Here is Part 2 of last week’s Council meeting (part 1 is here). Sorry it is so late, but we have a lot happening and I did want to take some time to write this up, as there was a significant amount of… rhetoric… created around these topics in the on-line chatter, and I wanted to take the time to unpack these topics a bit and put them in the context of a larger vision for the City. The Agenda is here with links to the many reports behind them, and you can also watch the video there to see some of the discussion around Council, as there was some disagreement and its worth hearing from people directly their motivations for their votes.

Remedial Action Requirement for 410 Columbia Street
The issue with empty lots downtown clouds the fact that there are actually few unleased properties downtown. If a property becomes vacant, it generally re-leases pretty quickly, and this reflects that New Westminster’s retail vacancy rate has been around 1% for a long time, much lower than key retail areas in Vancouver like Robson Street or Mount Pleasant, even though tough times for retail in general.

A notable exception downtown is the dilapidated building at Fourth and Columbia, adjacent to the entrance to Pier Park. It stand out in that it has not hosted an active business for a decade, and has not been fully leased for much longer than this. The building is not just an eyesore on the street, but several attempts by the City going back to 2007 to have the owners elicit required safety improvements have been fruitless. Despite a few cosmetic improvements on the outside, the building has degraded to the point where it represents a hazard to adjacent properties and an offence to the community. The City issued a warrant for inspection and hired third-party engineers to provide a report confirming the building is an immediate hazard, and we are ordering its immediate removal.

Getting to this point has required years of work, and countless attempts by the City to bring the owners here into compliance, and yet the owner still has some appeal opportunities. So this is a work in progress.

Rezoning: 140 Sixth Street (Royal Towers) – Zoning Amendment Bylaw for First and Second Reading
The Royal Towers has been a big and challenging project. The current building is approaching end of life, and the owners of the land want to redevelop. They have worked very closely with the City to address our non-demoviction policies and assure that the current residents are not made homeless through redevelopment. The owners have agreed to an innovative staging process where a non-market affordable housing building will be built first on the current parkade portions of the property, and current residents given first right to the secured non-market affordable housing prior to the demolition of the current building. A second phase of building will then see the old hotel demolished and market housing built on a commercial base.

There are a complex set of legal agreements to be set up here, and with the desire to get started on the non-market housing ASAP (the existing building is increasingly difficult to maintain), but everyone wants to get this trough initial readings prior to the change in how our DCC / ACC / Density Bonus policies operate on June 30th as a result of Provincial Housing Regulation changes.

This is a major project, on a large piece of property and a prominent location in the community. It is currently designated High Rise in our Official Community Plan, but it would need a rezoning due to an increase in density required to finance the affordable and market rental aspects of the project. This would facilitate a total of 1,035 residential units in four buildings: 800 strata condo units, 109 secured market rental and 126 below-market rental units. There would also be 25,000 square feet of commercial at grade (including 10,000 square feet of childcare, school, or “community services” space) and a public central plaza and other public realm improvements on all fours sides of the lot. Maximum tower height would be 38 storeys and overall FSR of 6.51, which is consistent with the OCP. Through the allocation of secured non-market rental, this meets the City’s Inclusionary Zoning, Rental Replacement, and Family Friendly Housing policies in place when the application was received.

Previously, Council unanimously agreed back in October of 2024 to explore towers up to 40 storeys on the site, unanimously agreed in November of 2025 on the instream approval process we are using here, and in April of this year in two separate meetings unanimously agreed on the tenant relocation policy and the density bonus contribution model. This next step is to give the application two readings, and set a deadline of a year from now for further master planning work to get to Third Reading.

The City sees some density bonus benefits from a project this size totaling about $11.6 Million, and the Development Cost Charges will be on the order of $9.6 Million. The first part of this became an issue of debate at Council, as some on Council wanted to earmark that Density Bonus Money in a way that is not aligned with our existing Density Bonus policy – specifically to assure none of it was spent on Affordable Housing. You can get the info on our Density Bonus policy here, but the Coles Notes are that DB money goes into four separate reserve funds: 10% to support Child Care in the City, 10% to the Public Art Fund, 30% to our Affordable Housing fund, and 50% to the General Amenities Fund to support civic & recreation facilities. The argument being herd at Council wasn’t that this math was off by a bit and needed adjusting, but that we simply should not put money into an affordable housing fund (though of course they “support affordable housing”).

I disagreed with this assertion, and it seemed deeply disconnected from how we get affordable housing built in the City. By following the existing DB policy here, there would be about $3.5 Million put into our Affordable Housing Reserve Fund (a fund that had $2.3 Million in it at the end of 2025). The primary way this funding is used is to provide a small local contribution (usually to support City services like permitting, utility connections, and other City-related costs) up to $500,000 per project for significant housing projects in the City funded by senior government partners. In the case of the building at Sixth and Agnes nearing completion right now, that means we contributed $500,000 toward a $32 Million project that will bring 50+ supportive housing units to the City. For the Aunt Leah’s project in the West End, our $500,000 leveraged more than $20 Million in senior government funding. There are very few things where we get that kind of return on investment: 40-to-one or 60-to-one payback, and through it see truly affordable housing built. Putting just 2-5% of the money in represents to me a justified and supportable investment in housing in this City during a hound affordability crisis.

Now, the rhetoric came in the leveraging this relatively small contribution against other things the City could invest in through Density Bonus, and the assertion was made that because we are following the established Density Bonus policy, there will be no money for things like playgrounds and parks. Hard to tell if that is bullshit or someone with a surprising lack of understanding on how we finance growth in the City after three years in office. It also pretends our existing DCC Policy doesn’t exist, which in this case sees $9.6 Million collected with 16% going towards for roads and sidewalks, 17% for water and sewer, 21% for parks acquisition and development, 37% for fire protection and 10% for police.

To be clear: As approved and detailed in the report, this project would provide more than $8.2 Million for public amenities though Density Bonus, along with at least (by my math) $2 Million for DCC contributions specifically for parkland acquisition and development, and many millions more towards utility, public safety, and other investments. To say we have no money from this project going into public amenities is good rhetoric, but is boldly untruthful.

In the end, this is a good project, important for the community and the way it was developed is a major step forward for protecting affordable housing and people living in lower-cost housing as we build new market housing on an important site in the City, and all of Council voted to support the project.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw and Special Development Permit: 809-811 Carnarvon and 60-70 Eighth Street
This is a proposal to active one of the last lots in the section of downtown designated as the “Tower Precinct” in the Downtown Community Plan (a plan that surprisingly dates back to 2010 and Mayor Wayne Wright!). There are two major components here: a 44-storey residential tower with 444 market homes, 24 non-market rental homes, and new hotel with 145 rooms directly across the street from the New Westminster SkyTrain station. It would also provide 12,000 square feet of at-grade commercial space, a dog park (desperately needed downtown!) and public plaza on the Agnes Street side, and $200K to the Public Art fund. This along with about $7.4 Million in DCCs, streetscape improvements on lower Eighth and Carnarvon, and new traffic circulation patterns around Blackie Street.

The project has been in the works since 2018, and last came in front of this same Council in March 2023, when all of Council unanimously agreed to ask that rezoning bylaws be sketched up for review, and that Public Hearing be waived (which doesn’t matter now that the province has made Public Hearings illegal for projects that align with the OCP). A new hotel immediately across the street from the New Westminster SkyTrain Station is an investment in the economic vitality of our downtown. I can’t imagine a business in the west side of downtown who won’t see this as a major boon.

Since I’ve been on Council, we have had a couple of proposals for Hotel space, but the reality has always been that hotel development is not lucrative, and it has never mathed out. I think this may represent our best, if not only, opportunity to see this type of economic development amenity come to Downtown in the decade ahead. We know that this is not the only thing Downtown needs, it isn’t a panacea, but it sends a message that we support the kind of investment in the downtown that puts thousands of customers at the front doors of local businesses. This is reinforced by our own Economic Development Plan and the call we have heard from institutional partners in the community (Douglas College, RCH, JIBC) that we are in desperate need for hotel spaces in the City. It would also provide significant support to Tourism New West though MRDT and more than 150 local jobs.

There is also the streetscape improvements, the improvement of the pedestrian space at Eighth and Carnarvon, the public plaza, the public art contributions and, as with the project above, $7.4 Million in DCC improvements, which includes (by my math) another $2 Million in parkland development. Some voices on Council opposed this project specifically because it had an affordable housing component, however, the majority of Council supported the project, agreeing that we can have the hotel that Councils for 15 years have been trying to get built, that $7.4 Million in DCC (including public amenity) money and affordable housing.

---

We then had two Motions from Council:

Supporting Family-Friendly Improvements and Privacy Enhancements at təməsew̓txʷ Aquatic and Community Centre (TACC)
Submitted by Councilor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to undertake consultation with families, caregivers, accessibility advocates, user groups, and other community stakeholders regarding opportunities to improve the family experience at təməsew̓txʷ Aquatic and Community Centre;
AND THAT the consultation include specific review of opportunities to make the facility more family-friendly and welcoming for parents and caregivers with children; operational or design improvements that would better support families during peak use periods; concerns related to privacy, visibility, and functionality within the universal change room area; options to improve privacy within change room spaces, including potential modifications to glazing, sightlines, partitions, family-specific changing spaces, or other design features; and approaches used in comparable aquatic facilities to balance inclusivity with privacy and family comfort;
AND THAT staff report back to Council with: a summary of feedback received through the consultation process (including what has already been submitted through the Be Heard system); • potential operational and/or capital improvement options; • estimated costs and implementation considerations; and recommendations for both short-term (within 100 days) and long-term actions to improve the experience for families and caregivers at the facility.

