Committee meeting. Committee it is committee, isn't it? Special Committee
of the whole meeting of Victoria. City council here on
November the 7th. Today we will be considering the very
first steps of our 2026 budget deliberations, and I'll explain
a little bit more about that in a moment. But
of course, before we begin, we always begin by taking
a moment to. Ground ourselves and our work. And a
recognition and acknowledgement of the remarkable stewardship that has been
undertaken on our behalf. By the Songhees nation and the
Kosapson nation, the Lakungan. People in these territories for so
many generations. Our city, of course, sits entirely. On the
past, on the contemporary territories of two nations. And it's
important for us to remember that the ability for us
to live here and raise our families and do this
important work. And make our best decisions for the people
who are here and the people who are coming. That
is all rooted in the experience and dedic. Dedication and
commitment of the people from the past. And those nations
have spent so many generations, so many centuries, ensuring that
we have these opportunities. And so it is important for
us to acknowledge that and express our gratitude, but also
to look forward and acknowledge the ongoing relationship we have
with the two nations and. To recommit to ensuring that
that relationship remains and is nurtured and grows as is
needed by all indigenous and non indigenous folk in this
area. The two nations themselves. Have grown and demanded different
things from us over the years, as they will continue
to do as we do with them. And so we
look forward to that ongoing conversation, the recommitments. And relationship
building that is necessary. And in doing that, we offer
in their language of thanks to say hi Chicasim Hychikasim
Naquilia, to say thank you and to. Anticipate the need
for more thanks and to acknowledge their leadership, our leadership,
the leadership of all of the individual. Individuals, organizations, families
and people who live in these areas to continue to
nurture and do the best they can. Ichikasiam Nicolia. I'm
not aware of any late items that need to be
added to today's. Agenda, and so I would look first
for just an approval of the agenda. So I'd like
to move that. Thanks, Councilor Kim. Seconded by Councilor Dell.
Any discussion of the agenda, seeing none. All those in
favor? Anyone opposed? That is unanimous. That does take us
to our one item today, and that is our one
item of new. Business, and this is with regard to
the 2026 2030 draft financial plan. And if anyone is
like me. And they saw 2030 on that page, and
they got a little bit of a chill. You're not
alone. What is going to happen this afternoon and I'll.
Briefly outline where we hope we will go today and
in the future, as we do have subsequent meetings already
scheduled later in November and. Will likely move into December
as well. First of all, we're going to hear from
our three senior staff who are seated there, and they
will introduce themselves momentarily to provide an overview of the
entire budget. The entire draft 2026 2030 budget, the financial
plan. Rather. And once we hear those presentations, we will
canvass council to see if there are any general questions,
but I will urge council to consider in a moment
how we're going to parse out the different pieces of
this. So if there are any global questions based upon
the presentation itself. We'll take a moment for that. However,
if we start to vary too closely. Into very specific
questions. We'll pause because we are going to have an
opportunity, ample opportunities. To go deeply into all of these
financial issues as we move forward to this process. Once
we get to that point, you will see that there
are a number of appendices. And they are blocked out
in sort of four sections. The first one, appendix a,
is one which identifies all of the things that council
previously directed. Council or committees. Good Lord. I want you
to do everything. Previously council directed for. Staff to remove
from the financial plan for the future of this year.
We will look at those and we will see whether
or not council has any interest in adding any of
them back in. So that's step one. After that, there's
a subsequent appendix, and we'll go through all of this
in more detail a little bit later. That actually speaks
to the proposed reductions for 2026 and will canvass all.
Of those and determine whether we're comfortable with them or
not, whether we want to adjust. Them or amend them
or remove them. All those different things that's likely going
to take some time. I will say that I do
not expect to even get there today. I would suggest
it's highly likely that we'll get through the presentation some
general. Questions at maybe appendix a today. We only have
3 hours and then we'll move on. But whenever we
get to that, that will be the next step. Anticipating
that there may be some additional proposals. For items that
are not in either of those two appendices, we'll start
dealing. With those in the third block again. Do not
expect to get there today, but that will be an
opportunity for council to introduce new things. And then finally,
of course, there is the opportunity for council to give
direction for future years that is not necessary. Let me
be clear about that. But certainly staff would appreciate. Any,
even most general direction as they begin to think ahead,
of course, preparing for years and budgets after 2026. As
I said, we already have booked meetings on the 21
November and on the 24 November. If we need more
meetings after that, which we may. We'll just book those
again after that. Period of time, we will likely not
get to a final decision until early in the new
year. And I'm sure that our staff will be reminding
us of the actual dates of the various deadlines as
they go through their presentation. And after we do the
presentation, I'm going to speak a little bit about timing,
but. I'll leave that for that time. Perhaps I'll stop
talking now and turn it. Over to our able staff
to begin. This wonderful journey over to you, and please
introduce yourselves as you need. Thank you, mayor. Good afternoon,
mayor and council. My name is Jocelyn Jenkins. I'm the
city manager. We are here today to present on the
city's 2026 draft financial plan. Before we get into the
details of the presentation, I'd like to offer some opening
comments. With the release of the provincial budget in March
and the federal budget earlier this year. It's clear that
current economic conditions nationally and provincially continue to be very
challenging. Both a federal and provincial government are running deficits
for the foreseeable future to be able to respond to
the pressures of ongoing service delivery and investment. While the
city operates within the same economic conditions as other levels
of government. Municipalities cannot run a deficit and rely heavily
on a single stream of property taxes. The city delivers
approximately 200 programs and services outlined in the draft financial
plan. These services and programs span a variety of areas,
from parks and recreation to waste collection. Building inspections, roads,
stormwater, cycling infrastructure. Fire response bylaw and community safety, arts
and culture, and much more. As most of these programs
and services are delivered by people, cost drivers related to
these services include employee compensation, as well as market cost
pressures related to the costs of materials, equipment, insurance, and
supplies. From a capital budget perspective, aging infrastructure is a
growing concern, with many assets exceeding their expected usual life
and requiring replacement. Older pipes, roads, water mains and bridges.
Are deteriorating faster without additional investment, while growth and climate
change pressures are outpacing current renewal. Funding, widening the infrastructure
gap and increasing the renewal backlog. In addition to funding,
planning, and managing our own city programs and services, the
province is added to the city's capital program burden by
mandating the rapid deployment of housing in Victoria. Related to
the building of housing, the demand for strong physical infrastructure
like roads, utilities and transportation, which are essential for building
sustainable, affordable, and livable communities. Continue to increase. Given these
pressures and the desire to hold the line on property
taxes for both residents and the business community. The city
is facing some very challenging budget decisions for 2026. So
even though council's deliberations on the 2026 budget begin in
earnest today, staff were provided with tax increased targets for
2026 starting last year. As part of the 2025 budget
process. Council directed staff to identify reduction options to achieve
a 4% tax increase for 2025 and 2026. And over
14 million in reductions were brought forward as outlined in
appendix D. Council approved all reductions for 2025 and 26.
And for 2026, council directed staff to incorporate the 4%
option into the 2026 budget. As a starting point. Identify
reduction options to offset the upcoming debt servicing for the
crystal pool and to identify additional reduction options of a
million dollars for council to be able to add back
some of the reductions incorporated. In the 2026 draft budget.
so over the last six months staff have worked hard
to identify significant levers for cost containment while minimizing impacts
on services and taking into account the city's obligations and
service dependencies At this point, I would really like to
thank my senior leadership team for months of very thoughtful
work that they have put into these various budget reduction
scenarios for council's consideration to get the city's portion of
the tax increase to 4%. The succinct report before you
is the culmination of countless hours of reviewing project plans
and related funding strategies. Scrutinizing program service levels, identifying cost
avoidance by deferring or canceling projects. And looking at potential
revenue generating opportunities. In examining the budget and the required
reductions, staff took the approach that everything was on the
table. Despite. Counsel prior approvals. Reduction options are comprehensive and
include a variety of considerations. These include areas where there
may be duplication of services with other organizations. Options to
defer or cancel debt funded projects to reduce debt payments.
Implementing service and program adjustments, and that would be inclusive
of community grant programs. And increasing and developing new revenue
streams. So, in closing, staff recognize that trade offs are
required, and this report provides a range of options. Both
immediate and for the future. For council's consideration. With that,
I will hand it over. To my able colleague, director
Thompson. Good afternoon, Mary. Council. My name is Susan Thompson.
I'm deputy city manager and chief financial. Officer. So, as
the city manager noted, we're pleased to be here this
afternoon to introduce the draft financial plan to council to
start off the deliberations for the 2026 to 2030. Budgets.
So today we'll walk you through our budget framework. An
overview of our many services, our asset management work, and
the infrastructure funding strategy. A summary of the 2026 to
2030 financial plan. Ways of balancing the budget, as identified
through our recent public engagement. Options for reducing tax increases
and the estimated timeline. So, as council is aware, the
financial plan is the very end of a much larger
planning process. All the city's strategies, frameworks, plans and condition
assessments. Inform the numerous programs, services, and projects that are
included in the financial plan. And our financial policies provide
the overarching guidance for budget development. So the 2026 draft
operating budget is $389,000,000 and the 2026 draft capital budget
is 98.8 million. But before we get to the details
behind those numbers, we have a few slides to remind
everyone. Of the many services the city provides that our
community relies on. Also, please note that the financial plan
document provides summaries of all the core services that each
department provides. So from waterfront walkways to busking and entertainment
to our park spaces, And roads, skating and swimming. Accessibility
improvements. And places to play. Multimodal infrastructure and underground pipes.
Spaces to park and outdoor recreation activities. Distribution of seedlings
and more road work. And opportunities to learn to bike,
enjoy the water waste, and provide input into planning processes.
Solid waste collection to support a clean city. Fire response
hanging baskets, residential garbage and greenburn pickup and the vehicle
fleet that support our many services. More roadwork, Nev. Charging
places. Supporting inquiries and accepting payments at the public service
counter at City hall, taking part in swimming lessons. And
providing input into the official community plan. Information technology supports
fire, rescue and misting stations to keep us cool. So
this is by no means all of the services, but
it provides a snapshot of the great work that happens
in our community every day. So critical to the service
delivery is the infrastructure. That supports it, and well managed
infrastructure is linked to the well being of a community.
So with that in mind, I will now turn it
over to Director Doyle to provide an update. On our
asset management journey. Thank you, director Thompson. My name is
William Doyle. I'm the director of engineering and public. Works.
The objective of our asset management work is to ensure
lasting infrastructure value through strategic oversight. Please recall this image
from the last two years of budgeting discussions and consider
the decades of policies and investments that have yielded the
strong asset management foundation on which the city stands. In
the next few minutes, we will briefly explain how continued
strategic investments will help drive the city towards sustainable service
delivery and prioritize and fund critical asset needs. We'll highlight
where we stand, what we've learned from other cities, and
how we're preparing Victoria's infrastructure for the next generation. To
put this into context, we would like to highlight the
scale and significance of the city's. $4.9 billion asset portfolio,
which includes roads, utilities, parks, facilities and fleet. The
city's asset management practices are founded on different elements of
the city's financial sustainability policy. Namely debt management principles, dedicated
reserves and surplus allocation, and the lifecycle funding approach. This
total asset value underscores the role of asset management in
delivering reliable services, ensuring public safety and building community resilience.
Well managed assets directly impact quality of life. This is
why ongoing investment is essential to maintain service. Levels and
adapt to emerging challenges. Here's a snapshot of the current
condition of the city's assets. The chart highlights that approximately
$800 million in asset replacement costs are in poor or
very poor condition, representing 16% of assets. That's roughly one
in six of the systems that keep our city running
every day. We underline the importance of accurate condition assessments
for informed decision making. While progress has been made, significant
data gaps remain, particularly in condition based risk assessments. This
slide. Then the next outlines some of the key challenges
facing the city's asset management efforts. These include aging infrastructure,
rising costs due to inflation and supply chain issues, climate
change impacts, and persistent data gaps. These pressures are accelerating
asset deterioration and increasing financial pressures. We emphasize the need
for proactive planning and investment to mitigate these risks and
ensure sustainable service delivery. Let's take a look at some
of what we're learning from other cities. Proactive asset management
is the backbone of reliable public service. Pictured here as
a feeder. Main failure in Calgary in January 2004. This
is an installation of. A prestressed concrete cylinder pipe PCCP,
a once popular design that has proven difficult to monitor
for deterioration and tends to fail spectacularly. Nearly 200. Calgary's
5000 kilometer to water main infrastructure is of this type.
Calgary's feeder main condition assessment and maintenance program, launched after
the McKnight failure, was built on the knowledge that regular
inspections, leak detection, and risk analysis can prevent costly disruptions.
When maintenance is deferred or documentation is incomplete, the consequences
can be severe over 20 years. Later in June 2024,
the failure of Calgary's bears, plus south Peter Main, also
a PCCP installation led to citywide water restrictions, emergency repairs,
and millions in unplanned. Costs. This event highlights the risks
of aging infrastructure and the importance of knowing our system's
single points of failure. It's a powerful reminder that asset
management gaps can quickly escalate into communitywide crises, underscoring the
need for robust planning and continuous improvement. Despite the challenges,
Calgary's response to the feeder main crisis showcased remarkable team
resilience. And innovation staff collaborated across departments, adopted repair methods,
and leveraged new technologies like acoustic fiber optic monitoring. The
result was not just a restored pipeline, but a stronger,
more connected team. Calgary's experience illustrates how investing in people,
fostering collaboration and embracing innovation can turn adversity into opportunity,
building a culture of resilience that benefits the entire community.
Turning over to our local progress. Over the past year,
we finalized and piloted all of our major asset management
frameworks. These frameworks standardize how we assess asset condition, risk,
and service levels across departments, enabling more consistent and data
driven decision making. We launched a new asset management web
resource on the city's internal hub. Making information more accessible
to staff. This resource supports transparency and helps asset stewards
track progress and priorities. Significant progress was made on the
city's operation management system cardigraphs. The implementation schedule has improved,
and more teams are now using this system for real
time asset tracking. And reporting. The city secured over $4
million in external grants for EV, charging cycling infrastructure and
other capital projects. Federal and provincial partnerships have been critical
in advancing many initiatives. Several major infrastructure repairs and upgrades
were completed or advanced. Governments treat watermelon upgrade, Chatham Lift
station commissioning Superior pump station replacement awarded and scheduled for
completion in 2026. Multiple corridors on the cycling network complete.
