Sooke Gathering Place borrowing question headed to Oct. 17 ballot

Voters will weigh whether the district should consider borrowing up to $5 million

Sooke Gathering Place borrowing question headed to Oct. 17 ballot Published 5:45 am Friday, July 17, 2026 Sooke voters will be asked Oct. 17 whether the district should consider borrowing up to $5 million for an intergenerational community centre. The non-binding plebiscite on the Sooke Gathering Place will be held with the municipal election. A “yes” vote would not authorize borrowing or construction.

Financing, a location, an operating agreement and a construction plan would still require council approval and could require elector consent. Mayor Maja Tait said the $5-million cap gives voters a defined amount to consider. “The question will be: How much is the district borrowing?

If we don’t provide a number, we’re not telling people anything,” Tait said. The proposed drop-in centre would serve seniors, youth, families and community groups through social, recreational and wellness programs. Supporters say Sooke lacks a dedicated space where seniors, particularly those who live alone, can meet and take part in exercise classes, arts and crafts and group meals.

In a 2014 referendum, 82.9 per cent of participating voters supported developing multi-use community facilities for seniors and youth. The district and the Sooke Region Communities Health Network later proposed combining the Gathering Place with seniors housing on municipally owned Lot A beside the Vancouver Island Regional Library. The district and health network signed a memorandum of understanding in 2023, and council approved a development permit that year.

The network returned to a standalone Gathering Place after an application for provincial seniors-housing funding failed in 2025. The network has raised more than $400,000. The money could be combined with municipal funding, grants and other contributions to reduce the amount borrowed.

Tait said a district commitment could help attract grants, sponsorships and donations. Council has not approved a design, location, operating model or construction schedule. A favourable result would direct the next council to continue studying the project’s feasibility, costs, partnerships and governance.

Tait, who is not seeking re-election, said the vote would show the next council whether residents want the project advanced. She said a “no” vote could mean residents support the centre but oppose municipal borrowing, leaving the network to pursue other funding. Tait said the project has been discussed since 2014.

“What I am hearing from the community is: Get on with it and get it finished,” she said. Regardless of the result, the next council would still have to decide whether to proceed, how much to borrow, what taxpayers would pay and how the centre would be built and operated.