Good evening. I would like to call our
regular council meeting on Monday,
August 10th to order at 6:00 p.m. I'm
Mayor Cliff McNeill Smith and colleagues
in the chamber this evening. To my far
left, Councillor Richard Novick,
Councillor Terry O'Keefe,
Councillor Chad Rintoul, to my right,
Councillor Scott Garnett, Councillor
Sara Duncan, and Councillor Steve Duck
will be absent this evening.
Good evening to staff and
for joining the meeting this evening. We
do introduce all staff as they're
introducing the reporter, answering
questions.
And and hello to members of the public
both here in the chamber tonight and to
those who may be watching the live web
stream. I want to respectfully
acknowledge that we're holding our
meeting and and gathered this evening
and indeed the entire town of Sidney is
in the territory of the W̱SÁNEĆ people,
the
um Tsawout Nation, the Saanichton
Nation, the Pauquachin Nation, the
Tsartlip Nation, and the Malahat Nation.
And we express our gratitude to the
nations for their stewardship of these
lands and waters from time immemorial,
that is thousands of years, and for the
responsibility that we have to work
together for our current and and future
generations.
In turning to the approval of the agenda
since it was published last Thursday
afternoon, we have um
some changes. We don't have any
additional items this evening, um but we
do have a couple of changes. Uh the
first is is that this is unusual, but we
do have four items of business that was
on the agenda from our previous meeting,
and we weren't able to conclude that
business at that meeting. So, that
business is brought forward under the
section business not completed at a
previous meeting, section six.
Um which um would shortly which would on
this this agenda would follow approval
of the minutes. However, we normally
have public participation at the
beginning of our meeting, and so we will
have that section of our meeting prior
to commencing with that
business not completed.
Um so, that's moving number six to after
public participation.
Uh the second change is that item 7D1,
which was
um
policing services update from our staff
sergeant of the North Saanich Fire
Department
Police Department uh will not be
occurring on tonight's agenda, so we'll
remove that from the agenda. It will
come forward to an agenda in September,
and included on that agenda will be
um the policing report.
And I believe those are just the two
changes.
With that, I would look for a motion to
approve the agenda as amended.
>> So moved.
>> Councilor Novik.
>> Second.
>> Councilor Garnett. Any discussion?
Seeing none, those in favor?
That carries unanimous. Thank you. And
if I could perhaps have the same movers
to approve the minutes of our July 13th
regular council meeting.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Can we have the same movers? Thank you.
Any corrections to those minutes? Seeing
none, those in favor?
Thank you. That motion carries.
And so we are now first turning to our
regular public participation period. For
those who may not have
come forward to address council before,
we ask that you come forward to the to
the podium. There is a button to
activate the the microphone. We ask that
you provide your name and the
municipality that you reside in or the
organization that you're representing.
You do have up to 4 minutes to speak. We
ask that you abide that to be fair to
all all potential speakers. And with
that, I'll call for a first time. Does
anyone wish to come forward this
evening?
Good evening.
>> Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name
is Barbara Falla, and I'm a resident of
the town of Sidney.
It's been more than 4 months since
safety concerns were first raised
regarding the recent changes and
improvements made by MOTI
at Highway 17 and Beacon Avenue.
And today I would like to bring you up
to date on things.
On Tuesday, August the 4th, there was a
site visit with Ms. Susan Randall,
senior highway design engineer,
and two other persons from MOTI
engineering,
along with Mr. Tommy Leung, BC manager
advocacy and stakeholder operations at
CNIB,
and myself.
Prior to the others joining us, Tommy
and I took some time to walk through and
review the intersection from his
perspective as a person who is blind.
That exercise was an eye-opener for me,
and no pun intended, and I could speak
for much longer than the 4 minutes that
have been allowed here, so I will cut to
the chase.
MOTI has indicated that this was their
first intersection to receive tactile
mats
and that given the feedback that they
have now received this intersection will
serve as a pilot project.
They also note that the improvements
they are contemplating are not
conventional
nor standard for the ministry
infrastructure.
They go on to say in this instance due
to the unusual configuration of the
skewed intersection
the presence of a CNIB client with
specific concerns
and high use by pedestrians and cyclists
due to the Lockside Trail
we will be providing some upgraded
features to assist wayfinding.
It should be noted that there will be no
further wayfinding once a person has
left the intersection system and
consequently MOTTI jurisdiction.
So there is some risk in providing this
level of guidance when none exists
outside of the two traffic islands.
They proposed the following
improvements.
The addition of a tactile mat on the
frontage of the Lockside Trail where it
crosses the right slip bay in the
southeast quadrant
wayfinding directional tactile
indicators on the southeast island and
where they can fit them they will
install tactile direction indicator
surfaces to correctly align users with
the crossings.
Of note here the northeast island has
limited space and there'll be
constraints in what can be done.
In addition it was clear that the
placement of the push buttons for the
crossing along with the signage were not
aligned with the crossing to provide
correct orientation for a safe crossing.
For now MOTTI is coordinating with Tommy
at the CNIB
to address some of the wayfinding
improvements that were identified at the
site.
And while there's no immediate timeline
on improvements they have suggested and
depending upon staff and contracting
scheduling,
the additions and improvements would be
completed sometime in the fall.
Fingers crossed here that this is a case
of perseverance paying off.
Susan also reminded me that MOTTI's
mandate is to move cars, not people.
So, my suggestion that it may be time
for a pedestrian cyclist overpass got
very little
much more than a smile.
In conclusion, Tommy has reminded me
that he and his office are available to
help and consult on accessibility
matters, including accessible voting for
the upcoming municipal election.
He asked that I share his contact
information with staff and the Saanich
Peninsula Accessibility Advisory
Committee.
Thank you for your time and attention.
>> Thank you for coming forward with that
information tonight.
Good evening.
>> Good evening. My name is Charlene Froome
from North Saanich.
Sorry, thank you. Uh my name is Charlene
Froome from North Saanich. I didn't plan
on speaking tonight, but I just wanted
to follow up on
Barb Falick's comments with the
intersection and the crosswalks.
At our last back meeting, we had quite a
an extensive review done of the
crosswalks in Sidney and and how many
variables there are to that. So, I just
wanted to add to it that along with
Tommy and the committee, um going
forward, I know Sidney is planning to
update the crosswalks that um I'm hoping
that there will be consistency
in what we're doing on those crosswalks
and crossings, so that
people with low vision and blind have
got some consistency in knowing how
they are going to approach these
sidewalks and crossings, so that there
is a a standard um going forward and and
allowing them safety in their crossing.
So, I just wanted to add that to
Barb's comments tonight. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much for taking the time
to come forward.
I'll call for a second time. Does anyone
else wish to come forward this evening?
And calling for a third time and seeing
none, I'll close the public
participation period and we'll now move
on to the first of the four items under
business not completed at the previous
meeting.
Uh the first is uh item 6A, the
financial feasibility analysis and
stakeholder consultation
on zoning bylaw number 2275,
uh density bonus provisions, and I'll
turn to uh Mr. Newcombe, our director of
community planning, to provide an
introduction, please.
>> Thank you very much.
Uh so, in the spring of 2024, the
provincial government updated the local
government act to require municipalities
uh with zoning bylaws
uh that include a density bonusing
provision,
um
either a a new bylaw or an amending
bylaw or site-specific bylaw, uh that
these bylaws with the density bonusing
provision undergo an analysis,
um
the analysis is intended to ensure that
the the density bonusing provisions are
economically viable for uh development
projects.
Um there's also a one-time requirement
uh as part of this change that uh
existing zoning bylaws that a
municipality might have also be uh
analyzed to ensure that any density
bonusing provisions uh are also um
economically viable.
So, uh a couple of months ago, the uh
staff uh contracted with a
uh qualified consultant to undergo this
analysis uh for the town's current
zoning bylaw.
Uh the results from that were that the
current density boning
density bonusing provisions are
economically viable.
Uh there's a second requirement
associated with this, and that's to
uh undergo a round of consultation with
uh
individuals,
et cetera, that council feels
uh should be consulted as part of this
process.
And staff have made some recommendations
around that and uh happy to answer any
questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mr. Newcombe. I'll turn to
colleagues if there are any questions on
this uh item. Uh Counselor O'Keefe,
please.
>> Uh thank you. Um
>> [clears throat]
>> So, I did send some questions to staff,
so thanks for that, but I'm still uh
needing some help with uh
un- understanding. Um
So, when we're talking about the
financial viability, so I presume that
means looking at
the [clears throat] zoning bylaw, which
has
uh our base our base kind of density
that's permitted and then the bonus
density. So, I presume that's one
element of it. And then is the other
element also
looking at our that policy DVO 113 that
then outlines you know, if you have this
amount of density, you're going to pay
this amount. So, just wanting to clarify
that when we're talking about financial
viability, that I'm understanding
exactly what that is and what we're
looking at.
>> Counselor O'Keefe, can you maybe just
move your microphone a little closer?
>> Oh, sorry. Okay.
>> Thank you.
>> Uh uh thank you. Through the mayor to uh
Counselor O'Keefe.
Um
Yeah, so what the legislation says is
that uh
we need to do an economic analysis of
the zoning bylaw.
Um but of course the zoning bylaw
doesn't exist in isolation. Uh there's
construction costs, there's land costs,
there's all sorts of inputs that go into
uh a development happening. Um
All of those things are just costs and
uh the density bonusing provision, if
it's uh if a developer chooses to use
it, is just one of those costs that
might be uh considered. And so, the
analysis
took into account just a a very broad
range of inputs, density bonusing being
one of them.
Um our proposed DCC rates were another
thing, land cost, construction costs,
any inputs into a development that cost
a development money were analyzed and that
out of that analysis, the density
bonusing provisions were found to be
viable overall for the total cost of
development. Yeah.
>> Good. So, that I I think I'm clear on
that. Um
and so, the report it also mentioned,
the staff report mentioned the Urbanics
report, which we hadn't seen, but thank
you for sending that this afternoon. And
I didn't have a chance, it's 70 pages,
so I didn't go through all of it, but I
just looked at some of the highlights.
