LMLGA 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

A couple of weeks ago, several members of New West Council attended the annual Lower Mainland Local Government Association meeting and conference in Whistler. I try to report out here on every conference I attend, including the Lower Mainland LGA (with a few recent examples from years past available here, here and here), and this year is no exception – sorry for the couple of week wait.

I’ll copy from my own text in one of those earlier posts and remind you the Lower Mainland LGA is an “area association” that operates as a sort of local chapter of the Union of BC Municipalities, and acts as an advocacy, information sharing, and collaboration forum for a large area, stretching from Boston Bar and Pemberton to the US border, including all of the communities of the lower Fraser Valley and Howe Sound. It represents a large, diverse region comprising dense urban centres, resort municipalities, rural areas, and both the majority of BC residents and the majority of BC’s farms. For an organization centered around Greater Vancouver, it has a strong and effective presence from the Fraser Valley and Howe Sound regions, which makes for an interesting rural/urban mix.

The meeting has three components: the typical convention-type workshops and networking sessions (“Learnings”), the Resolutions Session where the membership votes on advocacy issues (“Resolutions”), and the AGM with all the budget-approving and electing-officers fun you might expect (“Business”). I want to keep this to one blog post, so cannot cover all of my take-aways, every session I attended, or all of the resolutions, but here is enough of a flavor of the serious meeting parts.

Learnings:

This presentation was introduced by Charlotte Mitha, who was days from being named the President and CEO of BC Hydro.

I started the meeting attending learning sessions put on by BC Hydro around their new Distribution Extension Policy and some enhanced municipal Collaboration Case Studies. The latter were examples where BC Hydro and local governments have worked together to better coordinate both project planning and project execution to both reduce impacts on each other’s infrastructure and reduce public service disruptions related to major capital works. The DEP changes were informative, as BC Hydro is changing how they charge the development community, homebuilders, and commercial customers for new connections to the power grid. In many cases this means reduced cost for the homebuilder (aligned with provincial mandates to get more housing built), but a bigger load on ratepayers. We will have to review our policies in New West to determine our financial ability to align or adjust our connections finance model with this in mind.

Trish Mandewo is the president of UBCM and presented a report from the Executive.

The Main LGA session began with a discussion of a Recent UBCM report on the impact of on-again off-again tariffs on the Canadian economy, the BC local fallout and, in turn, the impact on BC communities. Oxford Economics was engaged to model impacts at the Local Government level, from revenues to investment uncertainty to inflation. In short, BC is less impacted than other provinces, and the best counter-measure for the government is fiscal stimulus – investing in infrastructure like housing that needs to be built here by domestic workers. For the longer story, you can read the full report here.

Jessica McIlroy (North Vancouver), Nathan Pachal (Langley), Patricia Ross (Abbotsford) and Jennifer Kinneman (Fraser Valley RD) sat on the panel on public engagement.

There was also a good session on local initiatives to improve Public Engagement, with examples from the Fraser Valley, Abbotsford, and Langley City and SFU’s Centre for Dialogue. The latter talked about the history of Community Assemblies in BC, from the Campbell-era Electoral Reform initiative to current work in Burnaby, Gibsons, and New Westminster. Though the discussion was more on the topic of the threats on our institutions posed by democratic recession and attention capitalism, it was nice to see New West’s assembly held up as a small but effective counter to those forces.

The numbers on Social Procurement all come up positive for the local community.

I also enjoyed the session on Social Procurement, another initiative where New Westminster is engaged (we are a member of the BC Social Procurement Initiative along with two dozen other local governments in BC), if not exactly leading. The idea behind social procurement should be familiar to everyone after the conversation of the last three months as large number of Canadians have taken it upon themselves to shop for not just the lowest price, but to find Canadian grown, manufactured, and marketed products – the more local the better – as a way of buffering an external economic threat and building our community at a time when it needs it. There was a longer discussion about “unbundling” as a process through which municipalities can better support local suppliers in this uncertain time, and other case studies from the BCSPI.

Resolutions:

The resolutions session is where local government leaders bring ideas to the membership with the mind to advocate for changes to funding or legislation from senior governments. We had 42 Resolutions discussed, some quickly passed, some debated at length. For many of us, this is the most interesting and exciting part of the meeting, as ideas are put forward, and members line up behind the “pro” and “con” mics and take their three minutes to convince the room to vote their way. It’s good old fashioned convention politics.

Councillor Tasha Henderson taking the lead on people lined up on the “Con” mic while a few others line up at the “PRO” mic on a debate,. Despite the strong debate happening, lots of smiles around the room as folks work through their debate points.

This year New Westminster had the following resolutions up for debate:

R16- Lobbyist Registration
…be it resolved that UBCM ask that the Government of BC introduce legislative reform that either:
enables municipalities and regional districts to use the Office of the Registrar of Lobbyists for BC, or
enables municipal councils and regional district boards to establish, monitor, and enforce lobbyist activities within their jurisdictions parallel to mechanisms available under the Lobbyist Transparency Act.
This resolution was endorsed by the Executive and endorsed by the Membership on consent and without debate.

R27- Regulating Vape Shops
…be it resolved that UBCM ask that the Province of BC include retail stores used primarily for sale of electronic nicotine or e-cigarettes under the Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch and thereby include restrictions that regulate where and how many of these retail stores are able to receive business licences in a community.
This resolution was briefly debated and endorsed by a large majority of the Membership.

R38- Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
…be it resolved that LMLGA begin tracking and reporting how attendees vote on motions and resolutions at its annual convention and submit a motion to UBCM and FCM advocating for those organizations to do the same.
This was the longest and most interesting (IMHO) debate of the session, and I really wish the public had been there to see how elected officials grapple with what were a couple of really hard questions around the cost (and value?) we put on transparency. There were actually two debates going on at the same time: the first was whether elected officials should be tracked on how they vote on resolutions, some feeling it is an important measure of accountability, others concerned it would have a chilling effect on voting at resolutions sessions because of a fear of public or voter backlash (I argued the former along with the three New Westminster Councillors present). The second argument was a technical/cost concern that our resolution sessions are already lengthy, and bringing in an electronic voting method would be expensive and would slow the process down. There were some attempts to amend to reduce this last concern through softening the language asking the Executive to “explore” the idea as opposed to demanding its implementation, but in the end the membership voted to not endorse this motion by a relatively narrow margin.

So New West went 2 for 3 for resolutions, which according to the great political philosopher Meatloaf, ain’t bad.

Business:

The business of the LGA was fairly light – our finances are in fine condition, though the turnout at the LGA meeting this year felt a little low compared to some other recent events. The Town of Gibsons was permitted to join, though they are also members of the AVICC, they share many concerns and issues with their Sea-to-Sky cohort, and saw the advantage of connecting on this side of Howe Sound.


And New Westminster City Councillor Ruby Campbell was elected again to a second term as an At-Large officer of the Lower Mainland LGA executive, following the tradition of Lorrie Williams, Chuck Puchmayr and Myself as recent New West representatives on that executive.

Of course, like any professional conference, there is also an important aspect of getting to spend time with people who are your cohort. Being able to chat with (or even have a beer with) people who have similar or very different challenges as you while trying to do this work. You can share, support and conspire with one another, and realize that there are many great people (along with quite a few not-so-great ones) who respond to this calling, and shared time with them is a valuable resource. And not without its moments of joy.

Council – May 12, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This Monday we had the second of two back-to-back Council evenings, a result of us having to reschedule a meeting because of the Federal Election. The presentation and delegation session once again took up much more time than the rest of the Agenda, but it was also an evening with some pretty good feelings around important work the City is doing. The first items on the Agenda were some Presentations:

Community Advisory Assembly Evaluation Results and Recommendations for the Future
The Community Advisory Assembly was a pilot project that arose out of a recommendation from the Public Engagement Task Force the City ran a few years ago. Namely:

Pilot Deliberative Dialogue as a model for collaborative decision-making, where participants who reflect the diversity of their community receive background information and work in small groups to develop recommendations for Council.

My any measure, this pilot was a success. It also identified the resources needed and a few adjustments we can make to how the Assembly worked to make it more successful, more useful for the community and for Council.

The magic part of this Assembly model was well explained at the Lower Mainland LGA meeting two weeks ago where different cities were discussing challenges and opportunities to improve community dialogue. The assembly model piloted in New Westminster along with similar topic-focused models in Gibsons and Burnaby were held up at the new best practice. The unique part besides the effort to match the demographics of the community is that it causes people to engage in dialogue on topics that are not in their wheelhouse, which requires them to talk to one another and learn from one another. Participants get to hear opposing ideas from their neighbours in a constructive way and try to seek consensus about the advice they send to council. This allows issues to be addressed with a group thinking of and discussing the needs of the whole, not just about their own needs or personal concerns.

