We had quite an eventful Council Meeting this week, and I’d suggest you make sure you read to the end, but we didn’t get to the end, so surprise there: It will all make less sense when you get there, and you can draw your own conclusions. Nonetheless, the agenda was a full one, starting with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Inter-municipal TNS (Ride-Hailing) Business Licence Scheme Bylaw No. 8391, 2023
The City of New Westminster has an agreement with many other municipalities to share the business licensing of ride-hailing services. Essentially, the companies buy a license in Vancouver that applies to all municipalities, and we split the revenue. This change to that scheme would bring Mission, Kent and Hope into the fold. This change requires an Opportunity to be Heard. We received no written correspondence, and no-one came to speak to the change at Council. Council voted to approve the change.

---

We then had a Report for Action:

Rezoning Application for Conversion to Supportive Housing: 422 Sixth Street
This is a building in the Brow of the Hill that has operated as an office building, but is already zoned mixed use (it can have residential and office use above the commercial at grade). The owner wants to operate it as supportive affordable housing on the top two floors and continue to operate an office on the ground floor. This is compliant with the OCP and zoning, except the zoning language does not include “supportive” housing, so this is the rezoning request to add that language. This came to Council as a detailed report on the nature of that rezoning, with staff asking for anything we want added ot the empowering Bylaws, so we can consider approval at a future meeting. There was also a request to waive the Public Hearing, as the project is compliant with our OCP and stated City priorities.

We had some delegates speak for and against this project, and unfortunately, incorrect information circulating in the neighbourhood about the project appears to have taken a foothold. There was a lot of conflation between this type of supportive housing and emergency shelter, which demonstrated the need for us to have a public meeting and do further outreach about the truth of the project.

Council voted to approve the bylaws being prepared and the project to come to a future Council meeting for a vote on approval or rejection. In a move I do not remember seeing in my 8+ years on New West Council, we had council members voting against even considering bylaws on an affordable and supportive housing project. The same members voted against an amendment to have a public meeting about the project so the community can more clearly understand the project and Council can hear from the public in a constructive dialogue. Fortunately, the majority of Council voted for consultation, and will consider the approval after that consultation.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent

Rezoning Application: 805 Boyd Street (Queensborough Landing) – Preliminary Report
The Queensborough Landing commercial area wants to expand its offerings and are requesting expanding the permitted land uses on the site to include breweries, wineries, arcades, commercial schools, and more. They are all pretty typical of this type of “highway commercial” areas, and are not likely to conflict with other land use on the site.

This is a preliminary report, as this application will go to internal review and public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP, we will waive the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know.

Rezoning Application for Duplex: 902 First St – Preliminary Report
The owner of this property in Glenbrook North wants to build a duplex where there is now a single family home, which is consistent with the OCP, and no variances from the Interim Policy (based on RT-1), but needs a rezoning. This is a preliminary report, and will go to some public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP, we will waive the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know!

Street and Traffic Bylaw Amendments for Three Readings – Bylaw 8397, 2023
This is a bit of a housekeeping change to the Streets and Traffic Bylaw, updating some of the language to match the new Active Transportation Network Plan, remover reference to insurance expiry date stickers as they don’t exist anymore, and other minor updates.

Sustainable Transportation Zoning Bylaw Amendments –Transportation Demand Management and Right-Sizing Parking
This is a zoning amendment bylaw to update our requirements for off-street parking in new multi-family development. This is part of a longer process we have been undergoing to modernize our off-street parking requirements, as part of our ongoing and constant review of Policies, Procedures, and Processes to assure they are current and appropriate. This part seeks to better balance the modern (and reduced) need for parking with the (increasing) cost of building and our other climate and livability goals (which both require less dependency on cars).

The change in requirements is based on analysis of vehicle ownership trends in New West and in our cohort communities, and through benchmark comparisons with other Metro Van jurisdictions, and through consultation with the development industry.

In short, the proposal reduces the number of parking spots that need to be built in in secured rental, in the Downtown neighbourhood, and in areas with high transit service, along with requiring better end-of-trip facilities for other modes (Bicycle storage rooms in residential, other facilities in Commercial). We are also removing the part of the bylaw that limits reductions in parking spaces – if a development can make the case for any level of reduction, we will hear that case instead of there being an arbitrary minimum. This opens the door a bit more for parking-free developments in the City.

