The following Oak Bay Watch Reports provide updates on:
Breaking News
The final Oak Bay Council meeting to approve the 2017 Annual Budget was held on Thursday May 11, 2017. The meeting, held at 8 o’clock in the morning, lacked public participation. The Budget was rejected by the three Council members who had previously voiced their disapproval of how the Budget had been manipulated by the Mayor and his three block vote Councillors. By creative accounting they made it appear the 2017 tax increase was much less than it would eventually turn out be. The vote: 3 Council members against, 3 Council members in favor, and 1 member absent. (A tie vote defeats a motion)
The 3 members voting against the motion had, in earlier meetings, opposed a motion to use Reserve Funds to ‘artificially’ reduce the 2017 Municipal tax rate. With the next day’s Friday deadline looming for approving the 2017 Budget, a dissenting Councilor left the meeting. Council’s rules allow the Mayor to revisit decisions made at the same Council Meeting. The Mayor seized this opportunity to reconsider and then approve the manipulated Budget his side wanted. Nevertheless this situation highlights how vulnerable the Community is when Council’s important land use and financial decisions are made with the slimiest of margins (the Mayor’s one vote). This is particularly disturbing with the minimal opportunities Council allows for public consultation; how many decisions are rushed through without adequate information and; the Mayor and his block vote consistently rejecting significant public input even when mandated by legislation. Vote: The Mayor and his ‘block of 2’ approved the 2017 Budget.
Read on for reports on the Cadboro Bay/ Bowker Public Hearing and a full 2017 Budget report and information below.
Cadboro Bay/ Bowker Public Hearing: Approximately 450 residents showed up for the seven-hour session – far from all stayed for the marathon meeting. The Abstract Developer‘s team provided a power point presentation - over an hour long. One of the many speakers later commented he thought he was at a time-share sales seminar. The Community’s power point presentation, however, was not allowed to follow immediately as promised. For some reason, not explained, it was delayed for another hour and then after a fifteen-minute intermission. By this time, as should have been and possibly was expected, many residents decided after more than two hours they’d had enough of what amounted to a Developer/ Public Hearing. The organizers had not announced ahead of time the Bowker Community's high quality presentation. There were many many speakers through out the evening and into the night. At the conclusion of the meeting the Mayor gave the Developer’s representatives the last word, requesting them to respond to speakers who objected to the many variances this overly large development required.
Council decided not to make a decision at this time, to the disappointment of the many residents who had stayed the course. Before adjourning the meeting after 1:00 am Council referred the Cadboro Bay/ Bowker approval to a May 8th, 2017 Special Council Meeting. At that meeting the Mayor and the three densification Councilors said they had taken into account all the concerns of the many residents who were opposed to the development in its present form. However they made it clear they were not going to pay any attention to them and voted to approve the development. This was reflected in their 4-3 approval vote.
Conclusion: The Mayor and his three Councilors approved an unprecedented over-development that is:
It was pointed out at the Public hearing that the municipality’s research for this project was woefully inadequate. An example of this came to light at the Council meeting. Councilor Zhelka had to provide his own information explaining that the governing covenant restricting rentals would limit residents of the building and the immediate neighbours from controlling (Airbnb) vacation rentals by owner. He explained it would be left to the municipality’s single bylaw officer to try to regulate Oak Bay’s current Airbnb prohibition. If Airbnb rentals are permitted (sanctioned) by Council in Oak Bay, this potentially could put a bed and breakfast on every street in our Community.
The Mayor provided the deciding approval vote on this development, turning his back on what many in the Community wanted - a building that conformed to Oak Bay’s zoning bylaw standards. What is particularly disheartening is there are so many, serious potential problems that can result: size, environmental impact, lots of parking on adjacent streets, increased traffic, safety issues and most likely expense to the Community for infrastructure upgrades in excess of the modest amenity funding offered by the Developer – who stands to make millions. As there are many irreparable impacts on the immediate neighbourhood that are not out of the question, it would have been reasonable then for the Mayor to have insisted on the necessary modifications. He could, at the very least, given a plausible explanation of what he considered the Community benefit was in allowing a building of this scale and massing at that location. If the Mayor and his Councilors hope to stick to their often-repeated commitment to keep Oak Bay’s identity and character intact, then this is a big dense step in the wrong direction.
Annual 2017 Budget Bylaw: Council Meeting May 8th. 2017
Most residents would not know by reading the very small ad in the May 3rd Oak Bay News that the Five Year Plan notice, required to satisfy a legislated Local Government public consultation process, is in part, a notification of 2017 Annual Budget. The problem is it is very difficult for residents to keep track as Council identifies the Annual Budget each year, from late December to the May approval date, with different names. It can be: the Provisional Budget, the General Fund, the Five Year Financial Plan and the Tax rate Bylaw.
