Month: May 2025

Council – May 26, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Our last Council meeting in May included a Public Hearing – not something we have as often as we used to since the Province banned them for residential developments that are aligned with the Official Community Plan, but Heritage Revitalization Agreements still require them. After the Public Hearing, our regular Council Agenda started with consideration of those Bylaws:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8509, 2025
Heritage Designation Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8510, 2025
The application here is to subdivide a lot on Sixth Avenue, do minor restoration and permanent designation of the heritage house, and build a complementary but slightly smaller second house in the newly formed lot.

Aside from the subdivision, the variances being requested are relatively minor, including shifting a bit of density from the existing house to the new one, minor variances on the garage, and the shape of one lot means the frontage is slightly below the 10% perimeter requirement. As the heritage house was build on the very edge of the exiting lot, the lot can be subdivided without moving the heritage house, and the spacing between houses will still be larger than that between the houses across the back alley that were subdivided decades ago. The result here will be three housing units in two buildings (two main houses and a rental unit in the new house) where three housing units are currently permitted.

This application was delayed by the City’s pausing then de-prioritization of the HRA processes to concentrate on more pressing housing issues, and is the first HRA in the Queens Park HCA in this Council term. Aside from the proponent, we had five people come to delegate on the application, four opposed and one supportive, all of them familiar faces at New Westminster Council on Queens Park heritage issues. There were concerns about whether the HRA is the right tool for this purpose (it is), about spacing between buildings, and appearances of the streetscape. Both immediately impacted neighbours expressed support for the application, one in person and one in writing.

In the end, Council voted to give these Bylaws third readings, effectively approving the applications.

Council then moved the following item On Consent:

Response to Council Motion: School Zone Time Limits
Following up on a request form Councillor Henderson, we will be updating out School Zone Speed Zone hours to align with those in Burnaby, meaning 30km/h is the speed limit between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on school days. Not quite 30 everywhere, but moving in the direction of improved safety.

And the following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Grants Program Update and Updated Terms of Reference for Grants Advisory Committees
The City’s Grant program has been evolving over the last few years from a partisan process where Council picks and chooses who gets grants to become a less political process where Council sets strategic goals for grants (community connection, economic development, etc.), and staff work with volunteer citizen committees to determine how to best meet those goals based on the applications received. The program continues to be refined as staff bring in better controls and accountability, based on recommendations approved by Council in July 2024, and are asking here for updated to the Terms of Reference for the three Grants Advisory Committees who advise Council on grant allocation. These have not been updated since 2020, and staff have done some community consultation to determine these changes.

Unsurprisingly, the non-partisan nature of grant awards rubs some people the wrong way, and there was a motion brought forward to put Council’s fingers on the scale and favour one or two “historic” organizations above others. There were vague suggestions that this would secure them more funding, but it was not clear if this would be an expansion of the grant program or taking from other awardees. In the end, Council voted to not create a new category at this time, as staff are already doing a lot of work to streamline and make more functional the existing process, and we have yet to see the results of the Community Advisory Assembly’s recommendations on Cultural Observances, which will no doubt interact with this process.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 Columbia Street – Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project
The cladding work on the hospital project is delayed for a variety of reasons, requiring an extension of their construction noise Bylaw exemption for the rare times that specific cladding work needs to happen outside of regular construction hours on Saturday Mornings. We have received exactly two noise complaints on this project since 2022, and both were resolved, I think the construction company is doing good work to address neighbourhood concerns, and the only message I hear from Sapperton now is they want this project done ASAP, so Council approved the exemption.

Response to Council Motion: School Streets Pilot Program
This program would be a partnership between the City and external organizations to pilot closing roads adjacent to a school during pick up and drop off times to create “safe Streets”. Staff recommended against us doing this pilot due to limited resources and higher cost priorities on road safety, but apparently there is a new grant available to pay some (all?) of those costs, so Council moved to refer this back to staff to review once more those funding opportunities and bring this report back. So we neither agreed to do it nor agreed not to, we will do one or the other in a future meeting once we have the updated info in front of us.

Temporary Use Permit: 40 Begbie Street – Health Contact Centre
The Health Contact Centre downtown is, to everyone’s agreement, not working as intended. As the site was operating under a Temporary Use Permit which now either needs renewal or replacement with a formal rezoning, it is giving us an opportunity to review that operation. The good news is that the centre is providing life-saving services every day, has reversed hundreds of toxic drug events and making more than 1,000 referrals to support, treatment, or detox services. As a provider of life-saving and life altering health care services, it is a positive story.

However the nature of the drug supply has changed in the last few years, and up to 77% of drug use is now by smoking, not injection or insufflation, meaning there are more people standing outside the Centre smoking dangerous drugs than inside injecting them. This is why the City has been advocating to bring inhalation services to the HCC. However, Fraser Health has determined the site is not suitable for engineering/cost reasons. So through negotiations, Fraser Health has agreed to wind down overdose prevention services at 40 Begbie Street and transition to an alternate overdose prevention service delivery model accommodating individuals who consume unregulated substances by inhalation, injection, nasal insufflation and oral ingestion. During this transition, the life-saving services of the HCC are still required, so Fraser Health is recommending a Temporary Use Permit for a further 18 months to allow Fraser Health and partners to transition to an alternate overdose prevention service delivery model.

A TUP will require consideration at an upcoming meeting, and Council agreed to Fraser Health’s recommendation on timing and transition. The TUP will be considered at an upcoming Council meeting.

