Transcript: Council Meeting - 11 May 2026

is our uh are we are we completed the turnup for the AV or are we still waiting for the stream to start? We're good to go. Okay, great. Thank you. All right, good evening everyone. It's going to call to order our regularly scheduled council meeting for May the 11th, 2026. Uh we have councelor Braithweight joining us online. Everyone else is joining us here in the hall. Uh as we join uh call the meeting to order, we always like to just take a moment and acknowledge that we gather and do our work on the traditional territories of the Lquangan people. known today as the Songhes and the Skyalt nation and that their historic connections to these lands and adjoining waters continue to this way to this day. Uh first order of business is approval of the agenda. Can I have a mover and mover second? Any discussion?

I see none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh we have two sets of minutes. We have uh for April 27th both 6:00 and 7 p.m. Can I move adoption? Thank you. Seconded. Any uh changes, corrections, or amendments to the minutes? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Uh my mayor's remarks are fairly brief today. I just want to acknowledge uh the uh incredible work done by volunteers and uh with the support of staff uh the parks and rec staff uh for the cameas day celebration that happened. It was the 80th uh anniversary of Upland's Park. And uh there was a great turnout. Uh the bald eagles band played. There was lots of uh uh booths from various uh people interested in in the preservation and restoration of natural systems in our region. Um lots of education, lots of good tours and um uh really well uh really well attended and well well appreciated on an absolutely beautiful day. So I just want to express

appreciation. Uh I think all or most of almost all of council were able to make it out on that day and so just really appreciate the support uh of of everyone involved. Uh I also just want to uh say I was able to attend uh in my official capacity the opening of the new Crest building um and which is a great regional service on behalf of all of our uh emergency responders uh for the region. Um I do just want to take a moment and acknowledge councelor Patterson who is our appointee there but uh quite meaningfully was involved in the uh steering committee that uh both the finance committee and the steering committee that that oversaw the uh the finding of the land the building of the building uh and seeing it all to completion. So um uh you know that was a very successful both from a financial and I think an operational perspective.

So I just want to express uh since you're a representative there on behalf of our council that thank you for all the work. which I know is many many many hours uh and you were very directly involved in that uh in that process. So um uh and very interesting building if you ever have a chance to go see it uh it really is quite impressive in terms of what they built there. Um, I did just want to acknowledge that uh the unfortunate requirement that the OPT party uh society had to uh to call off the parade this year, I know has had a big uh sort of ripples through the community as people are are sort of feeling that loss before it uh before that day happens. Uh I do appreciate that they have every intention of finding a path forward uh for years to come. And uh I do know that uh there are certainly many many hurdles under some of the new guidelines to uh to seeing

some of these community events happen. I apologize for my voice. Um but I um uh I do just want to acknowledge of course that it is it's a big loss felt by the community. Uh that brings a lot of joy to people. So I'm certainly hopeful uh that the challenges can be overcome next year uh as we get to a substantive year milestone for that party. Uh and last uh but certainly not least I just want to acknowledge uh the region lost uh one of the CRD director and a counselor in Langford. I think for she was a counselor in Langford for 20 odd years 24 26 years was Lillian Spock and I certainly had a chance to work with Lilian uh in many places primarily around the CRD and the hospital district and the housing corporation boards but also on subcommittees over the years. uh really appreciated uh her approach to um the region, the work that had to be done, her contributions to the debate, uh her thoughtfulness, her passion for her own community, um but also the region. And um uh it's a bit of a shock

when you're working beside someone and they just disappear. Uh and I know that she touched many lives in her public and private life uh in her time in in public office. Um and I just wanted to just acknowledge that work uh tonight. And so I appreciate uh we were able to lower our masks in in in recognition as was I think it's symbolic of of how she was seen it was done across the region uh for her work. Uh that concludes my remarks. Uh we do next go to public comment and question period. Uh so this is an opportunity if you're online and wish to speak to council, you can raise your hand in the zoom app at this time.

Uh and if you're in the hall, he'll just ask you to put up your hand and and invite you forward. This is just an opportunity to speak to council on items not on the agenda tonight. uh and not related to a specific land use application. Um but are uh related to work of council. They can be suggestions. They can be questions. Um they can be uh any item of that are of interest to the community. Uh and so if anybody wishes to uh to speak to council, sometimes we have lots of speakers and sometimes we have probably just as frequently have none. Um but it is an opportunity. So if uh anybody wishes to uh to address council at this time again this is not on items on the agenda but on other please come forward.

Someone has to be first. So, you can come forward and I'll just walk you through this process. Uh it's pretty straightforward. Yep. Come to the main desk here. Just have a seat. Uh you can turn on the microphone in front of you. Uh you can just if you state your name and just your municipality residence, you don't have to give your address. And then you have up to three minutes to talk to council. Okay. Welcome. Hi. Uh my name is Judy Jones. I live in Oak Bay. Um, we live in a duplex that we purchased last year with our adult child and their spouse and two grandchildren.

I'm thrilled to be able to be a close participant in the lives of my grandchildren and that their parents are able to live in this community. I should note, however, that Oak Bay was not top of the list for my kids as a future home. They were concerned that it is an older community and doesn't support a lot of supports for young families and tends not to support the types of things that they're passionate about. Space for young families, child care, cycling and walking infrastructure to schools, and affordable housing for everyone who lives and works in this community. We were lucky enough to find a home close enough to the border of Victoria to reassure them. And I think that's a very sad reflection on this community.

We were extremely disheartened to hear that the planned daycare space at Karvin Park is at risk. Daycare options are extremely limited in Oak Bay. There are only seven spots for infants and toddlers in Oak Bay. You heard that correctly. Not seven open spots, seven spots for infants and toddlers. My granddaughter's 11 months old and her brother is two and a half. They do not receive daycare in Oak Bay. Their parents are faced with two drop offs and two pickups every working day in Sanage. The justification for the proposal to not build the planned daycare spaces at Cararvin is vague in its reassurance that the spots will be available in school district 61. The notes do not specify exactly the age groups targeted for these spots, but it is my word of mouth understanding that the school district may use school space for before and after school care and may hire educational assistants in this role, which will provide those employees with full-time work instead of just school hour work. The information provided for

infant and toddler spaces, was even more vague. I'm also a family physician. I've listened with horror in recent years as my younger colleagues who live in Oak Bay discuss shortening their working days because of lack of child care. Last I heard, we do not need fewer working family physicians in this community. I also work in the operating room at the hospital. A large number of the staff struggle with daycare options that allow them to get to work when the O day starts, 7:30 in the morning. One of our major hospitals in this region is steps from Oak Bay. Oak Bay does not appear to be doing anything to help our healthare workers provide much needed care for this community and still care for their own young families.

My friends who live in this community frequently lament the fact that their children will not be able to live near to them because of lack of aort lack of affordable housing and lack of affordable child care. We have an opportunity to build a quality, affordable child care space at Cararvin Park. Please do not squander this opportunity for Oak Bay to support young families. Thank you. Thank you for speaking. That is technically on the agenda tonight, but we've had a lot of correspondents, so I think allowing a person to speak to it is fine as well. So, thank you for speaking. Um, anybody else wish to address council tonight on items not on the agenda? Please go ahead. Come forward.

Thanks, council. My name is Evan Brown, um, resident of Oak Bay. Um, good to see everyone again. I had a a couple of thoughts and suggestions that I thought I'd just come to the meeting. Um, and it's mainly around the official community plan and how it relates to um, what can and can't be done in the Uplands neighborhood. And and recently I've been and you've seen me here before sort of in this same type of um the same type of theme for what I'm saying, but I reflected a lot um on how maybe we could adjust the OCP to better uh help developers and residents of the Uplands um deal with what is becoming a bit of a problem, I think, in in how they're going to start developing it And and my thought was we it might be a good idea to to think about um narrowing what can be built in the neighborhood. Um and this is in an effort to protect it. And my worry is the protectionism that we have now is not there for what is I believe only one

of two national historic sites of a residence residential area in Victoria. I think the other one's Chinatown. um where you've got a a national historic site. So, it's it begs that it's a bit different than the rest of Oak Bay. Um yet, it's afforded the same um luxuries of having up to four units on a single lot, duplexes, multiplexes as everywhere else in Oak Bay. Um so my my suggestion would be um my thought was going back to a framework of a what we could put in in the uplands would be one main residence allow them to have a suite to afford uh younger people to rent there as a you know a helper for that type of demographic but also allow up to one accessory dwelling unit on each property. So you effectively could have up to three dwelling units on a property but all under common ownership.

So instead of allowing stratification of lots where you're putting up multiple units with different owners effectively, putting up almost the same number of units but all under common control. I think that would be potentially a better way to densify the uplands without um destroying potentially the tree canopy um and the what it is right now which is I think a national historic site that needs to be saved. Um and and so all of that goes that was my thoughts. So I started to pull the neighbors and people that I've talked to. Um and I've got some great comments. I've got this in for the in for the record, but I've got about 200 people who agree um that this would be a good change to the OCP and uh with some good comments in there on why. So, I thought I'd just bring that forward and hope you uh can uh look at some changes in the future. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown. It may well be zoning more than OCP, but I appreciate the the comments made. I will share for if you want to if you're communicating back to people um there was a very clear piece of bill 44 that we could not uh we could not limit anything to less than four units even uh it had to even heritage buildings unless they had been designated two years before the bill was brought in um was the only exception to that and so there was uh there are some limits under the provincial laws to what we can do uh it does not specifically address things ratification to the best of my knowledge. So, thank you for uh for doing that and bringing forward the information. Thank you. Uh anybody else wish to talk to council? I don't see hands online. Anybody else in the room?

Okay, I will bring it back to this table then. Uh thank you everybody who spoke tonight. I appreciate your comments. Uh we move to item section six of our agenda this evening. Uh these are recommendations that came uh from the committee of whole of the whole. This is back on on April 20th. Um uh so we have there's a it was a very robust discussion that went a good hour past our usual finish time. Uh ending up with a few modifications of the original recommendations. Um and so what I thought I would do is that um since it had public input at that meeting um I would just seek any additional public input on any of the items 6.1.1 to 6.1.4. four. So these are all the recommendations that came from the committee of the whole. Um so just open it up for any public comment at that at this time and then we'll go through procedurally to consider uh adopting the recommendations of the committee of the whole.

So this is uh street parks and facilities naming uh council priority projects optimized development processes um the four council priority projects uh updating the OCP project sign off for infrastructure servicing study new subdivision works and services bylaw and the update for the homebased business regulations in case people are uh sorry and uh engagement uh for updates to the homebased business regulations in case people are curious about what these items are. In fact, it took me that long to read it aloud. It explains why it was a long meeting the last one. So, we went through all of that. Uh I don't see hands up online.

Uh and I will just remind people if they're perhaps watching this on YouTube, uh would encourage you to go to the Zoom app uh link on the on the agenda. Um but if you don't want to do that, you can always call into the 1855 number uh that's in the agenda uh and go through that process of hitting star 9 to raise your hand. Okay. Um, seeing nobody from the public, I'm going to start with the initial PCR 611. This is draft streets, parks, and facilities naming and renaming policy. Um, so the recommendations here that the board would be received for information and the staff be directed to engage with the residents of Prince Andrew Crescent regarding potential renaming of the street. I do have one other suggested uh minor change to that recommendation, but I'm going to ask if someone can make the recommendation from the committee as the whole moved. Is there a seconder?

Moved. Okay. So, um the thing I just wanted to raise was just uh we had some feedback from members of the um uh the uh the proposed renumbering of that culde-sac off of King George and they wanted to reopen the discussion around perhaps renaming um or or looking at a different way of reumbering. And so I think because this directs a very specific course of action to to specific renumbering that we should uh I think give that opportunity to amend um uh the motion to also include initiation of or to include consultation with the affected neighbors of the culdeac king George before before moving that forward. That' be my suggestion. So if that's amendable to the council I would just make suggest somebody make the amendment motion to include that moved by councelor Appleton seconded by councelor Smart. Thank you.

Um, so on that amendment, does anybody have any questions? Because I can certainly give that to staff. Not seeing any. Okay. So I'll call the question on the just just on the amendment. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. So with the motion as a whole, which is to direct the the course of action on the naming policy. Seeing no other hands, uh, I will call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you for that. Uh we moved to 6.1. Uh the recommendation from the committee was to approve the scope uh of that. I'm going to again ask that somebody move the motion as it stands here.

Do you want to read aloud your worship? No, you can just just move the motion as as recommended that approving the scope of part two. So moved to your motion. Moved. Is there a second? Thank you. Um again I just have a slate recommendation here is that the this was a we had an amendment made uh in them in the thing to include the inclusion of a preliminary report. Um I just talking with staff it probably is better for clarity to change the inclusion of uh to subject to a to approval of a preliminary report because I think the intention was that we we understand the key uh KPIs and so forth prior to um signing off on on the final approval of these pieces. Um so that's going to be my suggestion is just so it's a bit of a clarity of language and I think Ms. Hun I think that's a that's better reflective of the conversation we had.

Yeah. So does that make sense to people? So just changing the inclusion of to subject to approval of a preliminary report to council. Okay. Is there moved by council? Is there a seconder for the amendment? Okay. Any any further discussion on that amendment? I see none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. So the motion now is as amended just to be clear about the the uh so the preliminary report will come back to council with KPIs and so forth before the the final sign off on the projects. Um any other discussion before I call the question? Seeing none all those in favor any opposed? None opposed. Uh I think that's all of my various amendments I had to wear on to say 6.1.3.

Um yes. I'm looking at the hand. Oh, sorry. Yeah, I'm going with the agenda items, not the um not that. So, yeah, those are the numbers from the committee of the whole meeting. My apologies. Making sure not. Nope. No, that's fine. In fact, if you if just for comfort of everybody, um so 6.1.3 is a for the four council priority projects. Um which is 8.2 in the committee of the whole report of people referring to that report. Um and so there's a recommendation here. Uh again, um there was slightly amended. So, so the recommendation from the committee is here. We can just move that recommendation.

Uh you wish I will move the recommendation under 6.1.3 for council priority projects to implement the updated OCP. Okay. Is there a seconder? Move and seconded. Any discussion on this before I call the question? Go ahead, councelor Smart. Yeah, I just I will be voting in favor, but I just wanted to um express my um desire to and I think we we talked about this in the last meeting to just have some ongoing conversations about what that complete infrastructure servicing study plan will will look like when it comes back to us to ensure that it what we receive um really allows us to have adequate decision-m I I do remain somewhat concerned that there's going to be a long period of time before we potentially have a touch point on on that. But overall, I am supportive. So, I just wanted to share what I expressed in the last meeting. Thank you, Councelor Smart.

Don't see any other hands. Motion's on the floor. Uh, all those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Um, and then we have actually this is also under 6.3 I guess of that. Um I don't I didn't take it as that but there was the four or three breakout pieces which is the uh sign off on the infrastructure servicing study uh new subdivision works bylaw and oh no uh yes those those three other pieces uh attached so it's I should just make clarification was the motion to include all of those pieces um those are the four priority projects so I take it actually that probably was the inclusion okay for clarification your worship yeah that would be the uh recommendations eight under 8.2 2 from the committee of the whole in their entirety. Yeah.

Uh and yeah, uh thank you. So we have so I took that as as all of those pieces being included in that. That was the that was the recommendation from the committee of the whole. If anybody wishes to me to break it out though, I'm happy to do so at this time. Okay. Uh so consider 6.1.3 approved. Uh and then we move to 6.1.4. And this is uh engagement for updates to homebased business. Um, so there was a there was as you seen in the recommendations here, it was the report with three additional amendments. Uh, so that's a recommendation. If I can have that motion put on the table. So move to your motion.

Uh, seconder seconded. Um, any discussion? Go ahead, Councelor Watson. Yes. I'd like to move an amendment to the um the motion that we omit the uh amendment to include stricter limits on non-resident employees from the work plan. Uh, sorry. The recommendation here is to include stricter limits on non-resident place. You're you're asking that we strike that? Yes. Okay. So, the motion would be to amend to strike the third bullet point of the of the add-ons. The uh I think it's the second of three. Sorry. Second of the three uh bullet points. Correct. Is there a seconder for that? Move. Seconded by councelor Smart. Go ahead, Council Watson.