And so, the questions I had were um
when I looked at the staff report, the
staff report seemed to suggest that
we're okay to leave the
bonus density amounts as they are,
which are 50 $50 per square meter for
the RM7WS
and 200 for everything else. So,
is
am I understanding
>> It's somewhat misstating it. So, there
there's sort of two parts to this
project. The first part was that the
provincial government requires us to
analyze the existing zoning bylaw as it
is
and determine its economic viability.
So, that's essentially what this staff
report is speaking to, that we've we've
analyzed the current state of affairs
as far as density bonusing is considered
and
yes, we believe based on this analysis
that it's viable. So, we also had the
consultant Urbanics do some additional
work about
what some other policy considerations
from the OCP's housing section might
look like from an economic standpoint.
And so that was sort of a second
part of the project, looking ahead, what
might we want to consider in the future
in terms of
um additional policy options, changing
the bonus uh density amounts that are
currently in the policy.
Um so that's the second part of the
project that's in the coming months
staff will be looking at that and
developing a policy approach that we can
bring back to council uh with some
potential changes um at which time if
council does want to move some of those
ahead or all of them ahead, uh we do
need to do another round of consultation
if it changes the current economic uh
structure in the zoning bylaw as far as
development is concerned.
If that makes sense. So it's a two-part
thing.
>> Yeah, yeah. So so I think um
>> [clears throat]
>> when I was uh
what I had understood about other policy
considerations, I'm thinking about
there's things in there about
inclusionary zoning and um
you know, whether pay in lieu and a
number of different things.
The thing that I was wondering most
about was
um
the the Urbanics came out with what they
thought the bonus density rate structure
should be, which is quite different. So
those amounts of, you know, $50 and 200,
and they came out with quite a different
range of amounts. And so what I
what I'm wondering is I know there's
those other policy things, but in term
in terms of the financial viability and
if we're going out to the development
community to ask about financial
viability, why we wouldn't go with these
amounts that have been recommended by
the uh consultant right now rather than
uh waiting cuz it
if we paid them to do this and if
they're experts on it, it looks like
we're missing out on money
if we don't increase our rates. So, why
not do that now rather than later, I
guess.
>> Yeah, I guess it's a good question. So,
the as I said, the the current uh
intent is just to find out
the
economic viability of the current zoning
bylaw, and then what the if council does
choose to consult with the development
community on this, what the development
community's perspective on that current
density bonusing structure is, including
the rates.
Um
at the moment, Urbanics has just done an
analysis of what might be possible,
but there's significant implications of
going to something to a different rate.
And so, those implications might be
something like if the market changes,
there's now, you know, no longer any
freeboard to absorb, let's say a
10% market drop or something like that,
which has implications for um
the pace of development in the
community. So, staff haven't had a
chance to look at those
uh potential numbers that Urbanics
analyzed, and think of
deeply about, you know, what are the
implications of implementing these
numbers in Sydney. Um that's the work
that we're going to be doing over the
next few months to look at
do we want to change? If we do want to
change, what's a reasonable number? And
then bringing forward uh a
recommendation to council that we think
makes sense in terms of um
striking that very fine balance between
development viability, having Sydney as
an attractive place to do business in
terms of development, and so on and so
forth. So, until I think we have
council's blessing to move forward with
some of those potential future numbers,
I don't think we'd want to be consulting
with the development community on them,
given that they're not proposed uh
in a zoning bylaw.
>> Okay. I I I unders- understand that. I
I'm still kind of
Yeah, wondering about if the experts have come forward and
said, "This is viable." Why wouldn't we
do that? I guess my question would be I
understand staff would want to you know,
we just got the report I think on
Friday.
Um
and that you know, you might need some
time to think that over. You know, is it
an option to give staff a bit more time
to at least not look at all of those
other policy recommendations, but just
look at these specific via bonus density
rate structure that they've been
proposed and come back to council, you
know, in early September with that. I
guess what I'm worried about is I
understand that the next time we're
going to look at this is maybe during
strategic planning, you know, in the new
term. And um
it seems that the rate structure
proposed by
Urban Analytics is quite a bit
different. And I guess I'm I'm worried
about the town uh losing out on being
able to um
collect on some of these things. So,
whether that might be an option.
>> Yeah, I mean I I think we're doing both
essentially. So, we we do need to assess
the current zoning bylaw and consult on
the current zoning bylaw.
Um
that needs to be done essentially right
now. And so, that's why the the staff
recommendation is there to move ahead
with that. We are
100% looking at what are the options
going forward. And we're actively
working on that. We're just not ready to
say, you know, this is what we'd
recommend in terms of a a change right
now. Um I think there's there's more
work that needs to be done.
And Urban Analytics report is also
written from the perspective of
um
the town should be taking 100% of any
uh
monetary amount over and above a
standard level of profit for
development. Um there's merits to that
argument. There's also negatives to that
argument. And again, I I don't think
we've had time to fully kind of work
through what those might be on either
side. And so, I I would want to be
cautious about um you know, if we are
going to move forward with a change to
the bonus density amount that we have
currently, that we fully understand the
implications of that. And I I don't
think we do at this point. But, we do
need to consult on the current zoning
bylaws,
current density bonus rates.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you for that.
>> Thank you, Councillor Keefer. Councillor
Novick, uh I'll turn to CEO Edwards,
please.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to
add to that um
I understand where Councillor Keefer's
coming from and and and recognize the uh
desire to move in that direction. It's
important to also note that any
in-stream applications will
adhere to the current rates. And so, um
you we we're not aware of any large
projects advancing in in the immediate
future. And so,
you know, we there still is time to make
some amendments in the near future on
this that hopefully will
capture any opportunities that we might
feel like
um are coming our way.
>> Thank you. I'll turn back to you,
Councillor.
>> I'm sorry, just to follow up on that.
So, is near future like
September? Or is that like in the next
term?
>> No, next term. It's uh Council has
already um
discussed this in this current strategic
plan that this would be next term work.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Councillor Novick, please.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. Through you to
staff.
Uh,
I'm I'm I have a couple of questions
about the uh, engagement with the
development community.
And uh, for my first question is uh, how
wide a net uh,
do you cast with this? Like, what is
the development community? Is it just a
couple of big developers? Is it people
that build
duplexes here and there? How do you
decide who the development community is?
>> Yeah, thank you, Mayor, to Councillor
Novick. Uh, good question. So, what
we're planning to do is use largely the
same list that we used for the DCC bylaw
consultation, uh, which does include uh,
the Urban Development Institute uh,
Victoria chapter, and then a list of
uh, developers who have essentially done
business in Sidney over the last
couple of years, I think was it? Uh,
maybe with a couple of additions or
subtractions, uh, where we have some
specific knowledge about that that uh,
developer, but we do have a a list of
people who would be affected by this in
terms of
uh,
potential development projects, and so
we'd reach out to them.
>> So, it it would be a broad net. Is Is
that correct?
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, thank you. Uh, my second question
is
um,
following this engagement, you're going
to get some feedback. It's unlikely that
the development community is going to
ask for higher DCCs.
What what would you expect to do with the
results of this engagement, and how will
that help
to form your ultimate
table of rates?
>> So,
the province doesn't actually require
any
action out of the engagement. They
require that we do the analysis, and
they require that we engage where we
consult with whoever council thinks will
be affected.
Um
based on the numbers in the report, uh
as Councillor O'Keefe alluded to, um
currently I would say the the density
bonusing rates are quite affordable.
Um and have been in place for a
significant amount of time, and I don't
think we've heard a lot of pushback from
the development community about the
current rates. And so my expectations
would be, of course, that, you know, the
development community would say
something like, "Well, gee, any costs
make it difficult to do projects," which
is true. Um
however, I think
these rates, in and of themselves,
aren't sort of a deal-killer level. And
so I think, you know, we'll we'll hear a
typical sort of
"We need to be wary of costs, but given
what the report says, and I think given
that the development community has been
working with these numbers over the last
several years, um
if the feedback from the development
community is like, you know, "Gee, it's
a cost, but, you know, we can make it
work," uh no more action is necessary.
We've fulfilled our obligations under
the legislation, and we can move on and start working on um
different policy choices that we can
bring back to council around things like
inclusionary zoning and and other uh
considerations.
>> So we have to reach out to the
development community, listen to them,
file it away in a drawer, and not
necessarily do anything with the
results of that engagement. Is is that
correct? Or the gov- the government
doesn't oblige us to, but we may
incorporate that into our work.
>> To to a degree it's correct. I think if
the development community came back with
significant and serious concerns about
the current bylaw, uh I think staff
would report back to council and say,
"Look, this is what we've heard. Um some
action might be necessary here." And
certainly if we hear that, we'll be coming back to council with a
staff report. Um I think again, given
what the report says about the rates,
if we get the uh response we're
expecting to, I think yes, it's sort of
followed the way we've fulfilled our
provincial obligation, and then look
ahead and if we do decide to make some
changes at that point, that next stage
of consultation on any different rates
might be more
uh telling in terms of, you know, how
far
might the town want to push in terms of
um
more challenging
uh
requests of developments like
inclusionary zoning that might have a
bit of a higher ask.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mayor.
>> Thank you, Counselor.
>> Are there any other questions from
staff? Uh seeing none, we do have staff
recommendation if somebody would
consider moving it.
Like Counselor Grenier.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. I'll move the
recommendation that staff proceed with
stakeholder engagement with the
development community regarding the
bonus density fee provisions in zoning
bylaw number 2275.
>> Second.
>> Moved uh by Counselor Grenier, seconded
by Counselor Novick. I'll turn to the
movers.
>> I have nothing to add. There's been
fullsome discussion. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Thank you, Counselor.
>> Likewise, nothing to add.
>> Uh
any further discussion? Counselor
O'Keefe, please.
>> Uh thank you.
Uh I'm not in favor of this uh for a few
reasons. Um
we've known for a long time that our
current bonus density is not where it
should be. It's been, I think, I don't
know, maybe decades, but you know, I I
it seems that it's been uh a long time
since it's been um updated. Um and I
know that,
you know, because the province required
us to pre-zone certain parts of the
community, we've missed out on the
opportunity to to
recover the lift on that. Um and I
recognize that the provincial government
has since given us some tools through
DCCs and ACCs to help get those
amenities.
