Month: July 2024

TransLink Funding

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I don’t spend a lot of time doing on-the-nose politics on this page. You need to subscribe to the newsletter for that, or drop by the booth, or stop me on the street, etc. However, Thursday was a big politics day on the topic of Public Transit, a topic that means a lot to me personally and professionally, so I’ll wade in on polite company here.

The Mayors Council put out yet another media release imploring senior governments (Federal and Provincial) to make some commitments about longer-term transit operational funding. There is nothing new in this ask, we have been at this since the day I first joined the Mayor Council almost two years ago. The new news here is that the Mayor’s Council received a report from staff that begins the work to plan for what happens if that funding commitment doesn’t happen. And it’s dire.

If we cannot find a new operational funding model, we will need to react to the operational deficit by cutting services drastically. The recent efficiency report identified some savings we can undertake (and are undertaking) that will not impact service to customers, but after than $90 Million, the next $510 Million will need to come from service. That means less funding for roads and active transportation, but it also means reduced transit routes and reliability. This is a bit difficult to model (and I encourage those interested to look at the report) because as we reduce service, there will be a reduction in ridership which reduced fare revenue, which drives further service reductions. This is the Transit Service Death Spiral we avoided during COVID.

To know how we got here, you need to understand how TransLink pays for its service. It is a unique body with many revenue sources, but most of them are going down, or not increasing to keep up with inflation and regional growth. TransLink’s revenue looks like this:

The level of Fuel Tax drivers pay at the pump is fixed by Provincial Legislation, but the amount of revenue it returns continues to go down as overall gasoline consumption drops. The Mayors recently agreed to a short-term increase in regional Property Tax to match a recent Provincial government contribution to address overcrowded bus lines, but Property Tax is being asked to fund an increasing number of services, and the Mayors recognize there are limits to how much we can push that. In New West, about 7% of your property tax bill goes directly to TransLink. The regional parking tax (which has gone down with work-from-home) and the levy on your electricity bill (not changing much as efficiency measures like Heat Pumps and LEDs offset increases from electrification) are both fixed by Provincial legislation, and combined only make up about 5% of our revenue.

On the Transit Revenue side, fare increases are limited by provincial legislation, and have been going up tied to inflation, however our fare system is shifting as we go through COVID recovery. With flexible workspaces, people are buying fewer monthly passes and are travelling less in traditional peak times, so overall fare recoveries are not rebounding as fast as ridership. “Other” revenues from transit includes things like advertising on Buses and fee-for-service, and are not going up. Direct senior government support varies quite a bit as it mostly reflects transfers to pay for capital projects or one-time funding, which makes it hard to plan around. TransLink also gets a bit of money to offset the revenue lost when tolls were taken off of the Golden Ears Bridge – but that pays for the financing, operating, and maintenance of that bridge. Finally, investment income is up a bit related to interest rates, but as we spend our reserves to keep the wheels rolling, this will go away.

The diversity of revenues is a good thing from and eggs-in-basket perspective. The challenge is that Property Tax is the only part that is 100% under the control of the Mayors Council, all of the other sources are limited by Provincial legislation – meaning we need permission from the province to raise them. Any new source of revenue would also require provincial legislation. It is this legislation that the Mayors Council has been asking the Province to change, a new “Funding Model”, because we are projecting ahead to 2026 when this revenue model will fall $600 Million short of projected operating costs.

So with that background and the new operational impacts report in hand, the Mayors Council is using the opportunity to call public attention (again) to the operation budget issue as we enter into the whirlpool of a provincial election – without doubt a political move. The Mayors expected, even hoped for, responses from Provincial leaders. And we got them, so let me review, in the order they hit my radar.

BC Cons: To be fair, the 900,000 people (like me) who rely on TransLink transit services to get around the region are not John Rustad’s base, but his response looked like he missed the memo and needs to do a bit of reading and listening before he starts throwing accusations in place of solutions. On almost every point he makes, he is either misinformed or misinforming.

The financial support that the BC government provided (or to use Rustad’s words “funneled to”) TransLink through COVID was a brave and defining commitment to public transit. The funding was needed because TransLink (by legislation) is not permitted to run a deficit, and because of how those revenue sources listed above all went down dramatically due to pandemic response measures. Unlike transit regions across North America, TransLink didn’t have to slash routes and reliability, because the Provincial Government recognized that hundreds of thousands of people still had to go to work through the pandemic – health care workers, first responders, people who maintain critical services like utilities that keep our communities operating. They were able to get to work, and as COVID restrictions waned, we had the fastest rider recovery of any public transit system in North America. While the other revenue sources have not yet recovered (and likely never will), we are limited (by legislation) how much we can raise fares, while our costs have gone up with inflation and we now have more ridership than pre-COVID.

Despite the protestations of Mr. Rustad, the numbers do actually add up, have been audited, are publicly available for his review, and the TransLink Mayors Council have been very transparent over the last two years about those numbers

His solution is yet another audit (just completed, actually, with $90M in potential savings found, which still leaves us $510M short), address overcrowded routes (dude, the Access for Everyone plan is Right Here!), stop-gap funding (which has, frankly, been the NDP solution that he was just complaining about, and is a problem if you need to plan transit expansion years in advance, like we do), and “accelerate the Surrey-Langley SkyTrain project”, which is a weird thing to suggest when there is nothing to indicate it is not moving forward as fast as possible, and we will still have no operational funding for it until we get the new funding model the Mayors are asking for anyway.

It’s clear Rustad has not read the file, has no idea what the problem is, and has no useful solutions.

BC United. Kevin Falcon’s news release on the same day announced a new 10-lane bridge at Second Narrows and a SkyTrain to the North Shore. I can’t flatter this by calling it a “response” because it is so disconnected from everything happening in the regional transportation conversation that it must have been developed in an impermeable bubble located in a deep bunker under miles of concrete. It makes Rustad look like a strap-hanging Buzzer editor in comparison.

I’ll skip past the obvious joke in Kevin Falcon finding a “10 Lane Bridge” as the solution to everything, but the regional Mayors (all 21of them) agree on transportation priorities for the region, and wrapped them up with a nice little bow and call it the “Access for Everyone Plan”. This plan not only shapes the transportation future of the region, it does it in a way that that supports and is supported by the Regional Growth Strategy. Mr. Falcon has surely seen this plan, and surely knows it is not funded. It’s not helpful when the region’s Mayors (who agree on very little) are all on the same page on something as fundamental as this to have a provincial leader ignore that page and start drawing your own multi-billion-dollar lines on a map.