Thank you. Um I I'm unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the meeting but I um have I do know the agenda items and followed along and I think that in the case of uh you know there's it's a welldeveloping proposal to update our bylaw but I think that this particular requirement or idea is something that is very fraught to regulate and probably unnecessary. um keeping track of though even if you made it a requirement and I'm not sure why you would compliance uh is would be problematic and I think that as I know I've discussed at this table before in terms of who comes and goes from property in Oak Bay. It's not just employees, it's all sorts of people who service people's homes. And that's going on every day through throughout the day, even into the evenings, uh, with deliveries, gardeners, home care workers, what have you, that have nothing to do with homebased businesses.

So why we would specifically uh make homebased businesses um work to a different standard of who can come and go from the premises doesn't make sense to me at a time when we're trying to liberalize and modernize uh the approach to allowing this uh kind of activity within our community. So I think it's regulatory overreach unnecessary and uninforcable. So that's why I'm asking it that it be struck. Okay. Thank you for that comment. Uh, anybody else wish to speak? Go ahead, Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. I I will be supporting this motion. I agree that I I see a lot of the benefit of what we're doing with this work of actually um allowing um residents to basically continue and thrive in homebased businesses um you know, while striking the balance of resident enjoyment. And I and I with regards to particularly the fact that this is under things that we're going to engage the community with um I do see this one and this is why I also didn't

support including options for hours of of operation for business operations because I saw it in a very similar vein that it's not something that is really enforcable. um and to put that out um for public engagement on that topic. I I just don't see that um I see that being a bit of a make work project that in the end of the day is going to be very difficult um to enforce and and really the concerns around hours of operation are covered by our noise bylaws. So I will be supporting the amendment on the table. Okay. Thank you. Uh any other comments? Appreciate this is a strange meeting where we didn't have as many people around the table for it. So, uh, appreciate that, uh, these conversations. Go ahead, councelor Green.

This might be a good topic. I won't be supporting the motion, but I think this would be a good topic for consultation, which was part of our recommendation the last time we discussed this. We're going out to the business community in Oak Bay to um, beyond the Oak Bay Village to all all all our village centers. And I think this would be a good topic for discussion at that consultation. So, let's ask the business community, the commercial community, how they feel about it. I'm I think it's a fair question. Um, I understand the concerns around enforcement and regulation, but I think um I think we owe it to the our small business community here at the moment to at least discuss this possibility with them before we make a final decision. Thank you.

Yeah. Thank you. And it's in fairness, this is the uh the recommendation is an engagement plan on but we wanted to get it as close as possible to what we thought would be the the correct balance in going out for the consultation. Uh councelor Patterson on the motion to amend. Yes. Speaking against the motion to amend. I I understand um councelor Watson's statement that uh that there would be difficulty enforcing this, but I think that there are are many policies we develop that can be difficult to enforce. But I see some of these um uh restrictions as as an enabler to be able to enforce should problems arise. And I think that these were areas that were of concern and will continue to be of concern to the the um community. And so I I think it really what this does is enable enforcement should we require it.

I think the whole enforcement around homebased businesses in its entirety could be difficult to enforce. But nevertheless, we are moving towards a strategy to doing this rather than just having um members of the community decide to do this on their own and without any guidance. So this sets the um the parameters and and is more of an enabler than an enforcement in my mind. So for that reason, I won't support. Thank you. Um, any other comments? I'll speak very briefly. I'm not supportive of the motion. I appreciate where it's coming from and I take it of two things. One is uh the discussion around the table and I I I take it to be worthwhile um was twofold. One, the this is homebased businesses. So, this this is sort of there could be all the people who live in the house plus two full-time or multiple part-time workers within that same home. These are not commercial zones. These are home. And so there's a difference between having full-time workers in your home outside of people who live there versus, you know, people visiting and and doing say once a month

coming and doing gardening work. Um so that was that consideration. The second consideration was um to the interest of supporting vibrant um you know commercial centers to make sure that where a business actually has multiple full-time employees that they're using commercial spaces that have adequate parking and and other things that that relate to that. Um so not to eliminate the possibility of having employees but to reduce it from uh two additional full-time on top of the residential residents. Um and so that was the direction given back for consultation and I'm supportive of that direction. I think um and I think because it is a building or a business license model we do have a slightly more enforcement options because people essentially sign up for the type of building license uh required. Um, so those things could be could be captured by a by just a sworn effort or a sign off from the applicant that that's the intention that they would follow. So I'm that's that's where I'm ended up on this one and I I do appreciate you raising it council Boston because it was a point of of

considerable discussion and I think good arguments made in all sides of it. So any other discussion on the motion so the motion to amend at this point? So if this passes they would strike the second dot which is to include stricter limits on non-resident employees. So, a vote in favor is a vote to remove that. A vote to oppose this to keep it, which is I was like to reiterate because this is the opposite. Uh, okay. All those in favor of the amendment. Uh, and those opposed, I have councelor Patterson, Braithweight, Green, and myself opposed. So, that does stay in. Um, any other amendments or changes to the recommendation? Um, seeing none, I'll call the question.

All those in favor? Any opposed? Councelor Watson and Smart opposed. Um this will go for consultation. Um and uh we'll come back to council with with with the results of that consultation. We move now to item or section seven. Uh this reports and memorandums. These are not subject to public input. Um our first one is uh the project update for Canarvin Park redevelopment plan. Uh depending on what goes forward here, this will come back to council for final approval and have public input, additional public input at that time. We've obviously had a lot of public input through the consultation process, but this is really coming back to us uh with to get some direction based on some of the changes that have happened with the building grants, etc. So, with this, I'm assuming I'm going to give this over to Mr. Sullier. Welcome. And for those who are at home, uh Mr. Silier is our director of uh parks, recreation, and culture for Oak Bay. Welcome.

Thank you, mayor, and good evening, mayor and council. I'm pleased to be here with my uh colleagues including David Graham to my left the sen man senior manager of district facilities and the project manager as well as Rihanna Lashants the director of financial services to provide us project status update on the canvan park redevelopment plan. Since our update just last up just a few months ago the team has been working on the design details and capital cost estimates operational projections as well as an assessment of options for funding the plan. In addition to providing a status update this evening, this is an important check-in to confirm the council direction on specific items which are critical to complete the current planning phase.

Next slide. Oh, next slide, please. Next slide. We're just going to fix a Navy. There we go. A Navy issue in the room. Please go ahead. And next slide, please. You're going to have to do it manually. As outlined in the report, the overall cost estimate of $30.3 million remains within the project budget. At roughly 60% design completion, we engaged a quantity surveyor to complete a class B report, which included the estimated cost to deliver the amenities outlined in the schematic design previously approved by council. The final costing will be captured with a class A report prior to tendering the project for construction. Next slide.

Over the past few months, the team has continued to assess potential costs, benefits, and trade-offs for this major investment. There are two specific design components that we would like to review with council. First, the green or living roof is a sustainable design element uh included in the most recent schematic design that has the potential to offer benefits such as management of storm water and building insulation. Over the past few months, we have examined further the capital cost and the requirements associated with maintaining this feature over the long term. As noted in the report, the green roof may not be an optimal choice for this project based on the high capital costs, risks, and complexity of the feature. And in considering these relative to the original proposal for an array of solar panels on the roof, should council choose to replace the green roof with a standard roof and solar panels, it is expected that there would be a net cost savings while still achieving the net zero energy goals for the building. Next slide, please. Mayor,

I'm sorry to interrupt, mayor, but the the presentation is not showing up on Zoom. Um, thank you for that clarification. Is it possible to make to switch it in a way that is shared on the Zoom call? And sorry, council to all of those watching online. I I do have the Zoom instance open on my desktop. I was looking online for uh for this and uh I didn't look over here to see if it was being shared. So,

It is not. Are you able to share the screen? which I don't think is being shared at the moment. Just give us a moment here. We will for all of you online and watching. We'll uh we will get to this

It didn't it didn't actually share. I don't think you actually completed the share on that screen. Screen two. Yeah. Click the share button at the bottom. No, no, no, no, no. There. Yep. Uh, you're sharing the wrong screen though for some reason. It's sharing your other screen.

Yeah, you're sharing it. Try to share again. If you if you share the um There we go.

Perfect. That works. Thank you. Please continue. Okay. Next. We're gonna have to do some catchup here. Next slide. Next slide. There we go. Okay. The second design consideration staff have noted relates to the childcare space on the north side of the proposed community center. Per council direction from December 2024. The space will accommodate 24 3 to 5year-olds. The current design is aligned with provincial licensing requirements and includes 222 m or 2400 ft of indoor space and approximately 187 square meters or 2,000 ft of dedicated outdoor space. The rationale for bringing this consideration to council at this time relates to developments that have occurred since council approved the project scope relating to the childcare provision.

One of the most significant changes occurred when the province amended legislation to allow school school boards to expand child care uh programs for all ages late last year. Locally, this change supported school district 61 in responding to demands from families for increased care on school properties with funding for new and expanded programs and infrastructure. We have learned that in the past three years, spaces for infants to 5-year-olds on school district 61 property have increased from less than 200 spaces to nearly 700 spaces and before and after school from 350 to 4,000 spaces. When we recently spoke with the leadership representative of the Ministry of Education and Childare, she confirmed that the significant progress based on the significant progress every family in greater Victoria should have access to care for 3 to 5year-olds within the next year. She also advised that additional spaces that are in the planning phase will further support infant and toddler age group as well as school age children. And we have now confirmed that

four school district 61 projects in and around Oak Bay will add 164 new spaces for families within the next 2 to 3 years. And that new opportunities are still being explored in local schools. Next slide, please. With this information now available, council has the opportunity to consider desired outcomes and whether an update to the design of the community center is needed. To be clear, staff are not suggesting the District of Oak Bay has no role in the provision of childare, but rather that we may focus on where we can add value. For example, there remains a strong demand for programs such as day camps that support families outside of the school term. Oak Bay, along with other municipal recreation departments across the region, have experience and expertise in the provision of such programs to meet community needs, often limited only by the availability of appropriate space.

Next slide, please. Moving from capital to operating, you'll find included with this report a summary of the assessment of operating impacts for the plan, including the community center and outdoor amenities. The methodology applied by staff considered the initial three years of operation and the anticipated financial implications. As noted, the overall net expense is anticipated to be relatively low by year three. Next slide, please. The final section is focused on the proposed funding strategy. Firstly, staff have assessed the potential sources of funds and proposed a balanced approach that allocates reserve funds for 50% of the cost and funds from debt for the other 50%. Should the district receive any other funds, such as through a grant, the amount of debt or reserve would be reduced. Next slide, please.

Shown in this slide are three options for council to consider when authorizing debt for this capital project. The first option does not require electoral approval when annual debt debt servicing is within the district's approval free liability zone and this is recommended for the Canarvin Park project. The other two options would seek electoral approval to proceed with borrowing and would have cost and schedule impacts as noted in the table. Next slide, please. Pending further direction from council this evening, the project next project update is planned for July. We are quickly approaching the end of the planning phase for this project and so the decisions sought today are critical to mitigate impacts to the schedule. We look forward to answer any questions you may have and to receiving your direction. Thank you.

Thank you very much Mr. Sullier. I didn't note in the um u in the in the report there were three good sort of guidelines at high level. one was sort of keeping the child care option as is uh looking at eliminating the space or reducing the size of the building or just looking to redesign the building for multi-purpose use. And I thought that's a probably good framework for us to sort of contemplate uh our balance of of pieces. Uh as we tend to do in these matters before we get to motions, I'm going to see if there are members of council who have questions of staff. Uh and I imagine some probably do have questions for staff. Uh so with that I will turn I looks like we may have lost councelor Braithweight.

Oh she's there on the iPhone I see. Never mind. Um yeah questions and I will start a speaking list. Go ahead councelor Green. Thank you very much. Um thank you both for the report and the presentation. Really appreciate it through you to Mr. Solier. Um my question is about the daycare facility. Um, it's a very difficult decision and I'm not not very happy about the options here, but I I wanted to know if if you or your staff had pursued any other daycare options for the space. I know the province has stopped funding. I um and I think that should be a message very clear that this is not about the municipality. It's about the province and their lack of funding now for daycare. Although it's available in schools, as the speaker pointed out, it's it's limited. So, I'm just wondering if if we've looked at other models. Um, there used to be something called a P3, private public um partnership, and I just wondered if that's a possibility. Thank you.

Thank you, councelor. Mr. Le uh through the mayor just to for clarification um when you say other models are you thinking talking about the the um the youth that would be served the age group or are you speaking about how it would be delivered? How it would be delivered? Thank you. Yeah. Through the mayor. So um staff really looked at two options. One is a district operated uh option or a leased option. Those were the two options that we sort of looked at in terms of how the daycare would be delivered. Um what was proposed was the least option um where an external provider would come in and and run the uh facility um and manage um really all the the provision of the services um in the new building and and essentially pay a a lease rate to the district uh that would go towards the future capital costs of maintaining the building etc. Thank you.

Thank you. Uh I have councelor Watson uh sort and patter. Uh yeah, thank you um to Mr. Sier please. Just following uh first up on that um line of inquiry from councelor Green um in a leased operation in in the um the proposal as it stands right now. Would it be possible not to make the improvements or not incorporate the design in the kind of m the skeleton of the building and leave those improvements to a lesser under an arrangement or do they have to be built? Now, I'm thinking about the the uh the opportunity to sort of hedge your bets and create more like the shell of the space and leave it unprogrammed and see if you can find a leaseold operator who would come in and do and make their own improvements to make it daycare ready through the mayor. We have we have not investigated that option and um based on my um experience with uh these types of arrangements. Funding for those types of improvements uh is very difficult to come by. The operators are typically um faced with significant overhead at the

startup with hiring and and finding uh staff. Um and adding to that uh to that the cost of uh fitting out a building and and paying for the uh the completion of the building would likely be a challenge. Um it I I've not seen it done but it possibly could could be an option. It's not one that we've investigated deeply. Thank you. So just to follow up. So is it basically then without the province as an active funding partner it's unlikely that we would be able to anybody would want to do daycare in this facility. Is that what were where my understanding through the mayor when it comes to the the capital cost? Yes. I think that the province is has been a key partner for many years in this space.

Thank you, Councelor Smart and Patterson. Oh, thank you. I'll start off with just a couple questions about the um green roof aspect. Uh I just wondered if you could comment on the aesthetics of changing from a green roof to a solar roof. I know we had some really great response from the community on um the look of this building and I'm just wondering um I don't remember how tall the the parapet is like will the solar panels be visible from the street um if you could comment. Thank you Mr. Graham. Uh through your worship yes the the building would have that saw to look that you often see with solar panels. um unless we increase the parapit height of the roof. Um being that part of the neighborhood goes up a hill that looks down on the roof, they would be losing that green roof um aesthetic um and instead be looking at solar panels. Please continue.

Thank you. Um my second question with regards to the um potential proposal to change the green roof to solar panels was just with the cost savings uh described. I just wondered does does that cost savings take into consideration um adding the amount of insulation and um potentially new membrane that would be required for the roof um uh to make it have the same um RV value rating that it did with the green roof on it. I just wondered if we're It said net, so I'm assuming it sort of includes everything, but I just wanted to clarify. Thank you, Mr. Graham. Uh through your worship, short answer is yes. We'd be using a high below roof to uh have the passive cooling function. Um the insulation value would be brought up to the level to ensure that we meet that net zero and net carbon neutral.

Technically, we would lose the thermal mass of the roof, which can play a part in heating and cooling, but we would meet all the requirements of net zero energy building. Go ahead. Oh, thank you. Um uh my next question is just with regards to the um the child care um programming. Um really appreciate the extra detail that was provided in the presentation. And I just wanted to additionally ask um is staff aware of how many of those additional spaces that you 164 spaces in Oak Bay and Sanage. Sanich is obviously a really big municipality. So is it do we know how many potentially are in Oak Bay?

