How to read this page. Each row below is one policy area, with Hollis Hodson's mark for it on the right; the key underneath says what each mark means. Open a row for the questions behind that mark, what they answered, and why each answer scored as it did. The control above the list opens all of them at once. At the foot of the page you can print this scorecard or share it as an image.
General
What Hollis Hodson said
- Not graded GEN-01
If you could change one policy, bylaw, feature, or municipal asset (i.e, facility or infrastructure) in your municipality, what would it be and why?
I would modernize Saanich’s governance and update the Council Procedure Bylaw restructuring how residents provide input to Council. Residents frequently tell me they do not feel heard or valued. I would restore a structured open public input opportunity at the beginning of the meeting for issues not on the agenda and change the current process back to have public input heard immediately prior to the applicable agenda item being considered, rather than requiring all speakers to speak at the beginning of the meeting. While maintaining options for both in-person and online participation, I would introduce mandatory pre-registration for public input using a public facing website portal, email and phone to provide the public with options aligned to their preferred communication method. This allows staff to schedule meetings predictably for the public, manage full agendas, and ensure public feedback receives the focus it deserves.
Scheduling should prioritize first-time speakers during open public input. Addressing Council takes courage, and every resident deserves to know their voice matters. Scheduling should also prioritize Community Associations as they speak on behalf of their membership. A well-structured, time-boxed process respects both Council’s time and the public’s democratic right to participate.
Your Community. Your Voice. Your Council.
Protecting What Matters. - Not graded GEN-02
Your municipality has received $10 million in new annual funding and must spend all of it. How would you allocate it across the following areas? Your answers must total $10 million.
Hollis Hodson's allocation of ten million dollars Housing $2,000,000 Transit $1,000,000 Walking Infrastructure $1,000,000 Rolling & Cycling Infrastructure $500,000 Roadway Infrastructure $2,000,000 Policing $500,000 Fire & Emergency Services $750,000 Parks & Recreation $1,000,000 Arts & Culture $50,000 Climate Action & Environment $1,000,000 Unhoused Resident Services $100,000 Community-Based Clinics $100,000 - Not graded GEN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to communicate about your region, generally, feel free to share your thoughts here.
Saanich is a vibrant housing mosaic unsuitable to a single housing type solution. My platform focuses on matching the right housing types to the right regions: making high-density below-market rental and ownership apartments fully available in our urban core, expanding the availability of gentle density like multi-family and multi-generational homes with below-market rental secondary and garden suites in our suburbs, and exploring on a case-by-case basis the addition of garden suites in our rural lands to accommodate infrastructure limits.
Eliminating parking ignores the economic and logistical realities of Saanich’s diverse housing mosaic: a tradesperson with tools requires a truck; a person who works at the ferries, attends UVIC, and lives in West Saanich requires a car to predictably commute; families with children and youth in sports require a vehicle to attend recreational activities with sports equipment; seniors require parking for support workers. Saanich is already experiencing parking overflows onto narrow suburban streets, creating safety hazards and blocking emergency access. True affordability and livability require common-sense parking rules that protect the daily needs of working-class tradespeople, busy families, and aging seniors while keeping our neighborhoods functional.
Please keep this framework in mind when reviewing my answers to the multiple choice questions where there is no opportunity to provide context. Thank you.
Healthcare access
What Hollis Hodson said
- Not graded HLT-01
What role should your municipality play in establishing new primary care clinics?
Why we ask this
Ungraded. Mainly curious about how you'd approach expanding healthcare access in your region.
Chose 1 of 4 options
Transit
C- 20% of this topic TRN-01 B
Which fare measures would you actively advocate for at the VRTC? Select all that apply.
Why this grade: Would push at the regional transit commission for free travel for under 19s, cheaper fares for seniors and cheaper fares for people on income or disability assistance. Most of the list is endorsed, though one measure is passed over.
How this question is graded
A count of ticks, because no option here is cheaper than the others in the way CLI-06's are. Four or more = A. Three = B. Two = C. One = C-. None = F. The rows graded before this rubric was written are not perfectly consistent with it at three and two ticks; they were left as typed and the majority letter was taken. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 3 of 6 options (up to 4 allowed) - 30% of this topic TRN-02 C
Do you support removing general on-street parking (excluding accessible parking spaces) from frequent transit corridors and main arterial streets in your municipality, and reallocating that space to bus lanes, loading zones, and walking and cycling infrastructure?
Why this grade: Supports reallocating kerbside space on busy transit streets case by case, tied to whatever scheme happens to come forward. The position depends entirely on what is put in front of council rather than on a standard set now.
How this question is graded
Yes, across the whole corridor = A. Yes, only during peak hours = B. Kind of, only when a specific project requires it = C. No = F. Peak hours only is a real, testable limit on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Only when a specific project requires it names no project and commits to nothing in advance, which is the case-by-case answer CLI-08 puts at C. A No is F because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. Eight of the earlier rows put the case-by-case option at B and nineteen put it at C; the nineteen were followed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 6 options - 30% of this topic TRN-03 C-
Do you support rapid deployment of transit priority measures on frequent transit corridors, even where this requires removing on-street parking or a general-purpose traffic lane?
Why this grade: Backs bus priority measures on busy routes while ruling out the removal of a general purpose travel lane. What is excluded is precisely what was asked, so the answer sits near the bottom while still leaving other measures open.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, but not at the cost of a general-purpose travel lane = C-. No = F. The question asks specifically about giving up a traffic lane, so a yes that rules the lane out withholds the one thing being asked for and cannot take the conditional-yes B. C- rather than F because the rest of the toolkit is still on the table. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 6 options - 10% of this topic TRN-04 A
Do you support the creation of a regional transportation authority?