We then had one Motion form Council:

Remove US Flag from Queen’s Park Arena and Replace it with City of New Westminster Flag
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS there are few if any formal occasions that require the American flag to be prominently displayed at Queen’s Park Arena;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to permanently remove and replace the American flag with the City of New Westminster flag at Queen’s Park Arena; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be authorized to temporarily reinstall the American flag if it is required to be displayed for official protocol purposes in relation to an event held at this facility.

I was pretty ambivalent about this motion, except that I found amusing that the mover, after several social media posts and radio interviews about the topic, now emphasizes the “quiet” removal of the flag. Clearly, the Councillor is passionate about this, so I have no problem supporting it.

Finally, we had a single Bylaw for Adoption

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Storage Amendments Bylaw No. 8518, 2025
This bylaw that removes mini-storage as permitted use within some light industrial and zones was adopted by Council.

LMLGA 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

A couple of weeks ago, several members of New West Council attended the annual Lower Mainland Local Government Association meeting and conference in Whistler. I try to report out here on every conference I attend, including the Lower Mainland LGA (with a few recent examples from years past available here, here and here), and this year is no exception – sorry for the couple of week wait.

I’ll copy from my own text in one of those earlier posts and remind you the Lower Mainland LGA is an “area association” that operates as a sort of local chapter of the Union of BC Municipalities, and acts as an advocacy, information sharing, and collaboration forum for a large area, stretching from Boston Bar and Pemberton to the US border, including all of the communities of the lower Fraser Valley and Howe Sound. It represents a large, diverse region comprising dense urban centres, resort municipalities, rural areas, and both the majority of BC residents and the majority of BC’s farms. For an organization centered around Greater Vancouver, it has a strong and effective presence from the Fraser Valley and Howe Sound regions, which makes for an interesting rural/urban mix.

The meeting has three components: the typical convention-type workshops and networking sessions (“Learnings”), the Resolutions Session where the membership votes on advocacy issues (“Resolutions”), and the AGM with all the budget-approving and electing-officers fun you might expect (“Business”). I want to keep this to one blog post, so cannot cover all of my take-aways, every session I attended, or all of the resolutions, but here is enough of a flavor of the serious meeting parts.

Learnings:

This presentation was introduced by Charlotte Mitha, who was days from being named the President and CEO of BC Hydro.

I started the meeting attending learning sessions put on by BC Hydro around their new Distribution Extension Policy and some enhanced municipal Collaboration Case Studies. The latter were examples where BC Hydro and local governments have worked together to better coordinate both project planning and project execution to both reduce impacts on each other’s infrastructure and reduce public service disruptions related to major capital works. The DEP changes were informative, as BC Hydro is changing how they charge the development community, homebuilders, and commercial customers for new connections to the power grid. In many cases this means reduced cost for the homebuilder (aligned with provincial mandates to get more housing built), but a bigger load on ratepayers. We will have to review our policies in New West to determine our financial ability to align or adjust our connections finance model with this in mind.

Trish Mandewo is the president of UBCM and presented a report from the Executive.

The Main LGA session began with a discussion of a Recent UBCM report on the impact of on-again off-again tariffs on the Canadian economy, the BC local fallout and, in turn, the impact on BC communities. Oxford Economics was engaged to model impacts at the Local Government level, from revenues to investment uncertainty to inflation. In short, BC is less impacted than other provinces, and the best counter-measure for the government is fiscal stimulus – investing in infrastructure like housing that needs to be built here by domestic workers. For the longer story, you can read the full report here.

Jessica McIlroy (North Vancouver), Nathan Pachal (Langley), Patricia Ross (Abbotsford) and Jennifer Kinneman (Fraser Valley RD) sat on the panel on public engagement.

There was also a good session on local initiatives to improve Public Engagement, with examples from the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, and Langley City and SFU’s Centre for Dialogue. The latter talked about the history of Community Assemblies in BC, from the Campbell-era Electoral Reform initiative to current work in Burnaby, Gibsons, and New Westminster. Though the discussion was more on the topic of the threats on our institutions posed by democratic recession and attention capitalism, it was nice to see New West’s assembly held up as a small but effective counter to those forces.

The numbers on Social Procurement all come up positive for the local community.

I also enjoyed the session on Social Procurement, another initiative where New Westminster is engaged (we are a member of the BC Social Procurement Initiative along with two dozen other local governments in BC), if not exactly leading. The idea behind social procurement should be familiar to everyone after the conversation of the last three months as large number of Canadians have taken it upon themselves to shop for not just the lowest price, but to find Canadian grown, manufactured, and marketed products – the more local the better – as a way of buffering an external economic threat and building our community at a time when it needs it. There was a longer discussion about “unbundling” as a process through which municipalities can better support local suppliers in this uncertain time, and other case studies from the BCSPI.

Resolutions:

The resolutions session is where local government leaders bring ideas to the membership with the mind to advocate for changes to funding or legislation from senior governments. We had 42 Resolutions discussed, some quickly passed, some debated at length. For many of us, this is the most interesting and exciting part of the meeting, as ideas are put forward, and members line up behind the “pro” and “con” mics and take their three minutes to convince the room to vote their way. It’s good old fashioned convention politics.

Councillor Tasha Henderson taking the lead on people lined up on the “Con” mic while a few others line up at the “PRO” mic on a debate,. Despite the strong debate happening, lots of smiles around the room as folks work through their debate points.

This year New Westminster had the following resolutions up for debate:

R16- Lobbyist Registration
…be it resolved that UBCM ask that the Government of BC introduce legislative reform that either:
enables municipalities and regional districts to use the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for BC, or
enables municipal councils and regional district boards to establish, monitor, and enforce lobbyist activities within their jurisdictions parallel to mechanisms available under the Lobbyist Transparency Act.
This resolution was endorsed by the Executive and endorsed by the Membership on consent and without debate.