Um
So, what I worry about is by delaying
the
um I would have rather seen
these the rates from Urbanics, if we had
to give staff a bit of time to to look
at those, I would prefer to be going out
to the development community with those
um
the proposed rates from Urbanics. And I
understand, you know, staff's comments
that there's not too many
uh developments in the in the queue that
might uh that this might impact.
However, this seems to me something
that's going to take a while. If it goes
to strategic planning, then we'll
discuss it, then we'll have to go
through a process and more engagement.
Um I don't know. I'm thinking it might
be another year before uh we get these
higher rates. And then in in the
meantime, there are other developments
that come along and and we miss out on
the opportunity to to recoup some money
for the community. So, that's those are
my reservations. So, um my reasons for
uh not moving forward uh as it is. Thank
you.
>> Uh thank you, counselor. Uh seeing no
Counselor Gurney, please.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. Just just to
address um
my from my perspective why I do support
it is we don't necessarily those are
proposed rates from from a consultant.
Our staff has not had a chance to look
at it yet uh through our zoning bylaw,
through their eyes, and they have more
familiarity being the community. They
may come to a different conclusion. And
maybe these rates will be very similar
to through what the work they do with us
with the council next council, and the
work that our staff does, the rates may
be similar to what's already proposed in
our own zoning bylaw. So, do we delay
that not knowing? It's It's I think we
should move forward on and try to align
with provincial legislation. Thank you.
>> Thank you, counselor.
I'm now not seeing any further
discussion. I'll look to call the
question. Those in favor?
Opposed? Counselor O'Keefe is opposed.
The motion carries. Thank you.
Returning to item 6B, the housing target
order report for second reporting period
July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026.
We have a report and I'll turn to our
director of development services, Miss
Forhagen. Good evening.
>> Good evening. Thank you.
As is indicated in the report, Sydney
received a housing target order in June
of 2024. So, this is our second
reporting period. This report captures
the number of occupancy permits,
demolition permits issued, number of
housing units created and lost through
development and demolition for the year
from
July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026. So,
the year that's just ended here.
Um
the housing target order gives
cumulative totals. So, here we are at
the end of our second year. We're
supposed to have created 181
new complete housing units. So, that
means occupancy permits issued within
that time frame for 181 units.
In the first year, as the report says in
the background section,
we issued 126
occupancy permits or occupancy permits
for 126 dwelling units.
We lost 36 units through demolition
permits and that resulted in a net total
of 90. So, we were on track for the
first year. In the second year, the
numbers were a little lower.
In the last reporting period, we issued
occupancy permits for a total of 28
dwelling units and demolition permits
for a total of 19 dwelling units. That
results in a net total of nine completed
housing units. So, we're at a total of
90 nine units for the two years and
we're supposed to be at at
So, we are a bit low.
But, but if you read on in the report
and look through the rest of the the
information in the housing target order
report, it shows there is a number of
dwelling units in the pipeline coming.
Um
we've issued building permits for
there's building permit applications
under review for a total of 261 new
dwelling units
right now. That's in addition to the
number of units that have been approved
by development permit, which is 235
units.
And we also have 58 units approved by
building permit. Out there under
construction right now as of today's
date, so uh past the time of this
report, there's I think around 45 units
under construction.
So, things are happening. This just this
the stats in this report represents this
cycle in the kind of construction phase
that Sydney was in for the past year.
Uh we do need to send this report to the
ministry by August 15th, which is 45
days maximum of 45 days after the end of
the reporting period. So, I'd be happy
to answer any questions. Thank you.
>> Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Frehlich. And
I'll turn to colleagues. Are there any
questions of the housing report?
Not seeing any. It's we've had it
previously for last year and
thanks to you for bringing it forward.
As is required, I would look for someone
to move the recommendation, please.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. I'll move that
council receive the progress report for
July 1st, 2025 to June 30th, 2026 and
direct staff to post the report on the
town website and submit it to the
province.
>> Second.
>> Moved by councilors Garnett and Novick.
I'll turn to the movers.
>> Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Just just a
brief comment.
And I think when I look through this
report and I think Central Saanich is
had 24 net units in their period and
they had to have more than us.
It's a there's a flaw in the way they
designed this from my perspective and
I've always felt this way. When you're
looking at occupancy permits,
it should be relating it at applications
that have been approved, development
approve applications from from the way I
look at it because as a council, we
don't control market conditions,
interest rates, construction costs,
um supply chain issues. And uh I looked
at numbers based on what we've approved
in terms of uh developments, whether or
not they go forward. And it's combined
with what we've already had occupancy
permits for, it's over 600 units. So, I
think we'll make our total total in 5
years if things shape up the way they
should. But as I said, we don't control
what happens outside of us. We can only
control what we approve. And
I'm thinking to myself, "What about
labor shortages?" And I thought, "I
mean, maybe maybe if all seven members
of council go back to school and get a
red seal and and be electricians and
plumbers and contractors, we can go out
there and help build." But even then,
we're not going to help meet the target.
So,
I think it's it's important for the
community to realize that we can only do
so much as a council. And um you know,
the government set the target, they set
the parameters. It's just really
difficult to work in them given economic
conditions. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Thank you, uh Counselor.
I'll turn to the secondary.
Uh Counselor Nault?
>> Uh nothing to add, Mayor.
>> Thank you.
Not seeing any any other speakers. This
is a This is a big topic. It's followed
uh around the region or around the
province. And and I'm in support of the
motion and thanks staff
uh for both the report uh and the
housing target order progress report
that uh we're required and will submit
uh to the province.
I I want to re- re- reiterate uh some of
the points with some perspective. Um
while Sidney's annual housing targets
are somewhat uniform over the 5-year
period, uh '91,
'93, '95, uh and then '99,
um as Counselor uh Garnett just spoke,
the town does not build housing uh and
does not control the changing market
variables and conditions
uh that the private sector property
owners and developers uh must consider,
you know, when they're deciding to
submit their applications and ultimately
build and and complete their projects.
Uh this has and and those market
variables and those conditions have and will cause fluctuations in building
activity and and new home new home
occupancy. I think fluctuations are more
likely when there are larger projects
proposed. And in Sydney, we see
the larger approved projects are 180
units, 140 units, 60 units, uh, 49 and 48. And in looking at our monthly
uh, building report that's included on
tonight's agenda, we see that the 140
unit project at 2180 Beacon Avenue
received its DP development permit from
council in May of 2024. Uh, the 60 unit
project at uh,
2060 White Birch received its DP from
council in January of '24.
Uh, and the 49 and 48 um, unit projects
at 95 9522 Lockside, uh, the former
Cedar Woods Inn site, uh, received their
DP from council in March of 2024. So,
market variables and conditions have
certainly changed over the last 2 years
um, uh, that those that those were
approved. Interestingly, the 180 unit
purpose-built rental at 21
14 um, Beacon Avenue West received its
DP from council in September 25 uh, more
recently uh, than the others mentioned.
And uh, it's currently under
construction.
So, we've set the table for development
in our community uh, over the long term
with comprehensive with the
comprehensive update of our OCP and
zoning bylaws in recent years.
Uh, and in addition to the some 500
units of housing approved by council,
the report noted as uh, Mr. Verheggen
noted uh, that there are development
applications under consideration for
another 118 uh, new dwelling units. So,
with the 99 uh, net new homes completed
over the last 2 years, over 600 housing
units approved under or under
consideration,
uh, and future applications are likely.
Uh, I remain confident we'll achieve and
exceed our housing targets of housing
target of 448 homes over the 5-year
housing target period.
I'll leave my comments there and I've
seen no further speakers look to call
the question. All in favor?
That carries unanimous. Thank you.
So now we're turning to 6T which is that
monthly building report that I alluded
to. There is no recommendation. It's for
information. I'll turn to colleagues if
there are any questions or comments
from staff.
I'm not seeing any. We will move forward
to the next item
which was the under 6D the bioregional
planning
on the Saanich Peninsula. Councillor
O'Keefe, you raised this at the last
meeting. It was
an email from
Bob Pert from the Saanich Peninsula Environmental Coalition
on their checkup final report. Did you
wish to speak to that tonight, please?
>> Thank you, Mayor.
Yeah, so I just
read through the report.
I think
it's important to
acknowledge I think the significant time
and energy that the Saanich Peninsula
Environmental Coalition SPEC has done
along with the support from the Action
on Climate Team from Simon Fraser
University that did community workshops
which several of us attended and they
presented to all three Peninsula
municipalities
in May and now this report which focuses
on the need for bioregional planning and
how the three Saanich municipalities
are doing in that regard.
Some of the highlights I found valuable
the inventory of all the plans and
policies from the local governments that
relate to climate environment. They
identified a number of instances where
there's already some collaboration
taking place
um
and it's noted that there is significant
alignment in our the three
municipalities intent, but uh there's
room for improvement when it comes to
the execution and collaboration of
working together on these things. So, I
think we would be missing a huge
opportunity if we didn't focus some time
figuring out how we can work better
together with the three municipalities
on this.
Um not enough time to do that in this
term. So, um
I would move I guess I've motivated
before the motion, but excuse me for
that. Uh I would move that the report
from SPEC titled Checkup
be referred to the first strategic
planning session in the next council
term to consider establishment of a
Saanich Peninsula Bioregional Framework.
>> Second.
So, we have it moved and seconded. Uh I
all agree with you that you've done
somewhat of Asian uh already, but I'll turn back to you uh
to uh complete.
>> Yeah, um I I guess I think the if if the report provided a lot of
recommendations what we could do, set up
a tri-municipal committee, there's a
bunch of other things, but I think the
first thing is
you know, uh council agreeing that this
is a strategic priority. This is
something important for us. And so,
that's what I would propose that we do
at strategic planning and uh
as as a first step.
>> Thank you, counselor. Uh counselor
Garnett, do you wish to
>> Yeah, thank you, mayor. And and
uh thank you, counselor O'Keefe, for
raising this. And for the for SPEC for
the work uh having attended the forum,
it was really interesting to sit at at a
table two different tables cuz there
were two different segments with people
from um other areas in the peninsula,
and where areas some of them just
regular citizens and where they felt
councils were failing and where they
were succeeding, and it was a it was a
good eye-opener. Um I think one of the
recommendations they made was to create
a Saanich Peninsula Environmental
Advisory Committee, and I do think
that's a worthwhile goal.
So, hopefully, when the strat planning
happens on the next council, they'll
give consideration to that.
