Council Report February 26, 2018
"Something Seriously is Amiss"
(Much more than previously reported)
Stage ll
Mayor's Public Engagement Task Force 2018 Report
Agenda Item #17 The Public Engagement Task Force recommended:
“They solicit support from an Engagement Consultant to conduct the public forums and support the Task Force to complete the final report, Budget $10,000”. Councillor Murdoch pointed out that the $10,000 amount is not allocated in the present budget and therefore he would not support the recommendation.
Councillor Braithwaite also expressed her concern about spending $10,000 for a consultant and stated the District just needed to pick a date, a location and, a topic and then hold the meeting. Councillor Braithwaite, after suggesting Secondary Suites as a topic, reminded Council of her approved September 18th, 2017 recommendation:
WHEREAS: “A town hall meeting may offer an opportunity for residents to bring forward their questions and concerns”;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: “That staff be directed to arrange a date and venue in November to hold a Town Hall Meeting; The motion was amended to read “in November or “As soon as possible” and “That the Community Engagement Task Force be invited to bring for consideration at the next Committee of the Whole, any recommendations they feel may improve that meeting’s effectiveness”.
The Public Engagement Task Force recommendation to spend for the $10,000 consultant was approved. Councillors Murdoch and Braithwaite against.
Councillor Braithwaite’s September 18, 2017 Resolution to hold Town Hall Meeting was not brought to the next nor or any subsequent Committee of the Whole Meeting to allow public input. However, the Mayor did form yet another Community Engagement Task Force several months later in January 2018. Town Hall Meetings are commonplace in other municipalities but are just not wanted by the majority of Oak Bay's Council who favour unplanned and subsidized development.
Oak Bay Watch’s Perspective:
Holding public engagement meetings that provide opportunities for residents to bring forward their questions and concerns to councillors has been a recommendation of several Mayor’s Task Forces in the past two Council terms. We are sure with the Mayor and some of the present Councillors that are still on Council and are providing continuity since 2012, one would think they must be fully aware of this.
Nonetheless, it has been almost five months since Councillor Braithwaite’s recommendation to hold a Town Hall Meeting for residents was approved by Council. In contrast, after only two weeks since the February 26, 2018, Council meeting a Consultant has been contracted $10,000 and has met with the present Public Engagement Task Force. Therefore it seems to us the only things the majority of Council moves quickly on is: striking Task Forces; hiring Consultants and; approving controversial Development Initiatives.
While on the subject of the District holding information meetings it should be of interest that on June 28, 2016, the District hosted a half-day, private-by-invitation-only meeting at the Windsor Pavilion for representatives of the development community. It was also attended by senior staff. The meeting was billed as a design meeting and an all-expenses-paid development team was brought over from Vancouver to provide an Infill Development presentation. Infill design was not included as a discussion topic. However, the meeting representatives noted that Oak Bay residents did not want infill in their neighbourhoods but should be convinced it would be good for them.
The only Council member attending this session reported to Council he thought he was at a “lobbying rally for Infill Development”.
Home demolished without a permit:
At Council, it was reported by Councillor Braithwaite that a second home within a month had been demolished without a permit, this time on Prospect Place. Councillor Brathwaite expressed her concerns and enquired what sanctions are in place that the District can impose in these situations. Staff informed her they can add an additional $400 to the present permit fee of the same amount and if they believe further action is necessary they can impose a further $100 fine. The maximum total fine then that could be imposed would be $500.
A discussion followed about the penalties and Councillor Zhelka’s concern that there were neighbour’s safety issues involved. Although the consequences for this blatant disregard for our zoning rules and the deterrents seeming totally inadequate, no action further action was suggested or considered. Calling other jurisdictions for more effective sanctions and contacting Work Safe BC might have been a good starting point.
Oak Bay Watch: Secondary Suites; Setting the Record Straight
Oak Bay Watch is fully aware that we have a large number of illegal suites currently in our community. We are not against a home-owner having one or two unrelated, additional occupants in their home. This is the situation in Oak Bay right now. We have justifiable concerns, however, and they are mainly with the “process” whereby Council is proposing to approve legalizing existing illegal secondary suites and to add more.