Air underway with external grant funding secured for Blanchard north
and Cook Street north. And lastly, the moss street storm
drain repair, profiled in these pictures here from this initial
picture, a sinkhole that appeared in May 2024 and not
too sure upon initial. Assessment what the cause was. through
to further exposing the sinkhole finding it was vague and
then about a year later further into the repair About
twelve meter deep. Repair. Excavator down in the Hola complex,
kind of confined space entry. And then that's the pipe
that was collapsed. That was the deep underway of Brickstore.
Arch. Storm. Sewer. And then reconstruction of the main inside.
Later, cleaning out the debris. You can see farther behind
there. And then ultimately, site restoration. Just in the past
couple of months, so just keep in mind this was
a multimillion dollar repair for a few meters of storm
drain. With the city having thousands of meters of underground
mains in its networks. Let's take a look at how
we optimize asset decisions with risk analysis. The city moves
from condition only assessments to prioritizing assets based on risk
factors. This improves decision accuracy. Over half of asset value
remains unassessed for condition risk, but ongoing efforts aimed to
complete evaluations. Condition based risk assessments, enable better investment decisions
and align with asset management best practices. Completing commission based
risks assessments, guides funding and renewal priorities to protect high
risk assets effectively. Now looking ahead to our priorities and
next steps. We plan to continue to adopt and improve
asset management practices for future needs and challenges. With fresh
data in the next year, we will undertake renewals. Of
our watermaster plan, sanitary master plan, and road and sewer
condition based risk assessment together, making about 40% of our
asset value. We will prioritize the renewal of essential assets
to help ensure long term service reliability and safety. We
will continue to strengthen the resilience of city assets to
withstand environmental and operational risks. Lastly. We encourage a continuation
of council engagement, funding and support. Together, we're ensuring Victoria's
infrastructure continues to serve residents, businesses, and visitors safely and
sustainably for generations. Thank you. Back over to you, Director
Thompson. So building on that. As council
knows, we have proposed a $5 million annual tax increase
each year until 2030. And this really supports that capital
renewal and sustainable asset management that director Doyle was talking
about. The strategy reduces the dependence on reserves and moves
us towards. Long term financial stability when it comes to
our infrastructure. It's important to note that the increase in
property tax funding will not result in increased capital budgets,
as you see on the screen. The capital budgets going
forward remain essentially the same in that $80 million range.
And this simply replaces the insufficient reserve funding that the
council is aware of. In other words, this will not
increase reserves, but it will provide. The funding for the
annual ongoing lifecycle renewal programs that we have in place.
So if some or all of the $5 million in
funding is not approved. Reductions to our ongoing lifecycle renewal
programs that are already included in the 2026 and future
years will have to be reduced. And this would increase.
Maintenance. Very likely. So the programs that I'm referring to
that would receive this funding includes major and local road
paving, playground renewals. Crosswalk renewals, facilities infrastructure renewals, including our
community centers, retaining wall rehabilitation. Traffic signal renewals and park
infrastructure renewals. So as we look to the future, the
main cost drivers that the city is facing. Our employee
compensation budgets that represent 54% of the total budget in
2026. Planned debt and associated repayments for projects like crystal
pool, government street refresh, multimold corridors and Centennial square revitalization.
Ongoing infrastructure asset renewal costs to support road paving, facility
maintenance, underground infrastructure, and park and playground infrastructure renewal programs.
Investments to support the implementation of the community safety and
well being plan. And this plan, as council knows, has
50 recommendations for the city to consider. 35 of those
can be implemented within existing resources. For 2026. The continuation
of the eleven priority actions requires funding of $4.2 million
plus 1.8 million for the policing side. The funding levels
will be reevaluated. As part of the 2028 financial planning
process. So the numbers we're talking about here. Rel. Related
2026 and 2027. And at that time in 2028, is
where we will reassess opportunities for reallocating the funding to.
The other. 15 plan actions. Or. To generally serve community
well being and safety goals, so other initiatives appendix e
provides more information on this budget. So last year. Last
year's processes, council knows, resulted in options of $14 million
in reductions over two years. So that was for 2025
and 2026. The 2026 reductions totaled 5.4 million, and they
have been removed from the draft financial plan as directed
by council, and they can be found in appendix A.
So collectively, these cost drivers along with inflationary increases and
the reductions that I just mentioned, result in total budget
increases ranging. From 15.5 million to 17.6 million in each
of the next five years. In addition, Wikipedia increases are
significant for 2026. Their request includes base budget increase with
four additional traffic officers and four additional patrol officers. The
nine officers requested by the city for the Community Safety
and well being plan Priority Act. Actions, a crime reduction
unit, which they are recommending that the city request and
fund as an optional service. As per section five of
the framework agreement, And the province has rendered their decision
on the section 27 appeal related to the late night
program. And they have ordered that it be added to
the police budget as a cost shared service. So important
to note is that not included in the budget is
a further section 27 appeal that is still pending, and
if approved, that would add $925,000 to the overall police
budget. The city's share of that would be $800,000 if
approved in full. Of course. Also important to note is
that. Their future year increases are likely to change. As
the new police chief assesses. The department's needs. So translating
this into tax increases, the city's portion for 2026 is
8.29%. 2027 8.39% with the three future years around 7%
on its own, the police request for 2026 is 9.8
million, which equates to a 5.2% tax increase in 2026.
Combining the two, the total draft tax increase. For 2026
is 13.31%. And this would be followed by ten point
61%. To 8.96, 8.79 and 8.59 increases in the subsequent
years. Again, the reminder that the police numbers for those
future years are very likely to change. So the Ipso
survey results, which were presented to council on Monday, included
a few questions about balancing the budget. While the results
to the questions were slightly different, There was consistency regarding
reducing service levels, which was preferred compared to completely eliminating
services. And introducing new or increasing existing fees ranked high.
However, property tax increases were in the middle of the
preferred question, but was the least preferred option in the
second question. So in 2025, council provided direction to reduce
ongoing tax increases without shifting the burden to future years.
So council said a tax increased goal of a maximum
4% for the city portion and give direction to incorporate
the 4% option from last year's financial prowling process into
the 2026 draft budget as a starting point. We were
also asked to identify reduction options to offset the upcoming
debt servicing for crystal pool and to identify additional reduction
options of $1 million so that council may add back
some of the reductions that we incorporated into the draft
budget. So to guide the work staff, use the following
principles which were approved by council. We were to focus
on ongoing property tax funded programs and services. Avoid adding
new or expanding services programs and assets, avoid negatively impacting
existing assets, and increase deferred maintenance. Pause actioning new or
expanded initiatives to reduce or avoid additional tax increases, even
if previously approved. By council. ESTaf used a methodology that
examined services and programs across the organization. Phased reductions based
on the estimated time it would take to implement them
and limited the impact on services as best we could.
The options. Identified also reflect the feedback on ways to
balance the budget that was received through the statistically valid
public consultation survey. So to avoid repeating the process of
identifying reduction options each year, staff took a long term
view of opportunities. So in order to achieve the maximum
4% tax increase in 2026, reductions of $8.3 million is
required, and this would be followed by equally AMb. Ambitious
reduction targets or reductions across the next four years, for
a total of 38.5 million. The main contributors to budget
increases. The employee compensation, debt repayments, and infrastructure funding are
also significant levers for cost containment. These, in addition to
the public input, informed the development of the options for
council's consideration. They include streamlining our operations and adjusting services
and looking at where there's duplication. Of service. With other
organization, including the CRD. So two services of the bike
valet and the youth bus. Pass program. Our ideal candidates
to receive funding from the CRD's new transportation service through
their grand stream. To be clear, it is not suggested
that these programs be canceled, but instead that crd. Funding
is more appropriate. Another option is deferring or counseling some
debt funded projects because the plan borrowing will result in
significant principal and interest repayments. So while the debt repayments
start in the year following the construction, because we borrow
as late as we can. Four projects are scheduled to
be built or started in 2026, and therefore, a decision
on those on the capital decision now is relevant to
the 2026 budget. Staff also identified opportunities for new or
increased revenues, and again, in developing the options, the focus
was on budget containment while limiting the impact on services.
So the tentative timelines are shown on the screen before
you. And this will take us to. April of next
year. We have to have a whole set of bylaws
adopted before May 15 of next year. But we don't
get all of the final information from BC assessment until
the end of March, so it is a rather lengthy
process. But we are aiming to have adoption of the
financial plan by law in April so that we can
then turn our minds to the tax rate setting, which
comes after the financial plan has been completed. So we
recognize the council is facing some challenging decision ahead and
staff are here to support the process and answer any
questions you may have. And with that, I'll turn it
back to the mayor. Well, that's a sobering presentation. Thank
you. Just one general question. In your last comment, you
said you were aiming to have this wrapped up. In
April. I believe we're required. Is that not correct? Through
your marriage? Yes. We are required to have. It completed,
as in bylaw adoptions before May 15. But because there's
a whole secondary process around tax rate setting. That comes
after the financial plan is finalized. We hope to have
it actually. The financial plan site done no later than
April. Just wanted to clarify that. Sounded like there was
some wiggle room. I don't think. There is. Okay, so
just based on that presentation, are there any general questions
anyone wishes to ask? If not, we're going to move
right into deliberation. Go ahead, Councilor Dell. Do you have
a timeline for the police budget discussions and when those
will be in this timeline? Right here. Go ahead. Sir?
The mayor. So they are scheduled to come to council
on November 20. Committee of the board will be here
with the police chief and I suspect probably some staff
to make their presentation and allow us to ask questions,
et cetera. And as a result of that, that will
become part of our discussions. Councilor gardner. Can you go
back to slide 30, please? I'm just going to read
something from last year's message from the mayor. To every
taxpayer in the city. And it was. Council staff have
worked hard to keep the tax increase at 6.99%. 8.18%
for residents and 5.6% for businesses. So when we talk
to 13.31%. What would. That would be for residential complexes,
which I understand is rental, plus, of course, ownership and.
What would be the percentage increase? For businesses and commercial,
et cetera. Through the mayor. Two variables there. One. The
first one is council's decision around rate setting. So we
do have a policy direction to reduce the multiple so
the ratio between the business and residential. Tax rates by
bringing it down from the current 3.5 down to 3.4.
For 2026. Again, that is a council decision, whether you
want to do that or not. And then the second
piece is depending on the assessed value changes from BC
assessments, so I can't answer. The exact question until we
have those pieces. However, if I take the historical information
that we have, what has happened over the past. And
looking to last year's, which were the rates that you
were quoting. Usually, or there has been, historically, a shift
of about 1%. So where we said last year, was
6.99 overall and. The residential ended up at 8.18, but
I can't tell you for sure if that's going to
continue because it really depends on assessed value changes. Yeah,
no, I understand. The assessed value. But last year, the
spread then was. Not with the significant change, but by
the policy that was adopted last year. That the rate
differential that you mentioned. Is going to change again further
by that policy. So we'll be looking at instead of
6.99, gave you 8.15. So if we are 13.31, we'd
probably. Be over 15% for residential somewhere in ballpark or
range. Through the mayor. It's really not possible to say
because I do not have the BC assessment data, so.
If, for example, assessed values changed very differently between the
two classes. So residential and business. Now that will impact
that shift. Yes, thank you. I think, Mayor, you had
mentioned in your introduction, Because as I reviewed the packages,
And a lot that was taken into the budget for
2026 was, of course, Direction from council majority of council
in December of 2024, but I think it would be
worthwhile to be able to review some of those because.
Some of them. Well, I might object to, but there's
some others I think that we. Could actually cut more
in a couple of places where. We might significantly change
some items. So was that in what you could call
the third block or. Will there be an opportunity for
that? Yes. This is, I believe, what you're referring to.
Is the information, appendix D. And so, yes, we'll have
an opportunity to look at that. After we look at
A and B. Okay. Yes. Because that's mostly, I think,
schedule D. Yes. Okay. Thank you. The survey. It's not
quite. Perhaps for today, but perhaps we can have an
update on what is going to be expected from the
general public. Now that they have seen this, what opportunity
they will have to speak to us. Via. Mr. Johnson?
Yes. Mr. Johnson anticipated next steps for engagement after this
material has become public. Thanks very much. And through the
mayor, once the initial conversations and deliberations have been had.
By council once we're ready to actually publish a draft
for the public to respond to. We would open it
up again like we did in previous years. For approximately
four weeks time and compile all of the responses that
we did through written and video submissions. Tabulate that. Put
it into some analysis and report back to council, and
I'll see. That. Okay, so that would be probably before
Christmas, but then the results after Christmas could be that'll.
Depend on us. Pardon? That will depend on us. Yes.
Okay, got it. The vic PD appeal, which was, I
understand. Partially because of the esquamult objection to some values
in a previous year. The city expected. A decision at
particular time and actually set aside some funding. So we
haven't adapted to that this time. Is there something within
the budget that kind of anticipates. That the appeal may
be successful. Something. Through the mayor. I know what you're
referring to, and that was a previous appeal, so. No,
nothing has been set aside for this one. Okay. Thank
you. That's my general question. Very good, Councilor Loton. Thanks,
censor you. Mayor, I just want to clarify. On the
2027 capital projects that need a decision in 2026, even
though we don't. Start paying the debt until 2027. This
doesn't lower the 2026 tax increase in any way, Ms.
Thompson. If you're referring to the capital projects that are
debt funded, so it depends on which one you're talking
about. So three of them. Would their debt repayment would
come in in 2027, but the capital budget is identified
for 2026. So that is where we would need council's
direction. To not implement them in 2026. If that's what
council wishes to do, they're. One project that would have
a tax increase associated with it in 2026 as the
crystal pool replacement. Okay. And then the other three don't,
okay? Do we know if the nine additional officers in
the eleven point plan have been hired? I can answer
that. But you could as well. It's my understanding that.
The police chief has negotiated a new relationship with the
police union to allow for those nine officers to be
hired on a three year contract. With very robust. I
believe they're calling. Them. Not benchmarks but restrictions on whether
or not they have any impact in which they have
no impact on the regular officer pool or the hierarchy
of advancement within that pool. I believe they announced this
new program a few weeks ago, and so they've gone
out in a fairly aggressive hiring program. And my understanding
is. That they're expecting to have a number of them,
if not all of them, in place. Within a matter
of weeks. Okay. How does that affect. So there was
1.35 million allocated to them in the eleven point blan,
but then. It is also ongoing. So if they're not
hired until the end of 2025, does that affect. The
ongoing budget or the budget that was allocated for them
in the eleven point plan. Through the mayor. So I
just wanted to note that the screen in front of
you here, where we are showing the community safety and
well being. Portion identified over two years. Because we will
not be spending the full amount that council allocated in
2025. We're able to phase in the increases over 2026
and 2027. So the police have not we have not
allocated any funding to the police. We will do so
as they have hired. The staff that we were paying
for, and so that will stay with the city until
that point. Which, based on our anticipation around how much
they're going to spend this year, We will have money
to carry forward into 2026, which then allows us to
spread the impact. Of the total implementation over two years.