Or more this is a preliminary report on a proposed change that will, again, go to public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP, we will waive the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know!

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Extension of Committee Member Terms
As we look to implement new model for Advisory Committees, including an Advisory Assembly model, staff are outlining the time that will be required to get us there, and we need to set up a schedule for the existing Advisory Committees and Grant Committees so we don’t have a gap in functionality.

Liquor Primary Patio Application (Thirsty Duck Pub) for 606 Twelfth Street
The Thirsty Duck has been operating a seasonal outdoor patio since COVID led to a shift in regulation of patios. They have not caused any problems, or generated any complaints, and the Duck now wants ot make this patio a permanent feature. So Council needs to approve and needs to send a resolution to the LCRB to assure them we are fine with the liquor license operating in this way. So we are doing both.

New Westminster Rent Bank Funding Request
The Rent Bank is a program that started in 2017 in New West, and is now funded primarily by the Province (an example of uploading?) and is operational in many municipalities across BC after New West set the example. It is an emergency short-term interest-free loan program to help people who get into Rent or Utility arrears such that they run the risk of being evicted and made homeless. This is proactive avoidance of homelessness. It is also a contact point for community-based programming for people who are precariously housed, including credit counselling and food security and health care services.

This program is a partnership, and the City has been contributing $35,000 per year to cover a portion of the administrative cost, which allows the Rent Bank to operate 5 days a week. This report is asking the city to continue this commitment for three more years, and was supported by Council.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit: 808 Royal Avenue (Douglas College) – Preliminary Report
Douglas College wants to build a new building on the empty lots across 8th Street from their New West Campus. The plan is to have a 20-storey building with 244 student housing units and academic spaces on the lower floors. This is consistent with the OCP and the Downtown Community Plan, but the site needs a rezoning.

This is a preliminary report outlining the plan, and the project will need internal review and public consultation, but as it is consistent with the OCP and meets City Priorities, we will be waiving the Public Hearing. If you have opinions, let us know.

Welcome Centre Update and Funding Request
The Welcome Centre at NWSS is a partnership between the City, the School District, and service organizations supporting newcomers and their families. The City funds a “navigator” position to work in the centre and direct clients toward services they may require. We have applied to IIRC (the federal government) to help fund this position, as we are somewhat making up for gaps in the immigration systems that make it hard for recent arrivals to access these types of services, however we were not successful in getting the position funded for 2024. We will re-apply for 2025-2026, but need to commit to the position beforehand, which Council did.

Correspondence: Metro Vancouver letter dated May 16, 2023 regarding Land Use Designation Amendment to Metro 2050 Township of Langley – Gloucester Industrial Park
This is an application before Metro Vancouver to have 14.6 acres moved from Agricultural use outside the urban containment boundary to turn it to industrial land. This is adjacent to the Gloucester Industrial Park, but the land was previously (until recently) protected by the ALR. This change of the Urban Containment Boundary requires an amendment to our regional plan, which requires support of 50%+1 through a weighted vote at Metro Vancouver Board to be approved. This correspondence is our notice that we have until July 4, 2023 to the Board (as do members of the public and affected stakeholders).

Council moved the following resolution in response:
“ Council write a letter to Metro Board expressing concerns about erosion of the Urban Containment Boundary, citing its vital role in maintaining a stable, long-term footprint for urban development while reinforcing the protection of agricultural, conservation and rural lands for ecological and climate values. Sprawl of developed land outside of the UCB, whether for residential or commercial purposes, increases the cost of servicing these lands, undermines our regional transportation goals, and challenges our regional sustainable growth goals”

---

We then Read some Bylaws including the following Bylaw for Adoption:

Inter-municipal TNS Business Licence Agreement Bylaw No. 8393, 2023
As discussed above, this bylaw that expands the agreement among participating municipalities regarding an Inter-municipal Transportation Network Services (i.e. Ride-Hailing) Business License program was Adopted by Council. It’s the law of the land now, if the other 30 Municipalities agree.