Council agreed to continue with this model. The Assembly was funded by a one-time grant, so Council needs to now establish a fund to support it more permanently, because it is a model that requires moderation and management. This is not unlike the investment we make in any of the other dozen subject-matter committees the City runs from Heritage to Economic Devleopment to Accessibility.

Mayor’s Youth Climate Leadership Team 2025 Project Plan
For the last few months, a group of youth in the community have been meeting to talk about something they can do locally to address climate change. They have been discussing ideas around mitigation (reducing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere), adaptation (making changes that help prepare us for a climate disrupted world), education (talking to other citizens about climate change) and advocacy (talking to decision makers about climate change). Through these discussions, they came up with two projects that will dovetail together to address all of the first three, and are asking the City now for the resources to make their project happen this year. Council was happy to approve this funding, and it feels good to empower the next generation to learn about building community.

We then moved the following items On Consent:

2024 Filming Activity
Film is still a booming business in New West, with significant spin-off value for the community not to mention the thousands of jobs, but there are also impacts that need to be managed in the community, which is the job of our Film Office. They supported 8 feature films, 28 TV series, 10 TV commercials, 5 independent films, 2 TV movies and 3 student productions in 2024, representing a cumulative $900,000 in permit revenue.

This report is a reporting out on activity and revenues, with a recommendation for some minor changes in our film policy that reflects updated practice around how cancellations are managed when city service call-outs occur.

Easement Agreement for the Encroachment on the Lane Adjacent to 614 Fourth Avenue
The owner of this property in the Brow of the Hill has a small retaining wall and stair landing that encroach on City lands. The wall has encroached for some time, but recent improvements by the property owner expanded the encroachment of the landing which brought it to everyone’s attention. The encroachment is pretty thin and doesn’t have a significant impact on the operation of the laneway, so Council is granting an encroachment for the nominal cost of $1. Best real estate deal ever.

Licence Agreement with SOCAN and RE:SOUND
The City has to pay artists for their work. That sounds reasonable, but the process of paying Wilco if we play “The Late Greats” so that Matt can air-piano during a cycle spin session is a complicated one. In Canada, SOCAN and RE:SOUND are the organizations that manage public performance royalties for artists and assure they are compensated. Previously we would track our music use and submit reporting, now their joint venture does evaluations of how music is used in City facilities, and come to an agreement with the City about fair compensation, which is just over $18,000 in 2024 and are subject to review every couple of years.

New Westminster Grant Funding Summary from Bloomberg Philanthropies Youth Climate Action Fund Program
Last year, the City was one of 100 world-wide that was granted up to $50,000USD to support youth-led climate action projects in the City through micro-grants. In the end, eight youth groups were empowered to complete ten small projects, form a new community garden at NWSS to supporting Environmental and Cultural Health Outreach through the Umbrella Multicultural Health outreach and two projects by the Sigma Program at SD40 to improve local ecology. Again, youth in the community doing great things with a little help from the City, and not just thinking about Climate Action, but activating around it.

And this single item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw Cooling Amendments and Next Steps
As we continue to develop policy to support residents during extreme heat events, the challenge of finding an effective regulatory approach to rentals is something staff is working on. We continue to work on the goal of a previous Council Motion to regulate “maximum habitable temperature” in a way that fits within our jurisdictional limits in light of the Provincial management of Building Code and the Residential Tenancy Act.
However, in the meantime one thing we can do is stop landlords from forbidding air conditioning units when that may be the only tool keeping people alive in an extreme heat event. We will be amending our Business Regulations and Licensing Bylaw to address both new and existing buildings to prohibit the prohibition of cooling units (be they air conditioners or heat pumps) where they can otherwise be fitted. There is a provision where landlords can be exempted if they can demonstrate safety or building issues that strictly prevent the use of cooling, but the onus will be on them to demonstrate this issue and the City will work with them to rectify the issue if possible.

This report also outlines some new resources staff are requesting to deal with increased calls to address life safety and livability concerns among renters. Council voted to approve this investment in community, recognizing that the funding mechanism for these resources (new taxes, external grants, fee for service or re-allocating existing resources, or some combination of the above) will arise in 2026 budget discussions.

We then had two Motions from Council to debate:

Developing a more Open and Transparent Budget Accounting Methodology for City Operated Services, Programs, and Projects
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS transparency in municipal spending is essential for maintaining public trust and accountability;
WHEREAS the full costs of city projects, including internal costs such as staff time, administrative overhead, and resource allocation, are not always clearly attributed or visible to the public;
WHEREAS providing a comprehensive breakdown of project costs will allow New Westminster citizens and business owners to better understand the true financial impact of municipal initiatives;
WHEREAS ensuring that all internal costs are properly accounted for will support informed decision-making by Council and enhance fiscal responsibility;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to develop a methodology for attributing internal costs to projects, ensuring that all relevant expenditures—including staffing, administrative, and operational costs—are accounted for in project budgets and financial reporting;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the proposed methodology be designed to be transparent, practical, and written in plain language accessible to both Council and the public;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council with a proposed framework and implementation plan within six months of this motion’s adoption;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the finalized methodology and project cost breakdowns be published on the City’s website in an accessible format.

This motion is based on some good feeling ideas, but seems completely uninformed about how municipal budgeting and accounting work. A Local Government is already strictly regulated and operate as transparent as functionally possible. We follow Public Service Accounting Board (PSAB) guidelines and other regulated accounting principles. There are already systems in place to provide oversight of how capital project costs are managed, and the assertion that we are not already properly accounting for project spending is simply false. Just last meeting we received a reporting of a clean audit received in Council, demonstrating that our financial controls are appropriate and sufficient to meet public accounting standards, yet this this motion would suggest yet another layer of report on top of our externally audited cost control measures and public service accounting procedures.

Our Capital Budget has about 300 separate capital projects that will be funding partially or wholly in 2025, totaling $92 Million, ranging from the $24 Million we are projected to spend at Massey Theatre this year to some capital projects at the $1,000 lower limit of where accounting requires us to differentiate “capital” from “operating”. Every year Council reviews this capital budget, and can review with staff any of the 300 line items. Once approved, staff are given the agreed-upon budget to deliver that project. If they come in under or over budget that comes to Council in our quarterly financial report, and Council is against asked to review these changes. Within those approved budgets, I strongly feel we need to trust our staff to deliver the project and our established financial controls to keep an eye on how they do that.

All that to say, I don’t know why we would ask staff to develop a new methodology to oversee this, when we have a well established methodology based on public accounting standards and best industry practices. If we tasked staff to develop a methodology, it is very likely they would propose the one we already have, as that’s what the PSAB and our Auditors and anyone who works in local government finance would recommend. This motion looks to me like a solution being proposed that doesn’t actually identify what the problem is. So Council did not support the motion.

Advocacy for Increased Investment in Public Transit
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS public transit is vital for the mobility, economy, and sustainability of New Westminster, providing residents with essential access to work, education, and services; and New Westminster’s Seven Bold Steps for Climate Action aims for 60% of all trips within the City to be by sustainable modes of transportation by 2030;
WHEREAS reliable investment is essential to maintaining and expanding transit services especially as TransLink faces a projected $600 million annual funding gap starting in 2026 and the City has received numerous urging elected officials to advocate against potential transit service reductions, which could result in significant service cuts impacting New Westminster residents;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor, on behalf of New Westminster City Council, write to the provincial and federal government calling for the establishment of a permanent and stable funding source for public transit; and
THAT New Westminster City Council reaffirms its commitment to collaborating with regional and senior government partners to enhance public transit for all New Westminster residents.

I know this resolution was written before the announcement of a ratified Investment Plan for TransLink, and though that plan is good news and gets us back to expanding transit instead of cutting, it only puts off the need for new funding tools until 2027. So the Province, the TransLink Board, and the Mayor’s Council have work to do over the next year to get the Access for everyone plan funded, and resolve the long-term funding issue – meaning this resolution is still apropos and useful.

There was a proposed amendment brought to the meeting by a member of Council with a long list of ways we shouldn’t pay for transit, that was notably bereft of any offsetting proposal for how we should fill the funding gap. This based on some imaginary model where public goods are not paid for by taxation, but Council wisely decided we should let the TransLink Board, Mayors Council and Province work out a funding model given that they have the actual tools to make that determination.

Finally, we adopted a couple of Bylaws:

Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8516, 2025
This Bylaw that sets property tax rates for 2025 was adopted by Council. Notices going in the mail soon.

Water Shortage Response Bylaw No. 6948, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8521, 2025
This Bylaw that made minor changes to our water shortage sprinkling regulations to align with Metro Vancouver requirements was adopted by Council.