Finally, and I cannot emphasize enough, if Mr. Falcon commits TransLink to building a SkyTrain to North Vancouver without first dealing with the funding gap the Mayors are currently talking about, we will have no funding to operate the SkyTrain line he just built.

BC NDP: Short of any official statement, Premier Eby was quoted in some media saying the NDP election platform would be clear in supporting TransLink. I heard the (outgoing!) Minister of Transportation on the radio this morning saying that the “worst case scenario” presented in the Mayors Council report would only happen if the Conservatives are elected, and that it is “certainly not going to happen under our government”, which sounds like a commitment. He also emphasized their admittedly excellent record in funding transit expansion (SkyTrain lines) and support funding to address operational gaps during COVID. He also gave the Mayors Council credit for finding some room to raise property taxes to match the $300 Million offered by the Province earlier this year to support the expansion of bus services to address overcrowding on some routes. So the messaging is all onboard, but we are short of an actual commitment, and that makes it hard for us to plan.

In concentrating his messaging on how Rustad is bad, he tellingly failed to even mention Kevin Falcon, though he did mention a former Premier and her disastrous referendum that set us back for 5 years or more.

BC Greens: Sonia Furstenau put out a short statement indicating full support for Public Transit and finding a sustainable funding model.

So overall, the Greens and NDP seem to hear the message and are responding to it with expressions of support, if not specific deliverables. We will have to wait for the election platforms to be released to see what that support looks like. Neither the Cons or the United seem to have any idea what the problem actually is. And everyone is playing politics. Welcome to silly season.

If you area Transit user, or even if you are driver who wants TransLink to still spend money on road maintenance, and don’t want 900,000 regular transit users getting in your way in traffic, you might want to take this opportunity to tell your provincial representative that TransLink funding is important to you, and that you will be voting to keep public transit running.

Workshop – July 8, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Council has been holding more “workshop” style meetings, with the idea that these meetings are where staff and council can dig into more details about programs, strategies, or ideas, prior to them coming to Council. There are a few advantages to this. They reduce the number of staff who have to come to evening Council meetings, which can go quite late, leading to significant overtime costs. They also allow us to have a bit more informal presentations and toss around ideas, raise concerns prior to Bylaws or strategies being fully cooked for approval at Council.

I rarely report out on Workshops, as these are generally preliminary things that will be reported out in the evening meeting when ideas are more fully baked. However, our workshop last week had 6 items that I thought were interesting to write about, and fit a bit with the theme of the evening meeting that I reported out on here (and complained about in the newsletter, for you subscribers). Workshops are public meetings, so you can watch them here and read the agenda if you like.

Massey Theatre Capital Project Additional Scope Items
The City made a decision more than a decade ago to “Save the Massey Theatre”. At the time, the theatre belonged to the School District and the School Board of the time decided that they didn’t want the hassle of updating or maintaining an end-of-life theatre with 1,300 seats, and determined it would be demolished with the old NWSS. A community uprising ensued, and City Council decided to take on the theatre in a land swap with the School District.

Of course, the Council of the day had no idea what the financial impacts of that decision would be. The Massey is a 75 year old building, and the School District did not spend a lot on maintenance or upgrades for quite some time, expecting the building to be demolished. We have already committed $22 Million in what we consider important life safety, building envelope, and accessibility upgrades, including the demolition of the north gym, for which there is simply no business case for preserving. That work is ongoing. It was hoped that the gym removal and envelope work would allow us to get a few more years out of the end-of-like HVAC systems (as it would significantly reduce the load on those systems). But it looks like the AC is failing sooner than we hoped.

Staff are going to develop a project plan for HVAC repair, upgrade, or replacement. Very preliminary estimates of replacing the heating and AC systems is $8 Million, but again, this is the kind of thing where estimating costs is not easy until you start doing the planning work. There is hopefully opportunity for us to avail ourselves of Green Municipal Fund or other senior government grants. There will no doubt be energy saving and greenhouse gas reductions coming with these upgrades (the Massey is now the largest single source of GHG emissions in the city’s facility stock, another unanticipated cost Council might not have thought of 15 years ago), and that combined with the Heritage and Arts and Culture aspects, make it a pretty attractive project for senior government partnership.

Council Strategic Plan – First Annual Report
A compliment to the Annual Report that was presented in regular Council, this report is more of a status report on progress toward the Strategic Priorities Plan that was adopted by Council in early 2023. There is a bit of a “stoplight” report here, with green for things on track, yellow for things falling behind, and red for things not moving forward enough.

Clearly, the elephant in the room is the massive shift in housing regulations that we could not anticipate when developing our Strategic Plan, and the workload related to those changes in regulation. I think when it comes to the need to increase housing supply near transit, and diversity of infill housing, our approach to these provincial changes will support goals in the long-term, though the road may be a bit rockier than we anticipated. I am still disappointed in the lack of rapid funding for affordable and supportive housing, never mind our persistent lack of a 24/7 shelter, but we continue to advocate to the province for these.

One of our strategic Plan pillars was around making transportation safer, and though we are doing the engineering work, there are identified safety governance and culture challenge. I will be bringing a motion to Council by the fall that asks for support to commit New Westminster to become a Vision Zero community. Bringing a safe systems approach to road safety and that may be a test of our ability to coordinate between departments in the City and other government agencies. We have suggested this direction in our strategic plan, but I think we need clear direction from Council if staff are to make this a priority and commit the resources to make it happen.

I also note that the biggest risks identified to moving our priorities forward are staff and resource shortages. We have been hiring, and are filling positions as fast as possible in this hypercompetitive labour market, but we still have a lot of staff doing too much off the side of their desks, and are at the limit of what we can deliver as a City until we give staff some space to breathe. The other stress is increasing cost escalation for all engineering projects – construction cost inflation is much higher than CPI right now, and our capital plan will be strained to keep up.

It is worth while watching the presentation from staff here, as they did a great job framing not just the pillars of the strategic plan, but also talking about how staff are keeping us abreast of the “lenses and foundations” part of the plan – how we are assuring the things we are doing are being done in a way that aligns with the expressed values of the Council around reconciliation, DEIAR, and climate action (for example).

For reasons never made clear, because there were no question or comments offered by the members to explain why, two members of Council voted against receiving this report.

Comprehensive Public Toilet Strategy Council Motion: Confirming Direction
This was actually a short discussion, as the direction from last week’s meeting on the Public Toilet strategy was from Council directly, not from a staff report. So staff put a quick report together to reframe those instructions in a way that is clear for them and aligned with previous instructions, and gave it to us to approve. The majority of Council moved forward with, and get us to approve it, but two Councillors voted against moving forward with a public toilet strategy.

