Transcript: Council (to follow COTW) - 2026/07/30

Good afternoon and welcome to the July 30th meeting of Victoria City Council, our daytime meeting. Today we have for our consideration one item of unfinished business. Reports from the July 23rd and this morning's committee of the whole. Could I have some order please. Five bylaws for preliminary readings and final adoption and a couple of closed items of business. But of course before we begin our work together we always like to take a few moments to ground ourselves and our work and some would suggest our very existence and here in the City of Victoria on the wonderful and continuing generosity of the two nations on whose territories our city sits in its entirety, the Sonkes Nation and the Cosasum Nation of the La Quangan people who have for so many generations, centuries taken the time to be great stewards of these lands and this of waters that surround them. And we occasionally have remarkable opportunities to join with them to help support their members and all

of the community both on the nations, current lens as well as the lands that they traditionally and currently have titled to. And that is a chance yesterday as we did to join them in an Elder's lunch where Songhees hosted an Ecosepsum hosted many elders, hundreds of them actually, who were visiting from a round Vancouver Island who were fetted for the very delicious Ludgern yesterday at the Song. He's Wellness Centre. A number of our staff volunteered their time to join NIS servers and bottle washers and busers and just folks who were there to show support in a very practical and very meaningful way. When we have the chance to do things like that, we remember how close is our alliance and how remarkable is the opportunity that we have to not just learn from one another and work together. But to meet new among us and to create new relationships as well as solidify the ones that we have. And so it was a wonderful opportunity

for us to be there yesterday and certainly was noticed and appreciated both by the host nation as well as the many visitors who were there from other nations. And I think what's also appreciated by those of us who hit a chance to participate. So once again enjoying the chance to be partners and allies and to work together respecting the past. But facing the challenges of the current day and looking ahead to the folks who we hope we're serving well as we move forward. As we always like to say a simple thank you as we do in so many people now know to say the simple phrase of Haychussium or Archkessium Nikhilia, which is just to say thank you and also to add on honorific and honouring of those people who are here in the chamber in the city and throughout our neighbourhoods as individuals who choose at some point during each day one hopes to do something that would make a little bit better someone's

life, someone who affects you and is affected by you. So with that I would say hi to Casey and Equalia and welcome to today. We just noticed I did earlier this morning at our committee that this is the last day of our Council meetings before Council takes its usual hiatus in August. And so I once again would urge each of us to be as judicious as possible in our comments so that we might attend to our very full agenda in a timely manner this afternoon. I am not aware of any late items that need to be added to today's agenda and so I would look for someone to move the published agenda. These Council Colemans, I could make on Cereco. Any discussion of the published agenda. Seeing none, all those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Now there are four items that we're proposed for the consent agenda. I'm aware that there is at least one of them that wishes to be removed or

has someone wishes to remove rather. But let me just read them for the information of public and those are the four items that were either unanimous at the Committee of a whole previously or are for preliminary readings. I will just note that we went through a number of items earlier today in a Committee of the Whole. Uh, we will go through those again one night of time so that we can accurately record those votes both at committee and here again at Council. Uh, again these were either unanimous or committee or for preliminary hearings. And these will all actually come back to us. Should they be necessary later this afternoon? So that's G1AA, the report back on strategies and resources to require cooling and Victoria's rental buildings. G1AC, the Council Member Motion with regard to enforcement against derelict buildings, neglected properties and vacant commercial spaces. Item H1, the Bylaw for 517 - 533 - and5 - 37 Chatham Street and 530532 - 536 Herald Street. They're

resounding application and development permit with variances application for those addresses. And item H2, the bylaw for 2612, 2616, 2620 and 2628 Richmond Road and that would be specifically for the housing agreement. Does anyone wish to remove any of these items. Cancer Gardner is suggesting H2 should be removed. So we'll do that. Anything else? Not seeing any other suggestions. So it's someone like to move the other three items as the consent agenda. Thank you very much Councillor Gardner, second of my councillor Kim. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. Those are unanimous. What does take us on to one item of unfinished business? That's item f1 and this is with regard to the Victoria housing reserve fund application for the mid - town affordable housing society for its location at 611 Speed Avenue. Now I believe in fact there's an updated report for this and so I would look for one of our able staff to present that report as much as needed. And also to explain

why there is an updated report. Mr. Sauerd. Good afternoon Mayor Council. My name is Ross Howard, manager of housing. This item was not ratified by Council on May 7th as there was a desire to confirm for their details of the application. Subsequently on July 7th, the applicant formally withdrew their grand application to the city as they were not successful in receiving funding through Bilt Canada homes. And that was a condition of their funding for the Victoria Hydron Reserve Fund. And so this report, uh, simply confirms the withdrawal of their application, uh, and it's just being shared with council for information at this time just to close the loop on this item. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions on that. Culture on a councillor gardener? Yeah. Um, thanks. And through the chair to staff. I want to get a sense of what's going to, what do we know, what's going to happen with this building? I mean up until now it started out as a condo, then it was going to be rental. Then I was going to be this co - op. In terms of how we categorize this building, what's our presumption now? Is it going to be sold as market rental or what happens to it now? Mr. Sower, do we know that? Through the mayor, I think at this point in time, all we know is the project is still looking to receive final occupancy. And, uh, the owner is still the, um, the group that, uh, brought the projects or through the approvals and construction process. Um, it's sort of up to the landowner, I guess, to determine how they want to move forward. But, uh, but it seems

as though the conversion to the sort of co - op approach, his head of roadblock is they aren't able to have the funding from Bill Canada Holmes. Okay. And if the 677, 000 is not going to them, which it can't and it shouldn't. What does that leave the balance of the housing reserve fund at? Is it 4. 5 million or is it five point something million. Mr. Sauer. Through the mayor, I believe it's around 4. 8 million. Count for crew. Count your screw donut. Sorry. Is RCFO looking at or is that? Is that it? I think that's all you know at that point. Yeah. Okay.

