Whew! Last meeting of 2025 had an epic agenda, even for the end of the year meeting. I’m going to try to keep these reports short, and come back in future post to unpack a bit some of the meatier items.

The following items were moved On Consent:

Food Security and Systems Plan
Food security is a challenge in New West, as it is across Canada – Nationwide 25% of Canadians experience food insecurity, this should be a national shame for a country as rich as ours. Though we have several food bank service providers, the service is strained, and volunteers and non-profit capacity is at its limit. Some programs are winding down or consolidating for lack of resources, and the need is not going away.

Staff have developed a Food Security and Systems Plan to better support collaboration among local and regional providers, and to seek senior government support. This was developed over 16 months through working with Fraser Health, the homelessness coalition, the business community, faith-based and non-profit organizations, with financial resources provided by the BC Healthy Communities Fund. There are 40 actions identified here under 6 different themes, and this report asked for Council’s support to move ahead with implementation.

Indigenous Relations Response to November 3, 2025 Council Motion
This is an information report responding to a Council motion to get an update on our Reconciliation actions, specifically our approach to UNDRIP, the Calls to Action of the TRC Commission report, and the Calls to Justice of the MMIWG report. In short, the report provides a framework for better accounting for the work done, and the work we have yet to do.

Issuance of Development Variance Permit DVP00750 for 1125 Fifth Avenue
As mentioned last meeting, this 34-unit strata project in the Brow of the Hill was given rezoning in 2016(!) and a Development Permit in 2018(!) and is still an empty lot, demonstrating that municipal approvals are not always the thing slowing down new housing development. We have updated some parking requirements since then, but adopting those would require a complete redesign of the building. As it appears the builder finally wants to get building with what is approved, so we now need to give them a variance to allow the next steps to proceed. This is the decision to issue the variance approved in principle last meeting.

Officers Establishment and Indemnity Bylaw No. 7175, 2007, Amendment Bylaw No. 8565, 2025 and Delegation Bylaw No. 7176, 2015, Amendment Bylaw No. 8566, 2025 for Consideration of First, Second and Third Reading
Among City staff, some are “Officers” in that they have specific legislated authority under various Provincial Acts, and some had specific delegated authority under City Bylaws (they can make decisions without needing to ask Council). This Bylaw names those positions and limits those authorities, and we are making some relatively minor amendments to update it.

Rescission of Third Reading of Development Cost Charges Bylaw No. 8327, 2022, Amendment Bylaw No. 8539, 2025
Back in August we gave third reading to a new DCC Bylaw following changed made by the Province on these funding models. We are required us to submit the Bylaw to the Ministry for approval before adoption. The inspector didn’t like that we used the words “Protective Services”, and would rather we use the terms “fire protection” and “police”, and split up our Protective Service DCC between the two. So we are rescinding the Third reading and resubmitting with this language change.

Rescission of Third Reading of Development Cost Charges Protective Services Reserve Fund Establishment Bylaw
Because of the above, we need to do the same with the name of the Reserve Fund we set up and make it into two separate reserve funds.

Solid Waste Master Plan
Solid Waste is complicated. When I was a kid, we threw glad bags in cans and it all went to an open landfill on the edge of town to feed the bears. Today we have multiple streams for economic and environmental reasons. Landfills are expensive and far away, so we try to reduce what goes there, preferring to recycle organic materials into compost and biofuel, while Extended Producer Responsibility programs mean recyclable plastic, papers and metals need to go to special processing facilities. And how that waste is separated and collected varies depending on whether you live in a single family home, an apartment of townhouse, or by the size and scale of your business. It’s complicated, and becoming more expensive.

The City has undertaken a comprehensive review of its solid waste program, and has developed its first Solid Waste Management Plan to help us prioritize and coordinate capital investment and better allocate resources and service levels. And we even had hundreds of New West residents engage with us through this planning!

The resultant plan has 15 recommendations over 5 focus areas, and implementation will see several opportunities for public discussion about waste management and for Council to provide some input or commitment of resources. I really enjoyed how the report included rationale and case study analysis of each of the 15 recommendations – we are not re-inventing the wheel here, but are building on what has worked in other jurisdictions. Each also comes with a qualitative measure of economic, environmental, and social impacts/costs of each recommendation to help Council see how the prioritization was set. This is a good report, and I’m looking forward to the plan implementation.

Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 7142, 2007, Amendment Bylaw No. 8564, 2025
This Bylaw sets the standards for land subdivision and servicing these subdivided lots. Industry standards for these bylaws have evolved, as have Provincial regulations, and our Bylaw needs an update. These are mostly administrative, though some standards are also being updated, and that gets real technical real quick (runoff coefficients! Fireflow requirements!).

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw No. 8543, 2025 [Vape Stores]
These are the first three readings of the updates to the Zoning Amendment Bylaws to more strictly regulate Vape Shops as discussed last meeting

---

We then addressed these following items that were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Sixth Avenue and Second Street Road Safety Study
This intersection in Queens Park has received a lot of attention over the last year, as cars keep crashing into each other there. According to our recent intersection Safety Study, it is only the 57th most frequently crashed intersection in the City, with no history of vulnerable road user crashes, meaning it wasn’t prioritized for upgrades. It already has pedestrian controlled stoplights, stop signs, four marked crosswalks, and is in a 30km/h school zone. Some increased safety measures were installed in 2019 and 2022 as well.

After all that, there was still community concern, so staff undertook a detailed safety study, including tracking near-miss and traffic behavior analysis. No surprise, behaviors like speeding, illegal parking, and “aggressive turn movements” are major risk factors, but there are also some engineering challenges – sightlines, the road is too wide, and driveways of an adjacent business and a bus stop are too close to the intersection. Staff are recommending changes, some quick and relatively cheap including “curb extensions” that will no doubt be universally beloved (/s), with eventual migration to a fully signalized intersection, which will cost about $1.2 Million.

Budget 2026: General Fund Five Year Capital Plan (2026 – 2030) and Funding Strategy
There are multiple steps to our budget process, and we do this all transparently at every step. We have had previous reporting on the proposed capital plan for the year ahead, and need to fit that into a 5-year capital plan to meet provincial reporting guidelines, and we need to outline what parts of that will be funded by grants, reserves, or debt.

Of course planning capital spending 5 years down the road is in many ways educated guesswork, as we don’t know where the global or local economy will be 5 years from now, or the cost of capital construction (which as we learned in recent reporting, has increased much. Much faster than “CPI” inflation over the last decade). However, we do know what we need to build, as we have advanced Asset Management Plans and clear priorities for new assets.

There is also an important nuance in here that we cannot apply for senior government or other grants, or even spend reserves drawn from development contributions, without the project being included in a Capital plan first. So some of these projects are “aspirational” to get us ready for when funding opportunities arise. We still need to have a viable funding plan for 5 years in the future, in case none of that senior support arises. That means we need to anticipate borrowing or other methods to pay for the infrastructure we need, but does not commit us (of future councils) to borrowing in the future. We are also now starting to extend our capital investment planning to 10 years (longer than required by legislation) in order to set up future Councils for success in asset renewal.

There is a LOT here (492 lines in the spreadsheet if you want to go line-by-line) so I will follow up with more detail in the new year.

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Provincial Housing Legislation – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
The Provincial housing regulations of last year and our Housing Accelerator Fund commitments to the Federal Government all come together as a suite of Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw updates, which we will be taking to Public Hearing early in the New Year. For logistical reason, these are split into two broad categories, this first one covering the Transit Oriented Development areas resulting from Bill 47 and new Affordable Housing measures to reduce regulatory barriers to affordability within those areas, and changes to the OCP to incorporate the findings of the Interim Housing Needs report as required by Provincial Regulations.
Council unanimously agreed to move forward with the framework as presented back in our October 27 workshop, after more than a year of work by staff, multiple Council meetings, and a long and multi-faceted public engagement process.

I’m going to hold off on more comment about this until the Public Hearing in January to respect the process. C’mon out and tell us how you feel!

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Townhouse and Affordable Housing Accelerator Fund Initiatives Bylaws for First and Second Reading
This is the second part of those OCP and zoning changes that support townhouses and broader Affordable Housing acceleration city-wide. Much like the above item, I’m going to hold off on more comment about this until the Public Hearing in January to respect the process. C’mon out and tell us how you feel!