Mr. Sullier through the mayor. Yes, I can uh provide that detail. So at the Upland's campus um so in Oak Bay there will be uh 48 new 3 to 5year-old spaces and those are anticipated to come in the next year and then the Sanage locations we focused in on the locations that were in close proximity to the Oak Bay border. So I'll provide those to you. Uh Mount Douglas Secondary there'll be 36 new spaces. Campus V. Elementary, 44 spaces, and Frank Hobbs Elementary, 36 spaces. And those three locations are expected to come uh online in the next 2 to 3 years. Uh thank you. I appreciate um that level of detail. Um uh my next question is just with regards to if the will at this table um was to potentially direct a shift to keep the child care but design it for infant toddler care um understanding um how little of that is available in our community and that that would be a redesign. Could staff sort of

summarize the what I imagine might be an additional cost um for design at at this point to proceed with infant toddler care. Thank you. Perhaps also just some clarification whether the the 22 spots uh I think you indicated for 3 to five but that number change with the change of use through the mayor. So um yes the to the second part of the question the number uh of uh of clients would change it would drop significantly. Um we'd be looking at a number of 12 uh from 24 to 12. Um the ratios the the the design would be different and we would have to report back on what would be required to uh to to change the design but yet we have been uh carrying on based on the 3 to five year uh requirements and the licensing requirements for that type of operation.

Thank you. Please continue. Councelor Smart. Yeah, thank you. Um, just to follow up on on that, it's great to to staff has been looking at that a bit. So, have staff possibly looked into having two infant um toddler cares with some um shared facilities or is that typically not licensed and approved andor the option of having one infant toddler care for 12, which would be a much smaller footprint and a smaller multi-purpose space? I has has staff kind of considered those options so far? I'm not sure to give that to Mr. or Mr. Graham. Uh over to you, Mr. Slier. Through the mayor. No, we have not looked at um multiple um uh infant toddler care spaces. We haven't really looked into the design of infant toddler uh spaces at all. Um I'm a I'm aware of that there are differences and that uh I have spoken with our staff about uh the fact that it would be um require redesign. Um but the the area that's required is we'd be

working with the same area unless we were to expand into the other multi-purpose areas. Um the rooms that are on the south side of the building. So um yeah, that would be obviously a bigger um change than just using the north side of the building. Go ahead. Uh thank you. No, I appreciate understanding that that work hasn't yet been done. Having worked um on childc cares before, I'm aware of how much smaller an infant toddler care could be and and that there might be some potential. Um I think that's the end of my questions for now. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councelor Smart. I have councelor Patterson next.

Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Um just could staff clarify for me at the time the public engagement was done um was there um was there discussion at that time about potential changes that were coming to the um the provincial child care program that uh could affect the planning uh through the mayor. So the most recent uh public engagement that was completed was in January. Um in that uh in those sessions we did not um fully understand the implications of the new legislation that had uh just been passed um at the end of 2025. Um and we had not yet engaged with the school district on the work that they had been uh doing or or planned. Uh unfortunately that came later and so as we've been assessing it and seeing the potential impact we wanted to bring that to council as soon as we as soon as we could.

Thank you. Uh and if I I continue um uh with the uh the recommendation to um change the funding strategy from the use to the use of debt and uh by drawing down the infrastructure reserve funds. Have um have staff explored other opportunities than the actual use of the infrastructure reserve fund account for um for funding the uh the or perhaps phasing changing the phasing or something to allow for um uh different use of the funds or different um methods of doing it. Sure, Mr. Sier. I'm just for the AV. We think we're now sharing the wrong screen again. If we can maybe bring back the uh the multi-person view. I have it on my screen, however, so I'm okay. But go ahead, Mr. Sulier.

Through the mayor, with respect to the phasing and um how the um the project, the construction of the project um actually is implemented. That will be a topic for a future council uh report. um as will the details around amendments to the financial plan uh proposed amendments to the financial plan loan authorization uh bylaw details etc. Those will come in a in a future report. Um as noted in the report, there's sort of a a natural um phasing uh when we look at the physical space and and you know from a construction point of view what would make sense um in terms of mobilizing and excavation and and construction. Um and so we've articulated that in phases two and three. Uh in the report you'll see those collection uh the collection of sort of um uh project items in there. Um perhaps I'll allow my colleague Miss Lashants to comment on um the specific reserve that we've identified um the infrastructure reserve and whether there are other potential options um for the district to

consider. Mr. Chance, thank you through your worship. Uh yes, um we do have um multiple capital uh reserves that can be used for capital purposes. uh the um staff in in reviewing the uh change in split from the approved financial plan uh took a look at the reserves uh balances and um what's already been committed uh for other asset uh prioritized within the capital plan and I've identified the infrastructure reserve as the ideal reserve. Um but that's not to say that uh uh you know in future years we're able to uh balance against those reserves. uh we haven't gone and done that extensive uh review in terms of rebalancing reserves. Uh we'd be looking for council's direction uh on in terms of phasing and costs uh before we would uh finish that recast that would be coming back to council in a a follow-up report.

Thank you. Um I don't have others in my speaking list with questions. Uh go ahead. Council Patterson, please continue. Yeah, thank you. Thank you for granting me it mayor. Just as a followup then, thank you for that information, Miss Lashants. Um, and just uh you did say that that there would be the intent that that would come later. And at that time, would we also be looking at the life cycle costing um that would be attributed to this facility over the term because I realize it's not uh it's not apparent in the 5-year capital plan. So, I'm just wondering how how and when that would come to council, too.

Mr. Jentz, excuse me. Uh, yes. So, absolutely. Uh, the um intent within this report is to provide um some of the uh operating uh cost impacts of the facility uh and then uh seek council's direction on the um scope and scale of that building. Uh then uh once we understand uh that scope and scale and are able to move to class um a estimates um that's when we can bring back um more reliable and accurate uh life cycle cost estimates for council. Thank you. Um and I believe that's the next if if depending on what we move forward here, we'll give direction and we'll come back with class A estimates.

Is that my understanding? Okay, Mr. Sier. Uh the through the mayor. So the depending on what decisions are made tonight, uh we may need some additional time, but regardless, we're intending to bring a report in July with um at a minimum refined uh costing and design uh based on whatever direction we received today. Um if the uh design changes are more significant, then it will take more time to get those class A estimates. So that could come uh later on. Understood. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Go ahead. Yep. Councelor Braithweight, please go ahead. Thanks so much. I'm sorry about the confusion of me losing um connectivity there for a minute. Um I I do have a few questions. Um and I know that I when I was reading the report um that staff acknowledged that the converting the child care space to multi-purpose rooms may produce little or no meaningful um capital savings because the redesign costs offset the reductions in the child child care specific features. So, I'm

wondering if the savings are negligible, if it's really wise to permanently lose the potential valuable community amenity of those spaces. And so, I'm wondering about the recommendation of removal rather than preserving the long-term flexibility. If we could speak to that, please. Thank you, Mr. Sier. Through the mayor. So, one of the um considerations that staff uh looked at was the fact that we are essentially designing a building for the next 50 years. So, it's a it's a it's a long-term commitment. Um, the the spaces are designed to be flexible to a certain point for to adapt over time. Um, the type of structure that uh that the design team has uh put together for us allows for that type of flexibility. Um but when we had the conversations with the province and the school district and started to get a better understanding of what is coming on stream in the short term in terms of the service provision, there started to be uh the the it seemed

that the need that we were actually going to be attempting to deliver was going to be met through uh through the school district sites perhaps even before we had this new facility open. Um and so that was a consideration we thought was worthy of uh council um understanding because it has changed since 2000 since 2024 when the project was approved. um the conditions not only related to capital funding but also uh the strategy around how childare was delivered um has evolved and so uh so yeah the the as I as I mentioned these were new developments and when we look at the long-term um interests of the of the district's investment in this facility we thought it was worth consideration go ahead counc um So, okay, that's great. Thank you very much for that answer. Um, and and I'm just wondering if we did remove the childare now. Um, what realistic opportunity would there be um to reintroduce it in the future? Is there a is there a good opportunity to do that if we did choose to or if we had the need to?

Mr. Sier through the mayor. So, um, as I mentioned, there's there's a certain amount of flexibility. Um, there would be costs related to the um to the building systems. So the design uh sorry the walls the electrical plumbing um heating there would be you know fixtures um it really would depend on you know it's hard to speculate but it would depend on what that service provision uh looked like. So are we talking the same 24 3 to 5 year olds or are we talking about a different age group uh and the scale of that? Um so the short answer is yes it's possible any you know it would cost um but uh it's hard to predict the uh the quantity of that uh of that cost at this point.

Uh, thank you for that. And if I may continue, mayor, I I guess I I struggle with knowing how much um emphasis we can put on whether or not the school board will be coming forward with those predicted spaces. And so that's where I'm I'm struggling a little bit on this. Um, I I would like to go now to uh some of the financial stuff around this. And I'm wondering um if we could talk a little bit about um why the AAP wasn't recommended given the size of the borrowing and what uh if we know what the annual household tax impact for an average homeowner would be on the borrowing. Thank you. Thank you councelor Braithweight to Mr.

Mr. Chance. Uh thank you through your worship. Um so uh the report uh does cover all three opportunities for approval of uh or process for the borrowing approvals. Um you know exercising the approval free uh zone is uh really something that you're going to look at as a first stop because it is a a used up amount of room. So as you were uh looking to do multiple issues uh any next issue in line uh you would consider should that be the path that this takes uh because eventually uh when debt is outstanding it will use up that room. Uh I would say that that would be uh staff's recommendation if it's available to us. Uh of course the options are available to council to take any of those other uh uh approval processes. um they do have uh implications around costs and uh staff time. Uh that's a consideration and so uh to you know I I'm happy to have my other colleagues jump in. I see Michelle would like to Miss Hunt.

Thank you very much. Uh yes and I think Miss Lachance summarized it. The the other piece for me though is I think you know the community has been waiting a significant time for this facility and you know by taking one of the other alternatives it is going to probably add another year in terms of you know our ability to to get this facility under construction and and so staff were weighing that as well in terms of the timeline to to be able to actually uh you know break ground and and get this facility uh in the works. And and thank you for bringing that up, mayor, if I may continue. Um because I I do know that um you know, given the scale of this project and the proposed design changes, it loss me to say this, but should we have additional consultation um before finalizing the major um scope reductions because of the childcare removal? I mean, I I I don't want to put I don't want to delay this project

anymore. Um, but I I wonder um what our community is going to think about us if we remove those child care spaces with no um ability to either turn them into toddler infant spaces in the future or to turn them into child care regular childare um spaces in the future. So, I I do worry about that and and and I wonder um what kind of a um how that would delay the process. And and Miss Hunt, I think that you just said it could be up to a year to delay that. And I'm just wondering if that's a if that is really accurate and if we had to go back to the public to to talk about this again, which I'm not suggesting we do, but we might have to.

It's almost a rhetorical question, but Miss Hunt, did you start anything? Yeah. Thank you. uh through the mayor. Just to clarify, councelor Braithweight, the uh the additional time there I was speaking to was uh with reference to um uh the borrowing and whether or not we uh took the uh alternate approval process um to go through borrowing. In terms of uh changing the design or or going out for f sorry going out for further consultation uh with respect to the childare and changing the design, I will actually ask Mr. Sullier to to uh give us an estimate on what that might uh cost in terms of timeline.

uh through the mayor. So in part the the response uh would be informed by the purpose of the consultation. If it was um to get feedback in on on the potential alternative use of that space, that would be um one thing. If it was simply to inform, uh that would be another thing. But I would say at a a minimum, we'd be looking at four four to five months probably um of a of a schedule impact. Thank you. And mayor, if I may, my last question would be um whether or not we have explored partnerships with uh nonprofit childare operators um and if grants could could grants become available again in the future if this space is preserved for childare.

So, I think you kind of answer as we haven't directly sought service providers, but the model would be that we'd use a third party service provider, but just for clarification, that's correct. So, we haven't uh engaged in discussions with any potential operators uh to date. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Are there other questions for staff? Please go ahead. Council Watson, this Thank you. I realize this is my second time, but I just wanted to go back to the AAP and understand something. In the event that you did use that model and you go to the public, what happens to the actual borrowing if the cost the cost your class A estimate goes up during the period of time, the one-year period of time that you take to seek that approval? Does that then absolutely limit your borrowing to the amount that you took to the public for approval?

Mr. Chance, uh, yes, thank you through your worship. Uh, yes, it does. So if there were cost increases th those would then need to come out of reserve funds. Thank you. Uh yes through your worship uh we do u of course accommodate that in our project uh risk uh register. We would be looking at making sure that uh through the course of the project that we would uh be able to raise sufficient funds without um having to come back. uh we would look at those kind of cost escalations as extraordinary uh and and may even be the result of a change in scope uh during the project. Uh but we would uh set the course um and ideally uh be able to provide that certainty for the approval process that the community would have engaged in uh to execute that project.

Thank you. Councelor Braithweight, your hand is up. I'm just trying to make clear whether that's a legacy hand you would get a follow up. Yeah, it was for the second time once I once you're looking at second time speakers. Mayor, if you have questions, go ahead and ask it. I have a couple, but you can go ahead. Thank you. Um, I just was wondering, um, if we've actually assessed the current childcare demand and weight list within our community. Um, and if so, and if the numbers that we received in the correspondence that we received are accurate, if we know that they're accurate. And then lastly, what is the municipality's role in helping actually um, uh, facilitate child care access?

because I'm not I'm wondering what what our what our actual role is in this and if it's more of a provincial role or not. Mr. Sier through the mayor I can attempt to respond to these. Um so first off with respect to the the need in the community um we have uh relied on the expertise of the ministry of the of uh education and child care and they have a specific office uh focused on strategic uh child care provision. Um and so we've been in in discussions with uh with that office and they provided the uh information that we shared tonight and in the report. um the school district representative and again they have a dedicated um office uh specific to childcare provision. Um they uh they shared similar uh information. They talked about how the need for 3 to 5 year olds is very much being met and uh to the point of uh of what was shared with 100% of of uh families that are in need of that should be able to find that service uh in the next year. Um and then

in terms of the district's role, uh I think there are, as I mentioned, there are um there's a a variety of sort of elements to the provision of care, um in in the community. And so uh right from the infant toddler care through the um 3 to five and and school age children um as I mentioned in my notes uh the district has had uh success in meeting the needs for school age children in particular with before and after school care and and day camp programs. We obviously have the neighborhood learning center and the and the um the full daycare that we operate there. Um the district also has regulatory um uh uh uh powers that can support uh private daycare operations in the in the community. Um and so those you know there's a there's a there are range of options but I would say that the purpose of looking at this specific space uh in the context of the changes that have happened in the last couple of years uh really is to try to crystallize what

council would like to do with this particular project. um and and the investments that uh may be required. Thank you. Um and you did bring up the neighborhood learning center and I and I I I it makes me think if if we did over the next one to three years while the school board is uh catching up with implementing their spaces. Is there any possibility that we could actually put additional spaces into the neighborhood learning center or would that be cost prohibitive? Mrs. here. Uh that is through the mayor. That is not something that staff have looked at. Um at this point, all of the spaces are full. We um we are are at full capacity in our staffing compliment um which wasn't the case um earlier. And and so now that we have all of the staff, we have a full uh daycare. The the other spaces are are not designed for that. We would have to go through that exercise and and report back on on the implications of that.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councelor Briefweight. Uh I'll go before I go back to more second time speakers. I might just ask a couple of quick questions and I'll come back. Um just out of curiosity, is there any sense from uh it's probably an impossible question to answer, but we've seen I can't remember the the um strange double speak uh language being used, but there's been a lot of cancellations of capital projects from the province uh recently. Um do we have any sense uh of whether or not the um uh these capital projects that are in the books for say child care uh are they completely approved at this point or are they sort of in the um in the approval process to continue to the uh uh Ministry of Infrastructure? Do we do we have a good sense of where how how secure their funding actually is at this point?