After two years of TACC and it being such a popular facility that we have exceeded by almost 50% our anticipated visits, there have been some feedback on operational challenges around the family and group change room areas, and have directed staff to do some work there.

Expanding Access to Swimming Lessons for Children
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct staff to explore options for providing free or low-cost introductory swimming lessons for children; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff report back to Council on: 1. Program delivery options and associated costs; Opportunities to prioritize access for families facing financial barriers; and Strategies to maximize participation and equitable access across the community.
After the City and the School District partnered on a swim lesson pilot for elementary-aged kids at Kelvin school, council are asking staff to report back on opportunities for free or very low cost introductory swim lessons for all kids. This is something we did not have the capacity for in previous years, but with us now having sufficient capacity for all kids in the City to have some level of lessons, it gives us the opportunity to reach out to the cohort that might not typically sing up for structured lessons and get them the important first level drowning-prevention education that can make a difference.

Sorry for the late report, still working on some issues here, but it looks like we have a clean bill of health, though fixing some of the older broken links might take some time, so some old pages are still missing. In the meanwhile, here’s the first half of my report on the work we did last week at Council – it was a long agenda so I’m breaking it in two again. This first part will just be the things we approved without debate or discussion, mostly updates of good work going on, and I’ll follow it up with a post about the more… uh… deliberated items. The Agenda started with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Metro West Inter-Municipal Business Licence (IMBL) – Expanding to include the Township of Langley
The Inter-Municipal Business Licence agreement allows contractors and folks who do work across the region to have one business license for all member municipalities – saving them hassle and money. Langley Township wants in, which requires some Bylaw changes by us members, which (because it is a business bylaw) requires that we have an opportunity for those impacted to comment. We had no-one come to comment, and Council adopted the bylaws.

---

We then approved the following items On Consent:

2025 Annual Water Quality Monitoring Report
The City tracks water quality as part of our requirements under Provincial Regulations, and we report out every year. We test for bacteria that might make you sick, along with metals, chlorine, turbidity and temperature that impact aesthetic quality and might possibly create longer-term health impacts. Almost 1,200 sample were collected and analyzed in 2025 and we met all Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines and typical system indicators. The water is safe, folks!

Fenton Street Streetscape – Community Engagement and Project Update
Queensborough has some older streets that are, even by Queensborough standards, low elevation, and more prone to flooding during big rain events. The City is working systematically though addressing these, starting with Fenton Street. The challenge is that the periodic-flooding fix means making significant streetscape changes, and potential impact on some older properties – including even moving some of the flood risk from the street to private property, which is a bad thing.

Staff have been doing some engineering work, and engaging with the community to find a course that meets as many people’s expectations as a possible. At the same time, drainage improvements have been undertaken, but hampered somewhat by fish-protection legislation as a result of environmental monitoring and discovery of fish and amphibians in the watercourse. The good news is that episodic flooding on Fenton is significantly reduced.

Staff now want to move on with some roadway improvements, but went back to the community first to see what option the neighbourhood preferred. It looks like the preferred approach is side along one side with preservation of much of the road parking on the other side of the street. So that is the direction we are moving.

Research Findings: Placement Strategies for Drinking Water and Cooling Stations
This is just one more component of our ongoing heat preparedness work, identifying where water fountains and misting station currently exist, and identifying areas where there is increased need. We installed a bunch of these in 2022, and after tracking success, two locations have been identified for new misting stations, which were installed in 2025 along with new fountains in some parks, By using map analysis, we are able to identify well-served and under-served neighbourhoods to set future priorities for more fountains and misters.

Massey Victory Heights Streetlight – Update after Consultation and Re-Design
Staff are working with the Massey Victory Heights neighbourhood to upgrade the inadequate street lighting in the neighbourhood while meeting some of the heritage/aesthetic wishes of the community. The solution arrived at includes preservation of some of the existing heritage-style light standards in key locations, and a modified design of the replacement standard with ones aping a heritage look. This comes with a substantial price premium (almost $1 Million) which we will finance for now by moving some later-phase funds forward.

2025 Statement of Financial Information
Every year we put out a Statement of Financial Information report, as required by Provincial regulation. This include all the regular financial information (reserves balance, debt levels, etc.) along with information on City salaries (staff and elected folks) and a list of all of our external payments above $25,000. The financial position of the City is strong which makes us more resilient for the challenges ahead.

Submission to the Green Municipal Fund 2026: Growing Canada’s Community Canopy
Talking about planning ahead, we have been pretty successful at getting senior gov’t grants for the City’s Urban Reforestation program – to the tune of multiple millions of dollars – and are applying to the GMF for more! Some of these application require a council resolution to even put the application in, so here we are!

Interim Development Review Framework Update
As the City works through the various provincial housing regulation change, it developed an interim development review framework – a clear policy and process though which development projects already underway are managed and clearly defining how timing of development approvals overlap with dates when provincial regulation changes come into effect.

We are making more iterative changes to this framework, including guidelines around lot consolidation, minimum lot size and separation for Transit Oriented Development, along with guidelines around ground-oriented forms (townhouses) within these areas, continuing to support the “special study areas” like 22nd Street that have (frankly) been dragging a bit due to this other unexpected work the province has required of us. We are also applying Inclusionary Housing to more rental properties, and other changes. There is a lots of work to do yet to assure the regulatory changes fit in to the New Westminster context.

Crises Response Pilot Project Status Report
The CRPP team reports back to Council on the progress of the pilot, and they last reported a year ago. The thousands of interaction referrals and responses of the CRPP teams are catalogued here, as are the advocacy efforts to senior governments and funding secured to support this work. Though the referrals and contacts are positive outcomes on their own, the independent evaluation of the program being completed by academics at Douglas College will come in a subsequent report.

We can report out stats (the Crises Response Team had 2,349 client interactions and made 2,107 referrals connecting people to needed services ,form health care to housing to hygiene and food services), but each of those interactions are a human connection helping someone get though their day and for many of them onto a path towards healing. The number of interactions and referrals are not going down, but are also no going up, consistently 200 or so per month, though the unsheltered persons responses have gone down quite a bit from the peak in summer 2025. A work in progress!

Official Community Plan Amendment: 22nd Street Vision Implementation – Consultation Requirements
Now that we are past some of the heavy lifting with the Provincial housing regulations and our Housing Accelerator Fund commitments, there is a bit more room on the front of Staff’s stove to get to moving the 22nd Street vision work forward. This is a check-in from staff to Council on the consultation breadth as this vision will result in some OCP amendments, which have some statutory consulting requirements, which are outlined here.

Issuance of Development Variance Permit for 230 Keary Street (Brewery District Building 8)
The builder of the Brewery District is finishing up the final tower, and as it is a mixed-use building with several stories of commercial space under residential, they would like reallocate some parking from residential and visitor uses to office and retail uses to support operational demand associated with the healthcare and retail uses. The reduction (13%) in residential paring still meets our modern requirements which makes it a pretty reasonable request. We asked, and received no feedback from the community on this, and the DVP was granted.

Issuance of Development Variance Permit for 800 Queens Avenue (Simcoe Elementary School)
The proposed Middle School at Simcoe Park needs a Development Variance to increase its height from four storeys (permitted) to 6 storeys, (to meet future growth needs in the community). There are also some set-back variances and adjustments to parking reasonable for fitting an urban school in a constrained site. We received some correspondence from neighbours expressing concerns about the height and parade issues, but Council decided to approve the DVP as the demand for expanded school space in New West is one of the biggest concerns this community has expressed in recent years.

Funding Received from Senior Levels of Government 2020 to 2026
This is a bit of an update report from our Intergovernmental Relations team, and speaks to a narrative created by some that the City has not been successful at securing financial support and capital investment from senior governments. Since 2020, the City has received almost $150 Million in direct funding from the Province ($71 Million), the Feds ($30 Million), TransLink ($27 Million) and other external funders like philanthropic organizations ($19 Million). Further, local infrastructure investment that hasn’t flowed through the City but has a direct impact on the livability of our community – from bridges and hospitals to affordable housing and schools has totaled over $3 Billion in the last decade.

At a time of government austerity, re-paced projects provincially and a federal government that likes to announce funds more than actually hand them out, we are doing pretty well.

2025 Annual Report
Finally, every year the city puts out an Annual Report outlining the work that we have got done over the previous year, summarizing our finances and telling a bit of our story. As I say in the opening of the report itself which you can read here, this report reflects the hard work and dedication of City staff, community partners, volunteers, businesses, and residents who continue to help shape New Westminster.

And the best part is in the back third of the report: all the numbers! Always fun to see how much work is happening in the City, how many people are being served, and the metrics towards our service goals. I’m proud of the work we get done here in New West, and have nothing but kudos for the amazing staff teams we have serving the residents and businesses of this town every day.

---

And i’ll be back in a  few days with Part 2. Inshallah.