---

Then on to everyone’s favourite section of the evening, Motions from Council:

2024 Police Budget
Councillor Nakagawa

Be it resolved that New Westminster City Council writes to the Police Board requesting to engage in collaborative dialogue about the 2024 Police Budget on an ongoing basis beginning in spring 2023.

City Council is required by law to approve a police budget, but we are not deeply involved in the creation of that police budget (though it represents the largest single departmental budget in the City). That is the work of the Police Board, along with setting the policy of the Police department. Under the Police Act, the Police Board is struck to specifically keep City Council (and therefore politics) separate from police operations, but the relationship over the budget is a bit more nuanced.

The idea that the Police Board and the City Council should have a collaborative dialogue about the budget during its development seems common sense. That said, it is up to the Police board to determine the budget development process that works for them, so this is an invitation from Council, and it will be up to the Police Board to decide what to do it. Council approved this request, and we will see where it goes.

I do note that the Police Act creates this weird situation where I, as the elected Mayor, am the spokesperson for both Council and the Police Board, so I should clarify here my comments are as Mayor and chair of City Council (though, of course not official City Communications, as this is my blog, not a city website), and not as Chair of the Police Board. Maybe I’ll blog out later how the Police Board reacts, but in the meantime, no-one is more aware than I of the weirdness of my conflicted position, and the role of Provincial Legislation in creating this conflict, and the challenges of doing this kind of open and transparent discussion with residents while I am doing these two jobs. Government just isn’t set up for this kind of direct and informal communications, but here we are.

Establishing a new Planning Policies, Procedures and Processes Working Group
Councillor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED that Council establish a Planning Policies, Procedures and Processes Working Group; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that once established and members of the Working Group are appointed, it be provided with up to 120 days to prepare a report to Council which includes recommendations regarding possible revisions, updates or the elimination of any unnecessary, outdated, costly or ineffective planning by-laws, policies, procedures and processes;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council appoint two city councillors to co-chair the Working Group and that they develop the terms of reference, and prepare a budget (if required) for approval by Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the co-chairs will recommend to Council the overall composition of the Working Group; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all efforts should be made by the Working Group to utilize external resources as a means of limiting staff time required to support this initiative; and
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED the representatives of the Working Group will represent the diversity of our community and that the consultation they undertake will be done so in an equitable manner

I was challenged with this set of recommendations, and was happy Council did not support this motion. It seemed to want to duplicate processes that are already going on in the City by adding a layer of bureaucracy, and appears to me to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what those processes are, which is disappointing after the work we did to onboard Council.

For example, earlier this meeting we had the item called “Sustainable Transportation Zoning Bylaw Amendments” which was part of exactly this – an updating of significant planning policies and procedures that came from staff continued effort to update and streamline policies, procedures and policies. We also recently approved a budget that included specific line items that addressed exactly this, from the update to the infill housing guidelines and new draft development permit guidelines and the new duplex/triples application approval process, to our planned “one stop shopping” eGov services program and transition to digital submissions of permit applications for review, inspections and approvals including digitization technology and resources. The conceit of this motion is that a couple of Councillors will direct this continuous improvement better than the professional staff doing this every day.

We have a process to (for example) continually review and update our zoning bylaw and processes that underlie it, including the recent changes that have provided more flexibility to waive Public Hearings and to fast-track affordable housing projects in the City where there are senior government funds on the table (something the mover of this motion seemed to express concern with in earlier conversation in this very meeting).

The point it, this work needs to be (and is) directed toward identified process problems or delays and are prioritized based on our Housing Needs Assessments. If, as this motion suggests, there are “concerns expressed about processes, procedures and policies”, then let’s have a conversation about those items. But the solution is not and un-costed and unclear fishing expedition led by a new layer of bureaucracy to add to the work load of staff already engaged in this work, especially as we are resource challenged right now.