Was Thompson? Are you going to do anything to add. Um, through the American, certainly look it up. I don't have it off the top of the head. Okay. I just had one in a question, which is that council did have some skepticism around this one. We did amend it to ensure that the federal grant was received before we gave this grant and it ends up, they did not get that grant. So I'm glad that we amended it. But is there lessons learned on this one? Like in terms of trying to protect our investments and our grants is the one. Mr. Seward. Through the mayor, um, I would note that like the Council of the original Council Motion that had been provided, like would also have prevented the funds from being released. So I think that original council motion did have kind of conditions in place that, you know, provided managed risk for the city. Uh, that being said, I do think that it did identify

that there are some gaps in the housing reserve fund guidelines specifically around, um, criteria that would be explicit for, um, sort of the nonprofit co - op model. And so we could just have some more detailed guidelines in that. So I think that's something we can take into account as part of the update to the housing strategy. Okay. Thanks. No one can seem to figure out how to crack the nut on, on co - ops right now, right? Is there other information on HRF? Otherwise I'm done. Just so hard to do anything to add. Nope. Not at this point. No. Okay. All right. That's it.

Okay. Councillor Gardner. Thank you. And thank you for the good news. Um, I'm just going to summarize a wee bit will happen on April 16th when this proposal came through to us. We ended up being very quite confused. I have to say that. That's really what happened. We had a group applying for the money. And it was not the co - op. And as we delved into the matters, um, the risk to the city I think became very high in many people's minds on this council. And it was, I mean, it was just plain old worrisome. And, uh, I appreciated, I think, believe it was a council Caradono who had the amendment, which I seconded, which was to tie that 677, to approval of the federal grant, which did not come through. And personally on April 6th, that whole discussion was very unsettling. The next day I spent hours and hours rereading those documents. And although each document kind of looked okay standalone together, they

didn't make sense to me. I then spoke to staff about it and told them my concerns. We about time it also had someone seen the VC assessment value of that property for 2025. And so the whole thing was disturbing. And on May 7th, it was actually council did not proceed with it, but it was actually its staff request that staff wanted to look further into it. Now it's a very wise decision. So thank you staff for that. And, uh, so I'm pleased that the 600 and 67, 000 was not given away. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Hammond. I'll be brief. Um, I, I also like to, um, acknowledge my colleagues from bringing in that caveat that was going forward. And I remember how reluctant I was even going in the first place. But I want to know, I want people to know that it was two people in particular who were sending me emails and others who really alerted me to this. And

so I just want to, I won't give their names in case something will happen to them. But we all, we all know them. We all got the emails. And I just want to say that thanks for the diligence of a lot of people. I even ended up calling the head of, um, the co - op association in British Columbia having a conversation with a person while I was down in Mexico as a matter of fact. And, uh, it was really enlightening for me about what was going on. So I'm really pleased that the, um, due diligence was done on this. And well, it made it easier when the other level of government withdrew. Thank you very much. Anybody else. How's Coleman? Thank you. Um, and thank you to staff for this. I think if there's a learning lesson for council, it's when the report first came forward, it suggested we could give, uh, a significant amount of money and an application would be made to

the federal government or the federal funds as a condition subsequent. We reversed the process and said, no, actually federal, the federal approval should come first. And that is perhaps the lesson learned that we should always, uh, say, yes, we will support certain initiatives. As long as the others have done due diligence as well as us. Because we could have been caught the other way. Um, and I think that this is, I'm sad that we now have to go through a different process and make sure that the building is used, but it, uh, is also about protecting the investment of the taxpayers as well. So I think that. I understand how we got there. And there were lots of hopes that were attached to this. They weren't forthcoming. And I think I'm very thankful that the federal government did some due diligence. And it wasn't made apparent. And so we aren't on the. Being hung out for the funds. It's wondering how you're going to phrase

that. Anyone who hasn't yet spoken wishes to do so. Nope. Councillor Gardiota subsequent comment or question. Did you have a subsequent company? You put your hand up a second time. Oh, all right. Yes. It's just a motion to receive, which is why I wasn't being overly harsh on the commentary. Yeah. Councillor Gardner is moving to receive. Is her second, please. Thanks Councillor Caradona. Any final comments. Not seeing any. All those in favor of receipt. Anybody opposed. Is unanimous. Thank you, Steph, for your diligence as others have noted. That takes us on two reports of committees. First, we'll deal with the report from July 23rd. Privilege mayor. I'm sorry. Big burden. Did we ever get an answer about the, uh, amount left in the reserve fund?

I thought it was 4. 8 million. But did you want to correct that? Ms. Thompson. Through you, Mary, yes, the amount that is uncommitted at this point is 4. 2 million. There you go. Thank you, Councillor. Um, the report from July 23rd Committee with the Whole. The first item, G1AA was on the consent agenda. So that's already been considered just for the information of the public. That is the report back on Strategies and Resources to Require. In Victoria's Red Bull buildings. So that has been finally resolved. And again, because we're at Council, when that is considered on the consent agenda, it is a final resolution.

The next item though was not unanimous at Committee, and that was G1AB. This is the economic unemployment land solutions report. Uh, this was carried in the majority, but there were noted oppositions. So we'll have someone move that again, please. Nice Councillor Kim, seconded by. Councillor Lon. Uh, Councillor Kim or Lot, and any comments to make at this time? Anyone else wished to make any comments? Councillor Gardner, go ahead. Thank. You, Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Last week, those who love Old Town were given a shock. That shock is not subsided. Trust, fragile after OCP 2050 is further broken. While the public hearing was waived by the majority of council, perhaps other changes can be made. The hotel working group, which created the greater Victoria Hotel Development report, which is the underpinning for the bylaw amendments before us. But there was no similar group struck to consult on Old Town Heritage. So, um, I would like to make an amendment to the seven instructions that are there.

Namely, the insertions of an item between items three and four. Go ahead. Just to give us a minute to read it. Picture everybody understands what it says. Essentially, I'm going to summarize it, but if everyone else. Hold on, don't do that. Let's let us read it first. And then I'll come back to you after I seek a secondary for your motivation. Okay, that seems on its language clear. Uh, I will accept that as a moving, an amendment. Is your secondary for that amendment? Councillor Howmund is Seconding. Go ahead, Councillor Gardner on the amendment. Excuse me very much. Um, I think the amendment speaks for Sef. It's actually to, uh, direct and get a broader heritage consultation group to consider the updated decal policies for the historic commercial district, Old Town. And that group to include members of the Heritage Advisory panel, Victoria's Civic Heritage Trust, the hallmark society. And no inheritage experts in BC. Thank you very much, Councillor Hammond. Anything you'd like to add. Nothing, Senator? No. Okay.