Mr. through the mayor. In my conversations with the representative of the school district, um I did ask that question about um how how solid the approval is uh for these to go ahead and and I was advised that the funding is in place and that um I think in one or two cases they're waiting on municipal approvals for from Sanage. Um but that there is uh the funding is in place, the plans are in place, they're moving along and the timeline for opening as I say in the next 2 to 3 years um is an indication that they are um they're in in a strong position to complete these projects. Um there are they have other projects elsewhere in greater Victoria that are not relevant so much to us, but they are early in earlier stages of their development um than these are these four that we're focused on in our area.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um other question I have is just I I'm not entirely clear from the report um is what is the like at the end of the day uh given the proposal of the 50/50 split of reserve and and borrowing and um the expected uh uh revenues from either child care or uh childare and general use space or just general use space. I apologize for my voice. what is the net cost to Oak Bay annually um with those two options with the childcare option uh without any you know the provincial funding uh or the general use base without provincial funding and just I'm trying to get my head around what is the net net impact on taxes at the end of the day for those two options Mr.

through the mayor. On the on the operating side, we have assessed what the net impact would be uh for running the facility as currently directed by council with the childcare in So is that the 28,000 the uh 51,000 51,000 51,000. So, the the um sorry, the um the 28,000 references that you're referencing relates to the park uh incremental cost, but overall with the park and the building, uh we're looking at a uh $51,000 uh net expense. Um, with regards to the repurposing of the child care space, we would uh need to go through that exercise of of um redesigning that uh air that north side of the building um and confirming the capital costs of that uh as well as updating the operating projections to uh relate to a different revenue stream um than the childare. And so that that's information that we would anticipate being able to bring back to council in in the July. Okay.

Yeah, thank you for your worship. In addition obviously to the operating costs, there would also be the debt servicing costs um associated with the the borrowing. Um sorry, my computer's just died and so I don't have the exact amount of I think Miss Lance has that, but I just wanted to that is another impact to taxpayers in terms of servicing the debt. Yeah, and that's sort of what I'm trying to get to if I might is like what is the total maybe setting aside the park improvements which I think are all essentially set maybe with some minor tweaks but for the building perspective I'd really like to get a clear understanding of what our sort of net cost to the taxpayers is for the approach with childare the approach without childare also be curious if we actually borrow the whole amount because ultimately we still have to borrow that money at some point and so that ultimately does have some impact so um if you could share that if you have it

available is the Uh yes uh to your worship uh and probably to the whole table everybody's wondering. Um so just if I could help frame it because I do want to uh reiterate my uh colleague Mr. Slier as he's mentioning uh depends on the uh scope and and like you say there's sort of incremental operating costs given the different options in front of council. Uh but overall we're still looking and what's in front of of myself in terms of cash flow forecasts for the project um is the remaining uh 26 u million which would be uh split 50/50 between reserves and debt uh if council so chose. Uh the current financial plan reflects uh double that.

Uh so it shows a entirety uh funding this project. Uh the estimated um fully uh borrowed implication for an annual cost was uh $2 million uh which equates uh approximately 4% of taxation but of course that would be ushered in over time throughout the project. Uh the project is uh currently cash flowed over a 5year span uh and so would uh gradually uh come come to pass. Um, I would mention that uh when we take that 100% uh debt funding uh plan and make that 50% that just has those estimates. Uh so you're looking at a million dollar in debt servicing. That's of course based on a 25-year amortization and a rate of 4.71%.

Uh that's today's uh rates, but they may have changed as I've been talking to you. Uh so just just know that as we go through and navigate this section of a capital project uh we're often um using very round numbers uh and then we look to firm that up as we have a class A and the appropriate scope. Uh but just to be clear that say million dollars in debt servicing gradually impacting overtime a 2% impact on taxation. Yeah. Obviously the the not having well we don't know about the other six million but not getting the $12 million grant is obviously very impactful in terms of the overall cost of this. Um so the other really sort of I think substantive question I have on this one is um the uh like if given that we should have gone down this path with the assumption of having some grant money to cover we were almost guaranteed the child care coverage and now that's gone.

We were hopeful for some of the federal grants because we were so well aligned uh with those grants uh to to this date have not been successful. Um like what is the impact you know just scaling this back to really look at just you know a uh you know a fieldhouse with washrooms, change rooms sort of more in line with what we had before. um perhaps leaving the the physical space available to a to a to a larger building that should the other grants come in the future, we still have some physical space available to us to consider the the larger bill. Do we have any assessment of what that would look like to uh to move forward with a with a much more restricted uh plan at this point?

Mr. Shier, uh through you, Mayor, we we have not done uh that work. Um, if that was the direction of council, we could we could go about uh developing essentially a fieldhouse building. You're you're you're talking about washrooms and change rooms. Um, and that's sort of the the primary focus if I'm understanding you. Um, yeah, that would be an exercise that we would need to undertake. We have not done that work to date. Fair. Thank you. Um, and I think the just for my clarification, we've had some correspondence and things on things like the um, uh, the dog space and a couple of other sort of little minor pieces.

And so at this point today, you're looking for as as clear a direction as we can give you uh, uh, including things like those if there's anything that we would like to see change from that overall plan that we'd like to flag it now so that the class A estimates come back with those changes. Is that correct? Absolutely. that would be extremely helpful to have uh that clarity about anything in the plan, anything else in the plan that you would like changed or removed. Okay, thank you for that. Um then going back for a second time speakers, I had councelor Watson and I think Smart. Oh, no, sorry, Councelor Smart Patterson.

Yeah, thank you. Um just a few follow-up questions. um with the through you mayor with the conversation around the table around a potential renovation at a later date to child care. Could staff please clarify again is this a slab on grade building and what the logist logistics are of of putting in a um a very plumbing heavy program uh potentially into a building that doesn't have a basement later. and um the significant extra cost in doing that later if I am correct that it's a slab on grade if you could clarify. Thank you Mr. Graham. Uh through your worship yes it is a slab on grade um if we were to do the design as flexible as we could. We might try and anticipate um under slab plumbing and install that. Of course, as time goes by, um childc care um standards change and regulations change. So that could could impact things, but we could make that that that under slab um plumbing would have minimal impact on cost for flexibility. Please continue.

Thank you. Um and my next question is just um with regards to um this current report that we have in front of us. I understand that we're all desperate for these extra questions that you obviously would need lots of time to go away and answer. But with this current report we have in front of us, my understanding is if we remove the uh child care programming and move it to a multi-purpose space, there's no suggestion that we're saving any money by doing that at this point. Um just wanted to clarify. Mr. Graham, uh through your worship, in terms of capital costs, we're not seeing any savings. There might actually be a slight increase u due to redesign fees.

Um we would try and be like I say keep the design as flexible as possible but there could be actually a slight increase small but slight. Yeah thank you. And then my last question is just with regards to could staff just please clarify again the other grants that are still being pursued um for this uh building. Thank you Mr. Silier. Let me just pull that up through your worship uh to councelor Smart. Yeah, that's the building community strong fund that we are pursuing. Um the uh the previous one um the uh green and inclusive community building program that we were unsuccessful for. Uh we were told that our um application would be immediately forwarded or would be forwarded to the building community strong fund uh to reinforce our our application. We actually did send in a a separate proposal as well and uh put in a sort of an expression of interest for that fund.

So uh staff have been really diligent in trying to um yeah to pursue that funding and that is the building community strong fund. So that's it. Okay. I move then I'm going to go to councelor Appleton as a first time uh with questions and then to councelor Patterson. Well, thank you worship. Um so I guess probably for through you probably for Mr. Sulier here, but um I was going to ask a similar question just with respect to because I have serious concerns given what we have seen lately about provincial investments in various capital projects and whether or not in you know provincial investment however uh however announced actually comes to pass and so I appreciate Mr. Suier's comments just that he had actually explored that with the province. I guess I have a bit of a followup to that and and this is not actually for Mr. air to answer, but seeing as how he was speaking to with the province about exactly this, then maybe he can offer

some uh context here. But um so now I see that you know the the community child care spaces as noted in the report hasn't had an ina intake since 2024, but obviously the investment is being made elsewhere or funds for childcare spaces are being redirected into this school-based program. And I'm just wondering whether or not anything was offered as far as the rationale for that and whether or not you know there was any uh anything offered from the province speaking to projects that such as this that municipalities had already worked hard to get shovel ready and are now sort of being left without investment. Mr.

uh through the mayor for for clarity. My conversations about funding were with the school district um to make sure that the projects those four projects that we were discussing um were in fact advancing um and conversations that I've had with the province about this program relate to a previous position with a previous employer. So I wouldn't want to get into that in this form. Thank you. Thank you worship. I think it's I guess I will then slightly editorialize as to you know it it's it's it's too bad that we don't have uh or that we're not seeing the investment in public child care or public childare spaces and spaces within our community. Those funds seem to be uh going to another we we value the creation of spaces because there's just a need for more spaces. But um it's a it's a shame that that's not available. Um, I'm just wondering whether or not we can just, as noted in the report, it's just I'm just confirming that, you know, that the district uh did receive word that it was

unsuccessful in receiving the, you know, the $12 million grant uh applied for under the green and inclusive community building fund. Um, is there anything that uh and of course that significantly impacts the project obviously. Um was there any uh information offered um you know can can for the purposes of sort of uh communicating with the community about uh the reasons for that rejection what what what were sort of some of those significant elements that led to this? I mean, I think uh if you're an average member of the community and you're looking at a project which has, you know, gone through a significant amount of design and community consultation to try and find, you know, to try and design an approp appropriate project, as we said, fairly aligned with the with the the standards. What did we hear as far as feedback associated with the rejection of that grant that accounted for why it was not approved? Mr. here.

Uh my colleague uh Miss Morton unfortunately is not available. Um she uh was our our key contact in in corresponding with um on these grant applications. My understanding though is that we did not receive much in the way of feedback or detail um about that. Sent. Yeah, thank you very much. SH we did receive a letter um but it just really spoke to uh you know we received this from the the federal government hundreds of thoughtfully prepared applications for meaningful projects uh due to the high level of interest we regret to inform you that your project was not selected so they were just putting it down to uh the the the need uh across the across the country.

All right. Thank you. Uh I go continue with the second time speakers Patterson and then Braithweight. I do want to get to some direction here. Thank you, mayor. And I just there has been so much discussion on the on the daycare part of this uh proposed development and I certainly understand um the uh the challenges that that young families are facing throughout the district. But um I guess perhaps it's a bit disjointed for me because I may I I certainly this is was not something that surprised me because my liaison duties to some other bodies do um expose me to what is going on in the discussions with school the different school districts, school trustees and child care experts. And so, um, the presentation materials that I, uh, was party to said that the provincial budget paused the $10 a day child care program, uh, and proposed a replacement focused on expanding child care services on school grounds, uh, of course, as we have discussed tonight.

And um it was acknowledged that the former child care subsidy did not achieve the intended outcomes. Um and many operators, this is operators of daycare facilities, indicated it constrained the delivery of highquality inclusive care. And I would anticipate that if we proceeded to um make the opportunity for this in uh within the carbon development that is perhaps the type of operator we would be looking at because it would be very difficult to they wouldn't get subsidization. Um and and so it was coming from the operators uh many of the operators that the the program that was in effect was actually constraining them. And so and there was a lot of consult consultation that went on with um with the schools um and and it was recognized that they could play a larger role in providing child care services. And uh the consultation involved um the school districts, educators and um representatives for children and youth and mental health professionals. So it was a fairly robust um uh discussion

that went on and uh consolidated effort to find the best way through to providing child care um in the communities that will work over the long term. And these discussions have expanded beyond the provincial framework to also the federal framework. So I uh I am not um optimistic that that this will just change. I think that there's a lot of professionals in this industry that are solidly behind giving giving support to these changes that are being made. Um and and certainly there was a recognition that within the province and across Canada there is a need for school expansions, school replacements and it seemed an opportune time to um to change the the path that we were on. And I do note that in the 2026 uh provincial budget, there is 5 million in capital funding for infrastructure for communities to try to get those um uh projects going rapidly and then another 20 million for the operations. So those are already in the provincial program.

Um and so uh that's the information I have and it seems to have been um actually quite well informed by those who have greater knowledge and experience in in child learning than than I have. So I'm not optimistic that at any time soon that a standalone would be would be covered under provincial subsidization and it would be likely more apt that we would have to seek uh private professional operator who would struggle perhaps with the cost and not not return any capital. I appreciate some of this context, but I also want to get to make sure they're getting you know questions and and I'm also not confident that the other grant fundings will come about because when I look at um the recent awards they they have been awarding large centers and uh and awarding communities where there are economic drivers. So, you know, I think we we are in a unfortunately a very tough position to have having to make decisions about what takes place here. So, with that, I will leave it and I'm ready for the discussion on what what we all want to do.

Thank you, Council Patterson. You remind me of the uh all the work done when we were struggling to find before and after school care, the time I spent talking to everybody I could from the province, inviting them to please invest in their schools and take on some of this responsibility. Uh, so I guess yes, you can assign some of the blame to me on that. Um, go ahead, councelor Braithweight. Thanks very much. I'll be really brief. Uh, mayor, um, plumbing and outside access is one of the questions I had. So thanks to councelor SM for asking that. And my apologize I apologize if I was offline when this question may have been asked, but um, it's around the um, the green roof. And I'm just wondering if the removal of the green roof reduces the storm water benefits and uh if it affects any grant competitiveness or climate targets that we might have or be available for. Thank you Mr. Graham.

Uh the first part of the sorry three worship the first part of the question storm water management. Uh no we have adequate um actually quite robust storm water management on site. Uh we have a large retention area underneath the courts for example that will hold the water almost like a rain tank and slowly allow it to be absorbed into the ground. Um the green roof in terms of um uh grants uh there's been no direct request for those sort of functions. We would still be meeting all the net zero and net zero carbon and net zero energy uh goals that we had previously uh projected.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, councelor Braithweight. That concludes my my speaker's list for questions at this time. Um, is there any uh so at this point we have a recommendation here in terms of uh to to revise the design and report back to council with a number of pieces there. Um, I think what is left a little bit unsaid is the is the whether we're keeping the child care uh ask is if we're going to uh eliminate some of the space or reduce the size or if we're going to redesign for multi-use uh uh within the same footprint. Um and uh so I think it's just uh good for us to probably get the motion on the floor uh and then we can perhaps speak to uh to amendments to to get to where we want to go to. Go ahead, Councelor Appleton.

just procedurally worship there are three staff recommendations here. Uh I'm we're going to be dealing with these separately I would assume. Um yes there's there are three and and yes the I think the uh the reserves question I think we can leave to the end just really get some direction about the uh the scope and scale of the project and I think that might inform the the secondary parts of it as to the borrowing. So, your worship, I would make so I'm going to make recommendation uh or make a motion to move uh recommendation one uh on on the staff report, but I will move recommendation one without the two components listed under A and B. So I am looking to direct staff to revise the design and put report back to council on the final detailed design and class A cost estimate but without the two modifications listed under A and B.

So it's moved and seconded. Go ahead counc. Uh thank you worship. So with and I and I do very much appreciate staff's uh suggestions here and staff's uh input as to ways that the design might be modified. Um I am not in support of either of the two uh removal or replacements here um that are suggested. Uh I do believe that the green roof is a significant design component of the building. Uh I think that it makes a significant impact to uh the sustainability of the building. I think it's important that council and the district show leadership as far as innovative design on new municipal buildings. So I do think this is an important component and I do think that readjusting the solar panels uh in the way suggested does affect the design the presentation of the building and just how the the building might be received.

So I do feel that the green roof is an important component. Um I am pretty adamant and and pretty focused on the idea of retaining the child care space in the Carnarvin building. Uh to me this is a uh is a fundamental design component that council in in my view established fairly early on with the redesign of the building. I I can recall uh a time even before I was on council when the existing uh building the existing child care had had been moved relatively recently from Carnarvin Park and into that and everybody really appreciates the neighborhood learning center. It's a fantastic facility, but people spoke to me really specifically about how important they felt it was to return child care to that particular location. And I have really seen it as a a focal point for the Carnaran redesign since we started talking about it. So, I think it's very important for me. It's not uh simply a numbers game. I'm appreciative of the fact that new spaces will be uh created potentially at Upland's Elementary and and in other facilities close by to Oak Bay, but I I

do think it behooves us as a district to demonstrate leadership on this and to and to execute those spots. I think they can they're going to be well used and it speaks to us providing uh a community amenity for all uh at that location and really diversifying the uses around that park makes it a very vi vibrant space. So I do feel that it is very important. I'm very disappointed um in the change. Like I say, I'm all about creating spaces, but I am disappointed in uh the re I guess yet another example of sort of a provincial rearrangement of priorities or change in TAC as far as approach to different policies of this type. So I'm disappointed that that that that support's no longer available. I still think it behooves us to move forward with providing that space here, worship. Thank you.

