[0:00] Committee meeting. Committee it is committee, isn't it? Special Committee
[0:02] of the whole meeting of Victoria. City council here on
[0:05] November the 7th. Today we will be considering the very
[0:10] first steps of our 2026 budget deliberations, and I'll explain
[0:14] a little bit more about that in a moment. But
[0:17] of course, before we begin, we always begin by taking
[0:19] a moment to. Ground ourselves and our work. And a
[0:23] recognition and acknowledgement of the remarkable stewardship that has been
[0:26] undertaken on our behalf. By the Songhees nation and the
[0:30] Kosapson nation, the Lakungan. People in these territories for so
[0:33] many generations. Our city, of course, sits entirely. On the
[0:38] past, on the contemporary territories of two nations. And it's
[0:43] important for us to remember that the ability for us
[0:46] to live here and raise our families and do this
[0:49] important work. And make our best decisions for the people
[0:52] who are here and the people who are coming. That
[0:55] is all rooted in the experience and dedic. Dedication and
[0:58] commitment of the people from the past. And those nations
[1:02] have spent so many generations, so many centuries, ensuring that
[1:06] we have these opportunities. And so it is important for
[1:09] us to acknowledge that and express our gratitude, but also
[1:12] to look forward and acknowledge the ongoing relationship we have
[1:16] with the two nations and. To recommit to ensuring that
[1:19] that relationship remains and is nurtured and grows as is
[1:24] needed by all indigenous and non indigenous folk in this
[1:27] area. The two nations themselves. Have grown and demanded different
[1:34] things from us over the years, as they will continue
[1:36] to do as we do with them. And so we
[1:38] look forward to that ongoing conversation, the recommitments. And relationship
[1:42] building that is necessary. And in doing that, we offer
[1:46] in their language of thanks to say hi Chicasim Hychikasim
[1:49] Naquilia, to say thank you and to. Anticipate the need
[1:52] for more thanks and to acknowledge their leadership, our leadership,
[1:56] the leadership of all of the individual. Individuals, organizations, families
[2:00] and people who live in these areas to continue to
[2:03] nurture and do the best they can. Ichikasiam Nicolia. I'm
[2:07] not aware of any late items that need to be
[2:09] added to today's. Agenda, and so I would look first
[2:11] for just an approval of the agenda. So I'd like
[2:13] to move that. Thanks, Councilor Kim. Seconded by Councilor Dell.
[2:15] Any discussion of the agenda, seeing none. All those in
[2:19] favor? Anyone opposed? That is unanimous. That does take us
[2:23] to our one item today, and that is our one
[2:25] item of new. Business, and this is with regard to
[2:28] the 2026 2030 draft financial plan. And if anyone is
[2:34] like me. And they saw 2030 on that page, and
[2:36] they got a little bit of a chill. You're not
[2:37] alone. What is going to happen this afternoon and I'll.
[2:41] Briefly outline where we hope we will go today and
[2:43] in the future, as we do have subsequent meetings already
[2:45] scheduled later in November and. Will likely move into December
[2:49] as well. First of all, we're going to hear from
[2:52] our three senior staff who are seated there, and they
[2:54] will introduce themselves momentarily to provide an overview of the
[2:58] entire budget. The entire draft 2026 2030 budget, the financial
[3:02] plan. Rather. And once we hear those presentations, we will
[3:05] canvass council to see if there are any general questions,
[3:09] but I will urge council to consider in a moment
[3:12] how we're going to parse out the different pieces of
[3:14] this. So if there are any global questions based upon
[3:17] the presentation itself. We'll take a moment for that. However,
[3:21] if we start to vary too closely. Into very specific
[3:24] questions. We'll pause because we are going to have an
[3:26] opportunity, ample opportunities. To go deeply into all of these
[3:30] financial issues as we move forward to this process. Once
[3:33] we get to that point, you will see that there
[3:35] are a number of appendices. And they are blocked out
[3:38] in sort of four sections. The first one, appendix a,
[3:42] is one which identifies all of the things that council
[3:46] previously directed. Council or committees. Good Lord. I want you
[3:49] to do everything. Previously council directed for. Staff to remove
[3:54] from the financial plan for the future of this year.
[3:57] We will look at those and we will see whether
[3:59] or not council has any interest in adding any of
[4:01] them back in. So that's step one. After that, there's
[4:04] a subsequent appendix, and we'll go through all of this
[4:05] in more detail a little bit later. That actually speaks
[4:08] to the proposed reductions for 2026 and will canvass all.
[4:14] Of those and determine whether we're comfortable with them or
[4:15] not, whether we want to adjust. Them or amend them
[4:17] or remove them. All those different things that's likely going
[4:20] to take some time. I will say that I do
[4:22] not expect to even get there today. I would suggest
[4:26] it's highly likely that we'll get through the presentation some
[4:28] general. Questions at maybe appendix a today. We only have
[4:31] 3 hours and then we'll move on. But whenever we
[4:33] get to that, that will be the next step. Anticipating
[4:36] that there may be some additional proposals. For items that
[4:40] are not in either of those two appendices, we'll start
[4:43] dealing. With those in the third block again. Do not
[4:46] expect to get there today, but that will be an
[4:49] opportunity for council to introduce new things. And then finally,
[4:53] of course, there is the opportunity for council to give
[4:56] direction for future years that is not necessary. Let me
[4:59] be clear about that. But certainly staff would appreciate. Any,
[5:04] even most general direction as they begin to think ahead,
[5:05] of course, preparing for years and budgets after 2026. As
[5:10] I said, we already have booked meetings on the 21
[5:13] November and on the 24 November. If we need more
[5:16] meetings after that, which we may. We'll just book those
[5:18] again after that. Period of time, we will likely not
[5:21] get to a final decision until early in the new
[5:23] year. And I'm sure that our staff will be reminding
[5:26] us of the actual dates of the various deadlines as
[5:28] they go through their presentation. And after we do the
[5:31] presentation, I'm going to speak a little bit about timing,
[5:34] but. I'll leave that for that time. Perhaps I'll stop
[5:37] talking now and turn it. Over to our able staff
[5:39] to begin. This wonderful journey over to you, and please
[5:45] introduce yourselves as you need. Thank you, mayor. Good afternoon,
[5:49] mayor and council. My name is Jocelyn Jenkins. I'm the
[5:52] city manager. We are here today to present on the
[5:57] city's 2026 draft financial plan. Before we get into the
[6:03] details of the presentation, I'd like to offer some opening
[6:06] comments. With the release of the provincial budget in March
[6:11] and the federal budget earlier this year. It's clear that
[6:15] current economic conditions nationally and provincially continue to be very
[6:20] challenging. Both a federal and provincial government are running deficits
[6:26] for the foreseeable future to be able to respond to
[6:29] the pressures of ongoing service delivery and investment. While the
[6:35] city operates within the same economic conditions as other levels
[6:39] of government. Municipalities cannot run a deficit and rely heavily
[6:44] on a single stream of property taxes. The city delivers
[6:49] approximately 200 programs and services outlined in the draft financial
[6:53] plan. These services and programs span a variety of areas,
[6:59] from parks and recreation to waste collection. Building inspections, roads,
[7:05] stormwater, cycling infrastructure. Fire response bylaw and community safety, arts
[7:11] and culture, and much more. As most of these programs
[7:16] and services are delivered by people, cost drivers related to
[7:19] these services include employee compensation, as well as market cost
[7:25] pressures related to the costs of materials, equipment, insurance, and
[7:30] supplies. From a capital budget perspective, aging infrastructure is a
[7:37] growing concern, with many assets exceeding their expected usual life
[7:43] and requiring replacement. Older pipes, roads, water mains and bridges.
[7:50] Are deteriorating faster without additional investment, while growth and climate
[7:56] change pressures are outpacing current renewal. Funding, widening the infrastructure
[8:02] gap and increasing the renewal backlog. In addition to funding,
[8:07] planning, and managing our own city programs and services, the
[8:11] province is added to the city's capital program burden by
[8:14] mandating the rapid deployment of housing in Victoria. Related to
[8:19] the building of housing, the demand for strong physical infrastructure
[8:24] like roads, utilities and transportation, which are essential for building
[8:29] sustainable, affordable, and livable communities. Continue to increase. Given these
[8:35] pressures and the desire to hold the line on property
[8:38] taxes for both residents and the business community. The city
[8:42] is facing some very challenging budget decisions for 2026. So
[8:48] even though council's deliberations on the 2026 budget begin in
[8:52] earnest today, staff were provided with tax increased targets for
[8:57] 2026 starting last year. As part of the 2025 budget
[9:05] process. Council directed staff to identify reduction options to achieve
[9:11] a 4% tax increase for 2025 and 2026. And over
[9:17] 14 million in reductions were brought forward as outlined in
[9:21] appendix D. Council approved all reductions for 2025 and 26.
[9:29] And for 2026, council directed staff to incorporate the 4%
[9:34] option into the 2026 budget. As a starting point. Identify
[9:39] reduction options to offset the upcoming debt servicing for the
[9:43] crystal pool and to identify additional reduction options of a
[9:47] million dollars for council to be able to add back
[9:51] some of the reductions incorporated. In the 2026 draft budget.
[10:01] so over the last six months staff have worked hard
[10:05] to identify significant levers for cost containment while minimizing impacts
[10:11] on services and taking into account the city's obligations and
[10:16] service dependencies At this point, I would really like to
[10:16] thank my senior leadership team for months of very thoughtful
[10:20] work that they have put into these various budget reduction
[10:23] scenarios for council's consideration to get the city's portion of
[10:28] the tax increase to 4%. The succinct report before you
[10:34] is the culmination of countless hours of reviewing project plans
[10:39] and related funding strategies. Scrutinizing program service levels, identifying cost
[10:46] avoidance by deferring or canceling projects. And looking at potential
[10:50] revenue generating opportunities. In examining the budget and the required
[10:56] reductions, staff took the approach that everything was on the
[11:00] table. Despite. Counsel prior approvals. Reduction options are comprehensive and
[11:08] include a variety of considerations. These include areas where there
[11:13] may be duplication of services with other organizations. Options to
[11:18] defer or cancel debt funded projects to reduce debt payments.
[11:24] Implementing service and program adjustments, and that would be inclusive
[11:28] of community grant programs. And increasing and developing new revenue
[11:34] streams. So, in closing, staff recognize that trade offs are
[11:40] required, and this report provides a range of options. Both
[11:44] immediate and for the future. For council's consideration. With that,
[11:49] I will hand it over. To my able colleague, director
[11:52] Thompson. Good afternoon, Mary. Council. My name is Susan Thompson.
[11:57] I'm deputy city manager and chief financial. Officer. So, as
[12:04] the city manager noted, we're pleased to be here this
[12:07] afternoon to introduce the draft financial plan to council to
[12:12] start off the deliberations for the 2026 to 2030. Budgets.
[12:17] So today we'll walk you through our budget framework. An
[12:21] overview of our many services, our asset management work, and
[12:26] the infrastructure funding strategy. A summary of the 2026 to
[12:30] 2030 financial plan. Ways of balancing the budget, as identified
[12:35] through our recent public engagement. Options for reducing tax increases
[12:41] and the estimated timeline. So, as council is aware, the
[12:45] financial plan is the very end of a much larger
[12:48] planning process. All the city's strategies, frameworks, plans and condition
[12:55] assessments. Inform the numerous programs, services, and projects that are
[13:00] included in the financial plan. And our financial policies provide
[13:04] the overarching guidance for budget development. So the 2026 draft
[13:10] operating budget is $389,000,000 and the 2026 draft capital budget
[13:16] is 98.8 million. But before we get to the details
[13:22] behind those numbers, we have a few slides to remind
[13:26] everyone. Of the many services the city provides that our
[13:29] community relies on. Also, please note that the financial plan
[13:33] document provides summaries of all the core services that each
[13:37] department provides. So from waterfront walkways to busking and entertainment
[13:44] to our park spaces, And roads, skating and swimming. Accessibility
[13:52] improvements. And places to play. Multimodal infrastructure and underground pipes.
[14:02] Spaces to park and outdoor recreation activities. Distribution of seedlings
[14:09] and more road work. And opportunities to learn to bike,
[14:15] enjoy the water waste, and provide input into planning processes.
[14:20] Solid waste collection to support a clean city. Fire response
[14:26] hanging baskets, residential garbage and greenburn pickup and the vehicle
[14:31] fleet that support our many services. More roadwork, Nev. Charging
[14:38] places. Supporting inquiries and accepting payments at the public service
[14:44] counter at City hall, taking part in swimming lessons. And
[14:48] providing input into the official community plan. Information technology supports
[14:54] fire, rescue and misting stations to keep us cool. So
[15:00] this is by no means all of the services, but
[15:04] it provides a snapshot of the great work that happens
[15:07] in our community every day. So critical to the service
[15:11] delivery is the infrastructure. That supports it, and well managed
[15:15] infrastructure is linked to the well being of a community.
[15:19] So with that in mind, I will now turn it
[15:21] over to Director Doyle to provide an update. On our
[15:25] asset management journey. Thank you, director Thompson. My name is
[15:29] William Doyle. I'm the director of engineering and public. Works.
[15:35] The objective of our asset management work is to ensure
[15:38] lasting infrastructure value through strategic oversight. Please recall this image
[15:44] from the last two years of budgeting discussions and consider
[15:47] the decades of policies and investments that have yielded the
[15:50] strong asset management foundation on which the city stands. In
[15:55] the next few minutes, we will briefly explain how continued
[15:58] strategic investments will help drive the city towards sustainable service
[16:02] delivery and prioritize and fund critical asset needs. We'll highlight
[16:07] where we stand, what we've learned from other cities, and
[16:10] how we're preparing Victoria's infrastructure for the next generation. To
[16:15] put this into context, we would like to highlight the
[16:18] scale and significance of the city's. $4.9 billion asset portfolio,
[16:22] which includes roads, utilities, parks, facilities and fleet. The
[16:31] city's asset management practices are founded on different elements of
[16:35] the city's financial sustainability policy. Namely debt management principles, dedicated
[16:41] reserves and surplus allocation, and the lifecycle funding approach. This
[16:46] total asset value underscores the role of asset management in
[16:49] delivering reliable services, ensuring public safety and building community resilience.
[16:55] Well managed assets directly impact quality of life. This is
[16:59] why ongoing investment is essential to maintain service. Levels and
[17:02] adapt to emerging challenges. Here's a snapshot of the current
[17:07] condition of the city's assets. The chart highlights that approximately
[17:11] $800 million in asset replacement costs are in poor or
[17:15] very poor condition, representing 16% of assets. That's roughly one
[17:23] in six of the systems that keep our city running
[17:25] every day. We underline the importance of accurate condition assessments
[17:30] for informed decision making. While progress has been made, significant
[17:34] data gaps remain, particularly in condition based risk assessments. This
[17:39] slide. Then the next outlines some of the key challenges
[17:42] facing the city's asset management efforts. These include aging infrastructure,
[17:46] rising costs due to inflation and supply chain issues, climate
[17:50] change impacts, and persistent data gaps. These pressures are accelerating
[17:58] asset deterioration and increasing financial pressures. We emphasize the need
[18:07] for proactive planning and investment to mitigate these risks and
[18:10] ensure sustainable service delivery. Let's take a look at some
[18:15] of what we're learning from other cities. Proactive asset management
[18:22] is the backbone of reliable public service. Pictured here as
[18:26] a feeder. Main failure in Calgary in January 2004. This
[18:30] is an installation of. A prestressed concrete cylinder pipe PCCP,
[18:36] a once popular design that has proven difficult to monitor
[18:39] for deterioration and tends to fail spectacularly. Nearly 200. Calgary's
[18:45] 5000 kilometer to water main infrastructure is of this type.
[18:50] Calgary's feeder main condition assessment and maintenance program, launched after
[18:53] the McKnight failure, was built on the knowledge that regular
[18:56] inspections, leak detection, and risk analysis can prevent costly disruptions.
[19:02] When maintenance is deferred or documentation is incomplete, the consequences
[19:06] can be severe over 20 years. Later in June 2024,
[19:10] the failure of Calgary's bears, plus south Peter Main, also
[19:14] a PCCP installation led to citywide water restrictions, emergency repairs,
[19:18] and millions in unplanned. Costs. This event highlights the risks
[19:25] of aging infrastructure and the importance of knowing our system's
[19:28] single points of failure. It's a powerful reminder that asset
[19:32] management gaps can quickly escalate into communitywide crises, underscoring the
[19:37] need for robust planning and continuous improvement. Despite the challenges,
[19:42] Calgary's response to the feeder main crisis showcased remarkable team
[19:45] resilience. And innovation staff collaborated across departments, adopted repair methods,
[19:51] and leveraged new technologies like acoustic fiber optic monitoring. The
[19:58] result was not just a restored pipeline, but a stronger,
[20:00] more connected team. Calgary's experience illustrates how investing in people,
[20:05] fostering collaboration and embracing innovation can turn adversity into opportunity,
[20:11] building a culture of resilience that benefits the entire community.
[20:15] Turning over to our local progress. Over the past year,
[20:22] we finalized and piloted all of our major asset management
[20:25] frameworks. These frameworks standardize how we assess asset condition, risk,
[20:30] and service levels across departments, enabling more consistent and data
[20:34] driven decision making. We launched a new asset management web
[20:38] resource on the city's internal hub. Making information more accessible
[20:42] to staff. This resource supports transparency and helps asset stewards
[20:48] track progress and priorities. Significant progress was made on the
[20:52] city's operation management system cardigraphs. The implementation schedule has improved,
[20:58] and more teams are now using this system for real
[21:01] time asset tracking. And reporting. The city secured over $4
[21:05] million in external grants for EV, charging cycling infrastructure and
[21:09] other capital projects. Federal and provincial partnerships have been critical
[21:14] in advancing many initiatives. Several major infrastructure repairs and upgrades
[21:20] were completed or advanced. Governments treat watermelon upgrade, Chatham Lift
[21:25] station commissioning Superior pump station replacement awarded and scheduled for
[21:29] completion in 2026. Multiple corridors on the cycling network complete.
[21:36] Air underway with external grant funding secured for Blanchard north
[21:40] and Cook Street north. And lastly, the moss street storm
[21:44] drain repair, profiled in these pictures here from this initial
[21:47] picture, a sinkhole that appeared in May 2024 and not
[21:52] too sure upon initial. Assessment what the cause was. through
[22:01] to further exposing the sinkhole finding it was vague and
[22:06] then about a year later further into the repair About
[22:07] twelve meter deep. Repair. Excavator down in the Hola complex,
[22:10] kind of confined space entry. And then that's the pipe
[22:15] that was collapsed. That was the deep underway of Brickstore.
[22:18] Arch. Storm. Sewer. And then reconstruction of the main inside.
