Transcript: Committee of the Whole - 2026/07/02

Council Kim is joining us online briefly and then we'll be joining us a little later this morning in person. So we do have a full complement this morning. We have for our consideration at Committee today two sets of minutes, one land use matter, two staff reports and one council member motion. But of course before we begin our work together we always like to take a moment to ground ourselves and the recognition of the territories on which we have the opportunity to do our work, the lands and the waters that surround them that have been stewarded for so many generations by the Quangan people. We have so many opportunities to work with the Songhees Nation in the Kosapsum Nation in an effort to ensure that all of the people who live here in the City of Victoria have as many opportunities as possible to enjoy the pleasures and the realities and the opportunities that are here in the city. We've had in fact a very interesting

day yesterday as we celebrated Canada Day and had a chance to join with the nation's as they too opened the celebrations, the lawns of the legislature. With a performance from the Le Kuangan dancers and some very thoughtful comments from the leaders of both nations. And I think it is helpful for us to realise that even recognising what is historically a very colonial celebration. We can do so in recognition of the fact that we understand that over our histories there has been contributed, but that we are easing into a time when we begin to understand the importance of working together to ensure that the future is more open for all of us to participate as best we can. We continue to enjoy the opportunity to work with the nations and I think it's important for us to take each moment each day and perhaps understand that many of the things that are perhaps are unexpected as opportunities. And some of the opportunities that we help to

create are supported and sometimes enabled by the work that has gone before us. And so as we consider the challenges that face every local government in the coming days, we do so, I hope, with the recognition of all the work that has gone before and the efforts of folks on whose shoulders we stand. And then we do so thinking ahead many generations as have the stewards of these lands and the waters that surround them. With that we have had many opportunities to say thank you. We continue to do save by simply saying hi tricusium nequali, which is to offer our thanks and gratitude and recognition and respect to all of those throughout the community here in Victoria who make an effort every day to make everyone's lives better. I actually can see him to Grillian.

I have no remarks to share today other than of course to recognise the staff, not all of whom are here in this room, who have gone to such great lengths to create what was a very memorable day yesterday. And so I know that all of Council joins me in thanking them for that work, as it certainly was well - received by the public. There are not any late items of which I'm aware to add to our agenda today. And so we do have an agenda that has been published and distributed and I look first for a motion to approve that agenda. Thanks Councillor Coleman, seculited by Councillor Dell. Any questions on the published agenda. Not seeing any, all those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. We do have a proposed consent agenda, as we often do. And so just for the information of the public, I'll read that out and then I will ask folks if they wish to amend it. For the consent

agenda proposed is item F1, the minutes from the Committee of the Hole meeting, uh, from April 23rd of this year. Item F2, the minutes from the Committee of the whole meeting held on May 21st of this year. And item G1, the development variants permit for 933 Douglas Street. Would anyone like to add or remove anything. Not seeing anyone wanting to add a remove anything. So it's someone like to move the consent agenda. Thanks Councillor Coleman, second of my councillor. All those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. That would usually take us on to consider our minutes. Uh, these would be the minutes of course, as I mentioned from April 23rd and May 21st. But of course we just added those to our consent agenda.

Those of those will return to us for final consideration at a future daytime council meeting. That would also take us on then to item G1, which was the development variance permit for 933 Douglas Street. But that was also placed on the consent agenda. So once again, final consideration of that will return to us at a future council meeting. Likely in a couple of weeks. So that takes us on to staff reports. And our first for staff report is item H1. This is the market rental building revitalization tax exemption pilot project update. There's a mouthful. And so once our staff settled themselves and are ready to go, we'll turn it over to them. And please do introduce yourselves as a reminder to Council and also for the information of the public. Good morning, Mayor and Council.

I'm Andrea Hudson, Assistant Director of Citywide Planning. And I'd like to introduce you to Chris Moore, our Senior Energy Specialist. Um, Chris specializes in high performance and low - carbon buildings. And so he brings this lens to our policy work and to our climate programs. Um, we have a very brief presentation for you today. Um, on a very brief staff report, um, that's bringing you an update on a pilot program that's currently in progress. So with that, I will turn it over to Chris to walk you through the staff report and the recommendation. Super. Welcome. Good morning Mayor and Council. Today I'm pleased to provide an update on the market rental revitalization tax exemption pilot program, uh, to save us all some time. I'll be referring to this simply as the tax exemption pilot for the remainder of the presentation. The purpose today is to update Council on how the pilot is performing and to recommend adjustments to help it reach its intended level of

participation. Victoria is a City of many renters and many rental buildings. A large number of these buildings are older. Built in the 60s, 70s and 80s, often four - story wood frame construction, often gas heated and built to older seismic standards. These older market rental buildings are important to the community as they provide relatively affordable housing with lower than average rents. However, they are among our highest emitting least energy efficient residential buildings. Nearly half of Victoria's greenhouse gas emissions come from existing buildings burning natural gas for heat and hot water. So decarbonizing these buildings is essential for our climate targets. An upgrading to electric heat pumps is a key part of that. The objective of the tax exemption pilot is to support retention and revitalization of this housing while advancing the city's climate goals. As a recap, I would like to explain how the pilot program works. The pilot offers a municipal property tax exemption for up to 10 years, covering up to a hundred

percent of eligible retrofit costs. So owners can fully recoup capital costs over time. It can be stacked with provincial incentives which can cover up to 50 percent of capital cost. As shown in the graphic, the pilot is capped at five buildings. Three resort for GHG retrofits and two for seismic upgrades. To date one GHD application has approved with equipment installation near incompletion and a second application is pending and updated submission with new equipment costs. Both are heat pump replacements of existing gas hot water heaters. Each reducing lifetime emissions by hundreds of tons of carbon. To clarify these are not adding heat pumps to sweets. One GHG spot remains and both seismic spots are unused as no seismic applications have been received. We do expect continued interest in the program. Demand for GHG retrofits is expected to keep growing. Through landlord BC's rental apartment retrofit accelerator which provides retrofit guidance and building assessments for rental building owners and helps owners apply for the city's tax exemption

program. Both current applications have come through the retrofit accelerator program. 27 buildings in Victoria have received retrofit opportunity assessments so far and 41 more are registered to receive an assessment. These assessments will likely produce several more properties interested in the tax exemption and only one GHG spot remains. The current program also has restrictive eligibility and targets buildings three to six stories. From the retrofit accelerator program we know there's interest from ineligible taller buildings. For example a 13 story building wishing to decarbonize its hot water system which would reduce about 2, 600 tons of lifetime emissions. Including taller buildings would broaden the pilot's learning opportunities and give a useful comparison between low rise and mid - rise retrofits. Based on the continuing interest for GHG retrofits, two adjustments are recommended. First allow the two unused seismic spots to also be available for GHG reduction retrofits if no seismic applications are received. And second to remove the six - story maximum height limit. So buildings three stories

are higher can participate. This means the pilot stays capped at five buildings total with up to two seismic opportunities preserved and would shift to operating on a first come first serve basis. In short, the pilot is generating uptake for GHE retrofit projects, no seismic applications have been received to date. Current eligibility rules may prevent viable GHD projects from participating. And these adjustments would help the pilot reach intended capacity and improve the quality of results of the pilot. So finally the recommendation is that Council Direct staff to bring back Byla Amendments adjusting the participation criteria. Specifically increased the GHG emissions stream to five rental buildings up from three while maintaining a maximum of two in the seismic upgrade stream. Still five buildings total on a first come first serve basis. And secondly to require buildings to be three stories or more removing the six - story maximum height limit. Staff would then report back in 2027 with a full pilot program review and recommended next steps.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Moore. Specialist more. What a great title. Questions. Let's start with questions. Councillor College. Council Gardiner. Thank you very much. And through the mayor. Thanks for the report and for all the work that you're doing on this really important file. I wanted to ask a couple questions. Maybe starting with the marketing of this program. Do you feel like property owners building management companies are aware of it? I mean some of these companies aren't even based in Victoria. They're big companies that are based in Toronto or Vancouver wherever. Is there a sense that we properly marketed this RTE and people are aware of it. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor. A large part of the marketing has been through the rental apartment retrofit accelerator which is operated by landlord BC who has pre - existing connections with landlords throughout the province. And that's been our primary marketing direction for this. Okay. And through the mayor. Is there a sense that landlord BC do

they have like a comprehensive email of all the buildings? I mean do we know that they have access to everyone. Through the mayor? I don't believe they have access to everyone. It's only their membership which is optional but it's a large portion of. Rental building owners in this province. Okay. So just I just wonder through the mayor if this were to pass today are there opportunities for us to market this a bit better, put it out on socials or let folks know. Cause I have the impression we're not supposed to get into comments now but just anecdotally I do know that not all buildings are aware of this. So I just wonder if the better way to broadcast this program. Mr. Johnson. Through the mayor and thanks for the comment and question. Uh, absolutely we can, once some of these changes are made, if we're broadening the scope of it, that gives us another opportunity to make sure that, uh, it's broadcast more widely. Okay,

thank you for that. Shifting gears. It does this program scope into the eligibility criteria the attempt to ensure that buildings do not exceed 26 degrees Celsius. It's extreme heat abatement part of this program. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor extreme heat abatement projects for buildings that have gas heating would be included if they switch to electric heat pumps. Uh, but this program requires fuel switching GHG retrofit in the JHG stream. So if a building is electrically heated, uh, it would not qualify for the tax assumption program. Okay. A couple of questions there. Is there any object of reason why the eligibility couldn't be expanded. To include buildings say with baseboard heaters that don't have heat pumps or AC. Does it have to be solely fuel switching?