At Council, Councillors Murdoch, Braithwaite and Zhelka let it be known they were most displeased with the Mayor and his Council members sudden reversal of a previous Council agreement made a few days earlier. The Mayor and the other half of Council ‘s “out of the blue” decision was to swap-out 4 minor infrastructure jobs already in the budget. In effect they used substantial Capital Reserve funds to compensate for the Majority of Council’s overspending $300,000 for secondary (basement) suite legislation and new staffing priorities.
Using Reserve Funds instead of the operating Funds for regular street /sewer works allowed the ‘block Council members to proceed with their plans to increase staff, and move forward with contracting a consultant for Secondary Suites (again).
Councillor protests were to no avail as the 2017 Annual Budget readings were approved with what is now the usual 4-3 voting pattern in densification and financial matters. One of the three dissenting Councillors stated they could not remember a previous Council ever voting against an annual budget.
Although this may be a first annual budget rejection in memory as far as Oak Bay budget approvals go, the creative accounting used to manipulate it isn’t. There had been a community hue and cry about the overspending and administration on non-core staff increases in 2015. This had resulted in a whopping 5.1% tax increase. Council last year transferred $2.569 million from an account identified as, “Revenue" from "Other Sources". As only recently have our reserve accounts been identified, it was not possible previously to determine what these funds were collected for. The result however of this little publicized transfer was that the 4.86% 2016 budget tax increase had been cut to a much more politically acceptable level.
The problem with accounting transfers of course is when Council uses capital reserve funds to cover Operating costs and infrastructure maintenance then the same reserves are not available for the essential big picture, infrastructure overhaul. This is distressing because there has been repeated warning to Council that it is critical these funds must be targeted to cover major infrastructure projects. The Mayor and his majority must be made to realize that this financing at some point soon will have to show up, or perhaps they think this will be another Council’s problem?
*******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)
To keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of newsletter page.
- Breaking News – 2017 Budget Rejected
- The Cadboro Bay/ Bowker Condo Proposal Approval and,
- The 2017 Annual Budget Bylaw Meeting.
Breaking News
The final Oak Bay Council meeting to approve the 2017 Annual Budget was held on Thursday May 11, 2017. The meeting, held at 8 o’clock in the morning, lacked public participation. The Budget was rejected by the three Council members who had previously voiced their disapproval of how the Budget had been manipulated by the Mayor and his three block vote Councillors. By creative accounting they made it appear the 2017 tax increase was much less than it would eventually turn out be. The vote: 3 Council members against, 3 Council members in favor, and 1 member absent. (A tie vote defeats a motion)
The 3 members voting against the motion had, in earlier meetings, opposed a motion to use Reserve Funds to ‘artificially’ reduce the 2017 Municipal tax rate. With the next day’s Friday deadline looming for approving the 2017 Budget, a dissenting Councilor left the meeting. Council’s rules allow the Mayor to revisit decisions made at the same Council Meeting. The Mayor seized this opportunity to reconsider and then approve the manipulated Budget his side wanted. Nevertheless this situation highlights how vulnerable the Community is when Council’s important land use and financial decisions are made with the slimiest of margins (the Mayor’s one vote). This is particularly disturbing with the minimal opportunities Council allows for public consultation; how many decisions are rushed through without adequate information and; the Mayor and his block vote consistently rejecting significant public input even when mandated by legislation. Vote: The Mayor and his ‘block of 2’ approved the 2017 Budget.
Read on for reports on the Cadboro Bay/ Bowker Public Hearing and a full 2017 Budget report and information below.
Cadboro Bay/ Bowker Public Hearing: Approximately 450 residents showed up for the seven-hour session – far from all stayed for the marathon meeting. The Abstract Developer‘s team provided a power point presentation - over an hour long. One of the many speakers later commented he thought he was at a time-share sales seminar. The Community’s power point presentation, however, was not allowed to follow immediately as promised. For some reason, not explained, it was delayed for another hour and then after a fifteen-minute intermission. By this time, as should have been and possibly was expected, many residents decided after more than two hours they’d had enough of what amounted to a Developer/ Public Hearing. The organizers had not announced ahead of time the Bowker Community's high quality presentation. There were many many speakers through out the evening and into the night. At the conclusion of the meeting the Mayor gave the Developer’s representatives the last word, requesting them to respond to speakers who objected to the many variances this overly large development required.
