That Council direct Staff to increase the budget by $1,876,373 funded from the Special Initiatives Reserve to proceed with the alternate design for the Loudon Park improvements as outlined in the report titled "Loudon Park Improvements" dated 2025-MAR-19.
Thank you very much, your worship. So my understanding. And Ms. Guerri will correct me if I'm wrong, is the recommendation from the finance and audit committee meeting of March 19 is on the floor right now. So I'm going to actually urge council to consider please, defeating this recommendation. And I'm sorry. I apologize that I did miss that March 19 finance and audit committee. Meeting, and I understand that other counselors were absent as well, so I was somewhat surprised at this recommendation coming forward because it is different from the original direction that I understood counsel was supporting. The recommendation that's on the floor calls for what I would call a bare bones improvement. To the park. It is limited, basically, to a replacement of the boat shed, and I have concerns about the appearance. Of that and also the lack of amenities that would be associated with it. In my opinion, we could do better, much better, and we should do better for this park. So if option b, that's. On the floor is def. Defeated. I will be putting forward the original option a, which was discussed by council. This would allow for upgrades and accessibility to be improved to the park. It would include type of community center, which would serve multiple purposes. In addition to the improved boat storage area, I think it would be something that. The community can really be proud of. And I know it's something that SFN also supported. So I note that the design is also something that can still be tweaked in. Future and if other opportunities come forward. For relocation of buildings on the site that can be considered, but I don't think we should shut the door to making this much improved facility. Loudon park is more than just a storage shed for boats. It is a very popular public place, especially in the summer and. It deserves to be improved and expanded. And that's why I would like to vote down this again, what I call bare bones option and go back to a more fulsome improvement. To the park, which I feel is
I may or worship, I'd like to respond to a couple of the comments that have been made. And I appreciate the debate. It's a good one. First of all, I've also spoken to some residents of the Loudon park area and to be honest, and I mean no disrespect, but I was very disappointed. At. The opinions voiced by some individuals who were very outspoken that they did not want to see. Park improvements or expansions. It was their quiet little park, and they wanted it to remain so. I don't think that's being fair to the community at large. This. Is not a hidden gem, but it's a smaller gem in our city, which is extremely popular during the summer with users, and we need to put some money into it. Regarding sfn support, I am. Based my earlier statement on minutes of a February 3 council meeting, which I have in front of me which state in writing that SFN has previously. Sorry. Option A had previously received support from sonamic First Nation. I take the veracity of our meeting minutes seriously, and so I. Base my statement on that. As far as spending. Yes. Taxpayers are very concerned about council and district spending right now, and I don't blame them. But we are not going to the taxpayers for option a, this money. Will come totally from reserves, and I think this is a very good use of these reserves and so I support that. Yes, the paddling group. Groups, and I see some of them here tonight representing the groups, and I thank them for being here. I'm sure they're quite willing to accept option B as the secondary option. Because, quite frankly, they're desperate for any improvement to their facilities at the park. But given the choice. Would they rather have a longer term? More significant investment in the park and more significant improvements to not only their facility, but the surrounding area. I'm sure they would. So why settle for second best or second choice when we have the ability within our budget to provide something really significant that the community can be proud of. So I would rather. Than just supporting basic needs in a short term situation. Looking at a more fulsome long term investment in this community facility. Thank you.