Thank you. I have councelor Braithweight uh smart and in green in my list. Thanks so much, Mayor. Um yeah, I support the the project moving forward and appreciate the work that staff have done to keep this project within the budget that we had from before. However, I'm I'm not convinced yet as that the case has been made for removing the childcare space, particularly when um the projected capital savings appears really limited if we did this. I think there's a couple of questions. If we if Oak Bay removes the childare from this project, where's the municipality's future uh or what is the municipality's future childcare strategy? Um and are we comfortable assuming that other agencies will permanently solve this issue for us?

Counc just want to make sure that we're all very clear. The motion on the floor is the motion one, but A and B are not included in the motion as it stands. So, the child care space is retained under this motion as is the green roof. Just so you're just so we're clear. Doesn't change the nature of your comments, but just it sounded like you were, you know, arguing against the motion when you were saying that. So, I just want to make sure you're clear. No, no, no. I'm not I'm not arguing against it at all. I'm quite happy that the child care um is not in there. Um, as far as the um uh as far as as far as the green roof goes, I'm I'm really torn on that removal. So, I'm going to listen to my colleagues on their thoughts for that. And I'm also wondering whether parks, wreck, and culture committee should be included in this discussion as well. Um because um it it does fall under it's something that perhaps they would have some input into too. Thank you.

Thank you, councelor Braithweight. Uh and my speaking list sorry flipped over my page. Uh, I have councelor Smart, then Green, then Watson. Yeah, thank you. Speaking in favor of the motion, speaking in favor of keeping the green roof um and retaining the child care um particularly to the green roof. Um there are so many um benefits that our community um was particularly emphatic about um with this design feature, particularly um with regards to green space um uh as well as aesthetics, rainwater uh storm water retention. Uh we heard from staff about the thermal mass. Uh there's also a longevity to the roof membrane being under a green roof and just the biodiversity that that green roof would create. um speaking directly to the retaining the child care and and why I really appreciate this motion on the table is that it's keeping the child care but also um indicating a redesign um will be needed and what I would like to see um and hear from around the table here as to whether we need to add a particular motion with regards to it would be to see staff

explore um other potential options for infant toddler care after school care in potentially in combination with multi-purpose spaces but retaining child care. I think we're not seeing any financial benefit to removing it at this point and I think our families in our community need a diversity of child care operators and it's the only way we're going to have control over that highquality inclusive care uh that was mentioned at this table. Um so I'm very passionate about keeping the the child care and open to it uh shifting slightly um uh to be a redesign. Thanks. Thank you. Do I have next? Councelor Green and then Watson on the motion on the floor.

Yes, thank you. And I really appreciate this motion. I appreciate the fact that A and B have been removed. I think uh the green roof reflects our commitment, long-term commitment to climate change mitigation and to uh um pro- environment um initiatives that we've all talked about and that are listed as priorities in fact for this council. Um and I'm also um relieved that the child care space will be retained. And the reason I I'm retained not in the motion but retained further along. Um I think small communities have a particular need for for good child care for adequate child care. I remember being a young mom in a small community and it was a scramble um to find anything at all. And so I I completely empathize with parents at the moment who who need daycare or preschool care or toddler care. So I'm I'm hoping the staff will explore other partnerships perhaps. Um we can't always rely on on on government funding. I suspect this will change hopefully for the better. Uh but in the meantime, I think we should be creative about the kinds of partnerships that that we might

pursue for uh creative daycare. Thank you. Thank you, Council Green. Councelor Watson, you're next. Yes, Mayor, if I may. I have one final question for staff before I speak. If I could do that. Um, yes, Mr. Silier or Mr. Graham, please. I just want to understand again with respect to the current um design for 3 to 5 year old daycare, which is what the the the program design program was. How flexible is that space if it's designed as ex previously expected to being used for something else? If there is no daycare operator in site and um and the or or that the spaces are not required because of other daycare that actually does come on stream. I'm just trying to figure out how futurep proof for other uses the building is if there is no daycare operator. Go ahead, Mr. Mr. Graham.

Uh through your worship, there'd be a number of questions we'd want to explore about what are the best sizes of multi-purpose rooms for the programs we want to offer. But in terms of technical aspects, probably the only uh impact would be uh the washroom facilities. obviously uh infant washrooms um much smaller toilets lower to the ground. So that would likely be the only impact is a redesign of the um toilet facilities. I hope that answered the question. Um uh so yeah just maybe to continue that a if after the fact if you design for that and build it after the fact if you go to modify those which would would kind of implications would that have changing the sort of scale of um of washroom facilities if you were changing that for a non daycare use in the future.

Mr. Graham uh through your worship, we'd want to explore what we're changing it to. The occupant load of the north part of the building could change a number of washrooms that are required. For instance, right now there are uh three water closets for uh child care and depending on the use of that space and the occupant load, we may require four. So those options would have to be explored further. Thank you. Thank you for that. I think on the basis of of what I'm hearing from staff and what I'm hearing on the table, first of all, I I do support definitely the retention of the green the green roof, I think that is really part of our philosophical approach to how we're investing in new capital assets in the community. And I think it is really important not just from an aesthetic point of view, but an environmental point of view. And I am I I I appreciate that we have an uncertain future. We

can't predict it. And uh as long as the building, as long as the design program um that we're anticipating for child care can be morphed into something else, if that doesn't materialize, I'm okay with kind of staying the course as this as this recommendation suggests. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councelor Watson. Um is there anybody who hasn't had a chance to speak? Councelor Patterson. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. and I I think I can understand how things are going around the table. So, I'm going to perhaps be play devil's advocate here and and and be be a voice um not in support of this. I keep in mind that um initially this project started as replacement of a clubhouse that needed replacement because it did not have sustainable funding to um maintain it.

And in fact, Carnarvin Park as a whole did not have sustainable funding from the community. And so that was what we were attempting to to remedy and and put to write. And as projects often do, there was scope creep because we always have ideas about the projects. But I um I'm also guided by what we heard uh during the engagement on the 2026 2030 uh financial plan and that was that double-digit tax increases are not sustainable going into the future. While the community strongly supports investment in core infrastructure, there was limited support for increased staffing and reduced support for discretionary spending as as and some of this I look as both discretionary and needed because we are we are trying to um to uh put into a better position a large park that has been um uh really declining for several for several years and yet services a large part of the the community. So I I certainly I'm uh the green roof would be good. However, I

think that uh the solar panels on a conventional roof would also um some way mitigate what we would like to do on the environment. But green roofs do require sustainability going forward and I have not seen evidence um that we the funding will be in place to do that and I know that staff have said that more of uh that will be coming but right now I don't have any basis for making a decision about life cycle costing relative for green roof uh relative to in comparison with the the solar panels. I am also um I'm also cognizant that um this is one project that this council and future councils will look to, but there are there are still a lot of unknowns that we face going forward. And so we there's other imminent capital projects that have not yet been uh fleshed out to the the the point where we can be actually weighing how best to allocate the district's funding. But we certainly know that we we have to deal with emergency services, public works, municipal facilities, all

the rest of our buildings and with the marina project. And so I think that um being cautious um on this project uh is is not unwarranted at this time. I'm also mindful of the fact that for a very small district, Oak Bay ha has um and sometimes it it's it's a good thing, but we do have a lot of recreational facilities relative to the size of the of the the district and the sustainability of those longer term is something that um we have not yet uh looked at in depth. In fact, and uh we we we've had some information about the funding of our parks and rat services, but I think we we need to have a better understanding of uh philosophically how much will we subsidize and um and what can we afford to subsidize. I also um uh recognize the fact that um that recreational facilities are attractive and they are certainly um more readily apparent than underground infrastructure is. But we have not fully funded our our

uh infrastructure um core infrastructure services. We are getting closer to full funding for that, but we're not yet there. And so um uh what is before us um and what we as a council are expected to make a decision on. I feel that there's just not in information um enough information provided to um to allow us to make an informed decision, especially a long-term decision decision and one that's going to have implications on um for 25 years on debt servicing and and uh so restrict um planning for some of the other projects. I think these are all desirable and admirable goals to have and I think staff have um certainly responded to what they heard at some of the public engagement uh uh meetings.

But I think that that could change when um it impacts uh the bottom line for for taxes and um uh but I can certainly understand why staff have brought the plan to us the way it is and why there is a recommendation of some um use use of debt and and then use of of the um reserve funds because some of the smaller components of the project if they were if they were handled independently Um, I don't like to say that they're not worthy of securing debt, but obviously they they are of a smaller amount and so that I can understand how that is provided, but I I don't support the uh the motion as it's put before council.

Thank you. Thank you, Councelor Patterson. Um, so speaking to the motion, uh, I will say I I struggle with where we've ended up at on this to a degree. I I really appreciate the comments that have been arranged around the table and I think that they reflect I think what we would like to see uh built there. Um you know I think there's a couple of things that uh that I do reflect on on this though one um you know the child care to this has always been integral to our plan going forward and I think I think there's two halves of that. one is um and by advancing this motion we carry forward that integral in initial intent um but on the flip side of that uh I think it was based on assumptions that are no longer true and so we have the sort of financial reality of the uh of the $2 million a year um moving this forward as it is um you know and I think it's worth noting those assumptions right so one was uh at the time the province had

promised to pay 100% of the capital cost of daycare. So there's essentially that was removed from our cost cap calculations. Um we were anticipating a pretty good chance of getting federal grants. We didn't count on that. Um but you know that was another up to $18 million that was potentially available to us and we even had some conversations about perhaps the you know giving some conditional approvals of this subject to grants because of the of the high cost. Um, to my mind, uh, the the primary driver of this project, the primary asset of this project to the community is the park. It's a splash park, it's the playgrounds, it's the all-wheels park, it's the improvements to the drainage, it's the improvements to the walkability. Um, those are the parts that every member of the community can use um, and really do have to advance.

Um, I I am not going to support the motion as it stands right now. Um, and really just at the end of the day, those assumptions are no longer no longer hold. And I I do think that the um uh I think we're in a I'm not sure I entirely believe the province that they're going to be funding these pieces, but I I think we kind of have to trust them. Uh and I do recognize that we have a um uh the obligation here for providing child care is the provinces just like healthcare. It is not municipal. So we we do provide child care. It's part of our services that we provide in the community through the neighborhood learning center. It is not an obligation of ours. Uh in fact, the childcare that was provided here moved to the neighborhood learning center and continues. Um I do hear what we hear from the community is that there is simply not sufficient child care in the community right now. And I do hear that.

Um but I also recognize that our timeline for completing this and turning it on is directly in alignment with what's happening with the provincial projects. And so we're going to have a lot of childcare coming online at the same time with no certainty that that's going to be uh meeting the needs. Um so to my mind I think this is this is firmly in the the park itself all of the park improvements I believe are fully need to have. I think we have a commitment to the province or to the to the public that we will provide those. Uh my feeling on this is that the building itself, the the scale of this building, the cost of this building, given that all of the underlying uh financial opportunities, and granted there's still one grant potentially available, if I weigh that $30 million against the the the lack of the income we're going to be making in the reserves, the the total weighted cost in in those pieces, uh is very substantial.

And so I and I think councelor Patterson touched on a few of those, but we do have multiple municipal buildings. Uh we have some potential housing projects that might be coming, you know, forward uh in time that we'd like to be able to contribute to. We have a public works site and building. We have public safety building or buildings. We have the marina project. There's a number of things that we absolutely have to fund. And uh I really struggle with this level of of of funding when as a region we provide uh four rec centers uh which are somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 or 75% used by people outside of Oak Bay but are subsidized to the tune of four or four half million dollars a year. Um and we're looking at adding the couple of hundred million a couple couple of million dollars to that total one or two million dollars. Um I think we have to think very hard and long about whether or not that value is being seen. So I appreciate what I've heard around the table is that the comfort level is there

for the majority of council. Um but I do think there is a concern here that uh again this is always going to be a balance of value versus uh uh benefit and uh to my mind where we've ended up on this on this thing. Uh I have it does not cross that threshold for me at this point. I'll leave it there. Thank you very much. Uh councelor SM you wish to speak again? Thank you. I just wish to put forward um amendment um just to see if it would help provide some further clarity with how to move forward with this motion. Why did you make a motion?

Uh that staff proactively seek a child care provider for the new space to inform the design of the child care moving forward. I'm just going to turn to staff before I take a second. I'm not sure that's required at this point. point I mean we can provide the class A estimates without a childare provider I believe but uh is the assumption here that it might be 0 to2 kind of childcare and that would change the design council smart I'm just don't understand what the motion is is asking that the motion is with regards to um in my experience of successful child care facilities have a provider on board before the building is constructed um because there is a lot of um variation to despite the um guidelines to how that space might be uh designed. And so and we are also wanting it to inform um in this case the ability to have confidence in a provider as we invest in this space. So it's it's about retaining some

interest earlier during the design process to ensure the success of the project. So is it just and just for my clarification, you're saying that's that the project is conditional upon finding a provider? No, just that you just ask staff to seek one. Okay. Uh just Mr. Sier just is I'm going to go to you before I see a secondary to make sure that we have a language that achieves the goal that the councelor Smart wishes to. Sure. Thank you uh mayor and through you just for clarity the the 3 to 5year-old uh service provision that we are currently we've currently designed to did include input from an operator essentially our staff who operate the neighborhood learning center. Um so we have that if we're talking about infant child care infant um toddler um changing the service provision then that would be that would be helpful clarity smart uh this motion um was around more potentially finding a partnership in the community um early that could help in inform the design. So it's not about um

the good work that staff has already done. Um I just to me this motion without A and B um which I am supportive on doesn't um so much say that there might be a a flexibility to like what are we redesigning? I think we need to indicate around this table if we're open to the fact that a provider might come forward that wants a slightly different model of child care. Um yeah. Okay. Uh I'm not just for my clarification. The motion right now doesn't require a redesign at this point. Correct. It's just moving forward. I believe the wording uh actually has the word redesign in it. Um perhaps we could read that again.

Uh it says yeah. Yeah. I guess because there's no revisions to the design. Yeah. Uh that that language I I assumed that we would have moved option 1B if we wanted no redesign. So, um, yeah, the motion is to revise right now. So, my understanding is the motion is to not revise the design. So, it is, and my apologies because I this is a very large report and it takes me two minutes to scroll up to the top of it again. Um, option B is to move it forward without any changes. So, that is essentially your your ask. We didn't move option B. No, fair enough. But the motion on the floor is I think if it if it results in option B in that language clarification I'll turn to the mover in second.

Just for clarification your worship you're clarifying that the intent of the motion as presented would essentially mirror what was presented as an option in the staff report as option 1B detailed and costing analysis without revisions to the current design. Uh yes, that's I think the So I would confirm that that as the mover of the motion that would be my intent. Yes. Is to continue with design. And and councelor Smart, you were I think the second for it. So yeah, interesting. I I was seconding um the motion as read which had the word revise in it. Um so perhaps we need to re-evaluate. I mean, I I I'm supportive of the motion that I voted for, but it sounds like the motion has now changed.

Well, it's if there's not consensus to just switch the language uh from option 1 A with those changes to option 1B, which seems to achieve the same goal without asking for any revision of the design. Um that I think that's the intent, but you're not supportive of that. So, right now we have 1 A. I guess I'd ask for another seconder then because I'm not 100% supportive in that design without conversation. Second option 1B. So I'm going to just it's procedurally we have a motion live on the floor. So but it would be acceptable at your worship for me to withdraw my motion at this point.

I will turn to the second if that's if that's acceptable to the mo to the um I I think we have to because we feel like we voted on entirely different motions. So, so I'll consider that withdrawn with the consent of the mover and seconder. And you would like to change it to motion one just for clarity or worship for absolute clarity then yes I would move option 1B. I'm just focusing on uh but what I want to be clear on your worship is that we're doing three separate pieces here. We're doing option you know recommendation one centers around the design element and the other two are related to funding. So I would move option 1B specifically the first portion that speaks to design and not the further point listed under funding options.

