Month: November 2025

CRPP update

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

As I mentioned in my last Council report, we had a presentation on the first annual evaluation of the Crises Response Pilot Project. I don’t usually report out on presentations here (there was no decision for Council to make), but this one led to some interesting discussion and is centre of mind for many people in New Westminster. It is worth taking the time to unpack the report a bit, it had both good and bad news.

For those folks new to the scene, the Crises Response Pilot Project is a collection of actions and resources meant to address the three overlapping crises impacting New Westminster and communities across the province in the echo of the pandemic: homelessness, untreated mental health conditions, and a toxic drug supply. Like Many cities, we were putting a lot of resources into clean-up and “public order” responses, and were into making progress, while staff got more overwhelmed and the community got more frustrated. It was clear doing more of what we were doing wasn’t going to get us further ahead.

Working with the province, the health authority, non-profit providers and the broader community, The City adopted a three-part pilot project, the details of which you can read about (or watch the video) here. We also committed to having an external evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the project, and to let us know what is working and what isn’t. Last meeting we received our first report from that external evaluation.

Dr. Anne Tseng, a Sociologist from Douglas College is the person performing this evaluation work, and also used hew academic expertise to develop the evaluation goals, metrics and methodology for analysis, and as some of those were challenged by members of Council during last week’s meeting, I felt it important to remind them that these metrics were agreed upon unanimously by Council back in April. It is frustrating and counterproductive to attack a person working for the City for doing the very thing Council asked her to do. But such is politics today.

“The pilot project is designed to be trauma-informed and people-centered in responding to individuals with lived and living experience of the harms associated with the three crises. Furthermore, the pilot project also incorporates strategies to address the externalities of the three crises that have spillover consequences for residents, businesses, and interest-holders in the community.”

There is good and bad news in this report, but there are also recommendations to improve data gathering and progress tracking, and recommendations to improve upon the deliverables. There is the raw data in here that tells one story, such as the hundreds of referrals to health services, including IHART and ICM, and the 135 applications to transitional and supportive housing that CRPP staff have helped facilitate. There is also, unfortunately, a bottleneck in transitional and supportive housing that means most referrals are not resulting in people getting into a housing stream. The completion of 52 units of housing at 6th and Agnes will help significantly with this, but it is still under construction, and the need for shelter services will remain unabated until housing investments ramp up to meet the need.

The operations team have also been effective, and we are receiving positive feedback from a lot of residents and businesses downtown that the streets are much cleaner and better maintained in some “trouble spots”, but we are not around the corner completely on this, and it is still a place where significant resources are being spent.

The Community Liaison Officers are responding to calls (you know about the One Number to Call, right?) and addressing issues, but increasingly they are being proactive – getting out to problem areas before the complaints or concerns come in, and again we are starting to receive some positive feedback from the community on this work. Most concerns are related to encampments and tents, and I again refer you to the point above about the desperate need for safe accessible shelter space in the short term, and more robust housing investments in the medium term.

One part of the report that is strong on recommendation (that is, where we are falling short) is where we are not effectively getting the information about this project out to residents and businesses. Simply put, not enough people know about the program, and are still asking “what is the City doing about all this?” It is also clear that in the absence of good information, misinformation inevitably fills the void. With a topic as politically charged as this one, fear and stigma are amplified through that misinformation.

“…residents mentioned the stereotypes and stigma attached to individuals experiencing the crises and the need for better education and awareness to combat misinformation. Several participants also mentioned the need to not only spread awareness but to foster empathy and understanding. A participant attributed misinformation to the media, which they described ‘drives fear and feeds into stereotyping.’”

Council has heard clearly from downtown businesses that the false narrative being presented about downtown – that it is a dangerous place where businesses are failing – has been harmful to both businesses and to people needing support. It is incumbent on all of us to fill that fear-based information void with good information about the work being done.

On the good news side, the communication upwards to senior governments has brought positive results. Advocacy to the Ministry of Housing and Housing BC has created better staff-to-staff collaboration, investments to improve shelter services in the City, and ongoing work to develop the next phase of supportive and transitional housing. Similarly, the advocacy to health partners has brought increased and improved resources to the City, including collaboration toward an adult Situation Table (to coordinate resource supports in a client-focused way).