Here. Okay, thank you. That's it for me, mayor. Thank
you, Councilor Thompson. General questions. Yes. Thank you, mayor. And
through you. Thanks for all this. The. Business to residential
ratio. Was at 3.5. It's heading to 3.0. It's at
3.4. For this coming year. I think I heard you
say. Through the Mary? Yes, that is council's direction. Okay.
And if that's the final decision. How much would that
be in terms of dollars in reduced taxation for business?
In the coming year. Through the mayor. Unfortunately, I don't
have all the information to be able to answer that.
Question because it really depends on BC assessments assess value
changes between the two classes, so. I won't have the
actual answer until the end of March. Would it be
possible to. Estimate it using existing year, even though we
know it's going to change a little bit. I mean,
I don't think it's going to change radically. Through the
mayor. So I do not have what they call the
completed role yet. I don't. Get that until the end
of December. So after that point, we might be able
to have a general sense. So all I can tell
you is what happened last year, which is when we
had a 6.99 overall. And business. Reduced to 5.6. And
the residential went up to 8.18. But I unfortunately can't
give you a more precise answer than that. Can you
tell us how many dollars for last year? Then how
many dollars came from. Business versus residential. Through the mayor.
No, I don't have that off the top of my
head, but we can certainly look that up and calculate
it. Okay, thanks. On slide 29, which we're on. This
may be more of a question for the mayor. Actually.
We have on community safety and well being. We have
blank spots for 2028 to 2030. I assume that in
coming years those won't be blank, and I'm just wondering.
As somebody who's intimately familiar. If you're able to estimate
whether it would be in the same ballpark as 20,
26, 27. That's a great question, and thank you. For
pointing that. I think Ms. Thompson alluded to that. In
her presentation. But what will happen is in 2027. The
council of that day will assess the progress and output
and impact of the community safety and well being plan.
And the enacted actions within it within the two years
26 and 27, and when they will assess. What is
necessary in subsequent years based upon the output of the
actions taken in 26 and 27. I think it would
be fair to say that, certainly. It is, the more
than I hope. It is the presumption that as investments
are taken, upstream in the intervention. Third of the allocations
that the impact of those interventions. Will slow the requirement
for a response or enforcement aspect. And so the reason
it's not there is for sure because we don't want
to just guess. But the other reason is that there
is a high confidence that the output. And the result
of the work that's being done in 26 27 will
show such results. That it will either shift where money
is put or it will, in fact, reduce where money
is. Put. Upstream, generally meaning other levels of government. Partially,
but also more specifically, as you will recall, in looking
through the community safety wellbeing plan. More than a third
of the recommendations speak to enhanced investment in service provision.
In education and collaboration in support of existing services and
enhancement of them, and another third of it is actually
focused on destination creation and support services in collaboration with
other orders of government to ensure that the folks who.
Are responded to in the most urgent sense and in
the most, I would argue, conventional sense from an enforcement
perspective are reduced in number and reduced in acuity. Thank
you for that. Over. To slide 32.
So. One other. We are crystal pool on the middle
bullet. Identify reduction options to offset upcoming debt servicing for
crystal pool. I assume that's spending reductions. Thompson. Through the
mayor. No, this was actually council's direction to say, we
do not want a tax increase related to the debt
for the pool. So this is the debt repayment, so
not. Reducing the scope of the project. Sorry. What are
the reduction options? What's being reduced with those? That was
for staff to. Identify. Other things to cut, basically to
fit the pool debt servicing in without a tax increase
and could those be both capital and operational reductions. Yes,
it could be, as long as they were property tax
funded. Okay. And that was council direction. For staff to
do that, correct? Correct. Thank you. Just to be clear,
you're not talking about reductions to the crystal pool project?
No. You're talking about other reductions in order to allow
for the envelope to remain solid for the crystal pool,
correct? Yes. Thank you. Just to clarify. Yes, thanks for
that. Capital program reductions. Just want to ask quickly about.
So I understand that with all the capital program reductions
anticipated, I think appendix A. We're looking at scalebacks, not
stopping funding. Is that correct? I see. Nodding head, okay?
We'll be going through those line by line shortly. I
could probably wait on some of these questions then for
that, line by line. Okay, thanks. Any other general questions?
Yes, Councilor Loton. Go ahead. Thanks to you, Mayor. Sorry,
just a bit of a follow up to my question
about. The 2026 capital projects, the three of them. Hypothetically,
if they were deferred until 2027, is there any way
to project how much more expensive they would become in
2027? Or. Is that not possible? Thompson. Through the mayor.
It's not totally possible because. We just don't know what's
going to happen. The latest report that we have from
the BC construction association is that. Things were flattening out
a bit. They see, whereas we've seen over the last
number of years. 15% increases in construction costs again. It's
very limited snapshot and time. Who knows if it's actually
going to remain clear, especially now that the federal government
announced a very ambitious infrastructure. Sort of. Stimulation, whatever stimulus
package. So that might trigger increases again, but they were
estimating around 4%. Is what the Visa Construction association was
talking about, but again, it really is a crystal wall.
When it comes to that. Okay, thanks. That's a very
conservative estimate. Any other general comments, councilor Coleman? Just to
follow up to that question, because as construction flattens out,
you also have the migration either in migration route migration
of the labor force that can actually complete that. So
has there been any discussion. About where the flattening out
may impact our labor capability. To actually complete some of
those projects. Thompson has that been a consideration or discussion,
Mr. Newman. Yes. Steve Marin. Thank you for the question.
Our conversations with our project managers and some of the
experts we know in the local construction industry. Is that?
With the flattening out of the escalation costs that there
appears to be more labor available on the market, so
it puts us in a more competitive place when we're
procuring large construction projects. Any other general questions? Not seeing
any. All right. So thank you for that introduction. And
robust one it was, indeed. Now. I'm going to ask.
Our able staff to turn to the recommendations presented by
our finance folk. And you will note that there are
three. We're only going to deal with one and we're
going to actually separate one into two parts today. The
second and third one will follow later, and we can
discuss that at that time. As Ms. Thompson has suggested.
First up. I am going to move a motion, and
that is a motion that council direct staff. To add
back to the 2026 draft financial plan. Fund. Yes.
You got it. There you go. And this is as
a result of the direction in one a, so a
little bit later, we're going to format it so that
one a becomes the preference to this. But here's. What?
So you can take a space below that, like a
big space. And then big space. And then, Ms. Rotor,
as you and I discussed earlier today, I would like
you just, and this is not part of the motion.
It's for the information of the public and the council.
I'd like you to display the entire list of appendix
a. Second. Just a second. Hang on. I'm going to
tell you how we're going. To do. Yes, I know
it's tough to do this a split screen, so I
am not proposing. Just so you know, just to clarify,
before I look for a second, I'm not proposing. All
of those things. What I'm proposing only is the first
line that council directs staff to add back into. The
draft plan. And yes, I'll look for a secondary for
that one line, but the important part is I'm going
to then ask counsel which of items one through 18.
They wish to add back in. Rather than putting them
all forward and having to delete, I'm anticipating, I hope,
that there are fewer of these to be added in
than removed. So I actually don't even need a secondary
at this point because. The motion isn't complete. When we
get to the point where. Maybe there's none, but I
presume there are a few. When we get to the
point of being able to add whichever ones people want
to add back in, then that will complete the motion,
and then I will look for a secondary. I will
also say that we will have an opportunity, because I
do not expect this to be in any way unanimous
that we will likely have to vote on each one
of these individually. So. Let's start in a general conversation,
and I will just say from a procedural perspective, yes.
We are bound, usually by a twelve minute time limit
for each agenda item, I will note. For you. That
one agenda item is the 2026 2030 draft financial plan.
It would be, in my view, as the chair, highly
unreasonable to expect us to deal with every aspect of
that in twelve minutes. And so, as I mentioned earlier,
there are four blocks of considerations here. Appendix a, appendix
b. Additional items that might arise from council and potential
future direction. So I'm going to block each one of
those as one part of the agenda, so that in
each one of those, you will get twelve minutes. So
that means you have four times the regular length of
time to deal. With this item. I think that's reasonable.
So before I look for a secondary of what will
ultimately become mot. Motion to add something back in. I'm
going to run the table and just ask the question.
So we're building the motion together. I'm going to ask
the question, is there anything on this list. Which you
will be reminded, as Ms. Thompson said, has already been
removed from the 2026 financial plan. Is there anything on
this list you want to put back in? Start over
here. Hammond. No. Okay. Councilor lowton. Yes.
The number four, the growing in the city grants. Okay,
so that's a great example. So. Ms. Rotor. If you
can clip that and move it back to the left
side of the page. Once we get the list, then
we'll go through each one of them and provide an
opportunity for questions to staff about what they are, in
which case you may wish to remove them. If your
answers are sufficiently. Influential. Or to amend it if you
want to put in a different number. So, Councilor Lowton.
Anything else? Is it just that one? Just that one.
Councilor Thompson. How about you? Yes. Number six, pro Arts
alliance. Okay. And what number is it? 14. The youth
bus program. And depending on what my other colleagues mentioned,
I may have some more to add. Sure. We'll do
it twice just to make sure. Everyone gets a chance.
Thanks. So that's it? Councilor Kim. Sorry. Am I
limited to. No. Okay. No. You can pick them all
if you want. Don't top me with a good time.
You may understand now why I anticipated that we might
not even get through this today. I'm. Aware. Yeah. Okay.
Number eight. My great neighborhood. France. All right. Number nine
theater scam. And while you're there, number ten, Butler Book
prize and Children's Book prize. Number ten. Number twelve. Twelve.
Okay? Did we do 13 yet. Poet laureate and youth
poet laureate 13. And 1818 Crossfox. Thanks.
Council cardano. Thanks, mayor. There was two, but one was
sort of already mentioned. But I won't come back to
it. The first was the South Island Prosperity Partnership. Want
to remove that? I'm not sure what to do with
it because. I was going to amend number eight. That's
okay. When we deal with each one, we'll have an
opportunity to amend. Okay, I'll just leave that. We're just.
Starting with identifying them, we're going to go through them
each individually and ask questions of staff if we need
to, make, comments if we need to, and amendments if
we need to. Anything else? Councilor Coleman. Councilor Doe. None
for me, thank you, Councilor Gardner. Thank you. Mine was
sif, and that's been taken. And I didn't know if
we can have a discussion. I don't know if. It
was an honor. Or off. Or not. That'll be number
17. I'm not. Sure. Traffic signals? Sure, let's put them
on. Because this is the opportunity to ask questions. Of
each one of them. Staff. Thank you. All right. Does
anyone wish to have a second chance? There are twelve
of the 18 removals. Now back. Go ahead, Councilor Thompson.
You know what would be useful is if it's too
late. Now, but if we had a list of what's
not brought over. There's only. Can you highlight the ones
that were not moved so there'd only be six of
them? I guess seven of them. Thank you. Five. That
one is brought. Hanging baskets was not moved. EV charging
stations was not moved and multimolit card is was not
moved. I believe the rest were all moved. 123-4567 yes,
that math works. Eleven and seven is 18. So the
ones highlighted in yellow. It's great. Thank you for asking
that question. We're not moved. And so those. Ones unless
someone does something before we finish this. They will remain
in direction staff to not put them in the 2026
budget, so those remain. As removals. Correct, Ms. Thompson. Everything
that's in yellow on the right hand side continues. To
be removed from the 2026 budget? That's correct. Great. Okay,
so now what I'm going to do. Mayor. Yes. I'd
like to add one. Number eleven, because I think it's
a public interest. Hanging baskets. Okay, so we'll. Take eleven
and pass it over to the left. take that out
of the color that's right Thanks very much. And you
can take the color off that one. Great. Thanks so
much. Thank you. Staff, and kudos to you for following.
It's going to be like this for a long time.
All right, so now we have the guts of emotion.
And so what I'm going to suggest is at this
point now, despite the fact that I'm fairly confident that
at least some of these will change if not be
removed again. I'm going to ask for a seconder for
that motion so that then we can. Properly, begin to
ask questions, make comments, make adjustments, move to move to
remove them or whatever, and I will just make a
point on that last piece. Despite the fact that under
usual procedure, if I've moved item one, and you move
an amendment to remove it, that would usually be. Out
of order. But in this case, because of the formatting
of trying to make this as simple. Possible. I'm not
going to rule that out of order. This is an
attempt to try and make this as conversational as possible
while at least observing the baseline of the procedures. So
d one. Then on the left hand side is a
motion that council directs staff to add. Back to the
2026 draft financial plan or return in my head growing
in the city grant 75,000 Pro art alliance 8000 Youth
Bus Pass program 630 my great neighborhood grants 152 theater
scam 20. The Butler Book Prize and Children's Book prize.
Ten. The operational adjustment for response for vertically. Emergent services.
I think that is 1.1 million. The poet and youth
laureate set eight the crossword installations at 64, Sip of
242, new traffic signals at 50, and the hanging basket
program at 130 with. That, then, councilor Cardano, would you
still like to move that v seconder? Okay, so. Thank
you, Ms. Ruder. You can take appendix from the right
off the screen. Thank you for doing that. That's really
helpful. And then with that motion now on the floor,
I'm not going to make any comments at this point
because I think right now we're going to ask questions
and clarify. So I'll start just by convention with councilor.
Gardona, do you have any questions for any of these
one through twelve? Do you have any amendments to one
through twelve? If you don't, I'm going to just start
at the top and deal with them one at a
time. I'm a little unclear because. I had put South
island on there, right? But it's way down at number
ten. These. Are not priorities. We're going to deal with
each of them individually, so we're going to go. Sequentially.
Yes, but. Were there any global questions would be appropriate.
Or maybe I'll wait till that number, because. I have
a question. Yeah. Why don't you wait till that number?
Okay, so that would. Make sense. Okay, but I'm a
little unclear, because if someone's supposed to be. Motivating for
number one, then I'm going to ask right now. I
was turning to you out of courtesy as the secondary
to the whole thing. But if you don't. Want to
make any comments at this point. What I'm now going
to say is, does anyone wish to ask a question,
make a comment or. Make an amendment to number one.