[22:26] Later, cleaning out the debris. You can see farther behind
[22:28] there. And then ultimately, site restoration. Just in the past
[22:33] couple of months, so just keep in mind this was
[22:35] a multimillion dollar repair for a few meters of storm
[22:38] drain. With the city having thousands of meters of underground
[22:41] mains in its networks. Let's take a look at how
[22:45] we optimize asset decisions with risk analysis. The city moves
[22:54] from condition only assessments to prioritizing assets based on risk
[22:57] factors. This improves decision accuracy. Over half of asset value
[23:03] remains unassessed for condition risk, but ongoing efforts aimed to
[23:06] complete evaluations. Condition based risk assessments, enable better investment decisions
[23:12] and align with asset management best practices. Completing commission based
[23:17] risks assessments, guides funding and renewal priorities to protect high
[23:20] risk assets effectively. Now looking ahead to our priorities and
[23:24] next steps. We plan to continue to adopt and improve
[23:31] asset management practices for future needs and challenges. With fresh
[23:36] data in the next year, we will undertake renewals. Of
[23:40] our watermaster plan, sanitary master plan, and road and sewer
[23:44] condition based risk assessment together, making about 40% of our
[23:47] asset value. We will prioritize the renewal of essential assets
[23:52] to help ensure long term service reliability and safety. We
[23:57] will continue to strengthen the resilience of city assets to
[24:00] withstand environmental and operational risks. Lastly. We encourage a continuation
[24:07] of council engagement, funding and support. Together, we're ensuring Victoria's
[24:11] infrastructure continues to serve residents, businesses, and visitors safely and
[24:15] sustainably for generations. Thank you. Back over to you, Director
[24:19] Thompson. So building on that. As council
[24:28] knows, we have proposed a $5 million annual tax increase
[24:32] each year until 2030. And this really supports that capital
[24:36] renewal and sustainable asset management that director Doyle was talking
[24:40] about. The strategy reduces the dependence on reserves and moves
[24:45] us towards. Long term financial stability when it comes to
[24:48] our infrastructure. It's important to note that the increase in
[24:52] property tax funding will not result in increased capital budgets,
[24:56] as you see on the screen. The capital budgets going
[24:58] forward remain essentially the same in that $80 million range.
[25:03] And this simply replaces the insufficient reserve funding that the
[25:06] council is aware of. In other words, this will not
[25:09] increase reserves, but it will provide. The funding for the
[25:14] annual ongoing lifecycle renewal programs that we have in place.
[25:18] So if some or all of the $5 million in
[25:21] funding is not approved. Reductions to our ongoing lifecycle renewal
[25:25] programs that are already included in the 2026 and future
[25:29] years will have to be reduced. And this would increase.
[25:35] Maintenance. Very likely. So the programs that I'm referring to
[25:39] that would receive this funding includes major and local road
[25:43] paving, playground renewals. Crosswalk renewals, facilities infrastructure renewals, including our
[25:50] community centers, retaining wall rehabilitation. Traffic signal renewals and park
[25:56] infrastructure renewals. So as we look to the future, the
[26:01] main cost drivers that the city is facing. Our employee
[26:08] compensation budgets that represent 54% of the total budget in
[26:12] 2026. Planned debt and associated repayments for projects like crystal
[26:17] pool, government street refresh, multimold corridors and Centennial square revitalization.
[26:25] Ongoing infrastructure asset renewal costs to support road paving, facility
[26:29] maintenance, underground infrastructure, and park and playground infrastructure renewal programs.
[26:35] Investments to support the implementation of the community safety and
[26:38] well being plan. And this plan, as council knows, has
[26:43] 50 recommendations for the city to consider. 35 of those
[26:47] can be implemented within existing resources. For 2026. The continuation
[26:54] of the eleven priority actions requires funding of $4.2 million
[26:59] plus 1.8 million for the policing side. The funding levels
[27:05] will be reevaluated. As part of the 2028 financial planning
[27:09] process. So the numbers we're talking about here. Rel. Related
[27:12] 2026 and 2027. And at that time in 2028, is
[27:16] where we will reassess opportunities for reallocating the funding to.
[27:22] The other. 15 plan actions. Or. To generally serve community
[27:27] well being and safety goals, so other initiatives appendix e
[27:32] provides more information on this budget. So last year. Last
[27:37] year's processes, council knows, resulted in options of $14 million
[27:41] in reductions over two years. So that was for 2025
[27:44] and 2026. The 2026 reductions totaled 5.4 million, and they
[27:50] have been removed from the draft financial plan as directed
[27:53] by council, and they can be found in appendix A.
[27:57] So collectively, these cost drivers along with inflationary increases and
[28:01] the reductions that I just mentioned, result in total budget
[28:06] increases ranging. From 15.5 million to 17.6 million in each
[28:11] of the next five years. In addition, Wikipedia increases are
[28:16] significant for 2026. Their request includes base budget increase with
[28:21] four additional traffic officers and four additional patrol officers. The
[28:26] nine officers requested by the city for the Community Safety
[28:29] and well being plan Priority Act. Actions, a crime reduction
[28:35] unit, which they are recommending that the city request and
[28:39] fund as an optional service. As per section five of
[28:43] the framework agreement, And the province has rendered their decision
[28:48] on the section 27 appeal related to the late night
[28:52] program. And they have ordered that it be added to
[28:55] the police budget as a cost shared service. So important
[28:59] to note is that not included in the budget is
[29:02] a further section 27 appeal that is still pending, and
[29:06] if approved, that would add $925,000 to the overall police
[29:10] budget. The city's share of that would be $800,000 if
[29:14] approved in full. Of course. Also important to note is
[29:18] that. Their future year increases are likely to change. As
[29:22] the new police chief assesses. The department's needs. So translating
[29:28] this into tax increases, the city's portion for 2026 is
[29:33] 8.29%. 2027 8.39% with the three future years around 7%
[29:43] on its own, the police request for 2026 is 9.8
[29:47] million, which equates to a 5.2% tax increase in 2026.
[29:53] Combining the two, the total draft tax increase. For 2026
[29:57] is 13.31%. And this would be followed by ten point
[30:02] 61%. To 8.96, 8.79 and 8.59 increases in the subsequent
[30:10] years. Again, the reminder that the police numbers for those
[30:13] future years are very likely to change. So the Ipso
[30:17] survey results, which were presented to council on Monday, included
[30:20] a few questions about balancing the budget. While the results
[30:26] to the questions were slightly different, There was consistency regarding
[30:30] reducing service levels, which was preferred compared to completely eliminating
[30:35] services. And introducing new or increasing existing fees ranked high.
[30:42] However, property tax increases were in the middle of the
[30:45] preferred question, but was the least preferred option in the
[30:48] second question. So in 2025, council provided direction to reduce
[30:54] ongoing tax increases without shifting the burden to future years.
[31:01] So council said a tax increased goal of a maximum
[31:03] 4% for the city portion and give direction to incorporate
[31:07] the 4% option from last year's financial prowling process into
[31:12] the 2026 draft budget as a starting point. We were
[31:17] also asked to identify reduction options to offset the upcoming
[31:19] debt servicing for crystal pool and to identify additional reduction
[31:24] options of $1 million so that council may add back
[31:29] some of the reductions that we incorporated into the draft
[31:33] budget. So to guide the work staff, use the following
[31:37] principles which were approved by council. We were to focus
[31:42] on ongoing property tax funded programs and services. Avoid adding
[31:46] new or expanding services programs and assets, avoid negatively impacting
[31:51] existing assets, and increase deferred maintenance. Pause actioning new or
[31:57] expanded initiatives to reduce or avoid additional tax increases, even
[32:01] if previously approved. By council. ESTaf used a methodology that
[32:06] examined services and programs across the organization. Phased reductions based
[32:11] on the estimated time it would take to implement them
[32:14] and limited the impact on services as best we could.
[32:18] The options. Identified also reflect the feedback on ways to
[32:21] balance the budget that was received through the statistically valid
[32:25] public consultation survey. So to avoid repeating the process of
[32:30] identifying reduction options each year, staff took a long term
[32:34] view of opportunities. So in order to achieve the maximum
[32:38] 4% tax increase in 2026, reductions of $8.3 million is
[32:43] required, and this would be followed by equally AMb. Ambitious
[32:48] reduction targets or reductions across the next four years, for
[32:52] a total of 38.5 million. The main contributors to budget
[32:57] increases. The employee compensation, debt repayments, and infrastructure funding are
[33:02] also significant levers for cost containment. These, in addition to
[33:06] the public input, informed the development of the options for
[33:09] council's consideration. They include streamlining our operations and adjusting services
[33:15] and looking at where there's duplication. Of service. With other
[33:19] organization, including the CRD. So two services of the bike
[33:23] valet and the youth bus. Pass program. Our ideal candidates
[33:28] to receive funding from the CRD's new transportation service through
[33:31] their grand stream. To be clear, it is not suggested
[33:35] that these programs be canceled, but instead that crd. Funding
[33:39] is more appropriate. Another option is deferring or counseling some
[33:45] debt funded projects because the plan borrowing will result in
[33:48] significant principal and interest repayments. So while the debt repayments
[33:53] start in the year following the construction, because we borrow
[33:56] as late as we can. Four projects are scheduled to
[34:00] be built or started in 2026, and therefore, a decision
[34:04] on those on the capital decision now is relevant to
[34:08] the 2026 budget. Staff also identified opportunities for new or
[34:13] increased revenues, and again, in developing the options, the focus
[34:17] was on budget containment while limiting the impact on services.
[34:23] So the tentative timelines are shown on the screen before
[34:26] you. And this will take us to. April of next
[34:29] year. We have to have a whole set of bylaws
[34:35] adopted before May 15 of next year. But we don't
[34:39] get all of the final information from BC assessment until
[34:42] the end of March, so it is a rather lengthy
[34:44] process. But we are aiming to have adoption of the
[34:49] financial plan by law in April so that we can
[34:52] then turn our minds to the tax rate setting, which
[34:55] comes after the financial plan has been completed. So we
[35:00] recognize the council is facing some challenging decision ahead and
[35:05] staff are here to support the process and answer any
[35:09] questions you may have. And with that, I'll turn it
[35:12] back to the mayor. Well, that's a sobering presentation. Thank
[35:16] you. Just one general question. In your last comment, you
[35:22] said you were aiming to have this wrapped up. In
[35:23] April. I believe we're required. Is that not correct? Through
[35:30] your marriage? Yes. We are required to have. It completed,
[35:34] as in bylaw adoptions before May 15. But because there's
[35:39] a whole secondary process around tax rate setting. That comes
[35:43] after the financial plan is finalized. We hope to have
[35:49] it actually. The financial plan site done no later than
[35:52] April. Just wanted to clarify that. Sounded like there was
[35:56] some wiggle room. I don't think. There is. Okay, so
[35:59] just based on that presentation, are there any general questions
[36:02] anyone wishes to ask? If not, we're going to move
[36:05] right into deliberation. Go ahead, Councilor Dell. Do you have
[36:08] a timeline for the police budget discussions and when those
[36:12] will be in this timeline? Right here. Go ahead. Sir?
[36:18] The mayor. So they are scheduled to come to council
[36:20] on November 20. Committee of the board will be here
[36:25] with the police chief and I suspect probably some staff
[36:28] to make their presentation and allow us to ask questions,
[36:31] et cetera. And as a result of that, that will
[36:34] become part of our discussions. Councilor gardner. Can you go
[36:43] back to slide 30, please? I'm just going to read
[36:47] something from last year's message from the mayor. To every
[36:52] taxpayer in the city. And it was. Council staff have
[36:57] worked hard to keep the tax increase at 6.99%. 8.18%
[37:02] for residents and 5.6% for businesses. So when we talk
[37:07] to 13.31%. What would. That would be for residential complexes,
[37:13] which I understand is rental, plus, of course, ownership and.
[37:18] What would be the percentage increase? For businesses and commercial,
[37:23] et cetera. Through the mayor. Two variables there. One. The
[37:31] first one is council's decision around rate setting. So we
[37:36] do have a policy direction to reduce the multiple so
[37:41] the ratio between the business and residential. Tax rates by
[37:46] bringing it down from the current 3.5 down to 3.4.
[37:51] For 2026. Again, that is a council decision, whether you
[37:54] want to do that or not. And then the second
[37:59] piece is depending on the assessed value changes from BC
[38:03] assessments, so I can't answer. The exact question until we
[38:08] have those pieces. However, if I take the historical information
[38:13] that we have, what has happened over the past. And
[38:16] looking to last year's, which were the rates that you
[38:18] were quoting. Usually, or there has been, historically, a shift
[38:23] of about 1%. So where we said last year, was
[38:26] 6.99 overall and. The residential ended up at 8.18, but
[38:32] I can't tell you for sure if that's going to
[38:35] continue because it really depends on assessed value changes. Yeah,
[38:39] no, I understand. The assessed value. But last year, the
[38:41] spread then was. Not with the significant change, but by
[38:46] the policy that was adopted last year. That the rate
[38:50] differential that you mentioned. Is going to change again further
[38:54] by that policy. So we'll be looking at instead of
[38:59] 6.99, gave you 8.15. So if we are 13.31, we'd
[39:07] probably. Be over 15% for residential somewhere in ballpark or
[39:13] range. Through the mayor. It's really not possible to say
[39:18] because I do not have the BC assessment data, so.
[39:21] If, for example, assessed values changed very differently between the
[39:25] two classes. So residential and business. Now that will impact
[39:29] that shift. Yes, thank you. I think, Mayor, you had
[39:34] mentioned in your introduction, Because as I reviewed the packages,
[39:40] And a lot that was taken into the budget for
[39:42] 2026 was, of course, Direction from council majority of council
[39:48] in December of 2024, but I think it would be
[39:51] worthwhile to be able to review some of those because.
[39:55] Some of them. Well, I might object to, but there's
[39:56] some others I think that we. Could actually cut more
[39:59] in a couple of places where. We might significantly change
[40:02] some items. So was that in what you could call
[40:05] the third block or. Will there be an opportunity for
[40:07] that? Yes. This is, I believe, what you're referring to.
[40:12] Is the information, appendix D. And so, yes, we'll have
[40:15] an opportunity to look at that. After we look at
[40:17] A and B. Okay. Yes. Because that's mostly, I think,
[40:20] schedule D. Yes. Okay. Thank you. The survey. It's not
[40:25] quite. Perhaps for today, but perhaps we can have an
[40:29] update on what is going to be expected from the
[40:32] general public. Now that they have seen this, what opportunity
[40:35] they will have to speak to us. Via. Mr. Johnson?
[40:41] Yes. Mr. Johnson anticipated next steps for engagement after this
[40:46] material has become public. Thanks very much. And through the
[40:50] mayor, once the initial conversations and deliberations have been had.
[40:53] By council once we're ready to actually publish a draft
[40:57] for the public to respond to. We would open it
[40:59] up again like we did in previous years. For approximately
[41:04] four weeks time and compile all of the responses that
[41:07] we did through written and video submissions. Tabulate that. Put
[41:11] it into some analysis and report back to council, and
[41:14] I'll see. That. Okay, so that would be probably before
[41:17] Christmas, but then the results after Christmas could be that'll.
[41:20] Depend on us. Pardon? That will depend on us. Yes.
[41:25] Okay, got it. The vic PD appeal, which was, I
[41:29] understand. Partially because of the esquamult objection to some values
[41:34] in a previous year. The city expected. A decision at
[41:41] particular time and actually set aside some funding. So we
[41:44] haven't adapted to that this time. Is there something within
[41:48] the budget that kind of anticipates. That the appeal may
[41:53] be successful. Something. Through the mayor. I know what you're
[41:58] referring to, and that was a previous appeal, so. No,
[42:01] nothing has been set aside for this one. Okay. Thank
[42:03] you. That's my general question. Very good, Councilor Loton. Thanks,
[42:09] censor you. Mayor, I just want to clarify. On the
[42:16] 2027 capital projects that need a decision in 2026, even
[42:20] though we don't. Start paying the debt until 2027. This
[42:25] doesn't lower the 2026 tax increase in any way, Ms.
[42:29] Thompson. If you're referring to the capital projects that are
[42:34] debt funded, so it depends on which one you're talking
[42:37] about. So three of them. Would their debt repayment would
[42:42] come in in 2027, but the capital budget is identified
[42:46] for 2026. So that is where we would need council's
[42:49] direction. To not implement them in 2026. If that's what
[42:54] council wishes to do, they're. One project that would have
[42:57] a tax increase associated with it in 2026 as the
[43:00] crystal pool replacement. Okay. And then the other three don't,
[43:04] okay? Do we know if the nine additional officers in
[43:09] the eleven point plan have been hired? I can answer
[43:13] that. But you could as well. It's my understanding that.
[43:21] The police chief has negotiated a new relationship with the
[43:25] police union to allow for those nine officers to be
[43:28] hired on a three year contract. With very robust. I
[43:34] believe they're calling. Them. Not benchmarks but restrictions on whether
[43:40] or not they have any impact in which they have
[43:42] no impact on the regular officer pool or the hierarchy
[43:46] of advancement within that pool. I believe they announced this
[43:50] new program a few weeks ago, and so they've gone
[43:52] out in a fairly aggressive hiring program. And my understanding
[43:57] is. That they're expecting to have a number of them,
[44:00] if not all of them, in place. Within a matter
[44:02] of weeks. Okay. How does that affect. So there was
[44:09] 1.35 million allocated to them in the eleven point blan,
[44:14] but then. It is also ongoing. So if they're not
[44:16] hired until the end of 2025, does that affect. The
[44:22] ongoing budget or the budget that was allocated for them
[44:25] in the eleven point plan. Through the mayor. So I
[44:29] just wanted to note that the screen in front of
[44:31] you here, where we are showing the community safety and
[44:34] well being. Portion identified over two years. Because we will
[44:42] not be spending the full amount that council allocated in
[44:46] 2025. We're able to phase in the increases over 2026
[44:51] and 2027. So the police have not we have not
[44:55] allocated any funding to the police. We will do so
[44:57] as they have hired. The staff that we were paying
[45:02] for, and so that will stay with the city until
[45:06] that point. Which, based on our anticipation around how much
[45:11] they're going to spend this year, We will have money
[45:14] to carry forward into 2026, which then allows us to
[45:18] spread the impact. Of the total implementation over two years.
[45:22] Here. Okay, thank you. That's it for me, mayor. Thank
[45:25] you, Councilor Thompson. General questions. Yes. Thank you, mayor. And
[45:29] through you. Thanks for all this. The. Business to residential
[45:34] ratio. Was at 3.5. It's heading to 3.0. It's at
[45:39] 3.4. For this coming year. I think I heard you
[45:42] say. Through the Mary? Yes, that is council's direction. Okay.
[45:48] And if that's the final decision. How much would that
[45:51] be in terms of dollars in reduced taxation for business?
[45:57] In the coming year. Through the mayor. Unfortunately, I don't
[46:01] have all the information to be able to answer that.
[46:03] Question because it really depends on BC assessments assess value
[46:07] changes between the two classes, so. I won't have the
[46:12] actual answer until the end of March. Would it be
[46:14] possible to. Estimate it using existing year, even though we
[46:18] know it's going to change a little bit. I mean,
[46:19] I don't think it's going to change radically. Through the
[46:23] mayor. So I do not have what they call the
[46:25] completed role yet. I don't. Get that until the end
[46:27] of December. So after that point, we might be able
[46:30] to have a general sense. So all I can tell
[46:33] you is what happened last year, which is when we
[46:36] had a 6.99 overall. And business. Reduced to 5.6. And
[46:43] the residential went up to 8.18. But I unfortunately can't
[46:48] give you a more precise answer than that. Can you
[46:51] tell us how many dollars for last year? Then how
[46:54] many dollars came from. Business versus residential. Through the mayor.
[47:02] No, I don't have that off the top of my
[47:04] head, but we can certainly look that up and calculate
[47:06] it. Okay, thanks. On slide 29, which we're on. This
[47:11] may be more of a question for the mayor. Actually.
