Council Meetings Reports
November 20, 2017 Committee of the Whole
On December 1st, 2017 the Oak Bay News published an article entitled “Aging Infrastructure major concern for Oak Bay”.
The December 1, 2017 article relates to and is based on the Nov. 20, 2017 Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting agenda item # 4: Asset Management Update (Engineering Report). At the meeting Council debated this vitally important Community concern at length.
While the article is worthwhile and provides a lot of essential information (see Attachment # 1), it is also misleading as it fails to point out a number of details which Oak Bay Watch believes the public should be made aware of:
The article’s headline “Aging Infrastructure major concern for Oak Bay ” is also misleading as it indicates a general concern of Council while failing to explain that this is a major concern for the Community as a whole. It is not however, as their voting record indicates, a concern for some members of Council.
The article implies that this has just come to Council’s attention and that the Mayor suddenly and responsibly is jumping into action to save the day. “Mayor Nils Jensen discussed options to save, borrow, or use grants to cover the needs and suggested that Oak Bay needs to look at all options. Jensen agreed that putting 1.5 per cent or a higher amount might be necessary”.
The reality is that this crucial Community issue has often been highlighted by: staff, the public and some members of Council and has been put off again and again. Now, funding is to be discussed in April 2018. In the interim, 4 Council members continue to consider and approve large multi-unit developments and an increasing number of subdivisions. These will only add additional infrastructure stress and costly hook-ups in the absence of Development Cost Charges. Also, significant tax dollars have been spent for staff time (including engineering) and resources to satisfy and implement their over-development priorities. Furthermore, additional infrastructure assessment consultants are to be hired for the often repeated “So Council can make evidence based decisions”.
Council Meeting November 27, 2017
Background information
Council’s process or lack thereof has been criticized by many residents and resident groups in the past several years. The criticism has included principally: insufficient notice; a very rushed process with minimal or no opportunity for public input; inconsistent decisions and inadequate transparency.
In 2017 how developments are being steamrollered through Council has been brought to a head. Concerns have included inadequate consultation, lack of information and disregard for the public interest. This was most obvious in developments like the Cadboro Bay/Bowker development, King George Terrace strata subdivision (admitted by Council to be a flawed process), the Quest and most recently highlighted by neighbours, a large-scale development planned at Granite and Mitchell Streets.
Oak Bay Watch will explain just how problematic the Council process has been in a future Newsletter. In the interim please read the following……..
A member of the public addressed Council and provided this statement:
“Hello Council
Thanks for accepting my apology regarding the Asset Management Plan. It would be nice if Council and staff could highlight and publicize the exact dollar amount that we have set aside for infrastructure replacement, particularly sewers. I think the citizenry can decide if it is adequate and, by knowing exactly what is in the bank for sewer replacement we may understand how much we have and what we need to raise. But, I digress.
I would like to talk to another issue. The processes our municipality uses to approve development. Regardless of the length of time it took for The Quest to get to the decision stage, I feel the process is flawed.
Members of the public and the council both highlighted the problem at the Committee of the Whole last week; No one seems to want to or will, get involved until there is a ‘proposal' and by that time, there has been a large investment in time, resources, money and stress from all parties and on all parties. I, and many others in our municipality think it would be much better if Council, staff, developers and neighbours and all members of the Community could have informed and valuable input at the front end of the process so that the high stakes decision process, like we saw with the Quest, is not the way things play out. My heart just broke when the citizen with the degenerative nerve disease noted she moved into her home, hoping to spend her remaining good years in a home, community, and neighbourhood that would work for her. Instead, she has been stressed for a number of years dealing with ‘the process’.
The current process is just so fraught with issues that it becomes somewhat disheartening to many citizens. Essentially, we are told that this ‘high stakes process’ is the “the process” we have to deal with. I ask Council, is this really the best you can do? You are our elected officials, you set the tone, you make the rules, you make the decisions. The citizenry look up to you for leadership, not as a source of stress.
