Attachment 2: District of Saanich Tenant Assistance Policy Stakeholder Engagement Summary

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The District of Saanich lies within the territories of the lək̓ʷəŋən peoples represented by the Songhees and Esquimalt Nations and the W̱SÁNEĆ peoples represented by the Tsartlip, Pauquachin, Tsawout, Tseycum and Malahat Nations. The First Peoples have been here since time immemorial and their history in this area is long and rich.

MODUS Planning, Design & Engagement is located on the unceded and occupied lands of the xʷməθkʷəy̓əm, Skwxwú7mesh and səl̓ilwətaɁɬ Nations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................4
2. WHAT WE DID.............................................................................................................................................4
3. WHO WE HEARD FROM..........................................................................................................................5
4. WHAT WE HEARD......................................................................................................................................5 4.1. NON-MARKET HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS........................................................................6 4.2. RENTERS & COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES................................................................ 10 4.3. MARKET HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS............................................................................... 12 APPENDIX A: NON-MARKET HOUSING SESSION NOTES....................................................................16 APPENDIX B: RENTERS AND COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES’ SESSION NOTES..................17 APPENDIX C: MARKET HOUSING SESSION NOTES................................................................................18

1. BACKGROUND

The District of Saanich is developing a new Tenant Assistance Policy (TAP) as a priority action within the Housing Strategy Focus Area 2: Promote and Protect Rental Housing. The purpose of a TAP is to help mitigate potential negative socio-economic impacts when redevelopment or substantial renovation of rental buildings occurs. The Policy will require support for existing tenants as part of the application process and will work alongside several other actions aimed at preserving and adding to Saanich’s rental housing stock.

As part of the policy development, the District of Saanich sought feedback from impacted stakeholder groups, including non-market housing organizations, renters and community representatives, and market housing organizations. This engagement process aimed to:

• Inform stakeholders on the Tenant Assistance Policy and related processes.
• Evaluate the needs and concerns of a diverse group of renters, housing providers, developers, property managers and landlords.
• Build relationships with key stakeholders throughout the implementation of the Housing Strategy.

Stakeholder comments on the Policy’s criteria, its requirements and implementation will inform the final Policy, for Council consideration in the first quarter of 2023 (tentatively).

This report includes an overview of the engagement process and a summary of what we heard throughout. It is not meant to be a complete report of conversations, but rather a summary of the key themes that emerged.

2. WHAT WE DID

Through December 2022, we hosted three virtual focus groups via Zoom. The focus groups brought together representatives and individuals of similar stakeholder types for discussion. These included:

• Non-market housing organizations, from 2:00 – 4:00 pm on December 14th
• Renters and community representatives, from 6:30 – 8:30 pm on December 15th
• Market housing organizations, from 9:00 – 10:30 am on December 22nd

All sessions began with a welcome and group introduction, followed by a background presentation on the Tenant Assistance Policy by District of Saanich staff. Group discussions were broken into three topics, covering Policy and eligibility criteria, Policy supports (its requirements), and Policy success (its implementation). For each stakeholder group, we developed targeted discussion questions that aimed to address varying group needs and concerns.

To encourage open, honest feedback and to protect privacy, the sessions were not recorded although all comments were captured on a virtual facilitation board (see Appendices B-D). The facilitation board was circulated post-event for participants to make any corrections or add further comments.

3. WHO WE HEARD FROM

To reach a diverse audience of Saanich renters and community representatives, along with non-market and market housing organizations, we developed a potential stakeholder list. The list was populated through a mix of desktop research and existing District relationships. Outreach was conducted through email and phone, with an emphasis on leveraging organizational relationships. For the renter and community representative focus group, an honorarium of $25/hour was offered as an expression of gratitude for renters’ sharing their time and experience.

To maintain privacy and low-barrier engagement, we did not ask any targeted demographic questions. Rather, each session began with an open-ended icebreaker for participants to self-identify their relationship to renting / rental properties and tenant assistance. The list below summarizes who we engaged with through the focus groups. A total of 19 people participated in the engagement sessions.