Budget 2025 Public Engagement Methodology
We are going to do a commissioned survey on budget priorities to help inform the next Budget discussion. This is external to the Public Engagement process we usually go through, as it isn’t really “public engagement” as it would be defined by IAP2. There is a good article talking about the challenges of surveys as engagement here. However, it has been a few years since we did a public opinion survey in the City (I seem to remember one in my first term of Council, 6 years ago?), and so I’m not opposed to going through this process. However, we do need to be sure we put it in the right context.

I also thought it was funny to see this exchange on BlueSky the week we approved this:

Not an opinion I necessarily endorse, just one that made me laugh.

Procurement Policy Update
This is very Inside Baseball, but our procurement strategy has not been updated since 2013, and there have been significant shifts in construction costs over that decade. One part of the change is to align our thresholds for public procurement with those in the New West Partnership Agreement, a public procurement agreement that covers all of Western Canada. The second part is to update the values at which an emergency sole source contract can be awarded by the Purchasing Manager or CAO to align better with practices in neighboring communities and keep up with practical needs. A couple of Councillors voted against the second part here, but the majority of Council supported the update.

Development Application Process Review
One of the common narratives in the current housing crisis is that municipalities are to blame because we are slow approving new homes. There is no doubt that the steps to approve a new high-density building are complex, and include a huge number of geotechnical, engineering, building code, and other approvals to assure the building is safe, but also reviews about how a new building connects to the sewer system, the electrical grid, the road network, etc. The City of New west has been, since 2023, going through a Development Application Process Review to find out if there are redundancies, pauses, issues that make the process slower than it needs to be. The initial report from the Consultant is clear in its conclusion: “the City’s current development review process does not include any fundamental steps or requirements that would unnecessarily lead to slower approval times”. This is good. But there are opportunities to make things work smoother and more predictably in our approvals process, including better recordkeeping and increased digitization of records. These processes will require people to do them, but we fortunately have access to grants to pay for those people while the processes are updated, and permit fees for development should pay for most of their work going forward.

The purpose of this report is twofold. First, to seek Council’s endorsement of the results of the City’s Development Application Process Review, and second to seek Council’s endorsement of bringing new staff positions to the 2025 Budget discussion, recognizing the positions would be initially be offset by the UBCM Local Government Approvals Grant.

Council voted in a slim majority to approve this work, with two members voted against both receiving the report and doing anything about it, raising concerns about possible future impact on taxpayers. But I need to put this particular “no” into context. It was a year ago (May 29, 2023, I wrote about it here) when a motion asking for this very thing was proffered by a City Councillor. Council at the time voted it down because these processes were already going on, and the motion looked to be doing nothing but adding layers of bureaucracy to it. But Council voted that motion down knowing the work would go on because it was already happening. Now that the DAPR process has returned results, that Councillor who was so interested in “reviewing the effectiveness of and efficiency of our planning processes and procedures” opposes both the receipt of a report that outlines this, and the allocation of resources to make those processes and procedures work better. It simply baffles the mind.

After all that, the summary is that we are getting the work done, from Massey to DAPR, the City has a lot going on, and are making progress on so many fronts. I’m really proud of this work, but we have a lot more to do.

Council – July 8, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

It was a bit of a marathon day for Council on Monday, as isn’t uncommon as we try to get things done before the summer break. Its a long one, but trust me there’s some juice down there for those willing to scroll! We had a busy afternoon workshop with lots of items – so much so that I might break tradition here and post about a workshop in a follow-up, but first let’s try to get through the evening agenda!

We started the meeting with a Public Hearing:

Official Community Plan Amendment (801 Boyd Street) Bylaw No. 8448,2024
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (801 Boyd Street) No. 8449, 2024
The owner of Queensborough Landing wants to convert some unused buildings to self-storage, which is a slightly different land use designation, but different enough in class that it requires an OCP amendment to make happen, and therefore a Public Hearing. The request is to subdivide off the 1 acre corner of the much larger lot, and apply the OCP change to only that lot. OCP amendments are a bit of a complicated process, including significant consultation, which has been ongoing for more than a year now.

The New West Design Panel and Advisory Planning Commission approved the application. The Ministry of transportation expressed no concerns, and First Nations were consulted with no opposition to the application. The community meeting was not attended by anyone, and sparse feedback on the community survey had very low response, almost all negative. We received one piece of correspondence in favour of the application and had no-one present to the Public Hearing.

Council moved to approve third reading of both the OCP amendment and the rezoning.

We then had a Presentation from the CAO:

Presentation of the 2023 Annual Report
Unlike the Mayor’s State of the City Address, this is the *Official* annual report of the City. It is a summary of everything the City got done in the last year, and to me the best part is the numbers pages: 3,236 SeeClickFix requests responded to; 257 staff hired; 271,000 Library visits; 156,000 registered recreation participants; 240 Anvil Centre events; 3,890 Business licenses issued; 3% population increase; 600 large trees and 4,000 seedlings planted in City lands; 520 Street lights repaired; 64,000 QtoQ trips; it goes on and on, because there is a lot happening in the City every day. You can read the annual report HERE.

Council then moved the following items On Consent:

2024-2034 Canada Community- Building Fund Agreement
The City receives a little over $300,000 a year through the Canada Community-Building fund, and we need to sign an agreement with UBCM (who help administer the fund for the Feds and Province). This used to be called the Federal Gas Tax Fund, but has been rebranded as it isn’t really linked in any meaningful way to the gas taxes collected by the Federal government. We are a little limited on what we can spend it on (basically, infrastructure only), and will have that conversation during our budget deliberations. For now, we are signing the agreement to get the money.

Community Excellence In Service Delivery Award Application
We are applying for an award, in recognizing some great work our EMO is doing as a follow-up to coordination and communications challenges during the 2021 Heat Dome disaster. Cross your fingers!

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 220 Salter Street (Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection – Fraser River Crossing Project)
Its Sewer maintenance season, and some work needs to happen at night when sewer flows are low. Sorry, folks, but this should not really be very noisy work other than a few vehicles and generators running.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 252 Brunette Avenue (Sapperton SkyTrain Station)
There is going to be some upgrade work at Sapperton Station this summer, and some of that work has to happen when the trains are not running, which means night work.