[47:14] We have on community safety and well being. We have
[47:16] blank spots for 2028 to 2030. I assume that in
[47:20] coming years those won't be blank, and I'm just wondering.
[47:23] As somebody who's intimately familiar. If you're able to estimate
[47:26] whether it would be in the same ballpark as 20,
[47:29] 26, 27. That's a great question, and thank you. For
[47:32] pointing that. I think Ms. Thompson alluded to that. In
[47:35] her presentation. But what will happen is in 2027. The
[47:39] council of that day will assess the progress and output
[47:42] and impact of the community safety and well being plan.
[47:47] And the enacted actions within it within the two years
[47:50] 26 and 27, and when they will assess. What is
[47:55] necessary in subsequent years based upon the output of the
[47:59] actions taken in 26 and 27. I think it would
[48:02] be fair to say that, certainly. It is, the more
[48:05] than I hope. It is the presumption that as investments
[48:09] are taken, upstream in the intervention. Third of the allocations
[48:13] that the impact of those interventions. Will slow the requirement
[48:18] for a response or enforcement aspect. And so the reason
[48:23] it's not there is for sure because we don't want
[48:24] to just guess. But the other reason is that there
[48:26] is a high confidence that the output. And the result
[48:32] of the work that's being done in 26 27 will
[48:35] show such results. That it will either shift where money
[48:38] is put or it will, in fact, reduce where money
[48:40] is. Put. Upstream, generally meaning other levels of government. Partially,
[48:46] but also more specifically, as you will recall, in looking
[48:49] through the community safety wellbeing plan. More than a third
[48:53] of the recommendations speak to enhanced investment in service provision.
[48:59] In education and collaboration in support of existing services and
[49:02] enhancement of them, and another third of it is actually
[49:06] focused on destination creation and support services in collaboration with
[49:11] other orders of government to ensure that the folks who.
[49:15] Are responded to in the most urgent sense and in
[49:18] the most, I would argue, conventional sense from an enforcement
[49:21] perspective are reduced in number and reduced in acuity. Thank
[49:25] you for that. Over. To slide 32.
[49:36] So. One other. We are crystal pool on the middle
[49:42] bullet. Identify reduction options to offset upcoming debt servicing for
[49:47] crystal pool. I assume that's spending reductions. Thompson. Through the
[49:54] mayor. No, this was actually council's direction to say, we
[49:57] do not want a tax increase related to the debt
[49:59] for the pool. So this is the debt repayment, so
[50:02] not. Reducing the scope of the project. Sorry. What are
[50:06] the reduction options? What's being reduced with those? That was
[50:10] for staff to. Identify. Other things to cut, basically to
[50:16] fit the pool debt servicing in without a tax increase
[50:21] and could those be both capital and operational reductions. Yes,
[50:25] it could be, as long as they were property tax
[50:27] funded. Okay. And that was council direction. For staff to
[50:31] do that, correct? Correct. Thank you. Just to be clear,
[50:35] you're not talking about reductions to the crystal pool project?
[50:39] No. You're talking about other reductions in order to allow
[50:42] for the envelope to remain solid for the crystal pool,
[50:45] correct? Yes. Thank you. Just to clarify. Yes, thanks for
[50:48] that. Capital program reductions. Just want to ask quickly about.
[50:57] So I understand that with all the capital program reductions
[51:00] anticipated, I think appendix A. We're looking at scalebacks, not
[51:06] stopping funding. Is that correct? I see. Nodding head, okay?
[51:10] We'll be going through those line by line shortly. I
[51:13] could probably wait on some of these questions then for
[51:16] that, line by line. Okay, thanks. Any other general questions?
[51:21] Yes, Councilor Loton. Go ahead. Thanks to you, Mayor. Sorry,
[51:25] just a bit of a follow up to my question
[51:28] about. The 2026 capital projects, the three of them. Hypothetically,
[51:34] if they were deferred until 2027, is there any way
[51:39] to project how much more expensive they would become in
[51:42] 2027? Or. Is that not possible? Thompson. Through the mayor.
[51:51] It's not totally possible because. We just don't know what's
[51:55] going to happen. The latest report that we have from
[51:58] the BC construction association is that. Things were flattening out
[52:03] a bit. They see, whereas we've seen over the last
[52:07] number of years. 15% increases in construction costs again. It's
[52:15] very limited snapshot and time. Who knows if it's actually
[52:18] going to remain clear, especially now that the federal government
[52:21] announced a very ambitious infrastructure. Sort of. Stimulation, whatever stimulus
[52:29] package. So that might trigger increases again, but they were
[52:34] estimating around 4%. Is what the Visa Construction association was
[52:38] talking about, but again, it really is a crystal wall.
[52:43] When it comes to that. Okay, thanks. That's a very
[52:48] conservative estimate. Any other general comments, councilor Coleman? Just to
[52:54] follow up to that question, because as construction flattens out,
[52:58] you also have the migration either in migration route migration
[53:02] of the labor force that can actually complete that. So
[53:05] has there been any discussion. About where the flattening out
[53:09] may impact our labor capability. To actually complete some of
[53:13] those projects. Thompson has that been a consideration or discussion,
[53:17] Mr. Newman. Yes. Steve Marin. Thank you for the question.
[53:23] Our conversations with our project managers and some of the
[53:26] experts we know in the local construction industry. Is that?
[53:31] With the flattening out of the escalation costs that there
[53:34] appears to be more labor available on the market, so
[53:38] it puts us in a more competitive place when we're
[53:40] procuring large construction projects. Any other general questions? Not seeing
[53:50] any. All right. So thank you for that introduction. And
[53:53] robust one it was, indeed. Now. I'm going to ask.
[53:58] Our able staff to turn to the recommendations presented by
[54:02] our finance folk. And you will note that there are
[54:06] three. We're only going to deal with one and we're
[54:08] going to actually separate one into two parts today. The
[54:12] second and third one will follow later, and we can
[54:14] discuss that at that time. As Ms. Thompson has suggested.
[54:19] First up. I am going to move a motion, and
[54:23] that is a motion that council direct staff. To add
[54:29] back to the 2026 draft financial plan. Fund. Yes.
[54:39] You got it. There you go. And this is as
[54:42] a result of the direction in one a, so a
[54:45] little bit later, we're going to format it so that
[54:47] one a becomes the preference to this. But here's. What?
[54:49] So you can take a space below that, like a
[54:51] big space. And then big space. And then, Ms. Rotor,
[54:57] as you and I discussed earlier today, I would like
[55:00] you just, and this is not part of the motion.
[55:02] It's for the information of the public and the council.
[55:06] I'd like you to display the entire list of appendix
[55:09] a. Second. Just a second. Hang on. I'm going to
[55:14] tell you how we're going. To do. Yes, I know
[55:20] it's tough to do this a split screen, so I
[55:22] am not proposing. Just so you know, just to clarify,
[55:26] before I look for a second, I'm not proposing. All
[55:27] of those things. What I'm proposing only is the first
[55:32] line that council directs staff to add back into. The
[55:34] draft plan. And yes, I'll look for a secondary for
[55:37] that one line, but the important part is I'm going
[55:39] to then ask counsel which of items one through 18.
[55:45] They wish to add back in. Rather than putting them
[55:49] all forward and having to delete, I'm anticipating, I hope,
[55:52] that there are fewer of these to be added in
[55:55] than removed. So I actually don't even need a secondary
[55:59] at this point because. The motion isn't complete. When we
[56:04] get to the point where. Maybe there's none, but I
[56:07] presume there are a few. When we get to the
[56:09] point of being able to add whichever ones people want
[56:11] to add back in, then that will complete the motion,
[56:14] and then I will look for a secondary. I will
[56:17] also say that we will have an opportunity, because I
[56:19] do not expect this to be in any way unanimous
[56:22] that we will likely have to vote on each one
[56:25] of these individually. So. Let's start in a general conversation,
[56:29] and I will just say from a procedural perspective, yes.
[56:32] We are bound, usually by a twelve minute time limit
[56:34] for each agenda item, I will note. For you. That
[56:38] one agenda item is the 2026 2030 draft financial plan.
[56:43] It would be, in my view, as the chair, highly
[56:44] unreasonable to expect us to deal with every aspect of
[56:47] that in twelve minutes. And so, as I mentioned earlier,
[56:50] there are four blocks of considerations here. Appendix a, appendix
[56:56] b. Additional items that might arise from council and potential
[57:00] future direction. So I'm going to block each one of
[57:03] those as one part of the agenda, so that in
[57:06] each one of those, you will get twelve minutes. So
[57:09] that means you have four times the regular length of
[57:11] time to deal. With this item. I think that's reasonable.
[57:15] So before I look for a secondary of what will
[57:16] ultimately become mot. Motion to add something back in. I'm
[57:20] going to run the table and just ask the question.
[57:24] So we're building the motion together. I'm going to ask
[57:26] the question, is there anything on this list. Which you
[57:30] will be reminded, as Ms. Thompson said, has already been
[57:33] removed from the 2026 financial plan. Is there anything on
[57:38] this list you want to put back in? Start over
[57:41] here. Hammond. No. Okay. Councilor lowton. Yes.
[57:51] The number four, the growing in the city grants. Okay,
[57:55] so that's a great example. So. Ms. Rotor. If you
[57:57] can clip that and move it back to the left
[57:59] side of the page. Once we get the list, then
[58:02] we'll go through each one of them and provide an
[58:04] opportunity for questions to staff about what they are, in
[58:07] which case you may wish to remove them. If your
[58:09] answers are sufficiently. Influential. Or to amend it if you
[58:14] want to put in a different number. So, Councilor Lowton.
[58:17] Anything else? Is it just that one? Just that one.
[58:21] Councilor Thompson. How about you? Yes. Number six, pro Arts
[58:25] alliance. Okay. And what number is it? 14. The youth
[58:31] bus program. And depending on what my other colleagues mentioned,
[58:35] I may have some more to add. Sure. We'll do
[58:37] it twice just to make sure. Everyone gets a chance.
[58:40] Thanks. So that's it? Councilor Kim. Sorry. Am I
[58:49] limited to. No. Okay. No. You can pick them all
[58:52] if you want. Don't top me with a good time.
[58:57] You may understand now why I anticipated that we might
[58:59] not even get through this today. I'm. Aware. Yeah. Okay.
[59:04] Number eight. My great neighborhood. France. All right. Number nine
[59:09] theater scam. And while you're there, number ten, Butler Book
[59:14] prize and Children's Book prize. Number ten. Number twelve. Twelve.
[59:22] Okay? Did we do 13 yet. Poet laureate and youth
[59:28] poet laureate 13. And 1818 Crossfox. Thanks.
[59:41] Council cardano. Thanks, mayor. There was two, but one was
[59:46] sort of already mentioned. But I won't come back to
[59:48] it. The first was the South Island Prosperity Partnership. Want
[59:51] to remove that? I'm not sure what to do with
[59:54] it because. I was going to amend number eight. That's
[59:59] okay. When we deal with each one, we'll have an
[1:00:01] opportunity to amend. Okay, I'll just leave that. We're just.
[1:00:03] Starting with identifying them, we're going to go through them
[1:00:06] each individually and ask questions of staff if we need
[1:00:09] to, make, comments if we need to, and amendments if
[1:00:12] we need to. Anything else? Councilor Coleman. Councilor Doe. None
[1:00:19] for me, thank you, Councilor Gardner. Thank you. Mine was
[1:00:23] sif, and that's been taken. And I didn't know if
[1:00:27] we can have a discussion. I don't know if. It
[1:00:28] was an honor. Or off. Or not. That'll be number
[1:00:30] 17. I'm not. Sure. Traffic signals? Sure, let's put them
[1:00:34] on. Because this is the opportunity to ask questions. Of
[1:00:38] each one of them. Staff. Thank you. All right. Does
[1:00:44] anyone wish to have a second chance? There are twelve
[1:00:48] of the 18 removals. Now back. Go ahead, Councilor Thompson.
[1:00:52] You know what would be useful is if it's too
[1:00:54] late. Now, but if we had a list of what's
[1:00:56] not brought over. There's only. Can you highlight the ones
[1:01:02] that were not moved so there'd only be six of
[1:01:06] them? I guess seven of them. Thank you. Five. That
[1:01:15] one is brought. Hanging baskets was not moved. EV charging
[1:01:23] stations was not moved and multimolit card is was not
[1:01:26] moved. I believe the rest were all moved. 123-4567 yes,
[1:01:30] that math works. Eleven and seven is 18. So the
[1:01:33] ones highlighted in yellow. It's great. Thank you for asking
[1:01:35] that question. We're not moved. And so those. Ones unless
[1:01:42] someone does something before we finish this. They will remain
[1:01:46] in direction staff to not put them in the 2026
[1:01:51] budget, so those remain. As removals. Correct, Ms. Thompson. Everything
[1:01:56] that's in yellow on the right hand side continues. To
[1:01:58] be removed from the 2026 budget? That's correct. Great. Okay,
[1:02:04] so now what I'm going to do. Mayor. Yes. I'd
[1:02:07] like to add one. Number eleven, because I think it's
[1:02:10] a public interest. Hanging baskets. Okay, so we'll. Take eleven
[1:02:12] and pass it over to the left. take that out
[1:02:17] of the color that's right Thanks very much. And you
[1:02:22] can take the color off that one. Great. Thanks so
[1:02:24] much. Thank you. Staff, and kudos to you for following.
[1:02:27] It's going to be like this for a long time.
[1:02:31] All right, so now we have the guts of emotion.
[1:02:35] And so what I'm going to suggest is at this
[1:02:37] point now, despite the fact that I'm fairly confident that
[1:02:40] at least some of these will change if not be
[1:02:42] removed again. I'm going to ask for a seconder for
[1:02:46] that motion so that then we can. Properly, begin to
[1:02:49] ask questions, make comments, make adjustments, move to move to
[1:02:54] remove them or whatever, and I will just make a
[1:02:56] point on that last piece. Despite the fact that under
[1:02:58] usual procedure, if I've moved item one, and you move
[1:03:02] an amendment to remove it, that would usually be. Out
[1:03:05] of order. But in this case, because of the formatting
[1:03:08] of trying to make this as simple. Possible. I'm not
[1:03:10] going to rule that out of order. This is an
[1:03:13] attempt to try and make this as conversational as possible
[1:03:15] while at least observing the baseline of the procedures. So
[1:03:19] d one. Then on the left hand side is a
[1:03:22] motion that council directs staff to add. Back to the
[1:03:25] 2026 draft financial plan or return in my head growing
[1:03:29] in the city grant 75,000 Pro art alliance 8000 Youth
[1:03:33] Bus Pass program 630 my great neighborhood grants 152 theater
[1:03:38] scam 20. The Butler Book Prize and Children's Book prize.
[1:03:41] Ten. The operational adjustment for response for vertically. Emergent services.
[1:03:45] I think that is 1.1 million. The poet and youth
[1:03:49] laureate set eight the crossword installations at 64, Sip of
[1:03:53] 242, new traffic signals at 50, and the hanging basket
[1:03:57] program at 130 with. That, then, councilor Cardano, would you
[1:04:01] still like to move that v seconder? Okay, so. Thank
[1:04:05] you, Ms. Ruder. You can take appendix from the right
[1:04:07] off the screen. Thank you for doing that. That's really
[1:04:10] helpful. And then with that motion now on the floor,
[1:04:16] I'm not going to make any comments at this point
[1:04:17] because I think right now we're going to ask questions
[1:04:20] and clarify. So I'll start just by convention with councilor.
[1:04:24] Gardona, do you have any questions for any of these
[1:04:27] one through twelve? Do you have any amendments to one
[1:04:31] through twelve? If you don't, I'm going to just start
[1:04:35] at the top and deal with them one at a
[1:04:36] time. I'm a little unclear because. I had put South
[1:04:42] island on there, right? But it's way down at number
[1:04:44] ten. These. Are not priorities. We're going to deal with
[1:04:49] each of them individually, so we're going to go. Sequentially.
[1:04:51] Yes, but. Were there any global questions would be appropriate.
[1:04:54] Or maybe I'll wait till that number, because. I have
[1:04:55] a question. Yeah. Why don't you wait till that number?
[1:04:57] Okay, so that would. Make sense. Okay, but I'm a
[1:04:59] little unclear, because if someone's supposed to be. Motivating for
[1:05:01] number one, then I'm going to ask right now. I
[1:05:04] was turning to you out of courtesy as the secondary
[1:05:06] to the whole thing. But if you don't. Want to
[1:05:08] make any comments at this point. What I'm now going
[1:05:10] to say is, does anyone wish to ask a question,
[1:05:12] make a comment or. Make an amendment to number one.
[1:05:15] Okay. Councilor Coleman. Do you have something, general? Otherwise, I'm
[1:05:20] going to start going through the list. It's a general
[1:05:22] question through you to Ms. Thompson. Yes, if I've done
[1:05:26] the quick calculation properly. What we've done is we've added
[1:05:28] 2.5 million. Back into the budget. That's a 1.4% increase
[1:05:34] over and above. Is that. Correct. And when you answer
[1:05:38] that, Ms. Thompson, you could clarify that you and I
[1:05:41] have discussed about the fact that you're brilliant math people
[1:05:44] are going to be kind of running a tab as
[1:05:46] we go through this. And after each one, before we
[1:05:49] vote on the final motion, we'll be able to get
[1:05:52] a sense from you of where that would put us.
[1:05:55] Through the mayor. Yes, absolutely. And yes, Councilor Coleman, it's
[1:05:59] 2.48. 9 million that was added back. Which would bring
[1:06:04] the 8.29 overall. Up to 9.56. Thank you. Very good
[1:06:12] question. And I think what we'll do is we'll deal
[1:06:16] just with the city portion. And we all know setting
[1:06:18] aside the police portion is another 5.2%, so we'll set
[1:06:22] that aside for the moment and just speak about the
[1:06:25] city's portion. So let's start with number one. It was
[1:06:29] proposed to have that returned, and I didn't note by
[1:06:32] whom. It's not really important at this point, but are
[1:06:35] there questions, comments or changes to the growing in the
[1:06:39] city's grant proposal to return that into the budget. Councilor
[1:06:44] Hammond? Yes. Question. Yeah, thanks. Mayor, I'm looking at the
[1:06:52] description of this. In the eight page document that we've
[1:06:57] got of all of these things. And so, just to
[1:06:59] be clear, Is this 30% meaning it leaving 70% or
[1:07:05] thereabouts of the growing in the city grant. Mr. Newman,
[1:07:10] is that your alien? Three. Mayor yes, that is correct.
[1:07:16] Okay. And therefore, these four bullet points below, again, this
[1:07:22] is on page six. It's got the community garden, startup
[1:07:25] grants growing in the city, micro grants. Getting Growing Victoria
[1:07:30] service grant and volunteer coordinator grant by 10,000 annually. So
[1:07:37] those are the things. That make up the 75,000, right?
[1:07:40] That's what's going to be removed. Dr. Newman. Through you,
[1:07:44] mayor yes, that's correct. Okay. Can I then ask what
[1:07:48] is left over? There's $140,000 left. In our voluntary coordinator
[1:07:57] grant. So this grant stream funds. Not for profit organizations
[1:08:02] who organize and operate. Our allotment gardens and community gardens
[1:08:07] across the city. And the other three grant streams that
[1:08:12] are going to be deferred if this cut is approved
[1:08:15] then. All three of those grant streams support a variety
[1:08:19] of new community garden initiatives. So. Applying council's principle. To
[1:08:28] mitigate adding new assets to the city. We saw alignment
[1:08:31] with that while keeping 140,000 in the volunteer coordinator grant
[1:08:35] stream to ensure that our existing organizations who operate those
[1:08:39] can continue to do so. And yet. The entire grant
[1:08:45] that is still all within the growing in the city.
