is that I think uh I think it's worth just sort of addressing because there is a limitation of the 15 years of the of the borrowing and so forth and so maybe that's just but Miss Hunt sorry your worship I you didn't need to stop your train of thought there I just wanted to respond to council Patterson because I think she hit the nail on the head is that because there hasn't been the investment in the past and so while it seems like there's a heavy be hit, you know, now and moving forward. It's because residents actually haven't had

to make that investment in the past. And so, uh, you know, I think that is the key, uh, you know, that they've been able to save their own money because they haven't had to invest in the the municipal, you know, um, infrastructure. And so, yes, now it feels like a heavy hit, but it's because they haven't had to make that investment in the past. And so, I agree with you, uh, there is some messaging around that that it's we're playing catch-up. And so unfortunately it does feel like um yeah it's um it's it's heavy at this time. I don't need to continue my question then I'll I'll go to councelor uh Watson online. Please go ahead councelor Watson.

Alex thank you very much mayor and through you to staff just to have a follow along that um line of argument though. I I was curious about in the in the guidelines uh looking back at them again the uh debt amortization and that 15-year term that's kind of suggested or recommended as good policy with respect to intergenerational equity because all other things being equal I would expect had we be making you know significant investment in reserves in the past and we we were all caught up that while 15 the 15-year term shown in graphic to the optimal debt term to minimize payments and interest costs. Makes sense where those two lines cross from an economic point of view like debt payments versus um uh uh term um interest costs, payments versus interest costs. It doesn't really address the intergenerational equity issue for assets with longer um useful lives. And um I I just wanted to comment and I know staff have responded. We we did get some commentary in the correspondence about that particular choice and I just wondered if you could comment on how uh

going forward um advice on how you would incorporate maybe participation suggestions based on life of assets that don't always align with the graphic too because um clearly um maybe uh we should be paying more in interest costs in order to spread led the load more fairly across the life of the asset. Yes. Go ahead, Mr. Chance. Uh yes, thank you uh through your worship. Uh thank you for the question and the discussion so far. Uh absolutely uh hearing the um concerns about the uh commitment to catching up uh while also um you know taking care of the future. Um just to answer the question and then I would just circle back to the corporate asset management strategy. Um so um the 15 years is purely a guideline as a starting point and this is just to guide staff in their consideration and uh typical best practice would be to start from lease cost and then start to consider that asset and the beneficial use of that life and uh would it make sense. So the next uh the existing debt management policy as well as the

guideline uh does encourage um consideration of the asset life uh with relationship to amortization term and those will absolutely be recommendations that we will bring. Uh it's just sort of giving practice on why 15 why does 15 make sense when it is a shorter term. Um, and typically when I've seen uh 15 years work really well is when you have um uh uh uh roads, um sewer, uh you have uh basically envelope of work that you'll be replacing pretty consistently over time and so you'll want to retire that debt pretty quickly, but you'll quickly issue debt again. Um so you you aren't necessarily losing the benefit of transferring that over generations. Uh you're just keeping it the least cost.

So, uh, that's something that staff will do, uh, on council's behalf and then make those recommendations and provide the analysis. The guidelines are not intended to limit options. Uh, those would be up to council. And so, I'll I'll say that uh, and stop there for your worship. Thank you. Anything else, Councelor Watson? No. Thank you very much. Thank you. Go ahead, councelor Appleton. Well, thank you, your worship. I just wanted to just ask staff to maybe it's less of a question and more of a elaboration on something that's found within the staff report and we're as staff have outlined we're going to be uh confirming and developing the process for public input for individual project scope and and uh developing with the community and with discussions the with the community sort of the overall cost and relevant borrowing needs for some of these larger capital pieces and as we've seen with the Cararvin building you know especially being our most recent largescale capital work, you know, the the projected costs even from the most recent 5-year financial plan may not be

uh not not inaccurate, but at least highly changeable in today's context. So, I'm just wondering whether staff might be able to for the purposes of uh the community and sort of for the benefit of the community whether they might just be able to expand a little bit further on the process that they see happening in terms of receiving feedback from the community, communicating with the community on the need for borrowing for a given capital plan. and as that the costing for that capital project evolves um how that discussion occurs with the community in terms of options analysis and I realize that that depends very much on what it is that we're talking about it's difficult to pin that down but essentially what I'm asking here is how is the going to the community going to understand where they're going to have input to largecale capital projects and say this is what we're comfortable with as far as a level of borrowing there's the Uh yes, thank you. I through your worship uh happy to respond on that.

Happy to have the question. Um so I think uh best of course because the existing debt is not outstanding for the district to use an example. Uh so just uh taking the Canarvin uh park redevelopment project as an example uh is that as we near uh the stage that we're in currently uh near the end of detailed design uh that's when we look to firm up the uh funding requirements and as you as as mentioned um uh by councelor Appleton that the financial plan at earlier stages in a capital project may not be uh the number and so we absolutely before uh advancing loan authorization s or u more firm plans of borrowing on a project, we'll look to confirm the numbers in terms of accuracy of the estimate on the project. Uh which for Canarvin we're about to do. Uh and at that time is when we start to introduce the borrowing options and funding options. Uh both council would be having the opportunity to receive that advise us. Uh and at that time we

would be recommending recommending a a methodology for communicating that to the public. uh whereby they would also have the option. Uh typically we're going to be communicating those options uh where the approval process will include uh the public. If there's an approval process where council is uh um moving forward on the elector approval free zone, um that that process may differ, but of course would be informed by council uh before we look to firm up uh funding plans on a by project basis. Okay. Anything else go through? Just a very quick followup just on what Ms. Lechants just just mentioned your worship. So what I'm hearing then is is that we're still contemplating de council uh decision points on engagement if specifically for those projects which do not trigger an automatic electoral approvals process. So those things which stay within the uh the the process that does not automatically trigger uh that that process we're still contemplating uh a decision point or at least a touch point for council about communications needs even if it is not mandated by the

legislation is the chance. Uh yes thank you through your worship. That's correct. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Uh I don't see any other questions from council at this time. So I'll open this up. I don't see any hands that have been raised online. Uh anybody in the audience wish to talk to us about the uh this matter which is of course a combination of the boarding guidelines and the communication plan. If you're wishing to address council on this, this is your chance to do so. Uh just raise your hand in the audience or online. I don't see any hands popping up. So I'm going to come back to this table. Uh we have uh uh a recommendation here which are fairly straightforward. I think what we might do is I might seek to get the we'll do first a motion to receive the report. So moved and seconded. We don't usually have a lot of debate on receiving the report. So I'll call the question all those in favor. Any opposed? None opposed. And then the second part uh which is really the uh

the only part for decision tonight is approving the communication approach which is within the section 13 of attachment two. Same move and seconder. Oh moved and seconded. Thank you. Um so uh I think it's worthwhile I think uh if uh probably worthwhile because those guidelines are fairly high level uh in terms of we will we will inform through these mechanisms and so forth. Um, I think probably if if any of you are like me, I read through that and thought, "Oh, I can think of some good ways of framing this or or some some things that probably are worth doing." So maybe uh before we call the question, if there's input that people had uh related specifically to the communications piece, um I think this is a good place for us to have a quick discussion and then we can get to the motion at hand.