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post (which I had split in two because it was so long, but that seems less important now) was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything)

Another long Council meeting as we have a lot of work to get done before the Summer Break, and we had a long agenda. I’m going to break this report up into two parts, and start with second half of the meeting, where Council deliberated on no less than five Motions from Council:

Development of a Public Commemoration Policy and Exploration of a Punch McLean Tribute at Queen’s Park Arena
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to report back with a draft policy framework for the consideration, approval, installation, and maintenance of statues, monuments, and other commemorative works on City-owned property;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council authorize staff to engage with the Punch McLean Legacy initiative (Punch McLean Foundation) to explore the feasibility, scope, and potential parameters of a commemorative installation at Queen’s Park Arena, including but not limited to design considerations, siting, funding, community consultation, and long-term maintenance implications;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council with findings and recommendations arising from this engagement following development of the draft policy framework within 90 days.

This follows on some community advocacy and recent news regarding Punch McLean’s passing. I really appreciate the way the motion was drafted, as it wisely puts the policy discussion in front of the specific, and I think that this is a policy gap in the City that might be a valuable thing for the community to engage in. We had a marking in this meeting of Elmer Rudolph’ passing, and have seen recently the loss of some other high-profile folks in the community, and we really don’t have any kind of structure to discuss even the simplest memorial. I’m not comfortable with this kind of thing coming down the politics or likes/dislikes of the Council of the day, but should have some way of bringing the community into the discussion. So I definitely support the first first clause on policy development,
On the second section Council was a bit split, but I think that there is a legitimate community-led initiative here, and I appreciate our need to respond to that. I support having staff engage with the community proponents, and that itself may be a useful in helping inform some of the policy work.
Finally, the third clause has a strike-though part (Councillor Fontaine agreed to remove it recognizing that with Mr. McLean’s passing, there is less urgency now), as we generally don’t concentrate this type of public engagement in the summer, and I think we want to give staff some space to engage with the community on this. It occurred me after that the bigger monument strategy might be a good topic for the Community Advisory Assembly, and it will be hard to have a meaningful engagement in the 90 day time period. The next step will have staff report back to us with a framework in the next few meetings as is practice for motions from Council, and give us a practical timeline then.

Local Government Climate Action Funding
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT UBCM call on the Province of British Columbia to immediately renew and continue direct to local government climate action funding as a long-term, predictable and noncompetitive program at funding levels no less than current levels.

I’m removing the whereas clauses for brevity here, but in short, the Province has not renewed funding to the Local Government Climate Action Program – a program through which New Westminster received $800K in the last round of funding. This baseline funding for local governments provides important support to climate action across the province in exchange for local governments demonstrating they are doing the work and reporting out there progress transparently. Baseline funding that is effective, accountable and transparent. Who can oppose this?

Indeed, back in 2021 when the Province looked to cancel the previous “CARIP” (Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program) funding model, it was advocacy led by communities like New Westminster to UBCM that shifted their mind, and brought in a better LGCAP model. It seems we need ot take up that fight again, and remind Province that their own independent CleanBC review completed last year recommended they “Continue to support local governments as key partners and contributors to CleanBC’s success… and extend funding for the Local Government Climate Action Program (LGCAP) and continue collaboration”.

So we are taking a resolution to UBCM.

Creating an Indigenous-Led, Cross-Sector Housing Alliance
Submitted by Councillor McEvoy

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the UBCM call on the Province to establish an ‘Indigenous-Led, Cross-Sectoral Housing Alliance’ composed of senior representatives from the health, justice, social services, and housing sectors, with strong and equitable urban, rural and northern Indigenous representation;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the mandate of this alliance include the development of a provincial framework recognizing safe and adequate housing as essential infrastructure, and to coordinate sector-wide adoption and public endorsement of this position by professional, service, advocacy, academic, and industry associations and their member agencies.

This is another motion for UBCM resolution, and another that resulted directly from community activism. Indigenous people are way overrepresented in the unhoused population province-wide, and right here in New Westminster, while barriers exist for much affordable and supportive housing for indigenous people. Assuring we are building appropriate housing that proactively addresses this is not only the right thing to do, it will save governments money in the long run, but requires an interagency response that would benefit from a roundtable or alliance model within government, and includes key non-governmental partners working in this space. Council unanimously supported taking this call to UBCM.

Calling for a Cumulative Health Impact Assessment of the BC’s LNG industry
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT New Westminster supports the call for an independent, cumulative health impact assessment of BC’s LNG industry by sending a letter to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions, and local First Nations requesting that this assessment be completed before any further expansion of LNG facilities or infrastructure in the Province, and include a resolution to UYBMC to this effect.

We received a considerable amount of correspondence in regards to this motion, and had a series of local residents delegate to Council asking us to join other communities in British Columbia (from Dawson Creek to Squamish) in calling for or this basic assurance that long-term health effects of this rapidly expanding industry are being evaluated and taken in to consideration in the government subsidizing its growth. The stories of unanticipated flaring impacts in Kitimat and unassessed upstream impacts from fracking and leakage deserve at least a response from government as we seem to be institutionally putting all our chips in the LNG pile. I expect this will be fractious debate at UBCM and seen as an attack on a safe industry, bereft of the analysis that a safe industry should have nothing to fear from such an assessment.

Restoring Funding for Road Safety
Submitted by Mayor Johnstone

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that UBCM request that the Province of British Columbia immediately reinstate the BC Active Transportation Infrastructure Grant Program and improve it to provide stable, long-term funding to support local governments in delivering safer streets and reduced climate impacts across the province.

This was another surprise out of the 2026 Budget. Local governments have been calling for years for increases in this important baseline funding program, and in the last few years, it appeared that was the direction the Provincial Government was going. I even provided a keynote at the Active Transportation Summit a couple of years ago in part celebrating the potential of this expansion. Alas, budget 2026 includes a pause of this funding. Or a re-pacing, maybe.

New Westminster has been a successful recipient of these grants to a tune of more than a million dollars in recent years, it provided important baseline funding to the Agnes Greenway and other projects. But when you see the list of projects in municipalities large and small across the province that this program has supported, it demonstrates that Active Transportation investments can be cost-efficient when local governments are empowered to deliver them – the entire Program cost the Province $130 Million over the last 10 years, but delivered more than 400 projects. That means upgraded sidewalks, multi-use paths, bike lanes, and safer active transportation in communities across BC. Compare that to $140 Million being the amount they spend on a single highway overpass project.

The notice of cancellation/pause/re-pacing on the Provinces webpage states this is “due to the independent review of all CleanBC programs,”. However, in reading that review, it clearly states “Develop a sustainable funding model to ensure sustainable funding to support investments in increased active transportation and public transit use., as this funding PALES in comparison to the amount spend on even a single highway overpass project”.

So we are taking this fight to the UBCM again.

There you go, five resolutions, all passed, generally collaboratively. You can draw your own conclusions on what it means when the “back to basics” “lets concentrate on core services” member of Council was the one asking for a statue, not the one addressing climate action funding, affordable housing, public health care, or active transportation.

---

A few regular readers (Hi Mom!) have sent me notes concerning the irregularity of this website recently, and the simple explanation is there has been some back-of-house challenges with malware that we thought we had solved but keeps coming back. I’m not an IT guy, I am barely a content provider, and I have no staff support or such for this website, so it’s been challenging to find time to fix things, especially when I don’t really know what I’m doing in the WordPress back end of things and don’t have time to learn. Anyway, I now have a person who is professional and able to provide a bit of tech support here, so hopefully things will stabilize. Here is the second half of the last Council meeting, where all the good stuff was!

We had a long agenda on June 8th, I already covered the Motions from Council here. Before that our regular agenda started with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw No. 6926, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8585, 2026
As part of our ongoing response to the climate disruption that is threatening the safety of residents in the city, we are bringing in province-leading regulations and enforcement powers to assure that rental apartments are safe and we can avoid repeating the disaster that was the 2021 Heat Dome. As we are using our Business Regulations Bylaws as a tool towards this, we are required to provide an opportunity for those affected to make representation to Council regarding the Bylaws prior to their adoption. No-one took the opportunity to make a presentation, and Council moved to adopt the Bylaws.

The good news here? New Westminster is once again leading in protecting vulnerable renters. Following the patterns we saw with our innovative rennovictions bylaws, other cities (currently Victoria and Kamloops) are following us on these cooling bylaws, and with a little luck this will ramp up the pressure on the Province to make legislative changes as it did with rennovictions.

---

We then had a Presentation:

Public Art Plan
The City has a small Public Art budget, funded mostly from a 1% line item added to capital projects and through property taxes (about $2 per person a year). The Plan that informed how we identified public art opportunities and prioritizes its placement needed an update, so we engaged with the local arts community, local heritage community, and our Economic Development committee, and together developed and drafted an update. It has been a bit of a slow iterative project, delayed somewhat by staffing changes and simple capacity issues dealing with other arts file priorities, but through three years of public engagement and consultation, here we are. Council endorsed the plan.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

2026 Capital and Operating Q1 Performance Report
This is our quarterly update on our operating and capital budgets. The operating side is pretty straight-forward: we are a little bit ahead on revenue projections, and may have a slight (about 0.1%) surplus.

The Capital budget is a bit more complex in that we have to “bring forward” $22.3 Million in budget from last year into this year for projects that have started but have not been fully competed or invoiced yet, and are also seeing a bit of inflation totaling $2.4 Million (less than 1.5% of the overall) on some other projects this year meaning we need to re-allocate some budget from future years to cover the increase we are seeing today. This means re-prioritizing some future projects, which will inform our Capital Budget planning or the next budget.

There is another item below that talks in more detail about one of the biggest changes, and that is increasing our Pavement Management budget for the year to $6.6 Million. Yes, we spend $6.6 Million a year paving roads, which takes me back to 2017 when we started talking about anticipating pavement management costs going up seriously in the decade ahead because of previous underfunding. Here we are!