Council – May 5, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had a long Council meeting, even though we rather rushed through our lengthy agenda. The challenge was that we spent three hours on presentation and delegations, and only an hour doing the actual business, which is a bit of a problem for governance, and something Council is going to have to work on. That said, there was a lot on the agenda starting with:

2024 Financial Statements
The last step of our annual budget process is to prepare and approve the financial statements for last year so they can be submitted to the Province by May 15. These reports outline our financial position as of the end of 2024, and the results of the audit that our finances go under every year.

There is a lot here, but here are a few highlights. The City has an accumulated surplus of just over $1 Billion, but almost 80% of that is tangible capital assets and inventory (buildings, pipes in the ground, vehicle, fleet, computers, etc.). The accumulated surplus went up about $50 Million last year, about half of that being in the form of capital assets because we spent $51 Million in our capital plan last year, which adds to that capital asset pile.

The City has about $457M in financial assets, a 7% increase over last year, and we have $317 Million in financial liabilities, which is less than 1% more than last year. Overall, that means our net financial assets have gone up a bit.

Our revenue was $9 Million more than forecast, mostly related to increased investment interest, and our expenses were slightly (less than 1%) under budget, but there is an accounting adjustment here called an TCA adjustment that offset some unexpected expenses related to emergency events and maintenance costs in buildings.

The other major part of this is the report from our Auditors who found a clean audit, meaning that their review found we were consistent with our legal requirements and Public Sector Accounting Board standards.

Council then moved the following items On Consent:

Amendment to the Water Shortage Response Bylaw No, 6948, 2004 – Minor Revision to Stage 3 Lawn Sprinkling Regulations
The City has bylaws that regulate residential sprinkling and other water uses in the event of a summer water shortage. These bylaws need to be aligned with the Metro Vancouver Drinking water Conservation Plan, so we are making minor edits to align. The change is that new lawns of chafer beetle treated lawns can no longer get a watering restriction exemption once we hit Stage 3 restrictions, which is a fairly significant water shortage emergency.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation: 318 Sixth Avenue – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
A property owner in Queens Park wants to build a new house by subdividing their large lot and providing permanent designation to the existing heritage house. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement is the tool to make this work, and that requires a Public Hearing. This report has the details, but I will reserve any comment until after the Public Hearing to respect the process. Council gave the necessary bylaws two readings and a Public Hearing will be held. If you have opinions, let us know!

Programs to Serve Isolated Seniors Funded by the United Way British Columbia
The United Way funds three programs for isolated seniors in New Westminster, providing social meals, a Community Connector program and a Volunteer Coordinator and Support program. Fortunately, our application for 2025 grants to continue these programs was successful, so Council needs to authorize the partnership agreement with the United Way.

Response to Council Motion Regarding the City of New Westminster joining the Strong Cities Network
The Strong Cities Network is a global network of cities dedicated to addressing all forms of extremism, hate and polarization. Membership is free and the benefits include opportunities for better collaboration with elected officials and practitioners in other cities, joining forces with member cities on regional, national and international issues, and general development support for all partners. Staff recommended we join, and we are joining!

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2025 Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8516, 2025
OK the actual last part of our annual budget process is approving the new tax rates through bylaw before May 15th. This is that bylaw. There are some cool stats in this report for people who are interested in things like that. The total assessed value of all residential homes in New West went up from $27.7 billion to $28.0 Billion. The assessed value of existing property went down a bit ($100 Million) while the value of new inventory added to the City last year went up by $400 Million.

The average detached single home in New West is now worth $1.64 Million (a $20,000 increase over last year), and will pay $4,614 in property tax to the City (an extra $368 over last year). The average apartment home in New West is now worth $690,000 (also a $20,000 increase over last year), and will pay $1,934 in property tax to the City (an extra $187 over last year). If it applies to you, these amounts are reduced by $570 to $845 in Homeowner Grant refunds.

Artificial Turf Field Location- What We Heard: Engagement Summary Report and Next Steps
Council in its wisdom moved the implementation of a new all-weather field ahead of some of the other actions in the upcoming Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and as a result of very clear consensus from the community about the preferred location, we still need to determine if that location is actually feasible, because soils and groundwater don’t care about public opinion. We have to do the work of understanding the geotechnical and soil conditions of the site, do an archaeological assessment, and deal with details like utility connections and lighting and impacts on the community. Staff will also test the feasibility of a walking track around the field, and of evaluating a second site for an additional field, anticipating that need will arise in the near future regardless. If all goes well, we should have the info to tender early 2026, and have a field in 2027.

City-wide Toilet Strategy: Interim Progress Report
This is a check-in from staff on the work they are doing to address public toilet needs in the City. There has been a lot of work done, engaging both with subject matter experts and the general community to understand what inclusive and sustainable access to toilet facilities requires, and (this is important) the details for us to better understand long-term operational costs and barriers.

Staff also did a detailed analysis of the 30 existing public toilets operated by the City and 9 other key toilet locations under private management, because we fundamentally need to know what is there, and what we can do to make them more accessible before we start filling the gaps. The public outreach part engaged with more than 500 residents (!). Signage is one part of this, but so is extending hours, the implementation of a Washroom Attendant program, the need for improving accessibility – no point having a sign pointing at toilet if it isn’t safe and accessible.

Proposed Next Steps Related to the Council Motion of January 13, 2025 Regarding the New West Hospice Society
Council supported a motion to support the New Westminster Hospice Society in seeking a permanent hospice location in the city, and this is the report back form staff on how we can support them.

There is some learning in here about why there no Hospice Beds in New Westminster, as apparently the BC liberals government of 2009 closed the 10-bed hospice facility at the Queens Park Care Centre, with its resources being relocated to Delta. Addressing this deficit is an ongoing goal of the NWHS. Staff are recommending we support them through joint advocacy to Fraser Health for resources, data support to help in planning and needs assessment, and development application support for finding and developing a location. It is unclear if new Provincial housing legislation allows us to negotiate hospice space as “community amenity” during new residential development, though partnership between Hospice and Developer may still occur, it is unclear right now how we can support that negotiation. This will come back to Council in the upcoming report on City-Wide Financing Growth Strategy.

Response to Council Motion Regarding the City of New Westminster joining the Strong Cities Network
The Strong Cities Network is a global network of cities dedicated to addressing all forms of extremism, hate and polarization. Membership is free and the benefits include opportunities for better collaboration with elected officials and practitioners in other cities, joining forces with member cities on regional, national and international issues, and general development support for all partners. Staff recommended we join, and we are joining

Update on Response to Council Motion: “Enhancing Commercial Areas and Corridors in New Westminster”
Everything I’ve read about the trend of micro-stores and container retailing suggest is either the best thing since sliced bread stands or a fading quirk, but it seems clear that location is vital to its success. It won’t work everywhere, but where it does work, it can really add a boost to a retail area. There was a motion brought to council recently asking for an assessment if there is anywhere in New West it might, and this is the initial response to that motion.

In short, staff have done some preliminary analysis, and are going to dig a bit deeper into capital costs, funding mechanisms, partnership opportunities, and locations. More to come here.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Storage Amendments Bylaw No. 8518, 2025
We previously saw this Bylaw to remove self-storage as a use-by-right in a couple of commercial zones, though we would still permit self-storage, it would require a rezoning which would give staff and council some more control over design and other factors. It’s coming back because we made some minor amendments to exempt projects already in stream from the change. As this is consistent with the OCP and existing city policies, we are not having a Public Hearing. Council voted to give this bylaw three readings.

We then had three Motions from Council:

Securing Small Business Rebate Funding Renewal
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS in fall of 2023, the Province of British Columbia launched the Securing Small Business Rebate program to provide small businesses with up to $2,000 for eligible commercial property crime and vandalism repairs or up to $1,000 to implement eligible preventative measures; and
WHEREAS the Securing Small Business Rebate program is now closed and the New Westminster Chamber and the Downtown Business Improvement Association have expressed interest for the Province to renew program funding to support the local business community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor, on behalf of Council, send a letter to the Honourable Diana Gibson, Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation, with a copy to all New Westminster Members of the Legislative Assembly, asking that the Securing Small Business Rebate program funding be renewed.

This program didn’t cost much, but was popular among small businesses for simple repairs and clean-up related to vandalism or other challenges businesses might be facing right now. Happy to support the Chamber and the BIAs in advocating for this program to continue.

Conducting a Review of the City’s Community and Neighbourhood Consultation and Notification Processes
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS it is important that the City of New Westminster effectively consult and advise local residents and businesses regarding any significant changes or initiatives that may impact their immediate neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS wherever possible the City should properly apprise local residents and businesses if they will be directly impacted by a City initiative or infrastructure upgrade;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City conduct an independent review regarding the City’s current consultation and public notification process to ensure it currently meets or exceeds recognized best practices for cities of a similar size; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff explore the option to establish an enhanced public notification and consultation process for infrastructure projects and initiatives which are deemed by Council as ‘signature’ or materially ‘significant.’