Our concerns that should be front and centre for residents who do not want or cannot have a secondary suite (the majority) are:
It is notable that Council has not published any impact data from other communities that have legalized: e.g. secondary suite registration numbers, revenues collected, suite growth figures, traffic, and parking problems. It is also notable that Council or the Official Community Plan (OCP) Committee has not explained how they will accomplish the promised OCP Survey questions’ preamble, “Assume that traffic, parking, taxation impact on neighbours etc. will be addressed”.
While we recognize Council could, at some point in the future provide some answers, we are concerned because Councillor Ney’s Resolution process recommends moving directly to the Bylaw stage but does not mention providing impact information, a better control model or full public input and discussion on the harmful effects.
Council has already missed a golden opportunity at the District’s University of Victoria open house Infill Development meetings. They could have had their consultant answer how the formidable impacts will be addressed or dealt with. Added to this is Council’s abysmal public engagement record (so many engagement task forces – no action to date). How are we to trust any promise that the future “Bylaw and Guidelines” public participation and collaboration will play out before another 4-3 rubber stamp decision?
In short, a lot of questions - no answers. Council should not just say what they are going to do, they should tell us how they plan to do it before spending so much money on new staff to write legislation and Guidelines and use up existing resources. After all, we have plenty more major and urgent problems waiting for funding and attention !!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please attend next Monday’s Council Meeting on March 12, 2018 at 7:00 pm to hear the discussion and see who votes for this premature resolution and who does not. It is likely this deferred item will be placed at or near the bottom of the Agenda – as it is usual for Council to give developer time precedence over resident time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item
Attachment #1
Secondary Suite Guideline Excerpts
“There is a complex set of issues and challenges associated with secondary suites. On one hand, legalizing existing suites is difficult due to factors such as health and safety concerns, neighbourhood concerns, and the need to avoid closures of affordable housing stock. On the other hand, the option of continuing to prohibit suites does not stop them from being built, thus deepening the scale of the problem”.
"Fairness of property taxes: Owners of homes with illegal suites may not be paying their fair share of property taxes".
“Administrative costs. For smaller jurisdictions with scarce staff resources, dealing with suites may not be a priority. Some jurisdictions may see the cost of bylaw enforcement and, staffing costs associated with secondary suite program implementation as a stumbling block’.
“In 1997, the BC Supreme Court ruled against a Delta Zoning Bylaw which attempted to place occupancy restrictions on secondary suites”.
GUIDE'S CONCLUSION
“However, local government does not appear to have clear authority to require owner occupancy or other residency requirements in houses with secondary suites”.
Attachment #2
BC Union of Municipalities 2018 Report
The BCUM emphasizes that:
“The role of local governments is to build sustainable communities that work in the long-term. Quick fixes – developments that are forced on communities, and financing approaches that push costs onto property taxpayers or reduce community services - will not last as they are unacceptable to citizens, not just local governments”.
Recommendation:
“Increasing property tax flexibility –creating affordable rental housing is going require the use of an array of policy tools. It is recommended that the provincial government provide local governments with the authority to create property tax sub-classification for affordable rental property”.
“Enforcement can be very costly for local governments and may require continuous fine-tuning as property owners adapt to evade enforcement activities, and no one city has been able to develop a policy framework to effectively enable and enforce short-term rental activity”.
“The role of local government under B.C. law is not to act as an advocate for new development –that would actually be contrary to B.C law - but to act as a neutral quasi-judicial decision maker”.
"Something Seriously is Amiss"
(Much more than previously reported)
Stage ll
Mayor's Public Engagement Task Force 2018 Report
Agenda Item #17 The Public Engagement Task Force recommended:
“They solicit support from an Engagement Consultant to conduct the public forums and support the Task Force to complete the final report, Budget $10,000”. Councillor Murdoch pointed out that the $10,000 amount is not allocated in the present budget and therefore he would not support the recommendation.
Councillor Braithwaite also expressed her concern about spending $10,000 for a consultant and stated the District just needed to pick a date, a location and, a topic and then hold the meeting. Councillor Braithwaite, after suggesting Secondary Suites as a topic, reminded Council of her approved September 18th, 2017 recommendation:
WHEREAS: “A town hall meeting may offer an opportunity for residents to bring forward their questions and concerns”;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: “That staff be directed to arrange a date and venue in November to hold a Town Hall Meeting; The motion was amended to read “in November or “As soon as possible” and “That the Community Engagement Task Force be invited to bring for consideration at the next Committee of the Whole, any recommendations they feel may improve that meeting’s effectiveness”.