And in particular around the bioregional
diversity, but you know, we we live in a
an area that's very interconnected in
the environment and impacts of climate
change. They don't respect borders. So,
I think we lose we lose focus that we
try to fix things in our own
municipality, and we don't realize how
they they are so interconnected, and you
don't have to look further than the
connection to Reay or well, it's a creek
from North Saanich to Sidney and all the
years of the industrial work on the
airport, which led to cadmium in Reay
Creek pond and the work that had to be
done to remediate that. So, there's the
connection there that happened between
two municipalities, and then, of course,
there's the coastal shoreline that so
much of it is shared. So, I do think
this is a it's something that's kind of
something that we we always have in our eye sightlines and we're focused
on, but we do need to look at it from
the perspective of the entire peninsula
because we we do impact each other in
decisions we make, and I think sometimes
that gets a little bit lost in the
shuffle. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Thank you, Counselor. Counselor Duncan,
please.
>> Yeah, thank you.
Counselor O'Keefe, for the
motion.
Um
I was disappointed by SPECS' report. I feel this is something that they they put a lot of work in,
but I feel the same people are sitting
at the table still representing the
community, and I know when they came to
present,
I said, you know, based on what we've
seen, I feel the municipalities have
kind of
reached the low-hanging fruit, and we've
and probably beyond that, and our
frameworks are decent, and we should
have been able to achieve these things
even with just what we have in place.
Like more administration, more
bureaucracy, more paper pushing is not
what's necessary. Um where we'd run into
limitations was actually then when we've
tried to implement things
um on public land where it bordered
private land, the private land owners
blocked us. Literally five people were
able to block the entire town of Sydney
from managing our own parks. So, I said
the people who actually have the power
remaining
that we have seen, just like with
housing,
right? are private land owners. And the
private land owners are not at the spec
table. This is a bunch of community
members who say, "We want other people
to do things, and we want the
municipalities to force people who
aren't us to do things with their land."
And until those private land owners are
actually at that table, it's not going
to happen. And so, I
I'm okay with this I'm happy to have
this go forward for strategic planning
if what it means councils are going to
say
once this is under our priority, and
we're going to allocate tax money to
doing this,
we will do the community engagement, and
therefore we will make sure that the
private land owners who actually control
the shorefront property, who control the
green space that they own,
can actually will will be on board and
will do what they want. Because that's
currently not being done. And when I
asked Spec about it, they didn't even
seem to
acknowledge that that was what did need
to be done, and that those were the
community people who needed to be
engaged.
This wasn't a limitation of government,
just like with housing.
>> Thank you, Councillor Duncan.
See uh Councillor O'Keefe for a second
time.
>> Yeah, sure. I just um comment I I agree
with uh Councillor Duncan. There's
certainly a role for private land owners
to to step in that step up on that. But
what I heard through the workshops is
like some tangible tangible
uh examples of how we could as uh
municipal governments, uh work better
together. One of the examples given was
about the tree canopy. And that we all
do our separate analysis of our tree
canopy, which involves sending somebody
up in an airplane, and they they take
pictures and that sort of thing. And um
I
what I found out is that all three of us
paid to do that separately. And so, that
was just one example of if we were all
kind of had our
kind of ducks lined up in a row, and we
all knew what we were working on, we
could that would be an area that we
could work on together and save the
taxpayers money. So, I think there are
some tangible things in there just as an
example. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I see no further discussion a
discussion. I'll call the question.
Those in favor?
Uh that carries unanimous. Thank you.
And so, that completes the four items
that were brought forward from our last
agenda. We'll move to the first item on
tonight's agenda.
Under bylaws 8A is bylaw number 2302
amenity cost charges, also known as
ACCs. I'll turn to our director of
finance, Mr. Hiscock, please. Good
evening.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
The ACCs are new development financing
tool introduced around the time that the
town embarked on an update of our DCC
program.
ACCs are intended to help fund certain
amenities that are not eligible for
DCCs.
An amenity is a facility or feature that
provides social, cultural, heritage,
recreational, or environmental benefits
to a community.
And they include the following common
examples.
Recreation centers, um
athletic facilities, libraries, public
squares.
You will notice that many of these
services that I just listed are not
provided directly by the town.
And um as a result, we have more work to
do in finding a way to maximize the
benefit of ACCs through partnerships
with other service providers. For
example, subregional recreation.
For this initial ACC program, we focused
on amenities identified through our
um ongoing parks planning process.
So, the rates proposed in this bylaw
have already been approved by council.
This bylaw, when adopted, will put them
into effect.
And these rates are very modest when
compared to our DCC rates.
Now, I'm pleased to report that we were
informed late last week that our DCC
bylaw received ministerial approval,
and it will be brought forward for
adoption in September.
And the town will also bring forward a
waivers and reductions bylaw in
September to complete the package.
And if council has any more questions
about the report, I'd be pleased to
address.
>> Uh thank you, Mr. Hiscock, and thank you
for sharing the good news. Uh
I'll turn to Councillor Keith with
questions.
>> Uh thank you. So, in questions that I
sent um this afternoon, my understanding
is that so things like say uh new
facilities for arts theater, the museum,
or maybe a public square could
potentially be uh funded through ACCs,
but there would be some additional work
and analysis and cost specific costing
um
would be required for that, and my
understanding is the staff would
maybe be looking at uh
coming up with another list of potential
things to add to the list maybe sometime
in the in the next term, my
understanding is correct.
>> Um that is correct, Councillor. We focused
in this initial iteration on on plans we
already had
um
to create something brand new will take
some time and certainly we'd be coming
to council with some um
initial recommendations and uh seeking
direction in what you would like to see
included and
things like um
art seer museum facilities uh council
has to make a conscious decision for the
town to take on funding for those
external agencies and only with with
that direction would be build them into
a future ACC program.
>> Right. Okay. Yeah, thank you. And um
yeah, thank you for your comment about
Panorama recreation cuz that was another
one that I I was uh thinking about and
um so my understanding is
that the the uh
Peninsula recreation Panorama recreation
wouldn't necessarily uh initiate that on
their own. So that would need to be
initiated by the three local governments
to uh I guess instruct or direct the the
commission to come up with a uh sub
regional
um ACC then. That would have to come
from us.
Just
confirming that's my understanding.
>> Um
because uh
essentially the facilities under
uh Panorama rec are technically owned by
um the CRD. They would be the ones who
would have to enact a sub regional um
charge
um
similar to what is in place right now
for sewer and and water
and um they would be the ones collecting
it for us and it would require buy-in
from all three.
>> Right. Okay.
And I guess just one more question. So
when I looked at what we're charging for
ACC some of those ACC projects and
before ACCs I looked at those and
thought, "Oh, those are things that we
probably in the past would have covered
with through our community amenity
charges, through bonus density, or
through one of the funding uh
mechanisms we get from the federal
provincial government. So, as we start
collecting on these, I presume that
we'll see like
separate accounts about what we can what
we can use for certain things. I guess
when it comes to to budget time for to
help council clarify
uh
what sort of reserves or
uh pockets of funding that we will have
to take some of these things out out of
cuz there seems like there could be a
bit of crossover, perhaps.
Did it Does that make sense?
>> I'll take that as a question and um
>> Yeah.
» As we do now and we will continue to do,
we will bring forward our
recommendations for funding absolutely
everything and give you a fairly
complete picture of
what is available beyond what we're
recommending.
>> Okay, that's fine. Thank you.
>> Uh thank you, counselor.
Um
seeing no further discussion, we could
we can proceed with separate motions for
first, second, and third reading.
Councilor Garnett, please.
>> Sure.
I'll move the bylaw number 2302 amenity
cost charge uh give it being first
reading.
>> Second.
>> Uh all in favor?
Carries unanimous.
>> Move second reading.
>> Second.
>> We have the same movers. Uh this is the
time for any discussion. I'll turn to our colleagues. Any
discussion? Seeing none, those in favor?
Motion carries unanimous.
>> And I'll move third reading.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. All in favor?
Uh that carries unanimous and as Mr.
Hiscock indicated, that will come uh to
a future meeting. Uh and as I understand
it from the report, Mr. Hissink, that
will come forward at the same time as
the uh DCC uh final adoption?
>> It should be on the first meeting in
September along with um
the waivers and reductions bylaw for
three readings.
>> Excellent. Thank you.
So, we're now turning to uh section 9,
the development permits and development
variance permits. Under 9A, we have
development variance permit application
number DV100396
at 404 9870 2nd Street to permit a heat
pump on the balcony within the front
yard. Uh, we have a report and I'll turn
back to our director of community
planning, Ms. Verhagen.
>> Thank you.
So, this is a variance application, as
you indicated, to to vary the location
of a heat pump in order to allow one on
a balcony in what's considered the front
yard of this property. As the report
says, the zoning bylaw allows heat pumps
in interior side yards and rear yards.
This location on the residence's balcony
is considered within the front yard. Um,
they've submitted a letter of rationale
explaining the reasons for their
request.
From staff's perspective, it would have
minimal impact on the streetscape. It's
proposed to be screened with a cover.
Uh, we do have requirements in our noise
bylaw for maximum volume from heat pumps
in terms of decibels, so it would comply
with that as well. So, we are
recommending that we proceed with a
variance with with a radius mailout.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Thank you. Any uh questions from
colleagues? Uh, Councillor Garnett,
please.
>> Uh, thank you, Mayor uh three to staff.
Um, having read the letter and thank you
to the applicants
for their letter of rationale. Um,
noting that and one of my first
questions when I saw this on the agenda
was, you know, what are the strata
rules? And it was right there right away
answered that it was a they were given a
medical accommodation, so very
appreciative of that. And having walked
by a few times, I can see that that it's definitely not going to be
intrusive from looking at the street or
anywhere else for that matter. Um,
we don't we won't meet till that's
another four or five four weeks, I
believe, or five weeks. This will come
back probably the next regular
council meeting on the 14th of
September.
Um six weeks left of summer.
Um noting in their letter
that temperatures reach more than 26° C
and seeing this summer or earlier this
spring that medical professionals are
now saying that's considered unsafe to
be in an in a in a habitable space at
that temperature.