This was a motion supported unanimously by Council with a minor amendment (see the strikethrough above) that recognizes we may not need a consultant to do this review, but might be able to effectively do it internally. Still, there is some language in here that is important, and the conversation Council had around this is worth watching, because it sounded to me like Council was clearer on the notion than the language of the motion, if that makes sense.

Part of this is the difference between consultation and notification. The City is on the leading edge of public engagement and is quickly building a reputation for leading the region if not the province in how we consult the public in a transparent, accountable, and proactive way. I would say we are not as strong right now in how we communicate strategically with the community, partly because the ground has shifted so much in the communications world over the last few years – the end of newspapers, the quickly evolving social media space, the impacts of COVID on how we meet and interact as a community – and because we simply have not added to our communication team in the City concomitant with the significant increase we are seeing in capital projects in the City.

Part of the problem might be my use of words like concomitant, but I digress…

There is a distinction between consultation and communication. If we are asking for your feedback to help make decisions, we are consulting; if we are letting you know we are building something and that’s why there are trucks in front of your house, that is communication. There are things we consult on, there are things we need to do and asking your opinion if we should is not particularly helpful, and can actually just slow down important work.

I’ll give you a recent example that demonstrates this. During my Mayors Walks last month, I was talking to a homeowner in the West End about rain gardens, he asked why we didn’t consult on the size and locations of the rain gardens in the West End. My honest answer was for the same reason we don’t consult on the size of the sewer pipe we put in the ground or the number of storm drains that open on a street: these things are driven by technical and engineering need, by a volume of water they have to convey for example and slopes and where water wants to flow. Public input really doesn’t supersede that, because it is physics. In that case, notification of the neighbours is all we should be striving for, or asking neighbours to expect.

Some other things are amenable to consultation, like (examples above) public toilet provisions or turf field locations. On these I would suggest the City does an excellent job consulting, both through Be Heard New West and through the various other means our Public Engagement Team is tasked to engage on. However, I can see that notification continues to be challenging with the volume of work our engineering team is working on, and strict project timelines driven by many factors. I have already been talking to engineering and communications staff about some strategies to improve site notices, and I was happy to hear Council in this discussion speaking along pretty much the same lines as I had been using to talk to staff, so there might be some quick wins here.

Removing the 3.5% Climate Action Levy from the 2026 Electricity Bills as part of the Budget Development Process
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster has a unique “Climate Action Levy” of 3.5% which applies to all electricity bills for local residents and businesses;
WHEREAS both the federal and provincial governments have now abandoned their failed consumer carbon tax experiment with the aim of leaving more money in the pockets of hard working citizens;
WHEREAS charging New Westminster electricity consumers a special 3.5% levy on green energy can serve to decrease the level of affordability in our city;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to permanently eliminate the 3.5% Climate Action Levy as part of the 2026 budget, which will be presented to Council for review and approval.

I will not repeat what I have written every time this motion has come to us, you can read some of my responses at those times here, or here as just a couple of examples. Instead I will note that we received a half dozen pieces of correspondence from the public on this motion and all of them were in opposition to the motion. But its not the numbers, necessarily, it is the quality of the argument made, so I will quote directly from those correspondence and let the people be heard:

“The cost of inaction is greater than the cost of taking action now. I am frustrated that motions to ax this levy keep being made. We know climate change is real, it’s us and it’s bad…and we know we have the solutions! Delay tactics are just making the crisis worse. For our kids, it is imperative that we speed up climate solutions and action, not delay it debating over levies.” – KC

“Similar motions have been defeated in the past, and there is every reason to defeat it again: polluting emissions from the fossil fuel industry are bringing extreme weather events like the 2021 heat dome, and New Westminster must prepare for the next one. As well, Councillor Fontaine pointed out in 2023 that we would be taking a $2 million hit on the funds that let this city take action on climate We know that a safe and healthy city means preparing for the effects of carbon pollution. Keep the levy, and help keep the city prepared.” –HB

“The 3.5% levy on the electrical bills amounts to a few dollars a month and does not make a significant saving to an individual but what it has done as a Climate Action Levy is significant. It does and will make a difference in savings to all of us in the next years as we work together to try to implement the solutions that are available to reverse the damage that has been done through negligence and lack of knowledge. We have a growing contingency fund that can make a difference. I urge you to defeat this motion.” – BF

“I urge councillors to stop bringing forward council motions that aim to remove the climate action levy. This is a waste of council and staff’s time going over this again and again when it’s already been defeated multiple times in the past. If the mover of this motion would like it to be directly funded through property taxes instead with no change to actual climate action programs, please state that. Or, if it’s really not believed that the city should be doing anything to fight or adapt to climate change, then please state that clearly. But to keep bringing something like this forward is doing no service to anyone.” –MH

“While affordability is a critical issue for many New West residents right now, I believe it is critical that we remain firmly committed to the climate goals collectively set by the City of New Westminster. The youth of our community, who can not yet vote, are relying on our current elected officials to provide the climate leadership now that will help secure their future. Prioritizing short term economic savings in exchange for climate action funding is absolutely not in my and my neighbours’ best interests, nor the best interests of the next generation of New West residents.I want to pay taxes and levies that support building a climate resilient city.” –LK

“Please keep the climate action levy in place to do the job it is now doing for our citizens, preparing us to meet an uncertain future and doing what we can as a municipality to reduce emissions. The choice laid out by some politicians of sovereignty or a livable planet is a false choice. There is no sovereignty on a dead planet.” –TT

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Finally, we had two Bylaws for Adoption:

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No.8495, 2025
This bylaw that makes routine miscellaneous amendments and language corrections to the zoning bylaw was adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Multiple Unit Residential Storage Requirements Amendments Bylaw No. 8519, 2025
This Bylaw that requires the provision of increased personal storage space for residents in new multiple unit residential buildings was adopted by Council.

And that got us to the end of a nights business, with yet another council meeting next week in a unique back-to-back session, we have lots more to get done!

Peter

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The things I wrote on this website used to be more political than they are now, and a lot more partisan. No shame, those things are still there in the archives, but since I am in this new role, I am trying to keep this page about what’s happening, about policy and outcomes, as there is lots of room elsewhere for the bickering part of the job (I engage in bit more of that at times over in my Newsletter, subscribe here). This post however, will be partisan and political, and maybe a bit personal. You are warned.

Peter Julian is an inspiring leader, was an incredible Member of Parliament, and I thank him for his service to the community and for his friendship.

I have said many times before, I expect a lot of a Member of Parliament. They need to be a bold voice for their community in caucus and Parliament, they need to push progressive policy in Ottawa that reflects the needs of our community but also builds our strength as a Country, and they need to be present here in community helping people connect with a distant and vague federal bureaucracy. Peter excelled at all three, which is amazing when you consider he never served in government caucus in his two decades of work.

Peter has been incredibly helpful in taking the concerns of our community to Ottawa, and in assuring our community was supported by the federal government. There are many examples, but even in the last year: his role in helping get my face in front of the Federal Minister of Housing so I could repeatedly make the case for New Westminster as an excellent Housing Accelerator Fund opportunity means more than $11 Million came here to better support housing affordability, housing diversity, and accelerated permitting and approval processes at the City. Peter’s support was instrumental in us getting $1.4 Million from the Emergency Treatment Fund to help pay for the Three Crises Response Pilot: the second largest ETF grant for any municipality in Canada, and the only grant given in BC. This is helping us move more firmly and faster addressing the combined crises of homelessness and untreated mental health and addictions. These are real, tangible wins for our community on the key issues affecting our community.

Peter was also instrumental in the federal NDP’s forcing of the minority Liberal government to bring in the biggest new social programs since before the lost decade of Mulroney: dental care, Pharmacare, and childcare programs are on the Federal agenda in part because of Peter’s work as House Leader. His work to make workplaces safer, to end corporal punishment of children, to assure COVID relief went to working people and those in need not just banks; to bring in new Anti-Scab legislation, there is a long list of substantive work Peter accomplished from the opposition and third party benches in Ottawa. He made a difference at the national level.

All along, Peter ran one of the more proactive constituency offices in the country, helping people manage immigration hiccups, get access to support programs to which they are entitled, and helping folks navigate the sometimes-challenging income tax and federal support programs designed to help those most in need on our community. When you attend a Peter Julian Christmas or Lunar New Year event, it is always remarkable to see the number of people who come up to thank Peter for the help he and his constituency staff  had provided them personally. It would be hard to imagine a more effective liaison between Ottawa and his constituents than Peter. He’s also a renowned hard worker in the House, a brilliant spokesperson for working and vulnerable people, and a hell of a nice guy.