Response to Council Motion: “Inventory of Municipal Arts and Culture Indoor and Outdoor Spaces”
This is a report back on a Council motion to provide a clearer inventory of Arts spaces in the City. This is a preliminary inventory of City-owned indoor and outdoor places that are available for formal programming, and it is a lot of them, along with a list of non-City and private spaces available for programming events.

Response to Council Motion: That the Motion Received by Council from the Community Heritage Commission Regarding an Updated Mandate and Scope of Authority be Referred to Staff for Consultation with the Commission Chair and Subsequent Report Back to Council
There was a lengthy recommendation brought to Council from the Community Heritage Commission back in November that appeared to massively expand the mandate of the commission, in some areas that made sense, and some others that look logistically (if not legislatively) difficult to imagine. In the strictest language of the motion, it looked like a massive bundle of red tape that would take significant city resources to manage. Council in its wisdom referred this back to staff for a bit of analysis and to recommend a path of how to evaluate what is a Terms of Reference Change and what would require the re-writing of several Bylaws in the City. This report provides that path.

In short, staff is going to work with the CHC to undertake a community consultation and review its Terms of Reference, and make recommendations to Council some time next year based on the result of that review.

---

We than had one Motion from Council:

Provincial Referendum on Selection of Metro Vancouver Regional District Board of Directors
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write a letter on behalf of Council to the Premier requesting the provincial government take the necessary steps to undertake a referendum during the 2026 civic election on a new and more accountable governance model for Metro Vancouver which would include an option to:
1. Directly elect the Metro Vancouver Board of Directors; and
Significantly reduce the size of the Board of Directors by utilizing a modernized weighted voting model
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to draft a motion which would be submitted to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association seeking their support for this initiative
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write to the Premier requesting that as part of the 2026 Budget he immediately provide the necessary funds and expand the mandate of BC’s Auditor General to include Metro Vancouver and all municipalities in the province.

This is a motion I spoke strongly against, as it seems completely bereft of any understanding of the current and historic governance of Regional Districts, of the governance review work at MetroVan being led by Vancouver Councillor Lisa Dominato, and seems to offer a solution that will do nothing to help any of the current challenges at Metro Van.

As a wise man once said, “For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong” This seems to be that kind of solution.

While the mover offered nothing but “vibes” that it would fix everything, there is ample evidence that it won’t. The evidence includes the previous model from the 1970s when there was a directly elected board of Metro, a model that was abandoned after only a few years because it was highly unworkable. Then there is the external governance review of Metro Vancouver completed by Deloitte, which (despite the mover’s lie false assertion of the opposite, did in fact evaluate direct election as a governance model and recommended strongly against it for a long list of reasons. A few choice quotes:

“There is no guarantee that an individual elected by the public onto the Board of Metro Vancouver is able to bring better skills, municipal experience, or otherwise better govern the significant risk and complexity related to a multi-billion dollar utility, housing and regional service organization”
“There is no certainty that a slate of elected directors would work together more effectively than the current appointed officials. In some instances, the political leverage or the need for several municipalities to collaborate on other initiatives force the appointed officers to collaborate today”
“An elected official model could create scenarios where the Board becomes divided or driven towards a different strategic agenda at the expense of the municipalities”
“we did not see any significant advantages from such an investment in changing to this source of candidates and in fact it may perpetuate or complicate current governance challenges.”

So Council wisely chose not to recommend this course to the Province and voted against the first two clauses.

On the last clause, it equally failed to acknowledge the recent history of the Auditor General for Local Government. This provincial government campaigned on shutting the AGLG, then did so after a review of the office, and local governments sent a strong message through UBCM that the AGLG was not a good use of government resources. So, I’m not sure why we would advocate for a return of those services as it seems extremely unlikely that a government running into a revenue and debt problem would invest in changing course now after doing something that made the municipalities of the province happy. Spending more money to make everyone unhappy seems a curious path to suggest. However, Council did support this last clause in a split vote, so I’ll write the letter.