• Non-market housing organizations – Five representatives across provincial, regional, and local housing developers and providers. These included the Greater Victoria Housing Society, Co-operative Housing Federation of BC, BC Non-profit Housing Association, and Beacon Community Services.
• Renters & community representatives – A group of seven Saanich renters and a SCAN representative, bringing diverse perspectives across ages, incomes, abilities, length of residency in Saanich and Canada (including long-term residents and immigrants) as well as varying household sizes and rental types, with most living in older, affordable purpose-built rental buildings.
• Market housing organizations – Six representatives across regional and local housing developers, consultants, and advocacy groups, as well as property managers and landlords. These included Cascadia Architects, Landlord BC, Groupe Denux, Aryze Developments, and Devon Properties.

4. WHAT WE HEARD

This section includes a summary of what we heard through stakeholder engagement. The summary is organized by focus group and discussion question. Where possible, stakeholder comments are grouped into key themes. A complete copy of the session notes can be found in Appendices A-C.

4.1. NON-MARKET HOUSING ORGANIZATIONS

POLICY AND ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Q: How does your organization currently approach tenant assistance? What have you seen elsewhere?

Non-market housing organizations shared their established procedures and existing practices, these included:

• Detailed re-housing plans for how tenants will be relocated
• Dedicated relocation staff to support tenants in navigating relocation based on their needs and preferences
• Covering the cost of moving expenses
• Maintaining affordable rent prices, at 80% market rate or less
• Phasing renovations and relocation
• Working with other non-profits to share resources and help to re-house tenants

Participants also referenced familiarity with tenant relocation practices under the City of Vancouver Tenant Relocation and Protection Policy and the City of Victoria’s Tenant Assistance Policy.

Q: What would be the potential risks and benefits of a Policy that applies to the non-market housing sector in Saanich?

Non-market housing organizations shared several risks associated with the Policy applying to the non-profit sector. The risks related to:

• Existing practices. The group expressed that tenant assistance is already provided through internal non-profit practices.
• Administrative burden. The group suggested the Policy would add an administrative burden on the sector, particularly for smaller non-profits with less staff capacity. In addition, there was a question if meeting the TAP requirements would take the place of, or be in an addition to, the application required for renovations or repairs under the BC Residential Tenancy Act.
• Financial viability. We heard concerns that requiring financial compensation is not reasonable for non-market housing developers, given their existing relocation efforts. Participants noted that providing financial compensation would make it increasingly challenging to maintain affordable rental rates, particularly for tenants who receive Income Assistance. Participants noted it is unfair to expect non-profits to pay additional months’ rent, especially if they are providing full relocation and rehousing services. Participants noted the City of Victoria’s TAP allows flexibility for non-profits regarding financial compensation. However, one participant shared that they had experienced challenges in being granted this flexibility.

We did not hear any benefits of applying a Tenant Assistance Policy to the non-market housing sector.

Q: Any there any other thoughts on the qualifying criteria you would like to share?

We heard a request to exclude the non-market housing sector as it already practices tenant assistance that meets or exceeds the proposed Saanich TAP.

POLICY SUPPORTS

Q: What policy supports do you think are reasonable and important to be provided by the market housing sector vs. the non-market housing sector?

Through discussion, non-market housing organizations raised considerations related to:

• Current practices. The group shared an example of how tenant relocation is currently supported through non-profit redevelopment (i.e., Nigel Valley). The group indicated that regulating ROFR at 20% below market rate (i.e., the requirement in Victoria’s TAP) is feasible for non-profit developers, although there is concern these rates may still be unaffordable for some tenants. We heard it is already challenging for non-profits to meet current rental rates for tenants with fixed income.
• Scale of operations. We heard it is important to consider an applicants’ access to resources and that ability to meet Policy requirements may vary by the scale of the organization. For example, a small-scale landlord carrying out renovations will have less ability to support tenants compared to a larger corporation, and for-profit developers may have more capacity to support tenant relocation within their portfolios than non-profit organizations.
• Development support. We heard a need for the District to work with, rather than against, non-market and market developers, and to address concerns about the potential cost burden and additional steps in the approval process created by a TAP.

Q: What would be the biggest challenges for your organization (or sector) when it comes to meeting these types of requirements?

Participants shared challenges related to the additional cost of meeting the Policy requirements. The group suggested that:

• The administrative burden from an additional regulatory process and the requirement for financial compensation (e.g., 4 months’ rent) would add delays to redevelopment and likely add to the cost of housing.
• Non-market organizations are currently supporting tenants through redevelopment and major redevelopments; however smaller non-profits would not be able to fulfill the suggested Policy financial requirements.
• It is already difficult to finance non-profit development (including operating and utility costs) with highly subsidized rents.