I'm just going to read that aloud so everybody at home is following along can follow along. Council uh that council directs staff to proceed with the Canarvin Park redevelopment plan as presented and report back to council with the class A cost estimate. That's correct. You worship and seconded. Thank you. Okay. Just we're clear that is that is a cleaner version of the of the approach. Okay. Thanks. So, everybody's had a chance to speak to that motion, although we've changed the the official numbering of it because has the same outcome. Go ahead, Councelor Smart. I wouldn't mind speaking to it because it's a different motion than I had intended. Um, I'm not sure if I will support this motion. I am very much in favor of keeping the child care. Um uh however with the new information around um the 3 to 5year child care being provided. I was hoping to be able to give staff a little bit of leeway uh potentially to look at whether that

space would be better served for afterchool care or infant toddler care. Um at the end of the day I I want it to be child care that's well used in the community. But I do have some concerns about us going ahead with building a three to fiveyear child care facility based on the information that staff has now presented today. So I don't know if there can I'll just quickly ponder if there can be an amendment that might suggest that. But um but I don't know if maybe the mover could just clarify that they want it to be no redesign exactly as is. That would help me.

I'm just going to speak because we we speak to the motion. The motion keeps it as is which is the the the design currently is accommodates a 3 to five year child care space uh or for amendments. Councelor Green may ask a question. Please go ahead. What is the need for child care in the 3 to five age group in Oak Bay? Do we have those those figures? Thank you, Mrs. through the mayor. Uh the the best information that we have been provided the the the most um uh complete I guess from came from the province to say that in the next year 100% of the families that require 3 to 5year-old care will have options available. That service will be provided in the community.

action speaks louder than words. I I don't know if I am confident in that information, not because you're giving it to me, but because the province is. Thank you. Thank you. Um, councelor Smart, I know you wanted to just explore the possibility of of of having staff explore. Um, yeah, I I I I will support the motion. I guess I I just want to vocalize that if something comes to staff's attention with regards to being able to provide a greater child care need in the in the community that is a slightly different design. I guess I would hope that they would come to council. Um uh but maybe that's more of a question to staff of of whether they need a more specific motion from council around that.

So to staff uh we're asking to come back with the class A estimate which requires fairly detailed expectation of service provision. Um uh at this point it's essentially built in at 3 to 5. I guess the question is if you leave this room and in conversations with the province you recognize that there is there is a gap and those changes would have to be uh you know building a class A estimate would require changing the design. Is there is there flexibility in staff sort of delegated authority to kind of consider that? Um or would you would you if if that was the will of council, would you like to hear that that that that allowance to do that exploration at this time? Miss Hun.

Yeah, thank you mayor. uh because it is a significant redesign to go from 3 to 5 to infant and toddler care as as uh staff have mentioned it is a different type of facility and and has you know will accommodate a different number of uh of of um children then I really think we we need some clarification on that. Um alternatively we could report back if we you know additional information but that's going to slow the process down. I think right now if we're going to move ahead, we have to move ahead and knowing exactly what council's looking for in terms of that design. Thank you. So the motions on the floor right now is just to maintain the current current status. We have heard that there's likely not as high a demand for that as we had originally anticipated when this project started.

Um okay, I don't see any other hands to speak to the motion. Um, so actually I'm going to raise one other point just because I I I did raise it earlier and it's just totally up to the will of council, but I didn't want to forget it because I think it does have to come as an amendment at this point. Are there any other changes to the plan, i.e. things like the dog park or the walkway or anything else in here that people would like to see modify from what is in place right now? That's my question to council. Go ahead, councelor Smart. Um, yeah, thank you. Um, I I do remain concerned about the location of the dog park. Um, but I understand from previous conversations with with staff that um there's not another ideal location for it. Um, so if it's a choice of having to keep the dog park or not have the dog park, um, I'd hope that we could mitigate those concerns either operationally um um or in another way

because I don't want to lose the dog park. But I do remain concerned about its location. Uh, at this point we need any any changes would have to come by way of of motions. Uh, I too share some of the concerns about the dog park, but prefer the sort of more more hands-off approach we use at Windsor Park and so forth and than having these dedicated, but um, I'll leave that. I'm not going to vote the for the main motion as it is. So, bit of a moot point at this point from my perspective. Um, all right. I'm not seeing any other suggestions for changes. So, I'm going to go. Oh, council Watson, I just wanted to make a final comment before you call the vote. And I think that you this is a difficult one and our job is here to make decisions under uncertainty and that's hard to do and we have a growing distrust of the province and what it's going to produce for capital funding or even operating

funding for things. But we did have a vision for this space and it is a 50-year asset. So, it's two generations of families in the community. And I think at this point, given the amount of time already that's been put into the project and thinking about it and developing the program, it's okay to stay the course because over 50 years, there are going to be some changes to this building inevitably anyway. And I'm comfortable with that. The community is counting on us to move forward with something that they have wanted for a long time, a hugely degraded asset in that park. And this is a bit visionary.

And I think it's good regardless of where the money is coming from. I think it makes sp makes sense to spend money on this asset in our community. Um, and I I I understand councelor Patterson's um fiscal concerns around many other things that we should take on, but I also think that it's our job at the council table to build community and build our public assets and the underground ones, but also the ones that we see and are used. 50 years is a long time and I think uh that we should move forward with confidence that we would be doing the right thing for Oak Bay by moving this project forward as we've currently um as we currently envision it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh seeing no other hands, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor and councelor Braithweight, she's there. Uh I'm sorry. I'm in favor. Thank you. and those opposed. Councelor Patterson and myself opposed. That carries. Uh we will look forward to the class A estimates coming back. Uh we do ask people not to clap or cheer or boo, but uh it's all right. I appreciate that. So that it's hard to not do that sometimes. Uh we move to item 7.2. Uh renewal of recreation management software worship. You've got Oh, sorry. My apologies. After all those questions about this, uh we move on to the second part of this. I'm just going to call everyone's attention back to the table here. We just have a second part of the u request here which is the um the financial aspects of this. So councip.

So with respect to component two um I would move just for clarity because I didn't know it was not as clear as I should have been last time. I will move option 2a in the staff report uh that council endorse a funding model uh that consists of 50% from district reserves and 50% from long-term borrowing. move and seconded. Uh any further discussion? I'll just raise my my point of of I not supporting the main motion. I do I do think that this is a uh not the right use of our borrowing capital, but uh I'll leave that there. I think it'll have broad support amongst the table. Any other comments? Council Patterson.

I was just going to say what you just said. So, uh, yeah, I'm not, uh, not supportive of this, although I understand it. And anyways, leave it there. Thank you. Uh, I'm going to go Oh, go ahead, Council Green. Thank you. I also, um, am not support of it, but I understand it as well. Um, I think originally the vision for um, Carvin Park, my understanding from the public that I spoke to was not quite this grand. Um, they wanted a a new fieldhouse, they wanted a daycare, they wanted a splash park. Um, and they wanted upgrades. And I'm not sure this grand vision is is fully aligned with what they wanted. So, um, I will not support this particular motion. Thank you.

Okay. Just for clarity that we're the motion that's on the floor right now is that council endorse a funding model for the costs of the of the previous approved motion um that consists of 50% from the district reserves and 50% from long-term borrowing. So it's really just specifically about how we're funding it if it's coming out of reserves or or borrowing and the model suggested is 50/50 at this point. So I'll leave that there. So the motion on the floor is related to the borrowing process. There was a a sliding scale there of how much borrowing and how much reserves. Uh so this is the the uh the approach in front of us. Any other discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor and those opposed. I have uh sorry uh so I have councelor Braithweight opposed. Yes. Sorry, mayor. I tried to get in to get to to to add my comments, but um I was I was just going to say that I would be opposed to this motion uh based on um the same reasoning as other counselors around the table. Okay. So just for the record, I I now have a motion on this on the funding model of 50/50. I have three in favor. I have four opposed. Councelor Patterson, Green, Braithweight, and myself opposed. So I'm going to turn to one of the people who opposed and make a motion to suggest a different funding model in terms of percentages of how to fund this project.

Sorry, your worship. I think uh if you look at the other option, if you're choosing a different borrowing approach, um we would want to um we will report back. So I think uh option 2B is that council could choose to direct to develop an alternate funding model. Um true, but it does ask to consider the proportion. So I do want to just get some direction from council as to um and I'm going to probably go to councelor Green or councelor Braithweight on this one because uh you know the two votes voted in favor of the project but against the funding model. So I just perhaps if you could give some clarity of where your comfort with the funding model uh would fit in terms of the percentage of the um using reserves versus using borrowing counc I I think for me um mayor I I'm I'm a little bit um I have a little bit of trepidation around the uh 50% from uh the long-term borrowing only based on some of the other projects that we'll

have coming up. Um, if I I could be convinced to go the other way, um, if need be, but that's kind of where I'm at right now is I I I struggle with the long-term borrowing piece of it. Um, I'm going to ask have to ask you to make a motion. Uh the motion language that's under option 2B which is on page 9 of 47 in the report um says that C the wording is that council direct staff to report back with the impacts of an alternate funding model for the costs of the Canvan Park redevelopment plan that considers and and some approximate proportion and then we'll see if there's support. I I would then need to know um if there if I was to make a motion around 75% from reserves if that's feasible to take 75% of this project out of reserves. So the the the motion is to basically endorse uh sorry to report back with the impacts of that change. So just so you understand. So that's that's

the recommendation. So what you're what you're moving here if you want to move that is a report back with those implications. Okay. Okay. So, I will make I I will make a motion to report back with the implications of um funding the Canavan Park redevelopment plan 75% from reserves and 25% from long-term debt. Okay. Is there a seconder for that? I'm not seeing one. So, perhaps we can try someone in the other direction. Okay. Moved and seconded. Uh, councelor Brie, you started to motivate before there was a secondary, but is there Yeah, I I just again um my my concern would really be around um the long adding taking money out of our long-term debt for this particular project when we have so many other projects coming up.

Um I would like to see if we could perhaps fund it more from reserves than from long-term debt. Okay. Um I'm looking around this table. Go ahead. Councelor Patterson is speaking against the the motion. Um so much of the reserve funds that we now have in place for the district. Um, we acquired by presenting to the community our goal for those reserve funds. And we we collected additional tax revenues every year for several years now to fund reserves and primarily infrastructure reserves um for the for the district. And I I I really think now to use those funds for a purpose other than what they were actually collected for would um does not add to confidence building that we need and and trust from the community. I think we have to um say what we're going to do and do what we say and not change course to have um increased the tax levels to doubledigit taxes each of the years for now several years um to build up the reserves. finally beginning to a

position where uh those are more stabilized and we have a better path forward. Uh is not the time now to deplete them for in my uh estimation at least to deplete them for discretionary um purposes and uh so I I can't I can't support this. I I I think that um I understand that we don't want to tie up the the debt borrowing because we do face so many other projects, but I spoke to that earlier on. So, I'll I'll just leave it there. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion request? Go ahead, Council Watson. Yes. So I guess I just do have a procedural question about even debating this issue having now approved direction on the project. We I it seems to me that we have to approve sources of funding for it. So if we have an impass here where does that leave the project? I'm really not following this discussion. At some point we have to come up with a funding formula that's between reserves and

borrowing. So, do we will this discussion just continue until we get to two percentages that everybody agrees to? I'm really confused about what's going on right now. Uh, unfortunately, yes. I think where we're at at this piece. I'm going to make a suggestion that I'm going to get to the question on this suggestion. If it doesn't have support, we can try the opposite way and put more money into borrowing. And if that doesn't work, I'm going to make a plea that since the majority of council, in fact, significant majority, 5 to2, support the project, uh, that we move forward with the staff recommendation on this one. Um but let's try the other two. So right now we have a motion right now which leans more heavily on um leans more heavily on the uh reserves uh 2575 and the report will come back over the implications of that including probably the availability of what's in those reserves whether we can do that or not.

Um councelor Braceby do you want to add something? Mayor if this if this motion doesn't go forward then I'm going to put the original motion back on the floor and vote on that and I will actually change my vote. Okay. uh given that that would give a majority uh well I'll treat this one first. I'll treat this motion in the semnity of which it deserves which is that we have to consider it. So is there any other discussion on the motion? Uh again this is to uh to give a direction of 75% borrow uh reserves 25% borrowing as as a direction for for a report to come back.

All those in favor and those opposed. I have councelor Green, Watson, Appleton, myself, Smart, and Patterson opposed. That did not have success. Councelor Braithweight. I'm going to then put the motion back on the floor if I may, if that's legal. Uh that council endorse a funding model for the cost of Canaran Park redevelopment plan that consists of 50% from the district reserves and 50% from long-term borrowing. I'm sure we'll get a seconder for that. Okay. Having had a debate for one other option, uh I think we probably don't need to talk about this too too much. I'll see if there's support from uh committee and I think with the announced change of of swing vote that there is all those in favor and those opposed councelor Green Patterson and myself that does carry. So u we since we already have that analysis there's no additional analysis to be done. Um so thank you for that. And the last option here is the debt authorization options.

Uh and again this is the uh the recommendation here is that um um using the approval free liability zone for borrowing the money. Your ship I would move option 3A in the staff report to use the approval free uh authorization. Move one seconded. Okay. I think we all understand the ramifications of this. Um does any just if there's I think there's probably we'll have people opposed but I think for the for the general purposes as opposed to the specifics. Go ahead. Councelor Smart Counc. Yeah. Uh thank you your worship just to motivate briefly. Um you know I think that there have been some really positive I think there's been good debate on this and I think there's been some good comments made about just borrowing in general and how we approach it with the community. For my purposes um under a lot of circumstances and for a lot of types of borrowing and some of the borrowing that will be coming uh for the community especially for things like the protective services building. I

would not actually support this approach. I would not s uh support this type of approach and would seek uh public input to that type of borrowing. Uh the reason that I support this approach for this particular project is because of the extensive public engagement that's gone into the project. Um and the very strong in my view need for timeliness to move forward with the project. Uh we've seen capital projects of all types. I don't think anybody would describe themselves as wholly comfortable uh with the cost of this project given how much it's inflated just over the last couple of years. That speaks to the need for being timely and acting acting quickly to get uh shovels in the ground and get this much needed project for that particular neighborhood of Oak Bay underway. So I I would take a I just would take the opportunity here to say this is the motion that I've put forward as far as this alternative approval, but I would not take this

course in general for most types of borrowing. I have heard the comments around the table about the concern about borrowing overall. I share those concerns. Um and overall the debt situation for the district needs to be carefully managed. So uh I just wanted to just make that make that point at this juncture. Your worship. Thank you. Thank you. Councelor Smart, your stat. Thank you. That um um described quite adequately um what I was going to share as well. We've had um such incredible engagement on this project in general going forward. I very much support um thorough engagement on debt borrowing, but in this particular case, the expediency of of getting this project underway, considering how long it has taken to get to this point, uh is very important. and I have great confidence in what I've heard from the community about their support for this project. Thank you. Any other discussion?

I'll just speak briefly. Oh, go ahead, Councelor Patterson. Yes. Um, thank you, mayor. And um while there has been um uh extensive community uh engagement on this and and I know certainly the community is uh favored a lot of what they saw, but I do recall what they asked for originally. Um and I think that uh because the magnitude of this is is going to be um quite impactful on Oak Bay's budget. So, I I would also like to be able to to support this because I would like to see Carnaran Park redeveloped for certainly the playing fields and the clubhouse and all of the things we originally set out to do because that the area has been waiting for it for so long, but just the way it is moving forward, I don't have confidence that um when the reality hits people about what this is, what this is going to cost them on taxes, and it's over a long term um and it changes the basis of that. I think that we uh

we need we need to clarify the financial aspects of that. And if I may ask a question of staff on this. So when we when these reports come back to council, will they be subject to public input at that point in time? Yes, they will. It's a decision point of council. So it'll have a it'll be for public input. Then with that clarification, thank you very much. Then I will support what is put forward on the basis that the that the community will have um input at that time. Thank you, Councelor Green. I I would prefer the ascent of electors. I know that people are talking about wait times, but we're talking seven a seven-month difference between approval free liability and ascent of electors. 7 months. I don't think that's a long time. Um I think this is a very important project. I I really appreciate all of the staff time that's gone into this. It's been extensive. Um and we have spent a lot of time on this, but

certain things have changed. And I know that overwhelmingly I heard it was too large scale. It wasn't what people were envisioning. They were envisioning improvements of course in buildings and so on, but I don't think they were um envisioning something this grand as I said earlier. So I would rather support the ascent of electors. So I will be voting against the motion. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else speaking? And probably just seek anybody speaking in opposition at this point. Uh, okay. I'll uh I guess since I am I'm I I think I I've heard really good arguments on both sides of this one. And I I do think given the other decisions it says have to go forward and probably the um the the approach taken is probably the the most rational one. Um I do think though it's interesting I just as I was listening I think philosophically I might have a slight disagreement. I do agree that the level of consultation uh would be a check in the favor of doing this through the uh through the um the current model proposed um because I think it's had lots of public input into

those pieces. I I don't know that we've had um uh as much robust I think the other where I I I maybe fall back a little bit is that I tend to think of things that are that we that we require. We need public safety buildings. We need uh some of the you know roads and water pipes and so forth that we're going to be looking for borrowing as well. I actually see those on the other side of the equation where given that we have some delegated authority to do what we need to do under the requirements. Um that those are the areas that I would probably rely less on the on the center approval of process. Um as I said I think in this case it probably where I'm not going to support the motion but I do understand it it's logical for it to go forward given the arguments that have been made at this table. Okay. I'm going to call the question then on the motion.