---

Then we put a wrap on the season by adopting the following Bylaws

Results of Local Area Service on Council Initiative: Renewal of Downtown New Westminster Business Improvement Area (Primary Area) Bylaw No. 8548, 2025 and Downtown New Westminster Business Improvement Area (Secondary Area) Bylaw No. 8549, 2025
BIAs are entities regulated by the Community Charter. Though the BIA is a non-profit collective that belongs 100% to the members, the City acts as an agent to collect the parcel taxes from the members and return those taxes to the BIA to fund their programs. This requires Bylaws, and those Bylaws require regular renewal. The BIA surveys its members every time, and this time opposition to the BIA tax levy was under 5% of members in one part of the BIA, and under 8% in the other. So Council adopted the Bylaws and let the BIA do what the BIA does!

New Westminster Amenity Cost Charges Reserve Fund Establishment Bylaw No. 8560, 2025
This Bylaw that sets ups a reserve fund for ACCs was adopted by Council.

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw No. 7142, 2010, Amendment Bylaw No. 8567, 2025
This Bylaw that allows the City to dip into a short-term “line of credit” in case of a tax time cash crunch was adopted by Council.

Engineering User Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7553, 2013, Amendment Bylaw No. 8568, 2025
Electrical Utility Bylaw No. 6502, 1998, Amendment Bylaw No. 8569, 2025
These Bylaws that set various rates for utility and other services for 2026 was Adopted by Council.

---

And with that, we are off until early January. I hope however you celebrate the holidays, you get the excitement/relaxation/rest/exercise/family/food/fun/isolation/whatever you enjoy the most, and we’ll see you in what is looking like and exciting 2026.

Council Monday! It was fun to go out to Tipperary Park before and countdown to the Bright in the Park light-up, where a few hundred people got a bit of early Christmas Cheer. Alas, not all of them came to watch Council after. Because we had an exciting agenda starting with this Report:

Vulnerable Building Assessment Phase One Update and Next Steps
In response to the 2021 Heat Dome, New Westminster has been undertaking a variety of measures to reduce the impact of a future Heat Dome type emergency, including changing our emergency response preparedness, bringing in Bylaws to keep Landlords from preventing air conditioner installations, advocating to senior governments for legislative changes to keep vulnerable people alive, and identifying trends of vulnerable people and buildings so our response next time can be better prioritized. This report updates us on the next steps on that vulnerable building assessment part. We have identified the most vulnerable building in the City and are now directing incentive programs and supports to encourage retrofits of those buildings.

One example of the many problem identified in our Vulnerable buildings Assessment is that most of the most vulnerable buildings don’t have central heating or cooling mechanical systems, but rely on in-suite baseboard electric heat, and that lack of central mechanical heating makes then ineligible for senior government retrofit funding. Bring proactive, the City will use its EnergySave NewWest resources to fill this program gap as a pilot program for landlords and will do direct outreach to occupants with low-barrier occupant-focused incentives to help mitigate overheating risk.

While some on our Council have sought repeatedly to defund our Climate Action programs, this demonstrates that climate work is not just about reducing greenhouse gasses and electrification, it is increasingly about saving lives.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent

Development Variance Permit (1125 Fifth Avenue): Permit to Vary Off-Street Loading Space Requirement – Notice of Consideration of Issuance
This 34-unit strata project in the Brow of the Hill was given rezoning in 2016(!) and a Development Permit in 2018(!) and is still an empty lot, demonstrating that municipal approvals are not always the thing slowing down new housing development. We have updated some parking requirements since then, but adopting those would require a complete redesign of the building. As it appears the builder finally wants to get building with what is approved, so we now need to give them a variance to allow the next steps to proceed.

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw 7412, 2010, Amendment Bylaw 8567, 2025
The City collects a big hunk of its revenue at annual tax time, but we spend money on an almost even rate the year round. This means there is a small risk that if we have a large unexpected expense just before everyone pays their tax bill, or if a large number of people are late paying their tax bill, we could run out of cash to pay our bills. We can, of course, borrow on the short term with a line-of-credit to cover this period of time, but staff cannot borrow without and authorization bylaw by Council. So every year Council approves a bylaw to permit staff to do that short term borrow only if required.

Rezoning for Infill Development: 647 East Columbia Street – Bylaw for First, Second and Third Readings
An owner near Hume Park wants to build two duplexes with secondary suites (a total of 6 homes) consistent with our Infill Housing Accelerator Program. At this time, it requires a rezoning. They did some public consultation with no opposition recorded, and the project is consistent with existing policies. It is a high-gradient site, and development will require the removal of some trees, of varying health, but tree replacement consistent with our Tree Bylaw will be undertaken.