Hudson? Um, so the mayor perhaps I'll start. Council could certainly consider that. I think we were envisioning that when we come back in 2027 with a more fulsome, um, review of the program. Council could certainly revisit what they would want to include. I think when we first brought this program forward, it was very specific to targeting some of our older rental housing stock and really just trying to reduce GHD emissions on seismic upgrading as many of them were built under older building code. So that's how this program started. Um, yeah, if Council was interested in expanding it, that could be something that you could consider when we bring the program review back to you next year. Okay. I'll get to that later. So mayor continuing on on this topic. Obviously there is significant interest in the 26 degree motion that we had a month or two ago and a lot of folks are interested in avoiding situations where vulnerable tenants are facing stream heat. It

sounds to me like this program already includes that eligibility criteria as long as the building is running on natural gas. But in reading the staff report, it just the extreme heat did not jump out to me at all. So I do wonder if there's also an opportunity when we get back to marketing or rebranding this program, whatever it is, if this motion passes. Could we make it clear to the tenant community, to the landlord community that we're also talking about extreme heat here in which at least in instances currently in which the building is, is powered by natural gas. Mr. Moore's Hudson? Uh, to the mayor. Yes, we could certainly clarify that for people. That is open to buildings that are currently powered through natural gas. So we can work with our engagement team and think about how to communicate that opportunity. Um, on the topic of heating the overheating or the cooling topic in general, we are coming back to, um, later this month,

um, some information on different tools that could be used around that. And so we're currently still looking into that and, um, and, and so there may be different tools for that purpose. And I think that's something we want to explore with Council first and sort of have an understanding of where Council wants to go on that topic before we think about incentives. So I think that's, that's still work that we are considering and bringing forward. Like that makes sense. Uh, I think this is my last question. Mayor, is there any reason why if this program were to be expanded in the future, let's say in 2027 that it couldn't at least partially scope into the eligibility, some commercial and stratified buildings, does it have to, I mean, is anything in the LGA or the charter or something that is confining us to market rental. Mr.

Work through the mayor. I do not believe so. There's other, uh, revitalization tax exemption programs and other municipalities that include strata and commercial buildings. Can you elaborate upon what those ones are? Sandwiches, um, through the mayor stands, uh, has sanitish, the district of sanitch has, uh, revitalization tax exemption program, um, that is ongoing year over year and has a total dollar value cap that includes tax assumptions for CRATA rental and commercial, uh, though not all are able to receive a hundred percent. Of project costs. I seem to have a call from our last GHG account that we do have significant emissions coming from industrial and commercial buildings. Is that correct? Mr. Moore. Uh, yes, it is. Okay. I'll leave it there, Mayor. I'll have comments.

And possibly emotionally. Thank you for your presentation, but more. So thank you for the report. Cause it of course had more detail than the presentation can. I quite appreciate that. Um, some a lot has been said already, but I was just wondering, it looks like the numbers of assess that the 70 or so buildings that are either assessed or in process, correct? Yes, I believe. Give or take. I mean, yeah, referects. Of those, how many of those are with the low structural type of buildings of three to six floors. Mr. Mer. Through the mayor, I would have to double check the exact, uh, the exact number, but I would roughly estimate more than half. Okay.

Um. Just what I observe so I don't have the data. And I don't know if you do either is those ones that are three to six are really, uh, really the more affordable ones, I think in the city. There's some luxury ones, but most are really quite affordable compared to the taller buildings, which and some of the buildings in the Sections and 80s are also concrete. Buildings. So they're not these wood frame. So would we, um, given that there are 70 in the loop right now that may or may not all get it, I get that. Would that be enough to, cause if we have like 600 buildings that want it, will we have anyone left to pay the taxes if they're all toxic exempt?

So what I'm worried about is that we may take this beyond our real target, which is the affordable, um, rental ones. Because those are the ones I really want to focus on. So I guess I'm wondering why we're trying to go higher. Even though there might be a building and with no limit in that we have probably 30 or 40 or 50 that are already in the loop that are really the affordable ones. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor. The recommendations for adjustment, uh, are to meet the short term demand. Um, there are many buildings that are interested or that are pursuing. The retrofit accelerator program, but we also see this as a pilot program that we would like to wrap up quickly to be able to provide findings and results from the program. So, uh, this is something I think could be considered for a full, uh, a later program if that's the results of the pilot and council's wishes to look at, um, ensuring

that over the longterm, murder focusing on the, uh, most important, um, buildings. I'll also mention that, uh, there is a age criteria that would remain. So it would still only be buildings built before 2000 that are eligible. And that also, uh, supports, um, ensuring that the more affordable rental buildings, the older rental buildings are what are included in this program. Um, and how much if we, okay, we don't know how many buildings there are, how many buildings are there in total that exist that are rental within the city that are before 2000. Mr. Work. Through the mayor, uh, the approximately 412 rental MERBS, uh, with more than 10 units, which is also ineligibility criteria for this program built before, uh, 2000. 412 rental units. So my computer keeps typing in beds instead of buildings. Um, so that could be 5, 000 units, four or five that we at least probably five. And if you're talking higher buildings could well be 5, 000 to 10, 000

units, is that we're talking about. Some more. Through the mayor, I would have to look up the specific number of units. Yeah. My concern is we must, the whole city will have to transform over time. I get that. I have no problems with that. So here is my concern. And that is if we're looking at, um, 5, 000 units or 10, 000 units, um, not paying properly taxes over a 10 year period for this to get this. I'm wondering whether or not your program, if you expand it, not your program, the program, sorry, expand it. We'll also be reporting back on tax implications each time we do it. With the pilot, I have no problems because we're talking five buildings, which is great. But what we're changing here trying to change upon it program. We're actually talking about change. Is a bylaw, have a sunset clause on after the pilot's finished. Sudden. Mayor. No, I don't believe the Byla has a sunset clause. Um, it's

capped at five buildings to participate. And then the program would be the pilot would be finished. We would assess it. We would come back to you. And we don't just, and sort of to your earlier comments about the impact, um, buildings and the tax, um, classification. We aren't proposing to expand it at this time. It's, it's remaining at five. We really just wanted to ask Council whether there was, um, any interest in just getting it more variety of buildings participating so that we could just gain more learnings from it. So it would remain capped at five. We don't yet know what our conclusions are or would be when we come back to you in 2027, but I think the whole point of this is just to learn and to see if it's effective. Thank you.

And I have no problem with a pilot. So is there something in there with the exemption bylaw that ends it when the five are finished. Does a bylaw keep living. Ms. Hudson, can you speak to the relevance of the bylaw to the pilot. Uh, through the mayor, I'm not sure what happens to the Byla itself. I may need to consult with, uh, my colleagues on that, but it's very specific that there are just five spots. So what we do with the Bylaw after, um, after that, I think, I think that's something that we have to come back to you with. So just to be clear, what we're discussing today is expanding the pilot. But when the pilot is concluded, you return to Council with your larger recommendations based upon the pilot at which time that council would determine if it wishes to continue at all.

And if so, what changes they might wish to have. That's correct. Today, all we're asking is to expand the criteria, but not the number for the pilot. Thank you. And with 70 in the loop now, uh, do you not have, I realise if they want exemption, I don't know what building is and it doesn't matter. I don't want to know. Do you have any that are closing off so that we can stay within the six story limit within the next year or so so that you can complete the pilot. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor. We don't have any current applications, uh, pending applications other than the two mentions. However, there are 40 more assessments on the to - do list for that program. So we're hoping to see additional interest through there, but we'll have to wait and see. Can you don't have any time estimates to when those will come through to you. After assessment. Mr. Moore. Uh, through the mayor, I can't give

a specific number, but they're ongoing. And I think they, they do, um, several assessments a month. Uh, but that's as accurate as it can be at this time. And they come to you each month then? Through the mayor, I receive updates on the program, uh, participation from the rental apartment retrofit accelerator program. And we will receive tax exemption applications if they result from that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councillor Loughton. Good morning. Thanks sincer you mayor. I just have a one question regarding the seismic, um, upgrade components to this. So to me, it seems like this is going to work for us for now for the, for the GHG emissions. But what maybe, and maybe you're going to come back with this in 2027, but I'm just wondering what the, the, maybe even high level plan is to try to attract more of these applications for the seismic upgrades. Ms. Hudson. Through the mayor. That is certainly on our minds. We haven't really

assessed that yet. We want to see if we get any more applications for seismic. You know, we haven't received interest so far. That's not to say that we wouldn't. Um, we do acknowledge that that kind of work is a very complex. And we also acknowledge that there seems to be interest in GHD work because there is this external program that's highlighting it and providing support to rental buildings. So I don't think that we have any conclusions on that yet, but we certainly want to keep the door open to it because it is very important. Um, so I think that's work that we would turn our minds to when we come back with full assessment of the program next year. Thank you for that. I just wanted to flag that as a, as a concern. And I appreciate your answer. And well, if I'm here next year, I'll be interested in hearing about that. Thanks. Councillor Hammond. Thanks Mayor. We'll have to preface everything we say