Supporting the victims of random and violent crimes in New Westminster
Councillor Minhas

BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor, on behalf of Council, write to the Federal Minister of Justice, the Premier of British Columbia and the BC’s Solicitor General requesting that every effort be made to reform our ‘catch and release’ justice system which is facilitating repeat and prolific offenders being allowed to roam New Westminster’s streets; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council endorse a request made in February 2023 by the Business Improvement Areas of BC to establish a new provincially funded program which supports initiatives aimed at curtailing the impacts of vandalism and property crime; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council request an urgent meeting with the New Westminster Police Board to develop a joint strategy and determine what additional initiatives can be immediately implemented to ensure our streets remain safe from further violent crime.

As these three measures appeared quite disconnected, it was moved to sever into three separate motions.

On the first resolution, there was some concern expressed by council about the suggestion that the Mayor should send opposition party speaking points (both Provincial and Federal) to the governments, as this did not seem conducive to a clear outcome, bereft of context or a clear ask.

I felt the need to point out that the recent announcement by the provincial government around the creation of the Hub model in communities including New Westminster, where police, dedicated prosecutors and probation officers are working together as part of the Repeat Violent Offending Intervention Initiative, demonstrates that the province is already taking this issue seriously and are taking new an innovative approaches to that issue. Further, the introduction of Bill C-48 represents as similar refocusing on the issue by the Federal government, focusing on bail reform in a way that keeps violent offenders of the street in a way that would survive a charter challenge.

Of course, I believe that everyone has the right to feel safe in our community, and the mutli-faceted approach that target the root causes of these types of crimes while assuring the justice system has the tools it needs to protect the public from those few who commit the most atrocious violence in our communities is the right approach. I support the work the provincial and federal governments are doing now, and am not convinced my sending them opposition speaking points now is going to make any material difference. Council did not support this resolution.

On the second resolution debate was cut short because the meeting hit 10:30pm, and our Procedure Bylaw requires 2/3 of the Council to vote to extend beyond 10:30. Much to my surprise, the member who brought this resolution, and the member who brought the following resolution on the agenda voted to NOT extend debate on their own resolutions, and instead wanted the meeting to adjourn. I can’t explain that.

So we wrapped at 10:30 with a bit of an abrupt ending to the meeting. The unaddressed issues will come back (presumably) at the next meeting, though there is a time sensitive item later in the agenda that will likely require an emergency meeting. So stay tuned!

Our Council meeting this week started with a Public Hearing, as is pretty typical for last-meeting-of-the-month. But that wasn’t the only item on the agenda, so join me on a journey.

Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 8374, 2023 and Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 8375, 2023 for 102/104 Eighth Avenue and 728 First Street
This project would see 10 townhouses built in two buildings where there is currently a single family house and a duplex in Glenbrook North. The overall FSR would be 1.03 (0.87 above grade) and all units would be three-bedroom family-friendly (1,700 -1,800 sq ft) with a single parking spot which meets the parking requirement for this type of development. The project would exceed energy efficiency required by the BC Energy Step Code, achieving Step 4.

This requires not just a rezoning (from RS-1 single family residential to RT townhouse) but an amendment to the Official Community Plan to change the land use from RD (single family detached and duplex) to RGO (Ground-Oriented Infill Housing). This designation was considered as part of the OCP update 6 years ago now, but Council in its wisdom chose to not designate the entire block, and instead to allow piecemeal applications if they come up.

Since 2021, this project has gone through the Land Use Planning Committee (which led to minor modifications), the Advisory Planning Commission (supported) and Design Panel (supported), and there was consultation with First Nations and the School District (as required for an OCP amendment). There was also active and passive public consultation, including virtual open house and communications through the Glenbrook North Residents’ Association. Most of the feedback was positive, noting the lack of family-friendly townhouse building form in this part of New West, with the main concerns being lack of parking (natch), the desire for more affordability, and infrastructure not keeping up with growth.

We had two pieces of correspondence and about a half dozen delegates speak to council, including the proponent. We heard opposition to any change to the OCP, and we heard some concerns about parking, rodent control and construction impacts, which were directed to staff.

Overall, I am in support of this kind of infill missing middle housing, as it fills an important gap in our housing supply – family-sized ground oriented units in a high-service neighbourhood so close to schools, shops, parks, and everything families need. This is the kind of infill housing I hear residents in New West asking for more of.