[1:08:49] That still is maintained at how much. The. Currently, there's
[1:08:54] $150,000 per year. Sorry. Maybe I should ask for clarity.
[1:08:59] On the question. Are you asking both for? The total
[1:09:01] grant program is 250 altogether. Sorry, 225 for. The year.
[1:09:08] And then this 75k reduction would leave 140 in only
[1:09:12] the volunteer coordinator grant program. Okay? And therefore, in this
[1:09:18] particular case, the program still exists. We're just reducing it.
[1:09:22] Of the volunteer coordinator, grant Stream. Yes. We are deferring
[1:09:26] three of the other four programs. That are offering. A
[1:09:33] variety of. Other community gardening streams, which are focused on
[1:09:37] setting up new community garden amenities and educational programs in
[1:09:40] the community. Okay. And therefore. As you've described. We're not
[1:09:47] expanding it. Is that an easy way of saying that?
[1:09:52] Through your mayor, correct? Okay, thanks. All right. Any other
[1:09:57] questions on number one, Councilor Gardner? Just for clarification to
[1:10:02] the $140,000, does that mean that the coordinator. Is now
[1:10:07] do not get reduced in number or. In grant. There's
[1:10:13] a modest reduction in this annual grant stream, so. That
[1:10:19] volunteer coordinator Cranstream has currently, as an allotment of 150,000,
[1:10:24] it will be reduced by 10,000 per year, down to
[1:10:26] 140,000. But it's seen as a minor reduction in the
[1:10:31] overall grant program and isn't. Anticipated to have a significant
[1:10:34] impact on volunteer organizations that are maintained. My question really
[1:10:39] is, does that decrease what an actual coordinator will receive
[1:10:44] for her stipend as opposed to other expenses. After your
[1:10:49] merit, so. The city doesn't oversee how the grants are
[1:10:54] dispersed once they're awarded to the not for profit organizations.
[1:11:02] So. I can't specifically answer how those organizations want to
[1:11:05] disperse those funds. Number one councilor Lotton. Through you. Mayor,
[1:11:14] do you want comments about this? Sure. Should I get
[1:11:16] rational on the fly? I brought it, so I understand.
[1:11:21] We're not talking about a huge amount of money here,
[1:11:24] however. I don't think we should change any of the
[1:11:27] programming right now. And my main reason for that is
[1:11:30] because. Food costs are skyrocketing. It gives people the ability
[1:11:36] to feed themselves and their families and to feel some
[1:11:38] control. When the basics are becoming more and more expensive
[1:11:43] every day. And it's also not just about food. These
[1:11:48] gardens, they build community. They support pollinators, they cool our
[1:11:52] city, and they help us fight climate change. And again.
[1:11:58] It is just a tiny fraction of the budget that
[1:11:59] we're considering here. And that's very little, but the cost.
[1:12:07] Could change things of the way that we've built this
[1:12:09] program to create community, connection, resilience and local leadership. So
[1:12:15] that's why I brought this, because I think it's. Important
[1:12:18] that we keep investing in this program, because it's not
[1:12:22] just about gardens. It's about empowering our residents, strengthening our
[1:12:26] neighborhoods and. Making Victoria healthy or more connected. And most
[1:12:31] importantly, a more food secure city. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:12:35] Councilor Kim. Thank you. Through the chair. I'd like to
[1:12:40] share an anecdote in favor of maintaining this. Working at
[1:12:44] the Frenwood Community Center. When I did. It is a
[1:12:48] center that is a hub for distribution of seedlings and
[1:12:51] materials. And some of those seedlings that don't get distributed
[1:12:57] will actually end up in the front garden of the
[1:13:00] community center. And. When I was in the lobby one
[1:13:04] time, someone walked in off the street and said, and
[1:13:07] they were east asian like myself and said, what is
[1:13:11] this plant? I have been looking everywhere for it. This
[1:13:14] is a cultural food for me. I don't know where
[1:13:17] I can find it, and. The coordinator of the program
[1:13:21] was like, oh, yeah, no, that's sheso. And. Then this
[1:13:24] person launched into the various dishes that they make at
[1:13:26] home with it. And we would know this as perilla,
[1:13:30] or in korean gin. And so it's like those ways
[1:13:34] that we make people feel so seen in the small
[1:13:36] ways that don't get told. Isn't that worth something too?
[1:13:43] Does it. Thank you, Councilor Hammond. Of this program,
[1:13:53] and only because. I'm not as completely familiar with this
[1:13:57] one, although I've heard people talk about it. Is this
[1:14:00] where? At various times of the city or maybe one
[1:14:03] day or something. We offer seedlings to people? Rick and
[1:14:08] newman. Through you, Mayor Alto, to get growing. Victoria's service
[1:14:13] grant supports the distribution of our seedling. Program. So every
[1:14:18] year, the city propagates in the city's greenhouse is approximately
[1:14:22] 93,000 seedlings, and then multiple times per year, we make
[1:14:27] those seedlings available. To the public. And non government organizations
[1:14:34] in order to support us in the distribution of those
[1:14:37] seedlings, which has become a very popular program in the
[1:14:40] community. We allow for a program stream to support the
[1:14:45] distribution. And neighborhoods and community on how to plant and
[1:14:50] cultivate those seedlings. And is this the kind of thing
[1:14:54] where these seedlings. They run out pretty quickly. When they're
[1:15:02] available. Through you, Mary. Yes, they do. It's a very
[1:15:05] popular program. Okay. And it's not based on income. Do
[1:15:12] you, mayor? Not currently, no. Although. We do focus on
[1:15:20] providing. Opportunities. And for organizations that support marginalized communities to
[1:15:30] access those. So there really is effort put into ensuring
[1:15:33] that households that may have food security issues have access
[1:15:37] to these. And that really is a core principle of
[1:15:39] this program, and so our staff do work directly with
[1:15:44] organ. Organizations to ensure that those distribution is getting out
[1:15:47] to those households as a priority. Thanks. And mayor. That
[1:15:51] seems to me a priority for me. The difficulty is
[1:15:54] the little bit that I hear about this, because I'm
[1:15:55] not the gardener. In our family. Jack is. And he
[1:15:59] always hears about this way too late. Because they get
[1:16:03] snapped up really quickly. And as people have said, Rockland
[1:16:07] isn't this uber rich neighborhood for an awful lot. Of
[1:16:11] people because. About 70% are. These old mansions are turned
[1:16:15] into units, and so I know that there's, an awful
[1:16:18] lot of people who fall within our median or below
[1:16:21] median income, and the difficulty I have. If Jack was
[1:16:25] ever to get to these seedlings that we don't deserve.
[1:16:28] Them. My preference is. My preference is for this, and
[1:16:33] I've never had an opportunity to talk. About it before.
[1:16:37] Is. I just don't like the idea of us spending
[1:16:40] tax dollars to give it to people. Who don't need
[1:16:43] them. Whereas for food security and for example, that people
[1:16:47] are talking about I think it's really important. I think
[1:16:50] that's something that we can offer. And the fact that
[1:16:53] there are still $225,000 that's left in this. I would
[1:16:58] like to think that that could be an emphasis, could
[1:17:00] be on going to people who are in need. Dr.
[1:17:03] Newman, just before I go to Councilor Kim, I believe
[1:17:05] you clarified that the current program was 225, and that
[1:17:08] should this reduction be included, it would be less than
[1:17:10] that, correct? Do you marry? Yes, that's correct. So if
[1:17:15] I heard you correctly, if this is approved. Sorry, let's
[1:17:18] say differently. If this is not approved and therefore it
[1:17:21] is removed from the budget again. It's 150. Is that
[1:17:24] what's left for 225? Through your marriage. That's right. Very
[1:17:30] good, Councilor Kim. Yeah. Is it fair to say that
[1:17:38] income. Doesn't factor into when folks go to pick up
[1:17:42] seedlings and it's like, about the community event. From what
[1:17:47] I've seen. Community centers make kind of like a day
[1:17:52] of it. Is this still the case? Through your mayor.
[1:17:59] We have an event for pickup. We do save half
[1:18:04] of the seedlings to ensure that organizations. That are aiming
[1:18:10] to get these seedlings into the hands of individuals that
[1:18:13] are facing barriers. To accessing food and being food secure,
[1:18:18] receive those. So I hope that answers your question. It
[1:18:22] does, yeah. It's actually quite a clever, decentralized, bespoke way
[1:18:27] of doing that distribution. And equitably. My question is about
[1:18:33] the mulch. The funniest topic, the smelliest topic, the mulch.
[1:18:36] That gets distributed with the program. Is it safe to
[1:18:40] say, or fair to say that it's a part of
[1:18:42] a circular economy in Victoria in the way that it
[1:18:45] recycles. I won't reuse it. I don't know. Leaves, branches,
[1:18:51] household yard waste. Dr. Newman yes, to you, mayor. I
[1:18:56] think that is an eloquent way of how we aim.
[1:19:01] To recycle the leaves that our crews pick up every
[1:19:03] year and then redistribute. That to the community. Is there
[1:19:06] a climate impact metric? I'm not currently aware of us
[1:19:11] having completed that level of analysis on the program, okay?
[1:19:16] That's it. Thanks. Anybody else on one, Councilor Coleman. This
[1:19:23] is the trauma that we face when we go through
[1:19:25] this exercise. None of these are fun. They're all wanted.
[1:19:32] This particular program it recognized. We've just put two and
[1:19:35] a half million dollars back into the budget. So if
[1:19:38] we don't make some of the adjustments here, it's going
[1:19:41] to be really painful when we get to section B,
[1:19:43] because you're going to have to take all that money
[1:19:44] back out and more so understand that here is a
[1:19:49] program we're not killing. We're narrowing it back because everybody's
[1:19:54] having to tighten their belts. If you want. You don't
[1:19:57] want to means test this program, but you can. Adjust
[1:20:02] it so it's not open to the public more broadly,
[1:20:04] but it goes through our community gardens. And that may
[1:20:07] be a way of addressing that in a very targeted
[1:20:10] way. I don't want to make the cuts. But we're
[1:20:13] forced to make cuts, folks. This one I don't think
[1:20:16] should be. I think it should stay. In the staff
[1:20:22] have done the. First tough, difficult cuts. This was one
[1:20:24] they suggest. Could allow the program to still exist. At
[1:20:31] a narrowed capacity, so I support the staff on this
[1:20:34] one. Thank you, Councilor Gardner. The proposed cut does not
[1:20:39] affect the seedlings or the mulch program. So that's a
[1:20:43] side topic. It's not being discussed here or being uncut
[1:20:46] at all, but since it's been discussed in a way.
[1:20:50] I certainly like to hear the total cost of what
[1:20:52] it costs the city to create 93,000 seedlings. Thank you.
[1:20:55] Mr. Dimon, do you happen to know that off the
[1:20:58] top of your head. And can you confirm that the
[1:21:00] cuts that we're considering do not have an impact on
[1:21:03] the seedling program. Thanks. And through your mayor. I do
[1:21:06] not have the seedling number at my fingertips, but I
[1:21:09] can check in with my team and provide that when
[1:21:12] I do get that information. And to the second question.
[1:21:17] Councilor Gardner is correct. The proposed cuts will not have
[1:21:21] an impact to the city's propagation of those seedlings. That
[1:21:25] will still be provided, as well as the mulch that's
[1:21:28] available to the community. It's just the grant that supports
[1:21:32] the distribution and how we get. Those seedlings into the
[1:21:36] hands of. The not for profit that then work with
[1:21:40] that grap funding to distribute them to the community. If
[1:21:45] this proposed cut was to move ahead, we would rely
[1:21:49] on residents to come to our facility. To pick them
[1:21:52] up. Right. Thank you for that. Anybody else on one.
[1:21:59] So just to be clear, what we're voting on here
[1:22:01] is whether or not. To return this item to the
[1:22:06] budget or to leave it out of the budget. And
[1:22:10] so the way this is phrased is that council directs
[1:22:12] staff to essentially returned to the 2026 draft financial plan.
[1:22:17] The growing in the city grants. If you would like
[1:22:20] those grants to be returned and included in the budget,
[1:22:24] then you vote yes. If you would like staff's recommendation
[1:22:28] to remove them from the budget, then you vote no.
[1:22:32] Clear. Okay. All those in favor of returning these grants
[1:22:38] to the budget? Councilor Thompson, councilor Kim, councilor Caradona, councilor
[1:22:44] Dell, councilor. Sorry, I didn't see you there. In opposition.
[1:22:54] councilor hammond myself councilor coleman and councilor gardner so in
[1:22:58] fact that motion is approved and so number one the
[1:23:02] growing in the city grants are returned to the 2026
[1:23:06] budget All right. Yeah. Holding the math there, Ms. Thompson,
[1:23:08] because once we go through these, we'll. Probably ask you
[1:23:10] for a sort of a running update. I will point
[1:23:12] out that Dubois, not everyone. Has spoken on that item,
[1:23:16] five people did speak and in total used. Up eleven
[1:23:21] minutes. I will remind you that, generous though I am,
[1:23:26] we will cap this section at twelve minutes per. Person.
[1:23:29] So pick and choose what you'd like to comment on.
[1:23:33] So the next proposal is. With regard to the pro
[1:23:35] art alliance. And that is again, to return. And I
[1:23:38] wonder, sorry, before. I say, Ms. Roder, is there a
[1:23:41] way for you to put a check mark or something?
[1:23:43] After each one as we determine whether they're returned or
[1:23:45] not. So if it's returned. You could put a yes
[1:23:49] or something. Or a y or something like that. I
[1:23:51] suspect that. When we get if should we get to
[1:23:53] one where we're not going to return, we can just
[1:23:55] delete it. But for now, just to give us an
[1:23:57] update on where we're going. Thank you for that. So,
[1:23:59] pro Art alliance, the proposal is to return this to.
[1:24:03] The 2026 budget. And I think this was Councilor Thompson.
[1:24:05] Councilor Thompson, speak to this. Please. Thanks, mayor. Yeah. It's
[1:24:11] a great alliance that awards, provides awards that really encourage
[1:24:15] artists and organizations involved in the arts. And encourages them
[1:24:21] to stay active in the arts. It boosts the voice
[1:24:24] of artists. It's been advocating for the regionalization of art
[1:24:29] services, which we're heading towards. Over at the Crd. Thanks
[1:24:33] in part to their advocacy. It is a tiny budget.
[1:24:37] I have a question for staff and that is. Of
[1:24:41] that $8,000 proposal there. What percentage of the residential tax
[1:24:47] increase would that be like? What? I guess maybe fraction
[1:24:50] of 1%. Would it be? Ms. Thompson, could you answer
[1:24:54] that clearly for the public? And I think two questions.
[1:24:57] Is this the whole program. Is there anything left? Does
[1:25:00] this kill the program? No. Through you, mayor. Kerry Moore,
[1:25:08] director of business and community relations. The Pro Art alliance.
[1:25:12] We retained 2000 in the budget for the awards. The
[1:25:17] rest of the eight that you're looking at. Is actually
[1:25:20] administration operational fees that are provided to them. Very good.
[1:25:24] Thank you for that, clarification. So the awards remain, but
[1:25:27] everything else goes. And, Ms. Thompson, the impact of this
[1:25:30] on the budget? Your mic is not on. Yes. There
[1:25:33] you go. Through the mayor. So this is like. Thank
[1:25:40] you for that. It's very clear. Four or five zeros.
[1:25:44] Councilor caradona. Sorry. Custom. Are you done? Yeah. One more
[1:25:52] sentence. Thanks for that number. I hope I got the
[1:25:55] right number of zeros when I wrote it down. Yeah.
[1:25:58] The recommendation was that the CRD Art service be approached
[1:26:02] for support, and I think that if we do that.
[1:26:08] Maybe next year we get to reduce this. Let's see
[1:26:11] what happens over at the CRD. Yeah. I want to
[1:26:14] speak in favor of this one for a minute, because
[1:26:16] I get that this 8000 goes towards essentially operational capacity
[1:26:20] for them. But unless you were really in the weeds
[1:26:25] at the CRD on the regional performing arts facility, service
[1:26:29] that we're in the middle of. The pro Art alliance
[1:26:31] played an incredibly important role. In that advocacy. And in
[1:26:34] fact, I would say that the regionalization of performing arts
[1:26:37] facilities probably would not be going ahead if it had
[1:26:40] not been for their advocacy. This. Is the opera, the
[1:26:43] symphony, dance, Victoria. All the major performance arts groups are
[1:26:46] part of this. They lobbied really hard at the CRD
[1:26:49] to push the west shore and sandwich and others to
[1:26:51] support this. The AAP still has to pass. The bylaws
[1:26:55] have to be signed. But if that happens. We will
[1:26:58] formally transfer the Mac to the CRD, which will save
[1:27:01] us through the mayor to staff. 400 and something. Thousand
[1:27:06] dollars a year, Ms. Thompson? Through the mayor. So this
[1:27:10] is not a program that runs through the city, however.
[1:27:14] The city of Detour taxpayers pay, but through the CRD
[1:27:17] lobby. So it's actually a CRD. Allocation. But the allocation
[1:27:21] for City of Victoria residents or taxpayers, I should say,
[1:27:26] is a reduction of approximately $400,000. Thanks for that clarification.
[1:27:31] Still, I mean, huge savings to the city. So their
[1:27:34] advocacy is really effective. And given how small this is,
[1:27:36] I've had my calculator out all week in any budget
[1:27:39] scenar. Scenario I come up with trying to get us
[1:27:40] down to single digits. This 8000 doesn't. Even register. On
[1:27:45] my calculator, so I'm okay with keeping this one. Thank
[1:27:47] you. Anybody else? Sure. I'll probably just oppose cuts of
[1:27:52] $8,000 just on principal so much, but. I just want
[1:27:54] to recognize that on November 26 this year, the Pro
[1:27:57] Arts alliance is having their award ceremony at the Bauman
[1:28:00] center. I've gone to the past here. They bring out
[1:28:02] all the different arts groups. And so the funding does
[1:28:05] go to award, but it also goes to their meetings
[1:28:07] where they bring everyone together. I don't know. They might
[1:28:08] buy pizzas or. Paid to rent a room. For something,
[1:28:11] but this is the kind of stuff that won't make
[1:28:14] any single difference in our budget, but I think really
[1:28:16] takes away from the livability of the city. Maybe it's
[1:28:18] a little bit for the arts people, but this does
[1:28:20] bring people together for community and for supporting our arts
[1:28:23] program, and that goes on to have a meaningful difference,
[1:28:25] so I'm happy. To look at areas of bigger cuts,
[1:28:27] but I think $8,000 on this one and the youth
[1:28:30] port and others are that. Small are absolutely not worth
[1:28:32] it. So this is worth keeping, and I encourage folks
[1:28:35] to come out. On Wednesday, November 22 at 06:00 for
[1:28:38] their awards. Thank you very much. Anybody else on this
[1:28:42] one? All right, so once again, if you would like
[1:28:46] to have this $8,000 returned to the budget. You will
[1:28:49] vote in favor if you would like it to be
[1:28:51] removed from the budget. You will vote in opposition. All
[1:28:54] those in favor of returning this to the budget? Council
[1:28:58] Thompson, councilor Kim, myself, councilor Gardona, councilor Coleman and councilor
[1:29:01] Dell. In opposition, Councilor Hammond and Councilor Gardner, so that
[1:29:07] one is approved. With two in opposition. Noted. And so
[1:29:11] that is also carried. Yes. Thank you so much for
[1:29:13] that. Ms. rotor. So moving on then, to the, actually,
[1:29:16] let me just take a pause. We have been sitting
[1:29:18] down for an hour and a half. It is accustomed
[1:29:21] to stand up for a few minutes. Every hour and
[1:29:23] a half or so, despite the fact that we don't
[1:29:25] have a very long afternoon. I suspect we're going to
[1:29:27] go right till 04:00 does anyone wish five. Minutes. Yes,
[1:29:31] five minutes. We will start again at 36.