Council decided not to make a decision at this time, to the disappointment of the many residents who had stayed the course. Before adjourning the meeting after 1:00 am Council referred the Cadboro Bay/ Bowker approval to a May 8th, 2017 Special Council Meeting. At that meeting the Mayor and the three densification Councilors said they had taken into account all the concerns of the many residents who were opposed to the development in its present form. However they made it clear they were not going to pay any attention to them and voted to approve the development. This was reflected in their 4-3 approval vote.
Conclusion: The Mayor and his three Councilors approved an unprecedented over-development that is:
- Twice the allowable zoning dimensions, removes most mature trees, has inadequate parking and fails to comply with the Official Community Plan.
- Against the advice and objections of many Oak Bay residents, three Council Members, and a former long term Mayor.
It was pointed out at the Public hearing that the municipality’s research for this project was woefully inadequate. An example of this came to light at the Council meeting. Councilor Zhelka had to provide his own information explaining that the governing covenant restricting rentals would limit residents of the building and the immediate neighbours from controlling (Airbnb) vacation rentals by owner. He explained it would be left to the municipality’s single bylaw officer to try to regulate Oak Bay’s current Airbnb prohibition. If Airbnb rentals are permitted (sanctioned) by Council in Oak Bay, this potentially could put a bed and breakfast on every street in our Community.
The Mayor provided the deciding approval vote on this development, turning his back on what many in the Community wanted - a building that conformed to Oak Bay’s zoning bylaw standards. What is particularly disheartening is there are so many, serious potential problems that can result: size, environmental impact, lots of parking on adjacent streets, increased traffic, safety issues and most likely expense to the Community for infrastructure upgrades in excess of the modest amenity funding offered by the Developer – who stands to make millions. As there are many irreparable impacts on the immediate neighbourhood that are not out of the question, it would have been reasonable then for the Mayor to have insisted on the necessary modifications. He could, at the very least, given a plausible explanation of what he considered the Community benefit was in allowing a building of this scale and massing at that location. If the Mayor and his Councilors hope to stick to their often-repeated commitment to keep Oak Bay’s identity and character intact, then this is a big dense step in the wrong direction.
Annual 2017 Budget Bylaw: Council Meeting May 8th. 2017
Most residents would not know by reading the very small ad in the May 3rd Oak Bay News that the Five Year Plan notice, required to satisfy a legislated Local Government public consultation process, is in part, a notification of 2017 Annual Budget. The problem is it is very difficult for residents to keep track as Council identifies the Annual Budget each year, from late December to the May approval date, with different names. It can be: the Provisional Budget, the General Fund, the Five Year Financial Plan and the Tax rate Bylaw.
At Council, Councillors Murdoch, Braithwaite and Zhelka let it be known they were most displeased with the Mayor and his Council members sudden reversal of a previous Council agreement made a few days earlier. The Mayor and the other half of Council ‘s “out of the blue” decision was to swap-out 4 minor infrastructure jobs already in the budget. In effect they used substantial Capital Reserve funds to compensate for the Majority of Council’s overspending $300,000 for secondary (basement) suite legislation and new staffing priorities.
Using Reserve Funds instead of the operating Funds for regular street /sewer works allowed the ‘block Council members to proceed with their plans to increase staff, and move forward with contracting a consultant for Secondary Suites (again).
Councillor protests were to no avail as the 2017 Annual Budget readings were approved with what is now the usual 4-3 voting pattern in densification and financial matters. One of the three dissenting Councillors stated they could not remember a previous Council ever voting against an annual budget.
Although this may be a first annual budget rejection in memory as far as Oak Bay budget approvals go, the creative accounting used to manipulate it isn’t. There had been a community hue and cry about the overspending and administration on non-core staff increases in 2015. This had resulted in a whopping 5.1% tax increase. Council last year transferred $2.569 million from an account identified as, “Revenue" from "Other Sources". As only recently have our reserve accounts been identified, it was not possible previously to determine what these funds were collected for. The result however of this little publicized transfer was that the 4.86% 2016 budget tax increase had been cut to a much more politically acceptable level.
The problem with accounting transfers of course is when Council uses capital reserve funds to cover Operating costs and infrastructure maintenance then the same reserves are not available for the essential big picture, infrastructure overhaul. This is distressing because there has been repeated warning to Council that it is critical these funds must be targeted to cover major infrastructure projects. The Mayor and his majority must be made to realize that this financing at some point soon will have to show up, or perhaps they think this will be another Council’s problem?
*******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)
To keep informed please sign up for our newsletter – bottom of newsletter page.