I have been lucky to call Peter a friend for most of my time in New West. I remember the first time I really met him, I bought one of those “Dinner with the Member of Parliament” silent auction prizes, and my partner and I met Peter in a local pub. We had a few beers. Immediately it was clear he was an engaged listener, though I’m not sure he exactly knew how to take this loud opinionated guy who kept going on about bike lanes. He took it all in stride and with his characteristic class, and it ended up being the first of many, many conversations about community, about public policy, about working for change, and about leadership – conversations that continue to this day. In my elected life, Peter always answered the phone, always had time to hear about a problem or an idea, and was always quick to think about how he, the Federal Government, or someone else in his broad local network, could help. In that sense, he is a mentor and a support system as well as a friend.

Thank you Peter for everything you have done for the community that you love. I know you aren’t going away, the fight in you is too strong, and that love too strong.

Nothing here should be read as a slight to Jake Sawatzky. He won fair and square, and he seems like a really dedicated and engaged guy. I have heard him speak and think his heart is in the right place. I don’t envy the learning curve he is facing, but wish him nothing but the best in getting up to speed on this really important task, because his success in his role is our success as a community.

However, looking at this from the political side, I honestly don’t know what his win means. The election was for most of the night a statistical three-way tie between people who, by conventional campaign wisdom, should not have been in a tie. One is a long-established and highly respected candidate who might have the most famous name in the city and who ran a well designed and executed voter identification and GOTV campaign. The second was a young and inexperienced person whose name was completely unknown in the community two weeks after the writs dropped who had little visible campaign machinery. The third was a familiar if not well known local business man who was dropped in at the last minute to replace a turfed candidate that still ran against him. No disrespect at all to Indy Panchi or Jake Sawatzky, but on pure old-fashioned local campaign paper, it should not have been close. But it was.

At the surface level, it’s clear what happened: people voted nationally for the Prime Minister they wanted. They paid more attention to the Poll Aggregators and Vote Strategically campaigns than before. (IMHO) Poilievre ran on not-being-Trudeau and people’s fears of their neighbours while Carney ran on not-being-Poilievre and people’s fears of our neighbour to the south. Singh tried (unsuccessfully) to earn the credit he deserved for major new social programs while trying to take up space vacated by the Liberals by running messages about middle-class affordability until the campaign saw the writing on the wall and fell back on also-not-being-Poilievre. But re-imagining last month’s messaging isn’t what I want to talk about, I’m sure they all made sense in their respective campaign bubbles at the time.

Instead, I wonder what it means when community no longer sends a representative to Ottawa, but instead Ottawa sends  representatives for us to choose between. I know there has always been an aspect of the latter in our system, but I wonder what it means to the kind of politics I’m interested in – local organizing, talking directly to people, building community and taking local action and being present. I add this to the ongoing questions about how we even tell our local stories when there is no local journalism, our local conversation is increasingly moderated by social media algorithms, and bad actors seem interested in driving wedges between us for shit and giggles. Can we support our community and scale it outward? Will anyone care? I don’t want to go down the “Western Alienation” route, but how will Ottawa know about New West, and how will our values keep us together as democracy re-structures itself around the rest of the world going to hell?

So last Friday I got together with a couple of dozen people doing good things in this community, or interested in doing those good things, and I hope they will help me in a conversation about what’s next. Because community has to come first.

Council, April 7, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had our now-semi-annual Council Meeting in Queensborough this week. It was good to see a full house, as often happens when we cross the bridge and set up in the ‘Boro. We had quite a few delegations, but a relatively short agenda, starting with moving these items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
Road works related to the Royal Columbian Hospital project are ongoing, and there is some work that needs to be done outside of regular construction hours for various traffic management and access reasons. Notice will be sent to the neighbourhood.

Next Generation 911 Base Funding Grant Application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities
As the entire country shifts to “Next Gen 911”, it will require a lot of technological changes in house for our first responders. There is a grant program facilitated by UBCM to help us pay for this, and we are applying for the grant, which requires a Council motion to commit to do what we are funded for if we get the funding.

Zoning Amendment and Housing Agreement (65 First Street): Bylaws for First, Second and Third Readings
There is a low-rise strata building at the east end of downtown that had some serious maintenance issues, enough that the owners decided to wrap up the strata and sell to a developer. A couple of years later, here is the development. It comprises two towers on a podium of townhouses, a 35-storey tower with 299 purpose built rental units and 30 below market affordable housing homes to be managed by the YWCA. The second 30-storey tower will have 304 strata condos.

Both buildings will meet the family friendly housing policy unit mix, the project is compliant with the City’s Official Community Plan, and was generally favored by the Design Panel and Downtown RA.
The City will get about $4.3M in density bonus cash above the DCC contributions required to fund infrastructure needs. There is much less parking that typical of a project this size, but being within the new Transit Oriented Area zone, provincial regulation prevents us from demanding more parking in a residential building.

There were both applicant-led and city-led consultations, in person and on-line. There was not a large amount of response, with some concern about the density and lack of parking. Council unanimously supported this project and gave the rezoning third reading.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No.8495, 2025
As our Zoning Bylaw is constantly being updated and speaks to various other local and provincial regulations, we occasionally have to do these omnibus updates to clarify language and align with the language in other bylaws. This amendment doesn’t change policy, it just updates the text to remove redundancies or contradictions.

The following item were Removed from Consent for discussion:

10-year Anvil Review Recommendations Update
As the Anvil Centre hit its tenth anniversary, and as there is more interest in optimizing public space in the downtown, the City went through a review process to determine how best to adapt the use of this prime public space. The review included online and in-person engagement, workshops, drop-in sessions, interviews, and input from several hundred people. There were recommendations made to Council last summer, and this report is an update on where we are with those changes. With the closure of the New Media Gallery, there is a further discussion about the adaptation of that space.

This is still an ongoing process, some increased activation is happening now, but we are anticipating some further discussion about the use of Anvil and inviting more of the public in. Council received this report and referred the report back to a future council meeting to continue the conversation about how we prioritize the recommendations in the July 15 report.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Storage Amendments Bylaw No. 8518, 2025
As discussed last meeting, staff are asking Council to assert a little more control over Self-Storage business developments in three zones in the City. I pulled this from consent and asked that staff provide Council some options around exempting two properties that are already in process (based on some correspondence Council received from applicants). This required a change in the Bylaw language that Council will have to consider before giving the first three readings, so this will come back in a future meeting.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Multiple Unit Residential Storage Requirements Amendments Bylaw No. 8519, 2025
Somewhat related to the above, we are adding to the requirements for storage in new mutli-family buildings, because storage space is an ongoing concerns for families living in apartments during a crises when so many families are under-housed. This will not of course impact the current housing stock, but it will make new builds a little more roomy.

Finally, we had one Motion from Council:

Inventory of Municipal Arts and Culture Indoor and Outdoor Spaces
Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS the arts and culture sector plays a crucial role in contributing to New Westminster’s local economy, promoting New Westminster’s tourism, and enriching community belonging and connections; and
WHEREAS it is important for the arts and cultural sector to have a comprehensive and centralized inventory of the availability and condition of indoor and outdoor spaces dedicated to arts and culture in the community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff prepare an inventory of all municipal indoor and outdoor spaces within the city that are suitable for arts and cultural use, including but not limited to:
Public spaces utilized for arts events, performances, exhibitions, and installations; indoor venues such as galleries, theaters, performance halls, studios, and creative spaces; outdoor venues such as public plazas, parks, and other open-air venues used for arts programming as well as an any available data on capacity, site amenities, accessibility descriptions and types of arts programming possible in these spaces.

This is something the Arts community and event organizers have been asking for. Especially as we have many new residents and many new artists and organizations hoping to make fun things happen in the City, there really isn’t a single source of info about where you can make happenings happen. Council unanimously supported it.

March ’25

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

March was a busy month, even with a big Spring Break in the middle. here are a few things that kept me busy in March outside of the regular Council schedule:

March 3rd is Bulgarian Independence Day, and I was joined by Senator Yonah Martin and member of the local Bulgarian Community in raising the Bulgarian flag at Friendship Gardens.
I went to Victoria to take advocacy topics to Minister and our local MLAs. A highlight was lunch with my friend and new Minister of Health Josie Osborne, where we had lots of time to talk about the New West Crises Response Pilot, about partnerships with Fraser Health, and about our shared love for Local Government (Josie was a popular Mayor in Tofino prior to getting pulled into the Provincial circus.
Toured the Urban Impact recycling facility in the Braid industrial area, and learned about not just their business but the regional recycling system and global politics of the recycled material market.
I also joined members of the Chamber of Commerce at the “topping out” ceremony for the new residential tower in Uptown – more than 300 new rental homes and new commercial spaces in the first new building in the Upton in more than a decade.
Attended the New Westminster Police Department annual Mess Dinner, the first with Tasha Henderson as Chair, and Paul Hyland as Chief. The Mess Dinner is a fun event – equal parts honoring the roles and sacrifice of policing and a fair amount of good-natured roasting of colleagues, with neither members nor leadership spared.
I attended the annual HUB Cycling awards. After winning last year, New West was not nominated for any specific award in 2025, but it was great to see the work other organizations and municipalities (especially Port Moody!) were doing in getting safer infrastructure built.
The annual Volunteer Appreciation Lunch at Century House celebrates the many hands that work together to lift the community and bring it together through the many programs and activities Century House provides.
The first annual Ethiopian Coffee Festival at Douglas College was a fun was a fun way to get caffeinated and learn about the history of coffee and Ethiopian coffee culture. Local organized Bereket Kebede was instrumental in getting this event to New West, and brought hundreds of industry leaders and coffee aficionados together.
Along with several members of New West and Burnaby Councils I attended a rally led by Movement to call for secure funding for Public Transit, and spoke for the need for all of us (especially the Mayors and the Provincial Government) to work together and commit to investing now in making this vital system thrive, not just survive.
Just as the Royal City Curling Club season ends (see above), The New West Farmers Market season kicked off on a beautiful rain-free spring day, and the turnout was great!