Please go ahead, Councelor Green. Thank you, Mayor, and through you too, Miss Luchance. Thank you so much for the report and and the appendices and they were really helpful. Um and I was talking about communication I think the last time in terms of making it digestible and understandable. Um and um I thank you for the the you know singling out the communications piece. Um I I was mindful of a a letter that we received today or an email from Mr. Sultan I believe. Um just pointing out the difference between consulting and informing. So he referenced the fact that that at the moment the focus is on informing and I think that's you know that's certainly appropriate.

I think the next phase of that communication could be consulting um because I don't I still don't believe that Oak Bay residents generally have a a good understanding. What they see always every year is the tax increase. They don't realize that that is an investment that wasn't made many years ago. as you've both pointed out, you and our CEO, that um we are now playing catch-up. So, I think I think that's a great way to sort of preface any of the communication around the budget and that is or or the financial plan and that is the fact that we are having to retool Oak Bay um essentially neighborhood by neighborhood. I mean, there is a lot of construction going on right now and most of it is replacement I believe and upgrading. So I think that's an important message in which to provide the framework for part of the financial plan. So I do agree with Mr.

Sultan that somewhere there's room for consultation as well. What that looks like I can't say at this time but I will leave that to wiser um heads or staff. Um but I think consultation is an important part of this. Thank you and thank you very much for for the report. Thank you very much councelor Green. Um before I go to other speakers, I actually just want to take a moment and thank Mr. Sultanum. Uh for anybody who has the agenda package, we do take uh resident correspondents in um and is often very thoughtful and this was a good example of that. Just really went through and laid out the pros and cons of the current model, the this the uh the opportunities for improvement and and appreciate that I think uh in full agreement with most things that are in there. uh it's and I think is it is indicative of how far we've come and how there's still more work to get to but uh I think he nailed it pretty much on the head that we're on this arc of

improvement and and and the things that he flagged there were very constructive so I just if you're watching Mr. Tanum really do appreciate that that feedback. It's incredibly helpful. Um now I'll go over to councelor Appleton. Thank you worship. So just in terms of your earlier comment to just uh in seeking commentary on the communications associated with the with the plan and and I just want to underline what has already been mentioned a couple of times here just in terms of intergenerational equity and the point that we find ourselves as a district with respect to previous underinvestment and I think that it's very important that the communications related to borrowing and talking about fairness across generations as described in the draft materials provided by staff as part of the package. I think it's very important that we do point out and do specifically reference historical underinvestment because it does have not as a as a criticism of any previous uh direction taken but it is the factual point at which we find ourselves. And so the decisions that this council and

subsequent councils must take are informed by historical underinvestment and where where the district finds itself. So if people are asking questions about why this specific course at this time and why this combination of debt versus reserves um that that is informative and I think people need to know about that. So that is not necessarily specific exclusively to Oak Bay as we well know uh under investment in infrastructure and and in terms of also infrastructure from senior levels of government uh in municipal infrastructure is in common with a lot of other municipalities. I think it's important that the community knows that that the decisions that are being taken about borrowing being uh in a situation where significant borrowing is required for what most people would describe as the fundamentals of municipal operations um is is required at this juncture that there is some history there. So I think it's important that the citizens that are paying taxes in the district right now understand why we find ourselves here.

Thank you very much councelor Apple. I have councelor Patterson and Watson. Yes. Uh thank you, mayor. I appreciate the uh certainly Mr. Sultan's letter, but also all of the comments that have have come in and um uh you know, it is simply refining the process as we go along. I think that um certainly I'm as concerned as any other members of the community because the magnitude of the the debt that we are talking about for a small community is not that far behind what Sanage has as debt and so um they they have a lot more financial um backup in reserves and and different things than we do. So, um I think that uh for when when I first came to this district, there was a um uh a real angst about taking on debt for the district. Um and I did a lot of speaking at that time about how creating um the infrastructure deficit was in my opinion an unfunded liability. And so

while it wasn't debt, it it it it posed uh certainly a risk that just was was ignored. So um but I think we have to move very carefully and we have to explain it very well to to residents knowing that the community was very risk averse to taking on debt and now we are you know we're moving in a different direction. I I would because I do a lot of reading on this subject and I always like to to give kudos to um to other municipalities that I think that have produced some documents that are um user friendly to the um non-financial person in the audience and uh one is um the district of Sanage because they were experiencing some of the same things and they developed a an educational tool as Senate service delivery educational tool that is available on their website and I thought it did a good uh job of of explaining things to the lay person about what to do and also um callwood

sustainable service delivery has taken it and um made it into made the explanation of why we need um sustainable service delivery and the funding for that into into userfriendly language that is perhaps more easily understandable to those of us who are not financial experts um in the room. So you I offer that up as as just references that we could we could take a look at and and learn from and maybe um accommodate them for the an style of explanation for uh uh but I do certainly appreciate the work um by the district staff here and everything they've done and and how far we have come along this this process and um there's still a long ways to go but um we are we at least have a good framework for a plan now. So, thank you for that.

Uh, thank you, Councelor Watson Smart, and I'll make a couple of comments and I'll call the question. Please go ahead. Thank you. Just um final um commentary. I I um back to staff and their their question about the messaging and I think that in the draft in the guidelines, the community messaging there are six bullet points and I think that that those are already reflected in the draft material they presented. But I do agree with councelor Appleton. I think there needs to be a seventh bullet point about actually updating the community on why we're at the in the position we are. Again, not without not with assigning any blame or pointing fingers, but just making it clear that this strategy, this new strategy um uh really is is required because we have not well we're we're we're doing the right thing to actually use debt to um support um um long-term assets and their funding and that we haven't done so in the past because I don't think that that's clear yet. in the communication materials, but I do think it's an important point to make.

That's all I wanted to say. Thank you very much, Councelor Wasing, Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um I just wanted to echo many of the comments around the table and just particularly highlight that while I do agree that um and very much appreciate the material um shown in this report with regards to communications, I do think we will need to shift from informed to consult particularly as we approach um larger projects that require more debt. I really think that we need to bring the community along with us and have those more complex conversations in a way beyond the informed level. um in the in in the future.