Why this grade: Supports bringing transportation decisions under one regional authority. It is the strongest response the question offers.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. A No is C- rather than F because this asks who should decide, not what should be built or funded, which puts it on the governance side of the CLI-03 split. Three earlier rows typed F and two typed C-; the governance rule was followed over the count. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options - 10% of this topic TRN-05 B
Do you support building new bus-only and bike-only connections through parks, golf courses or public land when doing so would substantially shorten transit and cycling trips?
Why this grade: Accepts new links reserved for buses and bicycles across public land, with the protection of mature trees set as the condition. A condition this precise narrows the commitment without leaving it to discretion.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if no mature trees are lost during construction = B. No = F. Losing no mature trees is a named and checkable condition, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is F because the question is about building a connection, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded TRN-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to transit in your region, feel free to share your thoughts below.
TRN-2: I think there is a case to be made for project by project consideration inclusive of the consideration of peak hour restrictions. The constraint is roads like McKenzie Avenue are heavily used by commercial vehicles and trucks in addition to commuters travelling east-west - further overcrowding may create further friction for road users.
Housing
F- HFL-01 4 / 8
What kinds of housing could your municipality use more of? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per selected type to max of 8. Housing exists on a continuum and different types are appropriate for different households. All housing is needed and positively affects other types via vacancy chains
Hollis Hodson chose 4 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-02 3 / 8
Which of the following items do you support to minimize tenant displacement and maintain/grow the supply of affordable housing? Select up all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point per strategy to max of 8. To tackle tenant displacement local governments must take an all of the above approach to reduce the impacts associated with renovictions and evictions.
Hollis Hodson chose 3 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - HFL-03 4 / 6
Do you think your municipality should have target approval times for multifamily housing?
How this question is graded
6 points for 30/180 days, prorated for longer timelines. Housing delayed is housing denied. Long delays drive us costs for housing, increase the chance that they will be cancelled, and indicate a lack of clear published guidelines. A time limit on decisions prioritizes housing action and reforms.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-04 2 / 5
If there was a type of housing you wanted to see more of (e.g., affordable, non-market, family-sized, townhouses, etc.), what do you think are effective methods of getting more of it? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). To increase the building of certain desireable types of housing (affordable, family sized, etc), cities need to pursue a broad approach of both removing barriers and targetted incentives. Mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning) have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore reducing housing construction or increasing costs.
Hollis Hodson chose 2 of 8 options - HFL-05 0 / 3
Do you believe that the municipality should pre-zone to the uses, heights and densities outlined in the Official Community Plan, so that OCP-compliant projects can be built without rezoning or public hearing?
How this question is graded
3 points for yes, 0 for no. An OCP sets out the direction and vision for a municipality with broad input from the community and council. Matching zoning to long term consensus-based plans reduces scarcity and allows incentivizes OCP compliant housing to be built quickly.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options - HFL-06 0 / 6
Beyond the three to four units Bill 44 already requires, what is the most housing you think should be legal to build by-right (i.e. without rezoning) in traditional single-family areas of your municipality?
How this question is graded
a) 0 points b) 1 points c) 2 points d) 5 points e) 6 points. With little room for new single family developments, housing abundance relies on density. People unable to afford a single family house should not be relegated to living only on busy arterials where high density is legal, but should have a diversity of housing options in every neighbourhood.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 6 options - HFL-07 0 / 3
A housing proposal has been reviewed by staff and they recommend approval. It requires rezoning because the existing zoning has not been updated. If it faces substantial neighbourhood opposition, how would you generally vote?
How this question is graded
3 points for a), 0 otherwise. Housing approval rules must be predictable and clear for those building housing, or it will lead to scarcity. If municipal planning staff have adequately considered objections to a project and still recommend approval it should be approved. If unanticipated issues are raised, policies should be clarified to ensure staff can work with applicants on future projects.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - HFL-08 0 / 2
Do you support eliminating minimum parking requirements for new developments or suites?
How this question is graded
1 point for yes, 2 points for yes with transportation demand management measures, 0 points for no. A single additional parking space can add tens of thousands to the cost of a home. However, a development without parking and without offsetting remedies can impact livability for the eventual occupants of a home.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-09 1 / 6
Non-market housing often faces additional challenges getting approved. Which of the following measures do you support to improve the prospects for below-market housing construction? Select all that apply.
How this question is graded
1 point for each option, but -1 for choosing mandated requirements (d). Building homes is hard, building non-market homes is substantially harder. This has serious socio-economic consequences for certain members of society. With the exception of mandated requirements (or inclusionary zoning), which have a track record of acting like a tax and therefore a deterrent to new construction, a broad and flexible approach is needed to help non-market housing across the approval finish line.
Hollis Hodson chose 3 of 9 options (up to 7 allowed) - HFL-11 0 / 6
The BC government set a housing target for Victoria at 4,902 homes over five years, which represents 75% of the estimated housing need for that period. Regardless of provincial requirements or penalties, do you believe the city should strive to build:
How this question is graded
6 points for too low, 1 for about right, 0 for too high. By definition, the provincial housing targets, being set as only 75% of estimated housing need is too low of a target to meet local housing needs.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 4 options - HFL-12 1 / 6
Municipal asset-management plans have identified substantial gaps between current funding and the amount needed to maintain and replace roads, water and sewer systems, public buildings, and other infrastructure. In Victoria, the 2024 Corporate Asset Management Strategy identified $570 million worth of infrastructure in poor or very poor condition. Which approaches would you prioritize to address this infrastructure problem? Select up to two.