Erosion and Sediment Control Bylaw No. 7754, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8586, 2026
This is an update/modernization to our policy to manage dirt. Whenever someone digs a hole in the City (to build foundations, fix sewers, pave roads, etc.) there is a risk rain will wash sediment from the hole into the storm sewer. This is bad for the environment (turbidity is bad for fish when washed into the river, and potentially carries other contaminants), adds to treatment cost at the sewer plants (if they end up there), and costs the City quite a bit in sewer maintenance as it gums up our pipes and pumps, while also increasing flood risk. So we have bylaws that require hole-digging comes with a plan for sediment control to reduce those costs for taxpayers.

Excavation and Shoring Policy and Licence Agreement
This is a new Excavation and Shoring policy, because whenever someone digs a hole in the City (for building foundations and sewers and such) there is a risk of slope failure or that part of the wall will cave in. This is managed through a variety of engineering controls, sometimes including anchor rods driven into adjacent property or shotcrete walls that create groundwater barriers to adjacent properties. This means risk to public and private infrastructure on adjacent properties, and potential unanticipated future problems. This Policy outlines the need for licence agreements, indemnity, etc. related to these works. The proposed Licence agreement has been adapted from examples in adjacent communities to reflect the City’s requirements while aligning with industry best practices.

Metro West Inter-Municipal Business Licence (IMBL) – Expanding to include the Township of Langley
The City is a member of the Metro East Inter-Municipal Business Licence program, and the township of Langley wants in. Which we are tacitly agreeing to, though there will need to be an Opportunity to be Heard, as it is a business licenses issue. Watch this space for that conversation coming soon.

Issuance of Temporary Use Permit TUP00040 for 102-128 East Eighth Avenue and 721 Cumberland Street (Sales Centre)
The builder of an approved Townhouse project on Cumberland and Eighth wants to use one of the existing houses as a temporary sales centre, requiring an Temporary Use Permit. We are issuing notice to the community that we will consider this TUP. If you have opinions, let us know!

Letter of Commitment Signing Authority: 800 Queens Avenue (Simcoe Elementary)
We are about to issue all the approvals to the School at Simcoe Park, as the School District and City staff continue to work together on engineering and design details. Some of these details will require a Letter of Commitment from the School District to make clear the requirements needed, and the District has agreed to the terms of the LoC, so we need to authorize City staff to sign the LoC and make it all formal.

Development Variance Permit for 230 Keary Street (Brewery District Building 8): Notice of Consideration of Issuance
There is a bit of detail in here, but Building 8 of the Brewery District (see the overhead walkway discussion below) is nearing completion, and has a mix of residential and commercial use. The request here is to shift the parking allocation to reduce the number of residential parking spaces, while providing more commercial parking spaces. The building still meets the parking minimums that were in effect when it was approved (though there are no longer parking minimums so close to SkyTrain) and re-allocating some parking to commercial seems to make sense next to hospital. So this is notice we will consider a DVP to allow the shift.

Development Variance Permit for 800 Queens Avenue (Simcoe Elementary School): Notice of Consideration of Issuance
As mentioned above, the new elementary school at Simcoe Park is about to start construction, and it will require a Development Variance Permit for building height (6 stories), setbacks (very limited on three sides) and some parking details with their underground parking This is the notice that we will consider this DVP at an upcoming meeting. This is exciting to see, and the result of a lot of intense design and engineering work by the School District team and City staff! If you have questions or concerns, let us know!

Vulnerable Buildings Assessment Pathway Three – City-Funded Stay Cool at Home Pilot Program
Yet another aspect of our response to the increasing heat emergency danger in our community, this part of the plan is to assemble and distribute cooling kits to vulnerable populations. This is remarkably similar to the cooling kit program recently cancelled by Vancouver to much concern from advocates in the community, and ironically, it is was the demonstrated value of this program (and similar programs in Montreal, Seattle and New York) that guided our staff in developing the program.

We will have about 500 kits available, and they will be distributed based on the vulnerable building assessment that staff completed during earlier phases of this work to assure they are getting where they are most needed, and it will be funded through our Climate Action Reserve Fund.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
The new Acute Acre tower at RCH is now open, and there will be a “Phase 3” of the RCH project that involves extensive renovations of the existing tower. At the same time Wesgroup is finishing up the new mixed use commercial and residential tower at 230 Keary Street (Tower 8 of the Brewery District), and these two buildings will be connected together by an overhead covered walkway over Keary Street, making a fully accessible entrance from the SkyTrain Station to RCH for the first time. This will require some night work, because the construction involves a common wall with existing operating rooms, and the noise and vibration of construction is not something they want happening during surgery, so we are approving their noise exemption to allow this work.

‘Growing Communities Fund’: Allocating Remaining Funds for New Recreation Amenities Investment
As mentioned in a couple of recent semi-informing Facebook posts by a local political party, the City received $15.8 Million from the Provincial Growing Communities Fund in 2013. As pointedly NOT mentioned in those posts, the majority of this money ($12.35 Million) was allocated for a variety of capital projects in the City, including transit access, sidewalk, crosswalk, and street safety improvements across the City. The allocation agreed to by Council back in 2024 included the remaining $3.5 Million invested in non-specific recreation-related amenities, and a group of New Westminster amateur sports organization provided a “wish list”.

Now that the People Parks and Play plan is completed, Staff are recommending that $2.5 Million be allocated to the upgrade of the Grimston Park lacrosse box to a multi-sport facility, and the remaining distributed among several smaller projects to be delivered in the next 12-18 months.

People, Parks and Play: Resource and Timeline Analysis for Accelerating Four High-Priority Projects
When the Parks and Recreation comprehensive plan came to Council in late March, Council asked that staff initiate work to accelerate the delivery of several of the key recreation investments. This reports back with a timeline and plans to address these requests. We already knew the Moody Park lacrosse boas was being replaced this summer, and the item above sets the timing for the Grimston Park box replacement, there will also be a covered box (likely at Hume Park) in 2027.

Feasibility studies on the bigger projects, the third sheet of ice, and the downtown recreation centre, will be starting soon. I did ask that public engagement on the needs of downtownnot wait unti la site is secured, as we have a bit of a chicken-and-egg issue where the needs may inform the appropriate land, so best to start the community conversation first. Similarly, for the third ice sheet, I asked that we engage with amateur sports organizations (especially Minor Hockey and Minor Lacrosse) to talk to them about opportunities and constraints on location. There are advantages to co-location with existing facilities, but there are also cost and space limitations with our existing two ice locations, and I think the conversations about those compromises needs to include those youth sports organizations. Let’s engage them early, so that they feel included in the process.

West End Utilities and Green Infrastructure Project Budget Funding Reallocation Request
In this report, Staff outline a plan for the next phase of sewer separation and water infrastructure replacement in the West End – a project that is seeing the installation of 8.4 km (!) of new storm sewers, replacement of 3.3 Km (!) of water mains, along with attached storm water detention, traffic management, and other accessory infrastructure that makes sense to install while you have the roads torn up.

The headline buried in here a bit is that the project is months ahead of schedule, and $3 Million under budget!

This means we have to adapt our capital plan, and staff have recommended we move forward with an accelerated paving schedule, moving some of the funds anticipated to be spent in 2027 up to 2026 and re-allocate the budget savings to a more comprehensive paving plan. Instead of restoration paving (essentially, paving where we have dug trenches), it makes more sense to do full curb-to-curb restorations on the roads between 16th and 20th streets.

Lots of pavement restoration in the west end in the months ahead, which might be one more round of disruption, but will provide relief to the residents when it is done.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw and Special Development Permit: 809-811 Carnarvon and 60-70 Eighth Street – Bylaws for First, Second and Third Readings
This is a proposal to active one of the last lots in the section of downtown designated as the “Tower Precinct” in the Downtown Community Plan (a plan that surprisingly dates back to 2010 and Mayor Wayne Wright!). There are two major components here: a 44-storey residential tower with 468 market homes, and new major market Hotel with 145 rooms directly across the street from the New Westminster SkyTrain station. It would also provide 12000 square feet of at-grade commercial space, and a dog park (desperately needed downtown) and public plaza on the Agnes Street side. This along with $7.4 Million in DCCs, streetscape improvements on lower Eighth and Carnarvon, and new traffic circulation patterns around Blackie Street.

We had quite an extensive discussion about this project, but in the end, Council decided to defer the decision until the next meeting, so we’ll talk about it next week.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw and Cannabis Retail Store Licence Relocation: From 540 Ewen Avenue to Unit 260 at 800 Carnarvon Street
One of the current operators of a Cannabis Retail business in New West wants to relocate to a vacant spot at the Shops at New West Station. It is a former restaurant space that seems to have been hard to lease, and the operator’s record in Queensborough has not been problematic.

This has been the second change in our Cannabis Retail policy since it was developed in 2019, after the adjustment of locations in Sapperton. There is certainly a very different landscape for cannabis retail than there was in those early gold rush times of excitement with legalization, and the established players have established histories and abilities to manage the regulatory environment. There is already a Government cannabis store in Queensborough, and the growing and dense downtown only has a single retail outlet well to the east of this one (>700m Manhattan distance), so I am less worried about market saturation than we were in the early days.