as if we're here next year. So some of the things where brought my apologies, if I missed any of it, I was wondering why was it originally limited to three to six story buildings. Mr. Through the mayor. Was a buddy of research work looking at. Our building stock and seeing where retrofits would be most needed. And we were unsure of how much demand we would receive when we launched the program. Uh, and since it does cover the full upgrade cost, we were cautious that we might have significant amount of demand. So, uh, therefore we very strongly focused, um, on a specific subset of the rental rental stock. And yes, so far we've seen that the decision making process to go undergo, um, are retrofit is complicated and takes a lot of time. So we haven't seen that level of demand that we expected that would have required a very, very focused criteria. So through you mayor, you said that it takes a lot of time

where there's a lot involved. What are basically the overall reasons why. More people are not joining onto this. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor. There's a variety of reasons. And I think, uh, every building owner is probably in a different, um, position. But some of the general feedback that we've received, uh, is that, um, financial part is not the only barrier. It's a big, it's still a big project. You still require the financial upfront costs, which may be, uh, more than building owners are used to dealing with on a regular basis. You know, the ownership priorities around, uh, whether, you know, is this a long - term investment? Is this a short - term investment, for example. And simply understanding what's the option for the building takes time. We've seen kind of through this retrofit accelerator program. It's about a year of cooperation with the building owner before they decide whether or not to pursue a retrofit. So I think there's lots of factors for building

honours to take into account that it's not just the financial piece which this program supports. Okay. Thank you. And through you mayor, what is it that do you have a typical cost for the building owner versus the savings. Mr. Moore. Through the mayor. This program allows for a hundred percent of the capital cost for the project to be recouped. But however, there are also potentially benefits in operating costs. One of the challenges is that often tenants pay the utility bills. So tenants are actually seeing the reduced operating costs from high efficiency equipment. So it's sometimes hard to reflect particularly what the owner might see as an ongoing financial benefit. Okay. And perhaps you've answered this or maybe the answer. Well, you can just tell me I'll ask it. If this is deemed successful, what would be the next step. Mr. Murray. Through the mayor, I think, you know, our plan would be to come, you know, we would do an analysis of this, um, I think our hope is that when all five

spots are taken, um, we will look at the variety of work and buildings that, um, that we receive. Talk to the owners about their experience. And then, you know, do an assessment, come back to some recommendations. We don't know what that is yet. So it's, um, but that would be the intent of the next report. Thanks. And what appears to be my last question, Mayor, is, and it was brought up by my colleague, at least the idea of shifting, um, the costs are shift to other taxpayer buildings. So do we have the cost shift of the two buildings and the expected perhaps three and five buildings in total. And if this is successful, any estimates on ongoing, um, expenses that would be shifted to other taxpayers. Sure more. Through the mayor. I don't have the specific number for the current applications. However, they're on the lower end of the range we expected. But I can provide an estimate from the original proposal for this program,

which estimated that the five projects could range from a point one percent to appoint a percent. Increase in the residential rate class. In the years in which all five tax exemptions were active, uh, and to give some context that for a one million dollar single family home that would range from, uh, 60 cents to two dollars, however, yeah, we've seen the two so far have been much below that, uh, much towards the lower end there. Because they've just done the hot water domestic hot water upgrade rather than a full building or a full building seismic upgrade, which would have been much more costly. Okay. Thank you. I got all the latter part that you said, but I was typing when you said the first, you expected a range of a certain percentage. Can you give me that again? Yeah. This was originally calculated at 0.

1 percent to 0. 8 percent. Thanks very much. Council Coleman. Oh, sorry. Yes. Besides, go ahead. Oh, it's Thompson. Yes. Money. Good morning. And through the mayor, Leila Monk, manager of revenue. An estimate of the tax shift, uh, based on, uh, the properties that may participate in the pilot program would be approximately 50 cents per 100, 000 dollars of assessed value for residential property, uh, which equates to about an additional five dollar increase for a residential property assessed at, uh, million fifteen thousand. And, uh, tax shift of about a dollar 60, uh, for the business class, uh, which equates to about an 11 dollar increase for a small business assessed at 721, 000. Thank you very much for that. Point of order, Mayor. Yes. Could she please put that in an email to us? Yes.

If you don't mind. Yes. If you don't mind, that would be thank you. Thank you. Councillor Heming, do you still have your mic on? Is you? Councillor Coleman. I might have another question. Um. We focused. And thank you through you, your worship to staff. Thank you for bringing this forward. It is a pilot project. We learn from this. So we shouldn't get too hung up on what the future might be. That's a different discussion. In the assessment of this, have we done any long line economic assessment on what happens after year 10 to the tax impact on those buildings? Because there is a payback that comes to us. So have we done any of that.

Mr. Moore. Through the mayor, uh, was before my time, but I know that in the original early research stages of this, there was some, uh, discussion around. Whether to only exempt a tax on the added value, um, and that was, uh, Senu is not enough of, uh, of an incentive. So, uh, but currently that's not the, we haven't, uh, I think considered that now, but it was looked at in the past. Ms. Thompson, I see you leaning in. Would you like to add something to the conversation? Um, yes. Thank you, Mayor, through you. Um, I think what Council Coleman might be referring to is similar to our Heritage programs where significant improvements are, um, are made. And therefore assessed value school up. So at the end of the term, uh, the exemption term, uh, it's an additional value that comes on. Uh, this is a little bit different in that we're talking about systems within a building as opposed to additions too. Um, but, um,

all of those permits and the cost associated with those are shared with BC assessments. So they will do their evaluation based on that. But we don't have, um, a big enough sample, uh, size here to be able to say with any confidence exactly what would happen, um, after I would suggest that after the pilot has been completed, we might have better information. So at the end of the term though, it would come back onto the taxes. And obviously would have had whatever increases BC assessment has assigned to it. And then therefore, uh, additional taxes may, uh, be collected from, from the buildings at that time.

Um, I also wanted to note that the way we set up the exemptions is we try to give the, um, as much, uh, the speed of which, um, we provide the exemptions is sort of front and loaded. What I mean by that is that if we have, um, an example cost of the improvements, um, can be recouped in shorter period than 10 years. Uh, that's how it's set up. So for example, um, if the taxes are such that you can recoup the full cost within four years, then your exemption lasts for four years only, not for the full 10 years. It all depends on the cost of the improvements. And that's how we tie that in. Thank you for that. Councillor Coleman. Thank you. And this yes, this is demonstrably different than the Heritage revitalization tax exemptions that we used to give. But theoretically it does increase potentially the lifespan of the, uh, building itself, which means that BC assessment takes that into account when

they do their assessment. Those assessments go up. So after the 10 year exemption, the taxes we charge actually. And we need to try and turn our minds to that as well. And that gets us into longline assessment. But thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions? Councillor Gardner for a second time questions? Great. And thank you for a lot of the clarification that you've offered us. That's great. And of course, I, I mean, the out of value, I wouldn't be there for your lower buildings, but it might be for a large concrete building, which is why I asked those questions before. But I can understand why you're trying to get someone quickly into the program so you can get your five. I have no problems with that. Um, but I have a problem kind of perhaps when it comes back to this another next year or us whoever's here. And that is, um, I would actually like to see next year. So just kind of

advance notice because I don't think you have it before you now. Do you have a question with my question then I'll put now, which I don't think you'll be able to answer is do we have any tabulation of how many properties within the city are being residential properties are being given tax exemption. And how many units of housing that would be. That are currently getting any kind of tox exemption. That is likely, and Ms. Thompson question. Through you mayor. So yet we do have a number of class one properties that are getting exemptions at various, uh, levels. So statutory and permissive and, um, and others.

But, um, we would have to bring, bring that back. Um, we did not bring that today, but we can certainly share that with Council. Thank you. Thank you. And I was only looking at residential. Which takes away a lot too. So thank you very much for that. And, um, this is going to be a tough question. I know of a strat. I don't know how many they are in the city. Where there is a strataconominium. Within a least building. So we have a landlord who owns the building. And then the units within these were ones that were created in the 70s and 80s. There's a couple of those around. Would any of those be eligible, which is kind of a mix. Blend. Mr. Moore? Or do you know of them. Through the mayor for a mixed use building and I'm not a hundred percent sure if that would be. Definition. Okay. Um. Okay. This would be a building. They're built in there. There were some of the towers built in the last real surge

in the 70s and 80s. And what happened is people were sold units, but they were not sold to building. So the strata does not own the building or the land. And that is owned by a landlord who sets fees and the strass just only control their unit. It's an unusual. But those were built in that time period. And if you haven't come across any yet, don't worry about it. Perhaps mayor I'll give them an address. They can look into down the road. Sure. So thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions. Councillor Cardoni have another question? I was going to move it. There are no other questions. Sure. Go ahead. You can move it.