New West Pride Municipally Significant Event Designation LCRB Resolution
At risk of repeating myself, I’m just going to quote my comments from a couple of weeks ago, with a few words changed: “Our provincial liquor licensing regulations are ridiculous and archaic, and everyone involved (manufacturers, retailers, events coordinators, even cities) are always trying to find a way through or around them to make things happen while keeping letter-of-the-law legal. For festivals, especially, this can be daunting. For a festival, not only does the Province regulate the size of a glass of beer or wine that can be served, they regulate a maximum price it can be sold at – a maximum price that has not been raised in 9 years. So if a festival wants to charge a little more and make a bit more money from alcohol sales to pay for other aspects of the festival (like hiring talent, security, advertising, etc.), they can’t do that. Unless they are designated a “Municipally Significant Event”, whatever that means. The request here is to designate Uptown Live PRIDE as “Municipally Significant” so they can charge a little more for beer to help offset the other costs of a free to the public festival.

Proposal to Change Liquor Licence for The Royal Canadian Legion Branch No.2
More on liquor laws, this one is a bit easier to understand. The Legion has a private club liquor license that requires guests to sign in, and wishes to shift to a regular liquor primary license. There are no issues identified with the change, and the City is endorsing this application that needs to go to the Province for approval.

Riparian Areas Protection Miscellaneous Amendment Bylaw No. 8468, 2024
These Bylaws are required to keep the City complaint with the Provincial Riparian Areas Protection Regulation and regulate how development happens in the riparian areas (upland dry areas where plants, shade, and slope provide ecological function to the stream) of streams and rivers in the city. We are updating them to address a typographic error in the earlier adopted versions. Because law.

The following items were then Removed from Consent for discussion:

2024 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
This is a regular update on our budget. No surprise to anyone dealing with capital projects right now, costs are going up, and some things we budgeted for in previous years are costing more to deliver in 2024 than we expected. However, the biggest change here (92% of the change) is carryforward adjustment for projects we simply didn’t get to completion in 2023. The money we didn’t spend in 2023 needs to be budgeted for in 2024, so we are therefore adjusting our $180.4M 5-year capital budget to $199.1M, though only $1.5M is an actual increase of overall costs. There are a few new capital item included in that $1.5M, like the need to reconfigure some City Hall spaces to deal with a space crunch ($250k), upgrades to the Columbia Station elevator to address chronic repair issues ($138k). One of the complications of Capital budgets is that we need to include things here that won’t cost the taxpayers anything, like a donation we received for the library to purchase an electric vehicle ($60K), upgrades to the QtoQ dock infrastructure to be paid by DAC funding form the province ($800K), and spending money to support development projects ($175K) that will ultimately be paid to us by the developer.

On the operating side, we are running a little ahead of forecast on both revenue and expenditure, with the combined variance leaning on the revenue side, which is good news. We are in good shape financially.

2024 Council Remuneration
Council gets paid. Our remuneration policy provides a cost-of-living increase every year, linked to CPI. This year, that means a 4% increase, which is essentially the same as the collective agreement the City has with union staff. This is policy driven, so Council doesn’t need to approve it. If they want to make changes, they need to change the policy.

It’s not a great system, elected people choosing their own salary, but it’s the system available to us under provincial regulation. Previous Council set up a process where changes to that policy be reviewed every term (so, every 4 years), to be implemented after the next election, so there is a bit of a political check-in around this policy before the elected receive any benefit of changes. We skipped the least review in 2022 because we were severely short-staffed in HR coming out of COVID, so we are overdue for a review. This report asks if Council wants to continue that practice – do a review before the next election to be applied after the election – or wants to follow a different path.

The big question Council needed to address – do we want to do the review now, recognizing that any change we implement won’t be applied until after the 2026 election, or have the review immediately before the election, which made me paraphrase Kim Campbell “an election is not time for serious public policy discussion”. Council agreed with the former Prime Minister, and agreed to start the review sooner

Bus Speed and Reliability Study
New West is a Transit City – likely the highest transit mode share of any municipality in BC. Alas, there is still too much through-traffic slowing the buses down, and TransLink has a region-wide program to boost “speed and reliability” of bus service through the region to make the system run smoother, and ultimately save the system money. They will cost share capital programs (up to 100%!) with the City to build infrastructure that improves BSR, and we have been successful in applications for BSR funds, so Staff are ready to get moving, because it will never be less expensive than now to do this work.

This report identifies 12 projects that can be implemented in the next 5 years to address bus delay hot spots. It is important to note many of these align with our Bold Step to re-allocate road space from car-primary use to sustainable transportation. It’s also the right thing to do, when Translink data shows 62% of the people travelling on Sixth Street during peak times (when there is congestion) are in a bus, and getting them out of the traffic of single passenger cars is a priority.

The majority supported moving this forward, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, an indication of a trend on the night.

E Columbia Street/Brunette Avenue Road Safety Review
There has been a lot of engineering work looking at East Columbia by Cumberland for the last year. It’s a difficult spot that has been an uncomfortable bone of contention for active transportation users for a decade or longer, but with no easy answers because of a variety of engineering constraints.

One interesting aspect of why it took so long to do this analysis once Council asked for it last year, and it has to do with conflicting ideas about what the real safety challenge is here. Statistically, it is not an “unsafe” piece of sidewalk, and data would suggest the highest safety priority here is reducing risk of car-truck collisions. However, it definitely “feels” unsafe on that sidewalk, and that creates a barrier to use for many people. Engineering stats also have a hard time counting “near miss” data, which is typical of many safety system analyses, but lacking in most road safety planning. So staff did some work to collect “near miss” data in this area using video-based conflict analysis.

As suspected, there are some short-term measures we can take to make the space a little more comfortable for active transportation users, but it is not going to be the big solution that some folks would like to see. We don’t have the authority or permission to close the sidewalk-adjacent lane to trucks, speed enforcement along here is difficult and only acts as a short-term measure (bring on speed cameras!) and there simply isn’t room to put in a physical barrier without increasing the risk of vehicle-vehicle collisions. Real change is going to come with a complete intersection redevelopment, which will cost millions, and involve partnerships with TransLink and the Ministry of Transportation as this is a Major Road Network corridor and a designated regional truck route.

Grant Review
The City has a generous community grant program, about $1 Million a year given to city organizations and groups to encourage community building, provide social services, support the arts and youth sports – more than any other surveyed City in the lower mainland. The program was last reviewed in 2018, and needs another review as things are changing fast in this space in the post-COVID world, and aligned with Council’s strategic plan to build “community belonging & connecting.” This has been run though the ACEDAC, community survey, a municipal scan, a focus group, and personal Interviews with people connected to the granting programs.