We received quite a bit of correspondence on this application, initially quite opposed for a variety of reasons seemingly more related to the illegal drug trade and concerns around crime that do not relate to the experience at the 5 legal cannabis stores in the City, however demonstrating that 7 years after legalization, there is still considerable community concern around cannabis. Overall the balance of correspondence we received included as many notes in support as opposed.

In my mind, Cannabis is a legal, tightly regulated, and non-disruptive retail business in the City, preferable to some others. This location seems appropriate when it comes to distributing the business across the City, this operator has an established history of safe and responsible operation, and it is preferable to an empty retail space. Council voted to support the rezoning.

---

Finally, we had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw No. 6926, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8556
This Bylaw that requires landlords to take measures to maintain safe temperatures in at least one living space in all rental units was adopted by Council.

Official Community Plan Bylaw No.7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (Infill Housing Program) No. 8573, 2026
Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Infill Housing Program) No. 8578, 2026
Planning & Development Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7683, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 8580, 2026
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 7318, 2009, Amendment Bylaw No. 8582, 2026
Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw No. 8077, 2019, Amendment Bylaw No. 8583, 2026
These Bylaws that collectively update the OCP and Zoning Bylaw and give us enforcement mechanisms to support the Infill Housing Program were adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw No. 8575, 2026
These changes to our zoning Bylaw that enhance active uses of retails street space (as opposed to dentist offices!) was adopted by Council.

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything)

The Council meeting on Monday started with a Public Hearing (well, two actually), which is less common these days since the Province changed the rules a few years age and prevented cities from holding public hearings for residential rezoning that are complaint with the Official Community Plan.

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of the Infill Housing Program
The first Public Hearing addressed the City’s updated response to Bill 44 Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing (“SSMUH”) regulations from the province, and our Infill Accelerator program sponsored by the federal Housing Accelerator Fund. This requires an OCP update (hence, requiring a Public Hearing) and an amendment to the Zoning Bylaw.

The effect of these changes is to update the Land Designation under the OCP for about 3,000 properties in the City to permit up to a sixplex where there is currently a single family home or duplex, and to change the zoning of about 1,900 of those properties for four-plexes, and the remaining 1,100 for six-plexes. Most of the differentiation between four- and six-unit areas are related to the provincial regulation (six-plexes are required within a certain distance of frequent transit), though a small number (~200) are different that provincial requirements to fit specific technical context such as access to a laneway or unique lot dimensions, and the result of public consultation.

These changes are not simple integration of the provincial regulations, they represent a made-in New West response that addresses our specific context. This means significant technical analysis was done around managing the infrastructure impacts and buildability issues related to our unique geography. We did three rounds of Public Engagement on these changes as they were i9terated over time, in spring and winter 2025 and with a final round in March of this year. We have some infrastructure challenges here, in that most “single family’ neighbourhood are designed to allow up to the three units per lot (a main house, rental suite, and a laneway/carriage house), and increasing to 4- or 6-units means increased in-ground infrastructure needs. Though the City will be gradually upgrading these systems, this will be an economic and practical delay on wide-spread implementation of these changes, as it will put extra onus on boulders to pay for upgrades if needed before the City has done the work.

At the Public Hearing, we received about 9 pieces of correspondence, all opposed in one way or another to increased density in New Westminster, and we had about 25 people come and delegate at the hearing: a few in support, several with concerns, and the majority expressing opposition.

Issues raised were not surprising, but are worth exploring a bit more.

Several folks raised concerns about growth happening faster than schools can plan. However, City’s OCP and the Schools long-term Capital plan are in synch and nothing in this update to the OCP will substantially shift that. The schools are not lacking for planning, they are lacking for investment by the Province in new school sites. Fortunately, this situation is changing as there is a major expansion of Queen Elizabeth happening right now, the District is about to break ground on a new downtown elementary at Simcoe Park, and they are now in business case development for major expansion in the West End that will end an era of portables for the district.

The schools discussion was aligned with a general notion that infrastructure can’t keep up with this growth, and the report clearly outlines (as I mentioned above) how the City plans to deal with this. Simply put, we are upgrading and expanding infrastructure as growth occurs and are expecting much of this cost to be covered by the growth. There was some concern raised about the Burnaby experience, with concerns that these multi-plexes will be built to the four corners of the lot and completely change the streetscape. However, the reports details the guidelines that will be applied, with 50% lot coverage and property line setbacks consistent with current practice to make sure these plexes fit the existing streetscape, though they are likely to be taller than previously seen in single family lots.

The one challenge we don’t have an immediate answer to is the parking challenge – there is no doubt over the long-term these changes will put more pressure on street parking, especially as the province limits our ability to require off-street parking for much of the area, and for all buildings with the TOD areas (see below). This is ongoing work Council has asked staff to work on recognizing that it will be years (likely a decade or more) before multi-plexes arrive in most places at enough concentration to create these challenges. A City-wide review to residential parking and curbside management is a major piece of work the City is beginning now, and will inform our response to this.

In the end, Council gave third readings to these bylaws, and added an advocacy part about reminding the Province that we will need investment in their part in infrastructure to support this shift in our OCP.

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Transit Oriented Development Area Extensions and Regional Planning
The second Public Hearing followed on our previous work meeting the letter of the law on the Province’s Bill 47 changes to encourage higher-density use around SkyTrain stations (“Transit Oriented Development” or TOD). Here the City is trying to make the circles fit better into the mostly-square street grid context by squaring off the circles created by the 800m buffer the province drew around SkyTrain stations. We don’t have the legal ability to skim some properties off the periphery where it might not make sense, so in effort to adapt them to the street grid, existing subdivision and neighbourhood patterns, or topography, the circle was slighty expanded in a few places along the edge – meaning about 100 properties just outside 800m are included within the TOD area designation.

At the same time and attached to this, we are updating the OCP for a few regulatory reasons. We are required to draft a new Regional Context Statement that aligns our OCP with the Regional Growth Strategy, and are now required to integrate our Community Energy and Emissions Plan to the OCP, both of these to meet regulated Metro Vancouver requirements.

Much like the item above, we did multiple rounds of public consultation around these changes, and it showed that 70% of people who engaged supported these changes. We received a few pieces of written correspondence, and had about a half dozen delegates raising concerns, though some also expressed support. Council voted to support the Third Reading of these changes.

That ended the Public Hearing, and as mentioned, I’ll write another post about everything else that happened at Council in a follow-up.

---

Our regular council meeting for this week went by fairly quick once we completed the Public Hearing part. The Agenda was fairly light, and started with the following items moved On Consent:

Balai in the Borough, T115-805 Boyd Street – Application for Patron Participation Entertainment Endorsement
The operator of this restaurant wants to have entertainment (karaoke) along with their meals which requires a different type of liquor license which requires the local City Council to pass a resolution supporting it, because our provincial liquor laws are archaic and ridiculous. Council approved the resolution.

Temporary Use Permit: 102 – 128 East Eighth Avenue and 721 Cumberland Street
The owners of these properties at 8th and Cumberland received approval to build townhouses recently, and no wish to use one of the existing single family homes as a sales entre to market those townhouses. A marketing centre is not in the single family zoning allowable uses, so we are issuing notice that we will consider a temporary Use Permit. IF you have feedback, let us know!

---

The following item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

Update on FIFA Budget and Activities
Council previously approved funding to hold community-building and gathering events along with public viewing parties during the upcoming World Cup. I know there are a lot of concerns about FIFA and the sketchy way they exploit communities and athletes, but the Beautiful Game is as popular in New West as any other, and there can be no doubt people are excited to see Canada play, and for many people in our community to see the nation of their ancestors represent (sorry, Italy).

There are going to be a great series of events here in New West –reasons for you to get together with the community, meet your neighbours, and cheer on some Football.

June 6: the Kelly Duke Memorial Tournament will feature fun for youth, a bouncy castle, food trucks and beer garden, and start off the World Cup Season with locals flair;
June 12: Watch Canada play against Bosnia at Queens Park Arena – rain or shine;
June 18: Watch Canada play against Qatar at the Queensborough Community Centre, along with a Queensborough Neighbourhood Connection Party;
June 24: Watch Canada vs Switzerland (that might be a tough one!) at Queens Park Arena;
July 19 Watch the Tournament Finale at two different locations in New West – Queens Park Arena if you want to be indoors, Pier Park if outside is more your thing.

Staff are also saving a bit of resources and money on the hopes that Canada advances out of the Group Phase, and will hope to be able to provide further viewing opportunities to meet community expectations.

The good news is that we have secured senior government grants (sponsorships are strictly regulated by FIFA and are largely unavailable, grumble grumble) to cover a lot of these costs, and much of the budget goes towards purchasing things (like screens and projectors) that can stay in the City’s inventory and help us provide lower cost community events in the future. We also provided 38 grants of $1,000 each to a variety of community arts, cultural, and sport organizations to get them Fired Up about Football.

All the details are here: www.newwestcity.ca/fired-up

---

And we finished our meeting with Bylaws for Adoption:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (1121 Eighth Avenue) Bylaw No.8550, 2026 and
Heritage Designation (1121 Eighth Avenue) Bylaw No. 8551
This Bylaw that will permit construction of a new ground-oriented infill house and a duplex, with all new units providing three or more bedrooms, while permanently protecting the 1909 Callow House on the same lot was adopted by Council.