Okay. Councilor Coleman. Do you have something, general? Otherwise, I'm
going to start going through the list. It's a general
question through you to Ms. Thompson. Yes, if I've done
the quick calculation properly. What we've done is we've added
2.5 million. Back into the budget. That's a 1.4% increase
over and above. Is that. Correct. And when you answer
that, Ms. Thompson, you could clarify that you and I
have discussed about the fact that you're brilliant math people
are going to be kind of running a tab as
we go through this. And after each one, before we
vote on the final motion, we'll be able to get
a sense from you of where that would put us.
Through the mayor. Yes, absolutely. And yes, Councilor Coleman, it's
2.48. 9 million that was added back. Which would bring
the 8.29 overall. Up to 9.56. Thank you. Very good
question. And I think what we'll do is we'll deal
just with the city portion. And we all know setting
aside the police portion is another 5.2%, so we'll set
that aside for the moment and just speak about the
city's portion. So let's start with number one. It was
proposed to have that returned, and I didn't note by
whom. It's not really important at this point, but are
there questions, comments or changes to the growing in the
city's grant proposal to return that into the budget. Councilor
Hammond? Yes. Question. Yeah, thanks. Mayor, I'm looking at the
description of this. In the eight page document that we've
got of all of these things. And so, just to
be clear, Is this 30% meaning it leaving 70% or
thereabouts of the growing in the city grant. Mr. Newman,
is that your alien? Three. Mayor yes, that is correct.
Okay. And therefore, these four bullet points below, again, this
is on page six. It's got the community garden, startup
grants growing in the city, micro grants. Getting Growing Victoria
service grant and volunteer coordinator grant by 10,000 annually. So
those are the things. That make up the 75,000, right?
That's what's going to be removed. Dr. Newman. Through you,
mayor yes, that's correct. Okay. Can I then ask what
is left over? There's $140,000 left. In our voluntary coordinator
grant. So this grant stream funds. Not for profit organizations
who organize and operate. Our allotment gardens and community gardens
across the city. And the other three grant streams that
are going to be deferred if this cut is approved
then. All three of those grant streams support a variety
of new community garden initiatives. So. Applying council's principle. To
mitigate adding new assets to the city. We saw alignment
with that while keeping 140,000 in the volunteer coordinator grant
stream to ensure that our existing organizations who operate those
can continue to do so. And yet. The entire grant
that is still all within the growing in the city.
That still is maintained at how much. The. Currently, there's
$150,000 per year. Sorry. Maybe I should ask for clarity.
On the question. Are you asking both for? The total
grant program is 250 altogether. Sorry, 225 for. The year.
And then this 75k reduction would leave 140 in only
the volunteer coordinator grant program. Okay? And therefore, in this
particular case, the program still exists. We're just reducing it.
Of the volunteer coordinator, grant Stream. Yes. We are deferring
three of the other four programs. That are offering. A
variety of. Other community gardening streams, which are focused on
setting up new community garden amenities and educational programs in
the community. Okay. And therefore. As you've described. We're not
expanding it. Is that an easy way of saying that?
Through your mayor, correct? Okay, thanks. All right. Any other
questions on number one, Councilor Gardner? Just for clarification to
the $140,000, does that mean that the coordinator. Is now
do not get reduced in number or. In grant. There's
a modest reduction in this annual grant stream, so. That
volunteer coordinator Cranstream has currently, as an allotment of 150,000,
it will be reduced by 10,000 per year, down to
140,000. But it's seen as a minor reduction in the
overall grant program and isn't. Anticipated to have a significant
impact on volunteer organizations that are maintained. My question really
is, does that decrease what an actual coordinator will receive
for her stipend as opposed to other expenses. After your
merit, so. The city doesn't oversee how the grants are
dispersed once they're awarded to the not for profit organizations.
So. I can't specifically answer how those organizations want to
disperse those funds. Number one councilor Lotton. Through you. Mayor,
do you want comments about this? Sure. Should I get
rational on the fly? I brought it, so I understand.
We're not talking about a huge amount of money here,
however. I don't think we should change any of the
programming right now. And my main reason for that is
because. Food costs are skyrocketing. It gives people the ability
to feed themselves and their families and to feel some
control. When the basics are becoming more and more expensive
every day. And it's also not just about food. These
gardens, they build community. They support pollinators, they cool our
city, and they help us fight climate change. And again.
It is just a tiny fraction of the budget that
we're considering here. And that's very little, but the cost.
Could change things of the way that we've built this
program to create community, connection, resilience and local leadership. So
that's why I brought this, because I think it's. Important
that we keep investing in this program, because it's not
just about gardens. It's about empowering our residents, strengthening our
neighborhoods and. Making Victoria healthy or more connected. And most
importantly, a more food secure city. Thank you. Thank you.
Councilor Kim. Thank you. Through the chair. I'd like to
share an anecdote in favor of maintaining this. Working at
the Frenwood Community Center. When I did. It is a
center that is a hub for distribution of seedlings and
materials. And some of those seedlings that don't get distributed
will actually end up in the front garden of the
community center. And. When I was in the lobby one
time, someone walked in off the street and said, and
they were east asian like myself and said, what is
this plant? I have been looking everywhere for it. This
is a cultural food for me. I don't know where
I can find it, and. The coordinator of the program
was like, oh, yeah, no, that's sheso. And. Then this
person launched into the various dishes that they make at
home with it. And we would know this as perilla,
or in korean gin. And so it's like those ways
that we make people feel so seen in the small
ways that don't get told. Isn't that worth something too?
Does it. Thank you, Councilor Hammond. Of this program,
and only because. I'm not as completely familiar with this
one, although I've heard people talk about it. Is this
where? At various times of the city or maybe one
day or something. We offer seedlings to people? Rick and
newman. Through you, Mayor Alto, to get growing. Victoria's service
grant supports the distribution of our seedling. Program. So every
year, the city propagates in the city's greenhouse is approximately
93,000 seedlings, and then multiple times per year, we make
those seedlings available. To the public. And non government organizations
in order to support us in the distribution of those
seedlings, which has become a very popular program in the
community. We allow for a program stream to support the
distribution. And neighborhoods and community on how to plant and
cultivate those seedlings. And is this the kind of thing
where these seedlings. They run out pretty quickly. When they're
available. Through you, Mary. Yes, they do. It's a very
popular program. Okay. And it's not based on income. Do
you, mayor? Not currently, no. Although. We do focus on
providing. Opportunities. And for organizations that support marginalized communities to
access those. So there really is effort put into ensuring
that households that may have food security issues have access
to these. And that really is a core principle of
this program, and so our staff do work directly with
organ. Organizations to ensure that those distribution is getting out
to those households as a priority. Thanks. And mayor. That
seems to me a priority for me. The difficulty is
the little bit that I hear about this, because I'm
not the gardener. In our family. Jack is. And he
always hears about this way too late. Because they get
snapped up really quickly. And as people have said, Rockland
isn't this uber rich neighborhood for an awful lot. Of
people because. About 70% are. These old mansions are turned
into units, and so I know that there's, an awful
lot of people who fall within our median or below
median income, and the difficulty I have. If Jack was
ever to get to these seedlings that we don't deserve.
Them. My preference is. My preference is for this, and
I've never had an opportunity to talk. About it before.
Is. I just don't like the idea of us spending
tax dollars to give it to people. Who don't need
them. Whereas for food security and for example, that people
are talking about I think it's really important. I think
that's something that we can offer. And the fact that
there are still $225,000 that's left in this. I would
like to think that that could be an emphasis, could
be on going to people who are in need. Dr.
Newman, just before I go to Councilor Kim, I believe
you clarified that the current program was 225, and that
should this reduction be included, it would be less than
that, correct? Do you marry? Yes, that's correct. So if
I heard you correctly, if this is approved. Sorry, let's
say differently. If this is not approved and therefore it
is removed from the budget again. It's 150. Is that
what's left for 225? Through your marriage. That's right. Very
good, Councilor Kim. Yeah. Is it fair to say that
income. Doesn't factor into when folks go to pick up
seedlings and it's like, about the community event. From what
I've seen. Community centers make kind of like a day
of it. Is this still the case? Through your mayor.
We have an event for pickup. We do save half
of the seedlings to ensure that organizations. That are aiming
to get these seedlings into the hands of individuals that
are facing barriers. To accessing food and being food secure,
receive those. So I hope that answers your question. It
does, yeah. It's actually quite a clever, decentralized, bespoke way
of doing that distribution. And equitably. My question is about
the mulch. The funniest topic, the smelliest topic, the mulch.
That gets distributed with the program. Is it safe to
say, or fair to say that it's a part of
a circular economy in Victoria in the way that it
recycles. I won't reuse it. I don't know. Leaves, branches,
household yard waste. Dr. Newman yes, to you, mayor. I
think that is an eloquent way of how we aim.
To recycle the leaves that our crews pick up every
year and then redistribute. That to the community. Is there
a climate impact metric? I'm not currently aware of us
having completed that level of analysis on the program, okay?
That's it. Thanks. Anybody else on one, Councilor Coleman. This
is the trauma that we face when we go through
this exercise. None of these are fun. They're all wanted.
This particular program it recognized. We've just put two and
a half million dollars back into the budget. So if
we don't make some of the adjustments here, it's going
to be really painful when we get to section B,
because you're going to have to take all that money
back out and more so understand that here is a
program we're not killing. We're narrowing it back because everybody's
having to tighten their belts. If you want. You don't
want to means test this program, but you can. Adjust
it so it's not open to the public more broadly,
but it goes through our community gardens. And that may
be a way of addressing that in a very targeted
way. I don't want to make the cuts. But we're
forced to make cuts, folks. This one I don't think
should be. I think it should stay. In the staff
have done the. First tough, difficult cuts. This was one
they suggest. Could allow the program to still exist. At
a narrowed capacity, so I support the staff on this
one. Thank you, Councilor Gardner. The proposed cut does not
affect the seedlings or the mulch program. So that's a
side topic. It's not being discussed here or being uncut
at all, but since it's been discussed in a way.
I certainly like to hear the total cost of what
it costs the city to create 93,000 seedlings. Thank you.
Mr. Dimon, do you happen to know that off the
top of your head. And can you confirm that the
cuts that we're considering do not have an impact on
the seedling program. Thanks. And through your mayor. I do
not have the seedling number at my fingertips, but I
can check in with my team and provide that when
I do get that information. And to the second question.
Councilor Gardner is correct. The proposed cuts will not have
an impact to the city's propagation of those seedlings. That
will still be provided, as well as the mulch that's
available to the community. It's just the grant that supports
the distribution and how we get. Those seedlings into the
hands of. The not for profit that then work with
that grap funding to distribute them to the community. If
this proposed cut was to move ahead, we would rely
on residents to come to our facility. To pick them
up. Right. Thank you for that. Anybody else on one.
So just to be clear, what we're voting on here
is whether or not. To return this item to the
budget or to leave it out of the budget. And
so the way this is phrased is that council directs
staff to essentially returned to the 2026 draft financial plan.
The growing in the city grants. If you would like
those grants to be returned and included in the budget,
then you vote yes. If you would like staff's recommendation
to remove them from the budget, then you vote no.
Clear. Okay. All those in favor of returning these grants
to the budget? Councilor Thompson, councilor Kim, councilor Caradona, councilor
Dell, councilor. Sorry, I didn't see you there. In opposition.
councilor hammond myself councilor coleman and councilor gardner so in
fact that motion is approved and so number one the
growing in the city grants are returned to the 2026
budget All right. Yeah. Holding the math there, Ms. Thompson,
because once we go through these, we'll. Probably ask you
for a sort of a running update. I will point
out that Dubois, not everyone. Has spoken on that item,
five people did speak and in total used. Up eleven
minutes. I will remind you that, generous though I am,
we will cap this section at twelve minutes per. Person.
So pick and choose what you'd like to comment on.
So the next proposal is. With regard to the pro
art alliance. And that is again, to return. And I
wonder, sorry, before. I say, Ms. Roder, is there a
way for you to put a check mark or something?
After each one as we determine whether they're returned or
not. So if it's returned. You could put a yes
or something. Or a y or something like that. I
suspect that. When we get if should we get to
one where we're not going to return, we can just
delete it. But for now, just to give us an
update on where we're going. Thank you for that. So,
pro Art alliance, the proposal is to return this to.
The 2026 budget. And I think this was Councilor Thompson.
Councilor Thompson, speak to this. Please. Thanks, mayor. Yeah. It's
a great alliance that awards, provides awards that really encourage
artists and organizations involved in the arts. And encourages them
to stay active in the arts. It boosts the voice
of artists. It's been advocating for the regionalization of art
services, which we're heading towards. Over at the Crd. Thanks
in part to their advocacy. It is a tiny budget.
I have a question for staff and that is. Of
that $8,000 proposal there. What percentage of the residential tax
increase would that be like? What? I guess maybe fraction
of 1%. Would it be? Ms. Thompson, could you answer
that clearly for the public? And I think two questions.
Is this the whole program. Is there anything left? Does
this kill the program? No. Through you, mayor. Kerry Moore,
director of business and community relations. The Pro Art alliance.
We retained 2000 in the budget for the awards. The
rest of the eight that you're looking at. Is actually
administration operational fees that are provided to them. Very good.
Thank you for that, clarification. So the awards remain, but
everything else goes. And, Ms. Thompson, the impact of this
on the budget? Your mic is not on. Yes. There
you go. Through the mayor. So this is like. Thank
you for that. It's very clear. Four or five zeros.
Councilor caradona. Sorry. Custom. Are you done? Yeah. One more
sentence. Thanks for that number. I hope I got the
right number of zeros when I wrote it down. Yeah.
The recommendation was that the CRD Art service be approached
for support, and I think that if we do that.
Maybe next year we get to reduce this. Let's see
what happens over at the CRD. Yeah. I want to
speak in favor of this one for a minute, because
I get that this 8000 goes towards essentially operational capacity
for them. But unless you were really in the weeds
at the CRD on the regional performing arts facility, service
that we're in the middle of. The pro Art alliance
played an incredibly important role. In that advocacy. And in
fact, I would say that the regionalization of performing arts
facilities probably would not be going ahead if it had
not been for their advocacy. This. Is the opera, the
symphony, dance, Victoria. All the major performance arts groups are
part of this. They lobbied really hard at the CRD
to push the west shore and sandwich and others to
support this. The AAP still has to pass. The bylaws
have to be signed. But if that happens. We will
formally transfer the Mac to the CRD, which will save
us through the mayor to staff. 400 and something. Thousand
dollars a year, Ms. Thompson? Through the mayor. So this
is not a program that runs through the city, however.