you. I, too, missed that meeting, and. As councilor Thorpe said I to him in favor of the larger thing. North End does not. Have very many facilities at all. Oliver woods is mostly done through private dollars. We don't. Have much investment from city dollars in the north end, and they're sadly locking, and I think this would fill a huge void. As stated, SFN was strongly supportive. Of this as their kids are on that lake. We've got lots of young kids on there, and I think it can only help improve. And when we do things just partially, we learn. To regret it later. So I will be voting against this motion. And if it fails, voted
you, Councilor Armstrong. Oh, just my apologies. I did have the wrong information. It was city only paid $10 million for Oliver woods, which I find interesting because that was only 14 years ago. And now to build a similar, we're looking at 115,000,000. So now, to me, is the time to build this. It's not later because it's. Going to cost us so much more money. And it's sadly. Needed a lot of that area you're talking, but I don't see many people. In that area, sitting under those trees. Here's a few, but not that many. So again, I'm going to stay with voting against this. And if it fails, hoping that option one passes. Thank you. Thank
much, Councilor Gesselbrook. Thank you. I am in favor of this option. The option a that is being talked about. That's an improvement. Almost fell off my chair when I actually looked at it closer. It's proposing to put a large building in the main area where the trees are of loud and park. Basically, 50% of the trees would be removed. And when you'd pull into Loudon, park with this new enhanced facility. You basically wouldn't see any trees and you'd be walking into a building, so. You'd have to walk around the building to get to. The beach. The option that is being spoken out by councilor Thorpe and councilor Armstrong is one that's actually come almost three times more expensive than the original $4 million would have allotted. For it. At a cost of $11 million. So for $11 million, We would basically have a clear cut in loud and park and have no park and no money. Left over, and I think there's much either higher priorities to be spending that money on. And I think the majority of the public would be very shocked to the degree of how that would change the nature of the park, and I believe very strongly that we should be supporting. Our rowing club and canoeing kayak club. And I think that because Loudon park is such a postage stamp of a park, and there's very limited green space. We need to be expanding this park, and there's lots of opportunities to expand it and put the facilities needed to really do right by the rowing. And canoe and kayak community. And also not lose a very precious piece of green space that the community has been using for a very long time. And so. I strongly oppose. The second option, but I'm in favor of the option that's currently on the table. And I think what it allows us to do is address the immediate needs of. The rolling community and Canoe and Kayak Club committee by putting the boat storage facility on top of the old tennis courts where it currently is. And the improvements to the washing facilities would be directly on the old footprint. So there's a great solution. And if we do want more community, amenity, space, we can put that in future expansions at a later date. But the other option is completely unacceptable, and so I'll be supporting this one. Thank you.
Sorry, councilor. The option I think that councilor Prino is talking about is $11 million, and that's not the option that's on the floor. The option on the floor is one is $6 million. The $11 million option is going to require an additional $6 million. To build. And four, 5 million of that is coming from surplus that we taxed for last year. That we have extra because it wasn't spent. That money can be spent on a whole slew. Of. Other higher priorities. Than the boat storage. If we choose to. And I think that it's really important that this is taxpayer money. That is coming out of people's pockets, and I think that it would be great if we could pull up a photo of the actual footprint of option two, which basically is. Putting of the $11 million option, which is almost three times over the initial budget. And it could be more expensive once we get into the actual. Building of it. The footprint of that building basically takes up more than 50% of the
you. Thank you, Councilor Prino. Thank you, your worship. And some similar comments. We had ten speakers come that day, and it was a very fulsome discussion by everyone. It's important that everyone knows that. The building that. Was in the first option is almost $11 million. The option number two, which is on the floor is 6.5 million. The difference is that. After money that we have in our. Strategic or no? I think it's the special initiatives reserve. Is that correct? We have to have the additional funds of $6 million to do the first option and 1.8 to do the second option. And in this economic times, that's a huge difference. Now, don't get me wrong. I think it would be incredible if. We could put the more elaborate building. On the land. Absolutely. And I think it can be done over time. But the most important thing that we heard that day was. We need a building that protects our boats. We need a new bathroom, and we need it today. The longer that we take to come to a decision, the longer we take to build, the less protection. Those boats in that water half. And. For me as much as I would. Absolutely prefer to have. The more elaborate building, the one that obviously gives us more opportunities. For events and so forth in the future. I think that today, given our economic environment, we need to take care of the boats. And all of the other equipment that. Is housed there. We have to do that first. So for me, I'm going to still stand strong on the option that we have on