Um
Respecting the recommendation, does
council have the purview to uh bypass
the mail out notification and just
approve the variance? Um I'm not sure
where they are in the process of how
quickly they want to install it in terms
of when the summer is, you know, we
still may be into some substantial heat
uh based on what's been going on. So,
I'm just curious what powers we have in that being.
>> Sure.
Um through the mayor, I will defer to
Mr. Edwards on this one, but I do
believe the Local Government Act does
require the radius mail out. That is a
legislative requirement, so I don't
believe it's something that can be
skipped.
>> Sure.
>> I'm seeing a nod from uh CEO Edwards, so
>> Yeah, I would um concur with that
>> Okay.
>> uh assessment.
>> Thank you. Just uh I think the
applicants are in the audience, so I
just wanted to
let you know that this is the process we
have to follow, and so I understand your
the difficulties you're experiencing,
but um the process has to play out based
on what we're allowed to do, so. Thank
you, Mayor.
>> Thank you, Councillor Garnett, for the
consideration on this. Councillor
Duncan, please.
>> Yeah, thank you. I I Sorry, I
probably should have emailed staff about
this earlier so they could have followed
up, but I was trying to figure out
exactly what my question was going to
be. Um but
the fact that this applicant required,
you know, kind of a medical request in
order to get around their um
strata requirements, and I think that as
Councillor Garnett pointed out, you
know, that that could leave a lot of
people like in a in a problem for a long
time, so it no longer becomes a medical
problem, because they've passed away
from the heat. I also would be concerned
about the fact that not everybody who
could end up in a problem
would know about it with enough notice.
I'm thinking of people who didn't know
they were going to get pregnant, and
then they become pregnant, and now
they're very susceptible to the heat.
Probably not going to happen in this
building, but there's many other
buildings that that's going to be, you
know, a problem, or people with pets,
you know, I'd hate to think of
some, you know, dogs in hot apartments.
Um, and so I'm just wondering if this is
something our staff has started speaking
to our kind of like emergency response
personnel, or PEMA, about our bylaw as
it stands, that if we now have these
heat pumps, that some of, you know, our
concerns about the noise and being able
to film on the balconies is kind of no
longer as much of a problem, that
whether we should be looking at
making it easier for people to install
these without requiring these variances.
» Uh, CEO Wiquist. Okay, uh, thank you,
Mayor. Um,
through you to Councillor Duncan,
staff have not, uh, been having
discussions about this. Um, it has not
been raised as a
concern. Um,
and for the most part, it is a
restriction in in most municipalities
in terms of placing heat pumps in what's
determined front yards.
So, um,
yeah, I don't foresee it as being a crucial
issue for the town of Sidney, um, at the
moment, um,
but it is something that could be looked
into. But,
at this time I don't feel that it is
something that, uh,
would warrant amending our our bylaw, or
So, I'm not sure if that answers your
question, but
>> It does that that it hasn't been raised
by, you know, first responders and we
can see the reason
>> raised in terms of bylaws being barriers
to installing
heat pumps or other cooling mechanisms.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you, Mr. Edwards. Ms. Reagan, did
you wish to add
>> Um just to add a comment there that the
applicant may There may be other cooling
options available to them like a
portable air conditioner unit that
wouldn't necessa- that wouldn't kind of
be in violation of the zoning bylaw. So,
they may have another option. I'm not
sure.
>> Okay. Thank you.
I'm sorry. We just We just don't allow
members of the public to speak while
we're in in deliberations, so.
Um Councillor Minto.
>> I'm happy to move the recommendation if
you're ready.
>> Please.
>> I'll move the recommendation that owners
and tenants in occupation of property
within 75 m 246 ft of 9870 2nd St. be
notified regarding development variance
application number DV100396
to permit a heat pump on the balcony
within the front yard of the subject
property and that any written
correspondence received before date of
council at time of consideration
approval of variance.
>> Second.
>> We have it moved and seconded. Anything
from the movers?
>> Just briefly, like my colleagues, I
would have been happy to approve the
variance this evening if we had the
capacity to do so. I think I noted in
the letter I didn't pull it back up, but
you've got portable air conditioners two
of them, that's right, that are
helping out by using a lot of
electricity and no doubt much noisier
than the new heat pumps. So, I
sympathize
with your position and thank you for
your patience with the process that
we're going through. I support the
motion. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Novik.
>> Uh and likewise, I feel that a portable air conditioner
is a lot more
as Councillor Minto said, noisier and a
lot more unsightly in a window than a
screened heat pump sitting on the floor
of a balcony. But, that's the way the the rules work. So, uh yeah, I'm
happy to move this along and hopefully
uh
hopefully the proponents can get their
heat pump installed before the last uh
heatwave of summer.
>> Thank you. Counselor O'Keefe.
>> Uh thank you. Uh I'll support this for
sure, but going back to Counselor
Duncan's
um
comments, I I'm be interested
maybe next term, if we're still here, to
investigate that further. I know that
some municipalities are making it a
requirement in their
development proposals that there has to
be at least one room that stays below a
certain temperature, so they have people
have some sort of reprieve uh from when
there's a
uh
heatwave. Um I think in some
municipalities, it's just a standard
rule, I believe, but I'm not sure about uh
that stratus can't prevent people from
um having Anyways, I think there's a a
bunch of things there that I'd be
interested in in looking at. To to
Counselor Duncan's point, making it
easier for people to install heat pumps,
rather than having to come to us to ask
for a variance. So,
something for another day.
Thank you.
>> I'll turn to Ms. Breagan, please.
>> Sure, thank you. Through the merit of
Counselor O'Keefe, uh what you're
speaking about there in terms of the
requirement to have a a cooler room in
the dwelling unit, that is a building
code requirement for new construction.
So, all new developments would have that
built into the building. It's harder to
retrofit an older building. Yeah.
>> Thank you.
And so, we have it moved, and we've had
discussion. I'll call the question. All
in favor?
I can hear it's unanimous. Thank you.
And we're turning to uh 9B, development
variance permit application number
DV100397
at 10249 Forsythia Place to
retroactively relax the minimum
interior side setback along the west lot
line to allow the deck addition.
Uh we have a report and I'll turn to uh
Mr. Hagan again, please.
>> Thank you.
Um all right, so this is another
variance application. They're looking to
retroactively allow a reduction to the
interior side lot line setback, which is
the west lot line of this property.
Uh from a
required 2-m setback to a 1.48-m
setback, which is just over half a
meter.
Um there was construction found to be
happening there without a permit and
once the information started to come in
as they worked to apply for the permit
that was required.
Uh small corner of the addition that
would had been built was found to be
within the setback area. So, the
applicant has provided a letter here
with the application. Uh there was a
deck in this location previously. So,
adding a structure there may have
minimal impact on the neighborhood. Uh
staff's recommendation is again to
proceed with the radius mailout. I'd be happy to
answer any questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. I'll turn to colleagues, is
there any questions?
Uh seeing none, we can proceed with uh
staff recommendation.
Councillor Granath.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. I'll move that uh
owners and tenants in occupation of
property within 75 m, that's 246 ft of
10 10249 Forsythia Place be notified
regarding development variance
application number DV100397
to retroactively reduce the minimum
interior side yard setback from 2 m to
1.48 m along the west lot line of the
subject property and that any written
correspondence received before the
council at the time of consideration of
approval of the variance.
>> Second.
>> And second, I'll turn to the movers.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh yeah, I mean I I
appreciate the fact that the applicant
has reached out especially specifically
to um neighbors, but specifically to the
one that's most impacted, which is at
10251
uh 1st Ave right to the right next door
to them and that would be the people
that would be most negatively impacted
by this.
And I I do appreciate looking at the
letter of rationale that mentioned the
previous zoning bylaw and it is important to note that, you know,
the the zoning bylaw was adopted in
2024. So, this process started much
after that. So,
that particular point is not that
relevant. Um
as far as the the
having the the rest of the neighborhood
and whoever wants to comment on it, I'm
fully supportive of it.
I do I do again have concerns based on
past applications where
permits have not been obtained when they
should have been. And in this case, it
seems like there was an engineer or
somebody involved in the development.
And so, I don't know how they didn't
manage to measure to what the zoning
bylaw allows. But again, this is
you hire somebody and you expect they're
going to do the work that you that you
hire them for. So, you know, and it's
one of those things where it's really
difficult to hold the owner to account
for something. But um
hopefully this will be a lesson for
other people out that are watching that,
you know, please get your permits.
They're It's not government overreach.
It's there for a reason. It's there to
protect your neighbors and the rest of
the community. So, thank you, Mayor.
>> Thank you, Councillor. Councillor
Duncan.
>> Yeah, thanks. Uh I'll just say we we get
these sort of applications, you know,
fairly regular regularly for variances.
They're kind of typically what a
variance is for that your lot is a an
odd shape or or something. But um
I think also the fact that uh
we get a lot of people who were just
building on a footprint that was already
built on. And so, they assume that it's
fine because it wouldn't have been built
that way before. Um but uh
in in Sydney, a lot of buildings,
particularly in the older neighborhoods,
were built even before there was many
even Sydney specific building rules, you
know, in the 1980s.
I I think my old house was measured with
an elbow. Like it was not
it was definitely definitely too close
to the rear lot line.
And so I think a lot of contractors and homeowners think if it was built
this way before it's it's legal. So just
we're hoping that contractors in
particular will start rechecking to make
sure that the the new bylaws that there
are bylaws
are are in place and
maybe save people some grief even though
it doesn't really cause a problem to the
surrounding neighbors. You're used to
what you're used to, but it would
certainly probably save homeowner grief
and developer grief.
>> Thank you, counselor.
Seeing no further discussion, I'll look
to call the question. Those in favor?
That carries unanimous. Thank you.
And so we have no mayor's report or
counselor's reports this evening. We're
turning to the one committee report that
we have. It's come from we're receiving
the minutes from the Saugeen Peninsula
Accessibility Advisory Committee on
at their June 23rd meeting.
Uh Counselor O'Keefe, you are our
representative on that committee and
there is a recommendation if you'd like
to move that forward, please.
>> Sure. I'll just start if I may with just
a couple highlights from the meeting.