We were able to recently announce that our original $1.4 Million grant from the federal Emergency Treatment Fund has been enhanced with another $290,000 grant from the same fund. This demonstrates that the Federal Government recognizes we are doing something innovative and proactive here in New Westminster that will ultimately save the health care system more than this ETF contribution, while building community resiliency. The Federal Government is noting that New Westminster is taking a more proactive approach to the same challenges that are impacting communities across Canada, and that the model of inter-governmental and inter-agency collaboration we are showcasing here is scalable to other communities facing the same challenges.

This report comes as the CRPP is still in its initiation phase. We have a lot more work to do, and we are continuing to measure our work so we can adapt as the need on the ground requires. Having an external evaluator hold us accountable to the community, and to our funders, is an important commitment we have made in launching this pilot.

I’m really proud of the work staff in the City and our partner agencies are doing, and am proud of New Westminster residents and businesses in supporting us in this approach. This is what it means to live in a City that is a community.

Council – November 17. 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This is a bit of a late issue – it’s been one of those weeks where I just didn’t have time to write up my notes from Council, so the report is late. Remember, you can always follow the link to the agenda, and watch the video the day after Council if you just can’t wait.

We had a relatively brief agenda, which started with an Opportunity to be Heard :

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw No. 6926, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8536, 2025
This Bylaw is essentially a housekeeping item, as we are moving fees from the two different Bylaws over to a new Bylaw that deals with any fee or charge administered by the new Community Services Department, which requires us to amendments to existing Bylaws to reflect this change. The fees themselves are not changing from what was previously approved by Council, so there are no financial implications here, but our procedures require us to provide the Public an opportunity to comment to Council on any change to the Business Licence Bylaw. No-one provided written comment ,and no-one came to Council to speak to this Bylaw, so it was Adopted by Council.

We then had a Presentation on the evaluation of year one of the Crises Response Pilot Project. I don’t usually report out on presentations here (there was no decision for Council to make), but this one led to some interesting discussion, and I will try to follow up with a bit of a breakdown of that evaluation, as it had good and bad news.

We then moved the following item On Consent:

Issuance of Temporary Use Permit TUP00035 for 8 – 30 Capilano Way
The arcade that operates as a front-door business to an amusement machine repair and maintenance business in the Braid Industrial Area has been operating under a Temporary Use Permit, and they are applying to extend that permit to the maximum time permissible under provincial legislation. The property owner has not applied for a rezoning yet, but will have to before the TUP expires in 2027 if they want to continue supporting this business. In the meantime, the City is going to be updating our industrial lands policy that should provide better clarity for these kind of mixed industrial/experiential uses.

And the following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Proposed 2026 Council Meeting Schedule & Response to Referral: Appointment of Acting Mayor
This report was referred from last meeting, and is our annual agreement on Council meeting schedule for next year. This one a bit weird because it is an election year, and the time around October/November instead of being a really busy time at Council will be a slow time to allow for election and transition. We are also going to move the start of our workshop meetings on the off-weeks to a little earlier in the day, as they often go long, and we want to save a bit on staff overtime and respect Council’s evenings in week when we don’t have regular Council.

There was a question raised last meeting about the Acting Mayor rotation and how that may be “de-politicized” for the election year. This is an interesting question, as prior to this term the Acting Mayor position had never been queerly politicized as it is now (such as Parties “congratulating” members of Council for being named to the role when their rotation comes up). However, the rotation practice we follow is similar to what is done in most municipalities, and there is no general practice here or elsewhere around adapting that for the election period.

Response to Council Motion: “Conducting a Review of the City’s Community and Neighbourhood Consultation and Notification Processes”
There was a referral from Council to staff about improvement of our consultation/communications during the implementation of capital projects; this is the response from staff. And we need to be clear here about the potential conflation between communications and consultation. Despite staff’s efforts to be distinct in their use of these terms, Council and the Public are not so disciplined, and that has created (sometimes by design, but that’s another story) confusion and disappointment in the community.

This reporting back is actually on work staff were already doing to address some recent “communication gaps”. Short version of the report: our practices are very similar to other cities, neither worse nor specifically better. There are a few more pro-active things some cities are doing, and we can look at these and do better. However, it will take resources to increase staff doing this work or potentially slow down capital project delivery (to redirect staff from building things to talking about building things).

