Another Monday night special edition! Our Council meeting was a fairly quick one, with significantly more time spent on Public Delegations than the business of the City. The Agenda was actually quite short, but it doesn’t mean it wasn’t consequential. We started by approving the following items On Consent:

Appointment of Financial Officer
We have a new Chief Financial Officer starting, and as this is one of those “officer” jobs that has defined duties under the Community Charter, and though they are hired by the CAO, they must be appointed to those specific duties by Council. This is that motion to do so.

Extension of Programs to Serve Isolated Seniors Funded by the United Way
The City has successfully applied for grant funding from the Untied Way to support three programs to help older adults in the community stay healthy and connected. This follows on the successful application last year that resulted in $245,000 being invested locally for Social Meals at community centers, Seniors Community Connectors, and Volunteer Coordinator programs in the City. The new funding ($470,000) will support continuation of these programs for two more years. This is good news for seniors in need in our community.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2026 Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8576, 2026
Section 165 of the Community Charter, requires municipalities to adopt the Financial Plan Bylaw (Which we did on February 23), and Section 197 of the Community Charter requires municipalities to adopt the Tax Rate Bylaw before May 15th of each year. After 6 months of meetings on the Budget – more than a dozen open Council meetings and workshops (the most transparent budgeting process of any local government in BC), we need to set the tax rates based on the change of property values presented by the BC Assessment Authority. This is a motion that falls under the category of “Fiduciary Duties”, so voting against this after 6 months of having no creative solutions to make this result different is an example of performative politics, not leadership.

Many people still don’t understand how the amount of property tax they pay relates to their property value. Though taxes are based on property value, the amount you pay depends on your property value relative to the other properties in the city. This year assessments City-wide went down a bit (3.1%), though your personal experience may vary. Here is a post I wrote about this a few years ago, the numbers are different this year, but the process is the same.

Procedural Information – Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Amendment Bylaw No. 8556
Back in March, we passed first three readings of our new Business Licence Bylaw amendments to regulate maximum temperatures in rental apartments. As part of the process of moving to adoption of those bylaws, we consulted with the Medical Health Officer at Fraser Health on the specific language of the Bylaw (we had consulted with Public Health and received endorsement of the bylaw as a concept earlier, this is more a specific language check it). The recommendation is to expand the Bylaw somewhat to be in effect for an extra month, and some minor language changes that don’t impact the Bylaw in operation. We are making those changes (which requires rescinding earlier readings and moving reading of the amended bylaw). There were some further recommendations that would require somewhat more work to adopt, so Council moved to refer these recommendations back to staff to consider the implications prior to Council considering adding them to the Bylaw.

Update to the 2026 General Local Elections Plan
Our New Elections Officer is making some recommendations on how to change how the election operates in the fall. With more advance polling opportunities, they are recommending reducing the number of locations on election day to13, and re-allocating staff to the remaining 13 to make it more efficient. Council didn’t think this was a good look, or at least didn’t have the data to support reducing the number of stations, so voted to keep the number as is.

And we had one item of New Business:

Rezoning Application: 140 Sixth Street (Royal Towers) – Amenity Framework
The Royal Towers is a long-standing project of concern in the City, a building that is past its useful life, falling apart as we watch, but is also providing (unsecured) affordable rental housing to more than 100 people. I mean unsecured, because there is no guarantee that those units will remain rented, and their rents are not controlled, but because of the nature and age of the building, they represent the lower end of market rents in the City. There is a desire to replace the aging Royal Towers with new buildings, but we also do not want to displace the people living in them and add to the homelessness crisis.

Here is the deal the owner of the property is trying to make work: Build a new building where the parkade currently sits and secure this as non-market affordable housing. Allow the people living in the current building first right of refusal on that new affordable housing at below-market rates similar to what they currently pay. No-one gets made homeless. Also build a second building to the west of similar sizer and scale that is purpose-built but market rental. Then knock down the old Towers building and build market condos with a couple of floors of commercial (retail/office at grade to pay for it all. The City get housing, the current residents are protected. Win-win.

A small problem is that the changes the Province instituted in how Cities negotiate amenities mean this project simply cannot move forward after June 30th. We need to approve that by then before the new rules kick in, or the City is required to collect ACC charges, the financial benefit that funds the affordable housing component goes away, and to put a finer point on it our ability as a City to demand the relocation of affordable housing goes away. Bill 46 folks.

Staff have been working with the owner of the property to save this project, and in this report we set out the amenity conditions that will define the deal between the owner and the City that Council will need to consider before June 30th. This is not final approval of the project; there is a *lot* more to the rezoning application than just this amenity deal (use of commercial space, DCC charges, design and density, etc.) but putting the amenity deal down on paper allows the owner and city staff to agree on a set of economic fundamentals that will make the project viable or not, and to inform the Bylaws Council will eventually have to approve or not.