If developers had some inkling of what would be acceptable to the municipality and citizenry, if a series of simple and inexpensive sketches laying out massing, density, height, design, look etc… was run by all concerned, the developer could take the feedback and then focus their efforts, to come back with something that has consensus social licence and then, the developer would know that what they are proposing has a very likely chance of passing. As it is now, everyone has to deal with the unknown; what will be proposed, how will Council react, how does it fit with all the aspects of the OCP, etc…?
As Councillor Murdock pointed out, it seems our OCP has the ability to be ‘all things to all people’. Aside from a 20 story high-rise, I think a creative type could be put forward almost anything that “is not inconsistent” with the OCP. Without a Housing Strategy, updated bylaws, zoning and rules, I fear that uncertainty and the resultant effect this has on our Community will continue to divide us, when, we should be working together to make Oak Bay even better than it is. I feel that this particular process is so broken and adversarial/ high stakes that there always seems to be a winner and a loser, the Quest lost and those against the development won. I don’t think that is how citizens want to feel about their Community. I think the citizenry wants to feel involved and have input, they want to be creative, they want to contribute, they want to have some power to lead to a collective, self determined outcomes in the interests of the Municipality. Again, most people want a done-with process, not a done-to one”.
-----------------------------------
Official Community Plan & Shoreline Development Permit Areas (Concerns about damage and development).
Inadequacies in Oak Bay’s Shoreline protection have been brought to Council’s attention see Oak Bay News (online) https://www.oakbaynews.com/news/concerned-citizens-push-for-more-shoreline-protection/
Attachment # 1 Oak Bay News Article
https://www.oakbaynews.com/news/aging-infrastructure-major-concern-for-oak-bay/
*******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.
November 20, 2017 Committee of the Whole
On December 1st, 2017 the Oak Bay News published an article entitled “Aging Infrastructure major concern for Oak Bay”.
The December 1, 2017 article relates to and is based on the Nov. 20, 2017 Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting agenda item # 4: Asset Management Update (Engineering Report). At the meeting Council debated this vitally important Community concern at length.
While the article is worthwhile and provides a lot of essential information (see Attachment # 1), it is also misleading as it fails to point out a number of details which Oak Bay Watch believes the public should be made aware of:
- Resident input at meeting: “The need to allocate funding for long term capital projects had been flagged in every Annual Report going back to 2008”.
- Official Community Plan (OCP) Resident Survey Findings Report was completed in January 2014. However, it was not released until the public meeting 10 months later in September 2014. The survey findings rated the failing infrastructure as the number one resident concern that, “could be called the backdrop theme for all other themes”.
- The 2014 Official Community Plan, page 143, explains, “the infrastructure is in its latter years of service and the need for repair and replacement exceeds the available resources”.
- The District commissioned Opus Asset Management report, and its alarming findings were provided confidentially in 2015 but not made public until 2016.
- Therefore Council was patently aware of the appalling state of the infrastructure, when the 4-vote Council majority approved allocating hundreds of thousands of dollars to their development initiatives in April 2017. These are the types of development that will greatly impact the municipality’s already failing Infrastructure.
- At the November 20th Committee of the Whole meeting, Councilor Braithwaite pointed out to another Council member that, at the April 2017 Estimates Committee meeting, the Council member had voted not to allocate the 1% of taxes requested for asset renewal. At this meeting the motion to allocate this infrastructure funding was narrowly defeated.
The article’s headline “Aging Infrastructure major concern for Oak Bay ” is also misleading as it indicates a general concern of Council while failing to explain that this is a major concern for the Community as a whole. It is not however, as their voting record indicates, a concern for some members of Council.
The article implies that this has just come to Council’s attention and that the Mayor suddenly and responsibly is jumping into action to save the day. “Mayor Nils Jensen discussed options to save, borrow, or use grants to cover the needs and suggested that Oak Bay needs to look at all options. Jensen agreed that putting 1.5 per cent or a higher amount might be necessary”.
The reality is that this crucial Community issue has often been highlighted by: staff, the public and some members of Council and has been put off again and again. Now, funding is to be discussed in April 2018. In the interim, 4 Council members continue to consider and approve large multi-unit developments and an increasing number of subdivisions. These will only add additional infrastructure stress and costly hook-ups in the absence of Development Cost Charges. Also, significant tax dollars have been spent for staff time (including engineering) and resources to satisfy and implement their over-development priorities. Furthermore, additional infrastructure assessment consultants are to be hired for the often repeated “So Council can make evidence based decisions”.