One of the issues identified by Council and the Public is the time lag between public consultation and delivery of projects. With meaningful public consultation providing input into design, the time required after consultation for design, costing, council approval, and procurement can means that once the shovels start working, the public forgets that consultation took place the previous year, or the year before. Stopping to do more consultation as the work begins means further delay, and often at a time where any changes to design are near impossible, or require yet another costing and procurement exercise. This is why we shift to communication, and limited consultation on construction impacts as opposed to design. When we start digging, people often say they “were not engaged”. This shows a need ot be proactive in our communications during that lag time, which inevitably leads to the complaint that the City is always talking about it, never doing it.

You can see the many paths to frustration here.

Council agreed to implementation of some more proactive measures, and it is expected at least in the short term they can be included in current capital budgets (the ones we approved, well… some of Council approved, in principle last meeting).

Senior Government Costs Download Review Work Plan – Response to the Council Motion
Senior government downloading has been a political talking point since at least Confederation. In recent reading of Barry Mather’s “New Westminster, the Royal City”, it appears it was a common political talking point here in New Westminster before the City was even named.

Back in the early part of this term, staff were asked to report back with this clearly-rhetorical request: “an itemized list of expenditures and senior government revenues the City of New Westminster has incorporated into the Operating and Capital Budgets, which are typically considered outside of municipal jurisdiction and are not part of our ‘core services’”. I call it rhetorical, because the weasel words “typically considered” and “core services” lack clear definition, and belies the faux-precision of an “itemized list”. Staff have spent some time researching this, and have come up with a proposed approach, complicated by the unusual financial implications of the COVID response from 2020-2022, and provided us examples of the two cities that have tried to do something similar. And that’s where the obvious problem arises.

The City of Vancouver approach is seriously flawed. Legalizing of cannabis has costs for local government, but including it as a “download” to local government is a stretch; it is certainly a “core service” wholly within our mandate to regulate and permit retail business. If we follow this logic, every legislative or regulatory change at any level of government impacts the lower governments. Next-Gen 911 might be a Federal mandate, but it is also a vital public service that local governments are required to provide. The Federal government requires us to have an integrated stormwater management program before they will fund our sewer separation programs – is that a download? We can certainly pay for our own sewers, and not do the ISWMP, but that would cost us more. In this case, the mandate is the opposite of a download. One place I might agree with Vancouver (though I’m not sure all on council would) is that our need to spend money addressing a disrupted climate and the emergency response costs when , for example, 30 people in New Westminster die in a heat dome because the Federal Government has steadfastly ignored it’s Paris Agreement commitments and are down dooming us to a PetroState future… is that a download, because almost a third of Vancouver assessed download is exactly this.

In the Kamloops example, they included lost revenue from downtown parking due to COVID restrictions during the height of the pandemic, and the slow transition of back-to-office work – they itemized this as a $1.5Million download. This borders on comical. Aside from this, almost 85% of Kamloops’ estimated download coats were the cost of dike maintenance and upgrades – clearly a “core service”.

These are examples of how the determining what is a “download” is a political determination, there is not technical response staff can provide, and I am uncomfortable sending staff down rhetorical rabbit holes when there is no clear purpose. If a politician wants to make a political point about it, they are free to go through our budget (a public document) and make their own determination, we don’t need expensive and busy finance staff doing this homework for them.

There is no City in Canada that Vancouver could find that defines “core service”. That’s the work of every Council – we determine our strategic priorities for a term, and every Council decision, every budget line item, is a discussion of what we are willing to do for our community, and where we don’t want to do the work. Every Council determines its “core service”. Vancouver’s budget task force made an attempt at doing this exercise, and have nothing useful to show for the work. It has not informed their budgeting or decision making, and I can see no evidence it has pushed senior governments of change how they support local government.

When we advocate to government, we do our math first. We don’t go asking for funding unless we know what it costs, and what our funding strategy if (and what proportion we expect a senior government to fund, and even what funding tool we expect them to use). This is important finance work with a purpose, and I want staff doing that instead. In the end, Council agreed and decided it was not a good use of staff time to chase this rhetorical white rabbit.