R27- Regulating Vape Shops
…be it resolved that UBCM ask that the Province of BC include retail stores used primarily for sale of electronic nicotine or e-cigarettes under the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch and thereby include restrictions that regulate where and how many of these retail stores are able to receive business licences in a community.
This resolution was briefly debated and endorsed by a large majority of the Membership.

R38- Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
…be it resolved that LMLGA begin tracking and reporting how attendees vote on motions and resolutions at its annual convention and submit a motion to UBCM and FCM advocating for those organizations to do the same.
This was the longest and most interesting (IMHO) debate of the session, and I really wish the public had been there to see how elected officials grapple with what were a couple of really hard questions around the cost (and value?) we put on transparency. There were actually two debates going on at the same time: the first was whether elected officials should be tracked on how they vote on resolutions, some feeling it is an important measure of accountability, others concerned it would have a chilling effect on voting at resolutions sessions because of a fear of public or voter backlash (I argued the former along with the three New Westminster Councillors present). The second argument was a technical/cost concern that our resolution sessions are already lengthy, and bringing in an electronic voting method would be expensive and would slow the process down. There were some attempts to amend to reduce this last concern through softening the language asking the Executive to “explore” the idea as opposed to demanding its implementation, but in the end the membership voted to not endorse this motion by a relatively narrow margin.

So New West went 2 for 3 for resolutions, which according to the great political philosopher Meatloaf, ain’t bad.

Business:

The business of the LGA was fairly light – our finances are in fine condition, though the turnout at the LGA meeting this year felt a little low compared to some other recent events. The Town of Gibsons was permitted to join, though they are also members of the AVICC, they share many concerns and issues with their Sea-to-Sky cohort, and saw the advantage of connecting on this side of Howe Sound.


And New Westminster City Councillor Ruby Campbell was elected again to a second term as an At-Large officer of the Lower Mainland LGA executive, following the tradition of Lorrie Williams, Chuck Puchmayr and Myself as recent New West representatives on that executive.

Of course, like any professional conference, there is also an important aspect of getting to spend time with people who are your cohort. Being able to chat with (or even have a beer with) people who have similar or very different challenges as you while trying to do this work. You can share, support and conspire with one another, and realize that there are many great people (along with quite a few not-so-great ones) who respond to this calling, and shared time with them is a valuable resource. And not without its moments of joy.

Council – May 12, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This Monday we had the second of two back-to-back Council evenings, a result of us having to reschedule a meeting because of the Federal Election. The presentation and delegation session once again took up much more time than the rest of the Agenda, but it was also an evening with some pretty good feelings around important work the City is doing. The first items on the Agenda were some Presentations:

Community Advisory Assembly Evaluation Results and Recommendations for the Future
The Community Advisory Assembly was a pilot project that arose out of a recommendation from the Public Engagement Task Force the City ran a few years ago. Namely:

Pilot Deliberative Dialogue as a model for collaborative decision-making, where participants who reflect the diversity of their community receive background information and work in small groups to develop recommendations for Council.

My any measure, this pilot was a success. It also identified the resources needed and a few adjustments we can make to how the Assembly worked to make it more successful, more useful for the community and for Council.

The magic part of this Assembly model was well explained at the Lower Mainland LGA meeting two weeks ago where different cities were discussing challenges and opportunities to improve community dialogue. The assembly model piloted in New Westminster along with similar topic-focused models in Gibsons and Burnaby were held up at the new best practice. The unique part besides the effort to match the demographics of the community is that it causes people to engage in dialogue on topics that are not in their wheelhouse, which requires them to talk to one another and learn from one another. Participants get to hear opposing ideas from their neighbours in a constructive way and try to seek consensus about the advice they send to council. This allows issues to be addressed with a group thinking of and discussing the needs of the whole, not just about their own needs or personal concerns.

Council agreed to continue with this model. The Assembly was funded by a one-time grant, so Council needs to now establish a fund to support it more permanently, because it is a model that requires moderation and management. This is not unlike the investment we make in any of the other dozen subject-matter committees the City runs from Heritage to Economic Devleopment to Accessibility.

Mayor’s Youth Climate Leadership Team 2025 Project Plan
For the last few months, a group of youth in the community have been meeting to talk about something they can do locally to address climate change. They have been discussing ideas around mitigation (reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere), adaptation (making changes that help prepare us for a climate disrupted world), education (talking to other citizens about climate change) and advocacy (talking to decision makers about climate change). Through these discussions, they came up with two projects that will dovetail together to address all of the first three, and are asking the City now for the resources to make their project happen this year. Council was happy to approve this funding, and it feels good to empower the next generation to learn about building community.

We then moved the following items On Consent:

2024 Filming Activity
Film is still a booming business in New West, with significant spin-off value for the community not to mention the thousands of jobs, but there are also impacts that need to be managed in the community, which is the job of our Film Office. They supported 8 feature films, 28 TV series, 10 TV commercials, 5 independent films, 2 TV movies and 3 student productions in 2024, representing a cumulative $900,000 in permit revenue.

This report is a reporting out on activity and revenues, with a recommendation for some minor changes in our film policy that reflects updated practice around how cancellations are managed when city service call-outs occur.

Easement Agreement for the Encroachment on the Lane Adjacent to 614 Fourth Avenue
The owner of this property in the Brow of the Hill has a small retaining wall and stair landing that encroach on City lands. The wall has encroached for some time, but recent improvements by the property owner expanded the encroachment of the landing which brought it to everyone’s attention. The encroachment is pretty thin and doesn’t have a significant impact on the operation of the laneway, so Council is granting an encroachment for the nominal cost of $1. Best real estate deal ever.