Zoning Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8543, 2025 – Vape Stores
The City is taking some steps to put a pause on new Vape Stores by removing them as an approved use in retail areas, and requiring a rezoning for their approval, meaning Council will be able to say no. This in absence of senior government action as we have requested to better regulate Vape Stores and Vape Products under the BC Liquor and Cannabis regulations.

---

We then deliberated on these items Removed form Consent:

2025 Capital and Operating Q3 Performance Report
This is our Quarterly financial report, which is a pretty comprehensive report covering line-by-line spending updates from the capital program and department-by-department operational budget reports. All looks good here, and we are tracking pretty close to budget.

Capital budget is being adjusted by adding $2.7M from reserves (partly by moving project fund forward from future years, part from a contribution from a developer), which represents a 2.6% increase on the projected $104.8M spend this year.

Operating budget is looking positive, we are $0.4M (0.1%) above projections on the revenue side, and $1.6M (0.5%) under budget on the expenses side. This is headed towards a small surplus for the year over budget.

2026 Final New Westminster Police Department Operating and Capital Budgets
As per regulation, the Police Board is required to put a provisional budget in front of Council byt the end of November so the City can do its own budget panning for the year ahead.

This year, the Police are asking for a 9.24% increase in operating costs adding $3.216 Million to the City’s operational budget, and $1.18M for capital projects. This equates to just under a 3% property tax increase for police services alone. This continues the trend of the Police budget increasing faster than our general tax increases, though the police budget still represents about 22% of our total (non-utility) budget, which is relatively low compared to most local government police services in British Columbia. In short, we get good value for our money with the NWPD.

The last couple of years the police have been managing resource constraints through a backfill strategy that didn’t add to the allocated number of sworn officers, but were backfilling vacancies to get the police closer to that number of authorized members. This resulted in police budget increases in the 10% annual range since the beginning of this Council term. This year, the Police are looking at a 5-year staffing plan to increase the number of sworn members by about 30%. There are hiring capacity concerns (we can’t recruit and train officers fast enough to fill need), so the police are matching projected growth with what they think they can achieve.

Affordable Housing Development Approval Policy Work Plan
We have an affordable housing crisis in the region, no news there. Though we have been successful this term in getting new affordable housing approved and built, the availability of senior government funding for affordable housing is tightening up, and the margin on market housing that would support more affordable housing is thin. As a local government, the best lever we have to encourage more affordable housing development is making the approval process as smooth and quick as possible. This work plan outlines further work we can do towards that.

Having already done a comprehensive Development Approval Review Process (DAPR) that sped up new housing approvals, and in conjunction with OCP changes that will pre-approve areas for non-profit secure affordable housing, approvals, staff are looking to do a deeper dive to find where our approval processes could maximize opportunities for affordable housing applicants to secure funding and related
Government supports.

Budget 2026: Utility Rates Amendment Bylaws
As part of our regular budget process, we need to set utility rates to provide for financial planning for the capital and operation budgets coming in subsequent meetings. We approved these rates notionally last meeting, this meeting we are simply approving the bylaws that empower the rates.

Almost the entirety of the increase is to pay for increased operating cost of delivering water, treating sewage, and disposing of solid waste. The rest is to finance the kind of infrastructure maintenance that keeps these utilities operating. It is of no use to complain about an “infrastructure gap” while suggesting we not fund the maintenance of utility infrastructure with the one and only tool we have to pay for it. What is not shocking is that New Westminster residents by a 3-to-1 margin tell us they feel get good value for their utility rates, recognizing we have low costs in this region for water, sewer, and solid waste services compared to almost anywhere else in North America.

Implications of Professional Reliance Act Bill M216, 2025
Local governments have responded negatively to a private members bill introduced provincially that would change how professional reliance works when it comes to building approvals. This is a bit of deep <>Inside Baseball policy wonk stuff, and it’s actual impact is unlikely to be as profound as the most strident opponents suggest, there is enough concern here and push-back from municipalities across the province, that it is worth being cautious. As there is a consultation process ongoing now, staff have suggested we write a letter to oppose the changes for that process.