Thank you very much. I think everybody's essentially said what I was going to say on on these things. Um my my sort of more minor points are I do think I thought that the points made in the in the example the four the four page device uh handout is is are excellent but it ultimately probably needs to be a single page that people can pick up and and read because I think nobody in the real world ultimately get through all of that and and the key points are there. Um I thought the uh two other things in terms of other things that people have pointed out which I thought were all excellent things. one is and as mentioned in the report but maybe in the in the materials for the public understanding the opportunity cost of of that delay is really a critical piece right the um you know the the fact of the matter is that by delaying any of these projects we get into everinccreasing uh costs uh of these

projects and so by by borrowing we're able to advance them to a to an earlier time that actually reduces the overall cost. some information that kind of highlights the importance of being being timely. Um, and that's especially true with infrastructure where if it gets past a certain point, the the costs go off, you know, just they explode because you're suddenly into break fix all the time and not just at a joint street strategic planning. The other one was just the um I think something that kind of highlights because we've we talked here and I think there's often confusion about oh now we're going to take on debt and that suddenly increases the overall piece. But for a lot of this debt we're talking about, we're talking about, you know, we've been paying aggressively into reserves and that same money will essentially be going into paying for debt and then when that debt is paid off, it'll keep going and paying for back into reserves again. So, it's not a this is not a massive spike. This is like we're allocating the funding so that to even out those to prevent

spikes. I think something uh that highlights that is really good. And I do think there may be worthwhile for this more in-depth piece that was put out here of doing some little sort of, you know, informational video sort of 30 second minute long thing that just sort of talks about this and kind of walks through people through the debt thing because it is the reality of our world that people are attention. We're all a little bit ADD now and uh and need, you know, have something that's easy to to take in is very helpful and there's some excellent ones online, but something that's maybe cribs from those and makes an Oak Bay specific is probably worthwhile. Those are my only other thoughts on this and very supportive of the approach that's being taken here and the comments that have been made around this table. So the motion on the floor is essentially that approval. So I'm going to not seeing any other hands. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. That

carries. Thank you so much for this and we look forward to the work going forward. Thank you very much councel. Uh we move now to bylaws and permits. This section is not for public input. Uh so we have 11.1 the zoning bylaw amendment for 1330 Hampshire Road. Uh Mr. Headfield, welcome. Thank you your worship. The district has received a zoning bylaw amendment application for the property located at 1330 Hampshire Road to facilitate an addition to the existing legal non-conforming single family dwelling on the property which was constructed in 1913. The floor area ratio of the property is non-conforming to the bylaw limit. A sight specific text amendment to the R5 zone is proposed to increase the maximum floor area ratio of the property. This application was presented to the advisory planning commission at their meeting on March 18th, 2026 who recommended that the zoning bylaw amendment be approved. Staff are similarly recommending that the zoning bylaw amendment application be approved and the bylaw adopted. The applicant

Jackie Chang is in attend attendance online tonight to answer any questions council might have. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Hatfield. Are there questions for the applicant or to staff by members of council? Don't see hands popping up. Um, so we have recommendations here. I just I want to point out that we can't take public input on this as it's uh compliant with the OCP and uh and so the new provincial rules prevent us from taking public input. Um, I do want to make a comment at the beginning of this before I start calling for uh the um motions that I was happy to see this just as a as a as a retention of that building. I think many of us go by that building uh that house quite often. It's quite close to the to the to the village and uh the concern was that it was going to be taken down.

So seeing this have an opportunity for a second life is a very positive one. I understand why the recommendation was put forward as it is. Um, so with that, I'm going to seek uh we have need to have someone read into the Go ahead, Councelor Patterson. Okay. I uh will that zoning bylaw number 3531-1986, amendment bylaw number 4954 be read a first and second time. But yeah, just for clarification, amendment bylaw number 4954, 2026. Yeah. Be read a first and second time. Okay. Move and seconded. Thank you. Uh any discussion? This is the chance for debate. I kind of preempted my comment so I think I'll leave it there. Go ahead. Councelor Green.

Thank you very much. I just wanted to make a similar comment as leaison to the heritage commission. It means a lot when an older home like this is is preserved and upgraded in fact and so it will be restored and it will be different but it will still be there and that that's part of the history of the of the neighborhood and the community. So thank you to the applicant. All right. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Can you read again the third reading? Yes. That zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 4954206 be read a third time.

Seconded. Thank you. Don't debate on third reading. All those in favor? Any opposed? Then opposed. and then we can adopt that zoning bylaw number 3531 1986 amendment bylaw number 49542026 be adopted and seconded thank you all those in favor any opposed none opposed that carries thank you very much thank you Mr. Hatfield and thank you to the applicant and good luck with the project uh we move now to 11.2 two, the streets and traffic bylaw. We have a series of uh bylaws, but this one just required a uh given direction from the last council meeting, a slate amendment. So, I'm going to again because these are bylaws, just ask that they be read into the record. Councelor Patterson, if you wish, you can continue the process.

All right. the uh that the the reading of streets and traffic bylaw number 41 000 2000 4100 2000 amendment bylaw number 4955 2026 be rescended. Is there a seconder? Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. that streets and traffic bylaw number 4100 2000 amendment bylaw number 49552026 be amended in section two by striking the words not for profit moved and seconded thank you any discussion councelor Watson yes mayor yes um I just a comment I thought that that actually the section it's section one where the words appear in the in the amendment bylaw sure not section make sure. Thank you for for that.

Uh I'm not going to look it up online. I'm going to let Mr. B here confirm. Uh the question was just uh was the uh is that word incorrect that it's section two amended in section two or is it section one of the bylaw? Thank you, mayor. I'm not the right person to answer this question. I've not been preparing this bylaw amendment. So I'm hoping that somebody else can u support this. Oh, sorry. You're right. It's a parking bylaw which is engineering. Um, no, I can answer the question. Thank you, mayor. Section one is correct. It's amending section one two of of the streets impact traffic bylaw, but the amendment bylaw section one. So, yes.

So, the amendment by the amended in section one. Yes. That's how the wording should be. So, I'll take that as the mover and second are both amendable to that. Okay. So, it corrected to say it's amended in section one by striking the words not for profit. Thank you, Councelor Watson, for your eagle eyes. Um so the question uh see any other discussion on it? I'm going to call the question. Uh all those in favor any opposed? Not opposed. So we have it now as amended. So if I could get third reading that streets and bylaw number 4100 2000 amendment bylaw number 4955 2026 be read a third time as amended.

Moved and seconded. Thank you. Um, I just want to point out before I call the question and I'll I'll welcome any other comments, but for anybody following along here, this is a bylaw that came to us last uh meeting, uh, there was a request to change the words not for profit. We just wanted to staff to get some clarification to make sure that was uh, uh, viable. Uh, so it's back here now with those with that with that minor change and we have to go through this amendment process to to allow that to happen. Um, we have already discussed and debated this at a previous meeting.

