[4. A memorandum regarding whether to encourage development on vacant land and address underutilized lots and derelict buildings by: (i) Amending By-law No. 4207 to create a new tax class for vacant land; and (ii) Bringing forward a by-law to regulate vacant and abandoned buildings.]

I WON'T READ THE REST OF THE ITEM, BUT. MR. VAN DINE, OVER TO YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THIS WILL BE. WE HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION THAT WE'D LIKE TO TAKE COUNCIL THROUGH.

IT'LL BE PROVIDED BY DIRECTOR WHITE, DIRECTOR THISTLE, AND DIRECTOR PANDOO.

WE'LL HAVE SUNK THEIR TEETH INTO THIS QUESTION.

JUST A QUICK WORD OF OVERVIEW AND MAYBE CONTEXT.

SO THIS ISSUE HAS COME UP NOT ONLY TO THIS COUNCIL, BUT PREVIOUS COUNCILS EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES, WHAT SEEMS TO BE VISUALLY AVAILABLE OR UNDERUTILIZED IN THE DOWNTOWN.

TO YOUR CREDIT, THIS COUNCIL HAS SEEN IT AS A QUESTION THAT IT WANTED THE ADMINISTRATION TO DIG INTO A LITTLE BIT.

WE HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED A SPECIFIC REQUEST FROM COUNCIL ON WHAT TO DO, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE EITHER THROUGH CONVERSATION OR THROUGH VARIOUS COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME UP ON OTHER QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BEFORE COUNCIL.

OUR INTENT TODAY IS TO PROVIDE COUNCIL A LITTLE BIT MORE SUBSTANCE IN TERMS OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH AS A CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS IS. HOPEFULLY IT'LL INFORM A LITTLE BIT AND EDUCATE AROUND SOME OF THE LIMITATIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE TOOLS, BUT IT ALSO LAYS OUT SOME OPTIONS ON A POTENTIAL PATH FORWARD FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

SHOULD COUNCIL CONSIDER TO WANT US TO PURSUE MORE IN TERMS OF A BY-LAW CHANGE OF THE ILK, WE CAN THEN PROCEED AND BRING THAT FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR PROPER DELIBERATION AND FOR PUBLIC INPUT. BUT TODAY IS ALL ABOUT SETTING THE STAGE AND GIVING YOU SOME SENSE OF WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE.

SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR THISTLE TO KICK US OFF.

THANKS, EVERYONE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS HAS BEEN A MAJOR COLLECTIVE EFFORT AND WE DON'T HAVE EVERYBODY UP HERE THAT GAVE FEEDBACK AND INPUT INTO THE MEMO.

SO IT'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK TO GET US WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

AS MR. VAN DINE HAS INDICATED, THERE'S NO MEMO FROM COUNCIL OR COMMITTEE THAT WE CAN FIND, ALTHOUGH WE ALL KNOW WE'VE TALKED AND HEARD ABOUT WHAT CAN WE DO WITH VACANT LAND, HOW DO WE GET DEVELOPMENT MOVING, WHAT ABOUT THAT LOT. BUT THERE'S NO ACTUAL MOTION.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY IN THE END, AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT, IS SOME CLEAR DIRECTION ON HOW COUNCIL WOULD LIKE US TO PROCEED. SO, THE FIRST QUESTION COUNCIL DID ASK THAT WE HAVE SEEN IN A GPC MEETING IS DO WE EVEN HAVE THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO CREATE A NEW PROPERTY CLASS? AND THE ANSWER IS YES. UNDER THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION ACT, WE ARE ALLOWED TO CREATE PROPERTY TAX CLASSES.

AND WE CURRENTLY HAVE SIX, AND THEY'RE OUTLINED UP THERE.

AND THEN THAT IS DONE IN OUR TAX ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW.

SO THAT'S BY-LAW NUMBER 4207. AND SO WE CAN CREATE NEW PROPERTY TAX CLASSES BY MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THAT BY-LAW.

AND IT'S ALL PERMITTED UNDER TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION.

HOWEVER THE TERRITORY DOES NOT HAVE A VACANT PROPERTY CLASS.

AND SO IT'S NOT A SIMPLE CUT AND PASTE OF A DEFINITION.

SO WHO WANTS TO TALK TO THESE? THIS IS VACANT LAND.

WE CAN CREATE A NEW TAX CLASS. YES. ONE DISTINCTION, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT THE MEMO, IS WHAT IS VACANT LAND. AND THAT WAS ONE THING.

EVEN LIKE AT SLT, WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT COMPLETELY SURE IF COUNCIL MEANS A VACANT LOT THAT HAS NOTHING ON IT, OR DO THEY MEAN A VACANT BUILDING? AND THEY'RE QUITE DIFFERENT AND THEY MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROPERTY ASSESSMENT.

[00:10:05]

SO YES, WE CAN CREATE A NEW PROPERTY CLASS FOR VACANT LAND.

BUT INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, THERE'S NONE OF THESE EXAMPLES ACROSS THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

WHEN WE HEAR THINGS LIKE EMPTY HOMES TAX, VACANT HOME TAX, THEY'RE REALLY USING THE OTHER CITIES WHERE THEY HAD AN ISSUE OF HOMES BEING LEFT EMPTY. THEY'RE NOT VACANT.

THEY'RE NOT ABANDONED, BUT THEY'RE EMPTY. YOU SAW THAT IN VANCOUVER.

THEY BROUGHT IN A TAX. AND THAT WAS REALLY ABOUT ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE BEING HELD BY FOREIGN INVESTORS.

SO IT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

SO THERE ARE NO OTHER EXAMPLES SPECIFICALLY OF THIS.

IN 2024, HALIFAX DID GO TO THEIR COUNCIL AND SAY, GIVE US THE DIRECTION TO ASK FOR THE PROVINCE TO CHANGE LEGISLATION TO LET US DO THIS, BUT THERE'S BEEN NOTHING THAT WE CAN FIND THAT'S MOVED FORWARD OR HAPPENED YET.

AND I ALSO WANTED TO FLAG THAT. WELL, WE THINK THERE'S A LOT OF VACANT LOTS IN THE DOWNTOWN.

THEY'RE NOT ALL WHAT WOULD BE CAPTURED IN A DEFINITION OF VACANT BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT'S A PARKING LOT, IN SOME CASES THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT IS TO HAVE PARKING AVAILABLE.

AND SO A PARKING LOT IS NOT CONSIDERED A VACANT LOT.

SO REALLY TO CREATE A CLASS LIKE THIS, WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT´S THE DEFINITION OF VACANT.

WE'D HAVE TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT SETTING THAT SO WE DON'T OVER CAPTURE OR UNDER CAPTURE THINGS.

WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT EXEMPTIONS BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE PROPERTY THAT'S VACANT, BUT THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT ALREADY IN FOR IT, AND PEOPLE HAVE LIKE 1 TO 2 YEARS TO COMPLETE STUFF.

SO YOU REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. WHAT'S OUR OBJECTIVE? WE BELIEVE COUNCIL WANTS, IF THEY DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, IT'S ABOUT ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN THE CHALLENGE IS CLEARLY, AS I'VE INDICATED, WE CAN'T COPY AND PASTE THIS.

WE'RE KIND OF INVENTING THE WHEEL, EVEN THOUGH IT'S PERMITTED BY TERRITORIAL LEGISLATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, KERRY. SO THE NEXT CATEGORY FOR CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS SOME STEPS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS HOPEFULLY LATER, IS THE IDEA OF CONTAMINATED SITES AND WHAT THE MUNICIPALITY CAN DO TO PROMOTE DEVELOPMENT IN SOME OF THESE AREAS.

SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THESE 13 PARCELS AND TWO LOTS THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE GIANT.

SO GIANT IS A BEAST OF ITS OWN. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER PARCELS.

SO I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT. SO THE CITY HAS HAD FOR THE LAST 15 PLUS YEARS, DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THROUGH THE CURRENT BY-LAW AND PREVIOUS BY-LAW THAT HAS TRIED TO COME UP WITH A MONETARY SUPPORT FOR MOVING FORWARD, NOT JUST WITH IDENTIFICATION, BUT WITH THE PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO TO HELP TO CLEAN UP.

WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, AND WHAT I HOPE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS IS, IT'S NOT A COUPLE OR TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

SOME OF THESE CLEANUPS CAN BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

AND SO US OFFERING $10,000 THROUGH DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE REALLY MEANS NOTHING.

IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, THE BETTER OPTION FOR THEM IS TO JUST PAY THE TAXES ON THE LAND AS IT SITS THERE.

SO IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

THERE IS THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT OF INCREASED TAX REVENUE.

BUT AGAIN, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING MULTI-MILLION DOLLARS, A COUPLE THOUSAND EXTRA ON TAXES, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT REALLY IS GOING TO RESULT IN.