Council voted in favour of the application, and in the Council meeting to follow, gave the Bylaws three readings.

---

Following some announcements and proclamations, we go our first Report for discussion:

Train Whistle Cessation – Update
Staff have started a practice of making quarterly reports on train whistle cessation. They are attached as information reports on the end of Council Agenda (as there is no decision for council to make, we are just being informed), but as with all information reports, a Councilor may ask to have them raised to the next council meeting for discussion. This one was raised from April 3. Most of the information here is also freely available on the City’s public website about Whistle Cessation.

The new part here is the renewed activity in the Rail Technical Working Group, and a few more details about timelines for the rail crossings where we are currently working on cessation and clarity about the funding sources for that work.

There is also a notion in here worth calling attention to. There has been political conversation about the desire to end “unnecessary whistling” in the community. This report takes the time to point out that “unnecessary whistling” is already illegal by federal law, and there have been no reports of “unnecessary whistling” being a problem in the City. The whistling we hear is a regulatory requirement, and it is that regulatory requirement we are trying to address.

---

We then approved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Exemption: 651 Carnarvon Street – Signia Construction Ltd.
The Provincial Court House is being renovated with new cladding and roofing, increasing its energy efficiency. Because of the nature of other operations, construction work during court hours is not preferred, so they need to do some of their work outside of court hours. This means evening and weekend work that exceeds our construction noise Bylaw, which is why they are asking for an exemption.

Recruitment 2023: Appointments to the Accessibility Advisory Committee
We have an Accessibility Advisory Committee, to which we appoint people. Here is one of those appointments.

Salmonbellies Municipally Significant LCRB Resolution
There is a quirk in the LCRB rules about how you sell beer at a beer garden involving their fixed prices and sizes of containers and such where, in rare occasion, an event can get around some of the rigidity by the City deeming the event “Municipally Significant”. I’m not sure we have ever done this before, but if hosting the Most Famous Team in Lacrosse*, 24-time Mann Cup winners over a proud 130+ year history isn’t “Municipally Significant” for New Westminster, I don’t know what is. So in deeming them so, they have some new partnership opportunities that are theirs to announce not mine. Or, you know, check my Instagram.

---

We then had the following items Removed from Consent for discussion:

2023 Tax Rates Bylaw No 8395, 2023
With the budget Bylaw prepared last meeting, staff can now set the Tax Rates to recover the required $102 Million in property taxes from the roughly $30 Billion of assessed real estate value in the City.

There are also reminders here that homeowners need to apply to the Provincial Government for the $570 grant to help offset property taxes, $845 if you are over 65. Also, anyone over the age of 55 can defer 100% of their property taxes, which means the Province will pay them for you, and you pay them back at some point in the future (presumably when you sell the property, but that’s up to you). The current interest rate for deferral is 4.45% simple interest.

So doing the math on this, if you are a 65 year old living in a house assessed at $1 Million, your Municipal taxes will be $2,500. Less Homeowner grant, that is $1155. If you defer your taxes, it will cost you about $51 in interest per year until you (or your heirs) decide to sell the house. As this interest is applied against your house, it is important to note that the value of the typical $1 Million house in New West went up 11% last year, or about $110,000. So for less than 0.05% of the amount the typical house value goes up every year, you could never pay property taxes again. Just saying.

City Hall Community Art Exhibition Program
This is the result of a Motion from former Councillor Mary Trentadue, and some work staff have been doing with partners in the Community since. The walls in the area outside Council chambers are kind of dull, and looked pretty uninviting. The thought was, as we are trying to invite more people into City Hall, it would be an opportunity to liven the space up while providing more space for local and regional artists to display their work. Staff coordinated with the Arts Advisory Committee and Arts Council of New Westminster to use these spaces to let folks know what works are happening at the other Arts Council locations.

City Hall is old historic, so we need to do a Hazardous Building Materials survey and install some appropriate hardware, but we should see Art in City Hall soon! Arts adds to conversations, it leads to deeper thinking, it fills our souls and gives us inspiration, and all of those things should happen in the entrance to Council Chambers.