All those in favor and those opposed. Uh myself and councelor Green opposed. That does carry. Uh we I think that's it for this item. I think we have a project. I think it's going forward and I think it's coming back for final approval shortly with minimal changes. So, thank you for all the work that's gone into this and to all the public who have provided input and all these pieces. It's been a a lot of moving pieces. Um, I am going to keep moving because we are now at 9:30, which is an hour behind where I was anticipating us being at this point in the meeting. So, I'm going to move us along where and and focus on areas that we need to spend some time.

Uh, but Mr. Sullier, you're not off the hook completely yet because we have the uh uh the requirement for council approval given the cost of the software for u the parks and recck system. I think the report's pretty straightforward. If you wish to give a brief introduction, you're welcome to. Uh, Mayor, I I think the report is uh fairly straightforward. Um, I just want to recognize my colleague, Camille Rock, the manager of administrative and reception services is here to support uh with any um questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Rock. Welcome. And I appreciate it's not much fun sitting through a whole two and a half hours of a meeting to to not have much conversation on your one item that comes before council. Um, but there may be some questions of council. So, I'll turn to council. Uh, any questions for staff on this request?

Don't see any. So perhaps I can get someone to move the recommendation. Moved. Second. Move and seconded. Any other discussion? Thank you for the work on going through this process uh and laying out the the pros and cons of the of the different approaches within this. So uh I I was going to reflect that when these decisions are like this, it reflects a very good staff report that outlines all the all the questions that captured all the questions that we had. So with that, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None oppose. Thank you. And uh we will uh move on to the next item on the agenda.

Uh uh we do have next an appointment of the interim chief financial officer. I think uh clear here on this is a procedural piece to cover these pieces. Um I'm going to just seek someone to move the motion move and seconded. Uh I am going to say a few words to Mr. Chance uh at the end of the next session. But uh for now we'll just leave it there for this this piece. Is there uh anything uh any discussion? Okay. All those in favor any opposed? None opposed. Uh we now move to reports and memorandums and this is subject to public input. If anybody wishes to provide input um you can raise your hands online. Um or I don't think there's anybody in the room left to speak to it. So uh take that piece. So with that uh invite Mr. Chance to uh to make an introduction and I understand uh we have um KPMG here with us as well. So uh but Mr. Chance please go ahead.

Yes. Thank you your worship. I'm just going to invite my colleagues up. Um Fiser, if you mind joining me as well. Um and Leette, can you join us here? Is that okay? Assume assume the regular position. Thank you. The annual audit sitting position. That's right. That's right. Yeah. It feels like deja vu. Yes. Uh so uh thank you uh through your worship. I'm pleased to be here this evening to present the uh district's 2025 statement of financial information. Uh the staff report provides the annual financial results with comparative analysis. Uh and attached you will find the 2025 statement of financial information in its entirety for approval. uh the KPMG audit findings report for receipt and the new development cost charge and amenity cost charge annual report. Uh this evening I'm joined by FISA MSBA uh the district's manager of financial operations who has been uh instrumental this year along with KPMG in delivering these results this evening to council.

Uh together we would like to also thank staff and finance and across the district who supported the delivery of a successful audit. I'm also joined um of course joined by KPMG the audit partner uh Leat Bates Amir who uh you will all be familiar with uh who quite familiar with the the district's file and uh has been a great supporter as we've uh navigated uh growth and change within the district. Uh just before I invite KPMG to present their audit findings to council, I do uh want to provide a brief presentation. I will try to keep that brief knowing uh that your worship uh is off the original timeline. Um annually staff prepare financial statements in accordance with public sector accounting standards which are then subject to an independent and external audit. As required legislatively, the audited financial statements require approval prior to May 15th by council. Additionally, as required by section two of the financial information act, council is asked to approve a number of supplementary

schedules as detailed early in the report. Touching on the financial uh results very briefly. Uh the district again has made material investments in renewal of capital infrastructure with additions totaling 22.1 million in 2025 reflecting council's commitment to a path of sustainable service delivery. Also of note, the accounting surplus was higher than compared to prior year results totaling 15.2 2 million but reflects discipline in operational spending with expenses favorably below budget and a utilization of those additional revenues directly to support long-term sustainability. It is important to note that the 15.2 million accounting surplus translates to a modest budgetary surplus of uh4 million or 400,000. Uh the difference is due primarily to the difference between public sector accounting uh standards and rules uh and the cashbased uh uh uh budgeting approach um to set taxation rate each year. Uh the uh point4 million is down off of prior year. Uh this decrease um absolutely reflects a greater precision in manage managing budget variance. The district remains in a strong and stable financial position.

Uh new and notable for council within the financial statements uh would be the implementation of the devel development and amenity cost charge bylaws that uh were um approved by council early in 2025 uh with um those charges um translating to a new stream of deferred revenue. This has been incorporated into the financial statements um but advisable for for council that this is new. Uh and um additionally there's an annual report required that has been prepared and attached in um attachment three. Uh of note also for council is that uh we did enhance note disclosure under note 4 and note 13. Uh note four is the deferred revenue uh which previously provided a a a fairly basic schedule uh in the accompanying uh notes to financial statements but has been expanded uh in particular to provide additional detail on unearned revenue balances restricted grants and newly collected DCC and ACC charges. Uh, additionally, note 13 is the financial plan reconciliation note which reconciles the financial plan bylaw to the financial plan used in the financial statements for comparison.

Uh, that note has been uh modified to now more clearly show differences between the public sector accounting uh standard treatment and that use for budget to help the public navigate. Uh so I just uh one comment to thank those that uh in the community that provide feedback to the finance team and allow us to make those enhancements. Um each year uh staff are recommending that council approve the 2025 statement of financial information, receive the audit findings report and receive the dcc report. And of course, um, uh, staff would be recommending that, um, upon, uh, council's receive, uh, KPMG's presentation this evening. If amendable, your worship, I'll pass back to you for that.

Absolutely. Thank you very much, Miss Bamer. Welcome. Hi, everyone. Um, so I will I will try to rebrief. You've all received our report. I'm just going to speak to the highlights or things that point out things that are new for this year or different um and meet my required communications at this stage. Um in terms of the status of our audit, we are substantially complete. The last few steps would be having the discussion with council tonight and then once you have accepted the financial statements were in a position to sign. We also collect the rep letter as of that same date um today which I think we already have and um we provide our opinion which is included in the draft financial statements anticipated to be the same as in prior years a clean audit opinion or unqualified audit opinion that the financial statements prevent present fairly in all material respects in accordance with the public sector accounting standards. Um last year there was a new section in the auditor's report around other information because

we did receive the um financial package that management prepares that goes along with the financial statements and includes the financial statements before we signed off and we do have a requirement to review that other information and determine whether or not there are any material inconsistencies with the financial statements. So um we have we have reviewed that and and uh that paragraph is included in our opinion. Um the materiality that we used in the audit this year was 1.4 million which was up from uh 1.2 million uh last year. Um the materiality has trended upward in line with your increases in expenses. We drive our materiality off of gross benchmark of total expenses. Um the 1.4 billion is about 2.5% of prior year's total expenses. the lower percentage of the actuals for this year which are 61 versus the 56 that we determined the materiality off of. So probably had had a bit of room to go even higher and stay at a similar benchmark or percentage of the benchmark as we had in prior years. Um we with the

materiality set at 1.4 million we are required to report anything back to that was adjusted or that remains uncorrected in our audit that's greater than 70,000. Um so we'll we'll see that in a minute. Just a reminder that the materiality level that we set obviously if there was to be an error greater than that we would we would have to have a qualification. Um it and the the materiality level is meant to um represent the maximum level of error that could be in your financial statements before user of the financial statements might have made a different decision if using these numbers to to make an economic decision. Miss Bamer, I think we should be skipping forward in slides. I think we're I think there was a slide on materiality and I'm just not sure that we we're still on the title page. Are we Yeah, my apologies. Um it wasn't required for the presentation today. My apologies. I should have uh notified corporate services. Okay, no worries.

I'm trying not to do a page flip if that's just fair. Speak quickly to the things that I need to point out. Um, in terms of risks identified in planning for this audit, there is just the one that I report to you every year that we're uh required to identify in planning for all audits that we perform, large and small, which is a risk of fraud due to management override of controls. We've addressed this risk with our journal entry testing, looking at any significant estimates or unusual transactions. Nothing to report here in terms of addressing this risk. Um the report goes on to discuss um well there is a page around um mandatory inquiries of those charged with governance. So we present that slide to you every year I think and um you know you h you have that ahead of time and if you had um comments to make to us with regards to fraud or any of the district's policies for reporting um fraud incidents or non-compliance with laws and

regulations, that type of thing. um you can bring that to our attention. Um we've asked all of these all of the questions on that slide already of of um individuals within the organization already. So I'm not expecting to hear anything new, but those are required to put in front of you. um the results of our work around um sort of our other areas of risk in the file um revenues AR deferred revenue um capital assets um expenses and payroll and then cash investments and debt or treasury um the uh I won't go through everything that we've we've done in all those sections it's all included in the report we'll just point out that um as a result of our procedures in the um revenue and deferred revenue section is where we had just identified a couple of corrections that were made in the financial statements. One was um uh 133,000 of um amounts that needed to be recognized in the financial statements no longer needed to be deferred and then um just reclassifications between two liability accounts. So we found the um holdbacks

payable were held in deposits. So deposits usually either turn into returns of funds or um revenues and uh the holdbacks are are sort of more of a typical payable that would be in the accounts payable. So those were reclassified in both years. Um nothing else to report in terms of of adjustments coming out of the work. Um so our summary of adjustments is included in the report and and it and it just has those um couple of items the reclassifications and then the small increase in revenue due to bringing in the um those um expired I think it was expired passes that needed to be brought in. So very small change in the um annual surplus as a result of audit adjustments just an increase in revenue of 133. In terms of internal control deficiencies, we have not identified any significant deficiencies in internal controls. We do provide a letter to management um describing some of the other um control deficiencies that we have found in current or prior year. So, uh we have issued that letter. It's included in the appendix here. There was

one new um other deficiency in the current year just around the timeliness of of um review and reconciliation of um expense credit card expense statements um for staff. Um so that's included in there. And then um we provided an update on the prior year recommendations or observations that we had around uh journal entry review in the parks and recck department which has been remediated and um we find we find that um recommendation is closed. And then there was another um recommendation just around review of deposits um that are um aged or we had found an error in the in recognizing deposits last year and and um so looked a little closer at those and uh did recommend that uh a more thorough review be done of a lot of the aged amounts in there. um you have tons and tons of very very small amounts sitting in there that that could be aged. It's not it's not a material issue um but um would require a bit of work to clean up which um management has

provided a response in to all of our um observations and recommendations in that letter. Um in terms of uh independence, I do want to confirm for you that we are independent in our work as your auditor. um we we don't have any um sort of relationships or other services that are threatening our independence. There is a new um requirement in the auditing standards to communicate with those charged with governance the ethical um principles that we're following with regards to independence in the in the year. And so in in the back of our report there, we do note that we follow the um CPA code of conduct and rules within Canada, but we also do follow international um eth ethics standards boards for uh accountants rules when it comes to independence. So I had to make that uh communication uh new in the standards this year. Um, also we would usually report to you if there were um any upcoming changes in accounting standards that you needed to be aware of that might change the the look of the district's uh financial statements or or result in any restatements. We have had

a um reprieve from new accounting standards for this year and for next year. And then it's not until the 2027 year that the new um public sector accounting standards uh conceptual framework comes into play as well as a financial statement presentation standard. Um so that'll be for your 2027 year end. Um so a couple years a break from adopting new standards. So that's it for me and our report. Thanks to the team here for all their help with getting us to where where we are now, ready to sign. Thank you very much, Miss Bamer. It's a very very good overview of everything in the report. I think very helpful for us to have a quality auditor like KPMG help, you know, to to walk through all these things. A lot of comfort to the taxpayer. Are there questions for either KPMG or to staff on the Sophie report or any of the new ACC dcc? Go ahead, councelor Patterson.

Thank you, Mayor. No, no questions. Just a couple of comments. It was uh very nice on this uh this report to see um on the statement of financial position the improved performance in executing the capital projects because we we struggled a little bit and but momentum I guess is is uh building and and experience is certainly showing up. So it's very nice to uh to see that and um also I think the accumulated surplus shows that our plan for sustainable infrastructure funding have improved our financial capacity to replace our district's aging infrastructure. So it's nice to see that in the reporting. Also appreciated KPMG's diligence in flagging control uh deficiencies and and the management response. Sorry, I should say staff response, not management respon, staff response to to the recommendations. Um, and I also did find that the um the KPMG discussion papers you can link on to there particular about AI in the public sector were quite interesting information. And so it shows that that is a is um perhaps a a new realm that we

have to as a council and in stat and as a district focus on more going forward. So appreciate the report. Thank you. Thank you. Go councelor Watson. And I'd just like to um uh add on to councelor Patterson's remarks. Um uh no questions at all. I I I just in going through the material I was just struck by how much hard work is done in order to prepare this package both on the part of our staff who work diligently to make sure it's done in a timely basis and in their collaborative role which is independent of the auditor but still working with the auditor and it just blows my mind that through the course of a just a 12-month cycle we actually produce a budget and I say we it's really the staff who produce the budget and we make changes to it and that all turns into a tax bylaw and then within a few months later we've got the audited financial statements like the the financial package for the prior year. It is a huge undertaking and I and I just

want to say thank you very much to everybody the team pulling in and I know it's been a a challenging year with uh some of the staffing situation in the department and just to to be here tonight with this quality of financial reporting and a clean audit statement. It's just um hats off. I just wanted to say that. Thank you. Uh any other questions or comments? Perhaps I'll just take a motion. Go ahead, Council Braith. Thank you so much. Um thank you. I I would reiterate Councelor Watson's uh comments. I do have three quick questions if I might. Um, as far as the net financial assets go, I see that they dropped by about $7 million or 11%. And I'm just wondering if you can touch on how the reserve levels are still tracking um or or if they're still tracking appropriately against our long-term infrastructure needs that we have. Thank you.

Missed the chance. It's a question square in your ballpark. Absolutely. Thank you uh through your worship. Thank you for the question. uh absolutely uh astute in terms of uh uh zeroing in on the net financial assets and the change in that. Uh you you do see just below on the same page the um change in the uh invested intangible capital assets that depicts the asset side of the uh equation. Uh so we would be drawing down on our cash investments investing that into assets. Uh and then you um in terms of res reserves you would have uh the accumulated surplus uh which has also uh grown with those additional contributions um and uh surplus contribution and so um you will see that that um uh both the reserves and the asset u side of the balance sheet will uh have increased or grown from those investments. Um I'm not sure if I missed a second part of that uh question with uh maybe relative um health.

I think you got it all. No, I I think you got it all. Yeah. Uh then my next question was around the um investment policy threshold that we exceeded. I think we exceeded it by about 3%. And you did kind of explain in the in the report that it was temporary. Um, and so it's not really alarming to me, but I think maybe a question that that could be asked would be, um, how long how long were we outside those policy limits? And is that an area of concern? Mr. Chance, uh, yes, thank you. Through your worship, uh, yeah, the um, uh, temporary nature of that is uh, uh, purely in relationship to the uh, financial statement timing. Uh so we at a point in time take a snapshot and report balances with respect to reserves on December 31st. Uh so at that point in time uh the ratios show us out of uh bounds. Um what we'd be doing to look and manage that and make sure that that risk is uh managed against policy for council uh is

how uh long so the question is is exact uh how long would would we be outside of that uh and how far are we outside? Um staff are not in any way alarmed um by the um point in time measurement of us being outside. Uh we know that it was simply a matter of us uh divesting to stay liquid for the capital uh um investment um capital program that's underway. Uh and so uh you know when we're looking for those portfolio um limitations, we're um uh really making sure that we don't end up with a portfolio all in one area or largely in one area. And so when we're just outside those portfolios, uh alarm bells aren't uh going off. Uh but we would want to watch that wouldn't be a regular practice and we would want to make sure that that would be temporary um on staff's behalf. Uh and action would be taken.