Something like that. So moved. Monster Thompson, second night. Councillor Cardinal on the motion. Thanks Hal speaking the motion and then I'll just signal that I'm going to have a motion arising with some additional direction. But, um, I don't want to have an amendment because I just want the staff recommendation to move ahead as is. I think it's a really important program. And I think it could be doing even more. And I mentioned this anecdote, but I'll just briefly refer to it again when I, uh, gave it, I was one of the speakers at a conference a couple of months ago. On building electrification on the building electrification roadmap, which was here in town. And at that conference was every major player in green building and just building in general, there's developers there, landlord BC, BC Hydro. The province. Uh, local government, screen building advocates. Everyone was there. And there was consensus in the room that this is a really important program, not only for the

City of Victoria, but for local governments across BC. It's really the one tool that we have to help offset the costs of deep retrofits. And the reality is, is that fifty two percent of our missions come from the built environment. And if we have any hope of getting that down and meeting our 2050 targets, this is the most obvious pathway to achieving that outcome because it's caused neutral for the building operators. And the folks at Lamblord BC, I think people saw the email from them. They're really excited by this project because a lot of property owners do want to decarbonize. And they do want to address extreme heat. But they don't have 200, 000 dollars or 300, 000 dollars to do those retrofits, put in the heat pumps, et cetera. Is there a slight redistribution about 50 cents per building to other taxpayers? Yes. And we should be clear - eyed about that. But I do think that the average Victorian would be willing to

pay that 50 cents so that the neighbours down the street are not facing extreme heat. And I just want to go back to my comments and say that, uh, extreme heat abatement, I think should be teased out and actually made a little bit more explicit in this program. And I gave the, I gave the anecdote of my mother's building in Fernwood, which gets incredibly hot. On hot days, especially in the afternoon. And they don't have heat pumps. They don't have AC. So I think maybe in that case, it would be the extreme heat that would actually motivate the property owners to work with us on this program. They might not be thinking decarbonization, first and foremost, but they might be thinking stream heat. And I think if we offset the costs to the RTE, it avoids the situation in which those costs are downloaded to tenants. Because obviously we do have rent control, but we don't have vacancy control. And so if some building is

taken out of 250, 000 dollar loan. I do want to just reiterate going back to my, my, my comments that the, I think the opportunity to do more than just work with landlord BC and getting this program out there. Because not every building or property management company is on their email list. So I think part of the reason why we haven't seen even more demand is because a lot of, a lot of buildings just aren't aware of it. So I'll leave my comments there, Mayor, but as noted, I'll have a motion arising and I'll speak to that when we get to it. Very good. Thank you. Councillor Thompson is a secondary. Thanks Mayor. And through you, thanks very much for the report and the discussion.

I found it very interesting and kind of inspiring. Um, we're in a climate emergency. We need to remember that, um, just because some other things have taken headlines more recently. That hasn't stopped. Um, we were the first city to move forward with zero carbon step code and zero carbon heating for new buildings. Uh, and now we need to move forward with, uh, existing buildings. So this is a smart program that staff have come up with to, uh, to help finance it. It's good to see some, some, you know, scope for acceleration and expansion of it. And I'm hoping that we can come up with additional creative funding mechanisms for, uh, existing buildings. So thanks very much. Thank you. Anyone else on the main motion. Not seeing anywhere else in the name. Oh, go ahead, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. Um, I think we do need to give credit to staff, both present and past. And I think particularly of Steve Barber who started the process of

innovative tax exemptions many years ago now for the downtown core. And that was the Heritage Revitalization one. And it was predicated on giving tax exemptions for 10 years. So heritage buildings would be revitalized with second and third story residential. But the economic model that went with it was after the 10 years, BC assessment authority saw a great increased value in the land. And we recouped those tax exemptions over the next, I think 18 years. And became revenue positive at that point. I'm not sure of, if the 18, I see Ms. Thompson smiling going, maybe that's not right Coleman. But there was a payback. I think the same applies to this in a lesser way because this is a different type of model. But I think this is exactly where we should be going. And we seem to be getting, uh, exercised about where a broad - based program should go. And this is a pilot project. I'm thoroughly supportive of the amendments to this. Thank

you very much. Anyone else on the main motion. Thank you, Councillor Kim, for turning your mic on for the vote. Seeing no further comments, all those in favor. Is anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. And Councillor Cardone, I believe you have a motion arising. Why do you put that on the floor, please? Yeah. Yes, I sent it to staff. Staff, could you put that on the floor? There you go. Let's just take a second to read it. And actually, I just, I need to make one small change before I move it. Sure thing. Which would be an explore and new stream of the RTE. Comma. If we could add a comma after RTE. Thank you. Or another funding mechanism. Comma.

And then I will move. Let me just, uh, and yes, Councillor Thompson, I see you'd like to second it. Let's just take one minute. Let people read it. Just to clarifying a question before I open the floor. Are you intending this to be part of the pilot or part of what may be considered by staff when they return with their report on the pilot? Yes. It would, it would be the latter. So this would be research that they would do between now and next year. To inform what could become an expanded permanent program. But the pilot would remain as is. So perhaps just to clarify that we could just add some language to the top line. Uh, something that says, um, that counsel direct staff. To report back. On options. Taking out explore. That'd be okay. Yeah. That's fine. Cause the, I read that as being a direction two staff to when they come back and report in the pilot, they're also reporting on other possibilities. Yeah. That's right. Is that staff? Is that

how you would read that. Yes. Yes. Very good. Okay. Just to clarify that this is not adjusting the pilot, but just providing direction. And what we hope to see or what council hopes to see in the report back after the pilot. Yes. That's correct. Yes. Go ahead, Councillor Cardano. On your motion rising. Sure. I had a chance to meet with staff and discuss these ideas with them. I think that there is an opportunity to look at expanding this program. We're starting with a pilot of five. Maybe in the future. It becomes 10 buildings. I don't know. Uh, and or maybe staff says there's not enough demand to justify that. But I'd like to give some direction and staff to look at some potential ways of expanding this program, if and when it becomes permanent. I also think it's worthwhile to at least do the research on scoping, stratified, and commercial buildings into this program, maybe with different streams. Going back to the aforementioned conference that

I was at, there was actually a woman from Strata BC or something there. It's strata PC. Is that a thing? Some strata organisation who got up at the mic and said, you know what? Uh, we would love to be a part of this program too. You know, we don't, we're not sitting on 200, 000 dollars. We want to fuel switch off of natural gas to heat pumps as well. So it makes me wonder, maybe we can broaden what our objectives are. If the objectives are to decarbonize buildings, it's great to focus on market rental, but the other buildings that need to be decarbonized as well.

And going back to our GHG account, a lot of our missions actually come from commercial and industrial. My industrial building. So maybe there is a situation in which one or two buildings per year could be non - rental or something like that. I don't know. And then the last piece, exploring new stream of the RTE, you're another friending mechanism to face for extreme heat and in which property owner sequence, all heat pumps are such. The reason that that's a bit wordy is that the pilot as currently conceived, scopes out a market rental building in which they have electric baseboard heaters, for instance. But they don't have EC or heat pumps. And therefore they just can't be a part of the program because the focus is on fuel switching. I agree that the focus of this program should remain on fuel switching, but I can foresee a future in which maybe there's a small stream that's not specifically around fuel switching, but it's just more about

extreme heat abatement. You know, going back to our 26 degree Celsius conversation. I suggest that RTEs are probably where that, where that, uh, policy is headed. And I know staff is still doing additional work on it. But this is before us today. So I figure it's an opportunity to do some research on how we might be releasing two birds from one cage kind of a situation where maybe in the future we are using this RTE to also address extreme heat in addition to, um. To, um, to fuel switching. So there's, I think the adaptation and mitigation component here that could probably work hand in hand.

In any case, the direction here is pretty high level. So the idea would be to do some research over the next year and think about how, if this pilot becomes permanent, we might expand it in some ways without binding the hands of staff because there could be very good reasons why some of these avenues are not worth exploring. But at least doing some research on it. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Thompson. As a secondary of the motion arising. Thanks, Mayor. I'll be brief. Yeah, I do think it's, uh, good motion arising to sort of expand the remit of staff to explore options. And as the mover said, uh, some may fit, some may not fit.

Some may fit better for, uh, different types of buildings. Uh, I was at a, uh, at an event a couple of months ago, uh, I guess it's a sort of a campaign to finance several thousand heat pumps, uh, I think I may have spoken to the same person from, uh, strata BC, uh, who said, you know, we also need programs for multifamily buildings regardless of tenure. So I'll be happy to see what, uh, staff can come up with. Thanks very much. Thank you Councillor Kim. Um, thank you. A question to staff as well as the mover. Would this include passive cooling adaptations, not just technologies.

Mr. Through the mayor, the current project requires fuel switching. So, uh, the current pilot requires fuel switching. So passive would not be included, but it's something that could be explored. Is that. Is that something that, uh, I don't want to. I can't answer that. Finangle that someone's motion arising, but is that okay. To the mover. On your. Yes. Thanks for the question. The reason that it says other such cooling technologies would be to broaden the scope. So it would go beyond fuel switching. So passive solar passive cooling would, to my mind, be part of the research, yes. Okay. Great. That's, that's it for me. It's supportable. Okay. Anybody else on the motion rising Councillor Gardner, yeah. Thank you. A question to staff relating to you this, um, it's really broadening it. So can someone tell me now or is it part of maybe embed in this motion. How many multi - residential buildings or commercial buildings now. Are not on, um, gas or other type of, uh, carbon fuels. I mean, are we talking

all of the buildings in the city pretty well here that are multi that aren't single family homes? I think Mr. Murray would presume that when you return with your reporting on what you've learned from the pilot as part of that report, you would be having some suggestions for the Council to consider other limitations. Is that, would that be a reasonable expectation. Or at this point, I guess you really can't say because you may, in fact, owes something broad as the Councillor's suggesting or something more limited depending upon what you've learned from the pilot. Is that fair? Through the mayor. Yes, I think what we'll do is hopefully we'll get five buildings participating in the pilot.