Tenant Assistance Policy Update – Additional Analysis on Replacement Unit Floor Space Standards and Compensation, and Updated Principles
The City is continuing to hone it Tenants Relocation Policy – this is the policy that regulates how developers must accommodate the needs of tenants that might be displaced by development.

In short, the City has had an anti-demolition policy for several years, we generally don’t approve developments that would demolish existing affordable housing. However, if a landlord agrees to relocate or compensate the tenants at their own cost, the City will consider approving. There is significant devil-in-the-details here around what that relocation looks like, and as more affordable rental buildings in the City reach end of serviceable life, we anticipate there will be more call for this type of accommodation. We need a policy guided by the reality on the ground that does not create homelessness, but addresses an aging building stock.

This is a complex piece of work, demonstrated by the scan of regional comparators here and the list of potential consequences of different policy decisions, both for residents facing displacement and for the viability of new rental development to meet our housing needs. One thing for certain is the implementation of these policies will take staff time and we will need to invest in the staff resources necessary. These costs, however, when viewed as direct actions preventing making New Westminster residents homeless, seem like a wise and timely investment.

---

And we closed a delightful evening with one Bylaw for Adoption:

New Westminster Amenity Cost Charges Bylaw No. 8540, 2025
This Bylaw that sets the rates for the new funding tool called “Amenity Cost Charges” provided by the Province under Bill 46, was adopted by Council

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

We started with one piece of Unfinished Business:

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

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

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

---

We then moved the following items on Consent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

We then addressed these items Removed form Consent for discussion:

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

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

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

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

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

---

We then had some new items referred From Committee:

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

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

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

---

And we had a couple of Motions from Council:

Public Post Service
Submitted by Councillor McEvoy

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

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

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

Progress Reports on Truth and Reconciliation
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

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

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

---

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

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

Monday’s meeting was relatively brief compared to many this term, but it involved some pretty meaty discussions on issues small and large. You can always watch the video here and enjoy the full experience to hear the many points I can’t possible condense here in my regular reporting out. The Agenda started with one item carried over from the previous meeting that ran too long for us to get to it:

Relocation of Loading Zone on Sixth Street
This has been an interesting discussion over the last few weeks. The bus stop on Sixth Street at Sixth Ave is the busiest bus stop in the City that isn’t at a Skytrain Station with more than 1,200 transit users boarding and alighting there every day. The 106 route is also one of the busiest routes in the region, and shares this stop with the 105, while connections are made here to the 101 and 155. The 106 has specifically been a target for Speed and Reliability measures for some time. The preferred approach is to move the bus stop as close as possible to the Sixth and Sixth corner while still maintaining safe movements around what is also one of the busiest pedestrian intersections in the City. There is also a desire to build a modern, accessible, and sheltered bus stop that is “future proofed” for pending bus service improvements at this busiest stop in the City.

Unfortunately, these changes were not transmitted by the City or TransLink to the residents of an adjacent building, and they aren’t happy about that, mostly because a loading zone was near the entrance of their building was proposed to be moved to where the previous taxi queue was.

There was a pretty robust discussion around this, but I cannot help but mention there was quite a bit of misinformation circulated early that added to the resident’s anxiety and concerns, and despite staff and some of Council’s attempts to correct that information, we are deep into Betteridge’s Law by now. One example was access to HandiDart – and the need to clarify that the new longer bus stop will accommodate regular bus movements and HandiDart services, actually improving proximity to the building for HandiDart users (and providing a sheltered place for HandiDart users to wait for their ride). Indeed with the loading zone moved, HandiDart will be able to access the entirety of the curb from Princess Street to Sixth. Similarly, concerns that the changes will hamper ambulance of fire access were clearly refuted by the Fire Chief last meeting.