The Public Engagement Task Force recommendation to spend for the $10,000 consultant was approved. Councillors Murdoch and Braithwaite against.
Councillor Braithwaite’s September 18, 2017 Resolution to hold Town Hall Meeting was not brought to the next nor or any subsequent Committee of the Whole Meeting to allow public input. However, the Mayor did form yet another Community Engagement Task Force several months later in January 2018. Town Hall Meetings are commonplace in other municipalities but are just not wanted by the majority of Oak Bay's Council who favour unplanned and subsidized development.
Oak Bay Watch’s Perspective:
Holding public engagement meetings that provide opportunities for residents to bring forward their questions and concerns to councillors has been a recommendation of several Mayor’s Task Forces in the past two Council terms. We are sure with the Mayor and some of the present Councillors that are still on Council and are providing continuity since 2012, one would think they must be fully aware of this.
Nonetheless, it has been almost five months since Councillor Braithwaite’s recommendation to hold a Town Hall Meeting for residents was approved by Council. In contrast, after only two weeks since the February 26, 2018, Council meeting a Consultant has been contracted $10,000 and has met with the present Public Engagement Task Force. Therefore it seems to us the only things the majority of Council moves quickly on is: striking Task Forces; hiring Consultants and; approving controversial Development Initiatives.
While on the subject of the District holding information meetings it should be of interest that on June 28, 2016, the District hosted a half-day, private-by-invitation-only meeting at the Windsor Pavilion for representatives of the development community. It was also attended by senior staff. The meeting was billed as a design meeting and an all-expenses-paid development team was brought over from Vancouver to provide an Infill Development presentation. Infill design was not included as a discussion topic. However, the meeting representatives noted that Oak Bay residents did not want infill in their neighbourhoods but should be convinced it would be good for them.
The only Council member attending this session reported to Council he thought he was at a “lobbying rally for Infill Development”.
Home demolished without a permit:
At Council, it was reported by Councillor Braithwaite that a second home within a month had been demolished without a permit, this time on Prospect Place. Councillor Brathwaite expressed her concerns and enquired what sanctions are in place that the District can impose in these situations. Staff informed her they can add an additional $400 to the present permit fee of the same amount and if they believe further action is necessary they can impose a further $100 fine. The maximum total fine then that could be imposed would be $500.
A discussion followed about the penalties and Councillor Zhelka’s concern that there were neighbour’s safety issues involved. Although the consequences for this blatant disregard for our zoning rules and the deterrents seeming totally inadequate, no action further action was suggested or considered. Calling other jurisdictions for more effective sanctions and contacting Work Safe BC might have been a good starting point.
Oak Bay Watch: Secondary Suites; Setting the Record Straight
Oak Bay Watch is fully aware that we have a large number of illegal suites currently in our community. We are not against a home-owner having one or two unrelated, additional occupants in their home. This is the situation in Oak Bay right now. We have justifiable concerns, however, and they are mainly with the “process” whereby Council is proposing to approve legalizing existing illegal secondary suites and to add more.
Our concerns that should be front and centre for residents who do not want or cannot have a secondary suite (the majority) are:
- Our Bylaw enforcement is currently understaffed. The required new staff and the necessary Secondary Suite Regulation Programs are very costly: who will provide this significant additional funding? The data show that registration numbers are extremely low after legalization and that any registration fees pay only a very small amount towards the expensive administration costs.
- Opening the door to allow multiple unrelated tenants and absentee landlords – impossible to control after legalization – (see Attachment #1 Provincial Secondary Suite Guideline excerpts). Every Community is struggling to control suite issues while the profitable, difficult-to-control Airbnb Market thrives. These permit bed & breakfast business throughout the Community. As far as we know no viable system exists which is better than our current balanced model.
- Increased taxation on the additional assessment for a home with a secondary suite (once identified by BC Assessment) will not come close to paying for the associated municipal costs. These costs are far and above just providing for additional water and sewage. Municipalities do not have the authority to tax secondary suites as such (see Attachment #2 BC Union of Municipalities recommendations).
- Non–suite taxpayers can only subsidize a limited portion of a population whose rents are provided solely to the suite owner. There are many homeowners also in need of extra income, but without a suite, as the suites increase they will have to pay the additional supporting taxes.