The city of Detour taxpayers pay, but through the CRD
lobby. So it's actually a CRD. Allocation. But the allocation
for City of Victoria residents or taxpayers, I should say,
is a reduction of approximately $400,000. Thanks for that clarification.
Still, I mean, huge savings to the city. So their
advocacy is really effective. And given how small this is,
I've had my calculator out all week in any budget
scenar. Scenario I come up with trying to get us
down to single digits. This 8000 doesn't. Even register. On
my calculator, so I'm okay with keeping this one. Thank
you. Anybody else? Sure. I'll probably just oppose cuts of
$8,000 just on principal so much, but. I just want
to recognize that on November 26 this year, the Pro
Arts alliance is having their award ceremony at the Bauman
center. I've gone to the past here. They bring out
all the different arts groups. And so the funding does
go to award, but it also goes to their meetings
where they bring everyone together. I don't know. They might
buy pizzas or. Paid to rent a room. For something,
but this is the kind of stuff that won't make
any single difference in our budget, but I think really
takes away from the livability of the city. Maybe it's
a little bit for the arts people, but this does
bring people together for community and for supporting our arts
program, and that goes on to have a meaningful difference,
so I'm happy. To look at areas of bigger cuts,
but I think $8,000 on this one and the youth
port and others are that. Small are absolutely not worth
it. So this is worth keeping, and I encourage folks
to come out. On Wednesday, November 22 at 06:00 for
their awards. Thank you very much. Anybody else on this
one? All right, so once again, if you would like
to have this $8,000 returned to the budget. You will
vote in favor if you would like it to be
removed from the budget. You will vote in opposition. All
those in favor of returning this to the budget? Council
Thompson, councilor Kim, myself, councilor Gardona, councilor Coleman and councilor
Dell. In opposition, Councilor Hammond and Councilor Gardner, so that
one is approved. With two in opposition. Noted. And so
that is also carried. Yes. Thank you so much for
that. Ms. rotor. So moving on then, to the, actually,
let me just take a pause. We have been sitting
down for an hour and a half. It is accustomed
to stand up for a few minutes. Every hour and
a half or so, despite the fact that we don't
have a very long afternoon. I suspect we're going to
go right till 04:00 does anyone wish five. Minutes. Yes,
five minutes. We will start again at 36.
That being said, we have every opportunity to adjust our
opinions, and so we're now up. To number three, and
I believe. There are several people who indicated that they
were going to propose this one, but I can't. Remember
who moved it in the end. So Dave did. Dave,
did you do the bus test? Yes, Councilor Thompson. Why
don't. You motivate if you like or not. Thank you.
Number three, the youth bus program. Thank you. I will,
briefly. Mayor yeah, it's been a really successful program. It's
building the next generation of transit users. My teenagers have
used it for years and they're comfortable. Navigating the bus
system. Also reduces transportation costs for families, especially families with
more than one kid. It helps kids get to school
to after school activities. to work if they're older kids
Reduces car dependency. Emissions, traffic congestion. It supports our work
in the OCP with our transit oriented areas. Reduces the
crush of cars that takes place every day at schools
in the morning and in the afternoon. And the safety
problems that those cause, actually, which have been pointed out
by a lot of residents. I'd like to thank the
previous council for creating the program. I wish I could
say that we created it. Staff pointed out that this
might be ideal for pursuing CRD funding, and I agree.
And councilor caradona. Moved a motion at the CRD, and
I was happy to second it for the CRD. To
look into this that was well received by other CRD
representatives from other municipalities and actually they were very grateful
for it, for us to have moved that, and they're
very envious of the program. So I think this is
an important piece. Of our transportation work and our climate
change work, and I'd love to see it stay. Thank
you. Anybody else? Councilor? Carried on? Yeah, just a few
brief words. Add to that of. All the things on
this list. This is a thing I least want to
cut because I know what an incredible impact it has
on the youth of this city. And I won't repeat.
What councilor Thompson said, but I will note over at
the cr. Crd that. That motion passed and. It will
then become part of the transportation planning process over the
next year at the CRD and then it would likely
be voted upon in 2027, so it's too late for.
Budget 2026. I feel confident. I mean, obviously it's going
to depend on who's. Around the table next year at
the CRD. Anyway, staff suggested this become a CRD thing,
so I took their advice. We're pushing it forward, but
we need a little bit of time on it. I
think it would be just. Hugely irresponsible to cut it
this year in the absence of that confirmation from the
CRD. Thanks. Anyone else on this one? Councilor Dell. Councilor
card. Just an anecdotal story. When I was running for
election 2022. I try to summarize the last term, 2018
to 2022, and there's a lot to be said about
that. But I think the biggest success of that term,
in my mind, was actually implementing the youth bus program.
So that's a huge highlight of our last council, and
I think it would be devastated to stop all the.
Work that they did on that. So definitely do not
want to cut this one. And looking forward. To it
being expanded across the whole CRD. Thank you, Councilor Gardner.
A comment and a question. The comment was I was
really quite, I mean, I thought it was almost insulting
that. The transit sent us a letter supporting it, given
that maybe transit should be adjusting their program. I just
found that a bit nervy. That they sent us that
letter. My question is this, and I know you discussed
it before. So it should be easy to answer. Who
is getting the pass now? What I mean is that
we know that Uvix got their own path, commotion agrees,
got their own pass and do people who are in
school in Victoria, but don't live in Victoria. Get the
pass. So who is eligible for the pass? So, which
staffer can explain briefly who's eligible? For such a pass,
Ms. Thompson. Through the mayor. So it is youth who
reside in the city of Victoria, within the city of
Victoria boundaries, 18 years and younger. It's free for kids
twelve and under, so it's from 13 to 18. But
you have to have an address in the city of
Victoria. Thank you, and I certainly hope we can get
this off our books in the next couple of years
because. It just doesn't make sense to me that VC
transit is not doing more in this. Regard. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Anybody else on this one? Councilor
Kim? Thanks, I'm. Just going to burn more of my
time with another anecdote here. I grew up in an
abusive household and having access to public bus fare helped
me escape that. And so that is an impact. That
most of us will not consider about the importance of
this program. It keeps you safe. So I never want
to see this gone. Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody
else? Councilor Coleman. I think we dilute ourselves when we
say that group should pay for order, that group should
pay for it. If we push it off to the
CRD, the same taxpayers are paying for it. The reality
is. This is a critically. Important program. We make sure
it gets paid for how you distribute it. The problem
in this region is it's Victoria specific? The reason we
want to move it to the CRD is to make
sure that it applies to all kids. Yes. We should
be supporting this this year. If we move it off
so it's more universal to all the kids in the
region. Great, but. Let's not pretend that we're making a
taxpayer savings on this. It's just something we should invest
in. Thank you very much, Councilor Hammond. Thanks. Does transit
do anything? Give out any passes, regardless of age, based
on income. Yes, they do. Ms. Thompson. I can answer
that partially, but perhaps. I see transportation staff at the
back. Are you nodding? Not sure. There are a number
of programs from BC transit that do provide either reduced
or no fair passes. Based on income. And they're not
universally throughout the province, nor are the university throat various
regions, but there are passes that are available either at
reduced costs or at no cost. And is that also
true? For kids 13 to 18 if they've qualified within
the income of the family. Yes, right. So it could
be that they're getting a pass. Through us because you
actually get the passes, right? And therefore not getting the
passes through some other agency of the government. Yes, but
at the same time. I would suggest that those numbers
are very low. I was just saying that. Yeah, you're
right. You're absolutely right. And certainly there is the potential
for duplication. But, Ms. Thompson, that you want to weigh
in there. Through the mayor. Just to clarify, so the
city does not pay for the number of passes that
are picked up. The Upath program works in such a
way that all eligible youth. So the number that could
pick up the pass is the number that we pay.
To BC transit, however. We pay 25% of the regular
fee. So if your uptake. Is more than 25% or
more, you're breaking even. If you were to pay for
a per pass. Type of situation. So here in Victoria,
I don't have the current numbers with me. Can probably
get them for staff, and they're probably listening and frantically
looking. Is we have a much higher uptake than that
25%, so the city actually pays less. Per. Pass. Than
we would if we paid. Again, based on the number
of youth who actually came and picked it up. So
there may be duplication, as in they come and pick
it, pick it up. Here. But we don't pay anymore
because somebody did. That's good. Can I ask? Is there
any stats which show that there's more 13 to 18
year olds who take the transit, the buses, because. Of
this. Thompson. Do we know that? Through the mayor. So
we have vast transit for usage data. They've had not
great information in the past, but I do know that.
They have. With the yumopath, they might be able to
provide better information. But for now, I don't have that
information handy, and I just have my variable staff downstairs
telling me that our uptake. This year was actually 77%
of eligible youth. That's very impressive. If you're saying there's
no stats. On how many kids use it. I trust
there's no stats on how many kids are riding the
buses, who would otherwise be walking or riding their bikes.
Through the mayor. I'm not sure how, if a transit
would track it that way and they certainly are the
ones who are collecting the data. Okay, thanks very much,
mayor. Thank you very much, councilor Logan. Thanks to you,
Mary. I just want to add that. It does. Of
course, transit decreases emissions, so it's the climate action aspect
of this, and. It also trains riders to use more
sustainable ways of getting around, so it helps us with.
Our active transportation goals, so just wanted to add that
point. Thank you very much for that. Anybody else on
this one? I'm not seeing anyone else. I am going
to support this being returned to the financial plan for
many of the reasons that were stated, which I won't
repeat, but I do want to emphasize the fact that
I think the benefit to this is far beyond the
city, and I am very anxious to continue to press,
the capital regional district and the BC transit to consider
expanding this program beyond the city of Victor. Victoria yes,
we have a great program here that clearly has remarkable
uptake 77%. But at the same time, it is something
that should be offered beyond the city of Victoria, and
it certainly should be contributed to, if not paid for,
by more than just the residents of the city. Victoria
so. Yes, there'll be taxation for everyone. If this is
expended, but ultimately the program requires an expansion to make
it even more beneficial to folks who are benefiting from
it now. With that said reminder, then, if you wish
this to be returned to the financial plan for 2026,
vote in favor if you wish it to be cut
from the 2026 vote in opposition. All those in favor
of number three? Has anyone opposed? No. That is unanimous.
So, unanimously. Number three, the youth bus pass program is
returned. To the 2026 financial plan. Moving on then, to
the my great neighborhood grants program. This is $152,000 value.
To be added back in or removed, depending upon the
vote of council. I forget who took this. Back on.
It was you. Okay. Councilor Kim, do you wish to
speak to it? I'll be brief. This is another example.
Of grants having an outsized impact in very local ways.
And so it's actually hard for me to motivate about
this in an eloquent way because. There's so many personal
stories about how this grant has benefited neighborhoods and. I
just can't summarize or collect them all. An example is.
There's a family in Oakland that applied for a great
neighborhood grant and hosted a neighborhood dinner after they all
went crabbing together, and it included. Immigrant workers who are
renting nearby and their kiddos and. It's just that real
community building, and in the face of. Intensive precarity. It's
no secret that mutual aid and community networks are what
keeps people safe. The first responder in the case of
something like a heat dome, is not a first responder.
It's your neighbor. And it's things like this that help,
you know, your neighbor and build that connection that ultimately
keeps people safe. So, I mean, if you needed a
climate reason for this, there's one. Okay, thank you very
much. Anybody else? What's your donut? I think, mayor, this
one's a tough one for me. Just because on my
own personal list of things to cut to try to
get us down to. Single digits. I did have a
scaling back on this one a bit. I understand absolutely
the value of this program. And in fact, before being
an elected official, I applied for and actually received my
great neighbor, a grant, and I know how important they
are to people. But I did have a chat with
staff about how this program has been toggled up and
down over the years. I just want to confirm what
the allocation was back. In 2022. Thompson. Do you know
that? Or is that another staff person? I'm curious. 2022.
Why that particular just before. We at the end of
the last mandate? Because we have expanded the allocation for
this one a bit. Do you have that, Ms. Dawson?
Magically. Through the mayor so I can start at the
beginning. In 2018, it was set up at $125,000. And
it has been increased by inflation since that time. And
so in 2022, it was $136,000 was the budget. However,
the allocation that year was $108,000. 108. Okay. I'm going
to try an amendment and see if it carries, but.
I'd like to reduce this one. My brain is having
a hard time because it's a reduction. Not. So I
guess it should read if we want to bring it
down to 100,000, so. I guess it would read 52,000
and then 100,000. Is that correct, or I have that
backwards, Ms. Thompson, is that correct? Through the mayor. So
we are talking about the number that you would like
it to be because we're adding it back in. So
the number, if you would like $100,000. To be the
grant amount. Then this number should say $100,000. For some
reason, my brain can't help. If we want this grant
to be at $100,000. This number is 100,000. Okay, so
then 100,000 goes back in. So yes, there is an
amendment, properly put, that this be 100 as opposed to
152. Remember, we're deciding whether or not to return this
amount of money to the financial plan is there? A
secondary for that amendment. Yes? Councilor Gardner is seconding. Go
ahead. Councilor Caradona, if you'd like to motivate. I think
that there is opportunities across our budget to scale back
a bit, but not kill some of these really important
grants. I think that this one, it has been very
well subscribed in the last few years, but I think
at $100,000. It can still do a lot of really
good value in the community, and I do. Think there's
just opportunities to toggle some of these grants up and
down over the years. So this one wouldn't disappear as
proposed by staff, but it would remain, albeit in a
bit scaled back form. Thank you. Councilor Gardner, is the
secondary of the amendment. Thank you. I believe it's very
valuable, Grant. At the same time, I don't know about
the distribution, so I would certainly. Like to see down
the road before next year when we're going to be
into this. Exercise again. Well, we don't know who's going
to be here. But there'd be some ideas to the
distribution of the grounds throughout the city. Distribution by population.
Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson. Just before I go
to councilor Thompson, Is this amount. All that's left in
the program is that the whole program? Or 152, as
it was, through the mayor. Yes, that's correct. Councilor Thompson,
thanks. Could you just recap the uptake of it? I
think there's been certain amounts available, but maybe less has
been applied for. What are the numbers for the last
few years? Ms. Morris. That something you would know? Yes.