How this question is graded
5 points for selecting more housing and commercial development, 1 for seeking additional provincial or federal funding, 0 points for increasing taxes or reducing infrastructure projects, and -2 points for increasing development charges, amenity contributions, and other fees imposed on new houses.
Hollis Hodson chose 2 of 6 options - HFL-10 2 / 7
If elected, what do you hope to have accomplished on the housing file at the end of your first year, and end of your four-year term?
How this question is graded
To receive full marks, candidates receive a point up to 7 for referencing impactful housing ideas in their answer including but not limited to: a rental vacancy rate target, a quantitative target regarding annual homes built, pre-zoning commitments / OCP alignment, non-profit by right commitment, commitment to tenant production aligned with platform, commitment to regulate and enforce Airbnb rules, delegate more rezoning / variance decisions to staff, a continuation of policies that have been working, developing a pre-approved catalog of housing designs, loosening design guidelines or other restrictive regulations, minimizing tenant displacement, increasing the regional housing fund, enhancing partnerships with other levels of government, the private sector, co-ops, and non-profit housing developers, streamlining regulations, and shorten requirements.
Hollis Hodson's answerYear 1:
• Make attainability the measure of success. The goal is housing choice for different incomes and different stages of life. Housing is about people.
• More housing choice in existing neighbourhoods. Suites, garden suites, duplexes, townhomes and other forms of gentle densification can provide more attainable choices while allowing existing neighbourhoods to evolve.
• Streamline municipal processing times for the gentle density that suburban neighborhoods are already trying to build.
• Saanich's 4,610 unit target is lagging as it is trying to fix a diverse housing mosaic with a single, slow-moving solution: waiting on massive, corporate urban developments that take years to clear red tape. Homeowners want to build affordable multi-family units like garden suites and secondary suites now but they are trapped in permit queues. Saanich needs fast-track these applications to bridge this gap.
Term-End:
• Put greater density where Saanich’s infrastructure can support it. Connect housing decisions to infrastructure and services required to support the people who will live there.
• Improve planning and permitting systems with clearer rules, better coordination and more predictable decisions for housing that meets established community objectives.
• Plan housing together with transportation, infrastructure and community services. A home is not truly attainable if the cost of getting to work, school, childcare, shopping or essential services makes living there unaffordable.
• Create healthy communities to allow people to move through different stages of life: renting → saving → buying a first home → raising a family → downsizing
Climate
B- 8% of this topic CLI-01 B
Would you support ending fossil fuel advertising and sponsorship on property, media and events controlled by your municipality, to the extent the law allows? And would you advocate for the same at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission for BC Transit vehicles and shelters?
Why this grade: Yes on advertising, silent on sponsorship, and yes on taking it to transit. One half of the municipal ban is what keeps this below the full mark.
How this question is graded
Two commitments in one question, so the menu answer alone cannot reach the top. The menu sets a base and a Yes on the follow-up about advocating at the Victoria Regional Transit Commission raises it one step. Yes, both advertising and sponsorship = B, and A with the follow-up. Yes, advertising only or Yes, sponsorship only = C, and B with the follow-up. No = F, because ending the advertising is something the municipality controls outright. A follow-up written as free text rather than ticked is a judgement about the candidate and is graded by hand. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 6 options Follow-up: Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-02 B
The Capital Regional District declared a climate emergency in 2019. How should your municipality treat climate action in its next four-year plan?
Why this grade: A budgeted top three commitment. The answer is one step below treating climate as the governing consideration.
How this question is graded
The overriding priority, other decisions should be tested against it = A. One of the top three priorities, with a dedicated budget = B. One priority among many, addressed where affordable = C-. Not a municipal priority = F. The ladder skips C on purpose: a dedicated budget is the line between a priority and a sentiment, so addressing climate only where affordable drops two steps rather than one. Handing the file to another order of government is F. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-03 A
Will you pledge to never take meetings from fossil fuel company lobbyists?
Why this grade: Takes the pledge with no escape clause. Fossil fuel lobbying is given no way in.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = C-. The No is C- rather than F because of the split the grading settled on: a plain No is C- where the question is about governance or conduct and F where it is about infrastructure, land use or funding. This one asks a candidate to give up a channel of access to themselves, which is conduct. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-04 B
Climate-related damage and adaptation costs increasingly fall on municipal budgets. Would you vote to have your municipality join other BC local governments in legal action to recover a share of those costs from major fossil fuel producers?
Why this grade: Joins subject to a ceiling on municipal costs. The direction is right and the reservation is what is being marked.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, if municipal costs are capped = B, because a conditional yes is B wherever one appears and a cap on municipal exposure lands there. No = F, because the question is about spending to recover costs, which is the funding side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-05 A
Will you support a zoning bylaw amendment that prohibits the approval of any new or expanded commercial gas stations within municipal boundaries?
Why this grade: Backs the bylaw change. Both new and expanded stations are covered by the commitment.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A land use question, so a No is F rather than C-. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-06 C-
Extreme heat, wildfire smoke and wildfire risk all affect people living in existing homes. What would you have your municipality do to protect them? Select all you support.
Why this grade: Retrofit and cooling financing alone. The money is the right kind of measure, and one selection out of five is a narrow answer.
How this question is graded
Up to five measures may be ticked. Four or more ticks including at least two of the three the municipality has to pay for (subsidized home assessments, grants or financing for retrofits, designated centres with guaranteed opening hours) = A. Three or more ticks = B. Two = C. One = C-. None of the above = F. The funding floor is there because a straight count of ticks would let a candidate reach the top on the two cheapest options, a vegetation bylaw and an information campaign, while committing no money to anyone actually living in an overheating home. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed) - 8% of this topic CLI-07 A
Are you supportive of phasing out fossil fuel powered tools such as leaf blowers (following the lead of Oak Bay and other municipalities across the country)?