- As has been pointed out by a Councillor, our passive, complaint-driven system is working well and has for many years now. We can prevent absentee owners, and those with investment properties, from adding a basement suite for even more income. While no system is perfect, it does provide the best balance for existing residents’ protection and those who want to add a couple of residents for some additional revenue. It is the less problematic system for controlling all of the harmful impacts that secondary suites can have on a community. With only a few owners registering and minimal enforcement staff where will the benefit be?
It is notable that Council has not published any impact data from other communities that have legalized: e.g. secondary suite registration numbers, revenues collected, suite growth figures, traffic, and parking problems. It is also notable that Council or the Official Community Plan (OCP) Committee has not explained how they will accomplish the promised OCP Survey questions’ preamble, “Assume that traffic, parking, taxation impact on neighbours etc. will be addressed”.
While we recognize Council could, at some point in the future provide some answers, we are concerned because Councillor Ney’s Resolution process recommends moving directly to the Bylaw stage but does not mention providing impact information, a better control model or full public input and discussion on the harmful effects.
Council has already missed a golden opportunity at the District’s University of Victoria open house Infill Development meetings. They could have had their consultant answer how the formidable impacts will be addressed or dealt with. Added to this is Council’s abysmal public engagement record (so many engagement task forces – no action to date). How are we to trust any promise that the future “Bylaw and Guidelines” public participation and collaboration will play out before another 4-3 rubber stamp decision?
In short, a lot of questions - no answers. Council should not just say what they are going to do, they should tell us how they plan to do it before spending so much money on new staff to write legislation and Guidelines and use up existing resources. After all, we have plenty more major and urgent problems waiting for funding and attention !!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please attend next Monday’s Council Meeting on March 12, 2018 at 7:00 pm to hear the discussion and see who votes for this premature resolution and who does not. It is likely this deferred item will be placed at or near the bottom of the Agenda – as it is usual for Council to give developer time precedence over resident time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******Please help us continue to provide you with information about Community concerns and Council decisions and actions. Oak Bay Watch members also help community groups with their specific development concerns. Donate to Oak Bay Watch - even $5 or $10 dollars provides expenses for door- to- door handouts and helps us maintain our website. Oak Bay Watch is committed to ensuring the Community gets the full range of information on budget, governance and all key development issues – a well informed opinion cannot be made without this.
(Please use Donate Button at bottom of oakbaywatch.com Home Page)
Keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of Newsletter Menu Item
Attachment #1
Secondary Suite Guideline Excerpts
“There is a complex set of issues and challenges associated with secondary suites. On one hand, legalizing existing suites is difficult due to factors such as health and safety concerns, neighbourhood concerns, and the need to avoid closures of affordable housing stock. On the other hand, the option of continuing to prohibit suites does not stop them from being built, thus deepening the scale of the problem”.
"Fairness of property taxes: Owners of homes with illegal suites may not be paying their fair share of property taxes".
“Administrative costs. For smaller jurisdictions with scarce staff resources, dealing with suites may not be a priority. Some jurisdictions may see the cost of bylaw enforcement and, staffing costs associated with secondary suite program implementation as a stumbling block’.
“In 1997, the BC Supreme Court ruled against a Delta Zoning Bylaw which attempted to place occupancy restrictions on secondary suites”.
GUIDE'S CONCLUSION
“However, local government does not appear to have clear authority to require owner occupancy or other residency requirements in houses with secondary suites”.
Attachment #2
BC Union of Municipalities 2018 Report
The BCUM emphasizes that:
“The role of local governments is to build sustainable communities that work in the long-term. Quick fixes – developments that are forced on communities, and financing approaches that push costs onto property taxpayers or reduce community services - will not last as they are unacceptable to citizens, not just local governments”.
Recommendation:
“Increasing property tax flexibility –creating affordable rental housing is going require the use of an array of policy tools. It is recommended that the provincial government provide local governments with the authority to create property tax sub-classification for affordable rental property”.
“Enforcement can be very costly for local governments and may require continuous fine-tuning as property owners adapt to evade enforcement activities, and no one city has been able to develop a policy framework to effectively enable and enforce short-term rental activity”.
“The role of local government under B.C. law is not to act as an advocate for new development –that would actually be contrary to B.C law - but to act as a neutral quasi-judicial decision maker”.