Any other comments. Councillor Kim. Councillor Lord. Um, thanks through the chair. Um, again, a question to the mover and it is totally up to you to answer or not. Um, I, I like where this is going. I just don't know why we're consulting Heritage Experts in BC if this is such a, uh, Victoria specific concern. Are we talking about heritage experts in BC who are familiar with the area? Um, why not consult like federal heritage experts? Just, I'm trying to understand the scope here. Council Gardner, would you like to try and answer that? There are no one heritage experts in BC that are actually in Victoria. A lot of people, I think inheritage world are very familiar with it. This is not identify any particular person. All right. How's your load? Any questions? I do.

Thanks for you, Mayor. Is the heritage advisory panel not already involved in the decap updates and also the heritage review? Like, isn't this consultation already happening. Who would like to answer that. Yes, please go ahead. Through the mayor, Andrea Hudson, assistant director of Citywide Planning, um, we haven't yet commenced our projects around the Heritage Programmer Newell or the broader downtown core area plan update. But those are two projects that we, um, we will be considering and we would be bringing those, um, project approaches to counsel in the future. So likely the new council, um, and at that time we would propose an engagement strategy as part of those projects. And we would, um, provide some advice about who should be consulted and counsel you would have an opportunity to sanction that at that time, but that will be for coming to the next council. Okay.

Thank you for that. So if I might just to clarify, so you're suggesting that this is already your intention. Um, so the mayor to engage on those projects broadly, including with Heritage groups would be our intention, but we just haven't gotten to that level of detail yet as we're still in the project planning stage. Any questions just before I go back to Consecrator, are there questions or comments. Councillor Gardner? This is to go beyond the, let's get feedback, um, engagement. It's to actually suggest consultation. We've had consultation with the hotel group. And this is very important. And I believe this gives good direction to stuff.

Thank you. May I ask Steph, how you would interpret this inclusion. And I guess my question is what impact if any does this have on the larger motion. Ms. Hudson. Um, through the mayor, um, my reading of this is that it's meant to direct consultation on broader downtown core area plan policy updates. Whereas the rest of the motion is dealing with more immediate zoning changes. So I'm not sure if it impacts the rest of the motion or if that's what the mover intended. That's a great question. Councillor Gardner, did you intend for this to have an impact on the more immediate term work, which is the bulk of the rest of the motion? Does attachment A have an impact. I would think so. Yes. Within, yes. So yeah. Attachment A is about author. So just to be clear, you've just wanted to clarify, you do intend this to have an impact on the short term.

And that's just attachment A is part of the short term. Yes. Very good. All right. So, um, I'm going to put my question to staff then. What impact would this have on the rest of the motion. Uh, through the mayor, if this is to seek, um, advice from these groups on the proposed tax exemption program and the other zoning changes, then we would have to undertake that work before, uh, embarking upon those amendments. So, um, it would just, it would add some time onto the project. Yes, that was the source of my question because five, six, and seven, uh, if I recollect from the answers to some of our previous questions, we're very specific to those particular programs. Uh, and so I actually support number four. I just don't think that it should be there.

If anything, I think it should be a motion arising. Because it seems to me that from staff's response, it's more applicable to the broader discussion, which I think is crucial. What I would be loathe to have it have delaying impact on, uh, in particular, the RTE. So I can support the content of this, but not where it's placed. Uh, other comments. Councillor Caradona. Yeah, I think before it was moved, it actually, we should have talked to staff because I think it probably should have been ruled out of order. Because what this motion is about is pretty narrowly confined to the central business district. It doesn't really have very much to do with Old Town a little bit. Uh, but given a minimum stick, we're made last week or the week before even less so. What this is doing based on my reading is setting up some kind of a permanent consultation group. It's not saying have a consultation with X groups. It's saying create a

new group that is much more generally applicable to decap. So to my mind, this should be part of a decap related motion, either a Council Member motion or motion arising or something that would relate to the totality of what's going on in DCAP. I don't think, I don't see this as nearly addressing, sorry, addressing this relatively narrow scope of this motion here. So I don't think it belongs here at all. It's not, to my mind, it's not in order. Thank you for that opinion, Councillor. Anyone else on this particular amendment. Uh. No, you cannot. That is correct. Councillor Thompson. Just wanted to clarify an earlier comment from staff. So if I understand the normal process properly, uh, it would be that staff would go away if this wasn't here. Staff would go away and be looking into who to consult and would come back to council with a recommendation. Here's the people to consult. And that would probably be up to the next council anyways.

Is that correct? Through the mayor. Yes, we would do that for the broader revisit of the downtown core area plan and the heritage program update. That is a separate work from these more immediate. Recommendations. So yes, that was our intention is for the, for the bigger projects, we would be coming back to Council to consider the broader engagement plan that we would do. And that would likely be after the election and onto the next council, whoever that is. Yes. Okay. I think that this is premature. So I'll be opposing it on that ground. Thank you very much. Anyone who has not yet spoken wishes to do two reminding that we aren't council. Okay. Councillor Gardner closing off. Closing off discussion. Yes. On your amendment, yes.

On your amendment. Nothing on the amendment. Okay. Uh, I'm going to vote against this because I hope that what will happen is that it will not be included in this and that there will be emotionalizing falling this, which would be entirely appropriate. So all those in favor of the amendment. Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, Councillor Gardner. And opposition. Concert Dell. Councillor Kim, Council Cardinal, Councillor Loughton, myself and Councillor Thompson. Councillor, uh, so that is defeated, noting three and opposition. Rather, sorry, three favor six in oppositions backwards. Uh, Councillor Gerd, you're before I move on, would you like to reserve the right to hold that as a motion rising after we conclude this? Great. Excellent. I will come back to you at that point. So on the main motion, not amended. Yes. Go ahead, Councillor Hammond. Have you not concluded your remarks. Not at all. Oh, well, but go ahead then. Sorry. I thought you had. Staff, please put up the map I provided. On page 12

of the industry of the industry report, this one. There was a map suggesting distribution of hotel supply. The map suggests almost all of Victoria could be home to new hotels. But last week and since we've heard chatter of hotel projects already envisioned, perhaps 10 for the city Victoria, wherein Victoria? Could we have the map, please?