Through this engagement, a few changes to the grant program are going to be rolled out gently over a couple of years, not a big shock change all at once, starting with a non-line registration platform and tiering the reporting requirements based on the size of the grant received – instead of the same reporting for a $500 grant that we might expect for a $15000 one. A bit of a “small community Grant model for smaller grants for less sophisticated applicants will also be coming. Longer grant terms, earlier payment, and improved mentorship for emerging initiatives are things that will come a little later. We also need staff to do this work, as it has been off the side of desks for some time, and needs to be given proper support if we are going to properly serve the many organizations doing great work in the community.

Mobile Food Vending Licence Bylaw Amendment – Temporary Locations
Our Food Truck program is one of those things that got a little sidelined by COVID, in part because of the uncertainty around impact on existing brick and mortar restaurants during the health restrictions, and in part because staff were really busy with other COVID and Recovery work. However, they have spent some time over the last few months looking updates of our licensing to provide more flexibility and more locations for food trucks based on community feedback. This includes near park spaces, TACC, and a few others. This will be a change for 18 months, which gives enough time to test it out. Let us know how it works out, as even the “food truck” thing seems hit and miss these days, as the boom times of the early 2000s may be passing?

The majority supported moving this forward, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it after their attempts to re-write the bylaw in the middle of the meeting surprisingly couldn’t come up with a better output than the professional work of Economic Development staff working with the business community to determine a practicable bylaw.

Parks and Recreation 2025 Fees Bylaw Amendment
Every year, we review Parks and Recreation fees, based on inflationary increases and year staff analyze how our fees compare to other neighboring municipalities in a public report, to assure we, as best as possible, balance cost recovery with service and accessibility while managing the amount of subsidy we provide to recreation programs. We do this a bit out of cycle with other budget work and review of engineering or development fees, because of the seasonality of program development and registration that doesn’t really line up with the budget process.

Not much changed this year in our regional comparison except that Burnaby reduced their recreation centre fees by almost 27%. This might be hard to compete with, as we have a brand new recreation facility that is already seeing huge crowds, while Burnaby is delaying of cancelling their recreation centre expansion projects. That said, we will still be within the regional means for recreation passes.

Report on Council Motion: Cooling Bylaw in Rental Units
The first really warm weekend just passed, and this has again raised the conversation about the work the City is doing to address the 2021 Heat dome disaster. The response form staff in the Emergency Management Office and other departments, working with external partners like Fraser Heath, has been impressive (communications to vulnerable communities, one cool room program, subsidized air conditioner program for vulnerable people, a connect and prepare program, a new Emergency Monitoring Centre and improved medical responder training, etc., etc.). We are better prepared to respond to the emergency now, but it would be preferable if heat events didn’t constitute an emergency, because our housing stock was resilient enough to manage what will be a more common occurrence.

Every rental building is required, by law, to have a heating system than can maintain a life-reserving temperature in residential units. No such requirement exists for cooling, and during the heat dome we learned that many apartments were so hot that they were deadly. The question arises: shouldn’t life safety be a rental license requirement? The BC government is taking action here with updates to the BC Building Code to require one cool room in new buildings, and are developing a path to encourage the updating of existing buildings. That’s a big challenge. In New west we have started a vulnerable building inventory and are going to push the province to accelerate their building renewal program. We are also going to ask staff to do some further work on regulatory approaches available to us as a City, because when people die in your city, you need to take action.

The majority of Council supported moving this three-prong approach, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, continuing the trend of the night.

Response to Council Motion Regarding Fee Summary for Development Applications
In a previous meeting, Council asked that all rezoning applications include a comprehensive list of all fees, charges, and levies related to that project. I tried to make the point that we already get such a report as best as staff can estimate at the time of rezoning, because there are other steps in the development process (development Permit, Building Permit, etc.) that include fees and levees, and every project is different, meaning that a separate report would have to be generated for each project based on myriad of factors – how many trees are on the site, what is the grade? Is the available sewer connection on the upslope or downslope side of the property, does the builder want fiber optic connection, and does that require trenching across a city road? It’s complicated, and the cost and complication of providing this report ahead of time (for what reason exactly?) will doubtlessly increase the cost of development, because someone has to do the work, and on principle, this is a cost that should fall on development, not on taxpayers.

So the best we can do is estimate fees and apply deposits on the cost-for-service parts that are less certain at the time of rezoning, like the current Engineering and Service Memo attached to every rezoning already does. But as is common of motion made up on the fly in the heat of a Council meeting, those complications could not be fully considered by Council prior to voting on the motion, and that is a recipe for bad decision making.

In this report, staff are recommending that the recently-completed Development Application Process Review output of moving to more electronic approvals might give us tools to better estimate these numbers, at least as far as fixed fees go, this work will be rolled into that.

The majority of Council supported this sensible approach that best utilizes staff resources, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, keeping the trend alive.

Westburnco Reservoir License of Use Agreement Renewal
There is a big underground water reservoir belonging to Metro Vancouver on the top of New Westminster called Westburnco. On the roof of this reservoir are some sports courts that were installed more than a decade ago by the City, under a license agreement with Metro Vancouver. It’s time to update that license agreement.

That said, the courts are looking pretty beat up, and I asked staff to initiate a conversation about updating the offerings in those courts, and my mind is on Pickleball. There is a unique opportunity here for us to build a multi-court pickleball facility to serve the growing community. As we are currently undertaking the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan process, I confirmed with staff that is the appropriate channel through which to develop this idea, especially as there is likely to be a significant capital component in renewing the surface treatment on the reservoir. Staff will also check timelines around the membrane replacement or other renovation at the reservoir to determine if the timing or this type of capital investment is good.

Cross your fingers, there is a pickleball opportunity here

Zoning Bylaw Amendment: 1923 & 1927 Marine Way – Bylaw for Three Readings
Aunt Leah’s society wants to build a 90-unit affordable and supportive housing building on a couple of lots where land assembly is occurring near 22nd Street station. The project looks exceptional in how it meets a pressing housing need identified in our community, providing three levels of affordability (50% Rent geared to income, 20% deep subsidy at shelter rates, 30% below market) to serve the needs of youth aging out of care and young moms with families. This is within the Transit Oriented Area designation from the Province’s Bill 47, so the thought here is to rezone to that density (12 storeys/4 FSR) which is a bit bigger than Aunt Leah’s is trying to build (5 storeys / 2.2 FSR). There are tight funding deadlines here (the project has been approved by BC Housing to receive financial support!), and the project aligns with the OCP, so we are did our best to fast-track to third reading through our Affordable Housing Acceleration Initiative to meet those deadlines.

The majority of Council supported this much needed and already-funded affordable housing development, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for reasons, as best as I could interpret, because they were afraid it might reduce the profitability of future land speculation on adjacent properties.