[1:30:31] That being said, we have every opportunity to adjust our
[1:30:34] opinions, and so we're now up. To number three, and
[1:30:36] I believe. There are several people who indicated that they
[1:30:40] were going to propose this one, but I can't. Remember
[1:30:42] who moved it in the end. So Dave did. Dave,
[1:30:45] did you do the bus test? Yes, Councilor Thompson. Why
[1:30:48] don't. You motivate if you like or not. Thank you.
[1:30:51] Number three, the youth bus program. Thank you. I will,
[1:30:53] briefly. Mayor yeah, it's been a really successful program. It's
[1:30:56] building the next generation of transit users. My teenagers have
[1:31:00] used it for years and they're comfortable. Navigating the bus
[1:31:03] system. Also reduces transportation costs for families, especially families with
[1:31:08] more than one kid. It helps kids get to school
[1:31:12] to after school activities. to work if they're older kids
[1:31:18] Reduces car dependency. Emissions, traffic congestion. It supports our work
[1:31:27] in the OCP with our transit oriented areas. Reduces the
[1:31:33] crush of cars that takes place every day at schools
[1:31:37] in the morning and in the afternoon. And the safety
[1:31:42] problems that those cause, actually, which have been pointed out
[1:31:44] by a lot of residents. I'd like to thank the
[1:31:47] previous council for creating the program. I wish I could
[1:31:50] say that we created it. Staff pointed out that this
[1:31:53] might be ideal for pursuing CRD funding, and I agree.
[1:31:57] And councilor caradona. Moved a motion at the CRD, and
[1:32:02] I was happy to second it for the CRD. To
[1:32:05] look into this that was well received by other CRD
[1:32:08] representatives from other municipalities and actually they were very grateful
[1:32:13] for it, for us to have moved that, and they're
[1:32:15] very envious of the program. So I think this is
[1:32:19] an important piece. Of our transportation work and our climate
[1:32:24] change work, and I'd love to see it stay. Thank
[1:32:26] you. Anybody else? Councilor? Carried on? Yeah, just a few
[1:32:29] brief words. Add to that of. All the things on
[1:32:31] this list. This is a thing I least want to
[1:32:33] cut because I know what an incredible impact it has
[1:32:37] on the youth of this city. And I won't repeat.
[1:32:39] What councilor Thompson said, but I will note over at
[1:32:41] the cr. Crd that. That motion passed and. It will
[1:32:46] then become part of the transportation planning process over the
[1:32:50] next year at the CRD and then it would likely
[1:32:53] be voted upon in 2027, so it's too late for.
[1:32:57] Budget 2026. I feel confident. I mean, obviously it's going
[1:33:00] to depend on who's. Around the table next year at
[1:33:02] the CRD. Anyway, staff suggested this become a CRD thing,
[1:33:07] so I took their advice. We're pushing it forward, but
[1:33:08] we need a little bit of time on it. I
[1:33:10] think it would be just. Hugely irresponsible to cut it
[1:33:12] this year in the absence of that confirmation from the
[1:33:16] CRD. Thanks. Anyone else on this one? Councilor Dell. Councilor
[1:33:20] card. Just an anecdotal story. When I was running for
[1:33:22] election 2022. I try to summarize the last term, 2018
[1:33:25] to 2022, and there's a lot to be said about
[1:33:28] that. But I think the biggest success of that term,
[1:33:30] in my mind, was actually implementing the youth bus program.
[1:33:33] So that's a huge highlight of our last council, and
[1:33:36] I think it would be devastated to stop all the.
[1:33:39] Work that they did on that. So definitely do not
[1:33:41] want to cut this one. And looking forward. To it
[1:33:43] being expanded across the whole CRD. Thank you, Councilor Gardner.
[1:33:47] A comment and a question. The comment was I was
[1:33:51] really quite, I mean, I thought it was almost insulting
[1:33:54] that. The transit sent us a letter supporting it, given
[1:33:59] that maybe transit should be adjusting their program. I just
[1:34:03] found that a bit nervy. That they sent us that
[1:34:07] letter. My question is this, and I know you discussed
[1:34:11] it before. So it should be easy to answer. Who
[1:34:15] is getting the pass now? What I mean is that
[1:34:18] we know that Uvix got their own path, commotion agrees,
[1:34:23] got their own pass and do people who are in
[1:34:26] school in Victoria, but don't live in Victoria. Get the
[1:34:28] pass. So who is eligible for the pass? So, which
[1:34:31] staffer can explain briefly who's eligible? For such a pass,
[1:34:35] Ms. Thompson. Through the mayor. So it is youth who
[1:34:40] reside in the city of Victoria, within the city of
[1:34:42] Victoria boundaries, 18 years and younger. It's free for kids
[1:34:47] twelve and under, so it's from 13 to 18. But
[1:34:53] you have to have an address in the city of
[1:34:56] Victoria. Thank you, and I certainly hope we can get
[1:35:01] this off our books in the next couple of years
[1:35:03] because. It just doesn't make sense to me that VC
[1:35:07] transit is not doing more in this. Regard. Thank you.
[1:35:11] Thank you very much. Anybody else on this one? Councilor
[1:35:13] Kim? Thanks, I'm. Just going to burn more of my
[1:35:16] time with another anecdote here. I grew up in an
[1:35:19] abusive household and having access to public bus fare helped
[1:35:23] me escape that. And so that is an impact. That
[1:35:29] most of us will not consider about the importance of
[1:35:31] this program. It keeps you safe. So I never want
[1:35:37] to see this gone. Okay. Thank you very much. Anybody
[1:35:40] else? Councilor Coleman. I think we dilute ourselves when we
[1:35:43] say that group should pay for order, that group should
[1:35:46] pay for it. If we push it off to the
[1:35:50] CRD, the same taxpayers are paying for it. The reality
[1:35:54] is. This is a critically. Important program. We make sure
[1:35:58] it gets paid for how you distribute it. The problem
[1:36:01] in this region is it's Victoria specific? The reason we
[1:36:04] want to move it to the CRD is to make
[1:36:06] sure that it applies to all kids. Yes. We should
[1:36:08] be supporting this this year. If we move it off
[1:36:10] so it's more universal to all the kids in the
[1:36:13] region. Great, but. Let's not pretend that we're making a
[1:36:16] taxpayer savings on this. It's just something we should invest
[1:36:20] in. Thank you very much, Councilor Hammond. Thanks. Does transit
[1:36:28] do anything? Give out any passes, regardless of age, based
[1:36:31] on income. Yes, they do. Ms. Thompson. I can answer
[1:36:37] that partially, but perhaps. I see transportation staff at the
[1:36:41] back. Are you nodding? Not sure. There are a number
[1:36:45] of programs from BC transit that do provide either reduced
[1:36:49] or no fair passes. Based on income. And they're not
[1:36:53] universally throughout the province, nor are the university throat various
[1:36:58] regions, but there are passes that are available either at
[1:37:01] reduced costs or at no cost. And is that also
[1:37:03] true? For kids 13 to 18 if they've qualified within
[1:37:09] the income of the family. Yes, right. So it could
[1:37:12] be that they're getting a pass. Through us because you
[1:37:16] actually get the passes, right? And therefore not getting the
[1:37:20] passes through some other agency of the government. Yes, but
[1:37:24] at the same time. I would suggest that those numbers
[1:37:26] are very low. I was just saying that. Yeah, you're
[1:37:30] right. You're absolutely right. And certainly there is the potential
[1:37:33] for duplication. But, Ms. Thompson, that you want to weigh
[1:37:36] in there. Through the mayor. Just to clarify, so the
[1:37:41] city does not pay for the number of passes that
[1:37:44] are picked up. The Upath program works in such a
[1:37:48] way that all eligible youth. So the number that could
[1:37:53] pick up the pass is the number that we pay.
[1:37:58] To BC transit, however. We pay 25% of the regular
[1:38:03] fee. So if your uptake. Is more than 25% or
[1:38:08] more, you're breaking even. If you were to pay for
[1:38:12] a per pass. Type of situation. So here in Victoria,
[1:38:15] I don't have the current numbers with me. Can probably
[1:38:18] get them for staff, and they're probably listening and frantically
[1:38:20] looking. Is we have a much higher uptake than that
[1:38:24] 25%, so the city actually pays less. Per. Pass. Than
[1:38:32] we would if we paid. Again, based on the number
[1:38:35] of youth who actually came and picked it up. So
[1:38:37] there may be duplication, as in they come and pick
[1:38:39] it, pick it up. Here. But we don't pay anymore
[1:38:41] because somebody did. That's good. Can I ask? Is there
[1:38:45] any stats which show that there's more 13 to 18
[1:38:49] year olds who take the transit, the buses, because. Of
[1:38:52] this. Thompson. Do we know that? Through the mayor. So
[1:38:56] we have vast transit for usage data. They've had not
[1:39:01] great information in the past, but I do know that.
[1:39:06] They have. With the yumopath, they might be able to
[1:39:09] provide better information. But for now, I don't have that
[1:39:15] information handy, and I just have my variable staff downstairs
[1:39:20] telling me that our uptake. This year was actually 77%
[1:39:25] of eligible youth. That's very impressive. If you're saying there's
[1:39:30] no stats. On how many kids use it. I trust
[1:39:33] there's no stats on how many kids are riding the
[1:39:36] buses, who would otherwise be walking or riding their bikes.
[1:39:42] Through the mayor. I'm not sure how, if a transit
[1:39:45] would track it that way and they certainly are the
[1:39:47] ones who are collecting the data. Okay, thanks very much,
[1:39:49] mayor. Thank you very much, councilor Logan. Thanks to you,
[1:39:55] Mary. I just want to add that. It does. Of
[1:39:58] course, transit decreases emissions, so it's the climate action aspect
[1:40:02] of this, and. It also trains riders to use more
[1:40:06] sustainable ways of getting around, so it helps us with.
[1:40:11] Our active transportation goals, so just wanted to add that
[1:40:14] point. Thank you very much for that. Anybody else on
[1:40:18] this one? I'm not seeing anyone else. I am going
[1:40:23] to support this being returned to the financial plan for
[1:40:26] many of the reasons that were stated, which I won't
[1:40:27] repeat, but I do want to emphasize the fact that
[1:40:31] I think the benefit to this is far beyond the
[1:40:33] city, and I am very anxious to continue to press,
[1:40:37] the capital regional district and the BC transit to consider
[1:40:41] expanding this program beyond the city of Victor. Victoria yes,
[1:40:44] we have a great program here that clearly has remarkable
[1:40:47] uptake 77%. But at the same time, it is something
[1:40:51] that should be offered beyond the city of Victoria, and
[1:40:54] it certainly should be contributed to, if not paid for,
[1:40:57] by more than just the residents of the city. Victoria
[1:41:01] so. Yes, there'll be taxation for everyone. If this is
[1:41:04] expended, but ultimately the program requires an expansion to make
[1:41:07] it even more beneficial to folks who are benefiting from
[1:41:10] it now. With that said reminder, then, if you wish
[1:41:13] this to be returned to the financial plan for 2026,
[1:41:17] vote in favor if you wish it to be cut
[1:41:19] from the 2026 vote in opposition. All those in favor
[1:41:22] of number three? Has anyone opposed? No. That is unanimous.
[1:41:28] So, unanimously. Number three, the youth bus pass program is
[1:41:32] returned. To the 2026 financial plan. Moving on then, to
[1:41:36] the my great neighborhood grants program. This is $152,000 value.
[1:41:43] To be added back in or removed, depending upon the
[1:41:46] vote of council. I forget who took this. Back on.
[1:41:51] It was you. Okay. Councilor Kim, do you wish to
[1:41:52] speak to it? I'll be brief. This is another example.
[1:41:58] Of grants having an outsized impact in very local ways.
[1:42:03] And so it's actually hard for me to motivate about
[1:42:05] this in an eloquent way because. There's so many personal
[1:42:10] stories about how this grant has benefited neighborhoods and. I
[1:42:15] just can't summarize or collect them all. An example is.
[1:42:19] There's a family in Oakland that applied for a great
[1:42:21] neighborhood grant and hosted a neighborhood dinner after they all
[1:42:24] went crabbing together, and it included. Immigrant workers who are
[1:42:29] renting nearby and their kiddos and. It's just that real
[1:42:34] community building, and in the face of. Intensive precarity. It's
[1:42:40] no secret that mutual aid and community networks are what
[1:42:44] keeps people safe. The first responder in the case of
[1:42:47] something like a heat dome, is not a first responder.
[1:42:50] It's your neighbor. And it's things like this that help,
[1:42:54] you know, your neighbor and build that connection that ultimately
[1:42:58] keeps people safe. So, I mean, if you needed a
[1:43:00] climate reason for this, there's one. Okay, thank you very
[1:43:03] much. Anybody else? What's your donut? I think, mayor, this
[1:43:06] one's a tough one for me. Just because on my
[1:43:08] own personal list of things to cut to try to
[1:43:10] get us down to. Single digits. I did have a
[1:43:13] scaling back on this one a bit. I understand absolutely
[1:43:17] the value of this program. And in fact, before being
[1:43:19] an elected official, I applied for and actually received my
[1:43:21] great neighbor, a grant, and I know how important they
[1:43:23] are to people. But I did have a chat with
[1:43:26] staff about how this program has been toggled up and
[1:43:29] down over the years. I just want to confirm what
[1:43:31] the allocation was back. In 2022. Thompson. Do you know
[1:43:36] that? Or is that another staff person? I'm curious. 2022.
[1:43:43] Why that particular just before. We at the end of
[1:43:46] the last mandate? Because we have expanded the allocation for
[1:43:51] this one a bit. Do you have that, Ms. Dawson?
[1:43:54] Magically. Through the mayor so I can start at the
[1:43:58] beginning. In 2018, it was set up at $125,000. And
[1:44:04] it has been increased by inflation since that time. And
[1:44:08] so in 2022, it was $136,000 was the budget. However,
[1:44:13] the allocation that year was $108,000. 108. Okay. I'm going
[1:44:19] to try an amendment and see if it carries, but.
[1:44:24] I'd like to reduce this one. My brain is having
[1:44:27] a hard time because it's a reduction. Not. So I
[1:44:31] guess it should read if we want to bring it
[1:44:32] down to 100,000, so. I guess it would read 52,000
[1:44:35] and then 100,000. Is that correct, or I have that
[1:44:37] backwards, Ms. Thompson, is that correct? Through the mayor. So
[1:44:44] we are talking about the number that you would like
[1:44:45] it to be because we're adding it back in. So
[1:44:48] the number, if you would like $100,000. To be the
[1:44:50] grant amount. Then this number should say $100,000. For some
[1:44:54] reason, my brain can't help. If we want this grant
[1:44:56] to be at $100,000. This number is 100,000. Okay, so
[1:45:00] then 100,000 goes back in. So yes, there is an
[1:45:04] amendment, properly put, that this be 100 as opposed to
[1:45:07] 152. Remember, we're deciding whether or not to return this
[1:45:10] amount of money to the financial plan is there? A
[1:45:13] secondary for that amendment. Yes? Councilor Gardner is seconding. Go
[1:45:17] ahead. Councilor Caradona, if you'd like to motivate. I think
[1:45:19] that there is opportunities across our budget to scale back
[1:45:22] a bit, but not kill some of these really important
[1:45:25] grants. I think that this one, it has been very
[1:45:28] well subscribed in the last few years, but I think
[1:45:30] at $100,000. It can still do a lot of really
[1:45:32] good value in the community, and I do. Think there's
[1:45:36] just opportunities to toggle some of these grants up and
[1:45:39] down over the years. So this one wouldn't disappear as
[1:45:42] proposed by staff, but it would remain, albeit in a
[1:45:45] bit scaled back form. Thank you. Councilor Gardner, is the
[1:45:47] secondary of the amendment. Thank you. I believe it's very
[1:45:51] valuable, Grant. At the same time, I don't know about
[1:45:53] the distribution, so I would certainly. Like to see down
[1:45:56] the road before next year when we're going to be
[1:45:59] into this. Exercise again. Well, we don't know who's going
[1:46:01] to be here. But there'd be some ideas to the
[1:46:04] distribution of the grounds throughout the city. Distribution by population.
[1:46:07] Thank you very much, Ms. Thompson. Just before I go
[1:46:10] to councilor Thompson, Is this amount. All that's left in
[1:46:15] the program is that the whole program? Or 152, as
[1:46:19] it was, through the mayor. Yes, that's correct. Councilor Thompson,
[1:46:24] thanks. Could you just recap the uptake of it? I
[1:46:29] think there's been certain amounts available, but maybe less has
[1:46:31] been applied for. What are the numbers for the last
[1:46:33] few years? Ms. Morris. That something you would know? Yes.
[1:46:38] Through you, mayor. The current year. We have 45 applications
[1:46:43] currently. 138,000 in funds distributed. Over the course of the
[1:46:50] years that grant has been available, including this year's grants,
[1:46:53] we would have given out 412 grants, and every neighborhood
[1:46:56] has benefited. Did you want some further information? I think
[1:47:02] what I heard councilor Thompson request. Is in each year,
[1:47:05] or even an example year. What's the percentage of uptake?
[1:47:09] So if it was $100,000, for example, would you expect
[1:47:13] that all 100,000 would be expended or would it be
[1:47:15] 80? Or based on past practice. Through the mayor. I
[1:47:19] don't have percentages, but I can say that. These past
[1:47:24] few years, we have gotten close to utilizing all of
[1:47:27] the funds. The year in 2022 was a pandemic year,
[1:47:31] which is why you saw that decline. In applications. Thank
[1:47:37] you. We tend to use all the monies. Okay. No
[1:47:43] more questions, but I will just comment. That I've been
[1:47:47] involved or my neighborhood has been involved in several of
[1:47:49] the applications and I've seen it work on building community,
[1:47:53] like literally having people outdoors working together on planters. And
[1:47:58] that sort of thing. And long before the last election,
[1:48:01] I was out there shoveling dirt with new neighbors that
[1:48:04] I'd never met before, when Matt Dell, as he then,
[1:48:07] was not counselor Dell Road by took a picture of
[1:48:10] all of us and published it. Again. I've met people
[1:48:14] through these things. And I'm hesitant. I look forward to
[1:48:20] hearing comments from other counselors before deciding how I'll vote.
[1:48:23] Thank you very much. Anyone else on this one? So
[1:48:27] we're going to vote first on the amendment, depending upon
[1:48:29] whether or not the amendment carries that will indicate to
[1:48:32] us whether when we vote on number four, whether it's
[1:48:34] 100. Or 152. So not hearing any more comments. Again,
[1:48:38] if you would like the amendment to pass so that
[1:48:41] the number that we're discussing is smaller. You vote in
[1:48:45] favor of the amendment, so. It would be 100, not.