Through you, mayor. The current year. We have 45 applications
currently. 138,000 in funds distributed. Over the course of the
years that grant has been available, including this year's grants,
we would have given out 412 grants, and every neighborhood
has benefited. Did you want some further information? I think
what I heard councilor Thompson request. Is in each year,
or even an example year. What's the percentage of uptake?
So if it was $100,000, for example, would you expect
that all 100,000 would be expended or would it be
80? Or based on past practice. Through the mayor. I
don't have percentages, but I can say that. These past
few years, we have gotten close to utilizing all of
the funds. The year in 2022 was a pandemic year,
which is why you saw that decline. In applications. Thank
you. We tend to use all the monies. Okay. No
more questions, but I will just comment. That I've been
involved or my neighborhood has been involved in several of
the applications and I've seen it work on building community,
like literally having people outdoors working together on planters. And
that sort of thing. And long before the last election,
I was out there shoveling dirt with new neighbors that
I'd never met before, when Matt Dell, as he then,
was not counselor Dell Road by took a picture of
all of us and published it. Again. I've met people
through these things. And I'm hesitant. I look forward to
hearing comments from other counselors before deciding how I'll vote.
Thank you very much. Anyone else on this one? So
we're going to vote first on the amendment, depending upon
whether or not the amendment carries that will indicate to
us whether when we vote on number four, whether it's
100. Or 152. So not hearing any more comments. Again,
if you would like the amendment to pass so that
the number that we're discussing is smaller. You vote in
favor of the amendment, so. It would be 100, not.
152. So in favor of 100, please indicate. Elsar, Hammond,
myself, councilor caradona, councilor Coleman, councilor jail, Councilor Gardner. And
opposition councilor Loton, Councilor Thompson to councilor Kim. So the
amendment is carried. So the number changes to 100,000. And
there is still room to discuss further that amount in
general. Any further comments on this item? At 100,000. Kind
of like I'm at an auction. Go ahead, Councilor Thompson.
Happy to see that going back in and maybe staff
have the flexibility to change the amounts given. Out to
each group. So it's still a program, and that's the
important point. Thank you very much. Anyone else? So, again,
wanting to turn $100,000 returned into the 2026 budget, all
those in favor. Councilor Hammond, Lowton, Thompson, Kim, myself carried
on at Coleman, Del and Gardner. That's unanimous. So, number
four, the my great neighborhood grants at the reduced amount
of 100,000 is. Carried. Thank you. Up next is theater
scam. Who asked this freebie back in? Councilor Kim, theater
scan. Yes, thanks. I actually would like to move an
amendment to modify it to 15,000. So you're moving an
amendment to change 20 to 15? One five. Okay, we'll
just get that up there with staff. Thank you very
much. Is there a secondary for that amendment. Thompson seconding
councilor Kim. Motivating on the amendment. Yeah, thanks. This is
for me, an item that I'm not as familiar with
as growing in the city, for example. But I remember
receiving correspondence from tourists saying they actually come to Victoria
to visit theater, the scampede. And there are youth who
I have met who have benefited from being a part
of the program. I've seen really great productions. And so,
again, it has that soft impact that we can't always
quantify. But. It's also, frankly, in the face of the
political climate wherein arts are always on the chopping block.
And art is a very real reflection of our political
space. And to me, that is, in principle, really valuable
and worth at least 15,000. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Thompson,
you and the secondary. Anything I can add? Okay, anyone
else on? This council gardener. I just want to read
the staff report on it. This organization is not fully
acting as an arts hub as proposed. In addition, they
have received much other city funding through various grant programs
in comparison to other arts organizations. This grant does not
fall within an application based competitive program like other city
grants for arts organizations. And so that's why. Don't support
the change. Or bringing this back. Thank you, Councilor Dell.
Oh, this is just on the 15,000. Okay, never mind.
Sorry. Just on the amendment, okay? That being said, on
the amendment to go from 20 to 15. Saying no
further. So on the amendment to move from 20 to
15, all those in favor? Emman. Myself, Carolina, Coleman, Dell
and Gardner. That was unanimous. Thank you for that. Moving
back to now, the now amended motion to return $15,000
for theater scam. Ms. Moore, do you have any comments?
On the commentary that this does not meet any of
our program. Requirements for granting. How did this get in
the budget in the first place? Through you, mayor. I
believe it was through council's motion that this good for
us. Was added back in. Okay. Thanks for being so
terribly honest. All right, so this is here even. At
a reduced rate because of an earlier council decision, obviously.
So now on this, anyone further comments? On theater scam
at 15,000 councilor Doe. Sure. I'm very hesitant to do
this because it's not my favorite thing to do here.
But. We have a bunch of amazing theater organizations in
the. Theater scam is absolutely one of them. When I
was the president of South Jubilee, they came every year
to do presentations that I have very fond memories of.
But there's a lot of great organizations that are doing
different spots. Obviously, other guys theater, who just two weeks
ago opened a building. A number of other companies operating
throughout the theater. So this is the weird funding that
at some point in the past, a council member brought
forward a motion to give this particular group funding and
not all the other ones. So I would actually rather
see this funding be removed from here, put somewhere back
into a grant program that's accessible by a lot of
the different groups because I know there's even new and
up and coming groups that aren't able to access funding.
So it's not that I want to cut $15,000 from
funding, but I just find it a bit odd that
it's going to one specific group where it should be
in, like, a proper grant funding. I know. This year
I worked a lot with theater intrepid. Theater, for example,
and they lost their space. They're one of our biggest
theater organizations, and we weren't able to fund them. But
it's just another example of. Perhaps a need for a
grant program that staff can actually analyze who could best
use the money? Rather than having a targeted grant for
one particular group, even though they are fantastic. So I
hate to advocate against arts funding, but I do think
this one is a bit odd. And this might be
the year that we just removed this, and hopefully they
can get similar funding. Through one of our established programs,
like the festival investment grant or the cultural infrastructure grant,
where they would be a bit more appropriate. So to
my two cent. Thank you very much, councilor Kim. Sorry.
Quick question. Does theater scam know about this prospective loss
of income revenue? Ms. Mora, are you aware of that?
Other than this just being in the general public domain?
I believe this was listed. In the previous report to
counsel. Yes. And that previous report came out when? December
of 2024. The reason I ask is because. That doesn't
line up necessarily with financial planning of an organization like
Peter Scam and so I hear what my colleagues are
saying, and I actually am swayed. I don't like the
idea of offboarding a theater company. Suddenly losing a big
chunk. I do think some sort of transitional amount. Before
we consider mixing it all together in the future is
actually more reasonable. So I'm going to move an amendment
to actually just change that again to 5000. Yes, you
can certainly do that. An amendment to go from 15
to five. Let staff catch up with us here. Very
good. Is there a secondary for that amendment, councilor? Della
seconding. Councilor Kim, anything on the amendment? No. Councilor Dell,
anything on the amendment? Anyone else on the amendments? All
those in favor of the amendment. Anyone opposed? That is
unanimous. Back to councilor Kim for any further comments on
the now $5,000 allocation. Thank you? Yeah, I just think
it's, like, operationally sensitive to an organization's needs. And again,
number two is 8000. So to me, this is a
rounding error in the scope. Of a city budget, but
for them proportionately could be quite useful in terms. Of
transitioning or paying. For a grant writer to. Anyway, you
get it. Councilor Thompson. Thanks, mayor. My colleague, councilor. Del
made an interesting and good point about this being a
unique grant, and he would rather see it go into
a general granting fund that people could apply for, including
theater scam. Just wondering. Mayor, what would be the opportunity
to. Make that happen. Would that be a motion arising
after this? It could be. There will be an opportunity
down the road in subsequent appendices to deal with the
issue of grants in general. And so it may be
that at that point, you want to either introduce different
criteria or direct staff to create new criteria or just
to admit the actual budget itself. You will see that
when we get to appendix B, we'll be dealing with
a number. Of granting options. Council Cardano. Thanks, mayor. This
one's also a challenging one for me because I love
theater scam like I think everybody does. And I'm proud
of the fact that the city has funded them for
a number of years, but I don't think it's. Appropriate
for us to be permanently funding one theater. There's a
lot of theaters struggling in the city. I do think
it's more appropriate for that money to get maybe bumped
over. To the Sig or the fig or something like
that. That would be more appropriate for a theater to
apply to. So it's difficult one, but for me, I'm
going to vote against this one. Thank you. What else?
I would echo the last comments. It's always difficult to
pick and choose, but here we are picking and choosing
throughout a very long list that's only going to get
longer. And so the fact for me is that this
has been in the public domain since 2024. It's not.
A secret staff were directed by council to seek out
every opportunity to reduce the budget and this was included
at that time is my understanding. And so for that
reason, unfortunately, I am not going to support. This inclusion.
Reinclusion. All right, noting once again that what we are
voting on is returning $5,000. To the budget dedicated to
theater scam. All those in favor. Yeah, I know, I
know, I know. All right. You're following along. We're on
number five. I got confused trying to jump ahead, that
is. Okay. So, number five. From a famous line from
an old film, number five. Theater scam. $5,000. All those
in favor? Loton thompson, kim dell in opposition. Hammond,
myself, Cardona, Coleman and Gardner that is defeated. And thus,
for the first time, We can remove something from this
list. It might be better, actually. Rotor. I know. I
wasn't going to point that out. Ms. Rotor might be
better, actually. I know what I said earlier. You can
just delete it, but it might be better just. To
put a strike through through it just so that we
can see once we get through all of this. What
changes have been done and to what degree? Just leave
it there. And. You can just leave it, struck out,
and we'll know what that means moving on, then. To
number six. This is the Butler Book Prize and Children's
Book Prize, which is right. Now at $10,000. Someone put
this back in. Go ahead. Gvpl. Liaison. So. It's just
my love of books is just on display here. The
other thing too. Again. Bringing this back to a broader
political context is I heard this very compelling case. About
maintaining literacy and literature. Programs and projects because. It's this.
That actually cultivates empathetic citizenry. If you are reading books,
you are taking in alternative perspectives and broadening the way
you explore and engage with the world and at a
time polarization. I know this doesn't feel like there's a
clear connection, but to me, I see it, and I
think. This can go a small but impactful way in
terms of maintaining community. The opposite of polarization. Thanks. Conclusion.
There you go. Anyone else on this particular one? Councilor
Coleman. Thank you. Historically. The city's role wasn't there. It
was the Butler Book prize for adult literature. And it
was the Boland Book Prize for children's literature. Bolands moved
out of that and we picked it up. Our component
was $10,000. I think you have to protect that. But
we also have to think about how we could move.
It to another future corporate sponsor. And I think there
are some out there, and I know there have been
some discussions around it. From the larger perspective, we need
to recognize. That. Comprehension levels in Canada are judged to
be about grade seven and declining. We're still two. Years
ahead of the United States. Adult illiteracy is tracking at
about 30%, and it tracks right through from school and
if that's not a scary thing, then stop and think
about. Working with ten or nine other people and recognize
that in an industrial accident area, three of them cannot
read a hazmat manual. Investments in literature and literacy and
numeracy is terribly important. Do I think we stay in
this for a long time? No, but do I think
we protect. It this year. Yes. Thank you, Councilor Thompson.
And then councilor Garden, thanks to my colleagues. For making
my speech a lot shorter. Those are really good points.
I'll just address. The alternative funding sources that staff mentioned
that society could approach other sources, and I think that
the society probably has listening to this. Received a clear
hint that it probably should start doing that and probably
for next year. So I'll be opposing this cut for
this year, and we'll see how it goes next. Year.
Thank you very much. Clinton Gardner. Thank you. How many
people are going to their award ceremony? In ten days,
three or four of us. Good. Okay. I had a
lot of conversation with him about a year ago when
it came up because a year ago. They were told
it was going to be 2026. It's going to be.
Cut. And at that time, We had a couple of
discussions going forward with suggestions and what have you. But
they chose not to go that route and what they
were doing at the time, and I don't know the
status. Perhaps Ms. Moore knows the status at the stage.
They were going to be creating. A charity so they
could actually do fundraising in a different way. And so
I haven't heard any really advancement since then. And perhaps
someone else here knows. Do you have any further information?
I know I was involved in those conversations at a
preliminary basis. And council Gardner is correct. They are aware
that. The funding is declining and that the very generous
history of the Butler brothers has been removed and so
that's why they no longer have a big, splashy event.
But I think they're aware that they need to look
for additional sponsors in the future. And certainly there has
been conversation with them, but I'm not sure if anyone
else has. Any further updates? Do you have any further
updates? No. Okay. Thank you. I think Govern House is
a nice, splashy event, too. And that's when their book
prizes and ten days, so thank you. I just want
to see if anyone knew there. Was any update. Thank
you. Anyone else on this one? Council. My microphone is
still on. Jack and I were the SPCA gal a
little while ago, and in one night, they raised $778,000,
half of which was from one person. That everything that
was raised was matched. There are a lot of people
who were very generous in this town and that I
know for various awards. And all kinds of fundraising that
they will put up the money. And I believe push
comes to shove, they'll be able to do it for
a person who is a little bit dyslexic. So had
trouble reading when I was a kid. I don't really
think. A book prize would make any difference to whether
I read or not, but I also ended up for
all the troubles I had reading. Or the little bit
of troubles I had reading. I published three books for
my business, for example. So there's lots of opportunities for
people to do something like this. Anyone else? I'm going
to support remaining, having this retained for one year. But
I will say that I do believe that there are
opportunities for there to be new sponsors. So I agree
with the notion of hanging onto it and ensuring that
it continues because it is so important. But. I think
it's very important for us to make the commitment to
a system in discovering a new way for this to
be not just supported at this level, but to perhaps
be expanded. So that's looking forward to more work for
2027. With that voting in favor. To retain this and
put it back into the budget for 2026. All those
in favor? That would be Lowton, Thompson, Kim, myself, Caradona
Coleman, Adele and Gert Gardner. In opposition council Hammond noting
one in opposition, that one is returned. So that is
carried. Thank you very much staff for catching up. We're
halfway through this, and I'm wondering if I. Could just
trouble Ms. Thompson if she has it. Available. To remind
us now of what the impact of the first half
of this would be being returned. To our budget in
2026. If you need more time, that's okay too. We
can go on to a few more. Through the mayor.
So what has passed so far at zero point? 42%.
So we're at 8.71 right now. The city's portion. Very
good. Thank you so much for that. So let's tackle
the second half of this dozen and see if we
can get through these before we break today. So the
next one up is number seven. This is the operational
adjustment for response to medical emergency. Something under service assistance.