We then read several Bylaws, including the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Development Cost Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 8456, 2024
This Bylaw that makes inflationary increases to our DCC bylaw – the infrastructure costs we put on developers for new growth – was adopted by Council.

Street and Traffic Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8459, 2024
Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 8458,2024
These Bylaws that will facilitate the launch of a Shared Mobility Service (Bike Share!) in New Westminster were adopted by Council.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (310 Blackley Street) No. 8450, 2024
This Bylaw that rezones a portion of the Eastern Node in Queesnborough to facilitate the building of townhouses was adopted by Council.

Then we launched head-first into Motions from Council:

Improving Public Safety through a Community Ambassador Pilot Program
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

Whereas the City of Vancouver previously partnered with Business Improvement Areas to implement and expand an Ambassador Program whereby Community Ambassadors provide assistance to business owners, customers, residents, and visitors in the BIA area by providing hospitality services and addressing community safety; and
Whereas Community Ambassadors’ primary functions include connecting those in need to resources, conducting community patrols, contributing to increased safety and order on the streets, and contributing to social responsibility; and
Whereas Community Ambassadors can work closely and collaborate directly with the City’s bylaw officers as well as the New Westminster Police Department and can become an integral part of a proactive recruitment strategy;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster prepare a business case to determine the feasibility of piloting a made-in-New Westminster Community Ambassador program by 2026;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the local Business Improvement Areas be consulted regarding their potential role in supporting or operating a fully funded Community Ambassador pilot program on behalf of the City of New Westminster.

At first glance, this appeared to be  a repeat of a motion brought by Councillor Nakagawa this time last year about emulating the Chinatown Stewards model, a motion that led to a decision by Council to instead advance the I’s on the Street program, both motions that the mover of this motion voted to support at the time.

But at second glance, it appeared this was a very different program, one that is a resurrection of a failed program from Sam Sullivan’s Vancouver mayorship, the City’s partnership in it abandoned after complaints about it violating the human rights of targeted indigenous people, people with addictions, and those suffering mental and physical disabilities in a way that constituted discrimination according to a BC Supreme Court ruling, resulting in costs being awarded against the City and the BIA. Of course, Mayor Sullivan and his Chief of Staff were voted out of office before those costs were ever awarded, so out of term, out of mind, I guess.

Council did not vote to support this initiative.

International Travel by Members of Council
Submitted by Mayor Johnstone

BE IT RESOLVED: That international travel by members of Council to attend conferences, events, and meetings on behalf of the City of New Westminster be subject to Council approval which includes a summary of request to Council in an open meeting including:
• projected travel and other expenses related to attendance to be charged to the City;
• name of the attendee(s) and relevance to Council or Committee roles; and
• a statement of expected value to be derived as a result of attending the function from the attendee; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That any participation by members of Council at conferences, events, and meetings (aside from LMLGA, UBCM, and FCM) which require overnight accommodations or travel outside of the province but otherwise fall within allowable Council expense limits shall require a written summary to Council by the attendee(s) in an open meeting within 3 months of the completion of travel which includes:
• a summary of actual expenses incurred; and
• a description of participation, learnings, and value derived from participation at the event; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That staff be directed to bring back to Council for consideration revised travel policies for Council members that is consistent with the above resolutions, including any recommended changes to existing policies, expense limits, or reporting requirements that recognizes the benefit of Council participation in exchange and learning.

I think the motion speaks for itself. There is more interest in public transparency around these types of events than in the past, and it is a good idea to update our policies to reflect that. I have always had the practice of reporting out publicly on my attendance at conferences, including UBCM and FCM, the Canadian Association for Police Governance and the Local Climate Action Summit last year, even local conferences like the recent Active Transportation Summit, because I think they are valuable learning opportunities, and I think the extra l value found in them is being able to share your experiences and things you have learned with your colleagues and the community.

This parallels a motion I sponsored at Metro Vancouver that was referred back to staff. Here it was amended by Councillor Campbell to include considerations around travel funded by third parties or by the member themselves, as I have travelled to attend Municipal Finance Authority meetings and the City doesn’t pay for that, so our policies need to reflect those types of situations. The next step here will be for staff to conduct a review of existing policies and integrate the changes as proposed for Councils consideration.

Paradoxically, though the majority of Council supported this amended motion, the two “progressive” members of Council who have spent the last 6 months bombarding the regional media calling for this kind of transparency and accountability, voted against it for apparently not understanding the term “third party”, despite staff’s repeated attempts to clarify that a third party is anyone other than the City or the traveling member. It was a sight to see.

Increasing Accountability and Transparency regarding Travel for Municipal Elected Officials
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS Mayor and Council have an interest in the information and outcomes of member-attended conferences, events, study tours, and meetings; and
WHEREAS transparent and equitable policies should be created for use of all City resources applied to Mayor and Council representation at such functions; and
WHEREAS the above is in service of good governance, transparency, and strong relationships between Mayor and Council, our community, and the public they serve in the disposition of limited resources;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT international travel to attend conferences, events, study tours, and meetings on behalf of the City of New Westminster by the Mayor or Councillors be subject to prior approval by Council which includes a summary of the request to Council in an open meeting including:
• Name of the attendee and relevant Council or Committee role(s);
• A statement of expected value to be derived because of attending the function from the attendee and staff;
• Projected travel expenses;
• Projected remuneration expenses; and
• Projected amount of other expenses expected to be incurred; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any participation by the Mayor or Councillors at conferences, events, study tours and meetings that would incur overnight accommodation outside of British Columbia shall require a written report of the function by the attendee(s) in May or October of each calendar year. This report shall be provided at an open meeting of Council, and include:
• A summary of the event and key activities;
• The value to the City of New Westminster because of
• the attendee’s participation in the event; and
• A summary of actual expenses incurred; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this new policy would apply to all city-paid travel or travel incurred as part of a ‘sponsorship’ intended to be paid for by a 3rd party; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT in the case of any sponsored travel, the attendee would be obliged in an open meeting to seek prior approval from Council to receive these funds and this would include full details regarding the source of funds and financials related to the entire sponsorship package being offered.

I’m not sure what cliché to use first – deja vu all over again? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? The member here literally cut and pasted my Metro Vancouver motion, with some minor amendments, and put their name on it. For the record, they were informed that the motion above was on the agenda, but still chose not to withdraw the notice of motion, wasting a bunch of staff time, because every notice requires staff policy and legal review prior to going onto the agenda. Then after NOT voting to support the almost exact same motion above, they decided during the meeting to withdraw this motion. I simply cannot explain this behavior, but am no longer interested in trying.