Economic Impact Model Scope of Work
The idea here is that staff want to put together a new economic analysis tool. This way existing programs (in this case, the Anvil Centre, but it could be applicable to the Library, to the Queens Park Arena or Pier Park) could be evaluated for their impact on the local economy. The idea is that it could inform future civic initiatives.

I like the idea of an economic Input-output model, but I wonder about its usefulness as a decision-making tool unless it incorporates more than economic factors. We are not a business, we are a local government, and the economic lens can act like blinders limiting our analysis of social impacts of our work, of climate and environmental impacts, of cultural and community connection impacts, of health and happiness impacts. Little of what we do in the City serves only an economic goal. We could also get into a deeper discussion about the role of a Local Government in driving Fiscal Policy in a Monetary Policy epoch, but that way leads to rabbit holes.

Anyway, it is a small relative cost, and I do generally like staff to have good data to help guide our decision-making, so I am comfortable with Economic Development staff being given time and budget to do this work. However, like any tool, it is more important that we be judicious in its application.

Queen’s Park Farm Master Plan Adoption
This has been discussed a few times now in council and workshop, and this final report and ask for endorsement of the plan comes after a year-long two-phase community engagement and iterative design process. The results of that are a model to replace the old “petting zoo” with a new set of program elements and activity spaces for all ages. The theme is “habitat + grow” – a mix of learning and experience spaces around forest habitats and around the sources of our food. This will be a new jewel in the Queens Park space, and I am really proud of the work staff and the design team did in bringing a diverse set of elements together.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit (810 Agnes Street and 815 821 Victoria Street) – Application Consideration
This project downtown has been in the planning process for a couple of years. It includes a space that was an informal community centre for the Chinese community in New West more than 100 years ago, which was gifted to the City about 50 years ago by the Chinese Benevolent Society. The plan is to develop part of the site (that currently has older warehouse type buildings on it) for a residential tower, and create an outdoor public park that honours the history of the site and its importance to the history of Chinese people in early New Westminster. This has been on the books for some time, so much of the public consultation and design of the park amenity space has already occurred.

The development itself has been shifted from what was originally going to be market condos to 350 Purpose Built Rental suites in a 33 story building. This project saw the Land Use and Planning Committee and a Preliminary Report to Council in early 2018, has been through public open houses and consultation before the pandemic and again in 2022. As the results of that consultation were positive, it is consistent with the OCP, provides a much needed form of housing (market rental adjacent to a SkyTrain Station) and a well understood public amenity package, is consistent with City’s stated policy direction for housing development, Council agreed to waive the Public Hearing and will consider giving the Rezoning three readings in an upcoming council meeting following circulation of notice in accordance with the Local Government Act..

---

We then adopted the following Bylaws:

Building Amendment Bylaw No. 8388, 2023
This Bylaw that amends our Building Bylaw to align with changes to the BC Building Code was adopted unanimously by council, because we all love alignment.

Five Year Financial Plan 2023 – 2027 Bylaw No 8392, 2023
This Bylaw that formalizes our Consolidated Financial Plan for 2023 through 2027 was adopted by Council. The Budget is in the books. Bring on 2024.

---

Then we had one final piece of New Business

2023 Summer Heat Response Update
This report set out the various initiatives that staff in the Emergency Management Office and other departments in the City (working with partners at Fraser Health and in the community) have put together to prepare for heat related events. It includes expanded accessible public spaces to cool off, outreach to building managers, seniors, people with disabilities through a new communications strategy, a program to rent air conditioners out on a means-tested basis, and outdoor misting stations, and more.

This is good, but I have asked for us to look at going a step further. I have discussed with several people from being on a panel at UBCM with Dr. Bonnie Henry to recent meetings with Fraser Health, and organizations in town that support vulnerable people and seniors the idea of us applying regulatory tools not dissimilar to our fire preparedness legislation to address heat emergency preparedness. As such, I asked that staff explore our ability to regulate a heat response plan requirement for all Multi-unit residential building in the City.

I don’t know if we have the tools we need, or if we need to advocate for them from the province, but with the scale of the deaths New West faced in the 2021 Heat Dome, I don’t want our connect and prepare response to be one driven by and relying on volunteers. We don’t let building operators volunteer to have sprinklers or fire alarms, nor do we rely on volunteers to assure these systems are operational. They are fundamental life safety measures, and we have learned now that a heat emergency plan is also a fundamental life saving measure.