Anecdotes and Data

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I don’t usually dip into media criticism here – there is an old saying about politicians not pissing off people who buy ink by the barrel – but every once in a while an article comes out that needs a response.

In this case, a predictable Douglas Todd article mentions New West. For those who don’t know him, Todd is Post Media’s go-to guy for anti-immigration and anti-urbanism opinion. As in this article, he often taps Patrick Condon, a UBC Landscape Architect who feigns “housing expert” status by pining for Vancouver’s pastoral past.

The reason I highlight this story is that I wanted to test the central premise – that increased growth and increased density means increased taxes. Todd is an opinion writer, not a journalist, because a journalist would do a bit of research to test their idea against data, while an opinion writer is comfortable relying on anecdotes that fit the narrative he is trying to craft.

I’m not a journalist, but I do love data. So I dug through news articles and budget documents from 20 Lower Mainland municipalities (all but Anmore – because their data was hard to find, and after a bit of digging, I decided meh Anmore) to determine what their tax rate increases have been over the last three years, since the beginning of this council term. I do this all the time anyway because I see it as part of my job. I really should know where we stand in comparison to other cities, even if I am the first to acknowledge, it isn’t a competition. I also took the short term rate of growth data from the Metro Vancouver Population Projections report for 2024. Plot the two against each other, and this is what you get:

I don’t want to get all Stats 101 on you (the R-squared here is 0.07), but that distribution is pretty close to a circle, meaning there is no correlation between rate of growth and tax increases. The highest tax rate increases over on the right in red (Bowen Island, Langley City and Surrey) are cities pretty close to the middle in growth-wise and the three fastest growing cities up top in green (New West, North Van City, and Langley Township) are mid-to-low in tax rate increase.

Another common Todd/Condon argument is that density of population leads to tax increases. Data on population density is easy to find, so here goes plot number 2:

Again, the cluster of four highest-density cities up top (Vancouver, New West, White Rock, and North Van City) are about the middle of the tax increase range, and the tree highest and three lowest tax increase cities are across the spectrum of density, with none of them in the top 4 growth wise. With an R-squared of 0.003, the data here just doesn’t correlate.

The data does not tell the whole story, as it never does in these comparisons, because these are 20 different municipalities with different pressures and priorities. Some cities are intentionally running their reserves down to avoid tax increases, while others are building reserves. Some are making up for previous council underfunding of services, others are paring back on services. Langley City increasing taxes at a high rate doesn’t tell you that they have gone from the lowest-taxed jurisdiction in the region to the third-from lowest, or that West Vancouver at one tenth the density of New Westminster and with the lowest rate of growth in the entire region is still the highest-taxed municipality in Greater Vancouver, despite its relatively modest tax increases in the last few years. There are stories to be told in this data beyond the simple scatter graph; the anecdotes that Todd relies on belie those details.

His narrative is that density and growth are bad, and he will find any ill the public has concerns about, and blame it on density and growth, facts be damned.

The last time Douglas Todd wrote about New West, he lamented there are no cafes on Carnarvon Street, when there are at least 4 places to get coffee in the 500m stretch of Carnarvon he was describing. I just don’t know where Mr. Todd gets his bad information about our City. He sure never calls me.

If you want to read more into the data above, here’s my table. If you find a wrong number, or have Anmore tax data and really want me to include it, let me know!

Council – March 24, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had a short agenda on Monday, but a long meeting. This is because we started with two hours of public delegations, many of them speaking to items on the agenda. We opened by a presentation from the new MLA for Queensborough, Steve Kooner, and in hindsight I should have suggested to him that he stick around an watch Public Delegations, and even bring a motion to Legislature that the Province begin having Public Delegations in the legislature. Its not fair to the public that local government is the only level where they get to come and speak to Council for two hours on any topic they wish.

But I digress. Our agenda began with the following items that were Moved on Consent:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Miscellaneous Zoning Bylaw Amendments) No. 8495, 2025: For Consideration
Our Zoning Bylaw is complicated, as we are almost constantly amending it and changing other bylaws that point to it, and at the same time the Province sometimes messes with language and their legislative levers, so we need periodic omnibus-type updates to fix the language, keep references up to date, etc. This is that amendment bylaw. It will come to Council for three readings, if you have opinions, let us know!

We then talked to these items that were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Tenant Relocation Policy – Engagement and Policy Update
Last year, Council asked staff to bring back recommendations to strengthen our rental protection policies. The City has had strong anti-demoviction policies for some time that have prevented demolition of older more affordable secured rental housing even as we built more rental and ownership housing. However, there are concerns that recent Provincial regulatory changes (especially the Transit Oriented Areas regulations included in Bill 47 may erode these protections, while some others (Bill 16) have given the City power to extend these protections. So Council wanted an update, and recognized that Burnaby recently adopted some strong policy that may provide a good guide to strengthening our policies.

Staff are reporting back that our policy frameworks are different (every municipality is unique!) but that the Burnaby policies do demonstrate some areas where we can strengthen our protections of the most vulnerable renters in town. Burnaby’s own program is relatively young, but has already been applied to 34 rezoning applications representing over 2,000 eligible rental units, and they report there are already 700 tenants in interim housing successfully receiving support through their program. 700 people in more secure housing instead of being displaced by new development, while Burnaby staff report the policy has not put a noticeable chill on the building of new homes.

Council has a good conversations about some of the details of the framework, and asked staff to prepare a policy based on these principles. This is good work!

Zoning Amendment to Remove Mini-storage Use from M-1, M-5 and CM-1 Industrial Districts, and to Require Storage in Multi-family Residential Districts
There is a bit of a boom in the self-storage industry right now, and Staff have identified some concerns in our ability to regulate how they are built in the City, and are recommending zoning controls be adjusted to give staff and council more discretion here. The intent here is not to stop the building of new self-storage businesses, but more to recognize that this commercial space use has a different impact than most other uses (parking, traffic, massing impact, etc.), and assure Council has power to mitigate those impacts. There are currently three zones which cover a small portion of the land in the city, where self-storage is as-of-right would be removed. Developers are still able to bring a rezoning to Council if they wish to build that use, and Council will have stronger power to restrict shape and character, and to determine it the location is appropriate in light of surrounding land use.

As our industrial and job creation lands are increasingly valuable, and self-storage is a relatively low-cost but also low-employment use with large potential land use impacts, it behooves us to give them careful consideration, and this bylaw gives us power to do so. This is consistent with Metro Vancouver guidelines around planning self-storage in industrial areas.

That said, families increasingly are living in smaller apartments, and are facing increased storage challenges. I’m not sure self-storage helps with this fundamentally (self storage doesn’t help when you have kids lacrosse equipment to store, etc.) but creating standards for storage space in new apartments, and incentivizing it by not including storage in floor space ratio math, seem like positive moves to make smaller homes more livable for families. So staff are going to bring rezoning changes that support those changes as well.

We then had two Motions from Council:

Placing the Naturalization and Rewilding Project in Queen’s Park on Hold
Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS there has been considerable feedback received by the City of New Westminster regarding the ‘rewilding’ and ‘naturalizing’ of the 5th and 2nd Street boulevards in Queen’s Park as part of our Biodiversity Strategy; and
WHEREAS it is important to properly consult with local residents before any further ‘rewilding’ or ‘naturalizing’ of the boulevards in Queen’s Park which is covered by a Heritage Conservation Agreement
BE IT RESOLVED THAT that the City’s Biodiversity Strategy, as it pertains to the ‘rewilding’ and ‘naturalizing’ of 2nd Street and 5th Street boulevards, be placed on hold until October 2026; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a neighbourhood consultation plan be developed and shared with Council regarding any future ‘naturalizing’ or ‘rewilding’ of the boulevards in Queen’s Park or other neighbourhoods throughout the City.