We'll, we'll assess the efficacy of that. We'll turn our minds to some of these things. Should this motion rising pass? Um, with respect to the program. And when we do that assessment, we'll, of course, be thinking about impacts, um, pros and cons. We'll have data. We will look at all of that. But for today, we don't have that with us. But we would certainly look at that. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor, for that question. But yes, because really what we're missing with all of this is real data. Not with a pilot. The pilot was only a pilot for five. So that data was not needed. But obviously for this motion or for anything going forward, we need to know the impact because we can't have half the city with no, not paying taxes, especially going ahead.

So thank you very much. And I'm glad that that understanding perhaps is there that we need a basic data too, because that's missing. Again, it was not needed for the pilot. So thank you very much. Very good. Uh, anyone else questions of the motion rising comments. Not seeing any. All those in favor. Anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Council, I'm going to suggest that we take a break now a little bit earlier than usual just because of the next item is going to be a little bit lengthy. And so let's take 10 to 15 minutes and come back at quarter after 10.

And I believe Mr. Hicks. Great wins are settled to introduce yourselves for the interest of the public and a reminder for Council and when you're ready, I believe you have a brief presentation to you. Or not available. Yes, go ahead. When you're ready? Go ahead. Great. Good morning, Mayor and Council. William Doyle, Director of Engineering and Public Works here today with John Hicks, manager of Transportation Planning. We're here today with recommended amendments to the City's Patio Regulation bylaw over to John for a just a brief verbal report. It can expansion of the recommendation. Great. Thank you. Welcome. The purposes of this report is to seek council direction on whether to proceed with a scheduled increase in the patio licensing rates following a two - year freeze or to maintain patio license fees at their current level plus annual adjustments for CPI. Let us advising businesses of the scheduled patio licensing rate increases are expected to be sent out over the summer. Under the current bylaw

schedule, rates would double from the amount paid in 2026 to the full array approved by Council in 2023. Outdoor patio supports city objectives such as placemaking, safety and well - being, and economic development and contribute to a dynamic urban environment and the downtown core and village centres. A formal licensing program ensures that public safety and accessibility are protected while also compensating the city for semi - exclusive use of public space and ensuring that the provision of patio - opportunities is equitable to businesses across the city. The patio program, the FOR provides mutual benefit to the City and businesses. In September 2025, Council Directed staff to undertake a holistic review of onStreet parking and curbside management across the city. Demand for the limited right of way is increasing. And the review provides an opportunity to develop a transparent and consistently applied administrative structure, including fee schedules.

For the sometimes competing uses of the City's right - of - way. This analysis aligns with Go Victoria, the City Mobility Strategy, which identifies valuing the city's right - of - way as a key policy position. I review of the patio program will be incorporated into future assessments of COBSIDE needs and examined alongside other uses of the City's right of way, making any significant changes to the patio program before that work is complete would be premature. In the interim, predictable and moderate fee increases aligned with CPA or CPI would help offset increasing program administration costs. The program would also provide businesses with greater certainty as a budget and plan for future years while awaiting for the outcome of the curbside needs assessment. If Council Direct staff to maintain current the area rates at 2026 levels, with annual compounded CPI adjustments, staff will report back with recommended with recommended fee structures as part of the CURB side needs assessment. For the reasons outlined in the report,

staff recommend that the area table in the Bylaw will be updated to remove future staggered rate increases, maintaining the 2027 base rate at 2026 levels with CPI increases. Thank you. Great, thank you very much. Questions. Any questions? Council Gardner. Thank you. And thank you for the report. I think the patio City people are really very, very, very pleased with it. So I think that it's been a great program. Just a couple of questions. Uh, how do our rates compare, so we say, to rates, excuse me, with that charge and other municipalities? Do we have any idea on that? Mr. Hicks, do you know that? Uh, through the mayor. I can say that when the rates were set in 2023, there was analysis done across different jurisdictions. Um, and that came into it. Uh, the rates that we set were around that mid - level range.

It all depends very much on the value of the land. Um, and the usage of the land, um, so there were, you know, discrepancies here and there. We also have a five tiered system. Um, so we do different rates according to where they land in the city. Some other jurisdictions don't do that. They just have one downtown area and then one other rate for everywhere else. So it's hard to do a direct comparison. Thank you. That's very important, I think, for the public to know that that comparison was made. Um, when it comes to these patios, frankly, I use them more often sometimes. And I think inside of a restaurant. And, um, who takes care of the garbage waste and what have you when there's, when it's, for example, downtown, where there's a big, you know, garbage candidate that the city doing it or is usually restaurants take care of their own. Can you explain just what goes on there. Through the mayor, uh, under

the Bible, the patio license is responsible for anything within their patio, um, anything adjacent to that on the City Street, et cetera. That's definitely a responsibility that the city works on. Um, I know that some of the patio owners obviously do a little bit more around the edges, just out of to make sure that their area looks attractive and inviting to guests. Um, but generally these patios are located in some of our busiest areas of town. Um, so they are generally quite well kept. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. That's my questions, Mayor. Great. Any other questions, Council Caro, no, no. Just, just one question about the difference between options one and two, because option one includes CPI increases and option two doesn't.

Can you help me understand, does this program cause staff very much? Is there a rationale for the CPI. What's the argument for it? Through the mayor, uh, the administrative costs are definitely something that we as staff have to manage. Um, we do have regular inspections. Um, the patio, we do have an application fee, but to be quite honest, the application fee is quite minimal. Um, some patios are very straightforward. Others are very complex. Um, we have other fees across the city as well, um, three finance. It's not just us. It's by law. It carries across different jurisdictions. If I could add to that also through the mayor, uh, some of the feedback we've got from business is not necessarily all is that they're looking maybe for predictability in rates and for us to be able to provide a bit of a multi - year outlook rather than perhaps staying steady and then having a large jump. So that's what we're aiming to provide a bit

of that idea. Yeah. And I guess the problem too is that if you freeze rates without the CPI eventually when they need to go up, it becomes a bigger issue. Whereas if the CPI, it's more manageable. I'm convinced that if there's no, I can move option one. I believe the question from Councillor Coleman, but I'll come back to you, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. And it's a follow - up to that question. And the background is when we set our tax rates, we quite often hear from the public that you shouldn't be above CPI. And our response is always CPI, the consumer price index doesn't reflect what we need to do to manage the city. So we need a municipal price index and nobody's ever done that for us. Or we haven't done it. So now we're using CPI. So the question, I have no problem because I think it does predictability, but have we thought about trying to assess. And it may be too minuscule

to actually do the cost benefit analysis on this. What actually the cost is to us as opposed to CPI. Mr. Doyle. Through the mayor, uh, the CPI provides perhaps a bit of a proxy for the many different factors that escalated. And maybe the five or so year period that we might do a more formal adjustment. So the different factors that affect evaluation and the competing needs for the CURB space are really quite unique and it'd be hard to maybe find anyone index. That would be the best. That's a very good answer. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions. Go ahead Councillor Codonia would like to move option one or staff recommendation. Thank you. Yeah. Some of your seconding. Go ahead Council Cardano. Yeah. Just briefly this, this program has been wildly successful. The patio Bylaw goes back to 2023. We've come a long way as a city on patios. It was kind of the wild west pre - COVID during COVID there was this pilot.

It was obvious that Victorian's really appreciated having more access to patios. And so it became regularized through a bylaw. And now we're dealing with the finer points of what had a charge this program. I do think it's fair that we charge restaurants and other businesses something to use the public realm after all they are using public realm space. But I think given the fact that it activates downtown activate streets and has really enjoyed by, by Victorians, that I think that moderating the increases makes a lot of sense. It's a way of showing our support for small businesses while still allowing for those CPI increases because there is some staff time and some staff costs that is associated with this bylaw. So I think that this strikes the right balance and shows our support for activation and restaurants while making sure that we remain whole. So I support this moving forward. Thanks Mayor. Thank you Councillor Gardner as a secondary. As I said during the questions,

the patio bill also been very well received. And I think, and especially even more so, uh, than government street in the village areas. And I think that has been very good because it's brought a lot of people together. So I think it's a great program. And we do have to have a bit of an increase each year. Otherwise, we'll fall into some of the problems we've had in the past. So thank you very much. Thank you very much Councilman. Thank you. Yes. The growth of the patio culture in this region has been extraordinary. And it's added a certain vibrancy to all our communities. I hesitate to say that the CPI should be used at all times. But in this case, it makes sense. It's, it's, uh. An option that doesn't require an awful lot, but it adds all sorts of predictability to the users to the owners. So I think that this is absolutely, um, supportable. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else. Checking

online. No. Yeah. I'm happy to support this. I think it's reasonable for us to do what we can, um, support this type of use of the public realm. But as others have said, uh, some modest increase that reflects at least someone's standard of the increases of general prices make sense. So happy to support this. All those in favor. Anybody opposed. That is unanimous. Thank you very much for that. Thank you very much for your staff input and all the work that went into this. That takes care of the two domes that we have based on staff reports. And now we have one item of new business. This is a Council Member Motion with regard to island Health Harbour Safe Consumption Site. And I believe this was put forward by Councillor Gardner and also Councillor Gard, if you'd like to move it. Thank you very much.