Is that the map you're requesting? Great, good. I asked the question already. Sudsen. Uh, I'm sorry. Could you please repeat the question. This is, to me, my time. No, your time is not recorded when you're repeating a question. The request was staff. Okay. Thank you. Um, last week we heard there's lots of chatter of hotels already envisioned. We heard that jury in our session last week. Perhaps 10 for Victoria. So I was wondering where in Victoria, uh, and how many are envisioned to be reuse of heritage or underutilized buildings? Because it also mentions office buildings in that report in this report. And how many of the 10 envision hotels, uh, would be uncleared sites. Ms.

Hudson, do you know that? Um, through the mayor, I don't have the report in front of me, but I do recall that there wasn't that level out of, of specificity around, you know, there was a lot of discussion about hotel opportunities that could be new builds that could be reusing heritage buildings. Um, but I don't believe there was specific numbers in each of those categories. I think they were just all seen as opportunities. And it also talked about hotel opportunities in the whole region in addition to Victoria. Yes, thank you. This schematic shows the dark blue. It's just the city victoria. So are there spots throughout the whole city that are being considered. Perhaps do you need an additional staff person to join you to answer some of these questions? Good afternoon. Mayoraulta Robert Batalla, senior planner, Community Planning Division. Um, if I can maybe try and elaborate, um, with the map, uh, shows here, which is from the destination greater Victoria report is that

hotels are anticipated and needed throughout the region. The report talks about there's a full spectrum of different types of hotels, full service, motel, et cetera. And so it's really looking to try and draw and incentivize those types of developments to occur throughout the region. Um, the report also certainly acknowledges Victoria as the Centre for tourism, arts and culture, whatnot, as it's likely to receive the most amount or highest concentration of hotels. I think naturally. But there's no specific breakdown of how many may occur. Um, what assistant director Hudson, I think is trying to explain is that, uh, what was discussed last week is that the, uh, revitalization tax exemption, for example, would be open to providing an incentive where, for example, a vacant site is being proposed for a hotel. And that could be anywhere in terms of a vacant site. It could also be applied to where there's a non - residential building that could be converted to a hotel purpose. So in a

class C office, for example, um, as well, it would apply to an existing hotel, motel. If they are looking to also add additional net new guest rooms to their property. And so it's quite robust and flexible that way. But it doesn't specify what specific, we wouldn't get into what specific type of hotel. If it's a five star hotel or three star, et cetera. But she's really making quite flexible and open to all forms of hotel. In response to sort of the key objectives outlined in the destination greater Victoria report. So I hope that helps. Thank you. The tax incentive. The industry report references several times existing heritage rehabilitation within the city. Seismic upgrades conversion grant programs. And suggests exploring or expanding heritage program. Nowhere in the industry report is a 10 year tax holiday estimated at 48 million dollar gift. So how did this come about and who chose this. And why is it a blanket tax holiday. To all or any hotel as opposed

to just heritage. Said a Mr. Vitalis from Ms. Hudson or who'd like to take that? Maybe I'll start. Um, the direction that staff have right now was essentially, I think it was previously discussed at Council and Destination Grade of Victoria was presented. And that was just the idea of exploring a tax exemption to strategically encourage the development of hotel type accommodations within Victoria. Um, staff have not prepared the revitalization tax exemption. That's actually something that we're starting to look at and be preparing drafts at something that would come separately to council. The intent right now is that the tax exemption would provide. A proportionate reduction in the municipal tax that's collected for each of those hotels or new motel or guest rooms that are developed.

Um, it's not, it would not be a full 100 percent exemption of the municipal taxes, but it's just a proportionate reduction. So it is a little bit different than the heritage program. And so we are looking at sort of different approaches for that, but the whole focus as the other week when I call it Malcolm McClane presented the item was that it would be focused on the incremental increase in value resulting from the capital improvements that occur on the site. So it's not a full tax holiday. It's just a proportion on the municipal portion. The property is still subject to all other, um, federal provincial CRD hospital school board taxes. Thank you. I understood that.

Um, and, um, I understood the reduction in the conference. But the estimate was still 84 million dollars now in 2026 residents, both homeowners and tenants contributed about 56 percent of the tax revenue that came in. And 2026, it was 177 million. So this 84 million favor will be born essentially by, uh, 56 or 57 percent by residential homeowners and tenants. I think that's important to recognise. Now has the staff considered a 60 or an 84 million tax exemption for any other industry. Ms. Hudson, I think that's to you. Although I do believe that you actually answered that question before. And when we last considered this matter, but please do consider it again. Through the mayor, no, the other tax exemption programs that we have are for Heritage Rehabilitation, um, to encourage new rental buildings in the city and to encourage retrofits of existing rental buildings to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. So this would be, uh, an additional new tax exemption program specifically for hotels. Has

there been any other exemption at that kind of level of 84 million over 10 year period. Ms. Thompson, I think this is to you. Um, three mayor. I don't have the details of our existing exemptions. Um, so I would have to pull that, but, uh, but across all of our exemption programs, whether they be revivalization exemptions or regular permissive exemptions, um, they told, we are quite generous as the city as we've talked in the past, but I would have to pull the information to look exactly how, uh, much that would be, uh, the number of course that is being referenced here is over the 10 year period when we report out on the one year.

So the annual amount. So that's what, cause it varies. And properties come on and off, um, each year. So, um, I would need some time to pull this information if it's needed. Thank you. I understood the Rodola 84 million. It would be about 8. 4 million per year more or less. Cause of course the 10 years aren't going to be a solid 10 years. Um, so I think that was, uh, no one. So my real question was any other this kind of tax exemption to an industry. So not your housing, but just to an industry. Final comment now, I guess. Unless we get a motion arising after this, the conflation of tax exemption with revenue or taxes years later gives a false linkage. One is not dependent on the other. I do not buy for a moment. That a hotel would decide not to build in Victoria without a 10 year tax holiday. The key themes considered a critical in the letter we received as

councillors, uh, a week ago from, um, destination Victoria. Where speed, certainty and red tape reduction. Not tax holidays. That was not mentioned in his letter. Given the absence of consultation with Heritage groups in the public and given the 84 million dollar tax holiday, I can't support this policy. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much. We could put the motion back up on the screen. That would be helpful. Councillor Hammond. Thanks. Mine's going to be an easier one. Um, last time I was on the four votes for asking for a public hearing, um, and that was defeated because five Oden in favor of, um, of continuing to not hold a public hearing. And then I, I heard from people afterwards, and some people said, you know, why didn't you have a public hearing? And I said, well, I don't mind saying I was wavering on that.