This is just essentially a text amendment that had to come back. So, uh, in case anybody's wondering why we're kind of moving through this one a little bit quickly, uh, that's the that's the reason for it. Is there any other uh, discussion on the third before I call third reading? Council, mayor, please. Yes. Sorry. I just going back and looking at this without my notes from the last meeting as I'm off far away from you guys. Um I just wanted clarification from staff again about whether this particular provision for allowing um car share co-ops is um based on the Victoria bylaw. That was my first question.

Uh is Mr. Renick online? Yes, he is. Uh Mr. Renick, if you're available to uh to answer that question. Uh yes, thank you. through the mayor. The wording of car share co-op was taken from city of Victoria streets and traffic bylaw. Thank you. And then so just a final question because I was when I was looking at this and we're we've taken out nonprofit. I just wondered why we even needed co co I'm not going to stop this moving forward tonight, but I did wonder why it didn't just say car share program because um based on um staff input, we're seeing that there could be various ways to provide car share in a community and they not necessarily a cooperative model. So that's just a question. It wouldn't change how I would vote in moving this forward tonight, but I am curious as to why we would limit it to co-ops. Sure. Uh, Mr. Renick, do you have an answer for that?

Uh, through the mayor, no, I I don't really have an answer to that. Um, it's terminology that I've seen consistently in other jurisdictions bylaws, but I I couldn't speculate whether or not it should be included. Okay. So, it's consistent, but it's not necess that that's the history of it. Councelor Watson, if that helps. Any other? Yeah, thank you. I just just a comment. But I think maybe um before we actually call the final question going forward we may find that there are other car share initiatives that would want support in Oak Bay and it may mean we have to come back and change this bylaw but uh for now if that's what everybody else is doing I'm happy to support it. I just think we may need to we may need to make changes in the future.

Thank you. My recollection of that was that was the wording provided by the sort of co-op by the car share sort of group that came forward and asked and so I think that's the primary source of it at the end of the day. Uh okay I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh that is sitting at third reading. It will come back for adoption at a future meeting. We move down to 11.3. We've had first three readings of the uh development application procedures bylaw amendment bylaw number 4950. Can I have uh someone read the recommendation? Go ahead. That development application procedures bylaw number 4844 amendment bylaw number 4950 be adopted.

Move and seconded. Any discussion? We don't usually discuss an adoption, but this is here for sober second thought for this reason. Don't see any hands popping up. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Same thing for 11.4. This is parking facilities bylaw number 3540 1986 amendment bylaw number 454956 2026. Please go ahead. The parking facilities bylaw number 3540 1986 amendment bylaw number 4956 2026 be adopted. Move and seconded. Same rules apply. Anybody wishes have any thoughts before I call adoption? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. and 11.5 adoption of loan authorization bylaws. Uh, M. Leans, do you wish to provide any uh, this is just for adoption, so I'm assuming nothing. Yeah, go ahead.

Councelor Patterson, that loan authorization road reconstruction program bylaw number 4929 2025 be adopted. Thank you. Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion, please, Councelor Smart? Yeah, thank you. I did have one just question for staff related um, to go ahead. Yeah. um through you mayor to director Renick. Um in reading tonight's agenda with regards to this loan authorization, I realize that I'm still unclear at which stage of reporting from engineering to council. Will council be reviewing potential additional project scope with consideration of the complete streets policy? Um so for example with the Estavan project will there be a stage in which engineering may come back to council with an option for potential pedestrian sidewalk improvements, additional tree plantings, bike racks benches for example. So could staff clarify when in a when in a project process um the complete streets policy will be um reviewed and whether there is council involvement or if it's going to be operationalized. Um I just appreciate some clarity. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you. a little outside the loan authorization side of it, but uh if Mr. Renick, if you have an answer, I'd appreciate it. Yes, thank you through the mayor. Thank you for the question. We have been updating a lot of the policy, a lot of the practice around how capital projects are delivered in Oak Bay over this council term and the previous council term. Uh at the moment, council is provided with an update on the capital plan. uh past couple of years it was a standalone presentation. This year it was done as part of financial plan. Um so that's kind of one of council's opportunities to see what projects are being done and to discuss scope and intervene.

Primarily the capital projects that have been done have been really asset renewals and as part of asset renewals the surface infrastructure has been put back um in much the same state that it was before. There have been a couple of capital projects that scope has been a little bit larger and has included some discretionary items which council's approval has been sought. Uh, for example, in the Humber sewer separation project, council's approval was sought on the type of street lights that went in. And, uh, just in general, as we continue to ramp up the capital program, we'll continue to look for more opportunities for council to weigh in and have those types of discussions of enhancements to the streetscape, uh, should that be the will of council. Um, I hope that answers the question.

Thank you. Um then so we had that uh the road reconstruction program loan authorization read in and seconded. Uh seeing no other hands, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor for adoption. Any opposed? None opposed. Can you read the second part? That loan authorization storm sewer rehabilitation program bylaw number 4930 2025 be adopted. Moved and seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh that was fairly procedural way of moving forward an enormous amount of future work. So uh best of luck to both the finance and asset management department as well as the engineering department because there's a lot of work there. Uh in a similar note obviously uh probably even more important we have 11.6 which is the culmination of a lot of work uh to this point. So perhaps I can get uh counc in that as well that the 2026 to 2030 financial plan bylaw number 49577 2026 be adopted.

Moved and seconded. We don't usually debate on adoption but this is the this is the financial plan. Uh so I think it's worth just making a a note here that this uh culminates our official approval of the financial plan. there are still aspects to come in terms of some of the the uh um some of the other additional follow on bylaws and financial reporting and so forth. Um but I just want to express my appreciation to uh to all three parties always involved in this. one is staff who uh who yet again improved our process for financial planning and and I think allowed us to get to a place that was uh manageable at the end of the day um to the public who uh obviously provided enormous amount of input and thoughtful uh in uh discourse about how we might improve it and what was important um throughout the year on all kinds of issues uh and all of that culminates together in that process and uh most uh finally here coming tonight with council

really appreciate appreciate the time and energy that council put in reading all the details. Uh having a very thoughtful and open debate, asking good questions of of staff and and coming to a what is a a compromise at the end of the day, but one that I think that um to this point has been unanimous. Um I think reflecting the that a reasonable compromise meeting both the needs of the community and the and the financial management responsibility. So, uh, on behalf of every sort of, uh, everybody together, I think we've we've we reached this point. And so, I just want to acknowledge that it's been an enormous amount of work. It seems strange just to have a motion to adopt and and conclude it. So, I just wanted to say a few words there before we I call the question. Is there anything else before I call the question? No. All those in favor? Any opposed?