Why this grade: Yes. The tools would be phased out, with no exemption written into the answer.
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. A regulatory phase-out, graded on the same footing as CLI-05. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options - 8% of this topic CLI-08 B
Large data centres can add substantial electricity and water demand. Under what conditions, if any, would you support a new data centre in your municipality?
Why this grade: Support is tied to waste heat recovery and to no net increase in drinking water use. Named and testable terms of that kind are graded as a qualified yes.
How this question is graded
Oppose all new data centres = A. Support only with waste-heat recovery and no net increase in potable water use = B. Support only under conditions set case by case = C. Support without special conditions = F. The two conditional options are separated by whether the condition binds. Waste-heat recovery and no net potable water increase is a testable commitment, so it takes the conditional-yes B. Conditions set case by case name nothing and commit to nothing, so it takes the C that a depends-case-by-case answer gets everywhere else. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 8% of this topic CLI-09 A
What are the primary climate risk(s) facing your community, and what actions would you take to support adaptation and resilience in your community?
Why this grade: Clearly identifies risks and provides concrete strategies grounded in their local context.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names a climate risk specific to the municipality and specific actions against it, usually tied to data or a programme already running. B = one half only, a risk with no action or actions with no risk named, or backing an existing plan without either. C = general support with nothing local in it, a list of risks and nothing else, or the work handed to the region. C- = a risk gestured at and nothing more. F = an answer that is not about climate.
Hollis Hodson's answerSaanich’s primary climate risks are driven by a expanding footprint of impervious surfaces and a concurrent loss of tree canopy. This degradation stems from large-scale urban developments along key corridors like McKenzie and Shelbourne, alongside incremental multi-unit densification in suburban zones, including environmentally sensitive areas such as the Colquitz River and Panama Flats wetland and floodplain. The resulting loss of green infrastructure increases contaminated stormwater runoff, amplifies local flooding, and intensifies urban heat island effects. To mitigate these vulnerabilities, development permit applications should mandate comprehensive environmental impact assessments, prioritized tree retention, and minimized impervious surface coverage. - 8% of this topic CLI-10 A
Ensuring ecosystem connectivity is an important adaptation strategy for climate change. How do you plan to maintain or increase ecosystem features across the urban landscape?
Why this grade: Identifies clear, actionable strategies to improve resilience through development relevent to their local context.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = says what connectivity is and why it matters, with local examples, usually tied to data, a programme already running or the official community plan. B = practical examples with no local detail, or no link back to connectivity. C = general support with no project named, or an answer broad enough to fit any question. C- = agrees with the idea and offers nothing to do about it, or answers about something tangential. F is not used.
Hollis Hodson's answer1. Protect biodiversity and environmentally sensitive areas as growth continues.
Wetlands, watershed, flood plains, mature forests, streams and Garry oak ecosystems support habitat, ecosystems, biodiversity, species and services that can't simply be relocated once they're gone. They help make Saanich resilient for the future. Development should be planned around environmental constraints not the other way around. Protection decisions should be based on ecological evidence, not convenience.
2. Treat natural assets as infrastructure worth protecting.
Parks, rivers and creeks, forests, and natural areas are essential to Saanich residents’ quality of life. Wetlands manage stormwater. Mature trees provide shade and reduce flooding and urban heat. Healthy watersheds prevent costs that would otherwise require expensive engineered solutions. Natural infrastructure deserves the same planning discipline as roads and pipes.
3. Strengthen the urban forest through development, not after it.
Mature trees provide shade, habitat, stormwater management, carbon storage and neighbourhood character. Tree retention and canopy targets should be built into a project's design from the start, not treated as a condition to be negotiated away once construction is underway. Trees planted after the fact rarely replace what was lost.
4. Treat watersheds as connected systems.
Decisions about one property affect what happens downstream. Saanich needs to plan drainage, runoff and habitat protection at the watershed level, not lot by lot. Connected systems require connected planning.
5. Build environmental review into planning from the beginning.
Environmental considerations shouldn't arrive at the end of a project as a final checklist item. They belong at the start, alongside housing, transportation and infrastructure planning. Good environmental outcomes come from early decisions, not late corrections. - 8% of this topic CLI-11 B
Do you see development as an opportunity to increase resilience to climate-related events, and if so, how?
Why this grade: Clearly supports improving resilience through development, but does not provide specifics about how this would take shape in their local context.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = yes, with how and why, naming strategies or a local policy that ties development to resilience. B = yes with relevant examples but no account of how they build resilience or how they get built. C = general support and nothing past what the building code already requires. C- = a bare yes, or support that doubts it is possible. F = does not accept that development can make a community more resilient.
Hollis Hodson's answerEnvironmental stewardship should guide how we grow together. Too many narratives frame this as protection versus development. That's not how responsible communities grow. They build homes, protect habitat, and plan for the future together. The real question isn't whether Saanich grows. It's whether that growth respects the natural systems this community depends on. Environmental stewardship is more than setting land aside. It is about treating wetlands, forests and watersheds as infrastructure in their own right, because they manage stormwater, reduce flooding, cool neighbourhoods and prevent costs that would otherwise fall on engineered systems and, ultimately, on taxpayers. At the same time, protecting these systems doesn't mean growth has to stop. Every part of Saanich's landscape matters. Development and stewardship must work as one system. - 8% of this topic CLI-12 A
The UBCM passed several resolutions saying municipalities should be able to have climate action lens and climate considerations in development and housing mandates. Do you support blue-green infrastructure upgrades as a requirement of developments for climate readiness?