But then there was also some questions that people brought to me. And as a matter of fact, I remember one in particular, I asked one of our directors. And the director gave the right information the person actually who was asking the question had wrong information and wasn't misinformation. It was just, they had, they had a wrong assumption. And it was on that one in which actually the person had this misconception of what was going on. And I got a really great response from one of our directors about this is that I realised the people who have a lot of misunderstanding about this. And therefore, it's not for the whole thing, but for my statement as a whole about not having a public hearing, I'll just be voting no. I get the pros and cons of the tax exemptions and because it's on the lift, I feel more comfortable with this. Um, but it's just on that, that I'm going to change my vote and vote.

No, I know it won't make any difference. But, um, and I doubt no one except me, but I just wanted to say that. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on this is on the floor. Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, we will continue to evolve, but as we do so, we need to make sure that voices are heard. At the last meeting when we dealt with this. I asked if item number two could be severed. So we could deal with the issue of public hearings. Cause I think there should be one. I think the collateral impact on Old Town could be enormous. And I think the public would like to weigh in on that.

I was told it couldn't be severed. And that's fine. So therefore I voted against the whole motion and I will continue to do so. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Councillor Dell. Sure. I would just like to wrap us up. Most importantly while we heard some complaining about this, this is a absolutely key city strategic priority. It's one of the key priorities for destination greater Victoria. And it's one of the most important policies I think in our city. So I'm quite disappointed here. All these small side quests around what is a really important issue of getting more hotels in the area. I mean, if we're going to do our job here, I think most of us should read the deck greater at Victoria Destination Master Plan, which identifies hotel development as a critical issue for Victoria. We directed staff to do this work.

They went and they worked with all the critical stakeover in the city and came back with a suite of policies, uh, unfortunately, um, there's been a lot of admissinformation about one particular policy, which we pulled out. And that's fine because it was quite minor. But the rest of these are really important. Um, so I think it's, it's really exciting day for us to support this because it's showing that we want people to come to Victoria. We want to support downtown. We want new hotel development in the city and we're listening to our staff who have put forward a really thoughtful suite of policies to make that happen. Uh, I don't agree with many of the criticisms here. Uh, the public hearing. I haven't really heard much at all about these issues other than the one that we pulled out, which is removed. Um, so I think overall this is a really exciting win for Victoria.

And I don't want the negative comments distract for, for how important this is and how much work. Experts have put into this. And I think this is a big win for our council. So I'm happy to support this. Thank you very much. Anyone who hasn't yet spoken wish to do so. Not seeing anyone else wish to do so. I will just comment that, uh, I do support this. I did think that it could withstand a public hearing, which is why I supported actually withdrawing number two previously. Having said that, I also think that the content of the entire thing is very admirable and quite supportable.

So I'm not going to let the lack of a public hearing push me into a dispensing with the rest of it, which I think is extremely supportable. Uh, so I will support it moving forward today. With that, all those in favor. Councillor Dell, Councillor Kim, Councillor Carradoni Council Loughten, myself, Councillor Thompson. And opposition, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond and Councillor Gardner. So noting three N opposition. That is adopted. That would take us on usually two item G1AC. Uh, this was the Council Member Motion that was carried unanimously at the July 23rd Committee of the Whole. So that has been dealt with on our consent agenda. That takes us on to a number of matters under the G1B category. These are all, I feel like I'm just talking about point of information. Yes. Sorry. Oh, I'm a bigger pardon. Yes. Uh, would you like to actually, um, provide a motion arising, which I believe you can just do with the information that you had proposed as an

amendment, which was not allowed. Let us put that on as a motion rising. So not a new number, but just a brand new motion rising. You just push that up. Thank you, Councillor Gardner. I completely forgot that. There you go. Uh, moving that, I'm happy the second dat. Is there any discussion or anything you would like to add, Councillor Gardner. Um, previous comments. When I hear public, we're going to have a broad discussion. That's we've seen before. It means frequently a survey and really kind of after the fact. And that it's not really, really consultation. And, uh, I think it's very important that this be up front. And that's why the consultation, I suggest that consultation group. So it wouldn't be lost in some general survey, which can be so, uh, used or misused by, uh, special interest groups. And so I thought that it was very important. I realised for staff members were on this committee that created this, the greater Victoria Hotel Development.

And these people, the heritage people and the people who love Heritage are as much stakeholders as hotels when it comes to Old Town. So that's why I wanted this in there. So the heritage group supposed to be broad, not a broad consultation process meeting the usual engagement where you just ask everybody after the fact. I believe they should be constituted really soon. And I'm not suggesting who all goes on it. But that we should get, uh, those are our knowledge groups that we have now. And I think people here, yourself mayor more than mere, me can name probably four or five experts were really well known in this city and beyond this city in the heritage field. And there may be some who are here who actually helped do the first guidelines of Old Town.

Yep. Let it open. That's it. Great. Um, yeah, I do support this. And I support it for a slightly different reason. Uh, and that is because as I recollect, uh, we have had extensive conversations about a future examination of not just heritage and old town or the decap, but of heritage broadly. Uh, I think that is going to be an extraordinarily complex and challenging conversation for the next council that will have many, many twists and turns, which I don't believe have even been anticipated at this point. And so I think this fits very nicely within the context of that larger conversation. Some specificity, particularly around Oldtime, but for me, this is just one component of what is a very much larger conversation, which is absolutely necessary. And which I hope the next council will commit to doing expeditiously. So I'm happy to support this. Any other comments on this. Senion, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you for that. Now moving

on to G1B, this is the report from our earlier committee of the whole meeting today. Uh, we are going to walk through all of the items individually, although some of them, uh, we're unanimous. Some of them are not. So just to ensure that we capture everything accurately. We'll do them one at a time. And I would note that the reason they were working through all of these of course is that as I'd mentioned previously, this is our last Council meeting before we take our usual hiatus in August. So we'll just make sure we get to all of the matters that require any attention before September.

So up first was G1BA. And this is the review of the tenant protection Bylaw Compensation Requirements, which was amended and discussed at length. So I will ask for someone to move this, please. Yes, but we're going to go through each one, you know, just to make sure that we have the accurate record of well everything. I believe councillor, uh, Hammond, you originally posed this, did you not? Yes. The Ten of Brecht, yes. So you'd like to move it again. Sure. You have to go through each one. Yes. Councillor Hammond's moving is your secondary councillor Kim. Any further commentary. Seeing none, all those in favor. And he would opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. The promise of tax exemptions for 2027 28.