Licence Agreement with SOCAN and RE:SOUND
The City has to pay artists for their work. That sounds reasonable, but the process of paying Wilco if we play “The Late Greats” so that Matt can air-piano during a cycle spin session is a complicated one. In Canada, SOCAN and RE:SOUND are the organizations that manage public performance royalties for artists and assure they are compensated. Previously we would track our music use and submit reporting, now their joint venture does evaluations of how music is used in City facilities, and come to an agreement with the City about fair compensation, which is just over $18,000 in 2024 and are subject to review every couple of years.

New Westminster Grant Funding Summary from Bloomberg Philanthropies Youth Climate Action Fund Program
Last year, the City was one of 100 world-wide that was granted up to $50,000USD to support youth-led climate action projects in the City through micro-grants. In the end, eight youth groups were empowered to complete ten small projects, form a new community garden at NWSS to supporting Environmental and Cultural Health Outreach through the Umbrella Multicultural Health outreach and two projects by the Sigma Program at SD40 to improve local ecology. Again, youth in the community doing great things with a little help from the City, and not just thinking about Climate Action, but activating around it.

And this single item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw Cooling Amendments and Next Steps
As we continue to develop policy to support residents during extreme heat events, the challenge of finding an effective regulatory approach to rentals is something staff is working on. We continue to work on the goal of a previous Council Motion to regulate “maximum habitable temperature” in a way that fits within our jurisdictional limits in light of the Provincial management of Building Code and the Residential Tenancy Act.
However, in the meantime one thing we can do is stop landlords from forbidding air conditioning units when that may be the only tool keeping people alive in an extreme heat event. We will be amending our Business Regulations and Licensing Bylaw to address both new and existing buildings to prohibit the prohibition of cooling units (be they air conditioners or heat pumps) where they can otherwise be fitted. There is a provision where landlords can be exempted if they can demonstrate safety or building issues that strictly prevent the use of cooling, but the onus will be on them to demonstrate this issue and the City will work with them to rectify the issue if possible.

This report also outlines some new resources staff are requesting to deal with increased calls to address life safety and livability concerns among renters. Council voted to approve this investment in community, recognizing that the funding mechanism for these resources (new taxes, external grants, fee for service or re-allocating existing resources, or some combination of the above) will arise in 2026 budget discussions.

We then had two Motions from Council to debate:

Developing a more Open and Transparent Budget Accounting Methodology for City Operated Services, Programs, and Projects
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS transparency in municipal spending is essential for maintaining public trust and accountability;
WHEREAS the full costs of city projects, including internal costs such as staff time, administrative overhead, and resource allocation, are not always clearly attributed or visible to the public;
WHEREAS providing a comprehensive breakdown of project costs will allow New Westminster citizens and business owners to better understand the true financial impact of municipal initiatives;
WHEREAS ensuring that all internal costs are properly accounted for will support informed decision-making by Council and enhance fiscal responsibility;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to develop a methodology for attributing internal costs to projects, ensuring that all relevant expenditures—including staffing, administrative, and operational costs—are accounted for in project budgets and financial reporting;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the proposed methodology be designed to be transparent, practical, and written in plain language accessible to both Council and the public;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council with a proposed framework and implementation plan within six months of this motion’s adoption;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the finalized methodology and project cost breakdowns be published on the City’s website in an accessible format.

This motion is based on some good feeling ideas, but seems completely uninformed about how municipal budgeting and accounting work. A Local Government is already strictly regulated and operate as transparent as functionally possible. We follow Public Service Accounting Board (PSAB) guidelines and other regulated accounting principles. There are already systems in place to provide oversight of how capital project costs are managed, and the assertion that we are not already properly accounting for project spending is simply false. Just last meeting we received a reporting of a clean audit received in Council, demonstrating that our financial controls are appropriate and sufficient to meet public accounting standards, yet this this motion would suggest yet another layer of report on top of our externally audited cost control measures and public service accounting procedures.

Our Capital Budget has about 300 separate capital projects that will be funding partially or wholly in 2025, totaling $92 Million, ranging from the $24 Million we are projected to spend at Massey Theatre this year to some capital projects at the $1,000 lower limit of where accounting requires us to differentiate “capital” from “operating”. Every year Council reviews this capital budget, and can review with staff any of the 300 line items. Once approved, staff are given the agreed-upon budget to deliver that project. If they come in under or over budget that comes to Council in our quarterly financial report, and Council is against asked to review these changes. Within those approved budgets, I strongly feel we need to trust our staff to deliver the project and our established financial controls to keep an eye on how they do that.

All that to say, I don’t know why we would ask staff to develop a new methodology to oversee this, when we have a well established methodology based on public accounting standards and best industry practices. If we tasked staff to develop a methodology, it is very likely they would propose the one we already have, as that’s what the PSAB and our Auditors and anyone who works in local government finance would recommend. This motion looks to me like a solution being proposed that doesn’t actually identify what the problem is. So Council did not support the motion.

Advocacy for Increased Investment in Public Transit
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS public transit is vital for the mobility, economy, and sustainability of New Westminster, providing residents with essential access to work, education, and services; and New Westminster’s Seven Bold Steps for Climate Action aims for 60% of all trips within the City to be by sustainable modes of transportation by 2030;
WHEREAS reliable investment is essential to maintaining and expanding transit services especially as TransLink faces a projected $600 million annual funding gap starting in 2026 and the City has received numerous urging elected officials to advocate against potential transit service reductions, which could result in significant service cuts impacting New Westminster residents;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor, on behalf of New Westminster City Council, write to the provincial and federal government calling for the establishment of a permanent and stable funding source for public transit; and
THAT New Westminster City Council reaffirms its commitment to collaborating with regional and senior government partners to enhance public transit for all New Westminster residents.