[1:48:47] 152. So in favor of 100, please indicate. Elsar, Hammond,
[1:48:53] myself, councilor caradona, councilor Coleman, councilor jail, Councilor Gardner. And
[1:48:57] opposition councilor Loton, Councilor Thompson to councilor Kim. So the
[1:49:01] amendment is carried. So the number changes to 100,000. And
[1:49:06] there is still room to discuss further that amount in
[1:49:10] general. Any further comments on this item? At 100,000. Kind
[1:49:16] of like I'm at an auction. Go ahead, Councilor Thompson.
[1:49:18] Happy to see that going back in and maybe staff
[1:49:21] have the flexibility to change the amounts given. Out to
[1:49:23] each group. So it's still a program, and that's the
[1:49:27] important point. Thank you very much. Anyone else? So, again,
[1:49:32] wanting to turn $100,000 returned into the 2026 budget, all
[1:49:38] those in favor. Councilor Hammond, Lowton, Thompson, Kim, myself carried
[1:49:44] on at Coleman, Del and Gardner. That's unanimous. So, number
[1:49:47] four, the my great neighborhood grants at the reduced amount
[1:49:50] of 100,000 is. Carried. Thank you. Up next is theater
[1:49:54] scam. Who asked this freebie back in? Councilor Kim, theater
[1:50:00] scan. Yes, thanks. I actually would like to move an
[1:50:04] amendment to modify it to 15,000. So you're moving an
[1:50:09] amendment to change 20 to 15? One five. Okay, we'll
[1:50:13] just get that up there with staff. Thank you very
[1:50:15] much. Is there a secondary for that amendment. Thompson seconding
[1:50:19] councilor Kim. Motivating on the amendment. Yeah, thanks. This is
[1:50:23] for me, an item that I'm not as familiar with
[1:50:26] as growing in the city, for example. But I remember
[1:50:30] receiving correspondence from tourists saying they actually come to Victoria
[1:50:33] to visit theater, the scampede. And there are youth who
[1:50:39] I have met who have benefited from being a part
[1:50:41] of the program. I've seen really great productions. And so,
[1:50:45] again, it has that soft impact that we can't always
[1:50:48] quantify. But. It's also, frankly, in the face of the
[1:50:54] political climate wherein arts are always on the chopping block.
[1:50:58] And art is a very real reflection of our political
[1:51:03] space. And to me, that is, in principle, really valuable
[1:51:06] and worth at least 15,000. Thanks. Thank you, Councilor Thompson,
[1:51:11] you and the secondary. Anything I can add? Okay, anyone
[1:51:14] else on? This council gardener. I just want to read
[1:51:16] the staff report on it. This organization is not fully
[1:51:20] acting as an arts hub as proposed. In addition, they
[1:51:23] have received much other city funding through various grant programs
[1:51:26] in comparison to other arts organizations. This grant does not
[1:51:30] fall within an application based competitive program like other city
[1:51:34] grants for arts organizations. And so that's why. Don't support
[1:51:40] the change. Or bringing this back. Thank you, Councilor Dell.
[1:51:48] Oh, this is just on the 15,000. Okay, never mind.
[1:51:50] Sorry. Just on the amendment, okay? That being said, on
[1:51:53] the amendment to go from 20 to 15. Saying no
[1:51:57] further. So on the amendment to move from 20 to
[1:51:59] 15, all those in favor? Emman. Myself, Carolina, Coleman, Dell
[1:52:06] and Gardner. That was unanimous. Thank you for that. Moving
[1:52:10] back to now, the now amended motion to return $15,000
[1:52:15] for theater scam. Ms. Moore, do you have any comments?
[1:52:21] On the commentary that this does not meet any of
[1:52:25] our program. Requirements for granting. How did this get in
[1:52:33] the budget in the first place? Through you, mayor. I
[1:52:37] believe it was through council's motion that this good for
[1:52:41] us. Was added back in. Okay. Thanks for being so
[1:52:47] terribly honest. All right, so this is here even. At
[1:52:50] a reduced rate because of an earlier council decision, obviously.
[1:52:54] So now on this, anyone further comments? On theater scam
[1:52:57] at 15,000 councilor Doe. Sure. I'm very hesitant to do
[1:53:02] this because it's not my favorite thing to do here.
[1:53:06] But. We have a bunch of amazing theater organizations in
[1:53:09] the. Theater scam is absolutely one of them. When I
[1:53:12] was the president of South Jubilee, they came every year
[1:53:14] to do presentations that I have very fond memories of.
[1:53:18] But there's a lot of great organizations that are doing
[1:53:20] different spots. Obviously, other guys theater, who just two weeks
[1:53:22] ago opened a building. A number of other companies operating
[1:53:26] throughout the theater. So this is the weird funding that
[1:53:28] at some point in the past, a council member brought
[1:53:30] forward a motion to give this particular group funding and
[1:53:32] not all the other ones. So I would actually rather
[1:53:35] see this funding be removed from here, put somewhere back
[1:53:38] into a grant program that's accessible by a lot of
[1:53:40] the different groups because I know there's even new and
[1:53:41] up and coming groups that aren't able to access funding.
[1:53:45] So it's not that I want to cut $15,000 from
[1:53:47] funding, but I just find it a bit odd that
[1:53:48] it's going to one specific group where it should be
[1:53:50] in, like, a proper grant funding. I know. This year
[1:53:53] I worked a lot with theater intrepid. Theater, for example,
[1:53:56] and they lost their space. They're one of our biggest
[1:53:59] theater organizations, and we weren't able to fund them. But
[1:54:01] it's just another example of. Perhaps a need for a
[1:54:06] grant program that staff can actually analyze who could best
[1:54:08] use the money? Rather than having a targeted grant for
[1:54:11] one particular group, even though they are fantastic. So I
[1:54:15] hate to advocate against arts funding, but I do think
[1:54:17] this one is a bit odd. And this might be
[1:54:18] the year that we just removed this, and hopefully they
[1:54:21] can get similar funding. Through one of our established programs,
[1:54:23] like the festival investment grant or the cultural infrastructure grant,
[1:54:26] where they would be a bit more appropriate. So to
[1:54:29] my two cent. Thank you very much, councilor Kim. Sorry.
[1:54:34] Quick question. Does theater scam know about this prospective loss
[1:54:40] of income revenue? Ms. Mora, are you aware of that?
[1:54:44] Other than this just being in the general public domain?
[1:54:48] I believe this was listed. In the previous report to
[1:54:53] counsel. Yes. And that previous report came out when? December
[1:55:00] of 2024. The reason I ask is because. That doesn't
[1:55:06] line up necessarily with financial planning of an organization like
[1:55:09] Peter Scam and so I hear what my colleagues are
[1:55:12] saying, and I actually am swayed. I don't like the
[1:55:16] idea of offboarding a theater company. Suddenly losing a big
[1:55:20] chunk. I do think some sort of transitional amount. Before
[1:55:25] we consider mixing it all together in the future is
[1:55:29] actually more reasonable. So I'm going to move an amendment
[1:55:31] to actually just change that again to 5000. Yes, you
[1:55:34] can certainly do that. An amendment to go from 15
[1:55:37] to five. Let staff catch up with us here. Very
[1:55:41] good. Is there a secondary for that amendment, councilor? Della
[1:55:45] seconding. Councilor Kim, anything on the amendment? No. Councilor Dell,
[1:55:50] anything on the amendment? Anyone else on the amendments? All
[1:55:56] those in favor of the amendment. Anyone opposed? That is
[1:56:03] unanimous. Back to councilor Kim for any further comments on
[1:56:07] the now $5,000 allocation. Thank you? Yeah, I just think
[1:56:11] it's, like, operationally sensitive to an organization's needs. And again,
[1:56:16] number two is 8000. So to me, this is a
[1:56:19] rounding error in the scope. Of a city budget, but
[1:56:22] for them proportionately could be quite useful in terms. Of
[1:56:25] transitioning or paying. For a grant writer to. Anyway, you
[1:56:30] get it. Councilor Thompson. Thanks, mayor. My colleague, councilor. Del
[1:56:36] made an interesting and good point about this being a
[1:56:38] unique grant, and he would rather see it go into
[1:56:41] a general granting fund that people could apply for, including
[1:56:44] theater scam. Just wondering. Mayor, what would be the opportunity
[1:56:47] to. Make that happen. Would that be a motion arising
[1:56:50] after this? It could be. There will be an opportunity
[1:56:53] down the road in subsequent appendices to deal with the
[1:56:57] issue of grants in general. And so it may be
[1:56:59] that at that point, you want to either introduce different
[1:57:02] criteria or direct staff to create new criteria or just
[1:57:05] to admit the actual budget itself. You will see that
[1:57:09] when we get to appendix B, we'll be dealing with
[1:57:12] a number. Of granting options. Council Cardano. Thanks, mayor. This
[1:57:16] one's also a challenging one for me because I love
[1:57:19] theater scam like I think everybody does. And I'm proud
[1:57:22] of the fact that the city has funded them for
[1:57:24] a number of years, but I don't think it's. Appropriate
[1:57:26] for us to be permanently funding one theater. There's a
[1:57:28] lot of theaters struggling in the city. I do think
[1:57:31] it's more appropriate for that money to get maybe bumped
[1:57:34] over. To the Sig or the fig or something like
[1:57:37] that. That would be more appropriate for a theater to
[1:57:40] apply to. So it's difficult one, but for me, I'm
[1:57:43] going to vote against this one. Thank you. What else?
[1:57:48] I would echo the last comments. It's always difficult to
[1:57:52] pick and choose, but here we are picking and choosing
[1:57:55] throughout a very long list that's only going to get
[1:57:56] longer. And so the fact for me is that this
[1:58:01] has been in the public domain since 2024. It's not.
[1:58:06] A secret staff were directed by council to seek out
[1:58:09] every opportunity to reduce the budget and this was included
[1:58:12] at that time is my understanding. And so for that
[1:58:15] reason, unfortunately, I am not going to support. This inclusion.
[1:58:21] Reinclusion. All right, noting once again that what we are
[1:58:24] voting on is returning $5,000. To the budget dedicated to
[1:58:29] theater scam. All those in favor. Yeah, I know, I
[1:58:38] know, I know. All right. You're following along. We're on
[1:58:42] number five. I got confused trying to jump ahead, that
[1:58:48] is. Okay. So, number five. From a famous line from
[1:58:53] an old film, number five. Theater scam. $5,000. All those
[1:58:57] in favor? Loton thompson, kim dell in opposition. Hammond,
[1:59:07] myself, Cardona, Coleman and Gardner that is defeated. And thus,
[1:59:12] for the first time, We can remove something from this
[1:59:15] list. It might be better, actually. Rotor. I know. I
[1:59:23] wasn't going to point that out. Ms. Rotor might be
[1:59:25] better, actually. I know what I said earlier. You can
[1:59:27] just delete it, but it might be better just. To
[1:59:29] put a strike through through it just so that we
[1:59:31] can see once we get through all of this. What
[1:59:34] changes have been done and to what degree? Just leave
[1:59:36] it there. And. You can just leave it, struck out,
[1:59:41] and we'll know what that means moving on, then. To
[1:59:43] number six. This is the Butler Book Prize and Children's
[1:59:46] Book Prize, which is right. Now at $10,000. Someone put
[1:59:50] this back in. Go ahead. Gvpl. Liaison. So. It's just
[2:00:00] my love of books is just on display here. The
[2:00:04] other thing too. Again. Bringing this back to a broader
[2:00:06] political context is I heard this very compelling case. About
[2:00:11] maintaining literacy and literature. Programs and projects because. It's this.
[2:00:19] That actually cultivates empathetic citizenry. If you are reading books,
[2:00:24] you are taking in alternative perspectives and broadening the way
[2:00:28] you explore and engage with the world and at a
[2:00:31] time polarization. I know this doesn't feel like there's a
[2:00:35] clear connection, but to me, I see it, and I
[2:00:39] think. This can go a small but impactful way in
[2:00:44] terms of maintaining community. The opposite of polarization. Thanks. Conclusion.
[2:00:51] There you go. Anyone else on this particular one? Councilor
[2:00:56] Coleman. Thank you. Historically. The city's role wasn't there. It
[2:01:04] was the Butler Book prize for adult literature. And it
[2:01:07] was the Boland Book Prize for children's literature. Bolands moved
[2:01:12] out of that and we picked it up. Our component
[2:01:16] was $10,000. I think you have to protect that. But
[2:01:21] we also have to think about how we could move.
[2:01:23] It to another future corporate sponsor. And I think there
[2:01:27] are some out there, and I know there have been
[2:01:29] some discussions around it. From the larger perspective, we need
[2:01:33] to recognize. That. Comprehension levels in Canada are judged to
[2:01:40] be about grade seven and declining. We're still two. Years
[2:01:43] ahead of the United States. Adult illiteracy is tracking at
[2:01:49] about 30%, and it tracks right through from school and
[2:01:52] if that's not a scary thing, then stop and think
[2:01:55] about. Working with ten or nine other people and recognize
[2:02:00] that in an industrial accident area, three of them cannot
[2:02:03] read a hazmat manual. Investments in literature and literacy and
[2:02:09] numeracy is terribly important. Do I think we stay in
[2:02:13] this for a long time? No, but do I think
[2:02:15] we protect. It this year. Yes. Thank you, Councilor Thompson.
[2:02:19] And then councilor Garden, thanks to my colleagues. For making
[2:02:22] my speech a lot shorter. Those are really good points.
[2:02:24] I'll just address. The alternative funding sources that staff mentioned
[2:02:30] that society could approach other sources, and I think that
[2:02:33] the society probably has listening to this. Received a clear
[2:02:38] hint that it probably should start doing that and probably
[2:02:40] for next year. So I'll be opposing this cut for
[2:02:43] this year, and we'll see how it goes next. Year.
[2:02:46] Thank you very much. Clinton Gardner. Thank you. How many
[2:02:49] people are going to their award ceremony? In ten days,
[2:02:52] three or four of us. Good. Okay. I had a
[2:02:56] lot of conversation with him about a year ago when
[2:02:58] it came up because a year ago. They were told
[2:03:00] it was going to be 2026. It's going to be.
[2:03:02] Cut. And at that time, We had a couple of
[2:03:07] discussions going forward with suggestions and what have you. But
[2:03:11] they chose not to go that route and what they
[2:03:15] were doing at the time, and I don't know the
[2:03:17] status. Perhaps Ms. Moore knows the status at the stage.
[2:03:21] They were going to be creating. A charity so they
[2:03:24] could actually do fundraising in a different way. And so
[2:03:28] I haven't heard any really advancement since then. And perhaps
[2:03:33] someone else here knows. Do you have any further information?
[2:03:37] I know I was involved in those conversations at a
[2:03:39] preliminary basis. And council Gardner is correct. They are aware
[2:03:43] that. The funding is declining and that the very generous
[2:03:47] history of the Butler brothers has been removed and so
[2:03:50] that's why they no longer have a big, splashy event.
[2:03:55] But I think they're aware that they need to look
[2:03:58] for additional sponsors in the future. And certainly there has
[2:04:00] been conversation with them, but I'm not sure if anyone
[2:04:02] else has. Any further updates? Do you have any further
[2:04:04] updates? No. Okay. Thank you. I think Govern House is
[2:04:08] a nice, splashy event, too. And that's when their book
[2:04:11] prizes and ten days, so thank you. I just want
[2:04:14] to see if anyone knew there. Was any update. Thank
[2:04:17] you. Anyone else on this one? Council. My microphone is
[2:04:25] still on. Jack and I were the SPCA gal a
[2:04:29] little while ago, and in one night, they raised $778,000,
[2:04:34] half of which was from one person. That everything that
[2:04:38] was raised was matched. There are a lot of people
[2:04:41] who were very generous in this town and that I
[2:04:44] know for various awards. And all kinds of fundraising that
[2:04:48] they will put up the money. And I believe push
[2:04:51] comes to shove, they'll be able to do it for
[2:04:53] a person who is a little bit dyslexic. So had
[2:04:55] trouble reading when I was a kid. I don't really
[2:04:59] think. A book prize would make any difference to whether
[2:05:02] I read or not, but I also ended up for
[2:05:05] all the troubles I had reading. Or the little bit
[2:05:07] of troubles I had reading. I published three books for
[2:05:12] my business, for example. So there's lots of opportunities for
[2:05:15] people to do something like this. Anyone else? I'm going
[2:05:21] to support remaining, having this retained for one year. But
[2:05:24] I will say that I do believe that there are
[2:05:27] opportunities for there to be new sponsors. So I agree
[2:05:31] with the notion of hanging onto it and ensuring that
[2:05:33] it continues because it is so important. But. I think
[2:05:38] it's very important for us to make the commitment to
[2:05:39] a system in discovering a new way for this to
[2:05:42] be not just supported at this level, but to perhaps
[2:05:44] be expanded. So that's looking forward to more work for
[2:05:47] 2027. With that voting in favor. To retain this and
[2:05:53] put it back into the budget for 2026. All those
[2:05:57] in favor? That would be Lowton, Thompson, Kim, myself, Caradona
[2:06:03] Coleman, Adele and Gert Gardner. In opposition council Hammond noting
[2:06:07] one in opposition, that one is returned. So that is
[2:06:10] carried. Thank you very much staff for catching up. We're
[2:06:15] halfway through this, and I'm wondering if I. Could just
[2:06:17] trouble Ms. Thompson if she has it. Available. To remind
[2:06:21] us now of what the impact of the first half
[2:06:24] of this would be being returned. To our budget in
[2:06:28] 2026. If you need more time, that's okay too. We
[2:06:31] can go on to a few more. Through the mayor.
[2:06:34] So what has passed so far at zero point? 42%.
[2:06:39] So we're at 8.71 right now. The city's portion. Very
[2:06:48] good. Thank you so much for that. So let's tackle
[2:06:51] the second half of this dozen and see if we
[2:06:53] can get through these before we break today. So the
[2:06:57] next one up is number seven. This is the operational
[2:06:59] adjustment for response to medical emergency. Something under service assistance.
[2:07:05] I think it's service assistance. I think that's what that
[2:07:10] says. Pretty sure it won't go away. That's. Okay. And
[2:07:14] actually, before we consider this one, I don't know if
[2:07:17] Chief Atkinson is. On the line, but I do recall
[2:07:20] that. He's not. Is there anyone who could remind us
[2:07:24] of why this is here? Because I. Think this is
[2:07:26] a significant amount, obviously. We have discussed this in the
[2:07:30] past, but it wouldn't be a bad thing for us.
[2:07:31] To have a very brief overview, if anyone is available
[2:07:35] to do that. I'm looking at Ms. Thompson or Ms.
[2:07:38] Jenkins. Is there a deputy chief or a senior staffer
[2:07:43] who might be available, or does anyone here have a
[2:07:45] sense of it. Through the merits, so I will start.
[2:07:49] Obviously, Chief Atkinson would be the preferred person to speak
[2:07:52] to. This. But essentially. The fire department goes to a
[2:08:02] lot of medical calls. Where they actually don't provide. Any
[2:08:09] life saving support. They're just there waiting for ambulance to
[2:08:13] arrive. So what Chief Atkinson has proposed here is that.