It's your seconder. Councillor Hammond. Council Gardener. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor. The motion before council is the most consequential of any that I have put forward during my term as a City Councillor. How we respond this morning will shape the future of our city more than any issue we've dealt with in the past four years. This motion is not just about how we deal with the exploitation of our most vulnerable citizens or about disorder and crime on the streets. Or about a cathotic plan offered to the public as response to problems. It's about how we define ourselves as citizens and what kind of city we want to live in. My motion has been described by a federal councillor. I'm going to start that over, sorry. My motion has been described by a fellow councillor as reckless and cruel. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let me be clear. What we have seen on Pandora and beyond is not an outcome of compassion. Compassion is not placing vulnerable people in situations where they become

victims of illicit drug dealers and criminals. Two compassion is to do what we can do to break the cycle of misery and dependence of those caught in the grip of drug addiction. The harbour has become a magnet for those addicted to drugs. And for drug dealers and criminals who prey on the weak and defenceless. The changing and more potent drug supply has changed Pandora. And our city. The open use of drugs has created a climate that perpetuates the cycle of self - destructive behaviour in which can ultimately lead to a tragic end. We need to pivot. Transforming the harbour could be the first step for island health. The harbour could become a treatment centre with professional medical care with drugs. But not with illicit drugs.

The harbour operates under federal exemption to the controlled drug and substances act. The current three - year exemption runs to June 30th, 2027. The safety of our city, the health and well - being of our residents and the viability of our downtown businesses must be continuing priorities of this Council. The residents of Pandora Yates Johnson and other areas throughout the City, whose daily experiences put them at risk, do not want to live this way for another five to ten years. But the key motivation of this motion, excuse me. But the key motivation of this motion is to improve the lives and futures of those sheltering on our streets and in our parks. With continuing sport of illicit drug use, most of them may not have that five to 10 years. My recommendations are before you. They are advocacy recommendations. Recommendations which acknowledge that the federal exemption under the controlled drug and substance act is in place for another year. Giving island health a year to pivot. This motion is about support of our residents.

All of them. Versus support of an illicit drug trade. Let's ask island health to pivot. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you very much, Councillor Hemmun, is the secondary. Thanks, Mayor. I wasn't going to second this, uh, questions that I needed to ask. Um, the downtown business association is called for the closing or moving of the harbour. Do we know why? I believe in their annual report, they gave a variety of different reasons related to their, uh, responses from their members as to the impact of a variety of issues that they attribute to drug use and the impact of that on businesses. Okay. Thanks. Um, I've got two questions that are sort of related. I wonder, does the city have any issues with a harbour and or its impact on the 900 block of Pandora or beyond.

So you afford me the opportunity to make a comment that I was going to offer after both the movement sector spoke. And that is that. Uh, the city is in an act of conversation with the, uh, operators of the harbour who are island health. In a conversation about how we can work with them. Um, improve the way that these services are managed, in particular, uh, the work that needs to be done or could be done to improve. The pre and post use activities. Well, thanks for that, Mayor. Then I think it's really important because so many people see this and see this motion as potentially killing people. And hence I have, I have difficulties with just closing it down. But when you say that, are you able to share what it is that are the problems that, uh, appear to be related to the harbour and or other, um, facilities in that area. I certainly can't speak to other facilities, but specifically to our ongoing

conversations with the harbour. As I mentioned, we're working with them to try and improve the operations and a management scheme. Uh, I think it would be premature for me to go into the details of that or the rationale for it. Okay. Thanks, Meryl. Then you might be able to answer my next question, which is a number of people we hear from my number of businesses and residents that live close to there about issues. Have we and the Community Safety Mal being planned? I say we as in the city, the City administration and through you and the Community Safety and well - being plan. What are the things that we've identified that are a problem outside of the harbour, not inside it. I think it's fair to say that one part of the Community Safety Wellbeing implementation plan, which looks at the three sections of investment and activity that the plan has anticipated and which has been begun to be implemented over the last almost a

year. Speaks with the investments and prevention and speaks to the support increasing support for the existing and a couple of new servers providers who are providing a variety of different services for folks who have multiple challenges and are most vulnerable. And in the second Section, dealing with providing investments and actualization of spaces, new spaces, uh, for folks who do not currently have a space to be to actually go. And then finally, of course, investments in what we consider to be response and enforcement with further investments in both policing and bylaws, as well as infrastructure repair and maintenance. And so all three of those sections within the Community Safety and wellbeing plan anticipate intervention prevention and response. And all of those would apply not just to the multiple blocks of Pandora, but in all areas of the city where we're trying to ensure that folks who have needs have those needs met and folks who have different needs, perhaps have a greater understanding of the importance

of us meeting the needs of our most vulnerable. Thanks, Mayor. On July 10th of 2025, um, Councillor Gardner brought for the motion. It was referred. And you actually made the referral recommendation because we were just coming into the Community Safety and Wellbeing plan. And so that it came back on November of 2025. And have you seen a significant improvement or since November actually is almost a year now from the first time that the Councillor brought this forward? Have you seen enough improvement that you feel that you can say to the businesses and the people around there that we think we have done enough. You ask your question in two parts in a two different ways.

Have we seen change for the better? Yes. And in fact, uh, that comment I would make based upon the commentary that's been shared with us by many businesses at the downtown core, as well as many residents who are housed in the downtown core and in the neighbouring areas. You secondedly revised your question to say, have we seen enough. Have we made as much progress as I would personally have hoped? No. Do we continue to make the efforts that we must continue to make in partnership with a variety of different nutrients, including ILND health? Absolutely. We continue to do that. We expected this to be a long - term effort. And so improvement, yes. Okay. Thanks.

More to do. Okay. Thanks. And there always is. Um, in the November meeting, you said for all of his troubles and challenges. And indeed, there are many supervised consumption is a part of the continuum of both harm reduction and recovery. And you also said, I think it's important also to note that city, the City continues to have a robust conversation with Ireland Health with regards to the harbour and its operations. And we have suggested to them repeatedly and in fairly blunt terms that there is much better management operational plan needed there. And certainly as we come forward with the changes to not just Pandora blocks, but to the downtown core into the city as a whole with regards to the Community Self - Dual being plan, there are going to be changes made nearby this location. And we are in conversation with Ireland Health and with all the service providers in the area of what will look like and how they can be part of

the solution. Um, I believe this is still you where you say this is indeed a challenging situation. And I believe there is a solution and we will continue to work on it as with the province and with Ireland Health and with all the many service providers in the area who are indeed part of the provision and management of compatible and complementary services. I would stand by that statement again. Okay. So mayor, and because so much has come from you, um, on your leadership and your drive about the Community Safety and wellbeing plan. I know that this is an important area for you. And so I appreciate that you continue to stand by it. But with your words, and I appreciate in my words in the same way that I still hear from people where people say that it's better, I can appreciate that. But all of us, unless it's just me, I don't think so.

All of us get emails on a regular basis on Pandora, whether it's the 800 or, I don't know how often we get it from the 900, but the 800 and the 1000 block of Pandora. So clearly there are still behaviour going on. Um, so the thing for me is when I think of, when I think of all the issues that are happening down there, I do not believe that we should just cut off the, and it was, it was one of our councillor, one of our colleagues who said, don't refer to it as the safe consumption site because there's no safety in these drugs. But it was, um, also a recognition that this is a, this is a, um, consumption site. Sorry, wait a second.

What were the words? Anyway, that it's, it's a, um, drug consumption site. Thank you. Thank you, as a matter of fact, that's true. I didn't want to get into trouble for naming any names, but, uh, you know who you are. And, and so, yeah, this is a supervised consumption site. As a matter of fact, that's what was, that was stated. And so the chance, the ability for people to get. Drugs and to get them safely supervised so they're not dying there alone. Or if anything happens to them that they can be revived or helped in some way is something that I still strongly support. What I said in November. Is that, and I agree with it still today is that at the same time, we were looking after the most vulnerable. It cannot be the expense of the businesses and the, and the residents who live around there, it wasn't their fault. Um, that they happen to be where they are. And so anything that

we do, I want to make sure that we are taking everyone into consideration while people are being saved. I shouldn't say presumably because we know that there are times where people are literally being saved in hopes that they make better decisions later. Mayor, do you think that do you think that we need to say ramp up some more of the things that are going on in that area, whether it's working with island health or with the resources that we have that we put forward for the Community Safe and wellbeing plan. Do you think that the needs to be ramped up, um, in the meantime. It's my opinion that the work that we're currently undertaking with both island health, uh, and a myriad of service providers, as well as some conversations with province beyond Ireland Health, as well as our colleagues and police bylaw and in our public works sector. Our executing the plan as we had anticipated. We are hopeful that the conversations that we

are currently having with Ilenthealth will create some significant advances. In the coming weeks and months. I would be remiss to think that, uh, accelerating or accentuating anything in particular at this time would add to that. In fact, I think the risk in fact could harm the progress that we're making. And so I think that we're on track, perhaps, as I said earlier, not as quickly as some might hope. But that we are on track. Thanks, Mayor. I, as I said, I wasn't going to second this. I was just going to let it go. I woke up at three o'clock in the morning. Get back to sleep. And, um, I went through all the, all the recordings from the, um, November meeting. And I, and I want to add that I didn't hear anything that wasn't thoughtful from all of us. From every one of us here who wasn't thoughtful about the impact of wanting to deal with the most vulnerable people who go to that