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No = F. Graded by RUSH from 2026-09-01; the mapping is recorded so the remaining rows match the ones already typed. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded CLI-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to climate concerns with respect to your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
I'd advocate for connecting environmental planning to housing, transportation and fiscal decisions. A healthy environment and a growing, affordable community aren't competing goals. Saanich needs housing decisions that protect sensitive areas, transportation planning that reduces unnecessary paving and runoff, and budgets that reflect the long-term value of natural infrastructure. These files shouldn't be treated separately. Protecting natural assets today can prevent greater costs tomorrow. That is why environmental decisions should consider lifecycle costs, long-term risk and the value of natural systems when comparing solutions. Sometimes the most responsible environmental decision is also the most financially responsible one.
Arts
B- 6.67% of this topic ART-01 2 / 3
Do you consider arts and culture to be a core part of your municipality's economic development strategy?
Why this score: Identifies events, community-building and wellbeing as municipal arts roles, but the response remains focused on general support rather than specific economic-development execution.
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: The Municipality should continue support Arts and Culture through events such as Music In The park and the Uptown Multi-Cultural Festival. Building community through Arts and Culture is a meaningful way to gather people to share, learn and appreciate each our community's diversity. Following the pandemic, many citizens are still struggling to find ways to reconnect with their community, providing options that enhance well-being is supporting a healthy Saanich for everyone. - 16.67% of this topic ART-02 2 / 3
If elected, what specific action will you commit to in your first year to strengthen your municipality's arts and cultural sector, and what measurable outcome should residents expect by the end of your four-year term?
Why this score: Provides concrete first-year actions including continuing the mural/event programs and reviewing heritage designation, which could lead to diversification and activation of space (though not directly listed in answer) and is conditional of a review. Defined four-year deliverables include completing the heritage assessment and consultation with community on events. The interventions and municipal tools listed are low to moderate in impact, focused on municipal led event programming and lack meaningful infrastructural, funding, or non-event partnership opportunities.
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson's answerYear-1 Continue the community mural program in conjunction with community associations and local artists. Continue existing events in partnership with the community, such as Music In The Park and the Uptown Multi-Cultural Festival. Initiate a review of the heritage Designation modernizing the two aspects to align better for community understanding and support.
End-Of Term:
1. Complete the Heritage program assessment and implement recommendations.
2. Connect with the community to determine the types of Arts and Cultural events they would like to see Saanich support. Explore partnerships with non-government organizations, charities and non-profits to collaboratively coordinate and host events, based on community feedback. Add at least one new event program resulting from community feedback.
3. With recent completion of the Panama Flats Concept Plan, collaborate with Indigenous Elders and Knowledge Keepers to capture and share its history to respect the cultural footprint of the land. - 13.33% of this topic ART-03 3 / 3
Cultural strategies are often adopted and then not implemented. Would you support a cultural space implementation framework with defined tools, timelines and public reporting? Select up to three components you would prioritize. Select your top three options.
Why this score: Combines nonprofit partnerships for permanent cultural assets with municipal and regional cultural-space strategies, establishing a meaningful implementation framework at both municipal and regional levels .
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson chose 3 of 11 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-04 3 / 3
Arts organizations and event producers identify permitting, zoning and regulatory requirements as barriers to cultural activity. What would you commit to? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Selects simplified small-scale events and disproportionate-cost review alongside administrative reforms, providing multiple consequential changes.
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson chose 5 of 10 options (up to 8 allowed) - 16.67% of this topic ART-05 3 / 3
If preserving and securing long-term cultural space requires additional municipal support, which approaches would you support? Select up to five.
Why this score: Supports regional infrastructure funding, nonprofit acquisition and cultural land trusts; the combination includes structural cultural-space mechanisms.
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson chose 3 of 16 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-06 3 / 3
Municipal budgets require difficult choices. Would you support maintaining arts and culture investment alongside other core municipal services?
Why this score: Explicitly supports maintaining or growing arts and culture alongside core services.
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 10.00% of this topic ART-07 3 / 3
When a major development project affects an existing cultural space, what should your municipality prioritize?
Why this score: Explicitly requires replacement cultural space or equivalent community benefit.
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 16.67% of this topic ART-08 1 / 3
Would you support municipal incentives to encourage private property owners and developers to provide affordable community & cultural space for nonprofits? Select all that apply.
Why this score: Supports only property-tax relief for eligible nonprofit-owned cultural properties. This is existing and protective support but does not create a new supply mechanism or incentivises private owners to provide affordable cultural space.
How this question is graded
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 7 options (up to 5 allowed)
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded ART-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to the arts in your municipality or the region as a whole, feel free to share your thoughts below.
Explore a regional approach, as there may be more funding and supports available for cultural opportunities.
Rolling & cycling
B- 15% of this topic ROL-01 A
Will you commit to funding and completing at least one 'missing link' in your municipality's Active Transportation Plan during your four-year term? If yes, which one would you prioritize?
Why this grade: Commits to connecting Marigold Road between Carey Road and Burnside Road West, a school travel route for families heading in both directions to five named schools, flagged as a priority back in 2008 and the site of at least three crashes in a single summer. A named link, with both the history and the harm set out.