SO IT'S REALLY NOT GOING TO INCENT IN OUR OPINION, DEVELOPMENT RIGHT OFF THE BAT.

OOPS. THERE WE GO. SO AS MENTIONED BY KERRY, LOW DENSITY SURFACE PARKING.

SO ABOUT 40% OF OUR DOWNTOWN IS SURFACE PARKING LOTS.

THIS HAS RESULTED BECAUSE IN THE PAST, PREVIOUS ZONING BY-LAWS HAS REQUIRED THAT WHEN YOU'RE DOING DEVELOPMENT THAT THERE WAS A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING.

SO NOT ONLY DID PEOPLE LOOK AT ADJACENT LOTS OR LOTS THAT THEY HAD, BUT THERE'S ALSO PIECES MAYBE A BLOCK OVER OR A STREET DOWN.

AND WE'VE TIED. WELL, THEY AT THE TIME WERE REQUIRED TO TIE THOSE PARCELS ON TITLE THROUGH CAVEAT TO THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY WERE DOING.

SO AS YOU'RE DRIVING AROUND DOWNTOWN AND YOU SEE SOME OF THESE LOTS, SOME OF THESE LOTS WERE PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED BY OUR BY-LAWS.

OUR MOST RECENT ZONING BY-LAW, WE HAVE UPDATED.

AND SO THAT REQUIREMENT IS NO LONGER THERE. BUT WE DON'T GO AND MAKE THESE CHANGES.

IT HAS TO BE THE CURRENT OWNERS MOSTLY REITS, GNWT AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND SO THERE COULD BE A CONVERSATION ABOUT DO WE ADD A NEW TAX CLASS WITH REGARDS TO SURFACE PARKING LOTS? WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

WHO DOES THIS REALLY IMPACT? THE SHORT TERM PAIN, IF WE DO PUT IN ADDITIONAL TAXES TO INCENT DEVELOPMENT IS YES, THERE WILL BE A, SAY IN THE FIRST COUPLE OF YEARS, INCREASED NEED FOR ON STREET PARKING,

[00:15:03]

AND THERE MAY BE A BIT OF EBB AND FLOW ON HOW THAT WORKS OUT, IF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY PARKING LOTS ARE DEVELOPED.

BUT THE LONG TERM BENEFIT COULD BE INCREASED USE OF TRANSIT, INCREASED PEOPLE LIVING AND WORKING IN THE DOWNTOWN.

SO THEN THERE'S LESS NEED FOR THEM TO NEED PARKING LOT BECAUSE THEY NOW CAN LIVE WHERE THEY WORK AND INCREASED USE OF ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION.

SO VACANT AND ABANDONED BUILDINGS. AS WE MENTIONED, THIS IS SOMEWHAT WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN, MAYBE IN THE NEWS ELSEWHERE WITH WHAT PEOPLE OR WHAT MUNICIPALITIES ARE DOING TO TRY TO CHANGE AND INCENT PEOPLE TO REDEVELOP OR BRING SOME OF THESE UP TO CODE INTO SAFETY STANDARDS.

CURRENTLY WE HAVE LIMITED TOOLS, IF ANY. USUALLY IT ENDS UP BEING THE BUILDING SERVICES DEPARTMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH MED AND, YOU KNOW, DEALING EITHER ON A COMPLAINT BASIS OR IF THERE'S A PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE.

SO MOVING FORWARD, THERE IS OPTIONS OUT THERE.

AND I THINK LATER ON WE TALK ABOUT SOME OTHER ENFORCEMENT TYPE BY-LAWS THAT COULD BE PUT IN PLACE.

BUT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE LIMITS. TAXING THESE PROPERTIES MAY NOT BE THE BEST WAY TO GET INCENTIVES FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT. AND GOING THROUGH ALL OF THE PROCESSES MAY JUST ADD ADDITIONAL TIME WHEN THERE MAY BE A BY-LAW SOLUTION, IF YOU WANTED TO CONSIDER THAT FOR. BASICALLY THE WAY IT'S WHITEHORSE IS, THE EXAMPLE THAT WE WERE USING IS HAVING A FEE REQUIRED EVERY YEAR THAT YOUR BUILDING SITS VACANT, AND THAT FEE ACTUALLY INCREASES ON A SPECIFIC INCREMENT THROUGH TIME, BECAUSE THEN THE PENALTY, IT'S NOT A TAX, BUT THE PENALTY THROUGH THE BY-LAW IS ACTUALLY THE INCENTIVE, BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO THE TAXES, YOU ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THIS PERMIT.

AND THE THING ABOUT THE PERMIT IS IT ENSURES THAT THE BUILDING IS SAFE AND STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND MAINTAINED IN A SPECIFIC ORDER, OR THAT THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS PROPERLY CLOSED OFF.

SO THERE'S A COUPLE MECHANISMS UNDER THAT KIND OF A BY-LAW THAT WE COULD USE GOING FORWARD.

OH, I GUESS I'M CONTINUING. OKAY. SO TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CHALLENGES AND LOOKING AT UNDERUTILIZED LAND AND DERELICT BUILDINGS IN YELLOWKNIFE, THERE'S A NUMBER OF OPTIONS IN THE MEMO FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

OBVIOUSLY, MAYBE THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF.

SO AS THE CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM YOU.

SO THE FIRST OPTION THAT WE'VE RECOMMENDED IS MOVING FORWARD TO AMEND THE TAX ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW.

THIS WOULD ENABLE COUNCIL TO APPLY DIFFERENT TAX RATES FOR, OR THAT WOULD REFLECT THE DIFFERENT STATUS OF DIFFERENT PROPERTIES ACROSS THE COMMUNITY.

ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE A BY-LAW TO REGULATE VACANT AND ABANDONED BUILDINGS, DRAWING ON THE MODEL THAT IS OUT THERE IN WHITEHORSE.

NOW, THIS MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE LONGER BECAUSE WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, DRAFT THE BY-LAW AS WELL AS TAKING A LOOK AT PUBLIC CONSULTATION, SEEING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT IN THE COMMUNITY. BUT IT IS AN OPTION THAT IS OUT THERE.

AND IT WOULD REALLY WORK BETWEEN, AGAIN, BOTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS PUBLIC SAFETY KIND OF AS WE DO NOW.

BUT THERE WOULD BE A MORE FORMAL PROCESS PLUS PERMITTING PLUS ESCALATING COSTS.

AND TOGETHER THESE OPTIONS OR OTHER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT COUNCIL MAY HAVE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS CREATE A DEVELOPMENT FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT, NOT JUST IN OUR DOWNTOWN, BUT ELSEWHERE IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO ASK, ARE WE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN? ARE WE TALKING EVERYWHERE? ARE WE TALKING RESIDENTIAL? SO A LITTLE GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

AND THEN YEAH, WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL.

ANYTHING ELSE? SO YOU MIGHT BE ASKING WHY WE'RE GIVING YOU A BUNCH OF OPTIONS.

WELL, IF YOU THINK OF A VACANT LOT, IT COULD BE A VACANT LOT WITH NOTHING ON IT.

IT COULD BE A VACANT LOT THAT HAS EMPTY CEMENT FOUNDATION.

IT COULD BE A VACANT LOT THAT HAS AN ABANDONED BUILDING.

AND THEN YOU MIGHT BE ASKING YOURSELVES, WELL, WHY CAN'T WE DEAL WITH THAT ALREADY? AS MISS WHITE INDICATED, WE'RE LIMITED BECAUSE UNSIGHTLY LANDS BY-LAW, IS ONE WAY.

BUT IF YOU HAVE AN EMPTY LOT THAT HAS A FOUNDATION IN IT AND THERE'S NO CONSTRUCTION WASTE, IT'S NOT GOING TO FIT THE DEFINITION IN UNSIGHTLY LANDS BY-LAW.

SO WE'RE REALLY LIMITED IN HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THAT.

IS IT UNSAFE? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR BUILDING SERVICES.

AND THEY MIGHT GET TOLD YOU HAVE TO LIKE MAKE SURE THERE'S A FENCE AROUND.

BUT AGAIN IF THE GOAL OR OBJECTIVE AS WE ARE UNDERSTANDING IT IS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT AND ADDRESS THOSE UNDERUTILIZED LOTS.

[00:20:04]

THEN THESE ARE SOME OPTIONS OF WAYS WE CAN DO THAT, THAT WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD EARLIER IN THE YEAR, AND THAT WE HAVE SEEN A BIG UPTAKE ON.

BUT AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, COUNCIL WAS LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL TOOLS TO USE TO ENCOURAGE THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE LOTS.

WE DO SIT AROUND THAT ARE EITHER EMPTY OR UNDERUTILIZED.