This was in fact unanimous, but we will do so again just for the record. This is G1BB with some elect to move those, please. Thanks Councillor Caradona, seconded by Concer Coleman. Any discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous as well. It takes us on to G1 BC. This was also unanimous earlier. And this is the Council Member Motion advocacy to the Provincial Government on continued operating subsidies from a koala housing. Someone like to move that, please. Also, Gerardone is moving. Concert Kim is seconding. Any discussion, seeing none, all those in favor. Thank you. That's unanimous. G1BD. This is the Council Member Motion on Advocacy to improve return to Futures wanted on warrants. Uh, this was amended, but eventually was supported.

Someone like to move that, please. Councillor Thompson. I'm every second that any discussion. Seeing none, always in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much. G1BE. This is the Council Member Motion with regard to formalizing a fair wages policy. This was also unanimous earlier on the consent agenda, but we'll do one again here just to be clear. Uh, Councillor Thompson, you moved this. I forget who second did it at the time. The Constacardona, thank you very much for doing that. Any conversation on that one. Seeing none, all those in favor, anyone opposed. It's also unanimous. G1BF was the Council member motion establishing a by name list for the City Victoria, which was amended multiple times, but is now here before. It's councillor Loton.

I presume you'd like to move that. Someone like the second account for Thompson. Any further discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is also unanimous. And finally item G1BG. This is the Council Member Motion with regarding to emergency response to the metatomidine crisis. Wealth Councillor move that again. Councillor Thompson is seconding. Any further discussion. Seeing none, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. And it's also unanimous. Thank you for all of that. So all of those were taken care of this morning. Moving on on to Bylaws. Item H1 is the bylaw for 517 533 and 537 Chatham and 535 32 and 536. Harold, this is the rezoning application and development permit with variances applications. This was on the consent agenda for the Council because it is preliminary readings for second and third reading.

And so that will return to us at our daytime Council meeting in September. And that takes us on to item H2, which was on the consent agenda, but was removed. And this is the Bylaw for 26126, 2620 and 2628 Richmond Road, the housing agreement, uh, and that is the first, second, and third reading of that housing agreement, which would by convention be on our consent agenda because it's preliminary readings, but perfectly appropriate to pull it off. So it's someone like to move those readings, please. Thanks Councillor Careguan. It's seconded by Cons for Dell. Caradona or Del any commentary. Yeah. Actually, I do have a, actually more of a question for staff, uh, when I was reading this one on the agenda, I thought, I don't remember approving this one. And, uh, and then it occurred to me. Oh yeah, this, this is now a delegated authority. So I wanted to ask first of all, is this just, I want to ask how this one went.

If I'm not mistaken, was this the first delegated authority for a Sixtory building or, or maybe not the first one, but just how did the process go for staff as a delegated authority. Who would like to take that question. Uh, Mr. Handy, go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, Meryl, to a members of Council, Jim Handy acting assistant direct divine services. This is not the first six story residential project that has been approved under delegated powers. Um, it is, um, one of the first because those powers and the new zoning were adopted late last year. This particular project you're correct. It hasn't been in front of council because it is a development permit. That meets the criteria for delegation. And as per the land use procedures by law, we're the only matter for staff's consideration is consistency with the applicable design guidelines. And in this instance, um, the application is considered consistent with the design guidelines and if council do have any further questions. We do

have senior plant majority Gordon here who has been handling the application. Sure. My questions are all pretty high level because I read the report. I get I get a sense of what this building is. But we've obviously been working for some years to try to streamline development drive down costs, make it deliver housing quicker to people, reduce cost. What can't, I mean, I'm not going to ask you how much this reduced the overall cost because you probably don't know. But can, can you give us anything here about why this is beneficial? How many months did this remove approximately from the process? Like what, why is this good to have this, this delegated authority. I would like to take that. How about you, Mr. Justin? Or Mr. Handy. Through you, Mayor, I'll start and then maybe my colleagues can add, but I think, um, the first thing is it does is it gives, um, certainty. Um, about the process when they embark. They know that if

they submit an application that is consistent with our land use procedures by a long consistent with our, um, design guidelines, then the path to an approval in just dealing with stuff. Um, in terms of time savings, um, the time savings, I would estimate at least a couple of months because that's the time that goes into preparing reports for, um, for Committee of the whole getting on agendas, things like that. Okay. And so, and thank you for that. And so the hazard agreement still has to come to counsel though. Is there any theoretical world in which the housing agreement is also delegated. Or is that automatic, this is like the local government act require that that come to us. Mr. Johnston. Thank you, Sue the mayor.

Um, Alec Johnston acting director of Planning and Development. The housing agreements are adopted by Bylaw. And so those do need to come to counsel for, uh, consideration. So, um, with the density bonus provisions relying on the adoption of a housing agreement, there will be a need for that aspect of a proposal to continue to come to counsel. Okay. Thanks those answers and thanks for your work on this file. Thank you very much. Concert Dell is the secondary any comments. Yeah. My understanding is this housing has a fair number of two and three bedroom units. Are you able to just confirm how many of those are or is that too detailed for today? Scrutin. Welcome. Uh, yes, thank you. Good afternoon, Mary Council, Jerty Gordon, Senior Plunder. Um, so the application does comply with the family housing requirements. I know the Zone Bella, which is 20 and 10 percent of two and three bedroom units respectively.

Okay. Thank you. On a three bedrooms, which I think is around 10 or something, which is quite substantial. Is that, is that above what we would normally see in the family housing policy? Or like, does the family housing policy contributing to getting that many three bedrooms in this unit. Mr. Gordon? Oh, just a bit surprised, honestly. Um, through you, yes, I think it's fair to say that the family housing policy has made that, uh, a reality for the three bedroom units. I don't know that the applicant of delivered that without that requirement. Great. Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions on the floor?