Increasing Council Oversight and Involvement in the Issuance of Official Public Statements
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS excluding any statutory powers provided to the Mayor through the BC Community Charter Act, all other authority is delegated to the Mayor by Council; and
WHEREAS the Mayor is designated by Council as the chief spokesperson who will speak on behalf of the entire Council on matters relating to City business; and
WHEREAS not all members of Council are routinely notified in advance nor consulted regarding non-emergency communications issued by the Mayor through the City of New Westminster Communications Department;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the effective immediately the Mayor and the Department of Communications conduct timely, adequate and thorough consultation with all members of Council in advance of the issuance of any public statements, media advisories or media releases that are non-emergency related.

At one end of the spectrum, this appears to be a censure measure against the Mayor that seeks to silence me and keep me from doing the job I was elected to do for reasons I can only assume are political. At the other end, it appears to put an unreasonable block on all City Communications, severely limiting the City’s ability to talk about what is happening in the City. There is no City in the world that waits for Council approval before posting (to quote the motion) “any public statement” because it would not allow the City to function in the modern sense. This Council meeting is July 8th, our next official meeting is August 26th. We can’t have the City wait 6 weeks for “thorough consultation with all members of Council” before putting out their regular daily communications or responding to media inquiries. It boggles the mind to think how this would work, never mind the extra communication resources it would require to work.

The majority of Council did not support the motion, so conversations like this one can go on.

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS between 2016 and 2021, the number of seniors living in New Westminster increased by 17.2%. By comparison, the overall population increased by 11.2%; and
WHEREAS In 2021, 24.1% of New Westminster’s seniors lived in unaffordable housing (30%+ of income spent on housing costs) including 42.8% of senior renters and 16.9% of senior owners; and
WHEREAS the Office of the Seniors Advocate Report Ageing Matters: What We Heard From BC Seniors released in June 2024 states the Provincial Government’s Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters subsidy program does not address the financial pressures experienced by seniors who rent;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council write a letter to the Premier of BC, Minister of Housing and Minister of Health asking for immediate financial relief for low-income senior renters by redesigning the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program so that seniors’ rents are 30% of their income and rent ceilings are adjusted to reflect the current reality of the rental market.

This is advocacy that grew from work Councillor Campbell has been doing with seniors in the community, and based on calls from the Seniors Advocate, and a report they released last month. Council voted to send this advocacy to the Provincial Government.

And that was all the work done during the evening meeting. As I suggested, I might follow up with a report on the workshop, because is covered interesting things, and continued a bit of the trend of the evening meeting. Until then, go outside and enjoy some sun, we miss it when it’s not here.

Housing and Growth

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The discussion around provincial housing regulations hasn’t slowed down, as the first of several deadlines related to bills 44, 46, and 47 came and went. Some Cities have complied, some have chosen a different path. In New Westminster we adopted two Bylaws in June that make us complaint, and staff are busily working on the next steps- a renewed Housing Needs Assessment, OCP updates, and revising our DCC, ACC, and Density Bonus programs.

City staff are also working with provincial staff on their Housing Target Order methodology, so we can respond on the expected timeline, likely in August. I was on the radio last week alongside the Mayor of Langley Township talking to Belle Puri about this (you can listen here!), and we had slightly different takes on the core issue. I actually agree with the Minister that the introduction of Small-scale Multi-Unit Housing and Transit Oriented Area regulations will be a good thing. IT is clearly a massive hassle and staff time suck to implement, and will likely slow down development for a short period of time while everyone finds their path through the massive changes, in the end it will be a positive for the reshaping of the next era of regional growth.

My problem remains that we have had some significant tools taken away that we have used to fund infrastructure and amenities in our community. Equally troubling is that our ability to compel developers to build childcare, to provide spaces for new schools or parks, or to include affordable housing as part of their developments, has been eroded at the same time that the cost for development has gone up. It is unclear whether the Province is going to give us the money needed to make up for these shortfalls, or expect property tax to fill the void.

That said, I did appreciate the Minister’s thoughtful responses the next day (you can hear them here!). We are all trying to get the same thing done on housing, and I hope that the province brings the kind of aggressive, proactive change to our funding model that they did to our building approvals model. Dare to dream.

There was another related piece of news that snuck out last week, and it was related to a report we received at Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee. Metro staff working with academic demographers have created updated regional growth projections. These are not “targets” the region is aiming for, but instead projections of what is likely to happen given demographic changes, birth/death statistics, immigration, and inter-regional and inter-provincial migration patterns. The numbers are all here in this report.

The local angle on this might surprise some folks, especially my colleague on the radio last week from Langley Township who always refers to his community as the “high growth region”, that the City projected to grow fastest over the next 6, 16, and 26 years is New Westminster. Here’s the numbers:

These are numbers for the medium-growth scenario, but both the low-growth and high-growth scenarios have us in a similar spot: top of the charts for proportional growth.

There are a lot of factors that drive this, including our commitment to Transit Oriented Development and the large proportion of our City that is near that transit, but also the balance of housing types, the “sweet spot” between affordability and location on the north side of the River, and the attractiveness to both young families in the growing stage, and new arrivals to Canada and the Lower Mainland – for every reason you choose to live here.

This speaks to our Housing Needs Report, but it also speaks to our need to invest in infrastructure now to support that growth, and the community amenities that residents want in a thriving, growing community. Adding austerity to this trend will be a disaster for the livability of our community, we need to show leadership to shape a community that serves today/s residents, and the people arriving tomorrow.

FCM 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

June’s been a very busy month with little time to get a bike ride in or write about the things going on. The long weekend couldn’t come fast enough, and I got a nice long bike ride in on Saturday, so here is another piece of catching up, sorry it took a month to get here!

Back in the beginning of June, Councillor Henderson and I attended the annual Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting in Calgary. I gave a bit of a photo preview here, and people who subscribe to my Newsletter got my summary of the politics part of the program, so that leaves this post as a bit of a broad overview and my highlights from the meeting.

FCM is the annual meeting of local government leaders from across Canada. As Lower Mainland LGA is for the Lower Mainland, and UBCM is for the province of BC, FCM is a chance for us to get together, attend tours, workshops and panels to learn what’s happening in other jurisdictions, share our successes, challenges and opportunities, and do some networking. It is also an opportunity for us to meet with national agencies (the Federal Government, Railways, Ports, etc.) and talk though issues or opportunities.

FCM is not my favorite conference. The municipal-federal relationship is a bit less clear than the municipal-provincial one, and FCM tends to skew towards the rural, with many more representatives from small towns in the Prairies and Ontario than there are form the urban areas with who we share challenges and opportunities. This year provided a couple of unique opportunities to talk to folks about train whistle cessation, the Green Municipal Fund, and some other funding opportunities in the transportation and housing files that tipped the balance towards attending in Calgary. Those conversations, still being preliminary, I will be talking more about in the near future.