WE CAN DO ONE OR THE OTHER. WE CAN DO BOTH. WE CAN DO NONE.

REALLY THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. THERE ARE TIME CONSIDERATIONS AND THEY'RE OUTLINED IN THE MEMO, BUT AMENDMENT TO THE TAX ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW THAT WILL TAKE SOME TIME FROM MR. PANDOO AND MR. KELLY'S LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO CREATE THE DEFINITION, MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PROPERLY CONSTRUCTED.

AND THEN, AS IS INDICATED UNDER THE PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND TAXATION ACT, ANY CHANGES THAT ARE MADE IN 2026, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT GOING TO GET HERE IN 2025, WON'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY 1ST, 2027, SO IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE MOST OF THE YEAR IN 26 TO GET THOSE BY-LAW AMENDMENTS DONE IN A CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE WAY AND BE PREPARED FOR IMPLEMENTATION. IN JANUARY 27TH, A BY-LAW TO REGULATE VACANT AND ABANDONED BUILDINGS PROBABLY FASTER TO DRAFT BECAUSE THERE ARE EXAMPLES OUT THERE. HOWEVER, IT WILL TAKE TIME BECAUSE THEN IT'S GOING TO MEAN MISS WHITE AND MR. MCLEAN NEED TO WORK TOGETHER. BECAUSE AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, IF NOW WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE PERMITS FOR THESE BUILDINGS, THERE MIGHT NOT BE 100, BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PERMITS COMING IN AND ARGUABLY INCREASE ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT. SO DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION WE GET TODAY, YOU'LL SEE MULTIPLE MEMOS COME FORWARD THAT WILL REALLY GET INTO DEPTH ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS AND THE WAYS WE CAN RECOMMEND IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

NEITHER ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO BE A FLIPPED BACK AROUND, LIKE IN A MONTH KIND OF WORK.

AND IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO GET IT IMPLEMENTED.

ONCE WE DO GET IT BACK BEFORE COUNCIL. I THINK, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? I THINK THAT'S IT. I GUESS I'LL JUST LEAVE YOU WITH ONE EXAMPLE.

IF WE HAVE AN ABANDONED BUILDING AND WE DON'T HAVE A VACANT LAND TAX THAT WILL GET TAKEN UNDER THE BY-LAW, IF WE ADOPTED IT, IF WE HAVE AN EMPTY LOT, THAT WILL GET CONSUMED UNDER VACANT PROPERTY TAX CLASS.

BUT IF WE DO A VACANT PROPERTY TAX CLASS AND WE HAVE A VACANT BUILDING AND WE TELL THEM THEY HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN AND NO TAX CLASS, ARGUABLY STILL, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOOPHOLE BECAUSE PEOPLE TECHNICALLY CAN LEAVE THAT ABANDONED BUILDING THERE AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET CAPTURED UNDER A VACANT LAND TAX. SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE PROVIDED THESE OPTIONS.

WE'VE GIVEN SOME PROS AND CONS. THERE'S NO LIKE, SIMPLE ANSWERS.

YOU CAN SEE IT TOOK THREE OF US STANDING HERE AND ALMOST EVERYBODY AROUND THE TABLE TO GET US WHERE WE ARE.

WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO OUR SEATS BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS POSSIBLY ARE GOING TO AFFECT EVERYBODY BACK HERE.

SO THAT'S IT. IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, JUST BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO THE Q AND A'S, IS JUST TO UNDERSCORE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, JUST TO REITERATE THAT PREVIOUS COUNCILS HAVE NOT SUNK THEIR TEETH INTO THE DEPTH THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO SINK IN YOUR TEETH IN TODAY.

NUMBER TWO, THAT THIS WORK WOULD BE AN INVESTMENT OF TIME AND ENERGY.

AND WHILE YOU MAY NOT SEE THE FRUIT NECESSARILY PRESENT ITSELF IN THE TIME REMAINING IN YOUR MANDATE, IT WOULD STILL BE AN INVESTMENT OF TIME AND EFFORT THAT WOULD CARRY THROUGH FOR OTHERS TO DRAW UPON.

SO I WOULD INVITE YOU TO REFLECT ON THAT INVESTMENT.

AND THEN FINALLY, AS COUNCIL HAS TURNED THEIR ATTENTION TO THE DOWNTOWN ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BY-LAW THAT WAS PASSED AND COUNCIL HAS INVESTED IN, AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY DIRECTOR THISTLE, HAS HAD SOME POSITIVE UPTAKE. AT THE TIME, THE COUNCIL MADE THE DECISION TO INVEST IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF PROMOTION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN. THE CONVERSATION AROUND STICKS.

SO THAT WAS THE CARROT. WE WERE NOT GETTING INTO THE STICK DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS THE STICK DEPARTMENT. SO THE TWO WORK HAND IN HAND WITH THE TOOLS AND THE PROPOSAL OF ADDING TOOLS INTO THE TOOLKIT FOR POTENTIAL YOU OR FUTURE COUNCILS TO CONSIDER. SO THANK YOU. OVER TO YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO ALL OF YOU. YEAH, JUST OUT OF THE GATE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LOT TO CHEW ON AND GOOD STUFF TO CHEW ON.

[00:25:04]

JUST MAKE IT CLEAR FOR PUBLIC RECORD IF YOU KNOW IT'S GOING TO GET REPORTED ON IS THIS IS FOR OURSELVES, TOO. WE'RE MAKING A CALL WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH ANY WORK.

IF WE DO, WHAT TYPES OF FACTORS DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER? ANY FINAL DECISIONS AROUND ANY OF THIS IS GOING TO BE, AS MISS THISTLE WAS DESCRIBING, MONTHS AND MONTHS OF WORK BEFORE DRAFT BY-LAWS COME TO US, AND THEN WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT DRAFT BY-LAWS AND HAVE PUBLIC CONSULTATION AROUND THAT. SO JUST IN ORDER TO SET EXPECTATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES. WITH THAT, OPENING IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS FROM COLLEAGUES.

DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON OUT OF THE GATE, GO FOR IT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. EXCITED TO FINALLY SEE THIS. A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS.

THIS RECOMMENDATION IS A VACANT LAND TAX, AND THEN ONE FOR VACANT BUILDINGS.

COULD WE ADDRESS THE VACANT LAND THROUGH A BY-LAW VERSUS TAXATION? DO YOU HAVE THOUGHTS AROUND THAT? YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT? JUST KNOWING THAT TAXATION IS DESIGNED TO BE SLOW AND STABLE.

AND IF THE PROPERTY IS CHANGING QUICKLY, THAT MIGHT BE A TON OF THINGS YOU DON'T EXPECT. WORKWISE, SO IS THERE AN ABILITY TO ADDRESS VACANT LAND? I GUESS FIRST QUESTION THROUGH A BY-LAW VERSUS A TAXATION.

SO YOU MEAN LIKE THROUGH BY-LAW, LIKE THE ONE RECOMMENDED FOR VACANT PROPERTIES? YES. SO IT'D BE LIKE A VACANT PROPERTY AND BUILDING A BY-LAW VERSUS TAXATION AND VACANT BUILDINGS.

THANK YOU. MR. VAN DINE. WE WILL ADD THAT TO THE LIST TO LOOK INTO.

SO THAT WAS AN OPTION THAT WE HAD NOT CONSIDERED. CURRENTLY, WHEN WE GET PEOPLE IN ARREARS FOR TAXATION, THEY GO TO AUCTION. IF THEY DO NOT SELL AT AUCTION, WHAT HAPPENS? WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP THERE? MR. VAN DINE. SO THAT IS A QUESTION, ACTIVE QUESTION THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED THROUGH A REVIEW THAT'S HAPPENING THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES IS LOOKING AT.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE FIND THEMSELVES IN THAT SITUATION IN THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, WHERE IT GOES TO AUCTION AND DOESN'T GET PICKED UP.

THAT HASN'T BEEN THE EXPERIENCE IN YELLOWKNIFE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE. I'LL DEFER TO OTHERS, BUT WE'VE CERTAINLY BEEN FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO HAVE ENOUGH DEMAND IN PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BECOME AVAILABLE FOR AUCTION ACT PROCESS TO WORK.

SO I'LL MAYBE JUST TAKE A MINUTE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY CORPORATE INFORMATION TO ADD.

IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY REVERT TO THE CITY. I KNOW THAT FOR SURE.

WE'RE JUST CONFERRING. WE'LL HAVE TO GET BACK ON THE SPECIFICS.

WHEN SOMEONE'S ON THE AUCTION LIST, IT DOESN'T SELL, BUT I KNOW 100% IT DOES NOT JUST AUTOMATICALLY REVERT TITLE TO THE CITY.