[2:08:19] They would still go to those. Labeled highest acuity call
[2:08:25] types, meaning those that. Are life threatening. But not go
[2:08:31] to the lower acuity calls, which in all of their
[2:08:34] data and I don't have that at my fingertips. But
[2:08:38] where? They actually don't provide. Any life saving support. And
[2:08:46] so they're essentially just standing there waiting for ambulance to
[2:08:49] come. And so this obviously is a significant savings if
[2:08:52] we do not. Dispatch fire to those calls and they
[2:08:56] can set it up. I do want to note that.
[2:08:59] In a very smaller scale. But Defino just announced that
[2:09:02] they are no longer going to any calls. So again,
[2:09:05] in the city of Victoria, if this goes through, we
[2:09:08] would continue to go to the highest acuity calls, but
[2:09:10] not the ones where we currently are actually not providing
[2:09:13] any service. Thank you for that. I wonder, do you
[2:09:16] know whether or not there are other fire departments in
[2:09:19] the South island. We're moving this direction as well. Through
[2:09:23] you, Mayor. I don't know about South island, but I
[2:09:25] do know that there are a number of departments, even
[2:09:27] Vancouver, who are considering this kind of shift as the
[2:09:31] downloading has happened from AHS. Right? Thank you for that.
[2:09:35] Okay, so I believe councilor Kim was this. You? Yes,
[2:09:39] it was. But actually, I had questions, which you wound
[2:09:41] up asking. No, that was great. It actually answered the
[2:09:46] gaps I had in my knowledge. So I actually don't
[2:09:49] have a motivation. Who actually added this back in, if
[2:09:53] I understood correctly, is okay with it, in fact, not
[2:09:55] being added back in. So does anyone else wish to
[2:09:58] have this returned to the budget? Not seeing. Anybody saying
[2:10:04] yes? So with that, then. For the sake of the
[2:10:09] procedure, I will move that this not be returned. So
[2:10:13] I'm going to move that this be removed from the
[2:10:16] list secondary for that. Yeah. Councilor Dell. Seconding that. Thank
[2:10:20] you. And I don't think I need to. Motivate. I
[2:10:22] think the explanation that was offered by staff is sufficient
[2:10:26] and this is on the advice of the fire chief.
[2:10:28] And so I think that's advice we should take, councilor.
[2:10:30] Dell. Anything else that you want to add? No. So
[2:10:33] again, if you wish to return this. To the budget.
[2:10:35] Vote in favor if you wish to remove it from
[2:10:38] the budget. Vote in opposition. Right. So you understand it?
[2:10:44] So everyone, I believe everyone at the table nodded very
[2:10:47] nicely as a bit of a straw pole to say,
[2:10:48] I don't want this in there, vote no. Vote yes
[2:10:53] if you want it to return to the budget. All
[2:10:55] those in favor? No one in opposition. That is unanimous.
[2:11:03] So you can put a strike through that one. Thank
[2:11:05] you, Ms. Roder. And so, moving on, then. Yes. Next
[2:11:09] is number eight, the poet laureate and youth poet laureate.
[2:11:12] I believe this was also counsel. Yeah. Again, this is
[2:11:15] admittedly coming from a very personal motivation. When I was
[2:11:19] an acting mayor. I got to go to an event
[2:11:21] where the Port Lauriet had showcased. Marie metaphors that showcased
[2:11:27] the poetry of the workshop attendees that she had been
[2:11:31] working with. And these are folks who. Do not. See
[2:11:38] in conventional spaces. And there was finally an opportunity for
[2:11:43] creative expression. And what I heard in their poetry and
[2:11:46] their tone of voice was so much anger and distress.
[2:11:52] At oppressive systems, and they finally had a way to
[2:11:55] say it. And we've also gotten to benefit from the
[2:11:59] poet laureate again. Bringing us literacy. And beauty through rhetoric
[2:12:07] and prose. And I think there's something to be said
[2:12:11] about the affective tone that having a poet laureate open
[2:12:15] a council meeting also sets. I think it actually helped
[2:12:19] us make better decisions, arguably. In calming us prior to
[2:12:24] engaging in what could be contentious decisions. And so, again,
[2:12:29] All of those qualitative things that are hard to quantify.
[2:12:33] But I would be so remiss to see a piece.
[2:12:37] Of what has made Victoria so lovable for me on
[2:12:40] the shopping block. Thank you very much. Anyone else on
[2:12:43] this one. Councilor Coleman. Thank you. While you are away
[2:12:47] in October, your worship, I was the acting mayor, and
[2:12:50] I got to unveil a bronze plaque on the Dallas
[2:12:55] Road waterfront done by. A previous city of Victoria poet
[2:12:59] laureate. It's the way we quietly infuse those wonderful little
[2:13:04] spots that people. Can find, much like the spindle laurels
[2:13:08] or any of the other statuary we have. Around town.
[2:13:12] Now I recognize that I am biased. I come from
[2:13:15] a family of poets. And. There is a spoken word
[2:13:20] poetry contest and scholarship in my brother's name. He was
[2:13:25] a mayor, and it's unusual to have poet laureates, but
[2:13:28] as a capital city. I think there is a special
[2:13:31] status for them, so I think that this is wholly
[2:13:33] supportable. Very much. Anyone else? I'm going to support this
[2:13:40] returning. I think this is what makes one of the
[2:13:42] things that makes Victoria unique. And when I travel and
[2:13:45] mention that the city has a pot laureate and in
[2:13:48] particular, actually, the youth portrait people are both astonished and
[2:13:51] thrilled. And so I think again, as we've discussed a
[2:13:54] small amount. But an important investment. Anyone else on this
[2:14:00] one? Yes. Do you any other municipalities in this? In
[2:14:06] our peninsula. Ms. Moore, I don't believe anyone else in
[2:14:10] the south island has a poet laureate do. They? Are
[2:14:12] you aware of that? Through the mayor. We've been told
[2:14:14] that sandwich is investigating. Having a poet laureate, but I
[2:14:17] don't know that that's been confirmed yet, right? Okay. Thank
[2:14:20] you. No. And maybe. Good point. Perhaps our poet
[2:14:30] laureate may become all of our poet laureates next year.
[2:14:32] There you go. To be determined. Very good. All right.
[2:14:36] So again, if you wish to return this to the
[2:14:38] budget. $8,000 for the Port Lorete and youth Port laureate
[2:14:41] vote in favor. If you do not then vote in
[2:14:44] opposition. All those in favor of returning the laureates? Councilor.
[2:14:50] Just checking. Councilor loan, Councilor Thompson, Councilor Kim, myself, counselor.
[2:14:54] Carried on councilor. Coleman, councilor Dell in opposition, councilor Hammond
[2:14:59] and councilor Gardner. So noting to an opposition. The poet
[2:15:02] laureate is returned. So that is again carried. That takes
[2:15:05] us down to crosswalk. Installations. At 64,000 home. Is this
[2:15:11] also councilor Kim? It is. Can I make a niche
[2:15:14] joke about the path less taken as a poem and
[2:15:17] crosswalks? But anyway. This is to me a safety measure.
[2:15:23] And a lot of the decisions. That have faced us
[2:15:27] on council ultimately have health and life impacts on folks.
[2:15:34] My principle is do no harm or reduce whatever harm
[2:15:38] you can. And this is one of them. We want
[2:15:41] to keep kiddo safe. Will they crosswalk? And also, I
[2:15:47] think it's safe to say, as councillor, liaison, Regardless of
[2:15:52] what neighborhood you're in, you're probably as a counselor getting
[2:15:55] emails from constituents who have concerns about the safety and
[2:15:59] walkability of streets. And to me, this gesture is that
[2:16:02] we haven't lost sight of that. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone
[2:16:06] else on this one? I have a question. Perhaps. Ms.
[2:16:10] Thompson, I don't know if it would be you or.
[2:16:12] Mr. Doyle, but what's the impact of this change? Go
[2:16:18] ahead. Deferred to assistant director Kenny. Thanks. Kenny, if we
[2:16:25] do not return $64,000 to the crosswalk budget, what happens?
[2:16:30] So if we do not return $64,000, it would represent
[2:16:34] approximately one, maybe two crosswalks. Not delivered in the city
[2:16:38] in 2026. The 64,000 represents less than 10% of the
[2:16:43] program, so we would still have a fairly robust program
[2:16:46] without the funding. Very good. Thank you for that. With
[2:16:50] that, then I believe, Councilor Kimmy, you did include this.
[2:16:54] You wish to continue having. No. Thank you for that
[2:16:57] information, especially the part about the robustness of the program.
[2:17:01] Thanks. Does anyone else wish to put this in? Return
[2:17:06] this. No. I'm saying no. Therefore I will again just
[2:17:09] reprocess I. Will move that this not be returned, and
[2:17:14] I will assume councilor Kim will second that. And so,
[2:17:17] again, for the crosswalk installations, just as a reminder, if
[2:17:21] you wish it to be returned vote yes, but if
[2:17:23] based on the information just shared by staff that you
[2:17:26] in fact are comfortable with it being removed or continue
[2:17:29] to be removed. Vote no. So all those in favor
[2:17:33] of returning it to the budget? That is unanimously know.
[2:17:38] All those in favor yes, all those in favor of
[2:17:43] remaining outside the budget? Not returning it. Very good. Yes,
[2:17:47] we did. That's right. So that is, in fact, defeated.
[2:17:53] Also, cancellations will not return to the budget now. Next,
[2:17:57] South Island Prosperity Partnership. Yes, go ahead. Councilor Karad. Yeah,
[2:18:01] just very briefly. For folks who don't know what SIp
[2:18:05] is. South island prosperity, partnership. They are our economic development
[2:18:10] engine. That complements the work of the DVBA in the
[2:18:14] chamber and really work regionally. Yes, this is a bit
[2:18:17] of a budget allocation every year, but they do crucially
[2:18:20] important work. In the local economy. They just recently launched
[2:18:23] their possibility charter that a number of us were at.
[2:18:26] In fact, the photo of it has. Councilor Coleman. At
[2:18:30] the launch of the possibility charter. And I've had many,
[2:18:34] many meetings with these folks, and they've helped me understand.
[2:18:36] The value that they bring to the community. They've been
[2:18:39] rather successful. In enticing small and medium businesses to open
[2:18:43] up shop here, especially as relates to maritime industries. So.
[2:18:49] One of their mandates is to try to get mid
[2:18:51] sized businesses to come here that stimulate our economy and
[2:18:54] employ folks. So given the economic challenges that we're all
[2:18:58] facing across this country, given the challenges of our downtown
[2:19:01] and all the downtowns. For me, this is not the
[2:19:03] time. To be scaling back on investments in an economic
[2:19:06] development agency. So I don't want this one removed. Very
[2:19:10] good. Thank you very much. Any other comments? On this
[2:19:12] one. Council Grudner. Thank you. I think it's important to
[2:19:17] realize maybe the beginnings of this. Of the self doubt
[2:19:21] and prosperity project. It's a partnership. And the city, Victoria
[2:19:26] and other cities or municipalities created it. And the funding
[2:19:31] that is here. Is not for the operations of all
[2:19:36] the activities. It's for the administration and creating the environment.
[2:19:41] In order. To. Look at how. We can actually really
[2:19:46] work towards. Getting a more robust economy. And you've probably
[2:19:51] heard of the coast. Last. I think it was October
[2:19:55] 20. Eigth coast had a wonderful. Event down on a
[2:20:01] ship point. And you could see all the companies. The
[2:20:06] startup companies and the work they were doing. And this
[2:20:08] is very important work that is aimed at developing entrepreneurship.
[2:20:16] And just helping our economy. But that is not what
[2:20:20] this money goes for. Those are special grants. We hear?
[2:20:25] About. Different aspects of coast and other groups, including the
[2:20:29] Indigenous Prosperity section, getting huge grants and their grants. Though,
[2:20:35] don't go to the operation of the South island prosperity
[2:20:39] project. They go to their specific areas and specific projects.
[2:20:43] And so this grant. Was not a grant, it was
[2:20:47] a partnership. Was tied to actually the administration, which has
[2:20:52] not grown in the last few years at all. They've
[2:20:54] managed in spite of everything that's been going on in
[2:20:57] our economy. And the pre pandemic and since. To not
[2:21:02] actually grow that much. And they're very valuable and. I
[2:21:07] know near me, near where I live, for example. There
[2:21:10] is that. Oh, I'm going. To get the word wrong.
[2:21:13] You're going to help me out here, Chris. I'm going
[2:21:16] to say. What's it called now? Floats on the water.
[2:21:21] This is. Behind. Right on Erie street. On the back
[2:21:25] of it on the next street towards Ontario, and so
[2:21:29] there's. A facility there. It used to be co down
[2:21:30] electronics, and that's, for example. Something that's set up and
[2:21:34] they do the. What am I looking for? Come on,
[2:21:36] someone. Help me. Yeah. Should you? It's the mobile. Oaks
[2:21:44] and sensors. Yeah. Ocean sensor type thing. And that's also
[2:21:47] done with, I think, with. The song. He's. It's an
[2:21:49] indigenous type of organization. It's wonderful. And they're developing it,
[2:21:55] and that's what is happening, so. I don't see that
[2:21:58] there's a duplication of services with the city because. The
[2:22:01] city is more. Businesses oriented as opposed to let's develop
[2:22:06] whole new products and let's get our products even beyond
[2:22:10] the city. To become export items. Drove Canada and throughout
[2:22:16] the world. It's a totally different. Organization. That exists in
[2:22:24] this city. They've won awards because of their innovative way
[2:22:27] of organizing themselves. And promoting the development of our economy.
[2:22:33] So again. Their amount has not gone up much. So
[2:22:37] I don't know. Is anyone else have any comments or
[2:22:40] questions that I may fumble? On. Yes. I have several
[2:22:47] questions, actually, but I will go to other people with
[2:22:50] questions. First, councilor Hannah. Thanks, mayor. Despite the glowing things
[2:22:54] that people say when I read from the staff, And
[2:22:58] just because the public might not be aware, I was
[2:23:01] wondering if someone could just explain why. They came to
[2:23:03] this conclusion of not having it in here. And then
[2:23:06] the second question I have is. How much of the
[2:23:10] 242,000 is this of sip's budget? Ms. Board. Do you
[2:23:16] know that? Can you give a bit of an overview
[2:23:19] as to what this contribution represents? Through you, mayor. I
[2:23:26] think the counselor was asking. Why we put it into
[2:23:31] the. And again, staff were given a very difficult. Task
[2:23:38] of evaluating. What should stay and what should go. We
[2:23:42] do have an economic development office here at the city.
[2:23:45] We do have a business hub that services businesses day
[2:23:48] to day. And when we use the word duplication. Yes,
[2:23:52] they do do different things than we do. But if
[2:23:54] it was cutting some of our internal budget versus an
[2:23:57] external agency. We decided to go with the external agency.
[2:24:01] And that was the rationale. Through you. Mayor, you asked
[2:24:04] another question. Sorry about this. If you could estimate. Or
[2:24:09] maybe you can't. 242k what portion of their total budget?
[2:24:13] Would this represent? I don't have that at my fingertips,
[2:24:17] but I could find that out. I think that would
[2:24:19] be helpful. In the same time, could you provide a
[2:24:24] few examples of what they do that our economic development
[2:24:27] people do not. To you, mayor. They do look at
[2:24:31] the region. From an economic lens. And as councilor Gardner
[2:24:37] pointed out, They are heavily into the blue economy. Open
[2:24:42] ocean robotics, I believe, is what councilor Gardner was. Speaking
[2:24:45] to. So developing and creating innovating things here locally. To
[2:24:52] market them out to the world, so they're doing it
[2:24:55] on a much broader scale. On an industry level of
[2:24:59] building the economy where we are boots on the ground
[2:25:02] with small businesses. And getting them. Into. Vacant retail spaces
[2:25:08] as quickly as possible. Councilor Hammond. Do you still have
[2:25:11] the floor? A few more questions. That's it. Any. Other
[2:25:14] questions. Councilor Coleman, Councilor Gardner, not a question. Your comment?
[2:25:18] Sure. I think Sip does astounding work. Their failure is
[2:25:26] that they don't market themselves very well. They don't explain
[2:25:30] the work they do, it is different and distinct from.
[2:25:35] What we do in supporting local business, particularly in the
[2:25:38] city of Victoria and particularly downtown. Their focus is much
[2:25:41] more about external opportunities and bringing that economic potential here.
[2:25:48] And that with it, and particularly focusing on the blue
[2:25:51] economy. Is about the world stage and getting some local
[2:25:56] employment that supports those things. We have had history in
[2:25:59] the past, and unfortunately, we've lost some of those. So
[2:26:02] this is about bringing it. Back, and it links into
[2:26:05] First nations economic opportunities as well. So I support this
[2:26:09] one, but I recognize that staff were put in a
[2:26:12] very awkward position. In trying to find the cuts. That
[2:26:16] we are going to have to figure out. And when
[2:26:18] we come to section b, it's. Going to be even
[2:26:21] tougher now. Councilor Gerner. Thank you. When I mentioned partnership,
[2:26:26] I started out with municipalities, but they have, of course,
[2:26:30] a lot of industries. And different financial groups have contributed
[2:26:34] even to the base funding. In fact, the funding now
[2:26:37] is 60% municipal and about 40% private. This is for
[2:26:41] the operations, remember, not for the projects. And all the
[2:26:45] init. Initiatives. And so that's what it is. And about
[2:26:48] a third of the funding of their core of the
[2:26:51] municipal portion comes from the city of Victoria. Another, more
[2:26:54] or less third from Sanich and another third from the
[2:26:57] other municipalities that are involved. I do have a suggestion.
[2:27:01] If I may make one. Can we refer this? I
[2:27:04] understand that the south online Prosperity project. Is coming to
[2:27:06] speak to us next week. Yes, I believe they are.
[2:27:09] Could we refer this to. Our November 21 session. Or
[2:27:15] do we think with us just holding? Okay. It's okay.
[2:27:17] I take that back. I take that back. It's not
[2:27:22] a final decision. No, that is true. That's very true.
[2:27:28] If no one wants to delay, they can. And certainly
[2:27:30] we have the ability to review all of this again
[2:27:33] at the end. And should we magically discover some reason
[2:27:36] why we didn't want to support one of these. We
[2:27:38] can always pull them. That's fine. All right. So, anything
[2:27:42] else anyone would like to say about South Ellie? Go
[2:27:44] ahead, Kim. Thanks. Through the chair. I will offer one
[2:27:49] tangential observation, which is if we look at the federal
[2:27:53] government, You're seeing a lot of investment in marine technology.
[2:27:59] And we happen to be by the naval base where
[2:28:02] there is also investment happening, not things I personally love,
[2:28:06] but there is an economic connection to what we're seeing
[2:28:09] here, so I'll raise that. Thank you very much for
[2:28:11] that, Councilor Gardner. I should just point out for the
[2:28:14] public. The reason councilor Gartner is answering these questions is
[2:28:17] because she is actually the city's appointee. To sip, and
[2:28:20] so she has a very regular relationship with them. So
[2:28:23] I'll put the question either to you. Councilor Orton is
[2:28:26] more. You mentioned the third is the city a third?