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

May is a busy month for many reasons, and we had a lot of delegates at Council this week talking about some of the fun activities over the next couple of weeks that will make it busier. But our Council agenda was way less fun that that, starting with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw No. 6926, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8556, 2026
When the City changes Business Regulations, we generally have a Public Hearing-like process. Not a true “Public Hearing” (those are regulated differently under the Local Government Act) but an opportunity for businesses impacted by the regulatory change to make presentations to Council about the regulation. As our proposed bylaw around protecting tenant from heat is a business regulation, we had an opportunity to make representations. We received two pieces of correspondence (one supportive, one expressing concerns but not strictly opposed), and no-one came to present to council on the topic.

---

We approved the following items On Consent:

2025 Financial Statements
We are required, under Section 167(1) of the Community Charter to provide financial statements to the Province which outline our current financial position and a review of our books for the previous year. These statements have been audited and we received “clean” audit (nothing untoward was found by the independent Auditor), and our books are in pretty good shape.

The City has $414 Million in financial assets, mostly this is in our reserves. Our reserves have gone down ever so slightly (less than 0.2%) since the end of last year, but we have been building a lot this year, and reserves are there to support this capital investment. Our liabilities amount to just under $307 Million, which includes our long-term debt, which has gone down 6% to $150 Million. Overall, our net financial position is $139M in the black. Our Accumulated Surplus is over $1.1 Billion, but the largest portion of that is $952 Million in Tangible Capital Assets (buildings, roads, pipes, and computers).

When it comes to the operations side, we collected a little more (1.4% more) revenue than anticipated, due to increased utility revenue (new people moving to town), more recreation revenue as TACC is filling up, and timing of grant revenue from senior governments. Meanwhile we spent a little (2%) under what we anticipated, mostly in salary savings as hiring has been slower than anticipated, offset a bit by higher costs to deliver utility and recreation services (see increased revenue above).

We are in good shape overall, though we are still in the growing-reserves phase and have a lot of capital spending in the next few years. Nothing a few senior government grants couldn’t help with!

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Transit Oriented Development Area Extensions and Regional Planning
We previously met the “letter of the law” when it comes to provincial regulatory changes for housing approvals, specifically Bill 47 changes to encourage higher-density use around SkyTrain stations (“Transit Oriented Development” or TOD). We are now looking at changes based on our extensive public consultation process to meet the spirit of the law, and make it fit better into the New West context. The conical results of the TOD regulations don’t fit smoothly into a rectangular street grid, existing subdivision and neighbourhood patterns, or topography, so we are adjusting the edges of those circles to make the results more practical and logical. This means changes to the Official Community Plan impacting about 100 properties.

We are also drafting a new Regional Context statement that aligns with the Regional Growth Strategy, and integrates our Community Energy and Emissions Plan to the OCP, to meet Metro Vancouver requirements. These changes are subject to a Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments on them until then to respect that process. If you have opinions, let us know!

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of the Infill Housing Program
We have also met, as an interim, the letter of the Law for changes under Bill 44 (“Single Site Multi Unit Housing” – SSMUH) but had significant work to do, both technically and in community consultation, to make these changes fit the New Westminster context, including the heritage Conservation Area in Queen Park. We received support from the Federal Government under the Housing Accelerator Fund to do more detailed work on infill density, and are ready now to take these bylaw changes to Public Hearing.

These OCP and Zoning Bylaw changes would impact about 3,000 residential properties, not those in the TOD area (above), not those covered by previous townhouse implementation, and not those in Queensborough (as there are extra engineering works we need to do to deal with drainage and sewer works to implement these changes there). Based on the Provincial regulations, some would now permit fourplex (about 1,900 properties), some sixplex (about 1,100 properties), depending on their location relative to Frequent Transit, and depending on if they can make the Development Permit guidelines (height, density, setbacks, etc.) work on their lot.

Again, these Bylaws will be subject to a Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments until then to respect the process.

Metro 2050 Type 2 Amendment Application: City of Maple Ridge (North 256 Street Industrial Lands Area Plan)
Greater Vancouver has a regional plan. Much like our Official Community Plan, the region has a master plan for growth that reflects and is reflected in our 21 individual Official Community Plans (see “Regional Context Statement” two items above). Making significant changes in that plan, even at the local level, requires some regional buy-in. This is because the region shares a water supply, sewer systems, a transportation system, and an airshed. Changes in Maple Ridge impact us, and changes in New West impact Maple Ridge.

The Regional Growth Strategy includes an “Urban Containment Boundary”, a tool to permit intensified urban growth within the already built-up area within a fixed boundary, but requiring regional buy-in before expanding that UCB, or building more intensive land use outside the UCB. There are practical reasons for this (running sewer and water and roads and transit to far flung regions is expensive) and less tangible reasons (plowing down greenspace, covering farmland, impacting protected watersheds makes our region less resilient).

This application from Maple Ridge is to shift an area outside the UCB to more intensive industrial use. Much of it has already been industrialized (and old gravel pit and newer light industrial properties), though much of it is still relatively pristine forest and watershed with significant ecological values. The proposal will preserve some high ecological value areas for the long term, but does represent a significant shift in the UCB but for purposes that are aligned with the spirit of the regional plan (intensifying existing industrial space in a region lacking in it). Following staff’s advice, we are sending a note to Metro Vancouver expressing some concerns but not strongly opposing the application, in the hopes that the Regional Board will take those concerns into consideration and evaluate efforts by Maple Ridge to mitigate those concerns.

Metro 2050 Type 2 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (Hazelmere)
This proposal is similar to the above in process, but the proposal is quite different. Surrey applied to have these mostly green rural properties added to the Urban Containment Boundary a decade ago and was firmly turned down for a variety of good reasons. Here they are returning with exactly the same application, and have provided no good reason for us to agree now. The proposal is to build a neighbourhood of low-density single family homes near the US border a long way from the nearest edge of the Urban Containment Boundary, never mind sewers and pipes. This has all the negative impact of intensifying land our in rural areas (costs uploaded to government, environmental impact) while providing no regional benefits whatsoever (the region isn’t really lacking single family homes), and flies in the face of the regional plan. The City is sending a letter opposing this application, hoping the board at Metro Vancouver (at least 34% of them, as this change requires a 2/3 vote of the Board.

Updated Approach to Setting Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges and Access and Inclusion Policy
We update our fees and charges bylaw for recreation every year, this time staff want to have a bit of a review of how we do that work. Part is to make sure we are being fair and inclusive, including how we apply our financial assistance program. There is a structured approach here – with some programs with great public benefit (e.g. children’s swim lessons) receiving higher taxpayer subsidy than programs that only benefit a few individuals (e.g. private or specialized training). Overlaying these principles is the recognition that parks and recreation services are subsidized by the taxpayer – and cannot be 100% cost recovery if we hope for them to be accessible. We also have an inclusion policy that seeks to remove economic barrier to participation for everyone in the community who might need this support.

---

The following itema were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Response to Council Motion: Implications of Housing Legislation on Curbside Management
This is about parking, but a lot more, because the curbside is some of the most valuable land in the City, but people tend to care most about it when they want to park there. With the introduction of some new provincial housing regulation, our system of managing residential parking is going to need an update. If we are required to permit higher-density housing and will not be able to require off-street parking for much of it, people are going to expect that they can use public space for parking their vehicle, and there will be a commons problem, because we simply don’t have enough public space for everyone to park a car on, and there are many other demands for that public space that serve the common good better than the storage of private chattel, such as loading zones, mobility lanes, bus stops, etc.

Developing new policy here is going to be a complicated technical project, and will require extensive consultation with neighbourhoods. Staff is going to start the process working with consultants and have estimated about $200,000 for the technical work and the public consultation, which staff will include in the 2027 budget. Expect quite the public discussion around this over the next year or more, as this work progresses. And if you are really interested, here’s the book you need to read. Yes, 800 pages of parking policy, and it’s glorious!

New Media Gallery Environmental Scan Results and Next Steps for Exhibition Program
The New Media Gallery has been on a bit of a hiatus for a year since the previous Director-Curator team left the City for other opportunities. The space has been used with our Artist-in-Residence program, and in supporting the very popular learning lab in the Anvil Centre. Meanwhile, the opportunity of the hiatus was to do an environmental scan and determine the best course for both the Gallery as an operation, and the Gallery as a space. This is the result of that work.

The analysis confirmed that the New Media Gallery is a unique and highly valued gallery offering locally and on the regional arts scene. A unique offering, as the only gallery in the region (and one of the few in Western Canada) concentrating on new media arts, and as a result it was one of the most popular galleries in the Lower Mainland during its first ten years of operation. This not only provides a valuable cultural asset contributing to New Westminster’s civic identity, it is also a contributor to the Downtown economic and cultural vitality. The decision by Council is to continue operating the Gallery within the existing budget, and start the search for a new director.

---

We then had two Motions from Council:

New West Schools and City of New Westminster Joint Working Group Terms of Reference
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS the New West Schools and City of New Westminster joint working group is a forum for collaboration on issues that impact the City, District, and community
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the working group Terms of Reference be amended to include three representatives from the School Board in alignment with the three representatives from the City.

We have a joint working group of City Council and School Board that help coordinate between the two bodies on things like new school sites, joint use agreements, and other areas of common interest. The group (through the Chair) has asked that the Term of Reference be adjusted to make it more equitable between the two bodies.