How this question is graded
Yes + Project surfaced = A; Yes + No specific project in mind, or vague project = B; Combination of No and/or a lack of project ideas = C-F, depending on severity.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 4 optionsFollow-up: Connect Marigold Road from Carey Road to Burnside Road West. This is a major Safter School Travel Route for Glanford Area families and students, moving east to St Joseph's, Colquitz Middle School, Spectrum and Marigold elementary as well as Marigold families and students moving west to Glanford Middle School, Mackenzie, and Pacific Christian school. In 2008 it was identified as a 10-15 year priority. Pedestrians, Rolling and Cycling for trail and road, Vehicles, and Transit all converge at Marigold and Interurban and Marigold and Burnside Road West. at least three crashes occurred during the summer months within the project area. - 15% of this topic ROL-02 C-
Will you commit (or continue to commit) to physical protection (not paint alone) as the standard for all new and upgraded cycling infrastructure on busy streets in your municipality?
Why this grade: Is unsure about making physical protection rather than paint the standard on busy streets. No position is stated either way, so the row carries no grade and leaves the topic total alone.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, except where physically impossible = B. No = F. Except where physically impossible is a condition that can be checked against a street, so it takes the conditional-yes B, and that is where the 19 rows graded before this rubric existed put it. A No is F because the question sets a construction standard, which is infrastructure. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 15% of this topic ROL-03 C
Will you oppose efforts (current and future) to remove, narrow or downgrade existing protected bike lanes and other all-ages-and-abilities (AAA) cycling infrastructure in your municipality during your term?
Why this grade: Would look at each attempt to remove, narrow or weaken an existing lane individually instead of opposing them. Judging one at a time sets no standard and keeps no commitment.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Depends, case-by-case = C. No = F. Depends case by case names no test and commits to nothing, which is the C it gets on CLI-08 and TRN-02; 13 of the 14 rows graded before this rubric existed agree. A No is F because the question is about keeping built infrastructure in place. An answer of N/A is a claim that the question does not apply to that municipality, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand, like an excused decline. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic ROL-04 A
What is the most important active transportation project in the municipality that you will be focused on progressing? Please provide your reasoning.
Why this grade: Picks neighbourhood bikeways, on the grounds that they move vulnerable users off major roads while building connectivity, and that they support safer school travel. Brief, but it names the programme and gives the reasons for choosing it.
How this question is graded
A = Candidate is able to identify a project in their community and speak to its importance. B & C = Candidate has a general idea of something that can be improved but it isn't high on their priority list. F = Candidate does not think any improvements can/should be made.
Hollis Hodson's answerNeighbourhood Bikeways. It moves vulnerable users off major roads well creating connectivity. It supports Safer School Travel. - 35% of this topic ROL-05 A
If you have previously served in local government, what did you do to advance walking, rolling, cycling or transit? If you have not, what in your record outside of council shows the same commitment?
Why this grade: Found school walking routes unsafe and acted: lobbied the municipality to prioritise traffic safety, gathered two decades of parent feedback, started the safer school travel programme and coordinated it, then won council approval for the municipality's first streetscape project on Burnside Road West, running the traffic counts, working around planned utility pole replacement and securing surplus ministry land to hold costs down. That project broke ground quickly and was finished in 2008, with full width sidewalks and bike lanes on both sides.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person on what the record shows about advancing walking, rolling, cycling or transit. A = delivered work, meaning budgets moved, plans adopted, infrastructure built, or a sustained organisational role with results behind it. B = substantial relevant advocacy or a directly relevant role, with less account of what it produced. C = a record from a different office, or advocacy confined to one location or issue, or no previous term with nothing offered in its place. C- = personal experience or unrelated work with no advocacy behind it. F = nothing relevant offered, or a record that closed the question rather than advancing it. The bands come from the 79 rows graded before 2026-09-20. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson's answerWhen I found that student walking routes were unsafe, I took action. I successfully lobbied Saanich to prioritize traffic safety, compiled two decades of parent feedback, and initiated Saanich's Safer School Travel Program, serving as its Community Coordinator. Following this success, I went before Council and secured approval for Saanich's first-ever Streetscape Project along Burnside Road West. To make the project viable, I led community traffic counts and successfully negotiated constraints. With Saanich, I coordinated with BC Hydro and Telus to leverage planned pole replacements and secured excess Ministry land to lower land acquisition costs. The project broke ground quickly and was completed in 2008. I have been a dedicated volunteer advocating for community safety in Saanich ever since.
The Streetscape was inclusive of full-size sidewalks and bike lanes along both sides of the road from Grange to McKenzie.
Walking
B- 10% of this topic WLK-01 C
Municipalities, the CRD and the Province have all adopted targets to shift trips away from driving. Do you support meeting your municipality's adopted mode-shift targets, and would you vote for the necessary street-space and budgetary changes?
Why this grade: Shows little support for multimodal planning and TDM.
How this question is graded
A = yes, even if it means removing driving lanes. C = yes, but not when it takes road space from drivers. F = no. Two steps between the two yeses because the adopted targets cannot be met without reallocating street space. Unsure and Decline to answer are both C- on this tab.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-02 A
Which pedestrian safety problem in your municipality concerns you most, and what is the one change you would commit to in your first term to make walking safer and more attractive than driving for short trips?
Why this grade: Names conflict in shared walking and cycling space as compromising the comfort of the most vulnerable walkers, and commits to separating the modes on high volume routes and clarifying the design at crossings. Also commits to a capital plan that fills sidewalk gaps, school corridors first.