I know this resolution was written before the announcement of a ratified Investment Plan for TransLink, and though that plan is good news and gets us back to expanding transit instead of cutting, it only puts off the need for new funding tools until 2027. So the Province, the TransLink Board, and the Mayor’s Council have work to do over the next year to get the Access for everyone plan funded, and resolve the long-term funding issue – meaning this resolution is still apropos and useful.

There was a proposed amendment brought to the meeting by a member of Council with a long list of ways we shouldn’t pay for transit, that was notably bereft of any offsetting proposal for how we should fill the funding gap. This based on some imaginary model where public goods are not paid for by taxation, but Council wisely decided we should let the TransLink Board, Mayors Council and Province work out a funding model given that they have the actual tools to make that determination.

Finally, we adopted a couple of Bylaws:

Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8516, 2025
This Bylaw that sets property tax rates for 2025 was adopted by Council. Notices going in the mail soon.

Water Shortage Response Bylaw No. 6948, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8521, 2025
This Bylaw that made minor changes to our water shortage sprinkling regulations to align with Metro Vancouver requirements was adopted by Council.

Council – May 5, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had a long Council meeting, even though we rather rushed through our lengthy agenda. The challenge was that we spent three hours on presentation and delegations, and only an hour doing the actual business, which is a bit of a problem for governance, and something Council is going to have to work on. That said, there was a lot on the agenda starting with:

2024 Financial Statements
The last step of our annual budget process is to prepare and approve the financial statements for last year so they can be submitted to the Province by May 15. These reports outline our financial position as of the end of 2024, and the results of the audit that our finances go under every year.

There is a lot here, but here are a few highlights. The City has an accumulated surplus of just over $1 Billion, but almost 80% of that is tangible capital assets and inventory (buildings, pipes in the ground, vehicle, fleet, computers, etc.). The accumulated surplus went up about $50 Million last year, about half of that being in the form of capital assets because we spent $51 Million in our capital plan last year, which adds to that capital asset pile.

The City has about $457M in financial assets, a 7% increase over last year, and we have $317 Million in financial liabilities, which is less than 1% more than last year. Overall, that means our net financial assets have gone up a bit.

Our revenue was $9 Million more than forecast, mostly related to increased investment interest, and our expenses were slightly (less than 1%) under budget, but there is an accounting adjustment here called an TCA adjustment that offset some unexpected expenses related to emergency events and maintenance costs in buildings.

The other major part of this is the report from our Auditors who found a clean audit, meaning that their review found we were consistent with our legal requirements and Public Sector Accounting Board standards.

Council then moved the following items On Consent:

Amendment to the Water Shortage Response Bylaw No, 6948, 2004 – Minor Revision to Stage 3 Lawn Sprinkling Regulations
The City has bylaws that regulate residential sprinkling and other water uses in the event of a summer water shortage. These bylaws need to be aligned with the Metro Vancouver Drinking water Conservation Plan, so we are making minor edits to align. The change is that new lawns of chafer beetle treated lawns can no longer get a watering restriction exemption once we hit Stage 3 restrictions, which is a fairly significant water shortage emergency.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation: 318 Sixth Avenue – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
A property owner in Queens Park wants to build a new house by subdividing their large lot and providing permanent designation to the existing heritage house. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement is the tool to make this work, and that requires a Public Hearing. This report has the details, but I will reserve any comment until after the Public Hearing to respect the process. Council gave the necessary bylaws two readings and a Public Hearing will be held. If you have opinions, let us know!

Programs to Serve Isolated Seniors Funded by the United Way British Columbia
The United Way funds three programs for isolated seniors in New Westminster, providing social meals, a Community Connector program and a Volunteer Coordinator and Support program. Fortunately, our application for 2025 grants to continue these programs was successful, so Council needs to authorize the partnership agreement with the United Way.

Response to Council Motion Regarding the City of New Westminster joining the Strong Cities Network
The Strong Cities Network is a global network of cities dedicated to addressing all forms of extremism, hate and polarization. Membership is free and the benefits include opportunities for better collaboration with elected officials and practitioners in other cities, joining forces with member cities on regional, national and international issues, and general development support for all partners. Staff recommended we join, and we are joining!

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2025 Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8516, 2025
OK the actual last part of our annual budget process is approving the new tax rates through bylaw before May 15th. This is that bylaw. There are some cool stats in this report for people who are interested in things like that. The total assessed value of all residential homes in New West went up from $27.7 billion to $28.0 Billion. The assessed value of existing property went down a bit ($100 Million) while the value of new inventory added to the City last year went up by $400 Million.

The average detached single home in New West is now worth $1.64 Million (a $20,000 increase over last year), and will pay $4,614 in property tax to the City (an extra $368 over last year). The average apartment home in New West is now worth $690,000 (also a $20,000 increase over last year), and will pay $1,934 in property tax to the City (an extra $187 over last year). If it applies to you, these amounts are reduced by $570 to $845 in Homeowner Grant refunds.

Artificial Turf Field Location- What We Heard: Engagement Summary Report and Next Steps
Council in its wisdom moved the implementation of a new all-weather field ahead of some of the other actions in the upcoming Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and as a result of very clear consensus from the community about the preferred location, we still need to determine if that location is actually feasible, because soils and groundwater don’t care about public opinion. We have to do the work of understanding the geotechnical and soil conditions of the site, do an archaeological assessment, and deal with details like utility connections and lighting and impacts on the community. Staff will also test the feasibility of a walking track around the field, and of evaluating a second site for an additional field, anticipating that need will arise in the near future regardless. If all goes well, we should have the info to tender early 2026, and have a field in 2027.