SORRY. AND THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT'S BEING EXAMINED BY THE REVIEW OF PATA.

AWESOME. THANKS. THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS YOU POINT OUT VACANT LAND, A LOT ARE CONTAMINATED.

THE LAST THING I WANT IS FOR THE CITY TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF CONTAMINATED SITES.

SO I'M GLAD WE'RE THINKING ABOUT OUR INCENTIVES.

THEY'RE WAY TOO SMALL TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONTAMINATED SITES. SO THAT'S A TERRITORIAL PROBLEM.

LOW DENSITY SURFACE PARKING. AGAIN, IS THERE.

YOU MENTIONED MAYBE THROUGH TAXATION, WOULD THERE BE AN OPTION OR THOUGHTS AROUND ADDRESSING THAT SOME OTHER WAYS? OR IS TAXATION THE ONLY WAY WE KIND OF THOUGHT ABOUT SURFACE PARKING LOTS? MR. VAN DINE, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT I HAVE PUT MY MIND TO, ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS THE CITY WHO ORIGINALLY REQUIRED THESE LOTS TO BE IN PLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO DEPENDING ON WHAT THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ARE OF COUNCIL, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.

BUT UNDERSTANDING WE WERE THE ONES WHO THROUGH OUR BY-LAW REQUIRED IT.

AND SO THEN FOR US TO PENALIZE PEOPLE FOR DOING THE THING THAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO IN A PREVIOUS BY-LAW, JUST HOW DOES COUNCIL REALLY WANT TO WEIGH THAT OUT? I MEAN, IT'S TO YOUR DIRECTION, OF COURSE. THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT IS THAT REALLY THE WAY WE WANT TO GO? OR IT IS THE OTHER OPTION THAT TAXATION. SO THEY'RE AWARE OF IT AHEAD OF TIME AND CAN TAKE THE STEPS TO OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND A BIT UNTIL THAT COMES INTO PLAY, MAKE THE MOVES THAT THEY NEED TO DO, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, TAKING A LOOK AT THEIR TITLE, CLEANING UP THE CAVEATS AND DECIDING WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THEY WANT TO SELL OR REDEVELOP. AND DO WE HAVE INCENTIVES THAT MAY HELP THEM DO THAT? BECAUSE WE MIGHT RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. AWESOME.

THANKS. I KNOW THE SURFACE PARKING LOTS ARE WAY LARGER VOLUME OF LAND DOWNTOWN VERSUS VACANT OR UNDERUSED LOTS.

THEY'RE MASSIVE. SO I WANT TO ADDRESS VACANT LOTS, BUT I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'RE THINKING OF A THING THAT'S ACTUALLY SUCKING UP LAND DOWNTOWN.

AND I THINK IN GENERAL, OUR BY-LAW TOOK AWAY PARKING REQUIREMENTS, SO COUNCIL HAS INDICATED THAT WE ARE OKAY WITH NO PARKING.

SO THINGS CHANGE. SO I'M OKAY WITH CHANGING THINGS ON VACANT OR LOW DENSITY PARKING LOTS.

AND THEN I GUESS WITH, IF WE GO TAXATION ROUTE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EXEMPTIONS FOR ACTIVE PERMITS,

[00:30:01]

THOSE KIND OF THINGS. IS THE TAXATION DESIGNED TO DO THAT? LIKE CAN WE HAVE EXEMPTIONS IN THERE THAT NUANCED.

BECAUSE THOSE CAN COME AND GO, RIGHT? PERMITS THAT CAN COME IN AND THEN SOMEONE CAN CANCEL. SO LIKE, IS IT TAXATION DYNAMIC ENOUGH, I GUESS, TO CAPTURE THOSE WHAT IFS? MR. VAN DINE.

SO WE'VE GOT TWO PROPOSALS THAT WE'VE GOT IN THERE, WHICH IS A PENALTY BASED AND A TAXATION BASED.

TAXATION IS NOT NIMBLE. TAXATION IS NOT NIMBLE AT ALL.

SO IT'S A BIT OF A CLUNKY WAY OF DEALING WITH THE QUESTION.

BUT IT IS ONE THAT DOES PROVIDE THE OWNER TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO HOLD ON TO THE PROPERTY. RECENT EXPERIENCES IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES LIKE FOR THE CITY OF OTTAWA, FOR EXAMPLE THERE WAS A SITUATION WHERE THERE WAS A RECREATIONAL USE AND FACILITY LOCATED NEAR A TRANSIT STOP.

THE VALUE OF THAT PROPERTY WAS QUITE A BIT HIGHER FOR POTENTIAL USE FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING RATHER THAN A RECREATIONAL FACILITY.

AND SO THE CITY OF OTTAWA, IN THAT CASE, JACKED UP THE TAXATION ON THAT RECREATIONAL FACILITY TO THE POINT WHERE IT WAS NOT VIABLE FOR THEM TO HOLD ON TO IT.

AND THEN A DEVELOPER CAME IN AND THE RECREATIONAL FACILITY WAS ABLE TO RELOCATE ELSEWHERE WITH THE MONIES THAT THEY DONE.

SO IT'S NOT A FAST PROCESS. I WOULD I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NIMBLE THE WAY THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING IT AT ALL.

BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO USE A VARIETY OF TOOLS IN YOUR TOOLKIT TO TRY AND GET THE OUTCOME THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

I WOULD JUST ADD THAT THAT'S WHY THERE'LL BE A LOT OF WORK FOR ANY AMENDMENTS TO THE TAX ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW TO ADDRESS VACANT LAND. IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF WORK BETWEEN LEGAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES TO ENSURE THE DEFINITIONS ARE PROPERLY SCOPED OUT SO THAT IT CAPTURES WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO AND DOESN'T CAPTURE WHAT IT SHOULDN'T.

AND ALSO PROPERTY ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON USE.

SO IF YOU'RE USING YOUR HOUSE AS YOUR PROPERTY IS ONE THING FOR THIS YEAR, THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD GET ASSESSED ON.

BUT IF YOU CHANGED IT, YOU KNOW, IF UNDER THE ZONING BY-LAW, YOU CAN USE IT FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS AND YOU CHANGE YOUR USE TO COMMERCIAL.

ONE YEAR, IF YOUR PREDOMINANT USE IS RESIDENTIAL, YOU COULD BE ASSESSED AT THE RESIDENTIAL RATE, AND IF THE NEXT YEAR YOUR PREDOMINANT USE IS COMMERCIAL, YOU'RE BEING ASSESSED AT THE COMMERCIAL RATE.

SO MR. VAN DINE´S CORRECT. TAX LEGISLATION IS NOT NIMBLE, BUT IT'S EFFECTIVE.

AND THE REASON WE'RE SAYING WE'D NEED A LOT OF.

IT WOULD TAKE A LOT OF TIME TO COME FORWARD IS BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'RE RAISING THAT WE WE'D HAVE TO BE REALLY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE CREATE THESE DEFINITIONS AND THE CLASS.

OKAY. [INAUDIBLE] Y COLLEAGUES, I'M SURE I'LL HAVE SOME MORE QUESTIONS.

BUT YEAH, MY THOUGHT ON THIS IS CITYWIDE. I DON'T WANT TO ZONE IT ANYWHERE IN PARTICULAR.

I THINK CITYWIDE, IT'S A BIGGER ISSUE DOWNTOWN.

BUT I THINK CITYWIDE WE HAVE THESE ISSUES. SO THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHTS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THE WORK AND FOR THE PRESENTATION.

AND YEAH, THE THOUGHT YEAH. LOVE TO BE HERE AND TALKING ABOUT THIS.

SO THANKS FOR ALL THE WORK BEHIND IT. JUST LOOKING TO CLARIFY ON THE RELATION BETWEEN A VACANT LAND TAX CLASS AND THE SURFACE PARKING ISSUE. WHEN YOU WERE SORT OF CONSIDERING THAT ISSUE, WERE YOU LOOKING TO CAPTURE SURFACE PARKING LOTS IN A VACANT TAX CLASS UNDER THAT DEFINITION, OR HAVE A SEPARATE TAX CLASS FOR PARKING LOTS? MR. VAN DINE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR THISTLE.

BUT BEFORE I DO, JUST SUFFICE IT TO SAY IS THAT THE VACANT TAX CLASS IS FOR WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH A DEFINITION OF WHAT DESCRIBES A VACANT. CHANCES ARE THE VACANT DEFINITION THAT WE DO COME UP WITH PROBABLY WOULDN'T CLASSIFY PARKING LOTS AS VACANT BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE.

IT'S AN ACTIVE USE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT MORE TO ADD, DIRECTOR THISTLE, BUT.

OR. WAIT. SORRY. YOU'RE OVER THERE. I'M GOOD TO BE EITHER.