None opposed. Uh, we now move to new business. Uh, there is a motion uh here for reconsideration. This is a a matter that came before us at the last council meeting uh for covenant amendment for 592 Island Road. Uh councelor Patterson um I need you to start uh basically reading the motion that council reconsider etc. and then we'll if there's a second we can go through the process. Thank you Meritt and I do appreciate that and I appreciate appreciate council's consideration on this. Um, and the motion is that council reconsider resolution 2026131, the covenant amendment application COV 00010 for the property located at 592 Island Road uh be be denied.

Is there a seconder on the motion to to reconsider? We've been seconded. Uh, so we now debate uh reconsideration. Um, councelor Patterson, perhaps you can just motivate the rational. You're you're the one bringing this forward as to the rationale for reconsideration. We will uh call the question on reconsideration. If it passes, then we can get to them to the meat of the actual uh covenant application itself. Go ahead, councelor Patterson. Yes. Uh thank you, mayor. And uh the reason for my coming back to council on this is that I I did do a site tour of the um of the property and did receive more information about the property itself, some of the surrounding area and also the proposed development for that.

So, when I I look back at this, and it's it's hard to believe it's been going on since 2016, but um the original goal was to create an RS5 lot in order to modestly expand housing while respecting tree protection, neighborhood character, and environmental considerations. And so we did place a covenant on it required to protect existing trees um defining a suitable building envelope and and then to include road paving, landscaping and tree planting in coordination with our parks department. Um uh so the in meeting with the with the residents with the proposed uh developer um and understanding local residents were generally supportive back in 2016 and still are provided it fit with the area's form and character certainly with the plans that I um was in able to view from the from the applicant of what is proposed I I it does appear to me that in fact that what is being proposed does fit the area's form and character um and all of the input from this uh certified arborists uh about um mitigating uh

potential risk to the tree and I I understand there is still some potential risk but I do understand that the the commitment of the proponents to in fact manage the risk well and I think that what um is before us then is um an opportunity to um if we modify the covenant to slightly expand the building footprint and by carefully managing the construction pro uh process, it will help us meet the original intent of why the subdivision was proposed. And I I you know I think that there is a a good collaborative effort and a strong desire to see um this whole process managed in in a way that is amendable to the community. So for that reason um and had I had more of this information uh previously at the council meeting I would have in uh I would not have denied the u the application. and I would have allowed the the change to the covenant and allowed it to proceed.

Thank you, councelor Patterson. I appreciate it's hard to motivate on uh why the why the reconsideration without motivating on the rationale behind it. You've done it two for one. So, thank you for that. Time efficient, but the motion that's in front of us right now is a motion to reconsider. Um if it's passes, uh then we will then we'll come back to where we were last time. we can talk about the merits of the application. Uh if it's defeated, then that concludes the pieces. So uh the ask right now uh is to uh asking the will of council to reconsider right now. So that's that's the that's the application right now, not the I appreciate you should have had to make that, but I think u have a little leeway here because reconsiderations are a bit odd.

Um uh so on the motion to allow reconsideration of this, go ahead, councelor Appleton. Well, thank you worship. speaking against the motion on the floor. Um, uh, quite frankly, as you just referenced, uh, reconsiderations are unusual and should be based on, you know, uh, fairly exceptional circumstances where new information has been provided. And although I I understand that the proponent is in is feels that they have extra information to provide, uh, since the time that council originally considered this matter. And today I have not seen any new information arrive from staff or a revised staff report uh that would further inform my decision-m. So essentially I have the same amount of information in front of me for the purposes of decision-m as I had at the original meeting. So I don't support reconsideration because I do not see that circumstances as far as information that would guide decision- making have changed. Thank you worship.

Thank you. Um I I want to add to uh Councelor Appleton's comments. I too will not be supporting uh reconsideration. Um again um I'm very concerned about the integrity of covenants. We we apply them u with after careful consideration. I I do appreciate that the owners and applicant um took the time to uh allow a site visit. I was there on Friday morning and I appreciated seeing the site, but it fundamentally doesn't change the information regarding the application or regarding the plan. So, I trust staff on this um particular application and um again I am concerned about the precedents we're setting with with um potentially um you know removing a covenant if if that's the outcome. So, thank you.

Thank you. Um, this is going to get a little blurry just because it's it's hard to talk about the the val merit of reconsideration and not talk to the underlying facts, but go ahead, councelor Watson. Uh, thank you. I will support councelor Patterson's motion for reconsideration. I think that at the the um uh the last council meeting there there was information that might have been shared with the applicant to council and that opportunity maybe the applicant didn't understand they could have taken it or they they didn't feel free to actually share some of the things that I know councelor Patterson now understands. I did I think understand at that time and I think councelor Patterson is fair in saying that there is new information that she has um um we been privy to now and that that uh makes it legitimate request to have this back on the table for council discussion. So I will support the motion for reconsideration.

Thank you. Uh thank you councelor Watson. I'll just speak very briefly to the motion. I think it's very supportive of the motion for reconsideration. vary is a strong word but uh supportive. I think that uh anytime people close votes and there's nuance to these pieces um these these applications and these things have great deal of meaning to both the applicants and to the community. And so the opportunity to make sure that we're making a a fullome decision makes sense to me. Um so supportive of this motion for the uh for reconsideration and we'll get to the meat of the matter if it passes. Again, uh a vote in favor of this will allow for a conversation about what to do. A vote in in u in opposition essentially concludes the matter tonight. So all those in favor of the reconsideration, I have uh and those opposed have councelor Appleton Green opposed. Uh so that brings us back here basically to right before where council was considered. So we had live on the floor

a motion to decline. Um now councelor Patterson you you've essentially motivated for the rationale for for voting against the motion to decline which would be essentially a mo then if that does fail then that would open up other options either for approval or for referral to staff and so forth. Um so I don't know if you want to add anything to that or if you want to just see if there's any other people wishing to speak prior to you speaking again. Okay. Uh anybody else wish to speak on this? Councelor was I'm not sure if that's a legacy hand. Okay. Nope. Still a real hand. No, that is that's me just to speak in in support of the request for the covenant amendment. So I I would be um uh it sounds like councelor Patterson has in effect um moved the motion to uh to uh to um grant the covenant application. Um and um if that is the case then I will just say that I

as I had argued when or discussed with council when this was before us on March the 23rd. I think this is a very reasonable request. Uh the impact on the tree root zone is small that is shown in the drawings and in the arborist analysis um both our own uh staff um arborist and the applicant's arborist. And in terms of the risk benefit, I think the risk is to the tree is low. It still exists, but it is low. Whereas the benefit is quite high, the benefit is high to the community and to a particular family who would like to move into the community. And I think that with the risk mitigation uh strategies proposed that this is a completely reasonable request and a wonderful way to welcome a new family into the community, allow them to create a family home with a secondary suite in a particular uh development approach which really beautifully suits the nature of that sweep of um uh Island Road and uh will be a real asset in Oak Bay. So, I