City-wide Toilet Strategy: Interim Progress Report
This is a check-in from staff on the work they are doing to address public toilet needs in the City. There has been a lot of work done, engaging both with subject matter experts and the general community to understand what inclusive and sustainable access to toilet facilities requires, and (this is important) the details for us to better understand long-term operational costs and barriers.

Staff also did a detailed analysis of the 30 existing public toilets operated by the City and 9 other key toilet locations under private management, because we fundamentally need to know what is there, and what we can do to make them more accessible before we start filling the gaps. The public outreach part engaged with more than 500 residents (!). Signage is one part of this, but so is extending hours, the implementation of a Washroom Attendant program, the need for improving accessibility – no point having a sign pointing at toilet if it isn’t safe and accessible.

Proposed Next Steps Related to the Council Motion of January 13, 2025 Regarding the New West Hospice Society
Council supported a motion to support the New Westminster Hospice Society in seeking a permanent hospice location in the city, and this is the report back form staff on how we can support them.

There is some learning in here about why there no Hospice Beds in New Westminster, as apparently the BC liberals government of 2009 closed the 10-bed hospice facility at the Queens Park Care Centre, with its resources being relocated to Delta. Addressing this deficit is an ongoing goal of the NWHS. Staff are recommending we support them through joint advocacy to Fraser Health for resources, data support to help in planning and needs assessment, and development application support for finding and developing a location. It is unclear if new Provincial housing legislation allows us to negotiate hospice space as “community amenity” during new residential development, though partnership between Hospice and Developer may still occur, it is unclear right now how we can support that negotiation. This will come back to Council in the upcoming report on City-Wide Financing Growth Strategy.

Response to Council Motion Regarding the City of New Westminster joining the Strong Cities Network
The Strong Cities Network is a global network of cities dedicated to addressing all forms of extremism, hate and polarization. Membership is free and the benefits include opportunities for better collaboration with elected officials and practitioners in other cities, joining forces with member cities on regional, national and international issues, and general development support for all partners. Staff recommended we join, and we are joining

Update on Response to Council Motion: “Enhancing Commercial Areas and Corridors in New Westminster”
Everything I’ve read about the trend of micro-stores and container retailing suggest is either the best thing since sliced bread stands or a fading quirk, but it seems clear that location is vital to its success. It won’t work everywhere, but where it does work, it can really add a boost to a retail area. There was a motion brought to council recently asking for an assessment if there is anywhere in New West it might, and this is the initial response to that motion.

In short, staff have done some preliminary analysis, and are going to dig a bit deeper into capital costs, funding mechanisms, partnership opportunities, and locations. More to come here.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Storage Amendments Bylaw No. 8518, 2025
We previously saw this Bylaw to remove self-storage as a use-by-right in a couple of commercial zones, though we would still permit self-storage, it would require a rezoning which would give staff and council some more control over design and other factors. It’s coming back because we made some minor amendments to exempt projects already in stream from the change. As this is consistent with the OCP and existing city policies, we are not having a Public Hearing. Council voted to give this bylaw three readings.

We then had three Motions from Council:

Securing Small Business Rebate Funding Renewal
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS in fall of 2023, the Province of British Columbia launched the Securing Small Business Rebate program to provide small businesses with up to $2,000 for eligible commercial property crime and vandalism repairs or up to $1,000 to implement eligible preventative measures; and
WHEREAS the Securing Small Business Rebate program is now closed and the New Westminster Chamber and the Downtown Business Improvement Association have expressed interest for the Province to renew program funding to support the local business community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor, on behalf of Council, send a letter to the Honourable Diana Gibson, Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, with a copy to all New Westminster Members of the Legislative Assembly, asking that the Securing Small Business Rebate program funding be renewed.

This program didn’t cost much, but was popular among small businesses for simple repairs and clean-up related to vandalism or other challenges businesses might be facing right now. Happy to support the Chamber and the BIAs in advocating for this program to continue.

Conducting a Review of the City’s Community and Neighbourhood Consultation and Notification Processes
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS it is important that the City of New Westminster effectively consult and advise local residents and businesses regarding any significant changes or initiatives that may impact their immediate neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS wherever possible the City should properly apprise local residents and businesses if they will be directly impacted by a City initiative or infrastructure upgrade;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City conduct an independent review regarding the City’s current consultation and public notification process to ensure it currently meets or exceeds recognized best practices for cities of a similar size; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff explore the option to establish an enhanced public notification and consultation process for infrastructure projects and initiatives which are deemed by Council as ‘signature’ or materially ‘significant.’

This was a motion supported unanimously by Council with a minor amendment (see the strikethrough above) that recognizes we may not need a consultant to do this review, but might be able to effectively do it internally. Still, there is some language in here that is important, and the conversation Council had around this is worth watching, because it sounded to me like Council was clearer on the notion than the language of the motion, if that makes sense.

Part of this is the difference between consultation and notification. The City is on the leading edge of public engagement and is quickly building a reputation for leading the region if not the province in how we consult the public in a transparent, accountable, and proactive way. I would say we are not as strong right now in how we communicate strategically with the community, partly because the ground has shifted so much in the communications world over the last few years – the end of newspapers, the quickly evolving social media space, the impacts of COVID on how we meet and interact as a community – and because we simply have not added to our communication team in the City concomitant with the significant increase we are seeing in capital projects in the City.