This first request is just to help us understand what tools we may have, there will no doubt be deeper discussions after to determine the viability of applying those tools, this is just information gathering at this time.

---

And that was the week that was, I can’t believe it’s almost May. Go outside, enjoy some spring sun. Or go see a lavish musical. I’m going to do both!

I am so late putting this report out. The week was a short one, but very long, with a UBCM Housing Summit and Metro Vancouver meetings, but I finally have a chance to sit down and write this us up while watching Edin vs. Gushue 2. We had a relatively short agenda, starting with a Presentation:

Pattullo Bridge Replacement Project – Project Update
The Pattullo project team presented to Council for this first time in a year, with an update on their progress, and some news about upcoming road closures related to the construction. No surprise that there will be some road closures as they re-align the on- and off-ramps and put overpass spans over Front Street and Columbia. The closures of Columbia will only be at the Elliot end, but that impacts traffic patterns on the rest of the road, and temporary closures of parts of Royal and Front at different stages will mean lots of change coming over the next year. This diagram is a good indication of the timelines envisioned:

Council and the Pattullo team are aware of the construction weariness being felt be Downtown businesses and residents, and we are asking the Ministry of Transportation and the Pattullo Team to be very conscious of their outreach and transparency with the Downtown community. The re-alignment of truck routes during some of these closures is something the City is going to work with the Ministry to determine the path that best protects the livability of our community.

---

The following items were then removed from consent for discussion:

Building Amendment Bylaw No. 8388, 2023: BC Energy Step Code Alignment – Bylaw for Three Readings
The Province has changed the “Step Code”, which is the part of the provincial building code that regulates building efficiency and emissions. We are updating our Building Bylaw to align with this change.

New Westminster Secondary School (NWSS) Cycling Connector – Mitigation of Business Concerns
The Bike Lanes connecting the Crosstown Greenway to the new high school are not yet complete. Weather will determine when the final lane markings and signage work can be completed. There were some concerns raised by a few Uptown businesses when the lanes were being installed. Recognizing the impacts they were feeling were more likely related to construction than a completed street improvement, Council asked staff to report back on mitigation measures, in part to help with this project, and in part to inform the next time this type of change is implements, as forecast by Council’s adoption of the Active Transportation Network plan.

The resultant report is a good one, worth a read. In reaching out to other municipalities that have historically managed this type of change (Edmonton, Calgary, Portland, Burnaby, the City of North Vancouver, and others) the clear message was that the engagement process we undertook before the work began was “comprehensive… relative to what other municipalities have done in similar situations”, though there was some good advice on specific engagement approaches. This extra step of direct outreach during the construction phase is another example of this commitment.

---

We then read some Bylaws, including the following Bylaw for Adoption:

Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 8386, 2023
This Bylaw that amends the Bylaw to temporarily suspend Street Occupancy Permit fees for block parties was adopted by Council. Party on, Blocks.

---

We then had a few Motions from Council

Parks and Recreation registration process
Submitted by Councillor Henderson
BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct staff to explore opportunities to improve the equity and accessibility of the Parks and Recreation registration process and report back to Council with options to address the current challenges./i>
This issue arose from some concerns from parents around the challenge of getting registered for kids programs in the City. It has been likened to trying to get Taylor Swift concert tickets. And of course it is related to a very similar phenomenon: demand for great programs that far exceeds availability. The changes wrought by COVID are part of this, but there is also challenges with shifting to on-line registration. Not a couple of days after this motion was passed, there was a story on CBC radio about Surrey having very similar issues with the aquatics programs, so we aren’t alone here. Part of a region growing faster than services can keep pace.

The availability of programs (and cost related to expansion, including as təməsew̓txʷ comes on line next year) is another conversation we need to have in context of a budget discussion, but this motion is looking towards our equity programs to determine if there are structural inequities in how we do registration, and ways to address that, which is an important first step in alignment with our equity goals as a City.