Um in regards to um
there's several members of the committee
that wanted to pass along their
appreciation for the additional
accessible viewing and accessible
parking areas that uh the town provided
along with uh Peninsula Celebrations for
the um the fireworks evening and then
the parade, additional viewing areas,
additional parking, also additional
parking at Iroquois Park. So all of
those things were really well received
and they wanted me to make sure that uh
council knew about that and staff knew
about that and they were grateful and
kudos to all uh for supporting that.
Um the other thing that came up
regarding Sydney was the wayfinding
markings
um and uh
during public participation um that was
mentioned. And this is the um
they're talking about the way the the
lines are scored at the intersections
for visually impaired people. So, one of
the individuals on the committee, his
wife is blind, and they actually did a
whole tour around Sydney and came up
with a whole pile of a long list of
places where these are still not aligned
correctly. And the committee uh thought
about making a recommendation, but at
staff's uh suggestion, instead um
they're inviting engineering staff to
come to the next meeting and have kind
of a discussion about that. So, we
thought that that was a good a good
first step.
Um in terms of the recommendation, I'll
uh
I'll go along with that is uh regarding
the Right Fit program. And the
recommendation,
it's uh a little bit different than
what's in the agenda based on some input
from staff. Um so, the motion is that
council direct staff to collaborate with
North Saanich and Central Saanich on the
development of a process to identify
adaptable and accessible units for
sharing with the Right Fit program.
» We have it moved.
>> Second.
>> And seconded by Councillor Nault. Uh
Councillor Lee?
>> Yeah, so the Right Fit program has been
operating in the Vancouver area since
about 2017.
And what they do is they create and
maintain an inventory of housing that's
available and accessible for wheelchair
users. Um housing is hard to find uh for
a lot of people, but it's especially
really, really difficult for people who
have wheelchairs or mobility uh
devices. So, what Next Fit or Right Fit
does is they go out to the community,
they ask people to let them know if they
have have spaces or not. They have an
inventory of those of those spaces, and
then they have an inventory of
individuals who need those. And then so
they do a sort of a matching program. Um
they also go out to the actual suite
themselves and conduct uh an analysis
based on a certain number of parameters
that they have to ensure that is it it's
accessible.
So, in Sydney, as you know, we have been
asking developers to uh have 20% of
their suites to be adaptable and uh
which is great, but there's never been a
way to match those up to the people who
could actually do that. And so, the
Right Fit is proposing that they could
take that on. Uh when we discussed this
at SPARC, um staff felt that it wouldn't
be uh terribly onerous, um that it could
be something as simple as when
developers come forward and they're
doing their 20% uh adaptable units, that
they be asked to contact the Right Fit
people to let them know about it. And
the thing that's in it for the
developers is you've got another
organization out there marketing those
suites for you. So, they've got a whole
list of people who are looking looking
for that type of accommodation. So,
that's an advantage to them. There's no
cost. Um
so, the idea is that uh
the three municipalities work to kind of
fine-tune some sort of process.
>> Thank you. I'll turn to the second
group.
Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Uh
the specific motion before us is just uh
you know, asking staff to collaborate
with uh the three municipalities in the
peninsula uh
you know, to look to to further this and
uh come up with maybe a manner in which
this uh can work uh efficiently for for
staff and for the community at large.
So, um
I support it and I do think our
community likes to see initiatives where
the three peninsula municipalities are
working together. Councillor Keith, we
referred to that earlier with the tree
canopy.
And that may be some foreshadowing for
future agenda items with 3R 2
cooperation on the peninsula.
>> Thank you, Mayor.
>> Thank you, Councillor.
Seeing no further discussion, I'll look
to call a quick Oh, Councillor Duncan,
please.
>> Yeah, thank you. I'd had a note to to
ask about the intersection. So, thank
you to former Councillor Falat for
bringing that forward, but I guess my
question a question I guess to
either SPAC if they had were going to
move this or or maybe our staff um that
where MOT's jurisdiction ends and they
had recommendations kind of saying
wayfinding ends here and it could, you
know, once it moves off, it would it's
going to be a different standard. Part
of that is the Lochside Trail, which is
CRD's jurisdiction.
Part of it is is Sidney's and so our
staff are aware. We're sitting on the
council or, you know, what they've heard
this and they they sit on the committee.
Is there a mechanism for us to make sure
that the CRD hears about these
wayfinding requirements? If this is I
I'm actually floored this was MOT's
first time ever making this kind of
stuff and it sounds to me like therefore
we should really let the CRD know about
this cuz this is going to be happening
throughout all the other jurisdictions.
Do we have a way to amplify that to
them?
» Not seeing Councillor Keith with any
comments.
>> Oh, one of them I'm just kind of looking
at it.
>> [laughter]
>> Well, I
>> So, what I would say is so, um the the
update that we got from uh Ms. Falat
this evening, that hasn't gone So, SPAC
isn't
necessarily aware of what's going to be
happening next. So, they hadn't had a
chance to review it. I guess what I'm
hoping is that the staff on behalf of
council did send a letter to MOTTI. So,
I'm what I'm hoping is that they now
that they've gone and assessed it and
that we sent a letter to them that they
will respond.
>> You know
Sorry, counselor Kiefer, we're not
directly speaking to the motion.
>> Oh, I was just responding to your
question.
>> Okay, but your question was with with
regards to CRD.
>> Okay, and I guess
the answer is no, SPAC isn't
doing anything at this time. And I was
elaborating as to why.
>> Does staff have any comment with regards
to what's being undertaken and and CRD
becoming aware or being made aware?
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. Um I believe yeah,
we are off topic cuz this is not
relevant to the motion that's being
considered right now, but um
uh we can ensure that
we connect with the CRD staff about the
uh intersection issue and and and
make them aware of what what's happening
there.
>> Thank you.
And CRD does have a accessibility
advisory committee as well.
With some local representation.
Um thank you, Counselor Duncan, for
>> I thought if I just didn't ask it now,
we'd go past this report, so.
>> We appreciate the question.
Uh seeing no further discussion, uh
those in favor?
That carries unanimous. Thank you so
much.
And uh next we're turning to uh the
first of our four staff reports. And and
the first under 13A is Radio Sidney's
application for an FM broadcasting
license.
Uh we have a report from our manager of
communications and our fire chief. I'll
turn to our manager of communications,
Ms. Judson, for an introduction, please.
>> Thank you very much. Uh so, this report
seeks council's consideration
uh of a letter of support for Radio
Sydney's application to the CRTC for an
FM broadcasting license. And as part of
that, a radio transmitter would be
installed on the top of the community
safety building.
Uh Radio Sydney already shares local
information and connects residents with
community news and events. Expanding to
the FM broadcast would further expand
that reach. Um but for us, what's
especially important is that during an
emergency, it would be a way of getting
information out, especially if hydro or
cellular service, internet connection
was disrupted. And it's for these
reasons that staff recommends that
council provide that letter of support.
And you'll find in the staff report,
there are two maps because this
transmitter that Radio Sydney would
provide would have a reach between two
and five kilometers. Uh although in
areas where there's um
uh
more mountainous, it wouldn't reach the
full 5K. It can give you a sense of how
far that transmitter could reach. And if
in future the town of Sydney wanted to
invest in a stronger radio transmitter,
then that could be greatly expanded. But
at this time, this proposal is looking
at the transmitter that Radio Sydney
currently has.
Thank you.
>> Thank you for the introduction. Are
there any questions?
If not, we have a recommendation.
Councillor Novik.
>> I'm happy to make the recommendation
that the mayor provide a letter of
support for Radio Sydney's application
to the Canadian Radio Television
Telecommunications Commission for an FM
broadcasting license. Bracket CFVI
92.7 FM.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. All in favor?
>> Yeah. Uh I
don't really have much to add to what
Ms. Judson uh reported, but I think that
would be a great asset for the town.
Thank you.
>> Councillor Garnet.
>> Thank you, Mayor. And I just because I
see Mr. Collins in the audience, uh want
to signal him out and want to you for
the uh presentation that we had
previously and thank you for your
continued work locally in the community.
In a day and age when
local media in general is disappearing
across the country, I think I mentioned
this before,
opening the door to misinformation and
disinformation and I think it's
you've you've gone above and beyond with
the emergency, but I think you are
already provide such great
community asset and um
it's been very much appreciated. Thank
you. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Thank you,
uh Counselor Gnannt and I was going to
express some of that myself. So, thank
you and and let's stay tuned for uh
CFVI 92.7 sometime in sometime in the
not too distant future. We'll have that
letter pronto subject to this
recommendation. I'll call the question.
All in favor?
Motion carries unanimous. Thank you.
Returning to now 13B, which is a
contract award for RFP 2026-008,
sidewalks/road
improvements
capital projects for 2026.
Uh and engineering design report, I'll
turn to our director of engineering, Mr.
Murphy, who's joining us online this
evening. Good evening, Mr. Murphy.
>> Good evening, Mayor and Council. Can you
hear me all right?
>> Absolutely.
>> Great.
Uh so, yes, this is to request Council
approval for an RFP award.
Uh RFP 2026-008
for sidewalks and road improvements
engineering design. And so, this was
posted publicly. We had 10 submissions,
uh which we evaluated and ended up with
two very highly ranked submissions.
Fortunate to have high quality
submissions on this project.
And
uh the The of work is for the design
phase for three sidewalks and road
improvement projects.
Uh those being Canora Road,
two segments on Ocean Avenue West and
5th Street, Malabu to Amelia.
And so the proposal is to award the
design of all three projects to one
engineering consulting firm. Uh however,
each project would progress
independently.
And so the the analysis, uh which is
outlined, recommends award to RF Binnie
and Associates.
And
the an important point is that
committing to the designs for which we do have capital budget funds already
allocated for each of these projects, uh
committing to the design work is not a
commitment to construct.
So we know in particular for Canora
Road, uh that we expect that to be a uh
fullsome process starting with the
concepts for the road layout. And what
features from uh rain gardens and street
parking
uh
to a more minimal approach. Uh so we we
hope to to generate likely three
concepts and then have a neighborhood
engagement phase.
And collect feedback and then decide
which concept and it may
uh likely come back to council for input
on which concept to move forward with
based on the neighborhood engagement. Uh
and then proceed through through
detailed design.