IT'S. YEAH. SO THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY A PERMITTED USE AND IT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE ZONING BY-LAW.

PLUS WE REQUIRED THEM TO TIE THOSE PARCELS TO AN EXISTING USE.

SO NO, IT WOULDN'T BE VACANT. SO THEY WOULD BE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

YOU'D HAVE VACANT LAND WHERE THERE IS NOTHING ON THERE. IT'S JUST SITTING UNUSED, WEEDS GROWING,

[00:35:03]

ETC. AND OR HAS BEEN FOR SALE FOR HOWEVER LONG.

THAT WOULD BE VACANT, WE'D HAVE TO VERY, VERY CLEARLY DEFINE THAT.

SO IT'S DEFENDABLE, VERSUS WHETHER IT'S A PARKING LOT AND THERE ARE OTHER USES.

SO NOW IF WE ARE TALKING CITYWIDE, THERE ARE OTHER USES WHERE YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A STRUCTURE.

SO THERE ARE SOME BUSINESSES THAT ARE RUN WHERE THEY'RE OUTDOOR EDUCATION.

WE HAVE OUTDOOR STORAGE. SO THEN IT BECOMES AN EVEN BIGGER QUESTION THAN JUST PARKING LOTS IN THE DOWNTOWN.

SO CLEAR DIRECTION WILL HELP US KIND OF MAYBE PUT THEM INTO DIFFERENT BUCKETS.

THANK YOU. AND I WOULD JUST ADD, IT STATED IN THE MEMO WE DIDN'T SAY IT IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT ALL OF THIS HAS TO APPLY CITYWIDE. THERE IS NO LEGAL WAY TO ONLY APPLY A PROPERTY CLASS TO A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREA OF THE CITY. SAME AS A BY-LAW THAT WOULD ADDRESS ABANDONED AND VACANT BUILDINGS.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. AND JUST TO WRAP UP.

SO THE 40%, RIGHT? OF THE DOWNTOWN BEING USED BY PARKING, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT SOME MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ARE DIALING IN ON, IS GEOGRAPHICALLY CENTERED. IT DOES TIE SPECIFICALLY TO A PARTICULAR SET OF DECISIONS AROUND THE DOWNTOWN AND THE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS AROUND THAT UNDER PREVIOUS BY-LAWS. SO ALL THIS TO SAY, WHILE THE TAXATION QUESTION AND THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE BEING OFFERED TODAY ARE CITYWIDE IN NATURE, SHOULD THIS COUNCIL OR FUTURE COUNCILS REALLY WANT TO DIG INTO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE 40% OF ITS DOWNTOWN DEVOTED TO PARKING ANY MORE, ADDITIONAL WORK COULD BE DONE TO UNDERSTAND AND TRY AND LOOK AT HOW WE MIGHT WANT TO ADJUST THAT.

SO THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY ENTIRELY.

THIS IS A. THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DEEPER DIVE, BUT IT MAY BE A DEEPER DIVE WORTH WORTH PURSUING AT SOME POINT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, ALL GREAT INFORMATION.

AND THEN JUST A QUESTION ON THE CONTAMINATED SITES.

JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF GENERALLY IF YOU HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHY WE'RE NOT SEEING ANY MOVEMENT ON THAT, IS THAT JUST GNWT REGULATION? IS IT A PURE COST THING? HINTING GNWT, OR AND THEN SECONDARY TO THAT, SORT OF LIKE ANECDOTALLY HEARING EVIDENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, PARTICULARLY CLASS TWOS, REVEALING LEVELS OF ARSENIC THAT IS COMMON IN YELLOWKNIFE BUT IS BLOCKING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT'S ABOVE CERTAIN THRESHOLDS THAT YOU CAN'T GET BELOW IN YELLOWKNIFE, REALLY. ANY THOUGHTS ON HOW VACANT LAND, OR HOW THAT.

I GUESS THE ANSWER WOULD JUST BE IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A LOT OF WORK, BUT WOULD THAT BE CONSIDERED A CONTAMINATED? MR. VAN DINE. DIRECTOR, DO YOU WANT TO. I THINK I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.

SO THE PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY, WHEN YOU GO AND LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY, WILL TELL YOU WHAT THE CONTAMINATION IS. IF YOU'RE TALKING IN GENERAL.

NO, BECAUSE THOSE PROPERTIES, JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A LEVEL OF NOT JUST ARSENIC, BUT THERE'S OTHER ELEMENTS THAT MAY BE ON SITE, DOESN'T NECESSARILY GET THEM GRASPED UNDER CONTAMINATED.

SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING BY IS WHAT IS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REGISTRY AT THE GNWT.

CLEANUP COSTS A LOT OF MONEY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S ARSENIC, HYDROCARBONS, ETC.

IT'S NOT JUST CLEANUP. IT'S ALSO WHERE ARE YOU TAKING THAT MATERIAL TO BE PROPERLY TREATED AND OR DEALT WITH, RIGHT? SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STEPS AND PROCESSES THAT ARE ALL ADDING UP TO THAT COST.

AND YES, REGULATION IS PART OF IT, BUT I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE SOME LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION IS USUALLY A GOOD THING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEAH, I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD ON THIS.

I THINK IT'S THE ONE SORT OF THE BIGGEST TOOL WE HAVE BAR SPEEDING UP THE GNWT´S GLACIAL PACE WITH LAND.

THIS IS SORT OF THE ONE, YEAH, THE STICK ELEMENT THAT WE'VE LEFT OUT FOR GETTING SOME OF THESE SITES MOVING, GETTING SOME DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING. I THINK I'D BE IN FAVOR OF THE TAX APPROACH TO VACANT LAND.

SECOND WOULD BE PERHAPS MAYBE A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE THAT MIGHT TRANSITION TO SOME SORT OF PENALTY FOR SERVICE PARKING.

DEFINITELY VERY KEEN TO SEE SOME OF THAT CHANGE.

UNDERSTANDING THE PAST THERE. AND THEN THE REGULATIONS FOR VACANT BUILDINGS, I THINK SEEMS, AT LEAST TO ME, TO BE SORT OF LOWER ON THE LIST, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CONNECTION WITH THE OTHERS.

SO THOSE THREE THINGS I WOULD DEFINITELY BE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH, AND THE HOW THOSE WOULD WORK TOGETHER OR IN WHAT ORDER THEY WOULD COME FORWARD, I WOULD DEFINITELY TRUST STAFF TO GIVE THEIR OPINION ON WHICH ONES MIGHT BE MORE EFFECTIVE AND IN WHAT ORDER OR.

[00:40:09]

YEAH. DID YOU WANT THEIR THOUGHT ON THAT NOW? IF THEY HAVE ONE. OTHERWISE.

VAN DINE. SO I'LL DEFER. I MEAN, OUR THINKING HAS COME A LOT MORE CRYSTALLIZED OVER THE LAST NUMBER OF WEEKS AS WE DUG INTO THIS ISSUE. AND THE PREVAILING THOUGHT AT THIS POINT BASED ON WHERE COUNCIL´S TOLERANCE IS WE DON'T WANT TO GET AHEAD OF COUNCIL, IS A BLENDED OPTION. SO WE WOULD KIND OF LOOK AT IN ORDER TO ADDRESS THE WHOLENESS OF THE ISSUE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE TO BE, MINUS OR AT LEAST SET ASIDE A LITTLE BIT AROUND THE DEEPER QUESTIONS AROUND THE 40% PARKING AREA, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MAYBE ANOTHER SET OF TOOLS WOULD BE THE BLENDED OPTION.

TO HAVE TO REGULATE PROPERTIES THROUGH A WHITEHORSE LIKE PENALTY SYSTEM, AS WELL AS A TAX CLASS.

I THINK THE TWO WORKING TOGETHER WOULD ACHIEVE WHAT COUNCIL´S.

WE UNDERSTAND COUNCIL'S INTEREST IN TRYING TO INCENT THE PROPER USE OF PROPERTY WITHIN MUNICIPAL CONTROL.

COUNCILLOR MCLENNAN. YEAH. THANK YOU. THAT'S MY INTENT.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE ON, MYSELF AT LEAST, AND STAFF ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.

THANKS. THANKS FOR THAT. AND. YEAH, I'LL INSERT HERE TOO.

I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO REMEMBER TOO.

YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT OUR WORK PLAN UPDATE LATER IN THIS AGENDA, LIKELY AFTER BUDGET WILL BE COMING BACK TO THAT IN EARLY JANUARY TO SET OUR PRIORITIES FOR THE, YOU KNOW, REMAINDER OF OUR TERM IN 2026.