I think it's service assistance. I think that's what that
says. Pretty sure it won't go away. That's. Okay. And
actually, before we consider this one, I don't know if
Chief Atkinson is. On the line, but I do recall
that. He's not. Is there anyone who could remind us
of why this is here? Because I. Think this is
a significant amount, obviously. We have discussed this in the
past, but it wouldn't be a bad thing for us.
To have a very brief overview, if anyone is available
to do that. I'm looking at Ms. Thompson or Ms.
Jenkins. Is there a deputy chief or a senior staffer
who might be available, or does anyone here have a
sense of it. Through the merits, so I will start.
Obviously, Chief Atkinson would be the preferred person to speak
to. This. But essentially. The fire department goes to a
lot of medical calls. Where they actually don't provide. Any
life saving support. They're just there waiting for ambulance to
arrive. So what Chief Atkinson has proposed here is that.
They would still go to those. Labeled highest acuity call
types, meaning those that. Are life threatening. But not go
to the lower acuity calls, which in all of their
data and I don't have that at my fingertips. But
where? They actually don't provide. Any life saving support. And
so they're essentially just standing there waiting for ambulance to
come. And so this obviously is a significant savings if
we do not. Dispatch fire to those calls and they
can set it up. I do want to note that.
In a very smaller scale. But Defino just announced that
they are no longer going to any calls. So again,
in the city of Victoria, if this goes through, we
would continue to go to the highest acuity calls, but
not the ones where we currently are actually not providing
any service. Thank you for that. I wonder, do you
know whether or not there are other fire departments in
the South island. We're moving this direction as well. Through
you, Mayor. I don't know about South island, but I
do know that there are a number of departments, even
Vancouver, who are considering this kind of shift as the
downloading has happened from AHS. Right? Thank you for that.
Okay, so I believe councilor Kim was this. You? Yes,
it was. But actually, I had questions, which you wound
up asking. No, that was great. It actually answered the
gaps I had in my knowledge. So I actually don't
have a motivation. Who actually added this back in, if
I understood correctly, is okay with it, in fact, not
being added back in. So does anyone else wish to
have this returned to the budget? Not seeing. Anybody saying
yes? So with that, then. For the sake of the
procedure, I will move that this not be returned. So
I'm going to move that this be removed from the
list secondary for that. Yeah. Councilor Dell. Seconding that. Thank
you. And I don't think I need to. Motivate. I
think the explanation that was offered by staff is sufficient
and this is on the advice of the fire chief.
And so I think that's advice we should take, councilor.
Dell. Anything else that you want to add? No. So
again, if you wish to return this. To the budget.
Vote in favor if you wish to remove it from
the budget. Vote in opposition. Right. So you understand it?
So everyone, I believe everyone at the table nodded very
nicely as a bit of a straw pole to say,
I don't want this in there, vote no. Vote yes
if you want it to return to the budget. All
those in favor? No one in opposition. That is unanimous.
So you can put a strike through that one. Thank
you, Ms. Roder. And so, moving on, then. Yes. Next
is number eight, the poet laureate and youth poet laureate.
I believe this was also counsel. Yeah. Again, this is
admittedly coming from a very personal motivation. When I was
an acting mayor. I got to go to an event
where the Port Lauriet had showcased. Marie metaphors that showcased
the poetry of the workshop attendees that she had been
working with. And these are folks who. Do not. See
in conventional spaces. And there was finally an opportunity for
creative expression. And what I heard in their poetry and
their tone of voice was so much anger and distress.
At oppressive systems, and they finally had a way to
say it. And we've also gotten to benefit from the
poet laureate again. Bringing us literacy. And beauty through rhetoric
and prose. And I think there's something to be said
about the affective tone that having a poet laureate open
a council meeting also sets. I think it actually helped
us make better decisions, arguably. In calming us prior to
engaging in what could be contentious decisions. And so, again,
All of those qualitative things that are hard to quantify.
But I would be so remiss to see a piece.
Of what has made Victoria so lovable for me on
the shopping block. Thank you very much. Anyone else on
this one. Councilor Coleman. Thank you. While you are away
in October, your worship, I was the acting mayor, and
I got to unveil a bronze plaque on the Dallas
Road waterfront done by. A previous city of Victoria poet
laureate. It's the way we quietly infuse those wonderful little
spots that people. Can find, much like the spindle laurels
or any of the other statuary we have. Around town.
Now I recognize that I am biased. I come from
a family of poets. And. There is a spoken word
poetry contest and scholarship in my brother's name. He was
a mayor, and it's unusual to have poet laureates, but
as a capital city. I think there is a special
status for them, so I think that this is wholly
supportable. Very much. Anyone else? I'm going to support this
returning. I think this is what makes one of the
things that makes Victoria unique. And when I travel and
mention that the city has a pot laureate and in
particular, actually, the youth portrait people are both astonished and
thrilled. And so I think again, as we've discussed a
small amount. But an important investment. Anyone else on this
one? Yes. Do you any other municipalities in this? In
our peninsula. Ms. Moore, I don't believe anyone else in
the south island has a poet laureate do. They? Are
you aware of that? Through the mayor. We've been told
that sandwich is investigating. Having a poet laureate, but I
don't know that that's been confirmed yet, right? Okay. Thank
you. No. And maybe. Good point. Perhaps our poet
laureate may become all of our poet laureates next year.
There you go. To be determined. Very good. All right.
So again, if you wish to return this to the
budget. $8,000 for the Port Lorete and youth Port laureate
vote in favor. If you do not then vote in
opposition. All those in favor of returning the laureates? Councilor.
Just checking. Councilor loan, Councilor Thompson, Councilor Kim, myself, counselor.
Carried on councilor. Coleman, councilor Dell in opposition, councilor Hammond
and councilor Gardner. So noting to an opposition. The poet
laureate is returned. So that is again carried. That takes
us down to crosswalk. Installations. At 64,000 home. Is this
also councilor Kim? It is. Can I make a niche
joke about the path less taken as a poem and
crosswalks? But anyway. This is to me a safety measure.
And a lot of the decisions. That have faced us
on council ultimately have health and life impacts on folks.
My principle is do no harm or reduce whatever harm
you can. And this is one of them. We want
to keep kiddo safe. Will they crosswalk? And also, I
think it's safe to say, as councillor, liaison, Regardless of
what neighborhood you're in, you're probably as a counselor getting
emails from constituents who have concerns about the safety and
walkability of streets. And to me, this gesture is that
we haven't lost sight of that. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone
else on this one? I have a question. Perhaps. Ms.
Thompson, I don't know if it would be you or.
Mr. Doyle, but what's the impact of this change? Go
ahead. Deferred to assistant director Kenny. Thanks. Kenny, if we
do not return $64,000 to the crosswalk budget, what happens?
So if we do not return $64,000, it would represent
approximately one, maybe two crosswalks. Not delivered in the city
in 2026. The 64,000 represents less than 10% of the
program, so we would still have a fairly robust program
without the funding. Very good. Thank you for that. With
that, then I believe, Councilor Kimmy, you did include this.
You wish to continue having. No. Thank you for that
information, especially the part about the robustness of the program.
Thanks. Does anyone else wish to put this in? Return
this. No. I'm saying no. Therefore I will again just
reprocess I. Will move that this not be returned, and
I will assume councilor Kim will second that. And so,
again, for the crosswalk installations, just as a reminder, if
you wish it to be returned vote yes, but if
based on the information just shared by staff that you
in fact are comfortable with it being removed or continue
to be removed. Vote no. So all those in favor
of returning it to the budget? That is unanimously know.
All those in favor yes, all those in favor of
remaining outside the budget? Not returning it. Very good. Yes,
we did. That's right. So that is, in fact, defeated.
Also, cancellations will not return to the budget now. Next,
South Island Prosperity Partnership. Yes, go ahead. Councilor Karad. Yeah,
just very briefly. For folks who don't know what SIp
is. South island prosperity, partnership. They are our economic development
engine. That complements the work of the DVBA in the
chamber and really work regionally. Yes, this is a bit
of a budget allocation every year, but they do crucially
important work. In the local economy. They just recently launched
their possibility charter that a number of us were at.
In fact, the photo of it has. Councilor Coleman. At
the launch of the possibility charter. And I've had many,
many meetings with these folks, and they've helped me understand.
The value that they bring to the community. They've been
rather successful. In enticing small and medium businesses to open
up shop here, especially as relates to maritime industries. So.
One of their mandates is to try to get mid
sized businesses to come here that stimulate our economy and
employ folks. So given the economic challenges that we're all
facing across this country, given the challenges of our downtown
and all the downtowns. For me, this is not the
time. To be scaling back on investments in an economic
development agency. So I don't want this one removed. Very
good. Thank you very much. Any other comments? On this
one. Council Grudner. Thank you. I think it's important to
realize maybe the beginnings of this. Of the self doubt
and prosperity project. It's a partnership. And the city, Victoria
and other cities or municipalities created it. And the funding
that is here. Is not for the operations of all
the activities. It's for the administration and creating the environment.
In order. To. Look at how. We can actually really
work towards. Getting a more robust economy. And you've probably
heard of the coast. Last. I think it was October
20. Eigth coast had a wonderful. Event down on a
ship point. And you could see all the companies. The
startup companies and the work they were doing. And this
is very important work that is aimed at developing entrepreneurship.
And just helping our economy. But that is not what
this money goes for. Those are special grants. We hear?
About. Different aspects of coast and other groups, including the
Indigenous Prosperity section, getting huge grants and their grants. Though,
don't go to the operation of the South island prosperity
project. They go to their specific areas and specific projects.
And so this grant. Was not a grant, it was
a partnership. Was tied to actually the administration, which has
not grown in the last few years at all. They've
managed in spite of everything that's been going on in
our economy. And the pre pandemic and since. To not
actually grow that much. And they're very valuable and. I
know near me, near where I live, for example. There
is that. Oh, I'm going. To get the word wrong.
You're going to help me out here, Chris. I'm going
to say. What's it called now? Floats on the water.
This is. Behind. Right on Erie street. On the back
of it on the next street towards Ontario, and so
there's. A facility there. It used to be co down
electronics, and that's, for example. Something that's set up and
they do the. What am I looking for? Come on,
someone. Help me. Yeah. Should you? It's the mobile. Oaks
and sensors. Yeah. Ocean sensor type thing. And that's also
done with, I think, with. The song. He's. It's an
indigenous type of organization. It's wonderful. And they're developing it,
and that's what is happening, so. I don't see that
there's a duplication of services with the city because. The
city is more. Businesses oriented as opposed to let's develop
whole new products and let's get our products even beyond
the city. To become export items. Drove Canada and throughout
the world. It's a totally different. Organization. That exists in
this city. They've won awards because of their innovative way
of organizing themselves. And promoting the development of our economy.
So again. Their amount has not gone up much. So
I don't know. Is anyone else have any comments or
questions that I may fumble? On. Yes. I have several
questions, actually, but I will go to other people with
questions. First, councilor Hannah. Thanks, mayor. Despite the glowing things
that people say when I read from the staff, And
just because the public might not be aware, I was
wondering if someone could just explain why. They came to
this conclusion of not having it in here. And then
the second question I have is. How much of the
242,000 is this of sip's budget? Ms. Board. Do you
know that? Can you give a bit of an overview
as to what this contribution represents? Through you, mayor. I
think the counselor was asking. Why we put it into
the. And again, staff were given a very difficult. Task
of evaluating. What should stay and what should go. We
do have an economic development office here at the city.
We do have a business hub that services businesses day
to day. And when we use the word duplication. Yes,
they do do different things than we do. But if
it was cutting some of our internal budget versus an
external agency. We decided to go with the external agency.
And that was the rationale. Through you. Mayor, you asked
another question. Sorry about this. If you could estimate. Or
maybe you can't. 242k what portion of their total budget?
Would this represent? I don't have that at my fingertips,
but I could find that out. I think that would
be helpful. In the same time, could you provide a
few examples of what they do that our economic development
people do not. To you, mayor. They do look at
the region. From an economic lens. And as councilor Gardner
pointed out, They are heavily into the blue economy. Open
ocean robotics, I believe, is what councilor Gardner was. Speaking
to. So developing and creating innovating things here locally. To
market them out to the world, so they're doing it
on a much broader scale. On an industry level of
building the economy where we are boots on the ground
with small businesses. And getting them. Into. Vacant retail spaces
as quickly as possible. Councilor Hammond. Do you still have
the floor? A few more questions. That's it. Any. Other
questions. Councilor Coleman, Councilor Gardner, not a question. Your comment?
Sure. I think Sip does astounding work. Their failure is
that they don't market themselves very well. They don't explain
the work they do, it is different and distinct from.
What we do in supporting local business, particularly in the
city of Victoria and particularly downtown. Their focus is much
more about external opportunities and bringing that economic potential here.
And that with it, and particularly focusing on the blue
economy. Is about the world stage and getting some local
employment that supports those things. We have had history in
the past, and unfortunately, we've lost some of those. So
this is about bringing it. Back, and it links into
First nations economic opportunities as well. So I support this
one, but I recognize that staff were put in a
very awkward position. In trying to find the cuts. That
we are going to have to figure out. And when
we come to section b, it's. Going to be even
tougher now. Councilor Gerner. Thank you. When I mentioned partnership,
I started out with municipalities, but they have, of course,
a lot of industries. And different financial groups have contributed
even to the base funding. In fact, the funding now
is 60% municipal and about 40% private. This is for
the operations, remember, not for the projects. And all the
init. Initiatives. And so that's what it is. And about
a third of the funding of their core of the
municipal portion comes from the city of Victoria. Another, more
or less third from Sanich and another third from the
other municipalities that are involved. I do have a suggestion.
If I may make one. Can we refer this? I
understand that the south online Prosperity project. Is coming to
speak to us next week. Yes, I believe they are.
Could we refer this to. Our November 21 session. Or
do we think with us just holding? Okay. It's okay.
I take that back. I take that back. It's not
a final decision. No, that is true. That's very true.
If no one wants to delay, they can. And certainly
we have the ability to review all of this again
at the end. And should we magically discover some reason
why we didn't want to support one of these. We
can always pull them. That's fine. All right. So, anything
else anyone would like to say about South Ellie? Go
ahead, Kim. Thanks. Through the chair. I will offer one
tangential observation, which is if we look at the federal
government, You're seeing a lot of investment in marine technology.