Part of the problem might be my use of words like concomitant, but I digress…

There is a distinction between consultation and communication. If we are asking for your feedback to help make decisions, we are consulting; if we are letting you know we are building something and that’s why there are trucks in front of your house, that is communication. There are things we consult on, there are things we need to do and asking your opinion if we should is not particularly helpful, and can actually just slow down important work.

I’ll give you a recent example that demonstrates this. During my Mayors Walks last month, I was talking to a homeowner in the West End about rain gardens, he asked why we didn’t consult on the size and locations of the rain gardens in the West End. My honest answer was for the same reason we don’t consult on the size of the sewer pipe we put in the ground or the number of storm drains that open on a street: these things are driven by technical and engineering need, by a volume of water they have to convey for example and slopes and where water wants to flow. Public input really doesn’t supersede that, because it is physics. In that case, notification of the neighbours is all we should be striving for, or asking neighbours to expect.

Some other things are amenable to consultation, like (examples above) public toilet provisions or turf field locations. On these I would suggest the City does an excellent job consulting, both through Be Heard New West and through the various other means our Public Engagement Team is tasked to engage on. However, I can see that notification continues to be challenging with the volume of work our engineering team is working on, and strict project timelines driven by many factors. I have already been talking to engineering and communications staff about some strategies to improve site notices, and I was happy to hear Council in this discussion speaking along pretty much the same lines as I had been using to talk to staff, so there might be some quick wins here.

Removing the 3.5% Climate Action Levy from the 2026 Electricity Bills as part of the Budget Development Process
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster has a unique “Climate Action Levy” of 3.5% which applies to all electricity bills for local residents and businesses;
WHEREAS both the federal and provincial governments have now abandoned their failed consumer carbon tax experiment with the aim of leaving more money in the pockets of hard working citizens;
WHEREAS charging New Westminster electricity consumers a special 3.5% levy on green energy can serve to decrease the level of affordability in our city;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to permanently eliminate the 3.5% Climate Action Levy as part of the 2026 budget, which will be presented to Council for review and approval.

I will not repeat what I have written every time this motion has come to us, you can read some of my responses at those times here, or here as just a couple of examples. Instead I will note that we received a half dozen pieces of correspondence from the public on this motion and all of them were in opposition to the motion. But its not the numbers, necessarily, it is the quality of the argument made, so I will quote directly from those correspondence and let the people be heard:

“The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of taking action now. I am frustrated that motions to ax this levy keep being made. We know climate change is real, it’s us and it’s bad…and we know we have the solutions! Delay tactics are just making the crisis worse. For our kids, it is imperative that we speed up climate solutions and action, not delay it debating over levies.” – KC

“Similar motions have been defeated in the past, and there is every reason to defeat it again: polluting emissions from the fossil fuel industry are bringing extreme weather events like the 2021 heat dome, and New Westminster must prepare for the next one. As well, Councillor Fontaine pointed out in 2023 that we would be taking a $2 million hit on the funds that let this city take action on climate We know that a safe and healthy city means preparing for the effects of carbon pollution. Keep the levy, and help keep the city prepared.” –HB

“The 3.5% levy on the electrical bills amounts to a few dollars a month and does not make a significant saving to an individual but what it has done as a Climate Action Levy is significant. It does and will make a difference in savings to all of us in the next years as we work together to try to implement the solutions that are available to reverse the damage that has been done through negligence and lack of knowledge. We have a growing contingency fund that can make a difference. I urge you to defeat this motion.” – BF

“I urge councillors to stop bringing forward council motions that aim to remove the climate action levy. This is a waste of council and staff’s time going over this again and again when it’s already been defeated multiple times in the past. If the mover of this motion would like it to be directly funded through property taxes instead with no change to actual climate action programs, please state that. Or, if it’s really not believed that the city should be doing anything to fight or adapt to climate change, then please state that clearly. But to keep bringing something like this forward is doing no service to anyone.” –MH

“While affordability is a critical issue for many New West residents right now, I believe it is critical that we remain firmly committed to the climate goals collectively set by the City of New Westminster. The youth of our community, who can not yet vote, are relying on our current elected officials to provide the climate leadership now that will help secure their future. Prioritizing short term economic savings in exchange for climate action funding is absolutely not in my and my neighbours’ best interests, nor the best interests of the next generation of New West residents.I want to pay taxes and levies that support building a climate resilient city.” –LK

“Please keep the climate action levy in place to do the job it is now doing for our citizens, preparing us to meet an uncertain future and doing what we can as a municipality to reduce emissions. The choice laid out by some politicians of sovereignty or a livable planet is a false choice. There is no sovereignty on a dead planet.” –TT

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Finally, we had two Bylaws for Adoption:

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No.8495, 2025
This bylaw that makes routine miscellaneous amendments and language corrections to the zoning bylaw was adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Multiple Unit Residential Storage Requirements Amendments Bylaw No. 8519, 2025
This Bylaw that requires the provision of increased personal storage space for residents in new multiple unit residential buildings was adopted by Council.

And that got us to the end of a nights business, with yet another council meeting next week in a unique back-to-back session, we have lots more to get done!

Peter

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The things I wrote on this website used to be more political than they are now, and a lot more partisan. No shame, those things are still there in the archives, but since I am in this new role, I am trying to keep this page about what’s happening, about policy and outcomes, as there is lots of room elsewhere for the bickering part of the job (I engage in bit more of that at times over in my Newsletter, subscribe here). This post however, will be partisan and political, and maybe a bit personal. You are warned.