Counsel Gardner. Thank you. Um, I understand that this development and the housing agreement, well, not quite the housing green has to come through by a law, but fall under the OCP 2050 blanket zoning. I get that. But as counselling is on for the North Jubilee neighbourhood, I was present at the comic meeting and have questions related to the issues rated to that meeting. So, uh, first of all, were there variances during your review. Scordan. Through the mayor. Yes, there are variances related to this application. You please subscribe them. Mr. Gordon, I'm going to ask you a question before you answer that. Am I correct in believing that all that is before us today is the housing agreement and that the other aspects of the F application were delegated and approved by a staff? Through you, yes, that is correct. That would mean that the questions that are appropriate and material today specifically would relate only to the housing agreement. Is that correct? Um, through you,

yes, that's my understanding. So are there variances, as was asked in the question that would be applicable to the housing agreement. Through you, no, there are no variances related to thousand agreements. Thank you. Councillor, will you please confine your questions today? Thank you, Mayor. I was trying to, just so that public would understand the whole delegation process. Is parking in that agreement. Is that relevant to the housing agreement. Uh, through you, no, it is not. Thank you. And, uh, so there were no setbacks or shadowing considerations. Okay. So, um, during the Calic and otherwise, there were Community asked considering the approval of this development. What if staff do with any of those requests? Were they considered it all or what happens. During the delegated process?

Specifically relevant to the housing agreement, but if you feel the ad, feel free you mayor, maybe just like to clarify that at the time of this application, it was a rezoning because it was submitted prior to the changes to the OCP. So that is why a calic meeting was, was held in this instance. But would not have been required. If it had been applied for after the adoption of the OCP and Sony Bella Amendments. Councillor. Yeah. So during that process, even though it was in transition, were any of the community concerns considered at all. Mr. Gordon through you, Mayor. At the time that the rezoning was being, uh, reviewed, uh, yes, those concerns were, uh, reviewed by staff as part of the normal calic review process. Did they change the proposal at all. Ms. Burden.

Through my recollection, know the application was not significantly revised as a result of the, uh, CALIC comment specifically. I would note that there were significant revisions to the proposal through the process, but not as a result specifically of the Kellogg comments. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And again, I understand as we start out saying is that, uh, we do not give any. Real opinion as the like or not like any of these proposals. We are only here just to rubber stamp the housing agreement. Is that not it? We are here to consider the terms of the housing. Yes. Thank you. That's it. Very good. Anyone else on the housing agreement. So you know, comments, sell those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. That takes us on to item H3, which would usually be on the consented gender, but it also includes an adoption, which my convention, we do not put on consent so that individuals have an opportunity

for any final comments. So we have also first, second, and third reading of the zoning bylaw amendment bylaw. And for also the adoption of the zoning bylaw amendment bylaw. And so I don't believe we need to separate these two. I believe is not necessary. Is that correct, Mr. Johnston? They can be done together. The preliminary readings at adoption, is that correct? Yes. So we'll take that with one motion with someone like to move those, please. That's the concert Thompson's moving, Councillor Cutler's Second Day. Councillor Thompson, any comments. You're doing any comments. I'll just say very briefly that I'm happy we're doing this and subsequent to a coming to Community the whole Iris CD emails from the heavy industry from heavy industry in this, in this community, as I'm sure others did too, who are really supportive and relieved. And, uh, I will note that a number of cities across this country have zoned heavy industry and light industrial out of existence in urban areas. And

they've come to regret it. So I'm, I'm happy that we're going to continue to move forward as a city that not just supports residential, but is a place where, where we make things and where we employ people. So this will provide a lot of assurance and certainty to our industrial partners. It's actually really quite important that we're doing this. Thank you very much. Somebody else. Council Gardner. Thank you, Mirror. I'd like to make a couple of changes or corrections, particularly item six. I'm sorry, just a second here. We're talking about a particular bylaws at this point. You want to start amending the bylaws? Yeah. There's a mistake in that. All right. You'll have to pull the entire bylaw up onto the screen. Item six. Thank you. Hang on. Steph, can you pull up the text of the bylaw.

So can you direct us please to the section that you are correcting. Thank you. Uh, obviously consultation one. Whoops. I have here amendment one item six changed. Where is these section? It's two smaller prints. Sorry. Where it says with consultation. What page am I in the right place. Mr. Johnston, can you assist here. I don't know why I've written down item six. I think a little bit of clarity on, on trying to amend would be helpful. So the recommendation. Okay. So I'm looking at the recommendation. Just because the error. I'm sorry. The recommendation is simply that we approve the bylaws. Okay. In the documents, we just got on it. It doesn't have where they're supposed to be consultation. Remember. We're adding consultation. And they have the wrong words on as to who they're supposed to include. So I'm sorry, Mr.

Johnston, can you recollect a previous recommendation that would have led us to the consideration of the bylaw amendments? Mr. Kingsley, yes. Yes. Uh, thank you Mayor. I'm just looking at the staff covering report now. And just from the sounds of the conversation, it might be that Councillor Gardner is referring to the background section when it refers to the Community, the whole, the original committee, the whole resolution that it refers to. There we are. Okay. Number six. Thank you. Yes. The intention was for the, uh, calorie type neighbour associations, which means the James Bay neighbourhood association. I've got to consult. Maybe wetter have the right group.

I'm still not clear. Number six halfway through. Yes. Including the Victoria West Community Association James Bay and it should be neighbourhood association. And the rest of that sentence is, I mean, the rest. That is a correction that I want somewhere if so staff at least understands which group. Was meant. Very good. Then you're proposing, I don't know. Mr. Kingsley, I'm really struggling with this from a procedural perspective because this has already been adopted by Council. And so we're now actually revisiting a previously approved recommendation as we are considering the bylaws pertaining to that recommendation, in my opinion, that is highly out of order. And so I'm going to look to you for your comment on that. Because if this is the case, we actually need to reconsider this matter, which has a proper procedure, which cannot be done today. Uh, three mayor, that is correct.

The staff report, what's the text that's listed in front of Council is in a background section. So it is referring to a previous committee, the whole resolution that was subsequently ratified by council. And this bylaws, the result of the direction that's contained within. If there is indeed an error or something that council wishes to revisit there, it is procedurally possible, but I would recommend the best way to do that would be for a submission of a motion to amend something previously adopted, which could be done by Council at any time. Now, it can't be done now. In fact. Just a second, Councillor Thompson. Mr. Johnston, what is the impact on this if it's delayed until September 3rd. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify first if it's helpful. That this particular, um, part of the motion, uh, instructing staff, did you broad consultation is related to the proposed OCP amendment to change the design guidelines.