Preserving, protecting and enhancing the Samson V museum for future generations
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back on the costs, potential sources of funding and operational impacts associated with temporarily placing the Samson V in dry dock to repair and restore the vessel for public viewing; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff report back on options to find a permanent indoor home for the Samson V adjacent to or on our waterfront as part of a possible pier expansion and/or long-term tourism strategy; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff consult with the Fraser River Discovery Center and other key stakeholders and report back regarding the opportunity and costs associated with undertaking a pilot program that would permit short-term pleasure craft usage at the moorage vacated by the Samson V
The Samson V is under repair. It is 90 years old, and is (notably) “the only completely intact and floating wooden sternwheeler in North America.” As discussed several times during Council onboarding, there is a maintenance plan to keep it so, fully costed in our Capital budget ($60K for maintenance and repair this year, $38K for dredging this year to keep it floating, $72 total over the following 4 years for maintenance and repair). The current roof repairs need to be performed in good weather, so boat wrap is being used to keep the rain and pigeons out until that is done. That said, there is nothing dire about it that regular maintenance can’t address. There is no pressing need to dry dock it, to buy or build a 6,500 square foot 5 story building in which to house it. Indeed, doing these things would take away one of the key heritage aspects of the museum, would cost millions of dollars, and likely add to the maintenance costs of the boat, as we would now need to maintain and operate a building. This is not a priority for me right now with so many things pressing for staff time and limited resources in the City right now. Council seems to agree with me, and did not support this motion.

Hearing from the communities regarding their priorities for the new Growing Communities Fund
Submitted by Councillor Minhas
BE IT RESOLVED that Council hold a special open meeting at City Hall at the earliest opportunity to obtain feedback from the public regarding what the priorities should be for the Growing Communities Funding; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff develop an online survey opportunity for the public to provide their feedback regarding what priority areas Council should consider as part of the Growing Communities Funding

Through discussion with Council, this motion was amended to the point of replacement with another motion that is further-reaching:

BE IT RESOLVED: that early in the 2024 budget process, Community Engagement staff lead a structured consultation including an online survey component with the goal to involve a representative sample of the community in determining priority areas for future Capital budget spending.
BE IT FUTRTHER REOLVED that no decision be made regarding allocation of the growing communities fun regarding the engagement consultation process.

The mindset of the original motion is one I felt the need to challenge, and that is of the Growing Communities Fund being money we need to spend like a lottery win, in that it represents a large amount of money in the scope of our Capital budget. $15.85 Million seems like a lot of money for capital investment, except that it is only 9% of the $173.2 Million 2023 Capital Budget coming forward for approval next week, and only 4% of our $410 Million 5-year capital plan.

Of course $16 Million is still a lot of money that must be spent wisely, and we need to be transparent about how it is spent. The point is we need to be transparent about how we spend all of our Capital Budget, not just this part. This is why Council expanded the discussion to expand public consultation for the next budget cycle to help us set priorities for our capital budget. In the broad scope of things, does the public want us to use this $16 Million to reduce the debt related to our current Capital Program? To bolster our reserves, recognizing the infrastructure deficit we are facing? Or do they want us to spend it on new capital items? If we want to spend it on new items, how do we prioritize what to add to the already extensive capital program?

The language of the motion introduced by Councilor Nakagawa was intentional – “Involve” is the level of consultation we are aiming towards on the IAP2 Spectrum, which is important as staff need to understand what type of consultation we are looking for. It is also important that the consultation be structured to consult a representative group of New Westminster, as we know many forms of consultation result in a skewed and often privileged view of public opinion. Questions around this were asked of the original mover, but I did not hear the member offer any answer.

I was not happy with the second clause of this motion, as it again reinforced the false perception that this was a “lottery win” and not a part of a more important broader discussion of the capital budget. Indeed, a Councilor clearly tried to reinforce this perception while arguing for the original motion with some incorrect ideas about how the capital budget is structured (which were corrected on the record by the Director of Finance). This is especially important as I have seen some members of council putting out videos and encouraging people to delegate to council with ideas that have already spent this money three times over (that is not a joke), but overall I am satisfied that we will have an opportunity for deeper public consultation leading to the next Capital budget.