SO THOSE WILL BE TIMES TO THINK ABOUT WHERE DO WE SEE THIS WORK PRIORITIZING, AND YOU KNOW, EVEN WITHIN THESE PIECES, IF WE DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE PIECES, WHICH ONES DO WE PRIORITIZE? SO JUST KEEP THOSE THINGS IN MIND AS WELL. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILLOR FOOTE.

THANKS, MR. CHAIR. BASED ON WHERE WE ARE IN THIS DISCUSSION, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A QUESTION ANYMORE.

MORE OF A COMMENT. KIND OF HUNG UP ON THE WHOLE LOOPHOLE THAT YOU'VE IDENTIFIED.

AND I THINK DUE TO THAT, IT'S PROBABLY BEHOOVES ADMINISTRATION AND COUNCIL TO LOOK AT A HOLISTIC APPROACH AND ATTACK BOTH ANGLES BEFORE WE CAN REALLY CLOSE THAT LOOP. BUT WHOLEHEARTEDLY IN SUPPORT OF IT, AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO TAKE A DEEPER LOOK INTO.

THANKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NEXT WE HAVE COUNCILLOR FEQUET.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANKS FOR BRINGING THIS PRESENTATION FORWARD FOR US.

YES, WE'VE DEFINITELY TALKED ABOUT THE STICK, THE ACCOMPANYING STICK A LOT.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR SEEKING DIRECTION ON THAT.

AND THANKS FOR DOING ALL THE WORK ON THE OPTIONS. JUST 1 OR 2 QUESTIONS BEFORE I SHARE MY THOUGHTS.

IS THE GNWT THE LAND MANAGER FOR ALL OF THE 13 CONTAMINATED LOTS THAT WE ARE AWARE OF? AND DOES THE GNWT PAY TAXES FOR THESE 13 LOTS? MR. VAN DINE. I'LL INVITE DIRECTOR WHITE TO RESPOND.

OKAY. SO NO FOR NONE. THESE ARE PRIVATELY OWNED.

SO AS I MENTIONED, THAT LARGE PARCEL THAT THEY'RE.

GIANT IS SEPARATE FROM THIS? NO, THESE ARE PARCELS THAT ARE HELD IN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP BY COMPANIES.

THANK YOU. COUNCILLOR FEQUET. THANKS. YEAH. I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS INITIALLY.

MY GUT FEELING IS. YEAH, I THINK WE NEED THE TWO PRONGED APPROACH.

SO I APPRECIATE THE BOTH THE BY-LAW AND THE VACANT THE TAX CLASSES.

I THINK THIS IS KIND OF THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN OR THE STICKS THAT GOES WITH THE CARROTS THAT WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT.

SO EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, THE SLIDING SCALE OF THE PENALTIES, I THINK TACKLING ALL THREE OF THOSE CATEGORIES, THE LAND, THE CONTAMINATED SITES AND THE LOW DENSITY PARKING ARE ALL VALUABLE.

IT DAWNS ON ME THAT MAYOR HENDRICKSEN MIGHT NOT GET RID OF HIS HIGH DENSITY PARKING, BECAUSE WE MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A LOW DENSITY PARKING THAT'S TWICE AS BIG TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO MOVE. BUT YEAH, IN GENERAL ALSO, THIS INITIATIVE FALLS NEAR THE TOP FOR ME OF THE TIMELINES FOR THE NEXT YEAR'S WORK PLAN.

RECOGNIZING THAT THE TIMELINE KIND OF SUGGESTED WAS AROUND LIKE A JANUARY 1ST, 2027 IMPLEMENTATION.

SO I THINK THAT FEELS RIGHT TO ME TOO, TO GET A LOT OF THE WORK DONE BEFORE OUR TERM IS UP.

BUT KNOWING THAT IT'LL BE KIND OF PRIORITIZED.

SO, YEAH, I THINK EVERYTHING IN HERE IS GREAT.

AND I RECOGNIZE TOO, THAT THAT LOW DENSITY PARKING QUESTION IS A BIGGER VALUE STATEMENT THAT HAS OTHER IMPLICATIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN WHERE WE'RE ENVISIONING. AND THAT'S A A COMPLEX ONE TO DIVE INTO, CONSIDERING IT WAS INITIALLY A REQUIREMENT BUT FULLY IN SUPPORT OF BOTH APPROACHES ADDRESSING ALL OF THESE. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND YOU KNOW, I MAY NOT GET WHAT I WANT ON PAPER, BUT IF IT GETS US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION AND WE'RE DOING MODERN DECISIONS AS OPPOSED TO HAVING ONE STILL HANGING AROUND FROM 1988,

[00:45:06]

I'M A HAPPY GUY. COUNCILLOR MCGURK. THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE THE WORK DONE BY STAFF, AND THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO NEED TO CONVINCE ME THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT WORK.

I DON'T THINK. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR FELLOW COUNCILORS, BUT I DO FEEL LIKE MAYBE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THAT.

I GUESS I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS FOR, OR WHAT WHAT WE MIGHT BE LOOKING AT FOR REGULATING VACANT AND ABANDONED BUILDINGS.

SO, SAY A BUILDING WAS DEEMED UNSAFE, A CLOCK START TICKING ON THEM TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

AND BECAUSE THEY'RE AFTER A POINT IN TIME, THAT BUILDING COULD BE CONSIDERED VACANT BECAUSE IT'S UNUSABLE, BECAUSE IT'S CONDEMNED. DOES THAT QUESTION MAKES SENSE, I HOPE.

MR. VAN DINE. YES. I'LL INVITE SOME ASSISTANCE ON THIS.

WE'RE DEALING WITH A LITTLE BIT OF A HYPOTHETICAL. THE CITY OF WHITEHORSE HAS RECENTLY BROUGHT THIS REGIME INTO PLACE.

AND IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM SO FAR, HAS REVEALED THAT THEY ARE SEEING SOME PROGRESS AND SOME SUCCESS IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. AND SO WITH THAT AND I'M GOING TO SPEAK IN VERY GENERAL TERMS AND INVITE OTHERS TO CORRECT ME IF I TAKE THOSE TERMS IN AN INACCURATE DIRECTION. BUT ESSENTIALLY THERE WOULD BE A SCHEME.

A SCHEME WOULD BE LAID OUT AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD ASSIGN A PENALTY TO.

THAT SCHEME COULD INCLUDE WHETHER IT'S UNSAFE OR NOT, MAY OR MAY NOT BE ONE OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE SCHEME, BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, YOUR COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE ESSENTIALLY A SET OF DESCRIPTIONS OF WHAT THEY WOULD DETERMINE TO BE UNHELPFUL IN TERMS OF A DOWNTOWN ENVIRONMENT OR ANYWHERE IN THE CITY THAT THE SCHEME WOULD APPLY TO, WHICH WOULD BE EVERYWHERE.

AT THAT AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY A TICKET.

SO THAT WOULD BE ASSESSED, THE DETERMINATION WOULD BE THAT A TICKET WOULD BE WARRANTED.

THERE WOULD BE AN ABILITY FOR THE ONE IN RECEIPT OF THE TICKET TO EITHER CHALLENGE IT OR NOT.

BUT CHANCES ARE THAT WOULD GO THROUGH ITS REGULAR COURSE.

HOWEVER, IF IT'S A REPEAT, THEN IT'S GRADUATED AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO IN THE CASE OF WHITEHORSE, WHICH HAS NOT HAD IT IN FOR VERY LONG, I BELIEVE ANECDOTALLY, THEY'VE ONLY HAD A COUPLE OF INSTANCES WHERE THEY'VE APPLIED A SECOND ROUND OF TICKETING TO START GENERATING SOME CHANGE IN BEHAVIOR.

BUT THAT'S, AGAIN, IT'S EARLY DAYS IN THAT REGARD.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S OTHERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADD. I JUST ADD THAT IN THE BY-LAW, THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD DEFINE VACANT.

AND IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE WHITEHORSE EXAMPLE, IT'S NOT VACANT AND ABANDONED.

THEY DEFINE IT AS VACANT AND UNOCCUPIED. AND THEN THEY OUTLINE THE.

THERE'S LIKE 5 OR 6 IN THAT BY-LAW FACTORS. IT'S DISCONTINUED WATER AND ELECTRICITY.

IT'S BEING INHABITED BY SQUATTERS. IT'S WHERE THE OWNER HAS DEEMED IT UNOCCUPIED.

THE BUILDING HAS REMAINED UNOCCUPIED BY THE OWNER FOR A CONTINUOUS PERIOD OF OVER 60 DAYS, OR A BUILDING THAT'S IN SUCH CONDITION FOR WANT OF REPAIR, ETC.

THAT IT'S BAD FOR PUBLIC SAFETY OR A FIRE HAZARD.

SO REALLY, THAT'S WHY IT. WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE THE FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL AND GO BACK.

AND WITH BOTH OF THE OPTIONS, REALLY DO A DEEP DIVE.