How this question is graded
Free text, graded by a person against the two things the question asks for: a named local problem, and one change committed to in a first term. A = both, with the change specific enough to be delivered and usually tied to funding, a named corridor or an existing plan. B = the problem is named and the response is concrete but soft, narrow, or a review rather than a change. C = a problem is named and nothing is committed to, or the framing of the question is declined. C- = no local problem is settled on, or the answer is a general gesture. F = nothing responsive is offered. The bands come from the 31 rows graded before 2026-09-20 and were applied to the remaining 51 on that date. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson's answerA liveable community requires complete, conflict-free pedestrian networks. I recognize the growing safety concerns regarding shared bike and pedestrian spaces, which frequently compromise the comfort of vulnerable walkers. My approach will mandate clear modal separation on high-volume routes and engineered clarity at intersecting crossings. To address Saanich's broader sidewalk deficit, I will advocate for a fiscally responsible capital plan that prioritizes filling sidewalk connectivity gaps, focusing resources first on our vital school corridors to protect children and families. - 10% of this topic WLK-03 B
Sidewalk construction and maintenance is chronically underfunded across the region. Would you vote to increase the share of your municipality's transportation capital budget dedicated to pedestrian infrastructure?
Why this grade: A modest increase in what the municipality puts into sidewalks. Real, and short of the strongest answer.
How this question is graded
Yes, a substantial increase, meaning more than double what is currently spent = A. Yes, a modest increase, meaning more but less than double = B, because that is a real commitment with a ceiling on it. No, the current amount is sufficient = F, because the question is about money for infrastructure, which is the funding side of the split. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 20% of this topic WLK-04 F
Do you support expanding pedestrian-priority and car-free streets in your municipality's downtown, main street or village centre?
Why this grade: Selected not applicable while Saanich has several village centres where pedestrian priority is already being discussed. The question applies and no position follows.
How this question is graded
Yes, and I would pursue a permanent expansion or implementation = A. Yes, but only temporary, seasonal or pilot closures = B, because it is a yes with a stated limit on it. No = F, because the question is about street space, which is infrastructure. An answer of N/A is not on this list: it is a claim that the municipality has no downtown, main street or village centre, which is a judgement about a candidate and is passed in by hand. It has been left blank where that is true of the municipality and graded F everywhere the question plainly does apply. Unsure was typed C on two rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 6 options - 20% of this topic WLK-05 A
How will you work with parent groups, school staff, and municipal staff to assure that children’s safety is prioritized over convenience and flow of motor traffic?
Why this grade: Unsafe school routes for your own sons brought you into civic advocacy twenty two years ago, and you saw a streetscape improvement project through to completion within five years by sustaining coordination among residents, municipal staff, elected officials and several levels of government. You commit to keep pressing on sidewalks, crossings, visibility, traffic calming and better communication with schools and families, and a finished project is the strongest evidence a candidate can offer that the process works.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names parents, school staff and municipal staff and attaches something concrete: an audit, measures, funding, timelines, or work delivered. B = one half only, consultation without measures or measures without consultation. C = points at an existing programme as enough. C- = vague, deflects, or denies the problem. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Hollis Hodson's answerMy approach starts with community safety, particularly school routes and pedestrian crossings. These are the sidewalks and pathways our seniors, students and residents with mobility challenges rely on every day. Twenty-two years ago, unsafe school routes for my sons called me to civic advocacy. Addressing that concern required sustained coordination with residents, municipal staff, elected officials and multiple levels of government. Within five years my efforts prioritized and saw through completion, the Burnside Road Streetscape improvement project. I know what it takes to move a safety concern from a kitchen-table conversation to a completed project, because I have done it.
Every child should be able to get to school safely. I will continue advocating for practical improvements to school routes, including sidewalks, crossings, visibility, appropriate traffic-calming measures and better communication with schools and families. My commitment to safer school travel isn't new. It is where my civic involvement began. - 20% of this topic WLK-06 A
What will you do, in a 4 year term, to identify, prioritize and set time-lines to assure that pedestrian infrastructure is improved to meet the needs of the older and disabled members of your community?
Why this grade: You would establish the condition and capacity of the existing network before committing to the next large project, set priorities with the most vulnerable residents first, design for accessibility from the start rather than as an afterthought, and draw on collision data, engineering analysis, infrastructure condition and residents' lived experience together. Requiring clear objectives, realistic costs, timelines and measurable outcomes that residents can check is the accountability this question is really about.
How this question is graded
Free text. A = names what to fix and the order it gets fixed in: an audit, named priorities, consultation with older and disabled residents, a timeline inside the term. B = real improvements with no process behind them, or continuing existing work. C = states the need and defers it, or one fix with no plan. C- = a problem with no action, or an answer about something else. Blank only where Walk On cannot judge local conditions. F is not used.
Hollis Hodson's answerBefore Saanich commits to the next big-ticket project, Council needs to understand the condition and capacity of our existing transportation network and establish clear priorities, with safety for our most vulnerable residents first. Our streets are how people move through Saanich every day. My approach is straightforward: protect people, get the fundamentals right, prioritize what matters most and make sure public investment delivers results.
Design for accessibility and all stages of life. A transportation system should work for children, seniors, people with disabilities, people pushing a stroller, people carrying groceries and people who cannot or do not want to drive or cycle. Accessibility should be considered at the beginning of a project, not treated as an afterthought.
Good transportation decisions require more than a traffic count or a public meeting. Saanich must consider collision and traffic data, engineering analysis, infrastructure condition, emergency access, transit needs and the lived experience of residents. Community knowledge is an important source of information, alongside professional analysis. Council needs both.
Transportation projects require clear objectives, realistic costs, timelines and measurable outcomes. Residents should be able to see what was promised, what was delivered, what it cost and whether it improved safety and walkability. Good transportation policy only matters if government can deliver it.
Governance
B- 17% of this topic GOV-01 A
Do you support expanding shared or regional delivery of municipal services in the Capital Region?
How this question is graded
Yes/Partly = A, Unsure = C, No = F.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-02 B
Do you support creating a regional service that designs, builds and maintains local municipal infrastructure shared across Capital Region municipalities?