am really happy to support an amendment to the covenant to allow this development to proceed. K. Thank you, Councelor Watson. Miss Anderson, my apologies for interrupting. I just wanted to um clarify for councelor Watson that the motion before council is to deny. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So, the actual motion right now is to decline is to deny the the very thing. So, we'll get to that procedural pieces. Uh and I just want to also uh so thank you for that clarification. I was just going to get there and to the fact that I think importantly we're talking about an amendment to the covenant as a part of the piece not a removal of a covenant. I think this the language sometimes gets a bit blurry. So okay. Um so the motion right now is as it was the night last the previous meeting which is the motion made by the council is to decline the application. So again, I hate these motions because a motion in favor of this declines it and a motion

uh against it defeats it and that opens up other opportunities. So just so we're all very clear, the motion in front of us is to decline the the application which would end this application at this point. Go ahead, Councelor Smart. Uh thank you. I I just wanted to express that I will be speaking against the motion to decline the application. Um, as you may recall at the last meeting, um, I was I was torn really with with how to proceed, um, with this. But, um, what became clear to me then and is even more clear to me now having visited the site is that there are so many um, mitigation um, considerations um, for the tree. And there is so much um benefit for both the community and um you know the potential life that will happen um within this dwelling. Um and so as um councelor Watson very eloquently you know stated that the um when you look at the the risk ratio versus the the benefit ratio um it's clear to me um that I need to vote

against the application to deny. Thank you. Yes. vote against the motion, not against the application. That's to be very clear. Councelor Patterson. Yes. I thank you, Mayor. And I will of course be voting against the uh the original motion which was to deny um and and certainly having an understanding of the um the proposed development and its fit with the form and character of the neighborhood is um an important factor in it for me. But I I certainly respect Councelor Green's um comments that a covenant is is a is a very important document and and one that I I don't take lightly at all. I think that it's um very important that that we we honor those uh documents as much as we can.

But I think that um going back and looking at it and realizing that this has been in place now for pretty well a decade and the covenant while um I think it was well drafted for what the intent was at that time um has not in fact resulted in the goal that we had hoped for which would have been a suitable um dwelling unit on that lot that fit the form and character of the of the neighborhood, which is is what the the residents wanted. And so I think that if um if that length of period of time has passed and the covenant has not resulted in the in the overall goals of what the uh covenant was intended to do, then it's not unwarranted to come back and and revisit how to how to amend it. so that in fact we can have some opportunity of reaching that successful goal. So that's my reason for voting against it.

Thank you very much. Um seeing no other hands, I'm going to call the question again. The motion on the floor is the original motion which is to decline. So motion in favor declines. The motion opposed uh ends that and then we'll open up for other motions. All those in favor of the motion on the floor. I have councelor Appleton and Green and those opposed I have councelor Patterson Smart Watson and myself. So that fails uh with the failure of that motion. Um, we have a couple of options here, but really um, uh, what it probably suggests is that the original option two is that the covenant amendment application for 592 island will be approved and that the mayor and corporate office will be authorized to discharge covenant number CA7084432 and register a new restrictive covenant to amend the tree protection area. That would be the recommendation option. So, do you wish to make that council Patterson?

I can just I think I've read it into the record. Uh so someone just need a mover in a seconder and we can then debate that option if people are and again the other option here is that people we could refer this back to staff or some other piece if there's there work to be done. Um but we have had this in front of us now twice so I think it's it's at least worth having a discussion. So this is now a motion as uh as I said essentially to approve the the covenant amendment then essentially delegate authority to to deal with the minutia. Um so moved and seconded any further discussion I know we've kind of talked about this in the previous motion but um back to this table before I call the question councelor Appleton.

Thank you worship. So, speaking against the motion that's on the table, um I will just bring up a couple of points of note here. Um I want to be very very clear that despite um what uh has been raised during the discussion here, uh council has no new information on which to make their decision. I too attended the site. I too have uh uh spoken with the uh proponents to get a better understanding of what it is that they that they seek to accomplish. It's clear to me that there is a difference in perspective from the proponent to uh what is expressed in our staff reports.

That is what is in front of us for decision-m. There is no new information in front of council as of this reconsideration as was on the consider on the original debate. So I disagree personally with the use of this uh with the use of reconsideration in this matter because we have no new information in front of us. It is not for council to determine what impact on the tree will be. Nor is this a discussion with respect to form and character or the nature of the development. This was a debate and a consideration specifically about the need to encroach into an already established covenant that was clear and established at the time of subdivision.

So I disagree with the approach taken here because I do not have any new information that differs from when this matter was considered originally. There is every opportunity for the proponent to bring forward additional information, work with staff to revise the staff report to have additional information provided to council, but that is not the case at this stage. So, I will not vote to support this motion. Thank you, your worship. Thank you, councelor Appleton. I I just for clarification of the debate, we've had the debate on the reconsideration motion. We're now on the on the merits of the application. Again, they get blurred. So I appreciate that that's uh uh both comments uh I would consider to be in order but just to keep focus our our debate on on what's in front of us which is the the specifics of the ask of the of the amendment to the covenant which is the motion the floor. Please go ahead councelor Green.

Yes. Thank you. I will be speaking against the motion as well, but I wanted just to add that site visits are very useful uh particularly in cases that are are difficult and complicated as this was um including the the the covenant. Um and I did appreciate the owners and the applicant um spending time trying to explain the issue to me. Um, but I think my preference at this point would have been to refer this back to staff for further clarification or in fact for further information. So I will not be supporting the the motion at hand. But thank you to everyone involved. All right. Thank you. We have the motion live on the floor. I think uh I mean I think I said my piece in the in the last goound I'm supportive of this was it the last time and I continue to be. So I don't think I need to reiterate too too much. I do think though I think just just to reiterate my my understanding and my memory of this application was

that the covenant was put there to ensure that whatever was built uh took consideration of that tree um largely because our bylaws do allow for uh if a tree sitting within the the footprint of a building to be taken down uh and that does not come to council and so um the owners the same owners now as they were back then wanted to protect that tree council wanted to protect the tree. It's a very significant tree and so the intention of that covenant was to ensure the survival of that tree and that an application would not just you know without any sort of input take down the tree and to my mind uh the covenant application in front of us accomplishes that um and so uh there is as pointed out some risk um but if I was uh I was going down uh I think I went for I went for a walk with my daughter the other day down St. David just the sheer number of these giant Gary oaks that are located within you know eight or 10 feet

of the houses around there is quite phenomenal and it certainly can be done uh and maintain the integrity of the tree and I know that that's the intent here. So I am very uh I think this case we the balance here is in the interest of seeing housing built and the land being used. So I'm supportive of the motion that's on the floor. Seeing no other hands I'll call the question. All those in favor and those opposed. I have councelor Appleton and Green opposed. That motion does carry. That's the nature of a reconsideration with a one vote swing. Um so with that uh that will be advanced. The um the covenant will be approved. Congratulations the applicants in the room here with us. Uh we now there's no notices of motion on my record. So we just have one last item on the agenda which is correspondence from other governments or agencies and um obviously we have a letter here that we have to receive and maybe what I'll do

is I'll take a motion to receive uh the letter moved and seconded. Uh then we can take some discussion if there's and there's any sort of additional thoughts or questions we can do that. Councelor Smart go ahead. Uh thank you. Um um question perhaps to you mayor or or through you to staff whichever um is more appropriate but I'm just curious if if there has been discussion on how to respond. Sorry I I just I'm just going to ask sorry councelor Appleton your hand is up. Did you wish to speak right now or you just raising your hand to speak to this item on the agenda?