Consultation with Railway Association of Canada: 502 Twentieth Street
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS new information has been provided to Council by the Railway Association of Canada and several rail operators regarding the potential safety risks posed by the installation of a Tiny Home village adjacent to active rail lines; and
WHEREAS the railway companies indicate they were not adequately consulted prior to the approval of BC Housing’s Tiny Home village; and
WHEREAS Council’s top priority should be that we receive all critical information necessary to make decisions that may impact the safety of New Westminster residents – prior to a final decision being made
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff on an urgent basis to coordinate a public meeting within 30 days whereby we invite the Railway Association of Canada and other affected rail operators to present their concerns regarding safety issues pertaining to the installation of the new Tiny Home village in our West End.

Council has received correspondence from the Rail Association of Canada, and an adjacent railway operator about the Tiny Homes Village proposal. This has precipitated the City coordinating meetings between the RAC and BC Housing so their concerns can be addressed. As BC Housing is developing the Operations Plan, and is setting up the terms through which an operator will operate the village – these safety plans are a vital and important part of this. RACs request is that BC Housing develop a Rail Safety Plan, and BC Housing has confirmed to us that both a Rail safety assessment and an industrial Safety Plan will be undertaken, and BC Housing intends to convene a meeting with all stakeholders to review those findings and determine next steps collaboratively, as the safety of the operation of the site is paramount for its success.

So this motion is somewhat redundant to the work that is ongoing (and yes, the Councillor who moved this motion has all the information I have about this) so Council amended the motion above from “direct staff…” to “request BC Housing…” so the right people are doing the work, and increased the timeline to better coincide with the existing work. In short, Council unanimously agreed to ask BC Housing to do what it is already doing because we have already made this request of BC Housing. But, hey, politics.

---

And we had one Bylaw for Adoption:

Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8576, 2026
This Bylaw that formally sets property taxation rates for 2026 was adopted by Council.

---

And we had a single item of New Business:

Motion for reconsideration – 800 Queens Ave
This is a bit of a deep dive, but let me keep it simple. The building of a new school at Simcoe Park needs a Development Variance Permit as it is bigger than anticipated (yeah! Building for growth!) and there are some parking and other requirements that need to be addressed. The province has the power to override the need for a DVP if conflict arises, but the School Board and Council (through the Joint Working Group – see above) are working well, and the DVP is not causing any specific delay, so we are following the normal path. At the same time, the City and the School District are working on a new Joint Use Agreement framework. Simcoe Park is heavily used by the existing Fraser Middle, and will see more use with the upcoming elementary school, and there are other spaces belonging to the City that the school will impacts during construction and ongoing, so it is good practice for the two governing bodies to clarify join use, rights and responsibilities. The City agreed recently that the Joint Use Agreement itself (which involves lawyers and such on both sides) might take too much time and muck up works, so agreed to co-develop the framework for the JUA (that is, the terms of the JUA at a principles level, without specific agreement language) prior to the DVP being issued. This Framework has been completed and agreed to by the City. So there is no reason to tie it to the DVP, and it is easiest to simply rescind the requirement for the JUA, and not have its language mucking up the DVP approval that is just around the corner. That’s all a complicated way of saying the School Board and the City are working well together to get the new School approved and develop new Joint Use Agreements for not just this school, but others in the district. The Working Group has been earning their pay!

And with that good feeling, another Council meeting comes to an end!

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

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.

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

This week was our semi-annual (Biannual? Two times a year?) migration to Queensborough Community Centre for a Council meeting that crosses the gap. We had a fairly short Agenda that started (after a half dozen public delegations) with a Presentation:

təməsew̓txʷ Aquatic and Community Centre Project Close-Out Report
This report ends the Capital project phase of the construction of təməsew̓txʷ, the largest single capital project in the City’s history. The community centre has been open for two years now, but the capital project didn’t end at opening as there was significant fitting out, working with the project delivery team to button up deficiencies and training on operational details. It also allowed a full year of operational evaluation after the initial launch and buffer time when operations and public use patterns were being established. We now are into standard operations for the next 50+ years, so a good time to provide a full reporting out.

The big headline news is that the building was very close to being completed on time (a few months late due to extra time needed for geotechnical work one the excavation started), and actually came home slightly under budget (We budgeted $114M, spent just under $113M). These are remarkable feats considering the context of the procurement occurring during the early days of COVID, and construction occurring through challenging geotechnical conditions, a regional concrete strike, supply chain disruptions and massive construction inflation related to COVID and the realignment of global trade. There is also some significant comfort in knowing that waiting out COVID uncertainties and starting the project a year later would have near doubled project costs, as we are seeing in other similar-scaled recreation projects across the Lower Mainland right now.

The project has won numerous awards, provincially, nationally, and internationally, and though the global architecture prize got the most media, it is the dozens of awards for design, function, accessibility and environmental performance that are most exciting – the building is being noted regionally and across the country for how it delivers service, how the vision of a “community meeting place” worked out, how accessible the various functions of the building are, and how being the first Zero Carbon certified aquatic centre in Canada not only saves the City a tonne of operational money and reduces GHG emissions over the long term, but how this building helped develop the guidelines for Zero Carobn community centres across the country moving forward – New Westminster lifted the bar for environmental performance nationally with this building.

Meanwhile, the centre is serving three times the number of people as the combined facilities it replaced, with more than 1 million visits in the last year, and surveys of the visiting public are overwhelmingly positive. The operational capacity of the pools are much higher than the single pool they replaced, and community space more than double that of the Centennial Community Centre. Looking back at the feasibility of the pool that was developed in 2017, təməsew̓txʷ meets and exceeds every expectation. There were some challenges and learnings along the way, and the massive popularity of the facility means we are still dealing with some issues mostly related to unanticipated usage levels (partly related to Burnaby projects being delayed!) but “too many people” is the best problem to have when you open something new.

---

The following items were approved On Consent:

Application to Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Fund: Urban Forestry Plans and Studies
We had a delegate come to speak about how they appreciated the investment the City is making in new trees and biodiversity, and I tend to agree, but want to note that we have been really successful at getting Federal Government grants for much of this work – well over $2 Million already. This is a report outlining an application we are making to Federation of Canadian Municipalities’ (FCM) Green Municipal Fund to support further work in this area.

Appointment of Interim Corporate Officer
The Corporate Officer is one of those jobs that has legislative responsibilities, and must be appointed by Council, there are some staff changes going on and we are appointing the Assistant Corporate Officer serve in an Interim role.

Community Advisory Assembly Updates and Recommendations on the Future Role of Libraries
This is a reporting back from the Community Advisory assembly on how the community views the roles of libraries in the present and future. After deliberating, they reported out to the Library Board, and are now reporting to Council.

This was an interesting discussion, as we all acknowledge Libraries are more than just book repositories, and serve a variety of functions in the community. However, the question for the Assembly is how the community (as opposed to the Library Staff, Board, or City) see that evolving role. This is especially timely as the Library is undergoing a Facilities Master Plan right now (see details and survey results here, and there has been increasing discussion of how to make new public spaces available in the Downtown along with realignment of the existing downtown community spaces, and a Downtown Library Branch is part of that discussion.

There are recommendations here worth reading if you are interested in Libraries! And who isn’t?

Issuance of Development Variance Permit for 430 Ninth Street
There is a 29-unit apartment building near Moody Park that is undergoing significant renovation from the envelope in. They propose to replace some redundant parking spaces with a couple more apartments, and as this would mean their parking is short of zoning requirements, they are willing to enter a Housing Agreement with the City to secure rental tenure for all 31 apartments. The requirement is for 19 spaces, and they will have 16 – variance of three parking spaces means 2 more homes, and secure housing for 31 families, which seems like a pretty good balance.

Retail Strategy Implementation: Active Streets Initiative – Bylaw for First, Second and Third Readings
There has been some work over the last year around The Dentist Issue. That’s a bit of a tongue-in-cheek reference to public concern that every new retail space is seeming to host a dentist office. There are a bunch of microeconomic reason for this, and cities always have to be cautious when wading into restricting specific business types, but recognizing that business supports business and vibrant streets mean a mix of business types that make streets interesting, and that there are lots of opportunities on second stories and above for medical and services, staff have put together some policies to encourage more active space use at grade in business areas. This is codified in the City through zoning bylaws, which can limit the types of activities that take place within retail spaces. It also allows business owners to apply for rezoning to allow a different use, but it definitely discourages dentists in every spot.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Development Permit Area Guidelines Update: Official Community Plan Amendment Consultation Requirements
The City is working on some Development Permit Guidelines to include in our Official Community Plan after the updates we undertook to comply with Provincial Housing Legislation. When we update the OCP, we have a legislative requirement to consult with many organizations outside of the city. This report reviews the organizations that we plan to consult with to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act. This follows up on the previous reports we have had at Council on these guidelines.

Development Variance Permit for 800 Queens Avenue (Simcoe Elementary): Update Report (DVP00745)
We are working with the School District to get approvals in place for the as-yet-unnamed new school at Simcoe Park, required to meet the need for elementary school spaces in the Downtown and Brow of the Hill. A Development Variance Permit is required because the height and density of the new school exceeds the zoning for the site. That might sound a bit bureaucratic, but the City is a regulator of land use, and needs to assure that the construction won’t too-negatively impact neighboring properties, that we can manage the sewer, water, electrical, and roadway needs of the project (which all increase with increased size), and the DVP is the tool we use to assure that the design is workable.