The biggest concern expressed by residents was that the loading zone at the Princess Street end of their street frontage present since the building was opened (and expanded in 2021 when some pay parking was stripped then modified further when a temporary bust stop was installed) would be lost, relocated to the south end of the blockface to replace the taxi queue area. Through discussion with staff, it was determined that returning this loading zone to the pre-2021 condition was viable, and would not seriously impact bus operations. There is some detail here to work out, as HandiDart access is still a primary concern, and we want to assure that still works with any modification, but it looks like Council has found a compromise between the needs of transit users and the needs of the building residents. If there is disappointment here, it is that we probably could have found this solution if we had taken a bit more time to talk to folks prior to starting the redesign work, but we got here now, and I’m glad Council took the time to listen an understand the problem, and staff were able to find a workaround. Sometimes it works, folks.

---

We then approved the following items On Consent:

Bylaw Amendments to Reflect Community Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 8529, 2025
Council adopted (unanimously) Bylaw 8529 in late September, a Bylaw that collects various user fees together under a new Bylaw to align with our new departmental structure. This means edits to three other Bylaws to finish the move: these are those three Bylaws.

Downtown BIA Renewal 2026 – 2029
Business Improvement Areas are non-profit organizations regulated by the Community Charter. The members (defined as businesses property owners within a geographic area) agree to a taxation level, usually based on the frontage or area of their property, the City collects those taxes and returns them to the BIA to do “business improvement” activities defined in the Charter. This agreement between the city and the BIA must be renewed every four years. Last month, the members of the Downtown BIA unanimously approved a four-year renewal term, and a pretty significant increase in their levy, the City need to pass a Bylaw to make this a reality.

---

The following two items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Response to Council Motion – Limiting Business Licences for Vape Stores
There has been community concern raised about vape technology, both as a public health concern for youth and about the prevalence of new shops opening up in New West. Tasha Henderson has been working with colleagues across the province to advocate for the Province to take better control of the industry, recognizing that municipal borders don’t mean much to a supply chain like this, but there is something we can do locally to stem the tide a little. There are “age restricted” vape shops in New West – a category that doesn’t include gas station convenience stores or other retail places where vape products may be available, but they are not displayed, much like cigarettes are managed.

Regulating retail for an undesirable but legal products needs to be approached carefully. Sometimes it points to a moral panic (see video game arcade restrictions that were a hassle to overturn a few years ago), and sometimes it opens the gates to Council having to draw lines in gray areas with imperfect knowledge (are vape stores worse than cigar stores?) and without fully understanding the outcome being sought. This is a good example, if vape shops are age restricted, is this about keeping those products out of the hands of youth? Or do we just not like the aesthetic of vape shops? Politics is about the grey.

The City hosted a Retail Strategy roundtable this summer with many businesses and commercial property owners there, and they overwhelmingly supported some restriction of Vape shops because of a perceived impact on street vitality. We also received correspondence from the medial health officer supporting further restriction. So staff are recommending we update our zoning bylaw to limit expansion of new age-restricted vape shops, recognizing that the existing one are “grandfathered” in – we don’t have strong legal grounds to shut them down. And Council agreed.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit Applications: 801 Columbia Street
The vacant lot at Eighth and Columbia is one of those challenging spots in the City. It was an area of, to be generous, underperforming retail prior to being demolished by the City to support the staging of adjacent construction (including belonging to the city to support staging for Anvil Centre construction). The City (in hindsight, probably not wisely) sold the property off, and in 2016, considered a Development Permit to build a three-story commercial building on the site.

Alas, the developer of that plan never competed their planning, and the property was sold off again, and still sits as an empty lot in the middle of the downtown. The current owner now wants to build a rental high-rise on the spot with two stories of retail at grade and (this is a first for New Westminster, and no surprise considering the adjacent SkyTrain and new Provincial Transit Oriented Development regulations) no residential parking.

This is a preliminary application, but Council did not sound particularly excited about it. There were a number of concerns raised, mostly around buildability (there is nowhere except busy streets to stage construction of a building this scale), and a general lack of amenity value for such a large development.

The purpose of this preliminary review is not to say yes or no (as this is not a complete application or proposal and there are numerous details to work out), but for Council to let staff and the developer know if there are significant concerns that need to be addressed prior to consideration of rezoning, and to set some expectations for community amenities or other conditions that should be included if a rezoning application comes to Council. In the end, that list seemed longer than Council was comfortable drafting in a council meeting, so the decision was to defer this item until next Council meeting so Council can show up with a more considered list.

---

And that was the end of the very short agenda. Happy Diwali everyone! Go Jays Go!