Yeah. Okay. Sorry I just I wasn't paying attention and I thought maybe it was a legacy. Go ahead. Uh councelor Smart. Um, I was just curious if there had been discussion um at this point as to whether um uh staff would um be um responding to this letter um or if um there was direction required at this table in order to respond to this letter. Thank you. Sure. It's a letter from another level, another body of government just essentially passing on the request from the minister uh who asked that that they do so uh asking for this information. So I think you could read it that almost any way you want. Um but Mr. Bull, I might just ask of you. Um obviously we've had this asked of us in the in the past and and there's a couple just perhaps uh some clarification of where we would normally or where we expect to be touching on some of these questions like is there land available? Where

would it be? How would it get incorporated? Um I know we have affordable housing strategy. We have a few other pieces that are sort of coming up, but perhaps you could just give an overview of where these things would would normally be discussed and if there's a will of council to say supersede that or do something else and we could perhaps give that direction. Uh Mr. Bull. Yeah, thank you your worship. Um yeah, um the district still has a number of projects in the future planned for the future to look at uh what the district's role might be to support non-market housing and that might extend to uh municipally owned sites. Uh there's for example the um affordable housing strategy project that is currently on the long list but also the village area plan uh extends to um some sites that uh that the district owns that uh could have bearing on housing options that have been discussed in the past as well by council. And there's also other projects that um uh the strategy about

rental housing stock for example is another one where in the future we're going to create um some clarity about what the goals are for the district and subsequently it would be a next step then to look at sites and what could be done. The district doesn't have a lot of vacant sites or hardly any really. Uh so that's that's another um dimension to this. Thank you. Mr. W. Anything else? Councelor Smart in terms of questions. Um that that's my only question for now. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, councelor Councelor Appleton. Thank you, worship. So, I guess building on what Mr. Through you and building on what Mr. Bull has just said, um I guess it's a it's a two component question.

Number one, um will the outcome of staff's analysis be shared with council and are the and further to that are the decision-making matrix or at least essentially the uh the factors evaluated by staff um also sharable with council? So is is that something that is going to occur automatically? Like would there be a staff report out on this? This is essentially providing information to a different level of government. Um, personally, I would be interested in the metrics used to make that assessment and ultimately what the feedback provided to the CRD was if that if that could come to the council table and whether or not that requires a resolution of council.

Sure. Thank you, Councelor Appleton. Uh, Miss Hunt just wanted to weigh in here. Yeah, thank you very much uh, Mayor through you to councelor Appleton. I just want to clarify that, you know, this is a letter from, you know, elected body to mayor and council. Staff won't be taking any action unless directed by council. Uh, so we would not be undertaking any specific um study or analysis in terms of our uh publicly owned sites um that are available for immediate uh supportive or housing or sheltering. Um I think what coun uh what Mr. B was talking about was you know future uh projects that we have where we would be looking at the district's role uh within the realm of of housing that could include supportive housing and sheltering. So we are not taking uh any immediate action right now in terms of analysis of of um the sites um potential sites uh that the district may have. Um we are uh just to add on you know some work that staff is doing through council direction is to look at the lands that

we own um with respect to our aging facilities and how we're going to uh plan for you know the municipal civic and community facilities that need to be replaced over time. And so that land inventory will be coming back to council um and as we as we embark on that project. and that is separate from any policy or strategy work um that that planning community building and planning will be doing. Councelor Appleton. Yeah, if I could just follow up on that. I appreciate those comments you worship. potentially maybe then a little confused because the correspondence from the CRD specifically asked requesting that member municipalities undertake an internal review to identify any publicly owned or otherwise viable lands or facilities. So maybe I'm confused with what Miss Hunt just said, but that sounds like there CRD is asking staff to undertake a certain degree of work, but I just heard Miss Hunt say that we're we're not doing that. But maybe I'm misunderstanding that.

That's correct. So maybe some clarification. Um at a CRD meeting um Minister Bole Minister of Housing uh Bole came and addressed the CRD board uh laying out uh this is in it's a multi-sequential uh process where the city of Victoria came forward with their uh planning process where they identified some roles that perhaps the CRD might be able to play in addressing some of the regional sheltering and housing. Um the staff report came back and laid out some of the you know what they could and could not do in terms of uh there's some legislative restrictions between the housing corporation CRD and hospital district um and uh that report came forward and then the uh um there was an invitation from the city of Victoria to say to come to the CRD and and present and so they came just as a delegation and pres and the minister came and presented to the CRD board um laying out the their their desire to find additional housing and uh and shelters uh in the region.

Uh the CRD board took that and basically directed that the board chair write to the all the member municipalities and just ask them if you know make the ask if do you have anything that's readily available uh and if so uh please send your information to the minister or BC Housing um for uh for consideration uh for one of their projects. Uh probably worth noting here that that presentation happened very shortly before the budget uh where they cut back almost all the funding for the kind of housing and supportive things that are uh were being considered. So we're kind of in an awkward situation where we're being asked to provide immediate uh opportunities for u non-market housing and sheltering at a time when the province has essentially said they're not funding any of these projects. So we're it's a it's a strange moment in time. Um but that's a little bit of the sort of the context in history. It's not a directive from any level of government. It it came it spelled out of

a a presentation to the CRD board and the CRD board said, "Well, we really obviously can't do much ourselves, but we can write a letter on your on your behalf and and and ask people." So, that's essentially where we're at here tonight. I appreciate that context, your worship. I'm just I guess then I'm saying that at the end of the day, are we going to respond and essentially say we do not have an opportunity for those things or do we in fact respond at all? Well, I'll just say procedurally here, and correct me if I'm wrong, staff, uh, a letter from the CRD asking us asking us to if we to basically review and if we feel we have sites that are appropriate to send them to the province. Uh, I would say they the the CRD is not expecting a response and the province isn't expecting a response unless we have something available. So, there's really not an ask here from my reading of this. Yeah, I'm getting a nod from the audience from uh from Miss Hunter as well. So the the motion to receive is appropriate. Um but again,

you know, if the board if the council feels like we want to do a bit more work to see if there are some some immediately available sites, then we could, you know, we could give that direction to staff. Thank you, Worship Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the um the background on that because it certainly does um add context to to the discussion here. But um the because the letter that was before us of course has um does speak about immediate action to support the needs of individuals experience homelessness and housing precariousness. And I think we are allware well aware of the the problems that exist in the in the region. But it it I just want to to make clear that um I I support staff first of all looking at at inventory within Oak Bay to to manage the needs of this community, but also um the way the letter is framed. It is just if you have a site, but it is not just the site or the facility, it's all the services that must go with that.

and I attended the um the workshop that was put on by the city of Victoria and it was put on at the Salvation Army in the city of Victoria. But when I asked about the services that had to go with it, the list was extensive and um and you know certainly merited um pause and and considering what could be done. And so, um, you know, the letter speaks about kind of a facility or a site, but it doesn't address the services, and I don't see how how you could possibly weigh putting forward one without without the other. And and so that list is not apparent. So, I think at this point in time there there is not a lot of positive action that we could take to move forward.