We then had one Travel Request:

Strong Cities Network Sixth Global Summit: December 9-11, 2025
The City was invited to take part in this event in Toronto in a couple of weeks, and consistent with our new travel policy, Councillor Nakagawa put forward a request to attend. The cost to the City is minimal as there is a grant provided by Public Safety Canada for a Council representative. Council voted to approve this travel, and the local internet this week provided ample examples of why this work is important.

We finished up with Bylaws for Adoption:

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (102-128 East Eighth Avenue and 721 Cumberland Street) No. 8394, 2024
This Bylaw that facilitates the development of 55 new townhouse units across eight buildings in the upper edge of Sapperton not far from təməsew̓txʷ was adopted by Council. Missing middle, here they come!

Development Approval Procedures Bylaw No. 5658, 1987, Amendment Bylaw No. 8512, 2025
This Bylaw that updates how we approve development including new timelines and conditions for applicant submission was adopted by Council.

Council, November 3, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had a relatively short Council meeting, but one full of inspiration as we received two presentations from people doing great things in our community – one about a reconciliation initiative in City Hall and one about the great work a refreshed Tourism New West is doing to promote local businesses. You can watch the video here (though there were some early technical issues), because I am going to keep this report limited to the parts of the Agenda where Council made some decisions:

We started with one piece of Unfinished Business:

Rezoning and Special Development Permit Applications: 801 Columbia Street
This project proposal was discussed in Council last meeting, and after some discussion around Council, it was decided to defer the feedback to staff and the developer until staff had an ability to comment on some of the Council feedback.

There were some good parts of this application: a market rental building adjacent to a SkyTrain station with no residential parking is aligned with provincial and city goals for the next generation of transit oriented development, and preferable to an empty lot in the center of our downtown. However, it is a small lot (8,700 square feet is about the size of two regular single family home properties), and at 42 stories this would be the third tallest building in the city, resulting in by far the highest density lot in the City (FSR of 32.5). That small footprint mean fewer units (about 300) than some other rental buildings the City has approved, but it would still meet our family-friendly housing policy (at the time of application) with 30% two- and three bedroom units.

Feedback from Council centred around the ground expression of the building more than height or density, as is appropriate for a spot in the centre of a dense downtown adjacent to SkyTrain, including how access to the SkyTrain station would be secured, and some discussion of community-service uses the building. But there was some serious concern related to the buildability of the project. So Council sent a list of expectation to the developer, and they can determine if there is a viable project of this scale for the site.

We then moved the following items on Consent:

Amenity Cost Charges and Other Reserve Funds Establishment Bylaws and Development Cost Charges Reserve Funds Amendment Bylaw
Back in August, Council gave three readings to an updated Bylaw that changes how Development Cost Charges (the money we get from new developments to pay for infrastructure required to support that development, like sewers, water, transportation and parks space) and Amenity Cost Charges (the money we collect to pay for expanded amenities like recreation centers and libraries) are collected in the City. The regulations around DCCs and ACCs require us to set up specific Reserve Funds to put the money collected, and to draw from when that infrastructure is built in order to keep the process transparent and accountable. The various Bylaw changes here fold up the old reserve funds related to the previous DCC model, and transfer the value to the new DCC funds, along with establishing an ACC fund.

Application Review Framework for Instream Development Applications
With last year’s “Bill 46”, the province changed the rules about how Cities can collect community amenity benefits from new developments, replacing the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) and Voluntary Amenity Contribution (VAC) model with a more transparent and accountable (but bureaucratic) ACC model, and Cities are required to update their Bylaws and shift to the new model by June 30, 2026. However, there are no instructions from the Province on how to address any applications that are “in stream” – or part way through the review process on that transition date, when the old model is no longer legally permissible, but there has been a lot of work done by the city and developer –sometimes years of work – based on that old model, and intruding the new model may crash the project completely, because it is not what the project financing we built on.