site and also recognising the harms that are created around that site and the concentration of services. I didn't hear one person say anything that was like really negative, even though, um, even though the vote was, um, two. And I even said at that time, I just wanted to register my vote the way that I did as a way of saying that we also have to listen to the things that are happening to people around there. I'm not going to support this motion. I actually spoke to the mover and said I would be interested in putting forward an amendment that would be related to how we can continue to work with island health or ramp it up. And in respect of the mover, um, she did not want that. So if there's an opportunity down the road where perhaps there needs to be another motion that comes forward, um, with some more thought, perhaps not perhaps in conjunction with what's going on with Community Safe and

well - being plan, uh, that might be something that's worthwhile. But at all times, we've got to remember, well, we saved people through a consumption site. At the same time. We've got to make sure that there are positive living experiences for people who are in and around that. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you, Councillor. And I would note that at any time any Council Member, of course, is welcome to propose a Council Member Motion in the future. Councillor Thompson. Thank you, Mayor. Um, I wanted to quote, uh, Victoria Police Department, Detective Inspector Connor King, a 28 year veteran of drug enforcement. We said about this suggestion. What I worry about is the unintended consequences of moving a public facing supervised consumption site out of an area where the need is very high. And if the people don't follow, then you're going to have people using drugs on the street. Because there is no to supervised consumption site.

And I would also point out that the current practice of the police department is to direct people who are using on the street or maybe potentially using on the street to go into the supervised consumption site. As my colleagues will know, we received an overwhelming number of people, uh, emails from people opposed to this motion. And as I always say, it's not a popularity contest. We need to make the best decisions, uh, for the City now. And in its future and for all residents, uh, but it is important to note who was opposed, uh, in those many, many emails. And that includes doctors, nurses, addictions researchers. And people who live in the area. And we also, of course, have that commentary from an experienced police officer and the practice of the department referring people to the harbour. If the aim is to reduce the crowding and conditions out in front of the harbour, a solution to that is to improve the space inside the harbour

to accommodate more people. That is being done right now. Uh, another option is to, uh, adjust the space in behind the harbour. And I know that that's been the topic of discussion for some time. If the aim is to help people get off addiction, um, then we know the solutions. And that's detox and treatment, which doesn't appear in this motion. And I made emotions several months ago to facilitate, uh, access to detox and treatment. Finally, Mayor of just want to point out that, um, based on some of the, uh, commentary I saw on social media. And I recommend that people don't look at that commentary or look at social media generally. But I have to point out that this is not a problem that's unique to Victoria. These big trends in the evolution of drugs, substance use disorder. The harmfulness of the drugs, the drug deaths, uh, these are happening across north America. This isn't a unique Victoria problem. Um. And, uh, it's, it's something

that needs to be taken very seriously. And we need to be listening to the experts who are evidenced led and actually have solutions. Thanks Mayor. Thank you, Councillor Loughton. Thanks and through you mayor. I think the thing for me, it's not really about closing the harbour or not. It's about what's happening outside the harbour, but also deeper to that. It's the division that's happening. In our community over this, this issue. And it is definitely. Affecting residents living in downtown. I hear from, from residents that their mental health is affected. It's absolutely affecting businesses. We hear from them. Almost daily. And it is definitely affecting people who are in active and acute substance use disorder. And our community needs to come together. Sorry. I didn't have much sleep last night either. So we should have, yeah, we should have talked. And I also, um, thought about bringing a motion arising to try to direct this conversation more over to how we manage the outside of the

site. But I think because the temperature has turned up so high on this right now, it's, it's probably best to leave it as it is today. But I would like to really consider bringing a Council member motion about this. And I think it would be a good idea for me to work on that. With my colleague across the way. It's something I know that our public has been begging us to do something about the issue around street disorder downtown. But it is not something that this municipality or any municipality across the country can solve. We need our provincial and federal partners. And we need to bring them in into this conversation. There is also, um, a drug overdose advisory right now in greater Victoria to the point where it, I'm reading the headline here, the overdose surge briefly overwhelms royal Jubilee hospital. Um, so. It's a, it's a very, very, very serious issue. And we need to tend to the needs of everyone thoughtfully. And

I'm repeating myself, but we need to come together. And I just want to note something that I found recently in visiting Johnson Manor. So that's the new sober recovery - based housing site that came that opened through the 11 priority actions that this Council brought forward. And I learned that that site as well as all of the other sober recovery - based housing sites are the waitlists are so long. They're not even taking referrals. And what that means is there is no path out. From the street for people in active. Substance use disorder because there's nowhere for them to go. So if we think about it from the perspective of someone on the street, if they do detox, if they do treatment, if they do a therapeutic community and the housing afterwards. There's no incentive because they cannot maintain their sobriety. In wet housing or if they become homeless again. So the, the, the 20 men who are now living at Johnson Manor are advocating

for 20 more Johnson manners. And I'd like to join them in that advocacy. But mayor, I'm just going to leave it here today. I can't support this motion. Um, I do strongly believe it's not about what's happening inside the harbour. It's what's happening outside. And I think we need to continue this conversation in a really thoughtful way. And again, I'd like to work on that with my, my colleague across the way who's nodding his head. So. Um, we'll leave it at that for today. But it, it's, it's dividing our community and it's affecting everyone in an incredibly negative way. And we need to figure out how to simmer things down and move out of this in the most thoughtful and effective way possible. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anybody else. Councillor Deltan. Thank you. I would like to speak against this motion. Um, I want to maybe start by thanking everyone who wrote in emails. I put them in a folder and we had 458 emails opposing this motion. It's probably the most emails we've ever received on any issue, particularly in a three day time period. And that compares to 20 in support. So 95 percent of residents wrote into opposes motion. As my colleague mentioned, uh, that included quite a few doctors and included a lot of registered nurses from our local hospitals. It included, uh, a lot of academics, uh, social workers, clinical councillors. It included a lot of detaild information.

So thank you to those folks who wrote it, wrote in on that. That was very powerful to read. I also maybe want to know that a lot of the folks who wrote in had lost loved ones, we had a number of people who wrote in who had lost children who had lost friends. And who spoke to how important a site like this would have been to them and how in some cases it has saved their lives or saved people's lives. So just a bit of context. And thank you for those who wrote in. Um, this, I'm not an expert on this matter at all. So I just wanted to read a couple. I don't normally take up a lot of my time mayor. So if you would just give me a bit of grace on this, I'll read three. Um, I'm writing to you in regard to the motion on the harbour safe consumption site.

I'm a registered nurse and emergency department. On Friday, we had 21 overdoses. On Saturday, we had 23. This was an incredibly dangerous time to close a safe consumption site. We frequently work with the harbour as one of the only places people feel safe to go and express their concerns. Not only substance use, but serious medical conditions. Communicating with the hardware allows patients to feel safe coming to an emergency department. They also have counseling and resources to help people where they recovery assist with housing applications. MSD issues and ID. We are in a toxic drug crisis, which has been worsening over the last few months. Our local emergency departments are overwhelmed. The harbour is able to care for people who use and allow them safely. This presents a huge number of people from coming to the ER for their substance use. I feel other resources, including the police, emergency health and hospitals will be overrun with the harbour closes. So I'm going to registered nurse. Another

one from a parent who wrote in. I'm writing as a parent of an adult sign living with addiction. I understand the concerns being raised about supervised consumption sites and the impact that public drug use can have on neighbourhoods. These concerns are real and there's a thoughtful responses and meaningful action. But closing safe consumption sites will not make addictions disappear. My family has lived with addiction for years and I can tell you from this heartbreaking experience that when people are in the grip of substance use disorder, they do not stop using because the service closes or because society wishes the problem away. They use alone in public washrooms, in parks, in alleyways and increasingly with a toxic drug supply that can kill them within minutes. The question is not whether people use drugs. The question is whether they will do so somewhere where their live can be saved. My son has thought help from consumption services.

These sites have not only provided a safer environment, but also a connection with health care workers access to resources, compassionate human interaction and opportunities to engage with services that might otherwise have remained at a reach. I do not want my scent to need these services. But until he no longer does, I want them to exist. I spent nights wondering whether my phone would ring with news at no parent ever wants to hear it would receive. Knowing the place where my child could go where someone would try to keep him alive mattered more than I can adequately express. Recovery remains my hope. Treatment remains my hope.