Why this grade: Supports the shared service with the municipality's costs protected. Bounded support.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. Yes, only if full cost recovery is guaranteed for my municipality = B. No = C-. Full cost recovery is a named, checkable condition on a yes, so it takes the conditional-yes B. A No is C- rather than F because the question is about how services are organised and who runs them, which is the governance side of the split CLI-03 sits on the other side of. Unsure was typed C on three rows before 2026-09-13 and those rows were reset to blank on 2026-09-20, so the question now follows the shared policy. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 5 options - 17% of this topic GOV-03 C
If elected, what three steps would you take to put your region or municipality on a firmer financial footing?
How this question is graded
“Real financial resilience comes from increasing the productivity of land that's already served by infrastructure: letting neighborhoods incrementally thicken, encouraging redevelopment where roads and pipes already exist, building more value per acre instead of more acres that need public maintenance.” The Strong Towns approach thinks about revenue vs liabilities and the cost of replacing infrastructure as a key driver of municipal financial success. Next-increment intensification or better allows improved use of pipes, roads, and wires, increasing the economic base for the city while lowering vacancies (examples, strongtowns.org , archive.strongtowns.org ). No credit was given for/against for either a) sharing costs with neighbouring governments or b) asking for money from higher levels of government, both of which may have additional merit beyond the boundaries of the muncipality. A-level (excellent) answer: 1. a comment about density being linked to financial wellbeing (revenue side), 2. a comment about efficient use of that revenue (expenses side), 3. thinking about infrastructure liabilities and how to pay for them given the intergenerational problems. B-level (good) answer considers some of these principles, but likely doesn't consider both revenue and expenses. C-level (mixed) - may have other ideas about arbitrary efficiencies and doesn't provide a mechanism for doing the work they propose (e.g. "fill up the reserve fund" -- with what money?). F - working in the opposite direction of resilience (e.g. arbitrary property tax increase caps), or doesn't answer the question (e.g. "my municipality is on firm financial footing").
Hollis Hodson's answer1. Economic Growth & Retention: Develop a measurable economic plan with clear targets for investment, employment, and revenue. Build strategic partnerships to attract investment, diversify the economy, and eliminate municipal barriers to business retention.
2. Infrastructure & Service Focus: Prioritize core services and essential infrastructure renewal based on condition, safety, and community benefit. Avoid lower-priority projects lacking long-term plans, ensuring all investments deliver core objectives cost-effectively.
3. Process Efficiency & Accountability: Streamline municipal operations to improve coordination, remove bottlenecks, and maintain transparency. Monitor budgets and timelines, review economic returns to strengthen Saanich’s revenue base, and change course when results fall short. - 17% of this topic GOV-04 F
Do you commit to eliminating mandatory parking minimums for all land uses in your municipality by 2030?
How this question is graded
Yes = A, No/Decline = F. Parking minimums are pseudoscience that should be eliminated from city codes everywhere, and have been eliminated in Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Ottawa, and others across North America without any negative consequences (archive.strongtowns.org )
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-01 A
Do you support ensuring that local First Nations are represented in transit governance, such as on the Victoria Regional Transit Commission and the CRD Transportation Commission?
Why this grade: Backs guaranteed representation outright. Nothing is deferred to a later decision.
How this question is graded
Yes = A. No = C-, on the same reasoning as GOV-02 and TRN-04: the question is about who sits at the table, not about what gets built or funded. No candidate has answered No, so that letter is a rule rather than a record of how anyone was graded. Decline to answer is F where nothing explains it, and the Grade is left blank where the candidate explained the decline in the topic's comment box or answered the rest of the topic solidly. Unsure is left blank. A blank Grade drops the row out of the category rollup entirely; N/A is reserved for a question that does not apply to a candidate and never means ungraded.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 3 options - 17% of this topic REC-02 B
Concerning our municipal government’s First Nations’ reconciliation and consultation practices, I support:
Why this grade: Supports somewhat more consultation than Saanich undertakes now. The direction is right, but the commitment stops short of the substantial change the highest band describes.
How this question is graded
A = significantly more consultation practices. B = somewhat more. C = the current amount is enough. Written answers take the same ladder: A commits to partnership with local First Nations, B wants better consultation without committing to a change, C questions whether more is wanted. Nothing here has been graded C- or F.
Hollis Hodson chose 1 of 7 options
Also shared, ungraded
- Not graded GOV-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to governance, shared services, and municipal infrastructure, feel free to share your thoughts below.
1. Prioritize Daily Essentials: Put core services and critical infrastructure—such as roads, water, sewer, public safety, and parks—ahead of lower-priority projects or expanding commitments that lack clear, long-term plans.
2. Exhaust Other Financial Options: Property taxes must not be the automatic fix for new financial pressures. Council must prove they have prioritized needs, deferred non-essentials, found operational efficiencies, and explored alternative funding before asking residents for more.
3. Deliver Basics Before Extras: Establish a clear, transparent framework to renew Saanich’s infrastructure based on safety, risk, condition, and community benefit—not political momentum. Execute projects responsibly by focusing strictly on primary objectives without wasting capital on non-essential features. - Not graded REC-GEN
If you have anything you'd like to add in regards to First Nation transit governance or consultation practices, feel free to share your thoughts below.
A wise elder once said to me, progress moves at the rate of trust. Words to live by.
Livable CRD is a registered local elections advertising sponsor with Elections BC. Election advertising on this site is authorized by Livable CRD, [email protected]. Elections BC explains what that means in its Guide for Local Elections Third Party Sponsors in B.C. (PDF).