Staff have developed a transparent, principled, and accountable model for managing instream applications that tried to keep everyone whole as best as possible, while also not resulting in the City getting left holding the (monetary) bag because of provincial regulatory changes. Developments will have the opportunity to “fast track” earlier approvals, even if they are incomplete, to get in on the previous funding model, but will do so with a pretty strict covenant agreeing to meeting City requirements that the “fast tracking” did not provide time to address. Or developments can withdraw and re-apply under the new funding model. To meet what is a legislated timeline by the province, the City have created a process timeline for developments, meaning that both the developer and the city will need to commit to meeting these “stage gates” for a project to move forward.

It is a bit complicated here, but short version is we are trying to find a principled way to get through this uncomfortable transition at a time when the building market is facing serious headwinds, but we also have a fiscal responsibility to the community at large that we need to assure is protected through this process.

Development Approvals Procedures Bylaw No. 5658, 1987 Amendment Bylaw No. 8512, 2025 for Consideration of Three Readings
This Bylaw relates to the one above, and essentially lays out the procedures for receiving and reviewing development applications, what applications must contain, where authority is delegated, and timelines for applications and review. This amendment makes some language changes that are mostly bookkeeping (the name of the delegated authority’s position has changed, for example), but also includes some stricter provisions around application revisions and clarity around expected timelines for application requirements to be met.

Response to Council Motion Regarding the Riverfront Vision Update
The idea of connecting Pier Park to Sapperton landing park with a safe separate Multi-use Path has been in the books for a while, and besides some technical hurdles that will require some creative engineering to address, there have been some jurisdictional challenges between the Pattullo Bridge replacement project, private lands, the Port and Railways, and the recognition of the importance of this site for host first nations.

But with the Pattullo project wrapping soon, and some other advances, it is timely for us to talk to the Port and the Ministry of Transportation around their temporary pier infrastructure for those projects, and potential synergies. This part of the review of the 2016 Riverfront Vision, and in response to the recent motion from Councillor Campbell.

We then addressed these items Removed form Consent for discussion:

Proposed 2026 Council Meeting Schedule & Appointment of Acting Mayors 332
We have to approve a Council schedule for next year, including our standard every-second-Monday (except holidays) Council meetings, and now more common alternate-Monday workshops. It is worth noting that the time we spend meeting has increased remarkably this Council term, in part because we have chosen to include all Council in a lot of discussion that would have been dealt with in subcommittees or task forces in previous terms. This does reflect a notable increase in work load for most of Council, but I think that will be something for the next Council to discuss, as this hyper-engaged Council seems to like the work load/engagement balance we are at right now.

We are also re-upping the Acting Mayor rotation for next year. There were some concerns raised about the politicization of the Acting Mayor role, another very weird activity this year which is, ultimately, slightly comical self-aggrandizing I don’t see happening in any other municipality where the role is rotated to all members like in New West.

In the end, Council agreed to defer the schedule discussion until next meeting in the hopes Councillor Fontaine can attend and raise any concerns with the schedule.

Short-Term Approach for Closing Priority Gaps in the Pedestrian Network in Queensborough
The city has been talking to the Queesnborough community about prioritizing sidewalk and other pedestrian improvements after a workshop late last year where Council committed to some investments here. These are largely the low-lying areas of Q’Boro where there is still a lot of open drainage network to deal with flood risk.

Several identified priority routes are already scheduled for paving in the next year, so pedestrian improvements will come along with that paving, and three more (Dawe, Campbell and Salter) were discussed with the community as extra treatments are proposed for “Quick win” improvements – using light and relatively cheap materials to separate modes and make walking more comfortable. The pop-up events in Q’Boro and a Be Heard survey turned very positive responses for two of the streets, and mixed response on the Dawe Street design (so it will be deferred for now). Further parking restrictions are being considered on Sprice Street, as parking on both sides of the road have impacted fire access.

We then had some new items referred From Committee:

Addition of Massey Victory Heights Streetlights to Heritage Register
The Community Heritage Commission recommends that the existing streetlights in Massey Victory Heights be added to the Heritage Register. It’s been a while since something like this has been added to the register, and as they are engineering assets that have a public safety component, it was prudent that Council referred this back to staff to understand the engineering and financial implications.