This was quite the lengthy discussion in Council, and we receive many pieces of correspondence on it, along with some public delegations, both for and against the intent of the motion. It is worth watching the Council Video to hear how those delegations went, because it is clear New Westminster is passionate about public spaces, even if we don’t all share the same opinion about how those spaces should look or how they best serve the community.

Although the framing of the motion was problematic, I was more concerned about how it was inconsistent with the commitments that staff had already made to the community about this project, and staff have had a considerable amount of correspondence with the community and with Council on this, so I think it is important that we keep that context in mind as we address the public concerns that were raised. I am concerned that this project is being politicized in the most egregious way, and that staff’s work to connect with the community here has been undermined by this. So I suggested the following amendment which (as requested in the original motion) pauses the naturalization work and asks for a more fulsome consultation with the community before expansion of the program in Queens Park:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff complete the revised naturalization work on the Fifth Street median between Third and Fourth streets, then take at least a year to allow the area to establish, and conduct an evaluation of the initiative with the neighbourhood regarding the initial work and any related next steps, consistent with the March 3rd, 2025 staff correspondence to residents and Council, and the 2022 City of New Westminster Biodiversity and Natural Areas Strategy; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT no further expansion of naturalized areas on Queen’s Park neighbourhood boulevards be undertaken until after this evaluation, and only after consultation with the community, including considerations of the Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area Landscape Guidelines, as per the March 3rd, 2025 correspondence.

To add to the context here for folks who may only have a passing understanding of just what’s happening here, changes to the grass-with-trees boulevard on Fifth Street began in 2023, more than a year ago, and I received a very small amount of both positive and negative feedback on it from neighbours. In my experience, people were more curious than concerned, and when talking about it, were willing to see where this was going prior to casting judgement. This until a month or two ago, when landscaping logs arrived on a second part of the boulevard. Once they started to receive more feedback on this, staff were quick to admit the landscaping features that were “out of scale” with previous work in the boulevard. They were also quick to acknowledge both that the visual impact was larger than they anticipated, and that they did not communicate effectively with the neighbourhood about the project. In their defense, after the placid reaction to the 2023 work, they might not have anticipated the push back they are seeing now.

The push-bask did arise, however, and in my observation, staff have been proactive at addressing the concerns raised by residents, and have been doing their best to respond to the community. On March 3rd, they distributed a letter to the community (which was, I note, distributed to Council before this Notice of Motion appeared on the agenda) that outlines what I think is a reasoned, professional, and respectful path in light of the feedback we have received. That they would not expand the program, they would de-scale some of the more challenging installations, and replant with a wildflower mix that meets some of the goals of the Biodiversity Strategy. It also committed ot taking a year to see how the new treatment greens in, and having a deeper consultation with the neighbourhood about the next step prior to any expansion to the program. To me, this is aligned with the stated goals of the original motion, but is clearer in language.

In the end, Council supported the amendment.

Providing Priority to New West Residents and Businesses for City-Operated Programs and Services
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster faces a significant infrastructure deficit when it comes to public assets like sports and recreation facilities and community centers; and
WHEREAS local taxpayers should have the highest level of priority to access various programs and services offered by the City of New Westminster; and
WHEREAS the City of Delta offers their families a two-week head start to register for all recreation programs, including swimming and skating lessons;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council regarding options for consideration to significantly enhance a “Priority New West” policy that provides local residents and businesses with priority access to City operated programs and services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the report include a comparison of other jurisdictions in our region regarding what initiatives they have implemented to provide their citizens and business owners with priority access.

Council supported this motion, along with a couple of amendment brought by Councillor Henderson (the text of which I don’t have handy, but you can watch the meeting and see for yourself, and remember these posts by me are not official minutes!) to address some other concerns with the current recreation program registration system. The important part here is that this motion will result in a report back on opportunities and potential costs prior to Council committing to any change in how we currently operate.

I supported this reporting, but will take a few concerns into the discussion when this comes back to us. I don’t like the idea of getting into an arms race with other municipalities about “my city first”, when I fundamentally think it is better if we work together. I don’t see putting up walls around our City as a progressive approach. There are residents of other Cities who come to use rec facilities here in New West. If you are curler living in Burnaby, you come to New West to play, if you are a squash player in New West, you are likely to go to Burnaby or Richmond to play. This isn’t inherently a bad thing.

I am also concerned about what it may mean to some organized sports leagues and programs. I know Minor Lacrosse is almost 100% New Westies, but I’m not sure the same is true of Track and Field, Trampoline, or Baseball, and I would hate to be undermining youth sports programming by creating a two-tier registration system unless the sport itself sees value in that.

Again, these are uncertainties, and so I am happy to see a report back from staff on this so we can base our decisions on facts, and not presumption.

Finally, we had a couple of Bylaws for Adoption:

Street and Sidewalk Patio Bylaw No. 8318, 2022, Amendment Bylaw No.8514, 2025
This Bylaw that expands patio service hours for one of two bars in the city was adopted by Council.

Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 7142, 2008, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No. 8515, 2025
This Bylaw that makes a bunch of minor amendments to our Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw was adopted by Council. Adjust your behavior accordingly.

Now, actually finally, we had one item of time-sensitive New Business:

Rescheduling the April 28th Council Meeting
The Feds wen and scheduled an election on the date of our Council Meeting. This is uncomfortable, because people don’t really want to go to Council on that day, and because our statutory requirement to provide 4 free hours while the polls are open to all staff might challenge our ability to actually staff a Council meeting. So council is moving the meeting off by one week, making for a very busy May.

Lower 12th

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

There was an interesting discussion at Council Workshop on Monday that is worth unpacking a bit. I don’t usually write up Workshop reports here, because these are not typical Council meetings. They tend to be more free-ranging conversations Council has about items that are preliminary or half-cooked; more of a check in and request for direction from Council on an ongoing initiative than final decision points. We talked about spending on Canucks viewing parties, about the Liquid Waste Management Plan, and about next steps on Vision Zero, but the most interesting item was staff checking in with Council on the Lower 12th Special Study Area.

Blue dashed line shows the “Lower 12th Special Study Area” in the City’s Zoning map.
…and in the City’s Official Community Plan land use designation map.

Lower 12th is a (mostly) grey spot on the City’s zoning map, and an equally distinct purple spot in our Official Community Plan maps. It was an area identified during the 2017 Official Community Plan discussions as being unique, and requiring a unique approach. The current OCP updates (being driven by Provincial mandate) and some preliminary applications by developers interested in putting mixed-use residential development here are pushing staff to ask Council how they want to deal with this space.

The background here is that Council back in 2017 saw this space as needing to continue to be a job-generating space. One of the larger policy goals of our OCP is to continue to develop job growth on pace with population growth (as we have managed to do over the last few years, despite the COVID blip). Staff and Council identified this area as being one of the last parts of the “mainland” where job creation is the main land-use driver. It is also unique in the downtwon area in that there are relatively large lots, it is generally flat, and the transportation connections are robust, including being a short walk from a SkyTrian station. This all means there is opportunity here.

Much of the land there is zoned as light industrial and commercial, and with no OCP designation (except “special study area”), significant development would require OCP amendment and rezoning. Although valuable commercial businesses, used car lots are not likely the “highest and best use” of properties in the centre of a dense urban city only a few hundred metres from a SkyTrain station. There is pent up value here that developers would love to release, and the most value in the region right now is in housing.

Up to now, much of the discussion of this area has been how to maintain ultra-light industrial and commercial space, maker space or light manufacturing while adding housing to help finance the redevelopment of an under-perfomring area. But the demands in New West in 2025 are different than those in 2017, and Council is more interested in learning how new modes of retail and commercial land use can be supported. Council also recognizes the increased need for green space in the Downtown and Brow neighbourhoods, need for school space and potentially other institutional spaces, and even need for expanded community amenity space for everything from a new Firehall to city administrative space and community centre space.

With all of this in mind, I opened the discussion at Council asking that we take a bit of a step back, and Council unanimously agreed. Staff is going to do more work on the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, on our Economic Development plans (Retail Strategy, Employment Strategy), and bring Council some more options around how this unique part of the City might develop differently. That may, or may not, include significant residential density to support redevelopment, and this is where I think Council still needs to give some clear direction in the next little while. But we need to give that direction with a fuller understanding of the land economics and potential for this unique area.

We are not a City that has traditionally said “no” to housing, and have taken seriously our responsibility to meet our Housing Target Orders, and meet our regional commitment to housing need. Our upcoming OCP update will address our 20-year housing need as required by regulation. That said, it is not obvious that we need housing in this location to meet those commitments or obligations, and we certainly don’t need housing at the density envisioned by the early catalyst projects in this area. I don’t think we should preclude, however, the opportunity to leverage truly affordable (non-market supportive or transitional) housing in this area if senior government partners are ready to fund it.