Uh Ocean Avenue West similarly, uh we
expect to have some concepts uh and we
know that
uh
that we're not committed to constructing
one or either or neither of the two
segments east and west that are proposed
at this time, but there is value in
there's a lot of value in proceeding
with the detailed design so that we have
designs ready
for when
through budget deliberations that
council decides it is time to build
those sidewalk segments
or
many grant programs, particularly
federal and provincial,
look for shovel ready projects. And so
having some uh
you know, high profile sidewalk projects
ready
even if we don't proceed to construction
does create opportunities for a grant in
the future. The 5th Street project is
probably the most likely to proceed
straight to construction being more more
relatively straightforward and
a neighborhood focused project. Um but
yes, so we'd like to award the
engineering design and then
construction decisions would come later.
>> Thank you very much for the
introduction, Mr. Murphy. Are there any
questions from colleagues?
I'm not seeing any. Are there any? We do
have a recommendation?
» Thank you, Mayor. I'll move. Sorry, you
didn't call on me. I should wait, I
guess.
I'll move that RFP 2026-008
Sidewalks Road Improvements Capital
Projects 2026 Engineering Design be
awarded to R.F. Binnie and Associates
Limited for the contract amount of
$157,068
plus applicable taxes plus allowance for
scope changes and addition additional
sub consultant fees as approved by
staff.
>> Second.
>> I'll take Counselor Duncan as the
seconder. Are there any other movers?
>> Yeah, thank you, Mayor, and thank you,
Mr. Murphy, for the report and thank you
for the extra questions you answered for
me today. Um I think the the rationale
for staff's choice is quite strong. Um
you went way more in depth than I ever
expected, so I appreciate that very
much. Um you know, the
this is an important step towards
getting these really important
infrastructure projects off the ground
and and and headed in the right
direction. Um
particularly Kenora, which will be very
challenging, so it's good that we're
getting ahead of this. Um that's a long
overdue project as someone who's lived
in that neighborhood for close to 30
years. So, I'm I'm I'm hopeful that um
the public feedback will provide what we
need to know or what the council of the
day will need to know uh in terms of
which path to take forward, so thank you
for your work. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Thank you, Counselor uh Counselor
Duncan.
>> Nothing to add, thank you.
>> Any other speakers?
Seeing none, I'll call the question.
Those in favor?
It carries unanimous. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Murphy.
Uh we are turning to item 13C, which is
the budget variance report for the first
half of 2026. I'll turn to our manager
of finance, Ms. Chen.
Good evening.
>> Good evening. Thank you very much.
Uh this variance report covers
approximately the first half of 2026.
The numbers in the reports reflect
information available up to the date of
the report, not just the 6-month mark.
So, as a result, year-to-date actuals
for some subfunctions will be over um
50%, but that doesn't necessarily
indicate a problem that it's over
budget. Uh for example, personnel costs
should be around the 56% mark in the
report. Um additionally, a lot of costs
and activities aren't incurred or
completed evenly throughout the year.
And where things are not quite incurred
or completed evenly, that's described in
some of the notes in the report as well.
So, on the operating side, the
year-to-date actuals are mostly in line
with expectations. Right now, we're
expecting some savings on the RCMP
contract this year due to a credit we
received from a final reconciliation of
prior year costs.
Actual year-end results um will largely
depend on the level of officer vacancies
we see for the remainder of the year.
Right now, we've been seeing a
decreasing trend in vacancies. That's
great news for the level of service that
the community receives, but it does also
just come at a higher cost. So, it's
something we monitor closely to ensure
our future budgets align with the trends
that we're seeing.
Um one other thing worth noting on the
operating side is that we're now uh have
two quarters now with utility billing
using the new sewer rates and rate
structure that council approved earlier
in the year. So, sewer revenue to date
is definitely on track with the budget
expectations.
Um and you know, these things these kind
of changes we need more time and more
experience in working with it to know
its long-term effect in this, but so far
the uh indications are very positive
that the new structure is doing what
it's intended.
On the capital side, uh 45 of the 99
capital projects in this year's budget
are either complete or in progress, and
many more um have planning underway just
haven't incurred any direct costs just
yet. Summer and fall are always our uh
busiest construction season for our
capital projects, and by the time of the
next variance report in about 3 months,
we'll have more information on which
projects will be completed this year and
which ones will need to be carried
forward for completion next year.
So, in total the report contains 51
notes providing details on various
operating and capital items. Um some of
those notes cover more than one line
item, and we'd be happy to answer any
remaining questions.
>> Uh thank you, Ms. Chen, for the
introduction. I'll turn to colleagues if
uh there are questions on the report.
Uh Councillor Kiefer, please.
>> Uh thanks. Just a couple little things.
Um so, in the the on the last page you
mentioned um there have been some areas
that have faced challenges in the first
year and you'll be closely monitoring
those. I wonder are we experiencing any
challenges with
the uh the tariff environment, you know,
in terms of increased costs for
computers or equipment that or parts
that engineering uses for waters or
sewer or vehicles? Have we seen any uh
kind of implications of impacts of that?
>> Uh Mr. Hiscock, would you like to take
that one?
>> Sure, thank you, Mr. Mayor. There have
been some impacts on vehicle purchases,
which I believe we we've identified
for council um
on a couple of occasions.
Beyond that, nothing specifically tied
to tariffs, just um
general inflation that's
been accumulating over the last
5 years or so has not really abated to
the level we had hoped.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Thank you for the question.
Seeing no uh Councillor Gignac, please.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. Uh through to staff
and just looking at B13 Harbor Road pump
station and B14 trenchless sewer
replacement for the three streets
mentioned
and the grant funding that was not
successful.
Um
given we're
budgets are provincially and federally,
do we have concerns? I mean, this is
kind of a large question, I guess, but
um
until financial situation's better
geopolitically speaking, which trickle
down to every other level of government,
do we have concerns about
um
our ability to finance things
with with the potential for lack of
grant funding for some of our larger
projects going forward?
» Mr. Hiscock?
>> Uh
>> Um not I would say not really because
grant programs are always out there and
there was more being announced and
discussed
constantly especially in relation to
housing and the infrastructure to
support it.
It's just a matter of um
every grant program is over subscribed
and we're
hoping to get lucky on one out of every
X number of applications we
did get a $5 million grant a few years
ago so I'm sure
well I'm guessing that factors somewhat
into the way they tend to dole it out
somewhat equally but even today we met
about
potential grant applications that we
might put in for the next intake on
different programs.
>> Okay. Thank you. I think I think it's
just important for the community to
realize that
if somebody if somebody takes the time
to read this report and I'm not sure how
many people will but if they do that
it's important to note that you know we
our our staff are well aware and plan
accordingly so you know we don't we
aren't relying on the grant funding and
then I think it's important for the
residents of the community to be aware
of that. Thank you mayor.
>> Thank you counselor.
I'm seeing no further questions. I want
to thank Ms. Shannon and the finance
department for putting this report that
comes to us regularly
through the year. We very much
appreciate the detail that's provided in
both the operating and the and the
capital budget.
We're next turning to also an item for information the monthly building
report for the month of July. I did make
reference to the monthly building report
from June but that was carried forward
from the last meeting.
So we are seeing an updated report in
July. Are there any questions or
comments from colleagues on that report?
Counselor Granath.
>> Thank you mayor. Through you to staff
just noting on on the back of the first
page um
2060 White Birch and 2180 Beacon that
have September dates.
Do we have any updates on where those
are in the process?
» Uh yes, thank you. Through the mayor, uh
both of those have active building
permit applications under review and
both are aware that the development
permits will be expiring soon.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Thank you,
mayor.
>> Thank you for the question.
Um seeing no others, we'll turn to the
next item and that does take us up to
correspondence.
And under 14A, we have uh CRD bylaw
number 4782,
Saanich Peninsula Recreation Service
uh for the District of Central Saanich
Recreation Facility and the Loan
Authorization Bylaw number 2 2026.
We've received and the letter is from
the CRD dated July 10th is on our
agenda.
Uh and as well on the agenda, we have a
copy of the letter from District of
Central Saanich's a consideration and
some links to additional information uh
provided by uh CRD at the on the panel
or on the recreation uh website.
Uh council, we have considered a
proposal previously. Uh so, this is
coming back and with a different scope
as we're aware.
Um as CRD has asked that we make a
recommendation to either consent or not
consent to adopting uh bylaw number
4782.
Uh when the first proposal came forward,
uh council uh chose to um
to allow a period of time for public
input uh before making a decision. So,
while uh there is the request uh for a
consideration of consent or not consent
this evening, uh council is open to
consider uh options for uh further uh
community consultation. I will leave it
to colleagues' uh wishes as to how they
uh wish to move forward.
Uh Councillor Garnett?
>> Uh I'm willing to move motion if that's
all right, mayor.
>> Uh please go ahead.
>> I'll move that we uh
defer or postpone the decision on this
item.
Uh CRD Bylaw 4782 until the regular
council meeting on September 14th.
>> Second.
>> We have it set moved and seconded. I'll
turn to you, Mr. Mayor.
>> Uh thank you, Mayor. I You know, we we
get a lot of the public to provide input
based on the first um
option of this that was brought forward,
and I think we should do the same again.
Um there has been a change, and I think
there are based on some of the feedback
I've I've received, many of the members
of the community don't realize that this
is the second option coming back. So, I
think it's just gives an extra time for
people to be associated with the item,
and I do think it would the decision
should be made with the full council on
uh when Councillor Duck is back.
Thank you.
>> Uh thank you. I'll turn to the second.
>> Uh
I'm thinking pretty much along the same
lines. Uh I have received some
additional information
from the um building proponents. I'm not
sure that it's sufficient to sway me,
but I would like to see this come before
a full council. Thank you.
>> Uh thank you.
Um I'll turn to Councillor Wintour then
Councillor Keith.
>> [clears throat]
>> Uh thank you, Mayor.
Um
Uh you know, on on the point with
respect to uh
tabling this, uh giving the community
time to provide uh feedback on it. Um
I don't think the feedback's going to
change. We we've had uh feedback on this
matter. So, the amount is uh $3 million
less. Uh not to be exactly precise, but
it's $3 million less than it was last
time.
I don't think the the feedback
I don't expect it to to change.
And I expect [clears throat] that during
this time of year uh as we're getting to
August, um
you know, that people are going to have
this on their radar while they're in
holiday mode. Maybe I'm uh
um
maybe I'm wrong about that.