Community Heritage Commission Mandate and Scope of Authority
The Community Heritage Commission also recommended some pretty substantial changes to their Terms of Reference. It’s a bit of a strangely-worded recommendations (the “scope of authority” of the CHC is defined by the Local Government Act, not Council) and there is some pretty challenging overreach here if the recommendation was to be read literally (Asking a small group of volunteers to review and approve every proposed change to any streetscape in the City would significantly impair our ability to do the basics of running a city), but the TOR for the CHC is showing its age. With recent provincial legislative changes for housing resulting in OCP updates, the introduction of the Heritage

Input from School District No. 40 on New Development Applications Recommendation
There is a Joint Working Group where members of the Board of Education and City Council discuss issues of common interest, which right now is mostly about new school locations. These conversations often overlap with new development planning in the community, and currently it is the OCP stage where the School District has formal input in to longer-term City panning, there is a desire to formalize some discussion around larger developments in the City as opposed to the somewhat ad hoc process in place now. Staff will work to develop some protocols here.

And we had a couple of Motions from Council:

Public Post Service
Submitted by Councillor McEvoy

WHERAS the Federal Government, in the midst of a labour dispute, has announced drastic cuts to our treasured public post office – eliminating good jobs, ending door-to-door delivery, removing the moratorium protection on post office closures, and changes to delivery standards for the mail; and
WHEREAS the Federal Government has done this without meaningful public consultation and has made this decision unilaterally prior to a planned Canada Post Corporation Review from October 1, 2025 to March 31, 2026, effectively eliminating any opportunity for input from the people who will be most affected; and
WHEREAS New Westminster and all local governments rely on affordable and reliable public post services to connect important information to their community, and our ability to communicate would be significantly harmed and local property taxpayers unfairly burdened if these drastic cuts to the nation’s public postal service are implemented; and
WHEREAS it is crucial for the Government to hear the views from municipalities on key issues, including maintaining Canada Post as a public service, the importance of maintaining the moratorium on post office closures, improving the Canadian Postal Service Charter, keeping daily home mail and parcel delivery to the door, and opportunities and challenges related to modernizing the public postal service such as postal banking, greening Canada Post, adding EV charging stations, adding food delivery, improving delivery to rural, remote and Indigenous communities, and developing services to assist people with disabilities to help older Canadians to remain in their homes for as long as possible and at the same time, helping to ensure that good jobs stay in their communities and that Canada Post can remain financially self-sustaining;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Council authorize the Mayor to write the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement, Joël Lightbound, and Member of Parliament Jake Sawatsky requesting that the federal government:
a. immediately halt planned service cuts, and to look instead for ways to increase services and revenues in other areas, such as those noted above;
b. suspend any mandate review until Canada Post returns to stabilized operations, and;
c. that any review of Canada Post and the Canadian Postal Service Charter must be done through a full and thorough transparent public review, including public hearings, with all key stakeholders, in every region of Canada.

There is currently a debate about the future of postal services in Canada, while CUPW members continue job action to address wage and job security concerns. The Neo-Liberal government is telling us that Canada Post is “losing money”, which is weird way to talk about a public service, but consistent with the defunding of public service narrative. In the meantime, a City like New Westminster relies on a public postal service to connect to community, and if it fails there will no doubt be significant increases in our cost and your property taxes will go up. In that sense, defunding the postal service is a version of cost downloading to local government. So we are sending our advocacy to the Federal Government.

Progress Reports on Truth and Reconciliation
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster has previously supported UNDRIP, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, Claiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and supporting Truth before Reconciliation,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that staff report to Council on a biannual basis on progress towards achieving the municipal actions outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, and Claiming Power and Place: The Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls reports.

There is a lot of work happening in the City in the reconciliation file including the more visible work (place name policies, engaging indigenous artists for public art, etc.) and a lot of work less visible to the general public, as it is happening in City Hall and in relationship building. That said, the framework we put forward was framed around Calls to Action and recommendations of the MMIWG reports, and it would be good to have regular reporting of progress on these items.

Finally, we finished up the evening with these Bylaws for Adoption:

Business Licence Bylaw No. 8473, 2024, Amendment Bylaw No. 8537, 2025
Mobile Food Vending Licence Bylaw No. 7850, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8538, 2025
These two Bylaws Amendments that move fee schedules from the respective Bylaws to the new Community Services Fees and Charges Bylaw to reflect them being housed in the new Community Services department were approved by Council.