Council Meeting November 27, 2017
Background information
Council’s process or lack thereof has been criticized by many residents and resident groups in the past several years. The criticism has included principally: insufficient notice; a very rushed process with minimal or no opportunity for public input; inconsistent decisions and inadequate transparency.
In 2017 how developments are being steamrollered through Council has been brought to a head. Concerns have included inadequate consultation, lack of information and disregard for the public interest. This was most obvious in developments like the Cadboro Bay/Bowker development, King George Terrace strata subdivision (admitted by Council to be a flawed process), the Quest and most recently highlighted by neighbours, a large-scale development planned at Granite and Mitchell Streets.
Oak Bay Watch will explain just how problematic the Council process has been in a future Newsletter. In the interim please read the following……..
A member of the public addressed Council and provided this statement:
“Hello Council
Thanks for accepting my apology regarding the Asset Management Plan. It would be nice if Council and staff could highlight and publicize the exact dollar amount that we have set aside for infrastructure replacement, particularly sewers. I think the citizenry can decide if it is adequate and, by knowing exactly what is in the bank for sewer replacement we may understand how much we have and what we need to raise. But, I digress.
I would like to talk to another issue. The processes our municipality uses to approve development. Regardless of the length of time it took for The Quest to get to the decision stage, I feel the process is flawed.
Members of the public and the council both highlighted the problem at the Committee of the Whole last week; No one seems to want to or will, get involved until there is a ‘proposal' and by that time, there has been a large investment in time, resources, money and stress from all parties and on all parties. I, and many others in our municipality think it would be much better if Council, staff, developers and neighbours and all members of the Community could have informed and valuable input at the front end of the process so that the high stakes decision process, like we saw with the Quest, is not the way things play out. My heart just broke when the citizen with the degenerative nerve disease noted she moved into her home, hoping to spend her remaining good years in a home, community, and neighbourhood that would work for her. Instead, she has been stressed for a number of years dealing with ‘the process’.
The current process is just so fraught with issues that it becomes somewhat disheartening to many citizens. Essentially, we are told that this ‘high stakes process’ is the “the process” we have to deal with. I ask Council, is this really the best you can do? You are our elected officials, you set the tone, you make the rules, you make the decisions. The citizenry look up to you for leadership, not as a source of stress.
If developers had some inkling of what would be acceptable to the municipality and citizenry, if a series of simple and inexpensive sketches laying out massing, density, height, design, look etc… was run by all concerned, the developer could take the feedback and then focus their efforts, to come back with something that has consensus social licence and then, the developer would know that what they are proposing has a very likely chance of passing. As it is now, everyone has to deal with the unknown; what will be proposed, how will Council react, how does it fit with all the aspects of the OCP, etc…?
As Councillor Murdock pointed out, it seems our OCP has the ability to be ‘all things to all people’. Aside from a 20 story high-rise, I think a creative type could be put forward almost anything that “is not inconsistent” with the OCP. Without a Housing Strategy, updated bylaws, zoning and rules, I fear that uncertainty and the resultant effect this has on our Community will continue to divide us, when, we should be working together to make Oak Bay even better than it is. I feel that this particular process is so broken and adversarial/ high stakes that there always seems to be a winner and a loser, the Quest lost and those against the development won. I don’t think that is how citizens want to feel about their Community. I think the citizenry wants to feel involved and have input, they want to be creative, they want to contribute, they want to have some power to lead to a collective, self determined outcomes in the interests of the Municipality. Again, most people want a done-with process, not a done-to one”.
-----------------------------------
Official Community Plan & Shoreline Development Permit Areas (Concerns about damage and development).
Inadequacies in Oak Bay’s Shoreline protection have been brought to Council’s attention see Oak Bay News (online) https://www.oakbaynews.com/news/concerned-citizens-push-for-more-shoreline-protection/
Attachment # 1 Oak Bay News Article
https://www.oakbaynews.com/news/aging-infrastructure-major-concern-for-oak-bay/
*******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.