And we happen to be by the naval base where
there is also investment happening, not things I personally love,
but there is an economic connection to what we're seeing
here, so I'll raise that. Thank you very much for
that, Councilor Gardner. I should just point out for the
public. The reason councilor Gartner is answering these questions is
because she is actually the city's appointee. To sip, and
so she has a very regular relationship with them. So
I'll put the question either to you. Councilor Orton is
more. You mentioned the third is the city a third?
Is Sanich and the other third are other municipalities. Is
every other municipality in the region a contributor? No. And
do you happen to know off the top of your
head who do not contribute? Pardon? Do you happen to
remember off the top of your head who do not
contribute? I have to get the list of them. I
don't want to name one if I'm wrong. And so
I'm going to say. The one municipality who usually doesn't
participate. And a couple of others. Do you know that
Ms. Morrison and central senator, I believe, has blacked out.
I'm not sure. I shouldn't be saying this because I'm
going to get them wrong. Through the mayor. The Southeastern
Prosperity Partnership is watching us right now. Great. So they
have answered the first question. Which is? Our contribution is
22% towards their operations. Great. And I'm just going to
ask right now if all the municipalities are funders. One
moment, Ms. Thompson. Do you know that? I think Ms.
Thompson knows that, actually, yes. And just for clarity, too,
depending on. What you're looking at. Obviously, they have other
funding sources than municipal contributions. So the City of Victoria's
chair of the municipal contribution towards their operation is 35.22%.
Sandwiches is 28.88%. And from what I can see, I
have eleven municipalities who are part of it. Machozen is
one that isn't. I have to think who the other
one is. Nothing is popping to my mind, and there
are a number of first nation participants as well, I
believe. Yes. Okay, so the answer to the question in
general is it's not everybody, but it's. Mostly everybody. And
the city is a little more than a third. Senate
is a little less than a third. And the rest
are a variety, and those make up about 60% of
the total budget, right? Okay. All right. Very good. Anyone
else on this particular one? Mayor just popped up to
us. Who? They're missing. Other person was. So Langford is
not part of it either. Oh, my. Goodness. All right.
Then. Food for thought for my next conversation with my
colleague, Mayor Goodman. All right, anyone else on number ten?
The South Island Prosperity Partnership, 242. Remember again, we're voting
to return it to the budget, so if you wish
to have it back in, vote yes. And if you
wish it to be removed, vote no. All those in
favor. Is anyone opposed? Councilor Hammond is opposed. So with
noting with one opposed, that is returned. So. That's a
carried. And we have two more. Let's see if we
can go. Through these before we break the new traffic
signals. Who brought this one new traffic to Council Gardner.
Yes, speak to that one. Councilor Gritter. Thank you. I
think the answer came when we did the crosswalk installation.
It's probably the same answer. That's fine. Let's ask either
Mr. Doyle and Mr. Kenny. Is it approximately the same
answer. Through the mayor. So for the new traffic signal
program, you'll see in appendix B that there was actually
further reductions so that this would be the only budget
amount. And the idea was that we were deferring a
traffic signal until 2027 to align with another project, see?
Okay. All right, so this means no new traffic signals
in 26. Just to be clear. Right. Councilor Thompson, just
a question. Do some of the multimodal projects include traffic
signals? Mr. Kenny. Through the mayor. So the multimodal program
typically covers. Modifications to signals and sometimes new traffic signals
as part of that program. I don't believe we have
any planned in 2026 from that funding. So we're not
losing anything already planned. Anybody else? This one. So again,
it sounds as if this is anticipated and able to
be accommodated. All those in favor of returning this to
the budget, vote yes. Or in the alternative, based upon
Mr. Kenny's commentary if we do not return it to
the budget vote. No, all those in favor. All those
in opposition. That is unanimous. So this one can come
out. Thank you again. And then the last one in
appendix A are the hanging baskets. Who pulled this one?
Council I pulled it because it is in the public
realm and we've already heard back about it. Somewhat. So
I was just wondering if staff could. Hopefully, if they
have a map, they can tell. Us where the baskets
would continue to hang and. Which would not. If this
proceeds? Because that wasn't clear in the write up. You
know that, Mr. Newman. Where would we have baskets remaining
if we take out 130,000? Through your mayor. I have
shared a map with the deputy city clerk. Great. She
may pull that. Up might help guide the conversation. Perfect.
While we're pulling that up, I'd be happy to give
a little additional information. On this. Annually, the city provides
1200 hanging baskets in the downtown core. In the summertime.
It's part of our beautification project. To support tourism in
the core. The map before you, council. Is the current
locations of all of the baskets. The different numberings represent.
The different types of baskets that we hang across the
city. Annually. The program currently costs us $260,000 a year
and we currently install 1200 hanging baskets. The proposed reduction
to this program would see a 50% reduction in the
total number of baskets provided, which. Is estimated to be
600 baskets that we would install. And we would collaborate
with DVBA as partners in identifying and prioritizing the areas
downtown within the red circle on this image. To ensure
that. We're prioritizing the highest impact areas in the core.
Everything outside of the red. Circle would be deprioritized, and
then we would focus the remaining funds to ensure that
we're having the highest impact possible. Council gardner. Does that
answer your question? Yes. But I hope the public sees
them out, because I think it's important to get that.
Information across. Thank you. Thank you for that. That does
actually lead to a procedural question. Both the presentation earlier
today, which was excellent. And things like this. Will they
be on. The websites as attached to this particular item
on the agenda retrospectively. We don't normally republish items like
this, such as this, but the presentation will be. Yes.
Okay. If council specifically wants us to republish any individual
items such as this, we certainly would do so. A
council's direction. I would note, though, that this has now.
Become captured in the live feed. And so, for someone
who after tomorrow, wishes to go and view this part.
Add exactly three minutes and 42 42 in the afternoon.
They'll be able to see that. Image. There you go.
We can perhaps encourage people to do that. Councilor Gregor,
anything further on? This one? No. So again, thank you
very much. If you can take that one off the
screen. Anyone else on hanging baskets? Councilor Thompson. Just a
question. We've increased the spending on beautification of downtown through
the art downtown program. Just wondering. How our downtown budget
compares to this budget, just in scale. Ms. Moore or
Ms. Thompson. Through you, mayor. The our downtown budget is
just shy of a million dollars. I believe it's. 984,000
ish dollars. Sorry. Does that answer your question? Okay.
Can you remind me? I don't believe yet. In appendix
b there's any indication of altering that, is there? Is
it coming forward? The same amount. Through the may. Yes.
So the next appendix. So the ideas for removal includes
our downtown program in its entirety. Yes. Very good. Thank
you. Good to know. Still to be determined. Let's be.
Clear. And that's our next phase, so that's yet to
be discussed at council. That being said, anyone else on
the hanging baskets? Again, this is suggesting that. This item
be returned into the budget, Councilor Coleman. This budgetary reduction
comes up about every seven years. It is interesting that
we have a number of hanging baskets in the city
of Morioca because many years ago. They sent over about
a six week period. I think it was more than
250 gardeners to come and train with our park staff
into what the hanging basket program actually looks like. I
do work in the summer, occasionally as a tour guide.
And you always point out the hanging baskets because. They're
on. Our. Five bulb. Street lights, which. Are protected.
They're copyrighted to the city of Victoria. And once people
look at it, they start taking pictures, and then they
ask if. There's information and you send them online. This
is one of those ones that makes absolutely no sense
to invest in until you start taking it away, and
then you will find a whole bunch of people who
are going, why are you diminishing this one? I understand.
The need to pair the budget back, believe me. And
it's always painful, but. This is one of those wonderful,
iconic little pieces that people will come to the defense
off. I don't think I support ticking. I support putting
this back in. Ms. Thompson, as we've asked earlier on
a few things. What is the value of this as
a percentage of a tax increase? Through your marrow, it's
0.7. Percent. Okay. Thank you for that. Can I also
ask you at this point, given our decisions to date.
What have we added as a percentage of a tax
rate? You have added back zero point 55%. Very good.
Thank you for that. Any other comments on this, councilor
carried on. I'm going to support reducing the hanging baskets
budget, but it's not an easy decision to make because
it is so iconic of the city. And as my
colleague said, even our sister city in Morioca has adopted
this practice. What I want to comment on is something
that kind of grinds my gears, which is when we
have these kind of debates around taxes and budgets at
any level of government, and when there's always this debate
between nice to have. And a need to have or
a necessity versus a nice to have those kind of
debates often really bother me, to be honest, because what
one person perceives is a necessity might be something that
someone else perceives as a nice to have and vice
versa. And the bike valley or youth bus passes are
good examples. If you don't have a 13 or 14
year old they might seem like a luxury. But if
you're in a financially constrained household, they're essential. Same thing
with hanging. Baskets. I'm sure there's a lot of people
that will say, okay, that's. A nice to have, but
it's also iconic to our city. It adorns our city.
We're the garden city, so none of these decisions are
easy to make, and I do. Acknowledge that for many
people this is a necessity. But I do think that
we have to make these difficult decisions to scale back
a bit, but I hope that we can all recognize
that there's value in every single thing that's up on
the screen here. And in addition, everything else in our
budget and something that might to. You be a luxury
is to someone else a necessity. So I think it's
always important. For us to keep that in mind. Thank
you, Councilor Gardner. And then Dell. That's okay. Can we
have the map back up, please? Because there is something
that does concern me about it. Can you step map
back up? Thank you. What's happening is. There's something. Bothering
me for years. Is that the baskets don't actually go.
Get my street straight. They don't even go to Beacon
Hill Park. That's kind of always bothered me. I thought,
if we're going to tie this, in that little bit.
I tried years ago to get it, and we couldn't
get it. Just those few dusks. Just like two or
three. But what's worm me right now? Is, frankly, the
area is being cut off. May not be the tourist
area, but it's the area that we're going to have
a lot of development in people living in very soon.
We hope very soon. We're an awful lot of. Our
development is occurring. Is just to the east of that
red line, I believe, does it not? And so, in
a way, what this will do, the basket will separate
it more. That area of town. From that part of
the residential. I don't know if that's good or bad.
But I'm saying it will do that. And that is
kind of worrisome and as I said, doesn't even join
a Beacon hill park. And that's been going on for
20 years. That's not new. I just don't know. This
is a tough one because of what it represents. Don't
even know how I'm going to vote on this one.
Thank you, councilor. Dell. One of the challenges we have
here is we're making decisions on what to cut or
add in, but there's a whole bunch of other decisions
down the road that might impact us on our next
budget date. So if we make some very serious cuts
later on, obviously, including to the police budget, which is
astronomical compared to this. We might want to revisit some
of these. So for right now, I am going to
vote to cut the hang of. Assets. But I think
if we do make some other cuts and up days,
this is one that I'd be worth revisiting. So say
we get the number down to something. The tax number
down to something that. I think residents can handle. And
we have a bit of wiggle room to put a
couple of things back in for me. This is probably
where I'd look to maybe put this. Back. Maybe not
put the whole 130 back in, but put half of
that back in, so 65,000. So the budget is going
to be around 195 rather than 130. But for today,
I will vote to support this, but knowing that maybe
if people are interested, we can come back. To this
later on and perhaps bump this up a little bit.
Just on that note, thank you for that. You're right.
We have constructed this conversation in a way which assists
staff in being directed based on. Previous conversations. And so
that's why it's constructed in this fashion. But when we
get towards the end, we will have an opportunity to
have a look at all of this to see whether
anything needs to be rejigged or removed or transferred or
whatever boards you want to use. That is why we're
going to take the time that we will in order
to see this totality. So we're looking at four chunks,
as I described earlier, but we will at that point
be able. To look at the whole. And so. If
we are to place that we think is actually somewhat
good, we could come back and revisit any of these
things. Anybody else on this one, Councilor Lo? Thanks to
you, mayor. I just want to echo what was just
mentioned, because that's what was going through my mind is
maybe we cut it now, but then. We look at?
The new council could look at putting it back in
for future years, too, that this would just be something
that's happening for 2026. So I just wanted to note
that. Thank you. Very much. Anybody else for this one?
I'm going to vote to return this to the budget,
and I actually think that one of the reasons based
on many of their comments. Is the numbers that Ms.
Thompson shared with us. I think as we've looked at
some other things. It's bigger than those, but still relatively
small. But I think. We haven't talked at all about
the value of this from an economic development perspective, as
we have put almost a million dollars into the downtown
core around things that could be loosely defined. As beautification,
cleanliness, repair, maintenance, that sort of thing. I see this
as part of that. And so, while I grant that
there are still many, many difficult decisions ahead of us,
Even looking at the next appendix, which will begin the
next time we meet. I think there is room there
to accommodate this. And so I am actually going to
vote in favor of returning this. To the budget at
this time, knowing that it could be reconsidered in the
future. By either this or a future council. Anyone else
on this one? Okay, so again, if you wish to
return this to the budget, vote in favor. If you
wish. To cut it from the budget or have it
remained cut from the budget? Vote in opposition. In favor
of returning this to the budget. That would be myself
and councilor Coleman and councilor Gardner. In opposition. So to
leave it out, that would be Hammond, Lowton. My God.
David Thompson. Thank you, Councilor Kim. By councilor carried on,
Councilor Dell. So, in fact, that is in favor, and
that means it is going to. Be. Removed from the
budget. There you go. I did that backwards. But the
s as we returned removed. From the budget. Yeah, look
at that. It's five to four, almost. And so. Thank
you. Very much staff. Kudos to the staff, the support
staff who've been following along this very arcane conversation that
has been wandering all over the place. As much as
I've tried to make it linear in some ways, so
here we are. We've now done appendix A, we have
appendix B, we have a subsequent motions arising that are
neither. None of the appendices. We also have conversations and
questions that will arise out of appendix D and also
the possibility of future direction so much yet. To be
done. As I understand it, and I will look for
Ms. Thompson to confirm that this is correct. The next
time we meet will in fact be November 21. Is
that correct? Yes, that's correct. And at that time, we
will begin again where we've left off. So we'll start
with appendix B and follow a very similar process as
we discover what it is that we wish to include
and not and amend at that point. And so I'm
going to say that we have done what we can
at section D of our agenda. I'm just going. To
make sure nobody else has any. Final questions. Yee would
be notices of motion. I don't believe there are any
arising today. F would be a closed meeting, which we
do not have a purpose for today. And so I
will look with thanks to staff for your patience and
incredible work and to counsel for their ability. To be
collegial in these difficult decisions, I would look for a
motion to adjourn. Thank you, councilor Coleman. Seconded by councilor
Carrie, Donna. All those in favor? Anyone? Opposed. That is
unanimous. And. We will see one another next week.