[2:28:29] Is Sanich and the other third are other municipalities. Is
[2:28:32] every other municipality in the region a contributor? No. And
[2:28:36] do you happen to know off the top of your
[2:28:38] head who do not contribute? Pardon? Do you happen to
[2:28:42] remember off the top of your head who do not
[2:28:43] contribute? I have to get the list of them. I
[2:28:50] don't want to name one if I'm wrong. And so
[2:28:52] I'm going to say. The one municipality who usually doesn't
[2:28:57] participate. And a couple of others. Do you know that
[2:29:02] Ms. Morrison and central senator, I believe, has blacked out.
[2:29:07] I'm not sure. I shouldn't be saying this because I'm
[2:29:10] going to get them wrong. Through the mayor. The Southeastern
[2:29:15] Prosperity Partnership is watching us right now. Great. So they
[2:29:18] have answered the first question. Which is? Our contribution is
[2:29:22] 22% towards their operations. Great. And I'm just going to
[2:29:26] ask right now if all the municipalities are funders. One
[2:29:29] moment, Ms. Thompson. Do you know that? I think Ms.
[2:29:31] Thompson knows that, actually, yes. And just for clarity, too,
[2:29:36] depending on. What you're looking at. Obviously, they have other
[2:29:40] funding sources than municipal contributions. So the City of Victoria's
[2:29:45] chair of the municipal contribution towards their operation is 35.22%.
[2:29:52] Sandwiches is 28.88%. And from what I can see, I
[2:29:58] have eleven municipalities who are part of it. Machozen is
[2:30:04] one that isn't. I have to think who the other
[2:30:08] one is. Nothing is popping to my mind, and there
[2:30:11] are a number of first nation participants as well, I
[2:30:14] believe. Yes. Okay, so the answer to the question in
[2:30:22] general is it's not everybody, but it's. Mostly everybody. And
[2:30:25] the city is a little more than a third. Senate
[2:30:27] is a little less than a third. And the rest
[2:30:29] are a variety, and those make up about 60% of
[2:30:33] the total budget, right? Okay. All right. Very good. Anyone
[2:30:37] else on this particular one? Mayor just popped up to
[2:30:41] us. Who? They're missing. Other person was. So Langford is
[2:30:43] not part of it either. Oh, my. Goodness. All right.
[2:30:46] Then. Food for thought for my next conversation with my
[2:30:49] colleague, Mayor Goodman. All right, anyone else on number ten?
[2:30:54] The South Island Prosperity Partnership, 242. Remember again, we're voting
[2:30:59] to return it to the budget, so if you wish
[2:31:02] to have it back in, vote yes. And if you
[2:31:04] wish it to be removed, vote no. All those in
[2:31:07] favor. Is anyone opposed? Councilor Hammond is opposed. So with
[2:31:13] noting with one opposed, that is returned. So. That's a
[2:31:16] carried. And we have two more. Let's see if we
[2:31:19] can go. Through these before we break the new traffic
[2:31:22] signals. Who brought this one new traffic to Council Gardner.
[2:31:26] Yes, speak to that one. Councilor Gritter. Thank you. I
[2:31:29] think the answer came when we did the crosswalk installation.
[2:31:32] It's probably the same answer. That's fine. Let's ask either
[2:31:37] Mr. Doyle and Mr. Kenny. Is it approximately the same
[2:31:39] answer. Through the mayor. So for the new traffic signal
[2:31:43] program, you'll see in appendix B that there was actually
[2:31:45] further reductions so that this would be the only budget
[2:31:48] amount. And the idea was that we were deferring a
[2:31:51] traffic signal until 2027 to align with another project, see?
[2:31:55] Okay. All right, so this means no new traffic signals
[2:31:57] in 26. Just to be clear. Right. Councilor Thompson, just
[2:32:02] a question. Do some of the multimodal projects include traffic
[2:32:06] signals? Mr. Kenny. Through the mayor. So the multimodal program
[2:32:12] typically covers. Modifications to signals and sometimes new traffic signals
[2:32:18] as part of that program. I don't believe we have
[2:32:20] any planned in 2026 from that funding. So we're not
[2:32:25] losing anything already planned. Anybody else? This one. So again,
[2:32:31] it sounds as if this is anticipated and able to
[2:32:35] be accommodated. All those in favor of returning this to
[2:32:41] the budget, vote yes. Or in the alternative, based upon
[2:32:45] Mr. Kenny's commentary if we do not return it to
[2:32:47] the budget vote. No, all those in favor. All those
[2:32:51] in opposition. That is unanimous. So this one can come
[2:32:55] out. Thank you again. And then the last one in
[2:32:59] appendix A are the hanging baskets. Who pulled this one?
[2:33:03] Council I pulled it because it is in the public
[2:33:07] realm and we've already heard back about it. Somewhat. So
[2:33:10] I was just wondering if staff could. Hopefully, if they
[2:33:13] have a map, they can tell. Us where the baskets
[2:33:17] would continue to hang and. Which would not. If this
[2:33:20] proceeds? Because that wasn't clear in the write up. You
[2:33:23] know that, Mr. Newman. Where would we have baskets remaining
[2:33:27] if we take out 130,000? Through your mayor. I have
[2:33:31] shared a map with the deputy city clerk. Great. She
[2:33:34] may pull that. Up might help guide the conversation. Perfect.
[2:33:44] While we're pulling that up, I'd be happy to give
[2:33:47] a little additional information. On this. Annually, the city provides
[2:33:53] 1200 hanging baskets in the downtown core. In the summertime.
[2:33:57] It's part of our beautification project. To support tourism in
[2:34:01] the core. The map before you, council. Is the current
[2:34:07] locations of all of the baskets. The different numberings represent.
[2:34:13] The different types of baskets that we hang across the
[2:34:15] city. Annually. The program currently costs us $260,000 a year
[2:34:22] and we currently install 1200 hanging baskets. The proposed reduction
[2:34:27] to this program would see a 50% reduction in the
[2:34:30] total number of baskets provided, which. Is estimated to be
[2:34:34] 600 baskets that we would install. And we would collaborate
[2:34:38] with DVBA as partners in identifying and prioritizing the areas
[2:34:43] downtown within the red circle on this image. To ensure
[2:34:48] that. We're prioritizing the highest impact areas in the core.
[2:34:52] Everything outside of the red. Circle would be deprioritized, and
[2:34:55] then we would focus the remaining funds to ensure that
[2:34:58] we're having the highest impact possible. Council gardner. Does that
[2:35:03] answer your question? Yes. But I hope the public sees
[2:35:08] them out, because I think it's important to get that.
[2:35:10] Information across. Thank you. Thank you for that. That does
[2:35:14] actually lead to a procedural question. Both the presentation earlier
[2:35:17] today, which was excellent. And things like this. Will they
[2:35:20] be on. The websites as attached to this particular item
[2:35:25] on the agenda retrospectively. We don't normally republish items like
[2:35:32] this, such as this, but the presentation will be. Yes.
[2:35:36] Okay. If council specifically wants us to republish any individual
[2:35:40] items such as this, we certainly would do so. A
[2:35:42] council's direction. I would note, though, that this has now.
[2:35:49] Become captured in the live feed. And so, for someone
[2:35:52] who after tomorrow, wishes to go and view this part.
[2:35:56] Add exactly three minutes and 42 42 in the afternoon.
[2:36:00] They'll be able to see that. Image. There you go.
[2:36:02] We can perhaps encourage people to do that. Councilor Gregor,
[2:36:05] anything further on? This one? No. So again, thank you
[2:36:08] very much. If you can take that one off the
[2:36:09] screen. Anyone else on hanging baskets? Councilor Thompson. Just a
[2:36:14] question. We've increased the spending on beautification of downtown through
[2:36:19] the art downtown program. Just wondering. How our downtown budget
[2:36:24] compares to this budget, just in scale. Ms. Moore or
[2:36:29] Ms. Thompson. Through you, mayor. The our downtown budget is
[2:36:33] just shy of a million dollars. I believe it's. 984,000
[2:36:37] ish dollars. Sorry. Does that answer your question? Okay.
[2:36:48] Can you remind me? I don't believe yet. In appendix
[2:36:52] b there's any indication of altering that, is there? Is
[2:36:55] it coming forward? The same amount. Through the may. Yes.
[2:36:59] So the next appendix. So the ideas for removal includes
[2:37:04] our downtown program in its entirety. Yes. Very good. Thank
[2:37:08] you. Good to know. Still to be determined. Let's be.
[2:37:10] Clear. And that's our next phase, so that's yet to
[2:37:13] be discussed at council. That being said, anyone else on
[2:37:16] the hanging baskets? Again, this is suggesting that. This item
[2:37:21] be returned into the budget, Councilor Coleman. This budgetary reduction
[2:37:26] comes up about every seven years. It is interesting that
[2:37:34] we have a number of hanging baskets in the city
[2:37:37] of Morioca because many years ago. They sent over about
[2:37:43] a six week period. I think it was more than
[2:37:46] 250 gardeners to come and train with our park staff
[2:37:51] into what the hanging basket program actually looks like. I
[2:37:55] do work in the summer, occasionally as a tour guide.
[2:38:01] And you always point out the hanging baskets because. They're
[2:38:05] on. Our. Five bulb. Street lights, which. Are protected.
[2:38:16] They're copyrighted to the city of Victoria. And once people
[2:38:20] look at it, they start taking pictures, and then they
[2:38:22] ask if. There's information and you send them online. This
[2:38:27] is one of those ones that makes absolutely no sense
[2:38:31] to invest in until you start taking it away, and
[2:38:34] then you will find a whole bunch of people who
[2:38:37] are going, why are you diminishing this one? I understand.
[2:38:42] The need to pair the budget back, believe me. And
[2:38:44] it's always painful, but. This is one of those wonderful,
[2:38:49] iconic little pieces that people will come to the defense
[2:38:53] off. I don't think I support ticking. I support putting
[2:38:56] this back in. Ms. Thompson, as we've asked earlier on
[2:39:00] a few things. What is the value of this as
[2:39:05] a percentage of a tax increase? Through your marrow, it's
[2:39:10] 0.7. Percent. Okay. Thank you for that. Can I also
[2:39:17] ask you at this point, given our decisions to date.
[2:39:20] What have we added as a percentage of a tax
[2:39:23] rate? You have added back zero point 55%. Very good.
[2:39:29] Thank you for that. Any other comments on this, councilor
[2:39:35] carried on. I'm going to support reducing the hanging baskets
[2:39:40] budget, but it's not an easy decision to make because
[2:39:43] it is so iconic of the city. And as my
[2:39:46] colleague said, even our sister city in Morioca has adopted
[2:39:49] this practice. What I want to comment on is something
[2:39:53] that kind of grinds my gears, which is when we
[2:39:56] have these kind of debates around taxes and budgets at
[2:39:59] any level of government, and when there's always this debate
[2:40:02] between nice to have. And a need to have or
[2:40:08] a necessity versus a nice to have those kind of
[2:40:11] debates often really bother me, to be honest, because what
[2:40:14] one person perceives is a necessity might be something that
[2:40:17] someone else perceives as a nice to have and vice
[2:40:19] versa. And the bike valley or youth bus passes are
[2:40:23] good examples. If you don't have a 13 or 14
[2:40:25] year old they might seem like a luxury. But if
[2:40:27] you're in a financially constrained household, they're essential. Same thing
[2:40:30] with hanging. Baskets. I'm sure there's a lot of people
[2:40:32] that will say, okay, that's. A nice to have, but
[2:40:34] it's also iconic to our city. It adorns our city.
[2:40:39] We're the garden city, so none of these decisions are
[2:40:41] easy to make, and I do. Acknowledge that for many
[2:40:44] people this is a necessity. But I do think that
[2:40:47] we have to make these difficult decisions to scale back
[2:40:50] a bit, but I hope that we can all recognize
[2:40:52] that there's value in every single thing that's up on
[2:40:54] the screen here. And in addition, everything else in our
[2:40:56] budget and something that might to. You be a luxury
[2:41:00] is to someone else a necessity. So I think it's
[2:41:02] always important. For us to keep that in mind. Thank
[2:41:05] you, Councilor Gardner. And then Dell. That's okay. Can we
[2:41:13] have the map back up, please? Because there is something
[2:41:16] that does concern me about it. Can you step map
[2:41:20] back up? Thank you. What's happening is. There's something. Bothering
[2:41:26] me for years. Is that the baskets don't actually go.
[2:41:32] Get my street straight. They don't even go to Beacon
[2:41:34] Hill Park. That's kind of always bothered me. I thought,
[2:41:41] if we're going to tie this, in that little bit.
[2:41:43] I tried years ago to get it, and we couldn't
[2:41:45] get it. Just those few dusks. Just like two or
[2:41:48] three. But what's worm me right now? Is, frankly, the
[2:41:51] area is being cut off. May not be the tourist
[2:41:55] area, but it's the area that we're going to have
[2:41:57] a lot of development in people living in very soon.
[2:42:02] We hope very soon. We're an awful lot of. Our
[2:42:05] development is occurring. Is just to the east of that
[2:42:10] red line, I believe, does it not? And so, in
[2:42:14] a way, what this will do, the basket will separate
[2:42:17] it more. That area of town. From that part of
[2:42:23] the residential. I don't know if that's good or bad.
[2:42:25] But I'm saying it will do that. And that is
[2:42:29] kind of worrisome and as I said, doesn't even join
[2:42:32] a Beacon hill park. And that's been going on for
[2:42:34] 20 years. That's not new. I just don't know. This
[2:42:39] is a tough one because of what it represents. Don't
[2:42:42] even know how I'm going to vote on this one.
[2:42:45] Thank you, councilor. Dell. One of the challenges we have
[2:42:51] here is we're making decisions on what to cut or
[2:42:54] add in, but there's a whole bunch of other decisions
[2:42:56] down the road that might impact us on our next
[2:42:59] budget date. So if we make some very serious cuts
[2:43:01] later on, obviously, including to the police budget, which is
[2:43:04] astronomical compared to this. We might want to revisit some
[2:43:07] of these. So for right now, I am going to
[2:43:09] vote to cut the hang of. Assets. But I think
[2:43:11] if we do make some other cuts and up days,
[2:43:14] this is one that I'd be worth revisiting. So say
[2:43:16] we get the number down to something. The tax number
[2:43:18] down to something that. I think residents can handle. And
[2:43:22] we have a bit of wiggle room to put a
[2:43:23] couple of things back in for me. This is probably
[2:43:25] where I'd look to maybe put this. Back. Maybe not
[2:43:28] put the whole 130 back in, but put half of
[2:43:30] that back in, so 65,000. So the budget is going
[2:43:33] to be around 195 rather than 130. But for today,
[2:43:37] I will vote to support this, but knowing that maybe
[2:43:39] if people are interested, we can come back. To this
[2:43:41] later on and perhaps bump this up a little bit.
[2:43:44] Just on that note, thank you for that. You're right.
[2:43:48] We have constructed this conversation in a way which assists
[2:43:51] staff in being directed based on. Previous conversations. And so
[2:43:57] that's why it's constructed in this fashion. But when we
[2:43:59] get towards the end, we will have an opportunity to
[2:44:02] have a look at all of this to see whether
[2:44:04] anything needs to be rejigged or removed or transferred or
[2:44:07] whatever boards you want to use. That is why we're
[2:44:09] going to take the time that we will in order
[2:44:11] to see this totality. So we're looking at four chunks,
[2:44:14] as I described earlier, but we will at that point
[2:44:16] be able. To look at the whole. And so. If
[2:44:20] we are to place that we think is actually somewhat
[2:44:23] good, we could come back and revisit any of these
[2:44:25] things. Anybody else on this one, Councilor Lo? Thanks to
[2:44:31] you, mayor. I just want to echo what was just
[2:44:33] mentioned, because that's what was going through my mind is
[2:44:35] maybe we cut it now, but then. We look at?
[2:44:41] The new council could look at putting it back in
[2:44:44] for future years, too, that this would just be something
[2:44:47] that's happening for 2026. So I just wanted to note
[2:44:50] that. Thank you. Very much. Anybody else for this one?
[2:44:54] I'm going to vote to return this to the budget,
[2:44:56] and I actually think that one of the reasons based
[2:44:59] on many of their comments. Is the numbers that Ms.
[2:45:05] Thompson shared with us. I think as we've looked at
[2:45:08] some other things. It's bigger than those, but still relatively
[2:45:11] small. But I think. We haven't talked at all about
[2:45:15] the value of this from an economic development perspective, as
[2:45:19] we have put almost a million dollars into the downtown
[2:45:21] core around things that could be loosely defined. As beautification,
[2:45:26] cleanliness, repair, maintenance, that sort of thing. I see this
[2:45:30] as part of that. And so, while I grant that
[2:45:34] there are still many, many difficult decisions ahead of us,
[2:45:39] Even looking at the next appendix, which will begin the
[2:45:41] next time we meet. I think there is room there
[2:45:43] to accommodate this. And so I am actually going to
[2:45:46] vote in favor of returning this. To the budget at
[2:45:49] this time, knowing that it could be reconsidered in the
[2:45:53] future. By either this or a future council. Anyone else
[2:45:57] on this one? Okay, so again, if you wish to
[2:46:01] return this to the budget, vote in favor. If you
[2:46:03] wish. To cut it from the budget or have it
[2:46:05] remained cut from the budget? Vote in opposition. In favor
[2:46:09] of returning this to the budget. That would be myself
[2:46:13] and councilor Coleman and councilor Gardner. In opposition. So to
[2:46:16] leave it out, that would be Hammond, Lowton. My God.
[2:46:20] David Thompson. Thank you, Councilor Kim. By councilor carried on,
[2:46:24] Councilor Dell. So, in fact, that is in favor, and
[2:46:28] that means it is going to. Be. Removed from the
[2:46:33] budget. There you go. I did that backwards. But the
[2:46:36] s as we returned removed. From the budget. Yeah, look
[2:46:39] at that. It's five to four, almost. And so. Thank
[2:46:41] you. Very much staff. Kudos to the staff, the support
[2:46:45] staff who've been following along this very arcane conversation that
[2:46:48] has been wandering all over the place. As much as
[2:46:51] I've tried to make it linear in some ways, so
[2:46:54] here we are. We've now done appendix A, we have
[2:46:57] appendix B, we have a subsequent motions arising that are
[2:47:01] neither. None of the appendices. We also have conversations and
[2:47:04] questions that will arise out of appendix D and also
[2:47:07] the possibility of future direction so much yet. To be
[2:47:11] done. As I understand it, and I will look for
[2:47:14] Ms. Thompson to confirm that this is correct. The next
[2:47:16] time we meet will in fact be November 21. Is
[2:47:21] that correct? Yes, that's correct. And at that time, we
[2:47:24] will begin again where we've left off. So we'll start
[2:47:27] with appendix B and follow a very similar process as
[2:47:31] we discover what it is that we wish to include
[2:47:34] and not and amend at that point. And so I'm
[2:47:37] going to say that we have done what we can
[2:47:39] at section D of our agenda. I'm just going. To
[2:47:42] make sure nobody else has any. Final questions. Yee would
[2:47:45] be notices of motion. I don't believe there are any
[2:47:47] arising today. F would be a closed meeting, which we
[2:47:51] do not have a purpose for today. And so I
[2:47:53] will look with thanks to staff for your patience and
[2:47:56] incredible work and to counsel for their ability. To be
[2:47:59] collegial in these difficult decisions, I would look for a
[2:48:01] motion to adjourn. Thank you, councilor Coleman. Seconded by councilor
[2:48:05] Carrie, Donna. All those in favor? Anyone? Opposed. That is
[2:48:09] unanimous. And. We will see one another next week.