the floor today. Councilor Manley. Thank you, worship. I'm going to stand with the option on the table today as well. For many of the reasons that we've already heard, for the financial reasons we heard from. Many people at the finance and audit committee meeting, both from the boat using community that said that option two would serve their. Needs. And we would have upgraded washrooms, but also from many of the people that use the park that live in that area and it's already a very well used park. It's. A small postage stamp piece of property. A tiny park. And I like the look of option one. I think it's a fantastic looking building, but. The sighting of it right where it was, not just the trees, but so close to the beach. And the picnic area and the areas for families to sit in the shade on a hot, sunny day and watch the kids go and play in the water. And I heard loud and clear from the neighborhood, the people that live in that surrounding area, that this is a well used park and an overused park. When we plan and we put buildings and site buildings, it's important that we respect the uses that are already taking place on the property. And I think that the sighting of the option that we're voting on today. Is a better sighting. For boat storage. And I agree that we need to look at options for expanding this park in the future because this is an area that's going to grow. The Country Club area is a secondary urban core, and we're going to see more apartments. In that area, and this park is only going to become more well used, and I look forward to. Seeing options in the future where we can expand. Other amenities that are attached to this park. So I'm going to continue to support the option on the table. Thank you. And thank you to everybody that came and spoke to the finance. And audit committee. Thank you. I'm going to go to councilor Brown. Who hasn't? Spoken yet, and
then I'll go to Councilor Thorpe. Thank you, chair. Thank you, your worship. I won't be supporting the option on the floor. I think there's a temptation there, obviously due to. The financial argument. It is. Significantly less. However, I think. For me. What matters is putting this in the context of the use over its lifespan. And I remember. Asking a couple of times, Mr. Harding, about other options. For not the building location, but the type of activity that happens on the water. And he indicated that many other places had been explored, but ultimately, this was the lake that was best suited. For. The type of activity that was occurring. And so, with that in mind, A growing city has grown significantly in my lifetime living here. Undoubtedly the sport will continue to grow, maybe in popularity, but definitely by just pure population. And so with no other location that's well suited for it. I think when you make this type of investment, it makes sense to make the investment that is going to be well suited for the current need, but also, hopefully, the future need. A first class facility. That suits that need. Will provide longevity. I think we've got lots of examples, or at least I think so. Or I could point to. Where the cheaper option went with at the time, and it ages quickly, both in the type of facility it is, but also its ability to accommodate. We know that we need way more Oliver woods centers, and that's not just the gym. Space. It's the meeting space as well. There will always be an argument for those big type of facilities because. You save money doing that, but what you lose is neighborhood facilities. And unfortunately, we've lost a few of those. Recently, and we don't have access to them. And so I think it makes sense both for the current community need and the size that the recreation activities that are occurring, that is not just paddling. There's a genuine space need. I think when I think about. Who's not even born that might use this facility and train in it and be on the lake, and it's the only lake that can really accommodate it. It's a no brainer to me to go for. The better facility that will provide. Better over the length of its life. So with it for that. The luxurious position of arguing for something that if it doesn't go my way, still results. In something being built for the community is a good one. However, I think it would be misguided to go with the option on the floor. And I would hope that it's defeated and have the opportunity to vote on
you, Councilor eastmeer. Thank you. I definitely see the desire for. A building. That thinks about the future use of this park. And the need for more space, for more amenity space and rentable community spaces. But I think that the option for Loudoun park right now, where we're looking at building the most critically needed pieces, which are the safe boat storage and upgraded washrooms. I think that the motion that's on the floor right now really addresses those critical needs. And then I am interested in future conversations to expand the park and potentially. Find a proper place. For. A larger community, amenity, space that doesn't take up what is essentially the entire footprint. Of the public space of this park. And we already know that the parking that exists there, right? Now doesn't even really serve the needs of what's currently happening in this park. So I think. If we were to build this larger space. At this current moment with the current parking configuration. It's a real mismatch. There. And really what we've heard from the rowing community is that. They need safe, secure boat storage, and so. I think. We're at a time when we need to be considering. Function. Most of all. And we also know that we. Have other huge community projects that we need this money for. And so, yes, this money is sitting in reserves, but it is tax money that we need to be carefully considering where best. We can put that. And we have some major priority items. And the major priority item for Loudon park is safe boat storage and upgraded washrooms and we can do that with the option that's on the floor currently. And then think about expanding the park and finding more amenity space when we do that, so. I'll be voting in favor of the options on the floor. Floor currently. Thank you. Thank