TODAY IS REALLY TO GET A SENSE OF WHERE PEOPLE ARE SITTING, AND A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS WILL HAVE THE ANSWERS WHEN IT COMES BACK, OR MORE QUESTIONS TO REFINE THINGS. BECAUSE YEAH, IT'S ALL IN THE DEFINITIONS, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING ABOUT VACANT LAND IS THE SAME AS WHAT WE TALK ABOUT VACANT AND UNOCCUPIED BUILDING. IT'S LIKE WE HAVE TO GIVE REALLY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION AS TO HOW WE WANT TO CAPTURE OR NOT CAPTURE THINGS IN THOSE DEFINITIONS. AND TO ANSWER YOUR FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE ABILITY WITH OUR BUILDING BY-LAW THAT IF SOMETHING IS IN SUCH A STATE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, THAT WE CAN REQUIRE DEMOLISHMENT.

SO THERE'S A POINT WHERE WE REQUIRE THAT BUILDING AND OR PROPERTY TO BE MADE SAFE.

WE HAVE THAT ABILITY NOW. I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK WE DON'T.

AND WE CAN TAKE THAT NEXT STEP WHEN IT GETS TO A POINT WHERE IT ACTUALLY DOES NEED TO COME DOWN.

SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT. COUNCILLOR MCGURK. AND FOR PEOPLE'S COMFORT AS WELL, THAT BY-LAW CONTAINS EXEMPTIONS. SO IF THE PROPERTY BECOMES VACANT AS A RESULT OF A CATASTROPHIC EVENT, YOU'RE EXEMPT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. THERE'S ANOTHER EXEMPTION IN THE BY-LAW SECTION 4.2 B THAT IF IT'S BECOME UNOCCUPIED BECAUSE THE OWNER IS IN FULL TIME CARE IN AN ACCREDITED HOSPITAL OR HOME OR HOSPICE, SAME THING.

THEY'RE EXEMPT FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF TIME FROM THE PERMIT FEE.

SO THERE ARE WAYS TO DRAFT THE BY-LAW TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT YELLOWKNIFE SPECIFIC.

[00:50:05]

BUT YEAH. SO IT'S NOT REALLY, REALLY CAREFUL DRAFTING LIKE I SAID AGAIN TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T OVER CAPTURE OR UNDER CAPTURE THINGS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILLOR MCGURK. GREAT.

THANK YOU I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT DEFINITELY ANSWERS MY QUESTION. I FEEL LIKE THERE IS A CONCERN IN THIS TOWN, ESPECIALLY THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE JUST CLAIMING THESE SPACES, SOME BUILDINGS AS STORAGE SPACES WHEN THEY'RE CLEARLY NOT TAKING ANYTHING OR PUTTING IT OUT OR PUTTING ANYTHING IN.

I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF A VACANT LAND TAX AND ALSO.

REGULATIONS. AND I ALSO REALLY WANT TO STRESS THAT THE SURFACE PARKING LOT ISSUE IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I'M KEEN TO SUPPORT THAT. I ALSO WANTED TO JUST SORT OF NOTE FOR ANY RESIDENTS LISTENING THAT CONSIDERING THIS WORK WILL CARRY ON BEYOND OUR COUNCIL, I HOPE THEY APPRECIATE THIS AS THE POTENTIAL TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE MANY CONCERNS WE'VE HEARD OVER OUR TERM.

MORE THAN ONCE, COUNCIL CHAMBERS HAVE BEEN CROWDED OVER CONCERNS ABOUT REZONING SPECIFIC AREAS, AND WE'VE RECEIVED A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE EMPTY OR UNUSED LOTS BEFORE BRINGING NEW LAND TO MARKET.

AND THIS IS OUR BEST TOOL IN DOING THAT. WE ALSO POTENTIAL INCREASES TO TAX REVENUE CAN IMPACT YOUR TAXES AND WHAT YOU PAY.

SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT. THANKS.

WELL SUMMARIZED. COUNCILOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THE PRESENTATION AND FOR ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE IN SO FAR AND THE IMMENSE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING AHEAD.

THE ONLY THING I'M KIND OF LOOKING FOR A LITTLE CLARITY ON, WHICH WAS KIND OF INFERRED IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WITHIN THE ABOVE GROUND PARKING, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME OPTIONS IN DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ALREADY THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASSIST IN THIS MATTER.

MR. VAN DINE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DIRECTOR WHITE IN A MOMENT.

SHORT ANSWER IS YES AND NO. SO NO, IN THE SENSE THAT SO MANY OF AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, IN MANY INSTANCES THE SURFACE PARKING IS TIED TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE OR AN APPROVED PROPERTY.

SO WE'VE GOT SOME OF THE HIGHER RISERS IN THE DOWNTOWN THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED OVER THE LAST LITTLE WHILE, THAT PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR APPROVAL WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE SURFACE PARKING AVAILABLE.

SO THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES TIED TO ONE, RIGHT? SO ESSENTIALLY IN THAT CASE. SO I BELIEVE IT'S BEEN POINTED TO THAT IF ONE WANTED TO UNTANGLE THAT, WE WOULD HAVE TO UNTANGLE THAT CAREFULLY, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL EFFORT TO DO THE UNTANGLING THOSE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS OR THINGS AGAINST PROPERTY.

THAT BEING SAID, ONCE THEY'RE UNTANGLED, OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THAT NOW EXIST WOULD CERTAINLY BE APPLICABLE ON THAT UNTANGLED PROPERTY TO INCENT IT FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HOWEVER, IT WAS TRICKY AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS FIRST CREATIVE TO TRY TO ALLOW FOR PARKING FOR HIGH DENSITY FACILITIES IN WHICH SUBSURFACE PARKING WAS NOT AN OPTION OR AT LEAST ENGINEERINGLY AT THE TIME. SO THAT'S PART OF YELLOWKNIFE'S ORIGIN AND ORIGIN STORY AND EVOLUTION.

HOWEVER, NOW IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENTLY, IT DOES REQUIRE US TO REVISIT A LITTLE BIT OF ON HOW THAT WAS DONE AND UNTANGLED THAT.

BUT DIRECTOR WHITE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ELABORATE? THANK YOU. I THINK ANOTHER PIECE OF IT IS THAT A LOT OF THIS.

WELL, NOT A LOT. SOME OF THIS PARKING IS OTHER GOVERNMENT´S.

SO IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, BUT IT'S UNLIKELY THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND BUILD A 14 STORY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING.

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? LET'S JUST BE REALISTIC.

NOW GNWT, THEY THROUGH THE NWT HOUSING CORP, YES THEY MAY, RIGHT? BUT AGAIN THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO USE OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES.

SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX THAN THAT. NOW IF IT'S A REIT OR A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER, THEN YES, A, THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH REMOVING THE CAVEATS AND MAKING SURE THAT THAT PROPERTY IS NOW ABLE TO OBTAIN POTENTIALLY DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FROM THE CITY AND MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT'S KIND OF A THREE PRONGED ANSWER OF NO, MAYBE YES.

AND THEN THE OTHER PIECE BEING, I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO REMEMBER AS OF RIGHT NOW, UNLESS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MOVES FORWARD WITH SOME CHANGES, OUR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES WILL END DECEMBER 31ST, 2027, RIGHT? SO IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT ISN'T IN PLACE UNTIL JANUARY 1ST, 2027, HOW REALISTIC IS THAT?

[00:55:02]

SO JUST KIND OF KEEP THAT IN MIND. THANK YOU.

COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AND THANK YOU TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR THAT CLARITY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I NEEDED TO KNOW. I SUPPORT THE BLENDED OPTION.

I DO SUPPORT AN AMENDMENT TO THE TAX ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW TO ADD CLASS OR CLASSES FOR THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME TAXATION.

AND I ALSO SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A VACANT LAND AND AN UNOCCUPIED STRUCTURES BUILDINGS BY-LAW IN THE TUNE OF WHAT IS BEING DONE CURRENTLY IN WHITEHORSE, AS THEY SEEM TO BE DOING QUITE WELL WITH THAT.

I WOULD ALSO SUPPORT AN EXCEPTION TO BE MADE TO THE 40% OF PARKING AND WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AHEAD, AS I'M NOT REALLY A BIG FAN OF PENALIZING FOR PEOPLE THAT WE ENFORCE TO DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT INCENTIVES, BUT I THINK THAT'S EVEN GOING TO BE ANOTHER THING OUTSIDE OF THE TWO OPTIONS WE'RE ALREADY PRESENTED. MY ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY TOWARDS US IS THAT I THINK BY THE SOUNDS OF IT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME ADVOCACY FOR THE AMENDMENT TO PATA, BECAUSE THE CONTAMINATED SITES QUESTION, ESPECIALLY IF WE HAD THESE KIND OF STICKS, AS WE MAY, I WOULD NOT WANT TO TAKE OVER THESE PROPERTIES WHATSOEVER. AND TO ASSURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEAK WITH OUR MLAS AND OUR MINISTER ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE SOMETIMES NEW PIECES OF LEGISLATION DUMB THINGS GET SLIPPED IN.