Thank you so much for that answer. And my last question is around um council expenses because I noticed that there was quite a dispar disparity between some of the counselor's expenses. And I'm wondering um if there should be maybe clearer governance controls or approval thresholds for council expenses and if you can maybe touch on that if you know um what um other perhaps municipalities um how they handle council expenses um and whether or not they have clearer thresholds. Mr. Chance. Uh yes, thank you. Um so I I'd like to just start by uh commenting on the um a process to establish the budget for expenses uh for council. So each year within the annual financial plan uh remuneration um estimates for council are incorporated as well as any estimates for uh attendance at conference uh travel to uh committees uh various um uh meetings uh I want to say commissions but that's largely the same as committees. Um and so the uh uh utilization of that is uh sometimes a function of a council member's uh

participation uh in uh respective uh committees but then also um when it comes to participation in conferences. Uh so the um utilization is of of that is up to council. Uh the budget um in my my history here is basically uh been left unchanged um and is utilized uh you know in in in part by the sort of what the demand is but um but also uh consideration given I think in terms of planning for the year. I I you know would um suggest that if council would um want to look into that further, get more background, we can report back uh maybe take a look at if there's any other uh policies or processes. Uh but ultimately it does liken itself to a staff training budget uh where we would typically look at the budget for the year uh understand the um number of people that need to draw on that budget and and plan ahead uh making sure that there's equal opportunity.

Thank you very much. Those are all my questions. Mayor, thank you. Don't see any other questions. So, um turn to this table and see if we can have the motions. Uh so, first is approval of the statements. Approved. Moved. Moved and seconded. Uh any further discussion on that and the Sophie report? No. Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Um just a quick question on I know that comes back as part of our annual report as well. Um and um is there any intention that I think you flagged at sort of the point that sometimes it's confusing to look at the public sector accounting standards and the uh versus sort of the people tend to think of as being oh you got this big surplus but it's really you know money that's you know accumulated you know assets as we're replacing them and so forth. Is there uh we've kind of been you know modifying the financial uh annual report over the years. Is that is some of that explanation expected to go sort of more

prominently within the um the annual report as well? Sorry, it threw me to you, Mr. Chance. Um yes, there's an opportunity within uh the CFO message as well as in uh um uh the package to expand on that and make sure that the public's well aware um particularly in this period of an investment cycle um where you have the accounting surplus showing as as so large but really they're dedicated revenues from a budget perspective. Um absolutely. Uh we um you know uh don't bring this info message at this time because we're working with draft statements uh looking for council's approval. Um uh but as we finalize that this week u we can look to include that.

So move seconded discussion. All those in favor and finally that we receive the DC in a minute cost charge annual report. So moved your wish I'm not sure if your microphone is on. Sorry. My apologies. It is. Sorry. We are on uh we just called the question on recommendation two to receive the KPMG audit report. I took you as a as innocent. I would be in innocent. Thank you. And then we just had the motion moved and seconded for the DCC and ACC report. So that's on the that's live on the table now. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. I do just want to take a moment think and thank u a I think it was accurately reflect oh your worship I will take just before you before you begin I will take this opportunity to make a motion to extend the meeting until 10:30 thank you important moved and seconded thank you all those in favor any opposed opposed

um thank you for that um I'll keep this very brief but uh for those of don't know we don't have a large audience online but uh Miss Le Chance our director of um uh finance and asset management uh is uh has a new opportunity and will be leaving us and I think this might be the last meeting that you're with us in the public realm. And so um I really wanted to just take a brief moment. I'm not going to drag this out. Uh but uh for those who aren't aware uh she stepped into this role really uh consolidating a lot of that knowledge uh between finance, asset management and modernizing a lot of aspects of our operations to um for for in in in really positive ways. Um uh we had a former CFO who really kind of was initiated the asset management and and it was really heartening to see it picked up and just run with uh and continuous improvement uh come with that

um and really just bring a level of professionalism both in the reporting and the presentation that has been phenomenal for the community to to have and uh I cannot begrudge you for the opportunity that awaits you. Um but uh on behalf of council uh really want to just express our appreciation for all that you've done for the community and for the council and for the district in your time here. So um formally wish you all the best and uh and and thank you so so much for what you've done. Yeah, you're welcome to say a few words if you want, but you do not have to.

I'll do my best after receiving those um wonderful comments and and very kind. I really uh absolutely appreciate the moment to to address you and just thank you for the opportunity. Um this truly is the most beautiful place in the world and to get to serve here for the the time even though short um has left its um imprint on me and I can't help but know that you guys will all be coming with me in terms of my next uh venture. Um the work that we've done here together has been in my opinion nothing short of profound. the uh the pace of change, the uh level of commitment uh from council to uh doing what's right.

It's a a finance person's um dream and so to to be as you said, you know, moving to another opportunity, but uh my time here has been so um so special. So, I just really want to uh take the opportunity as well to thank thank you and uh thank you for receiving all those reports. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right, with that we can let you guys go and have a nice evening. It's a late night. So, thank you Miss Batesamer for your for your time here tonight. Uh we moved then to section nine bylaws and permits. We have a number of um uh pieces that have had for second and third reading. Um so first up is 9.1. Um this is upland setting and design application for 3490 Beach Drive. Oh, sorry. This one is not uh this is not a pre first readings. This is a presentation for consideration. Um I'm not sure if we should give this to Mr.

Green or Mr. B. Mr. Green, welcome. Uh good evening. Go ship members of council. Uh the district has received an application for an upland sighting design permit for the property located at 3490 Beach Drive to allow for changes to the rear of the property including a new covered arbor structure, a hot tub and associated landscaping and hardscaping. This application was presented to the advisory design panel on April the 14th of this year and who recommended the application be approved. Staff have no concerns with the application and now also recommending that the application be approved. Uh the applicant uh Danny Lamone of Eden Project is should also be in attendance online today to answer any questions that council may have on navigation.

I do see him online. So that is good to have um he or she I'm not sure which. Um online and so uh I I'll turn to this body. Are there any questions on this application? I don't see any questions. So perhaps a motion. Uh I will move the staff recommendation. Your worship moved and seconded. Thank you. Um any discussion? I'm going to wish the applicant all the all the success. I do uh I am heartened by the fact that uh earlier this meeting we did have include some uh council priority projects for optimization that included some delegation which of options including minor uh upland setting and design which is probably appropriate for this kind of piece. And I I do think that uh um this type of of relatively modest changes to existing buildings and and and yard infrastructures uh really does not need to come to council for approvals. I'm looking forward to some of those changes that they come forward. But I do appre

want to extend my appreciation to the thoughtful design uh to the applicant um because I think it's it also makes it very easy to to see these approvals. So seeing nobody uh speaking in opposition, I'm going to call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. Thank you for sticking it out until 10 p.m. Um uh and uh we will move on. Uh we move then to the tax rates bylaw. Uh we did have third reading, sorry, first second and third reading of this earlier. I'm going to ask that someone read the motion for adoption into the record. Your worship, I will move that tax rates bylaw 2026 number 4964 be adopted.

Moved and seconded. Thank you. Um we don't usually debate much, but this is our opportunity for sober second thought in all of these. So if there's any changes of heart or other points take them now seeing none all those in favor any opposed none opposed perhaps the same mover can move to the your worship I would further move that Boulevard frontage tax bylaw number 3416 1982 amendment bylaw number 4963 2026 be adopted moved as or seconded but seconded thank you any discussion seeing none all those in favor any opposed councelor indicate you may want to do a motion arising did in an email. Would you like to to do that under new business, but would you like it now?

Um, it's up to you. Um, I think my understanding is a motion was just really to bring back a report on on these tax and uh the the bylaw frontage tax the cost considerations and and pieces. So, yeah. Yeah, happy to um bring it up now. um that staff bring a report to council that outlines the environmental and cost considerations around the tax boulevard maintenance program. Can I make a suggestion that you add as part of the 2027 budget process so it can inform that process? Uh definitely. That's a great addition. Yeah. So as a mover, is there a seconder? Seconded. You can feel free to motivate.

I think the the wording of the language is pretty straightforward, but go ahead. Yeah. Um we have had interest um both around this table and from members of the community um when this uh program has come up just to really more fully understand um whether or not it's meeting our environmental values and whether or not um it's something that should be considered into the future. And I think we feel like we could just use a little bit I myself feel like I could use a little bit more information um in order to make um governance advice on this. So just appreciate having a bit more information. Thank you. Any discussion?

Not seeing any. I'll call the question. All those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. That carries. Thank you. I move to item number 9.4. Your worship. I would move that planning, building, and development fees and charges bylaw number 4845 2023, amendment bylaw number 4952 2026 be adopted. Second. Moved and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then 9.5. Worship. I would move that elections and voting bylaw number 4284 2005, amendment bylaw number 4965 2026 be adopted. Move and seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? Opposed. Uh that brings us to section 10. Um these are both section 10.1 and 10.2 two are both open for public input.

Um, so I will move first to uh is it Mr. Green or Mr. B? Mr. Green to introduce 1175 Beach Drive's request for a liquor license referral. Please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you. You worship it. The district has received a liquor license referral associated with the Oak Bay Beach Hotel. The applicant has applied to the liquor and cannabis regulation branch to increase the license capacity by adding six additional areas for a total of 18 persons associated with the hotel spa to the liquor primary license. The application has been referred to the district for review and a response by LCIB. Staff are recommending that council direct staff to provide an opterate of comment response to the LCB for the application. Happy any questions that council may have. Uh thank you very much. I do have in my notes here that uh Summer Mander um liquor licensing specialist uh was going to be available but I don't see them online at the moment. So um if anybody is here to

answer questions if there are any I can maybe just uh turn on your video so I know that's you and otherwise we'll come back to this table. Are there any questions from members of council to staff or the applicant? Um I have a question. If you don't know the answer, it's okay. But do we know it says as part of the spa location is do we know if that's uh like around the pool in the spa building or what where that is? Uh your is correct. It is essentially around the pool area and the spa area at the the lower level area. Okay. So there are six additional areas that have been identified.

Okay. Can I just ask, do we know the impact of that? Because I think currently the uh that area, the pool in the spa is restricted to ages 16 and up. So with the change of the liquor licensing change that age limit to 19 and up if it's a liquor primary location, um I don't know the answer to that question. Um Okay. I don't believe so. Um yes, I I would Yeah, but I don't know for sure. Okay, fair. Thank you, councelor Green. I just wanted to excuse me through you ask um whether or not and I can't remember this is a general question. Can people carry their their alcoholic beverages from the pool area, spa area up to the hotel area? Do you know? Or or are they confined to that area? uh as as we if if that license is extended, are they confined to to consume the alcoholic beverage around the pool and spa area only?

Uh through your worship to council green, I believe so given that the liquor license doesn't incorporate the entire property. there'll be certain areas and therefore I presume that yeah that they will allow you to move drinks to areas that are not covered by the the liquor license primary. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um so we have a recommendation here really which is our common one when these applications come forward for internal operational changes which is to opt out of comment. Um so perhaps I'll get that put on the floor. the recommendation here. I will move the staff recommendation. Your worship moved and seconded. Uh is there any other discussion? Councelor Green.

Just really quickly, I asked the question because it's a very uh challenging area in terms of navigating and you know there I mean it would be a difficult area if you were slightly um under the weather. So I just that that was my question if they can move and if they do what are the hazards? Thank you. I think we'll leave those questions to the hotel operator themselves. Um uh yeah, I don't think the issue there is the alcoholic beverage transiting. It's more the people. Um all right, we will uh the recommendation here is just to opt out. So any other discussion? Um seeing none, all those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. And then our last item on the agenda under 10.2 is council remuneration. Uh, Miss Ganon is here for our director of human resources. Uh, and I just will note that this is a return council gave direction on a policy direction and this report comes back to us following that the that um that direction and and is now in front of us for consideration under bylaw. Miss

Ganon, welcome. You're so lucky to be the last one on the agenda. Thank you. I will I will tell you that I'm way past my bedtime, so I apologize. Uh so so further to the direction council provided staff at the April 13th meeting. This report provides data regarding the council remuneration for the comparator municipalities outlining that the average for the mayor is 76,271 and 32,350 for uh for counselors. Uh should this be approved, it would result in approximately an increase of $40,000, which represents uh 009% uh taxation impact. So uh tonight staff are seeking approval of the draft council remuneration policy and that council bylaw number 49662026 be given first, second, and third readings. And I'm happy to uh answer any questions.

Thank you. And just for our clarification, even though the remuneration bylaw is being considered for passage at this time, it would be effective uh at the start of the next council term. Is that correct? That's correct. It would be effective uh the day of inauguration, November 2nd. Great. Thank you very much just for that clarification. Uh are there any questions from council to staff? Councelor Braithweight. Thanks, Mayor. Um just a really quick question. Thanks very much for the report, Miss Ganon. Um I'm wondering um and I'm just basing this on the fact that some people um because some people that sit around the table have already declared that they're going to be running uh in the next election. I'm wondering if in in the future if we continue to do um uh this this way if it might um have some merit to have this discussion prior to the beginning of the year which is when some people do um uh claim or or or put forward that they're going to be running again just so that they're not in in a position of conflict. Thank you.

Almost that's a rhetorical question for council I would think more than for Miss Ganon but procedurally is that uh is that something that could be accomplished? Yeah. Through the chair. Yes. The problem with that is that we do rely on the data after the CPI comes out and that does not come out until uh mid to late January. So we need to wait for that. Um but that being said most municipalities do it in this format. So it would be the same across municipalities. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you, Councelor Braithweight. Uh, I will note that really at until the people submit their, uh, applications, their intent, uh, there really is nobody that's officially running until that time happens. So, I think we can probably safely put that into the, uh, into that context. Um, any other questions for staff?

Jumping the gun. I then motions are in order. So, go ahead, councelor Green. I will move the staff recommendation. We need to actually read in the uh sorry for so actually there's two parts. So the first part we can improve council policy HR19. Hang on. I just mayor sorry to interrupt but do we not have to go to the public as well? Well we do. My apologies. There are possibly some online. So before I go to the calling of the question I will turn to the public. Thank you councelor Braithweight. Always at 10 o'clock my my brain starts to shut off just a little bit. It's way past my bedtime too. Um, is there any members of the public who wish to address uh council? I didn't see any hands, but uh happy to take that ask now.

I do not see any hands raised from the members of the public. So, I I don't need a red into the record for just can I have someone move approval of the council policy? HR019 moved. I will move approval. Thank you. Uh any discussion on the policy? Chelsea Green. Thank you. I just want to say I'm really grateful to our HR director for bringing this forward. I think it was long overdue and okay to formalize a policy like this and it does take the burden off council. I think it's really important um move forward and I think it modernizes our practices. So thank you very much to Director Ganon.

Right. Thank you. Uh I'm going to call the question. All in favor? Any opposed? None opposed. And then read into the record. First and second. Your worship. I would move that council remuneration by law number 4966 2026 be read a first and second time. Seconder. Seconded. Thank you. Any discussion? Don't see any. Thank you, Miss Ganon, for doing the work and bringing it back to us. Uh all those in favor? Any opposed? Not opposed. Worship. I would further move that council remuneration by law number 4966 2026 be add a third time and seconded. Thank you. All those in favor any opposed? None opposed. This will come back after uh a pause for sober second thought. Take a future council meeting for adoption. Thank you very much Miss Ganon. Uh with that I may have stolen the thunder new business notices a motion by doing it as a motion arising.

Is there any other new business or motions arise or notices of motions tonight? Seeing none, I think a motion to adjurnn is in order. Move, seconded. All those in favor? Any opposed? Un opposed? Uh, thank you everyone and have a great evening. Good night everyone. See you soon.