But, I think we're going to hear the
same thing. And um I would have been
happy tonight to move forward with this.
However, you know, I
the point regarding having a complete
council here
and being able to address it and not
get, you know, maybe in a position where
we've got a 3-3 tie vote and then this fails to move forward is is a
concern to me. Um I supported it last
time.
But you know, I supported it again. Um I can't speak to
uh my support at this time simply
because the motion before it is is to
table it. So I I I won't reiterate
my thoughts [clears throat] on the
tri-municipal cooperation or project of
this nature, but I I uh in the interest of I think keeping
this
uh alive and um a topic of discussion to
come before council again, I'll support
tabling. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Just a point of uh
clarification
on one point uh counselor, you you made
reference to I think a $3 million
difference. It is the loan authorization
was previously 14.2 and the loan
authorization on this is 9.1. So that is
a difference of just just over 5
million.
>> That's why math was not my strong point.
I understand. Thank you.
>> Just uh just for the public. Uh council,
we have um uh the CRD PRC senior manager
uh Steve uh Mickle uh in attendance. Uh
I would ask for a motion to invite Mr.
Mickle
uh into the meeting to answer any
questions that we might have and I do
have a question uh if we could um
have that motion.
>> So moved.
>> Second.
>> Moved and seconded. Uh all in favor?
That carries unanimous. Sorry, I did
have uh Counselor Keith next on the
speaking list, I believe.
>> Sure. I I just to say um I'm I'm in
favor of the motion. Um as Counselor
Wrentool said, it's summer time and
maybe people aren't tuned in, but uh
September maybe
people will at least at least we're
giving them the opportunity to weigh in.
Uh they may not, but I I think at least
giving the the opportunity is uh is
reasonable.
>> Thank you. Councillor Duncan, please.
>> Thank you. I'm I'm going to vote against
this motion.
While I recognize having Councillor
Duncan here would make the decision
whatever it is end up being stronger and
more final and not not run the risk of
it coming back.
I just think it's important to make the
point that if we're delaying this for I
think as Councillor Entwistle said more
public feedback, I don't know why. Um
I feel our society has moved into this
idea that if the more people are being
asked what their opinion is, that
somehow is making a decision stronger.
And we're not thinking about but whose
opinion is being asked and what
information are they using to
provide their opinion.
Um
because what what we see is that
the people of Sidney are saying and
usually they're very wealthy people. We
know that who pays attention and who
usually packs
uh the seats when when an issue comes up
are people who have They are people who
already have.
Um and have to spare. And they don't
want to pay more because
they already have. Um North Saanich and
Sidney already have have have
community facilities that are being paid
for by all three municipalities. Central
Saanich is paying and they do not have
something in their in their
municipality.
And now since our municipality feels
they have and they got theirs, they
don't want to have to pay for equity.
And that was a big criteria here was
that
we're trying to increase equity. No, you
can't just say the poor people will have
to buy cars so they can access their
community facilities. You are supposed
to be able to walk and bus.
Um these are facilities that are being
built where we know First Nations who've
written in
needed facilities. They are already
underserved. We already know this
municipality is underserved relative to
the other two, regardless of income
level. And we know that people who tend
to use these facilities who cannot
travel are lower income, seniors with
disabilities, um and lower income people
of all ages. This
is what we are going to get
is more feedback from more people who
are not looking at it through the lens
that the CRD or the that Panorama is
having to evaluate it, that governments
have to evaluate it at a higher level.
They're only looking at it from the
perspective of do I want to pay more for
somebody else to get something? And
people are always going to say don't
know to that, and they've proven that
time and again.
And I don't like the appearance that
simply having a lot of people come and
say
no
should be weighted very highly when the
reason they are saying no is not decent.
Thank you.
>> Uh thank you, Councillor Duncan.
Uh seeing no other speakers, I would
invite uh Mr. Meikle to if you could
come forward. We just have a a mic that
you can activate there, and and I have a
question.
Um my my question, and sorry, I I I know
you just joined the meeting, and thank
you. Um timing is we've we've had a
longer evening. Uh but there is a motion
on the floor to refer
uh refer this to a September meeting to
allow public input. But my question is uh thank you for the CRD uh project
page,
uh the links to the uh to the various
documents and an FAQ uh page, and um
uh that FAQ uh was provided printed in
provided in our agenda package.
Um one of the one of the topics that's
uh that came up when we discussed the
pro uh proposal
at a previous Sidney meeting at the
previous proposal at a previous Sidney
meeting, and also raised at the
commission was
um some of the history
and information related to the Green
Glade um
uh facility but
uh PRC's Green Glade facility and its
operation.
And I'm wondering if there is is still
an opportunity that while there is a lot
of information and and uh the FAQ page
wasn't up when the proposal came forward
last time, whether it would be uh
possible to put up information about
Green Glade such as
its history in in establishing in Sydney
in 2006, it's some 20,000 square feet
and its high usage uh with perhaps those numbers up until
June. Would that be possible to add to
the FAQ?
>> Uh sure. Thank you uh your worship and
uh thank you for having me. My apologies
for kind of rushing in here at the last
moment. Uh yes, uh that would be
possible. We did include in uh the FAQ
just going to try to find it here on
um
the second to last page, just some
attendance numbers from Green Glade. So,
as you mentioned, opened in uh 2006.
Uh we've had uh seen in 2024 an 18%
increase in
uh attendance at Green Glade and then in
2025 another is 9.9% increase in
attendance.
Um
pleased to say we've early we had uh
first quarter quarter one uh 2026
participation statistics.
Uh we had over 1,500 registrations in a wide range of of programs
uh from children's to adult programs at
Green Glade. And we're averaging over uh
3,700 visits per month uh to that
facility, which is fantastic.
>> Thank you very much and and you're
referring to the FAQs uh for that
information?
>> Yeah, it's uh be the second to last page
about 2/3 of the way down.
Couple seconds at in uh
bulleted numbers there.
Third bullet down I've got.
I apologize though I don't think the
pages are numbered properly there.
>> No, that's okay. I'm just not seeing
that in the printed pages, that
information in the printed pages, and I
didn't access the the FAQ. I will follow
up with staff after the meeting. I just may have missed it inadvertently
missed that, but thank you for There
what I'm looking at on in those three
bullets
um was that um
document significant and growing program
capacity challenges nearly including
nearly 200,000 visits.
Um
Sorry, there was a reference somewhere
to both
the visits at combined the fitness at
combined PRC and and Green Blade, but
thank you for clarifying that.
>> Yep.
>> Um
And in speaking to the motion, um
thank you again.
>> Thank you.
>> In speaking to the motion, um
I I spoke in favor of this quite quite
strongly, and but but I think there is
value to to public input, and I think um
the commission
and and PRC has uh
in this revised proposal providing more
information, helpful information in
terms of the project page, in terms of
the FAQs. FAQs are always very helpful
for the public for information. Um and
um
I think it's it's just not a case of
whether someone says a member of the
public says that yes, they support it or
no, they don't support it. It is the
rationale that they provide for their
support or for having concerns or not
supporting. And I think we're as a
council we're always open to considering
the rationale that uh
that members of the public provide. So,
I I will support this recommendation. Um
the consideration of whether we have our
seventh member of council, that's always
nice, but we cannot guarantee a full
council at any given meeting.
So, I wouldn't I wouldn't make the
recommendations or or
support the recommendation on solely
that rationale, but but do see the value
of input and the project has changed
significantly. It is a $5 million $5.1
million is less being borrowed under
this loan authorization and there's
other good information. So, I'll leave
my comments there.
I'll turn to any uh
other first or second time speakers.
Councillor Novik.
>> Second time. Uh thank you, Mayor. I have
a question and I'm not really sure who I
can address it to. Perhaps Mr. Michael
or
>> Michael, yeah.
>> Michael or perhaps yourself. Um
and that is if we're going to delay this
or or refer it
so that we can get a little bit more
public input, which I think is a great
idea.
Do we have a mechanism for ensuring that
this information and this need for
public
input and engagement gets out to the
public?
Or is this
or how how will the public find out
about this?
>> No, thanks for the question. I I might
turn to Mr. Michael in that this is a
CRD project and and in terms of them
putting information out or Mr. Michael,
could you speak to what uh
what PRCS might do?
>> Uh sure, thank you. Through the chair.
Uh
similar channels to what the the town of
Sidney would have in terms of
using our own website, our own social
media channels to just to share
information and ensure people are aware
of where to find information.
Um
other than that, we certainly could you
know, we'd be happy to host a forum or a
town hall meeting if that made sense at the Panorama Rec Centre and uh or at Greenglade might be a better
location, actually. So, uh there are
some opportunities to to do that, to
have staff address people directly if
they have questions. It's always hard in
presenting information through social
media or other uh you don't always pick
up on all the questions people may have.
So,
uh happy to speak to that directly if
that makes some more sense, but uh yeah,
we're certainly prepared to uh present
information
uh to the public and and push it out
through our social media channels
to make sure people are aware of where
to find information.
>> Uh
May I continue? And And is there a
mechanism for
gathering this feedback and then
presenting it
back to us in some way?
>> Uh thank you through the chair. There are some mechanisms. I would need
to probably uh either bring some further
information back just to ensure what
that looks like.
Um I know in the past in these kind of
processes,
um the collection of of information of
that nature has been up to the
municipalities uh given that it is each
of the municipal councils that are
voting uh on it.
Uh so, I I just want to be cautious that
there's no appearance of of bias in any
of that collection of information or
those kinds of things. So,
I would want to work with our
legislative services to make sure we we
handle that properly.
>> Fair enough. Thank you, Mayor.
>> Uh thank you for the question.
Uh seeing no other discussion, I'll look
to call the question. All those in
favor.
Opposed.
Uh Councillor Duncan is opposed. The
motion carries. Thank you. And thank you
for attending, Mr. Mickle.
Um lastly on our agenda, we have uh
correspondence for information. We've
received eight letters of uh
correspondence. Uh with some of them, we
have a draft reply.
Um uh so, Council has received those uh
and they're being received uh by virtue
of being on our agenda
uh this evening. We have no notices of
motion or motion to go in camera. I
would look for a motion to adjourn.
>> So moved.
>> Second. And second it. All in favor.
Uh that's carries unanimous. Thank you,
everyone. Have a good evening.