Solar Energy
As a member of the New West Electrical Commission and somebody generally interested in the energy transition, I leapt at the opportunity to take a tour of new solar generation projects in the Canadian city most closely aligned with fossil fuels. Like most events at FCM, this tour was also a chance to talk to other people around the nation to hear how their transition plan is going (Kirkland Quebec: 75% of their municipal fleet is electric, but two municipal buildings run on diesel generators because of an underdeveloped electrical grid; Summerland BC has invested not just in solar, but in battery storage for peak shaving), but the star of the show was three installations of new solar power by the City of Calgary.

We saw an example of small installations on the roof of neighbourhood community centres, where the queerness of the Alberta “Micro-Generation Regulation” makes it illegal for a project like this to produce more energy than consumed by the building that hosts it. We saw a medium-sized (1.2M kWh/year) solar-panel-as-parking-lot-shade project, and a larger (5.5M kWh/year) filed array at a landfill site on the edge of town. There were some great learnings here about snow (not much of a problem, except when the warm panels melt it and make the parking lot below a skating rink), hail (they manage golf-ball-sized hail without damage) and design angles (turns out pointing arrays optimally at the sun is less important than you think), and various technical and lifecycle costing details.

In the end, it always comes back to economics, and it is hard to translate the Calgary example to British Columbia. First, their consumer electrical rates are highly variable and typically twice BC Hydro rates, so their pay back times and value as a hedge against price uncertainty do not translate at all. Secondly, Alberta still has fossil fuels as the foundation of its electrical generation base, meaning the GHG reductions resulting from these installations are significant, where in BC this would simply not be the case except ins a few off-grid communities.

Sustaining Growth
A common theme across workshops was the challenge of growth and trying to keep up with infrastructure funding. It was a bit relieving to hear it wasn’t just me, as these pressures are being felt in many regions of the Country, from Saskatoon (14,000 people moved there last year, while only 2,500 new housing units were built, having predictable impacts on homelessness, rents and vacancies) to Toronto (much like BC, the Province is bringing in aggressive legislation to drive local development, but not providing tools to fund infrastructure investment).

Among stories of Exciting! New! Massive! Developments! like Quayside in Toronto, Zibi in Ottawa, and Brighton in Saskatoon, the stories are more about development paused due to interest rates, construction costs, and economic uncertainty, local challenges in funding important infrastructure to support the growth, and a general inability to find the financing room for significant affordable housing among new developments. At the same time, jurisdictions across the country are seeing increased downloading of provincial infrastructure costs (school, hospitals, etc.) to local governments while provincial governments in the same breath blame local governments for increased development costs – one of the few tools local governments have to pay for those downloads.

It’s almost like people are starting to recognize the Market is not going to fix the problem created by two decades of runaway market growth. This is hardly news in Greater Vancouver, but to hear the same lament across the country in cities of various sizes comes with both the comfort of not being alone, and the recognition that this is a national crisis that needs a national response. No amount of digitizing local building plans or using AI to speed up approvals is going to fix it. We need a new financial model.

Municipal Growth Framework
The FCM itself does common advocacy, and they are addressing the infrastructure funding gap by asking for a new Municipal Growth Framework. There were several discussions of this during the conference, and it was referenced by the Federal housing minister during his address to the delegates.

Fundamental to this is a review of the funding model for local governments, dominated as it is by the single tool of property tax. Even the way we tax property is such that it is not intrinsically linked to population and economic growth. The senior governments get most of their revenue from income, sales, and consumption taxes. When the economy grows, their tax revenues increase automatically track along with it, because a growing economy grows incomes, sales, and consumption. Though people have the impression property taxes are increasing at unprecedented rates, they are not increasing anywhere near the rate of the thing they tax – property values:

The MGF also asks for the Federal government to step up their contribution to municipalities by $2.6 billion per year (which is about 5% of annual GST revenues), and to index these contributions to GDP growth. There is also an ask for Provincial Governments to agree to match these federal investments through reform of municipal finance, or allocation of a portion of PST or Provincial income taxes.

Finally, the MGF asks for a comprehensive plan to address chronic homelessness through federal re-investment in non-market housing, and a more coordinated approach between federal and provincial governments.

Alas, at least one of the panels I attended around this need for public re-investment in our communities kept circling back to some apparent need for municipalities to “reduce transaction friction” and “build structures where business can invest [in infrastructure] with certainty”. The neoliberal imperative filtering back into the problem created by 30 years of neoliberal austerity.

Mental Health innovation
This was an excellent panel comparing three different municipal approaches to a nation-wide challenge – addressing the community impacts of the mental health crises. The PACT program in New Westminster was one of the models presented (by the Canadian Mental Health Association), along with EMMIS in Montreal and REACH in Edmonton. The targets and the approaches vary quite a bit. This is most obvious in the funding sources, EMMIA being a $50 Million project over 5 years, with the cost evenly split between the Province and the Municipality, where REACH is about $4.5M Million a year, 100% funded by the Municipality, and PACT is 100% funded by the Provincial government.

In Montreal, there is not just a diversion and crisis support function, but also a function to address “social cohabitation issues between people who share public space”, which more closely parallels the City of New Westminster’s Three Crises Response Pilot.

In Edmonton, there is a close tracking of activity and success, and through 33,000+ responses and 4,000+ emergency service referrals, they have tracked the social return on investment of at least $1,90 for every dollar invested. Montreal has seen similar levels of pay back, though the tracking of health care savings and other externals is surely an underestimate.

Finally, there was an excellent expert panel on protecting the health and safety of municipal workers (included elected officials) at the front line of the polycrisis. This spoke of the tools we need to give staff who are addressing a perceived or real loss of civility and standards of respectful behaviors, on the streets and inside City Halls. There was much discussion of the widespread introduction of Integrity Commissioners, and the challenge they have in addressing egregious behaviors, when so many of our policies and practices are based on an assumption of good faith. It was commonly recognized that good faith was not a universal political or social principle these days, presumably driven by social media and increased anxiety in the pandemic hangover.

As maybe a final take-away, one of the benefits of a meeting like this is the recognition that none of your challenges are unique. Municipalities across the country, in every province, are dealing with similar and overlapping challenges. Talking to our cohort, there are areas of work we need to be very proud of in New West – our aggressive Asset Management Plan, our leadership in PACT and with our Three Crises Response work, while there are areas we can benefit from the experience of others.