SO, SUPPORT OF THE BLENDED OPTION. THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE ADMINISTRATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COUNCILLOR COCHRANE. ANYONE ELSE FOR ROUND ONE? SEEING NONE. JUST FOR MYSELF ON ROUND ONE, I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION WOULD BE, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE PRESUMPTUOUS, BUT JUST IF WHEN WE GET THERE, THERE SEEMS AT THE MOMENT TO BE GENERAL AGREEMENT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

BUT IF WE DO, THE RECOMMENDATION CURRENTLY IS WORDED FOR A BY-LAW TO AMEND TAX ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW 407, AS AMENDED, TO CREATE A DEFINITION OF NEW CLASS FOR VACANT LAND.

WOULD ADMINISTRATION WANT US TO BE EXPLICIT AND ALSO INCLUDE CONTAMINATED SITES AND LOW DENSITY PARKING IN THAT? NO? CAPTURE, I SEE? MR. VAN DINE WILL TOSS IT OVER TO YOU FOR.

NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE, THOUGH, THAT THE DIRECTION OR THE MOTION WOULD PROBABLY, IF THE GENERAL GIST IS TO ALSO ADD REGULATION WITH RESPECT TO ABANDONED BUILDINGS, THAT THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADJUSTED TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT TO BE AS TIGHT AND CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. OKAY IF ABANDONED BUILDINGS UNDER THE TAX BY-LAW.

BUT IF WE LEAVE THE ABANDONED BUILDINGS PIECE UNDER THE BY-LAW TO REGULATE VACANT, THEN WE'RE GOOD IN TERMS OF THE RECOMMENDATION. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, GPC SEEMS AT THE MOMENT, AGAIN, I'M NOT PRESUPPOSING BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A SECOND ROUND, BUT IF WE WANTED THOSE CONTAMINATED SITES AND LOW DENSITY PARKING PIECES CONSIDERED, IF THE RECOMMENDATION IS IT'S WORDED CAPTURES THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GO SIX MONTHS DOWN THE LINE OF WORK, AND THEN WE GO, WELL, WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THOSE PIECES. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ROCK SOLID THAT WE INCLUDE IT.

MR. THEY'RE GOING TO BE CAPTURED AS PART OF THE REVIEW, BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF VACANT LOT OR VACANT LAND, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT, DOES THAT INCLUDE CONTAMINATED LOTS OR NOT? DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PARKING LOTS OR NOT? SO IT'LL COME FORWARD IN A COMPREHENSIVE MEMO SPECIFIC TO AMENDMENTS TO THE TAX ADMINISTRATION BY-LAW, AND I REALLY SEE THAT AS PART OF THE OVERALL REVIEW.

HAPPY DAYS. THANK YOU FOR THE CONFIRMATION. OKAY.

WITH THAT WE GO TO ROUND TWO AND I HAVE DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON. THANK YOU.

I THINK YOU ESSENTIALLY COVERED IT. IN SUMMARY, I'D LIKE TO DO THE VACANT ABANDONED BUILDING, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD IT, BUILDING BY-LAW. AND THEN THE RECOMMENDATION OF A VACANT LAND TAX, AS LONG AS THAT COVERS, I THINK WE CAN ALSO DO A CLASS FOR LOW DENSITY PARKING.

WE HAVE HIGH DENSITY PARKING. SO THERE'S NO REASON I DON'T THINK WE CAN LOOK AT A LOW DENSITY PARKING FOR TAXATION.

BUT IF YOU FEEL IT'S CAPTURED IN THAT MOTION, WE DON'T NEED TO EXPLICITLY SPLIT THOSE OUT. THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING THAT CAPTURES IN THE CURRENT MOTION, YEAH? THAT WAS THE CONFIRMATION.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CAPTURED. WE HAVE IT ON RECORDING AND I GAVE A THUMBS UP TO IT. SO WE'RE GOOD. OKAY. SO I'D LOVE TO SEE SOMEONE COME BACK AROUND LOW DENSITY PARKING, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE OUR MOST EFFECTIVE USE OF OUR EFFORTS.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE FOR ROUND TWO? SEEING NONE. THEN IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOOD TO GO.

SO THANK YOU TO ADMIN FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK ON THIS.

I KNOW THAT'S A HEAVY LIFT TO EVEN GET THIS TO US. I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE FEW MOMENTS WHERE WE DO HAVE SOME OF THOSE IN OUR TERM, WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY STARTING SOMETHING COMPLETELY FROM SCRATCH AND LOOKING AT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS. AND DEPUTY MAYOR WARBURTON, I KNOW WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY CAME UP AGES AGO, IT'S TRYING TO THINK OF ALL OF THOSE LOOPHOLES THAT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, SLIPPED IN AND CHEWED UPON AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE'VE GOTTEN THIS FAR.

AND, YOU KNOW, ADMIN, YOU WILL GET THAT MOTION AND THEN IT'LL AGAIN BE INCUMBENT UPON US WHEN WE LOOK AT THE WORK PLAN, ESPECIALLY IN THE NEW YEAR, TO WHERE DOES THIS FIT IN PRIORITIZATION OF EVERYTHING.

[01:00:02]

BUT WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS A MEMO REGARDING UPCOMING MEETINGS OF THE CAPITAL AREA COMMITTEE IN 2026

[5. A memorandum regarding upcoming meetings of the Capital Area Committee in 2026 to review potential developments in the designated Capital Area.]

TO REVIEW POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE DESIGNATED CAPITAL AREA.

MR. VAN DINE. SO, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU. THIS IS AN INFORMATION ITEM.

THIS IS TO BRING TO COUNCIL'S AWARENESS THAT THERE IS SUCH A THING AS A CAPITAL AREA COMMITTEE.

AND THE REASON WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT TODAY IS THAT COUNCIL IS AWARE THAT WE DID MAKE A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS FOR LANDS WITHIN THE CAPITAL AREA AS DEFINED.

AS A RESULT OF THAT APPLICATION, WE ARE LOOKING TO TRY AND STRIKE UP THAT COMMITTEE TO BEGIN DIALOG AND CONVERSATION, TO EXAMINE WHAT THAT MIGHT ENTAIL WITH RESPECT TO OUR APPLICATION.

SO THIS IS AN AWARENESS PIECE. THIS IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO MAYBE ASK SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WAY THE OPERATION OF THE COMMITTEE OR WHERE WE SEE IT MIGHT GOING.

BUT AT THIS POINT, WE ARE LOOKING TO TRY AND HAVE AN INAUGURAL MEETING TO REALLY GET THIS GOING IN THE NEXT SHORT WHILE WITH PARTNERS TO DISCUSS BOTH OUR INTERESTS IN WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO ACHIEVE THROUGH OUR APPLICATIONS.

AS PART OF THAT ONGOING PROCESS. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILLOR COCHRANE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIR, AND THANK YOU TO THE ADMINISTRATION FOR BRINGING THIS UP.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MEET. MY ONLY QUESTION MORE THAN ANYTHING IS BECAUSE IF WE WERE MOVING THE 50,000 LAST YEAR, TO BE QUITE FRANK, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO PLAY HERE? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO ALLOCATE ANOTHER 50 GRAND IN ORDER TO GET EVERYBODY TO SIT DOWN AND HAVE A CONVERSATION? OH, LET'S HOPE NOT. BUT MR. VAN DINE. DIRECTOR WHITE IS ENTHUSIASTICALLY WANTING TO RESPOND TO THAT QUESTION.

I MEANT THAT I COULD ANSWER IT, THAT I WOULD LIKE, REALLY, REALLY WANTED TO ANSWER IT. SO TO GET THINGS OFF THE GROUND, THE ANSWER IS NO. HOWEVER, WHAT I WILL PROPOSE TO ALL MEMBERS WHO ARE PART OF THE CAPITAL AREA IS THAT AS SOME OF THESE ITEMS COME FORWARD, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING TO SAY, HOW ARE WE GOING TO MOVE SOME OF THESE ITEMS FORWARD? NOW, OURS ARE SIMPLY LAND APPLICATIONS, BUT THERE IS ALSO THE TRC MONUMENT, RIGHT? SO THERE MAY BE A NEED FOR THAT. SO I DON'T WANT TO SAY NO RIGHT NOW, BUT IT MIGHT BE A YES FOR 2027.

SO JUST KIND OF KEEP THAT IN MIND. THANK YOU.