Stability remains my hope. But recovery is only possible if people survive long enough to reach it. And I just wanted to read one more, one of many physicians who wrote in. I live in Victoria and I'm a family physician. I was horrified and disappointed to hear that the motion put forward to shut down the harbour. A life - saving health facility that serves more than 300 people every 350 people every day. As someone who lives in Victorian, his lost patients, the toxic drug supply, I strongly feel that overdose prevention sites such as a harbour, a crucial services for people with substance use disorders. People who use substances have been left with no choice on a current law, but to buy from toxic illicit supply, which continues to kill an average of four British Columbias every day. Overdose prevention sites are also critically important to reduce the visibility of drug use in the downtown core. Yet visible drug use would increase of the harbour reforce of

clothes and people left with nowhere else to go. The loss of an overdose prevention site would also impact heavily on wait times at her hospital emergency departments. And the number of BC ambulances call out for drug poisoning. Overdose prevention sites save lives. They provide health care and connection to other services for citizens living in deep poverty and poor health. Knowing this, it is offensive beyond belief. That this motion came forward. As a community, we're in the midst of multiple crises. And as you know, we are all aware, a housing crisis, a primary care crisis, a toxic drug supply crisis. Shutting down an essential service like the harbour would not only lead to further death and suffering our community. It also put further pressure on systems that are already stretched thin. I trust the vast majority of council will immediately shut down this attempt to deny citizens Victoria to an essential health care service. That's from a local medical doctor. So, um, yeah, thank you again

for the folks who wrote in. They were very powerful messages. I wish I could head time to read more, but hopefully those give a bit of an indication of why I'll be opposing this motion. Thank you very much, Councillor Coleman. Thank you. We got lots of emails. Some have been referenced. The most eloquent one for me came from Michelle Peterson, who lives in Burnside Gorge area. She was a social worker for more than three decades. And just one paragraph particularly. And I quote the discussion become has become framed as a binary choice. Either you support supervised consumption sites exactly as they are. Are you opposed harm reduction altogether. I see this as playing out both online and within council itself. I don't believe that reflects where many residents actually are. And, of quote. Michelle and I have disagreed on some stuff and agreed on others.

Um, on this one, I think she's absolutely right. And I think it then forces that comment about us being divided both at Council and in society more broadly. Has to have us look at the mayor's program with respective unity safety and well - being. And recognise that it's not a one - off one year project. It is set up as three years as a start with Sean as the bylaw policing side and 70 percent into the social programs. But it was always set up that the 30 percent was going to be spent in the first year to 18 months and the other gets feathered in.

The question then becomes where does the harbour play in that. Um, I think to close it, as is suggested in this motion, um, would just force all that. Drug use, um, and potential societal danger out onto the street or into the shadows. And I don't think that's helpful. Does the harbour run perfectly? No. There's all sorts of adjacent impacts that are being felt. And we need to address that. That's about the supervised consumption site improving its operation. But to close it, um, catastrophic. And I can't support the motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else. Regard to you as she speak again? No. Oh.

Yes. Uh, well, let's consider your D was to speak again. Okay. Councillor Logan, go ahead. Thanks, Mayor. There's just one point that I neglected to make. And I think it's an important one. The harbour, it's not just, uh, a place to safely consume drugs for people in active substance use disorder. It's also a gateway to the services. And I think the public really needs to understand that. That is how people access support which can help them enter into detox and treatment and stabilization. And hopefully housing after that. So I just wanted to make, uh, make sure that that, that point was made. It's, it is really an important way to help people through drug addiction and substance use disorder and to help them get off the street. So it's a, it's a gateway to the services as well. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else. Council Gardner.

Thank you. A lot has been said first. But how much time do I have left now? Six minutes. Thank you very much. Um. My notes are all over the place. So I may be a bit disjointed. I want to tell you what really shaped my thoughts. There were three things. First, I was impressed by Dr. Wiegel, BC's Chief Scientific Advisor, who has presented hard facts. He effectively debunked a lot of the save lives and said what was really happening to us. And he spoke about illicit drug use. Especially the impact on those who can't make good decisions for themselves. I really respected what he said.

And I put forward a motion. To this counsel in January asking that we invite him to speak to us. So we would have the top expert in the province, the one, the provincial government has chosen. To speak on this. And yet we're here today. We should listen to the experts, but this council abandoned that. They rejected my request. Second. I was very impressed very, very early on in our, uh, service in this council. To our places, new roads in View Royal drug uses permitted there. But not illicit drugs. Medicinal drug is under the watchful eye of a health professional are provided. Very carefully. And that is somewhat what I have suggested today. Is it the harbour transform it pivot. We've heard today a lot about we're going to be talking to everybody. We've been talking to everybody for a long time, but these residents, the other residents who live nearby, those on Mason Street, and I'm sure most of you probably saw the Czech news

story a couple of days on it where someone was interviewed. And I have personally visited a lot of people that live on Johnson Street. And on the 8th Street. And they are trying to move out. We got today, this morning, an email from someone who wants a tax reduction because he can't fill his sweets or rental suites because no one wants to go near his building because of where it is. We need real change. I agree. We need. Provincial and everyone else, all these other levels, the provincial agencies, island health. To be online. But mostly, we need them to actually change and do something and become accountable. And they're only going to do that if this council takes a hard stand and says, do something now. Not let's talk for another five years, three years, 10 years. That will bring a lot more death as a toxic go on. Um, third, I've been very impressed too by the provinces walk back on decriminalization. It has

been effective. The deaths have lowered. Those three points plus, wait a minute, I have to check my notes. As I said, this offers the opportunity. And it gives a year for Ireland Health to pivot. To change what they are doing. Now what has been missing in the city's actions which have been in response to Council's direction. And that means this Council and Past Council is accountability. We cannot separate in trend sheltering in parks or on our streets from the harbour operations. They are seen as the Centre, I think, by a lot of people who are unfortunately within that are dripped by addiction. And by the general public and by people who are in nearby streets.

Our residents don't have the luxury of time to wait another five or ten years for more studies. They need relief now. And those living under the grip of drug addictions, those sheltering of public places need relief now. And they need change. Decisions I said made by this council, the past councils have entrenched disorder in our city. Much has been said about the emails received. I have received some that I think no one else has received. Uh, I think the fear in the city about speaking out loud. So I suspect quite a few just came to me alone. And I will read one of them now.

Uh, and as I read it perhaps staff can put up the slide I provided. This email is in response to Matt Dale's appeal of support for drug consumption sites. Could you someone put up my slide please? Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. This email's response to Matt Dale's appeal of support for drug consumption sites. I strongly condemn the continued support and enabling of addiction. Any and all resources available should be put towards treatment. Mentally ill, severely addicted people are left to wrought intense or under makeshift shelters in Parks and Streets without facilities. But Matt Dale thinks Continuing this practice requires public support. We need competent leadership in strong voices in support of common sense.

You can see what the slide is. It was from a Facebook posting. And the last several days as mentioned, we receded, we received targeted campaign emails. And I think Councillor, well, I've mentioned the number of 458 emails. It's very low. There's been a lot more than that. And that's because there were formatted feedback forms that have been distributed widely. Others are the same letter essentially with a few words changed. And there have been a couple posting asking people to do just that. So having heard today, people shouldn't be looking at social media. We do have this social media right before us. And it has been before us now for several days. And it's also been said that safety and wellbeing is not a popularity contest.

No, but we shouldn't be picking winners and losers. And right now we have a lot of losers in what's going on. We must push the privilege of government in the way we push directly is through island health. Let's change, uh, the harbour. The harbour is no longer supervised consumption site. It's now a witnessed one, I believe. I think they all changed. And let's change it into one that uses medicinal drugs. Let's not call it a safe consumption site. Let's have a treatment site with medicinal drugs so that we are not inviting the illicit drug companies. Pardon? You're out of time. Why thank you for reminding me Mayor that I'm out of time. Anybody else. Before calling the question, I will make a couple of brief comments. I think one of the issues that hasn't been addressed this morning is the frustration that this council feels.

About being the only one. And about taking responsibility for a very, very large challenge. As the only publicly available supervised consumption site in the capital region. While there are others, they're located in particular housing developments for the purposes of the residents, which is good. But meanwhile, for those who do not have the privilege of having a residence, they have only one choice. We have called repeatedly on our colleagues and other municipalities. To do their part to serve their own people. Because we know that drug use is common. We may not like some drugs. We may regulate some drugs. We may approve some drugs. But we all know that drug use is common. It is not limited to Victoria. And it should not only be supported, responded to in any way just in Victoria. So I call again. On our colleagues and our municipal areas in the Capitol Regional District to look closely at the needs of their own people. In their own communities. And to

do the right thing. It is also more than just a supervised consumption service. It's a requirement to have complex services that respond to complex needs. And this cannot be done by a local government alone. It must be done in partnership. With the province, with the federal government, with nonprofits. With physicians and professionals. With anyone who has an ability to make change and support that change. That is why we continue to work with island health. To try to improve the services that they are offering at the harbour. In a way which responds to the people who need those services and the people around those services. And that conversation will continue. Are we frustrated at the pace of change? Of course we are. Are we a realistic in the amount of resources and the change in services.

And the change in systems that are required in order to make it better. Yes, we're practical and realistic. And that is why we continue to facilitate those conversations and convene those opportunities. The federal government will ask us later next year what our opinions are. Before they renew the exemption. That is typical. Local communities are always asked their opinion before those exemptions are renewed. The Council of the day will have an opportunity to weigh in. Meanwhile. Let us continue. To save lives. And do the best we can. We're the people who need these services. And everyone else who understands the value of every person who lives in our community. I will not be supporting this motion. All those in favor. Councillor Gardner.

In opposition. Councillor Dell. Councillor Couradona, Councillor Lauton, myself, Councillor Coleman, Councillor Hammond, and Councillor Thompson. I do note that Councillor Kim had to step away. It's not with us at this moment. That concludes the consideration of item I1 and all of our new business. We do not have any requirement for closed meeting today, so I would look now for a motion to adjourn committee. Thank you, Councillor Coleman, seconded by Councillor Thompson. All those in favor, anyone opposed. That is unanimous. Let us take a 10 minute break and then we will reconvene to begin our daytime council meeting.