Councelor Patterson. Don't see any other hands. So the motion on the floor is to receive the letter. I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed? Nothing else? Go ahead, Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um, I'd just like to do a motion arising um just to um have this discussion with council around the table just to ask the mayor to write a letter to the housing minister um around our future work on an affordable housing strategy and and our appreciation around the problems in the district and um to have a a response um to this letter that isn't just silence. Um, so I just test the will of council by putting a motion forward um, responding to this this letter and and you know, future work we would undertake in a recognition for the homelessness problem.

A little cleaner language on that. I think if you're asking me to write a letter in response to the uh uh to the minister in response to this uh um outlining our maybe I'll make a suggestion here direct the mayor to write a a letter to the minister outlining our um the uh plans and potential plans that we have that would ident that would identify appropriate places for below market or shelter housing something along those lines. I'm amendable to that. Yes. Okay. That's uh just I think not getting into the weeds too too far. And uh is there a seconder for that? Seconded by councelor Appleton. Um I think it's pretty clear what you're asking for, but I think given the hesitancy on hand seconding it, maybe just worth uh motivating a little bit.

Councelor Smart. Yeah, certainly. Um, and I really do appreciate the added context that's been shared around this report and and um the fact that the provincial funding may not be there to really support in a sense the the ask of this letter. I I just think it's important that we um you know continue a positive relationship with the province uh to show them that you know we are um aware of of you know the current um complex um environment that we're in right now and that we um we're not simply ignoring the letter. Thank you, Pastor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. I will speak against the motion. I think that um through the process uh that we have undergone with the with the province about um about the the housing plan and all of the work done by staff and the the review and and the correspondence that has been um we've received and responded to um and the uh the adviser that was appointed and and all the work that we did with the advisor to um I

think clearly clearly articulate uh both the goals and the challenges that are um uh in this community. Um and and given certainly the fact that that the province has has in fact uh pulled any of their support from this and and perhaps are hoping for a miracle that we can solve the problem, but we can't do it alone. And so rather than um responding in any lengthy way to say basically we we don't have anything for you is not um I don't see how that would be be beneficial to the process. I think that um I would first like to await the um the staff work that is being done on an inventory in the community and with that then we will have a better understanding of what is available what we need to meet the community's needs um and at that point in time we will be better informed perhaps uh if there is to be any response but I I think um you know it's almost like just writing a matter

of platitudes that that are not are not going to serve any uh value to either the province or to our community. So, I don't think that this is is working against the province. It's just that we're just not I I would just not respond to this. Thank you. I have councelor Watson and Councelor Green. Uh yes, if I may, I just it's a question for staff about reporting because as councelor Patterson has just pointed out, we do a lot of reporting to the province on housing. I know we have to report in our targets and there are other reports that we have submitted recently and I just wondered if um our priority project to do a a sort of supportive housing um and affordable housing strategy for the community would have made its way even as an appendix into anything that we've reported out to the province so far. So I guess that's for director B.

Yeah, Mr. B. Thank you mayor and for you. I'm not entirely sure. Our focus has been on the uh required projects that we worked on last year particularly and uh I know in the last report that we provided to the minister in November we would have talked about uh upcoming projects around prezoning following up the official community plan but also the optimization of development processes project. Uh I don't think we casted our eyes beyond that to future potential projects but it's something that could be included in a future report. Thanks. Thank you. So I think I my I don't recall it being mentioned in partially because it is on a long list right now.

The affordability strategy has been has been pushed aside as we're doing all the other work on housing stuff. So I don't think it has been anything else. Councelor Watson then just to say that I I you know, in in future if we do do that work and it becomes part of our reporting onto the province, they would hear about it. And I I do I do I understand totally counselor um uh Smart's um intent in keeping the province aware, but I do think it isn't really adding much value about uh telling them that we have um nothing to offer, particularly when they have nothing to offer to support that at the moment. And I think it it looks like a bit of a sort of make work project for the mayor and writing a polite letter.

So I I I don't think this is I I think it's nice, but I do not think it's necessary at at the moment. Thank you, Chelsea Green. Yeah, I'll speak very briefly and I I also appreciate Councelor Smart's I think her heart is in this um issue and and mine is too. As a former vice chair of our place society, believe me, this is a highly difficult I I can't tell you how difficult and challenging this this issue is. And I don't think writing a letter I I would hate us to raise expectations that Oak Bay is going to rush forward and and start down this road, which is a very difficult one. Um, and the the resources it takes. It isn't just about the, you know, a building and it's about staffing and training and and special health services and health care.

I mean, there's so much involved. So, what I'd like us to do is have that internal conversation and perhaps invite Julian daily to a meeting to talk about some of the challenges at that street level. If you've been reading Jodie Patterson's um column in the Times columns, she's written three or four very very important articles on this issue. I think we need to know more and understand more before we launch and I would hate us to raise expectations or make promises that we can't keep. Thank you. I'm just going to take the will of council. I don't have a strong opinion on this one way or the other.

So, uh I don't see any other hands on this. So, councelor Appleton, I see you putting a screen on. Did you wish to speak before I called the question? No. So, the motion on the floor is to direct me to write a letter. Uh there's a there's an odd number of you so I'll take the majority view of you and support it. Uh all those in favor of writing the letter and those opposed councelor Watson Green and Patterson opposed. So uh and yeah that's fine that that defeats on a tie. So we'll uh uh that does not pass. Thank you councelor Smart for putting it forward. It was worthwhile this discussion I think as to what else we could possibly do on that.

Um I don't see any other hands for motions arising or other pieces. So I think at this point I'm looking at a motion to adjurnn. Moved and seconded. For those online, thank you so much for joining us and uh we look forward to seeing you next week at the committee of the whole you and all the members of the public. All those in favor? Any oppose? None oppose. Good night everyone. Thank you. Worship.