It's not related to the zoning amendments that are before council today. So, um, we still have an opportunity to, and we also understand the intent here of who we're supposed to be consulting with as part of that broad engagement on the OCP amendment, which was always intended to come after these zoning updates, um, so if that's helpful, we can, uh, so let me be clear if I understand you correctly. The consideration of the bylaws that are actually on the agenda, which we're considering in this moment, uh, do not necessarily prevent us from returning at a future date to correct this particular report. Thank you. I'm going to suggest Councillor Gardner that you cannot amend this today. We can vote on the bylaws today. You can return to the September 3rd meeting with a motion to amend this report. The two are not an extricably linked.

And that procedurally is what must happen. Thank you. And please just so the general public understands this report was part of this week's agenda item. We did not see it. When on the 23rd. Like I didn't have a copy of this until Monday morning. Well, these reports are provided the Friday before. And if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Johnston, please provide the correct information about when business was made publicly available. Yes, through the mayor, uh, this, um, this motion was ratified, uh, on the 23rd. So the wording here was presented to Council last week. So the text of this material was actually considered and approved on the 23rd of July. Thank you, Mayor. We didn't get a copy of, see, that's the whole issue. But that's okay. This material was presented to council last week and was approved. This has been in the public prior, the Friday prior to July 23rd. So it's been in the public domain for almost two weeks. I get that it

was on the Friday. I picked mine up on Monday morning. But even then. But it's at least two weeks ago that this was provided. Yes, but if you have it, we can still only make an amendment today when it comes up. We couldn't make an amendment earlier to correct it. Considered on July 23rd is when it should have been amended on July 23rd. So leave it at that as it is. The correct procedure now is to consider the bylaws which are not tied precipitously to this. And if you wish to correct, then aspect of this report, you can bring a motion to do so for the September 3rd meeting. That's the proper procedure. Now Councillor Thompson, do you have something to add to that. Mayor, I recall seeing that provision and thinking that there were a couple of typos in it, but I didn't think it was relevant because it's just direction to consult with groups. It would be downtown residents association. And then there's

a typo in burnside gorge communities. So technically. It's really not relevant. And it was considered back in June actually. So Councillor Thompson, I appreciate your commentary, but I don't want to get into debate about this document because this is not before us today. Councillor Dale, do you have anything to add to this? Okay. So back on the bylaws. Here they are. Um, with someone like to move and suck in these bylaws. Oh, yes, you did. I'm sorry. Um, Ms. Roader, can you remind me who moved and seconded the bylaws. No, who was it? You wish to know the mover in Secondary. It was, uh, Councillor Thompson, second councillor, Caradona. Thank you. And I believe I already asked if you wish to commented. You both declined.

Which is why we went to Councillor Gardner. Councillor Gardner, anything further. I'm not too sure what I can speak on. Okay. The last speak to the bylaws. Yes. The last item is with a map. Is about the, um, James Bay with the Coast Guard and it does not have autoinport in it because often point has been removed. Does that make sense to anyone? Staff comments on the mapping that's associated with bylaws. Yes. Please join us. Go ahead. There we go. Sorry. I thought red means stop. Good afternoon Mayor Counsel Mike Angrove acting manager planning and regulatory services through the mayor. That's correct. Out in point has been removed from the zoning. So it will remain in the old zoning regulation bylaw as per Council's direction until they finalise their planning process. Right. Thank you, Maya. Make a comment on that. Absolutely. Okay. Your last sentence is when they finish their analysis and I understand, of course, we've gone through, uh, the MOU that was way back, um, first time we went to a meeting

at all. It wasn't even a formal meeting, but it was a City Hall was about the Oden Point Master plan. And I believe it's been renewed three or four times with the MOU. So when it's completed, do we have a date as the MOU going to be rewritten? What's happening with the MOU? Cause I think we're going through four or five versions of it and an extensions since 2000. And was it six. Mr. Bateman, do you have any information on that. Uh, Through the mayor, I think at this point the Ogden point is just at a, at a standstill, and recognising that, uh, in point in the greater Victoria Harbour authority are going through their extensive planning process, uh, currently, I believe they'll have an update. This fall, um, to the public on how that's going, but they are in their early phases of the process. Thank you. So is there any intention of recreating the MOU so that we have a deadline. Mr. Bateman.

Uh, no, I don't believe so. Thank you. Anything further on the bylaws. Okay. Not seeing anything further. All those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. That takes a song to item H4. This is in fact the development program with variances application and the rezoning application for 11 to 18th Street. This is for the adoption of the Zoning Regulation Housing Agreement and approval of the development permit with variances application. We'd like to move both of those, please. Thanks, Councillor Caradona, seconded by Councillor Hammond. Councillor Done any comments. Councillor Hammond, any comments? Any other comments. Let's sing another comment, sell those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. H5 is the adoption of the housing agreement for 2501 to 2699 Blanchard Street, 825 and 841 Hillside, 2500 through 2684 dollar place and 900 Kings Road. Also, I believe known as the evergreen properties. This is the adoption of the housing agreement for all of those same properties. So I like to move that please. Thanks, Councillor

Kim seconded by Councillor Coleman. Any comments from Kim McCollman? Seeing none, any other comments. Seeing that always in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Well, folks, that actually manages to conclude remarkably the open aspects of our council meeting today. We do have several items to consider enclosed. I will note for the public that despite our fractious nature, we are trying to continue to do good work. And we will, in fact, be meeting again, uh, on September the 3rd. At that time at 9 o'clock in the morning, you will see us resume our meetings for the last six weeks of this term. I'm sure those six meetings will be entertaining, if not substantive. So with that, I would wish you all a wonderful summer, at least for the August portion thereof. And I would ask Mr.

Kingsley to remind us of the reasons why we are either able or required to move into closed. Thank you, Mayor. The reasons proposed today to close the meeting are under Section 91C of the Community Charter regarding labour relations or other employee relations. Section 91F regarding law enforcement matter. Section 91K regarding negotiations and related discussions, respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service at preliminary stages in Section 92B regarding the consideration of information received and held in confidence related to negotiations between the municipality and another level of government. Fabulous. I have a motion for those reasons to go into close. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, Second by Councillor Kim. Any discussion. Seeing none. All those in favor.

And it would oppose. Thank you everyone. Uh, we will see you after August and, uh, hopefully everyone will have an enjoyable time with family at some point during that month. We'll adjourn for 10 minutes to allow staff to move us into closed and also because we haven't taken a break in sometime. Let us resume at 320.