Everyone recognizes we also schools, we need green space, we need institutional, community, and creative space to support the livability of our community, and this “grey area” is a place that may provide unique opportunity to fit more of those needs in one of the denser parts of the City. It was a great conversation at Council, and I’m happy we were all able to come to a pretty clear consensus on this.

More to come!

Council – March 10, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We had a pretty quick Council meeting on Monday, considering the length of the Agenda, though many items were under the category of “getting Council caught up on progress” so didn’t require lengthy discussion. We started with moving the following items On Consent::

707 Queens Avenue: Remedial Action Requirement
There was a fire that destroyed a house on Queens Avenue a few weeks ago. After a fire, it is important for a variety of reasons that the building be demolished ASAP, and normally this is the case because property owners and their insurance companies don’t want to deal with the liability of delaying this action. In the event that work is not moving fast enough, the City has the power to order the demolition and removal of materials, or that order failing, enter the site and do it ourselves sending the bill to the property owner. However, that Order needs to come though Council resolution, which is what we are doing here. Council agreed to the order.

Council Strategic Priorities Plan – First Semi-Annual Report for 2025
This semi-annual report shows that staff are making real progress on our Strategic Plan priorities. The areas we are falling short are related to some regional labour market challenges impacting staff recruitment and contracted services, the massive and unanticipated shift in housing regulations that require a lot of staff time and energy to implement, while some of them are aligned with our strategic plan. There are also a couple of IT projects that are falling behind because of recent shift in cyber security risk and other emergent IT challenges that simply need to take priority over some of the more strategic long-term initiatives. Overall, considering how disruptive and disrupting the last two years have been, this amount of green showing up on this dashboard is a testament to the incredible work and dedication of the city’s staff.

We are getting stuff done!

Proposed Revised Terms of Reference for the Arts, Culture and Economic Development Advisory Committee
A group of business owners in Sapperton have formed a registered society to co-organize business support and advocacy. This is not a BIA (which is regulated by the Province, has effective taxation powers of its members) but more of a “Business collective”, and they would like a seat at the ACEDAC table alongside BIAs. The rest of the ACEDAC said “sure, c’mon in!”, so we need to update the Terms of Reference to make it all official.

Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 7142, 2007, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No. 8515, 2025
This is the Bylaw that regulates how the City manages requests to subdivide and develop property, two of the fundamental land use powers of local government under the Local Government Act. At the heart of this is the City managing how properties connect to City services (like water, sewer, electricity) during development to assure we can provide those services sustainably, and how much of the cost providing those services fall on the individual property owner, as opposed to taxpayers or (in the case of utilities) ratepayers. One change here is that we are now happy to receive a “letter of assurance” from senior government on affordable housing projects instead of requiring other security, recognizing the province is not likely to go broke and leave us hanging, so in turn we can remove one more potential financial barrier to development of affordable housing.

It’s the little details that help.

We then discussed the following items that were Removed from Consent:

Extending Patio Hours – Street and Sidewalk Patio Bylaw Amendment
Back in June of last year, we quickly approved a temporary policy to extend patio hours for pubs that have their patio on City lands. The temporary policy change was time limited and expired November 1, 2024 and was an opportunity to gauge public support and identify gaps. This time extension was applicable to only two liquor primary establishments, only one of which participated in the extended closing time. Regardless, there were no issues arising, so Council is moving to make the change permanent.

New Westminster Awarded $1.466 Million from Health Canada’s Emergency Treatment Fund for the Crises Response Pilot Project
This is a significant announcement for the City, and a demonstration of confidence from the federal government in our approach to the health crises that are impacting every community across Canada. I remembering it suggested in Council once that we should NOT take this work on, because we were letting senior governments off the hook, and they would never support us if we went ahead. That was of course wrong, and fortunately this Council chose to take the leadership position that the work needed to be done, and our advocacy is best done from that position of leadership, not from blaming out and finger pointing.

Being the only City in BC to get ETF Funding, and getting the second highest grant in the entire Country, are evidence that the feds recognized our commitment to the work, and that the plan put together by staff was viable, evidence-based, and defensible. This contribution will not only relieve some of local cost, but will allow us to expand the program and provide longer hours of service to people who need it the most.

Finally, in my conversations with the Provincial Minister of Health last week, she expressed strong support for this program, and we will be working with Fraser Health teams to integrate the many services Health are already providing in the City, as the CRP model outlines. The road to addressing homelessness and untreated mental health crises is long, but we are committed to the work, and appreciative of our partnerships federally and provincially in making this work happen. We are leading from the front in New West!

Provincial Housing Target Order – Six Month Interim Progress Report
You may have heard that the Province gave many cities in BC “Housing Target Orders” last year – setting fixed targets that they expect the City to reach. We are required to report out on our progress toward these targets every six months. This is that report.

The City is “required” to complete 656 new housing units in the first year of our target order (Aug 2024 – July 2025). In the first six month of that period, the City saw 702 net new homes, exceeding our year one target by 7% in only the first 6 months.

Excuse me for not taking a victory lap, because this demonstrates how misguided the BC target model is in the first place. Almost all of that net increase is due to the occupancy being completed on the Bosa Pier 1 project, which was approved by Council no less than 7 years ago. An unsophisticated look at the headline “we doubled our target in the first six months!” would suggest that we are moving faster than the province requires and should slow down, except that decisions made now will have ZERO effect on the number of units that come on line over the next 6 months, or two years for that matter. We are ahead now, but the gap between Council approval and occupancy can be 3-7 years, and is 95% mediated by market forces outside of the City’s control. The project we approve or deny today will be the statistic in some future Council’s targets 5 years hence. That’s why to the tool is bad.

Of course, there are other issues – most of the units approved were market ownership units (again, it was almost all one project) when we need more rental and affordable housing. The 52 units of subsidized housing downtown that Council approved in early 2022 will likely contribute to our 2026 targets, and the affordable housing we recently approved in the 22nd Street area will contribute to 2027 targets. It’s just not a good tool.

We then had a single Motion from Council:

Support for a New High School in Queensborough
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS there has been significant growth in Queensborough over the past decade with the population now estimated at over 11,000 people; and
WHEREAS Queensborough high school students face significant challenges getting to and from New West Secondary School each day; and
WHEREAS the School District 40 has been asking for capital funding to construct a new high school in Queensborough since 2022; and
WHEREAS New West Secondary School is over capacity with more than 2600 students – making it the largest high school in British Columbia;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT a letter be written to the Minister of Education in support of School District 40’s ongoing requests for site acquisition to build a new high school in Queensborough.

This motion led to a lengthy discussion, one that was ironically made much longer by Council actually agreeing on the main issue – that we need more schools, including in Queensborough. However, the School Board took the extraordinary step of sending Council a request to NOT approve this request, as their board unanimously asked that we instead stay aligned with them on advocacy to the province. I think we need to respect not only their authority, but also in the work they are doing to advocate for new school spaces in New Westminster. Writing the letter as requested here would likely create confusion, and risks sending the impression to the Ministry that this Council is not 100% aligned with the School District on the priorities they have identified. That not only undermines the advocacy that is ongoing, but puts at risk important an pending capital investment decisions being made right now to support expanded elementary and middle school spaces at Simcoe, in the Downton, in the West End, AND in Queensborough.

No-one wins here is we play neighbourhoods against each other, we need to work to assure the resources we are asking for address the most pressing need, and work together to improve space and programs across the entire school district.

In meeting with the Minister of Education last week, I supported the School Districts capital priorities as set out by the School District planning team. I reiterated the priorities of the SD, which included addressing secondary needs in Queensbrough, but only after the more pressing elementary needs downtown and in the West End, and a new middle school are addressed.

The City has a role here, both in site approval and in advocacy. This is why this Council, only a few months ago, approved unanimously the 2024-2025 Eligible School Sites Proposal presented us by the School District, and committed at that time to continued collaboration and joint advocacy on the School District’s stated priorities. It should be no surprise to members of this Council what those priorities are, and how disrespectful it is to the School Board and disruptive it is to long term planning to arbitrarily shift the focus of this work. So Council amended this motion so instead we write a letter endorsing the School District’s Long-term capital plan, which includes, as everyone in Council agreed during the deliberation, a new school in Queensborough. Council unanimously supported the amended motion.

We closed with a few Bylaws for Adoption:

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (1084 Tanaka Court) No. 8483, 2024 and
8.2 Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (1084 Tanaka Court) No. 8484, 2024
This Bylaw that rezones a lot in Queensborough back to light industrial at the request of the owner was adopted by Council.

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 8513, 2025
The Bylaw that authorizes staff to spend up to $1.53 million from the Development Cost Charge Reserve for designated water, sewer, and drainage projects was approved by Council.