That Council direct Staff to amend the service agreement for the Downtown Vandalism Relief Grant Program with the Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce to allow businesses to apply for funding more than twice, and to receive up to $ 2,500 per incident up to a maximum of $5,000 per year which may include up to 50% of the cost of installation of security and preventative measures to a maximum of $1,000.
on this report. And I appreciate the different options that were brought forward, and I'm personally in favor of option two, but I don't have a question at this time, so I'll let others ask questions. Not seeing questions from anyone else. In that case, then I would like to put. Option two. Seconded by councilor Perino discussion. And I'll just speak to it in saying. That I like this option because it does include potentially assisting with the installation of security and preventative measures, and I think taking any sort of proactive step on this, I'm really in support of doing that, and I recognize several local downtown businesses. Have done that already, and I think it's made a difference, so. I appreciate staff bringing this option forward. Thank
don't even honestly think. It's necessary because of the wording, because it says up to $2,500. Per incident, up to a maximum of 5000, which may include 50% for the cost of installation. Of security. So I think the way that it reads currently. The word incident is in there, so I don't actually think it needs an amendment. Ms.
you very much, Councilor Eastmeer. Thank you, and I appreciate the concerns raised tonight. To councilor Hemmon's point, I don't think we would have the scenario where we have 20 businesses calling us because as we confirmed with the wording of the motion. There would have to be an instant for them. To be able to access this money. I do see concerns around potentially. Like making the downtown. Even more hostile. In terms of the architecture there. But I think what I've seen from businesses that have been targeted by vandalism. They have had to put up the money to put some bars in their window, and I think I was concerned that that would look terrible. I think it looks fine. And there has been a cost associated with doing that for those businesses, but it's helped and we had a business like devalt that had numerous window breakages and break ins. And they put the bars in the window. They still look classy and. They haven't had the same issues since. So that's really the intent of my motion here. But appreciate everyone's comments tonight. Thank you.
you, Councilor Manley. Thank you, worship. I'll support this as well. I think. I'm glad to hear that. There's a provincial program for other businesses. And just recognizing that when we're talking about one third of the vandalism is happening in a tiny section of a very large community. It's a high impact. So I know that the downtown businesses need a lot of support, and other businesses need support. And so I'm happy to support this and happy to
Thank you. I'm struggling to support it for similar to what? Councilor Hemmon said, because I'm concerned that that money will all go to preventive. Measures, and then it won't be available for something as vandalized. So I don't think I can support this motion. I would support the recommendation because I don't believe we should be paying for people to beef up their security if they haven't. Had a problem. If it was, they've been vandalized. And then we give the money to help. Them beef up security, I'd be okay with that. But not okay with just allowing
Thank you, your worship. I think the whole idea of trying to be preventative, well, hopefully ensure that they don't. Get vandalized, so hopefully. This work. If we do this upfront with them, then they can turn around and not being vanalyzed. That's sort of the hope we're certainly going to need to have another report, obviously, in a few months, another year, but I appreciate the initiative to come forward. With this. And thank you very much for the report. It was excellent. I'm going to vote in favor
Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Thorpe. Thank you, worship. It just seems to me that we're straying. A little bit from the intent of the motion. The fact is that we do have a downtown vandalism grant program, and I think the intent of the motion and the intent of councilor Eastbrook originally was to have staff come. Back with options about expanding that program and allowing businesses to apply, perhaps more often or for an increased pot of money that. 's all I see in option two, and I see no reason not to support it because I think it's worthwhile, so I will support it. Thank you. Thank
You, Councilor Hemmons. Thank you, worship. Through you to staff. So, just so I'm clear, a business would have to be vandalized in order to access the funds that would allow them to put security upgrades in their business. They would have to be a victim, apply, and then they would also have this added new benefit of not just
worship, no. We would actually provide. The grant amounts. To businesses that would like to increase their security measures without
Having been victimized. Okay. I'm worried if we have limited funds. This is now a program with two very different mandates. One is to support vandalism relief, and the second is to support our businesses and not being vandalized in the first place. So I'll support it. I'm going to follow Councilor Eastmeers lead on this, but I do want to indicate it does seem like a dilution of the mandate for me, and that concerns me just ever so
We can intervene. Thanks. Councilor. Heavens. Thank you, worship. Can I ask, the $10.5 million from the province, is that specific? To vandalism relief, or is that security measures, or
Is that both? Through your worship. The terms of it is. It will provide a rebate program to a business for up to $2,000. In a year. Within that, that could also include up to $1,000 for vandalism prevention. Prevention.
Okay, thank you, your worship. I'm actually going to change my vote on this and not support. And I apologize for saying I would, but what I worry about here is that rather than using the program for vandalism relief for downtown businesses, which was the original intention, we could tomorrow have 20 applications for businesses that want gating at their front door if we say we want cameras. I don't think that's... I mean, I've spoken to business owners who are on the call, on the phone with police saying I'm watching my camera. There's someone in my business. Cameras don't necessarily prevent it. So really, I'm thinking of... It's that hard infrastructure, which is fencing and gates, which I don't want any more of, so I won't support.
order, council's Guestelbrook east beer and hemmonds again. I'm supportive of the intent of the motion. Just hearing councilor brown speak. Potentially a bit more. Some parameters around what those preventative measures could be. I could see somebody getting vandalized. And then. Using $1,000. They get from the city to put some security cameras up or whatnot. But there could also be a whole other raft of great ideas, some not so great, that get put into place. And so maybe that's already accounted for and how this gets rolled up, I'm curious. Question to stop is that accounted for the parameters around what the preventative measures would entail? Or is that something that would need to be worked out? Would it require referral to staff to work that out? Because I'd be happy to. Support a referral. If that's
that added time is needed. Through your worship. The examples that we looked at in other models were. Measures such as cameras gating, security patrols or audits. Security audits? Natural fact, we've now trained. The community safety officers on Septhead, and part of what I asked the chamber to do if we had these locations that are being. Vandalized repeatedly is that. I wanted them to provide an additional grant, but also have our CSO go and do an audit, try to determine why these specific locations are being victimized repeatedly. But I think the question everybody's asking this was feedback from the chamber. And their perspective was. If businesses is consciously. Being. Having their property damaged. If they could put in some measures to counteract them. If it's because people are sheltering and they're enclosed doorway. Or if you're near a nightclub where people are going past it all the time. Just what would make their particular location less attractive for that type of damage, that kind of proactive. Approach rather than just simply replacing the windows time and
time again. Thanks for that to answer and just hearing that. And amount of money and just the fact of getting this out, and I think allowing the business a little bit of leeway to problem solve and be proactive. I'm happy to. Just have this approved and see how it rolls out. And if we see anything totally weird.