game before council. And I am appreciative of Councilor Thorpe at bringing this word for reconsideration. I would have done it myself. And I'm also very pleased that he reminded all of us what my recollection. Was with respect to the support of sonamic First Nation for this particular project. I have heard concern about the 29 trees that will come down, and I'm not for a moment, diminishing the importance of 29 significant fur. But I contrast that with the thousands of users. Who have only one place in this community which is acknowledged by everyone for the kind of aquatic activities that take place. I said it before. I'll say it again in case anyone missed it. You can't. Do this in Mount Benson, you can't do it in Westwood Lake, you can't. Do it in departure Bay. You can't do it in swallow on a lagoon. So this is the place. The only place in the city of Nanaimo. And as councilor Brown and others have pointed out, This is one of the fastest growing regions in the country. If you wish to build what some have referred to. As or provide a temporary solution. I have to ask, what is the sense in spending. Five, $6 million, whatever the total cost will be for the option that is on the table. Now, what is the sense suspending that to then? To build. But with great respect, I still call a tin shed. What is the sense of doing that when you're going to turn around in a number of years and try and build something that will be adequate to the changed circumstances which are occurring day after day after day. From my perspective when we talk about the use of this part, let us remember how this park is used. Everyone seems focused, or many counselors seem focused on the use in the summertime and how you have to be able to see your kids in the beach and all of those things. With respect. The park gets intensive use from children and others in the summertime. The users who are here tonight, gathered in this council chamber are using this essentially all year round. All year round. If I thought there was a better solution in terms of. Another property, another space, I'd say fine. If council is interested in acquiring lands, and we probably shouldn't be talking along those lines. In an open council meeting. Then it's going to look even sillier that we acquire more lands to surround. An inadequate building in time. Let us build the building that meets the needs that will give the community some sense of pride that will have other uses and will provide more than adequate, hopefully storage. Necessary for this particular group of users. If people are. Worried about a crowded crowds in the summertime. I have to say bluntly, The other ratepayers in this community who don't swim in the lake have helped pay for tens of millions of dollars worth of swimming pools in this community that they can use year round. So I think given the numbers of groups, including the Child Development center and others, the kinds of activities that were outlined so well. When the delegations appeared before us last time. When you look at the fact that there was only one place we can do this. When we consider the thousands of users. Versus building, what, as I say, was referred to as a temporary solution, which will not be architecturally. Pleasing. No one's going to be kayaking on Long Lake and looking back at a tin shed and thinking, oh, golly, isn't this lovely? And a source of great. Community pride. They'd want to look back on something that represents the confidence this city has in its future that represents the best that it can do. So for what it's worth, I will be happily voting against this motion, and I will. Happily support councilor Thorpe in his motion to go with what we can call option a.
I also bristled at the temporary designation. I don't think that was in the report. I don't think we've ever discussed this as being temporary. This is option. One and option two. And I think option one is possibly a bit more pragmatic. Given the economic culture climate we're in. I wanted council Gessobrock addressed it, but. I want to note when we say that we won't be taxing for this, it's because we've already taxed that money is in our reserves. We've already taxed for it, so it's not that it's tax free. And to council Eastmere's Point. We have major projects coming up, a new RCMP building. We have public works, South End community center. These are things that we have set or priorities. That are going to cost far more than this project. When we talk about. I'll leave that there. Actually, I won't ask that question. Actually. Councilor Thorpe, could you please reread the SFN piece from the minutes for me? I'm not sure I quite minutes? I believe they could be. Well, they shouldn't have let councilor humans ask that question. I think that's important. I'm not clear, having not attended that meeting, whether SFN was given both option and asked to select one or whether option two was offered, and they said, yes, please. So the minutes don't clarify the SFN piece for me.