Peter Julian is an inspiring leader, was an incredible Member of Parliament, and I thank him for his service to the community and for his friendship.

I have said many times before, I expect a lot of a Member of Parliament. They need to be a bold voice for their community in caucus and Parliament, they need to push progressive policy in Ottawa that reflects the needs of our community but also builds our strength as a Country, and they need to be present here in community helping people connect with a distant and vague federal bureaucracy. Peter excelled at all three, which is amazing when you consider he never served in government caucus in his two decades of work.

Peter has been incredibly helpful in taking the concerns of our community to Ottawa, and in assuring our community was supported by the federal government. There are many examples, but even in the last year: his role in helping get my face in front of the Federal Minister of Housing so I could repeatedly make the case for New Westminster as an excellent Housing Accelerator Fund opportunity means more than $11 Million came here to better support housing affordability, housing diversity, and accelerated permitting and approval processes at the City. Peter’s support was instrumental in us getting $1.4 Million from the Emergency Treatment Fund to help pay for the Three Crises Response Pilot: the second largest ETF grant for any municipality in Canada, and the only grant given in BC. This is helping us move more firmly and faster addressing the combined crises of homelessness and untreated mental health and addictions. These are real, tangible wins for our community on the key issues affecting our community.

Peter was also instrumental in the federal NDP’s forcing of the minority Liberal government to bring in the biggest new social programs since before the lost decade of Mulroney: dental care, Pharmacare, and childcare programs are on the Federal agenda in part because of Peter’s work as House Leader. His work to make workplaces safer, to end corporal punishment of children, to assure COVID relief went to working people and those in need not just banks; to bring in new Anti-Scab legislation, there is a long list of substantive work Peter accomplished from the opposition and third party benches in Ottawa. He made a difference at the national level.

All along, Peter ran one of the more proactive constituency offices in the country, helping people manage immigration hiccups, get access to support programs to which they are entitled, and helping folks navigate the sometimes-challenging income tax and federal support programs designed to help those most in need on our community. When you attend a Peter Julian Christmas or Lunar New Year event, it is always remarkable to see the number of people who come up to thank Peter for the help he and his constituency staff  had provided them personally. It would be hard to imagine a more effective liaison between Ottawa and his constituents than Peter. He’s also a renowned hard worker in the House, a brilliant spokesperson for working and vulnerable people, and a hell of a nice guy.

I have been lucky to call Peter a friend for most of my time in New West. I remember the first time I really met him, I bought one of those “Dinner with the Member of Parliament” silent auction prizes, and my partner and I met Peter in a local pub. We had a few beers. Immediately it was clear he was an engaged listener, though I’m not sure he exactly knew how to take this loud opinionated guy who kept going on about bike lanes. He took it all in stride and with his characteristic class, and it ended up being the first of many, many conversations about community, about public policy, about working for change, and about leadership – conversations that continue to this day. In my elected life, Peter always answered the phone, always had time to hear about a problem or an idea, and was always quick to think about how he, the Federal Government, or someone else in his broad local network, could help. In that sense, he is a mentor and a support system as well as a friend.

Thank you Peter for everything you have done for the community that you love. I know you aren’t going away, the fight in you is too strong, and that love too strong.

Nothing here should be read as a slight to Jake Sawatzky. He won fair and square, and he seems like a really dedicated and engaged guy. I have heard him speak and think his heart is in the right place. I don’t envy the learning curve he is facing, but wish him nothing but the best in getting up to speed on this really important task, because his success in his role is our success as a community.

However, looking at this from the political side, I honestly don’t know what his win means. The election was for most of the night a statistical three-way tie between people who, by conventional campaign wisdom, should not have been in a tie. One is a long-established and highly respected candidate who might have the most famous name in the city and who ran a well designed and executed voter identification and GOTV campaign. The second was a young and inexperienced person whose name was completely unknown in the community two weeks after the writs dropped who had little visible campaign machinery. The third was a familiar if not well known local business man who was dropped in at the last minute to replace a turfed candidate that still ran against him. No disrespect at all to Indy Panchi or Jake Sawatzky, but on pure old-fashioned local campaign paper, it should not have been close. But it was.

At the surface level, it’s clear what happened: people voted nationally for the Prime Minister they wanted. They paid more attention to the Poll Aggregators and Vote Strategically campaigns than before. (IMHO) Poilievre ran on not-being-Trudeau and people’s fears of their neighbours while Carney ran on not-being-Poilievre and people’s fears of our neighbour to the south. Singh tried (unsuccessfully) to earn the credit he deserved for major new social programs while trying to take up space vacated by the Liberals by running messages about middle-class affordability until the campaign saw the writing on the wall and fell back on also-not-being-Poilievre. But re-imagining last month’s messaging isn’t what I want to talk about, I’m sure they all made sense in their respective campaign bubbles at the time.

Instead, I wonder what it means when community no longer sends a representative to Ottawa, but instead Ottawa sends  representatives for us to choose between. I know there has always been an aspect of the latter in our system, but I wonder what it means to the kind of politics I’m interested in – local organizing, talking directly to people, building community and taking local action and being present. I add this to the ongoing questions about how we even tell our local stories when there is no local journalism, our local conversation is increasingly moderated by social media algorithms, and bad actors seem interested in driving wedges between us for shit and giggles. Can we support our community and scale it outward? Will anyone care? I don’t want to go down the “Western Alienation” route, but how will Ottawa know about New West, and how will our values keep us together as democracy re-structures itself around the rest of the world going to hell?

So last Friday I got together with a couple of dozen people doing good things in this community, or interested in doing those good things, and I hope they will help me in a conversation about what’s next. Because community has to come first.