In recognizing that the construction phase will directly impact City-owned lands (they will be staging on City lands) and the planned land use will impact various aspects of how Simcoe Park works, Council also has a fiduciary duty to put constraints around that use of public lands and assets, and assure that impacts on City-owned lands is understood, and that agreements are in place around conditions of use and how property will be returned to the City after use. We are working with the School District to develop Letters of Commitment and are framing a Joint Use Agreement to more formally recognize City lands used by the school, and opportunities for City/Community use of School spaces. This is perhaps more complicated than it needs to be because there are multiple governments involved (City Engineering and Parks, School District, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Infrastructure), but all are agreed that the goal here is to get the DVP approved and ground broken on the School Site in June!

---

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Housing Agreement Bylaw (430 Ninth Street) No. 8532, 2026
This Bylaw that secures rental tenure for 60 years for the building at 430 Ninth Street was adopted by Council.

Sign Bylaw No. 7867, 2017, Amendment Bylaw No. 8577, 2026
This Bylaw that shifts the language in the Sign Bylaw to align the start of when election signs can go up with the start of the Campaign Period as designated by Elections BC was adopted by Council.

Elections Procedures Bylaw No. 7985, 2018, Amendment Bylaw No. 8579, 2026
This Bylaw that outlines the rest of the election procedures for the Local Government election on October 17 was adopted by Council. We are off to the races!

(This post is being re-posted in July from a draft version as the original post was lost through some website glitch. Please excuse any formatting errors, lost links or other weirdness, its here for the sake of completeness, and I just don’t have time to reformat everything) 

It has been a hectic week, with lots of exciting things going on, some big and public, some more about ongoing conversations that are just starting to see public news release, or aren’t ready for new release yet. It’s been busy!

Last week’s Council meetings was not without its drama (I could write an entire report just on the delegations!), and there will be some more fallout of that, but we also got a lot of great work done from a relatively concise agenda, and that’s what this report is about. It started with a Presentation from Staff:

People, Parks and Play: New Westminster Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
This term of Council, following on the heels of the opening of təməsew̓txʷ, there has been a lot of work in the background and through several phases of public consultation on a new master plan for parks and recreation in the City. This is the culmination of that work, and sets the path for the next 10 years in recreation and parks investment in the City. It’s an exciting time of looking forward.

As our last Parks Plan from 2008 demonstrates, there has been a lot of change in 18 years, and the recreation needs of the community have evolved. It’s not simply a matter of “we need more of everything”, we have had to shift and adapt to long-term trends in recreation and parks use, driven by shifts in our demographics, to assure what we can offer in our limited 15 square kilometres best meets the needs of our residents.

Much like our Council Strategic Plan, this master plan is structured around clear goals (six defined goals in this case) and the three foundational lenses of Reconciliation, Equity and Inclusion, and Climate Action are used as lenses to define how we achieve those goals. Not surprisingly for a City that has grown in population by about 50% since 2008, out park-space-per-capita has gone down, though most residents still live within a 10 minute walk of an active park, only about half live within a 5-minute walk, and acquisition of new park land, especially in denser areas like the Brow of the Hill where most residents don’t have back yard, is a priority.

But to me the exciting part of this report and Council’s resolution to move forward rapidly on high priority projects is the commitment to the next phase of recreation infrastructure investment following təməsew̓txʷ.
New sports courts Simcoe Park, Grimston and Moody Park, and a new multi-purpose covered outdoor sport court, replacing our aging collection of outdoor lacrosse boxes; major upgrades at Westburnco; commitment to a third sheet of ice to compliment Queens Park Arena and Moody Arena; and commitment a new (2,800 square meters?) multi-purpose community center in the downtown.

The next 5 years are going to be a period of rapid parks and recreation growth in the City, and this plan is the roadmap we need to see that growth succeed.

---

The following items were then approved On Consent:

2026 Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel for Local Area Services
Parcel Taxes are the method through which the City collects money from some landowners to pay for a specific service, based on lots size or frontage as opposed to assessed value. In New Westminster that is limited to funding the BIAs Uptown and Downtown though a tax that applies only to members. As a matter of legal practice, we must review the Parcel Tax Roll every year, and province a venue for owners in the parcel tax area to appeal if they think it shouldn’t apply to them. This report is just outlining that process, and giving public notice that we will formally review the poll in an upcoming Council meeting.
FCM Resolution Amendment – Modernizing Federal Small Business Policy to Support Local Economic Stability and Succession
The way the FCM (our national advocacy body as local governments) managed resolutions is bit different than the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (our local body) and the Unions of BC Municipalities (our Provincial body). After reviewing the resolution we submitted, they are making some recommendations for modification of the resolution that doesn’t change the meaning or nature, just the process of its consideration at FCM. We approve.

Response to Council Motion: Municipal Practices for Allocation of Filming Revenue
There was some discussion in council recently about the “excess revenue” the City collects for filming in the City. Most of the revenue we collect is cost recovery (covering the costs of police attendance, traffic management, engineering support, etc.) but we do make a little but of extra revenue every year that goes into general revenues. This idea was whether some of this could be earmarked for new initiatives, likely through a reserve fund. Staff have looked around the region and found that the way we manage excess revenue is pretty typical region-wide, but will take the idea of earmarking some of the revenues to the ACEDAC.

Westminster Pier Park Westward Expansion- Additional Fee Request from PFS Studio
We effectively sole-sourced this phase of design work for the Pier Park western expansion, because there was a design team we were working with that knew the complexity of the site (building a park on top of a parkade structure!) and had been partnering with us through this work The total in fees now exceeds what were are able to sole-source without Council authorization, so here is staff seeking that authorization. This is not a budget change – the project is on budget, and will be completed this spring!

---

The following items were Removed from consentfor discussion.

Budget 2027 Public Opinion Survey Methodology
Every couple of years, we pay for a formal scientific poll of the community as part of our budget consultation process. This is different that the workshops, opportunities to be heard, Facebook (oh, god) comments, and other processes we do, as it is actually a scientifically defensible survey of public opinion on the budget, taxes, and level of service in the community. The last poll in 2025 showed people are generally satisfied with the value they get for their tax dollar in New Westminster and are not in favour of cutting services to keep tax increases down. We will repeat this process in 2026 to survey the community and hopefully use that feedback to frame our discussion about the 2027 budget. Public polling like this, to get reliable results, costs money, but as part of a broader strategy of hearing from the community, it is worth while doing these check-ins every couple of years.

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw Cooling Amendments and Next Steps
I don’t have to remind regular readers about the 2021 heat dome, and the devastating impact it had on our community. I wrote about it here, and after 33 coroner-confirmed direct deaths (and other related to the event), I am still committed to the City doing everything within our power to prevent a repeat. We have already taken many actions, from expanding our heat emergency response efforts, reevaluating how we operate and advertise cooling centres, and working with residential property operators on “one cool room” and other strategies to assure that older and less efficient buildings in the City don’t become death traps during the next major heat event.

We have done a lot of work, and have implemented several “carrots” to support residential property managers to make homes safer. We have struggled with the “sticks” part of that same policy goal. We have already passed a bylaw regulating that landlords cannot arbitrarily ban air conditioners from rental apartments, we are now moving forward with what we think is a pragmatic and defensible position that landlord are required to maintain safe indoor temperatures in at least one living space in a rental unit. We already have laws that require heating to a safe temperature be provided, we are adding to this that beyond a safe minimum temperature, there must be a safe maximum temperature.

Alongside this, and as part of our ongoing Vulnerable Buildings Assessment project, a pilot project is simultaneously being developed to support building owners and tenants to identify, access and implement indoor cooling solutions on a case-by-case basis.

This report brings the first three reading of the Bylaws, and we have some work and consultation to do prior to adoption, then we will have some communications work to do following adoption, but I think this is another example of New Westminster going above and beyond to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, and I’m proud that staff were able to find a bold and pragmatic approach that might just save lives.

Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application: 807-823 Sangster Place and 39 E Eighth Avenue – Application Update
This is a challenging project that has been under development for several years, and has run up against the deadline of June 30 that the City has for implementing our Bill 46-mandated funding structure for DCCs and ACCs. In short, after that date we are no longer able to negotiate Community Amenity Contributions, and instead must charge Development Cost Charges and Amenity Cost Charges to get funding for amenities from developers. This project was developed without the updated DCC and ACC costs included, and the developer was given the option to proceed under the new rules or under the old rules, on the condition that in the latter case all work required be completed in time for Council to provide approval before June 30th. The developer chose that second path. That has resulted in the unusual situation where staff are bringing the project to Council while not recommending approval.

To the biggest point here, the applicant has missed the deadline to provide the information necessary to prepare the Bylaws. As this project is not just a rezoning, but necessitates an amendment of the Official Community Plan, legislations requires significant external agency consultation and public consultation leading to an Public Hearing based on the prepared Bylaws, and now the timelines to get all of that done by June 30th are too tight.

That is a process problem, and what led to Council making the decision to vote against advancing this application, but there are some other problems with the development that can be summed up as it representing an OCP amendment without public amenity contribution sufficient to warrant OCP update. The applicant can re-apply at a future date, but the project will now be subject to the new DCC and ACC regulations.

Planning for the 2026 General Local Elections
Hey! There is an election coming in October! And the City has to run the election for both Council and the School Board, so this report outlines the election plan from the our Corporate Officer. There will be some changed arising out of the post-election summary provided to Council back in, and the only recommendation coming out of that that council did not agree with was moving the date for installing lawn signs forward to the start of the nomination period. Instead lawn signs will be permitted at the start of the 28-day campaign period to align with provincial practice.

---

And that was Council for March. I cannot believe it is April already. Happy Easter everyone.