Council this Monday was long, and this week has been full of meetings, events, and surprising challenges, so I am late reporting out on it. We didn’t have a particularly long agenda, though there were a few thorny items that deserved lengthy discussion (see below), but we still ended the meeting before completing the agenda, and time management is again a procedural conversation we are going to have to have at Council.

The meeting started with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Amendment Bylaw No. 8525, 2025
The City has been doing a lot of different things to avoid a repeat of the 2021 Heat Dome disaster, where 28 members of our community died. As we are informed by public health estimates that a heat dome has gone from a once-in-1000-year event to a once-in-a-decade event due to climate change, air conditioning is becoming less of a comfort issue, and more of a health issue. To quote our Medical Health Officer directly: “Cooling related bylaws are a key policy lever municipal governments can use to protect their citizens from heat-related negative health outcomes.” In that vein, we are taking measures to make it easier for people to get air conditioners, and (in this case) make it illegal to forbid air conditioners in rental units unless the landlord can demonstrate they are not viable to the satisfaction of the City’s buildings staff. These bylaw amendments make that the law in New Westminster, with fines for landlords who don’t comply.

Staff are also proposing we provide some increased resources to our Bylaws department, specifically to address rental building support and enforcement and the protection of vulnerable renters. Two bylaw officers focused on tenant support and life safety, and one outreach worker to provide in-reach support to vulnerable tenants. These positions will be considered in context of our 2026 budget.

We received two pieces of correspondence on this, one from a building managers lobby group, and one from a tenants rights organization, I leave it to you to infer which was against regulating building conditions to save lives, and which was for it. No-one came to speak at the Opportunity to be Heard and Council voted to support these measures.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 1031 Quebec Street, New Westminster – Metro Vancouver Annacis Water Supply Tunnel, Fraser River Crossing
Metro Vancouver has been building a water supply tunnel under the Fraser River, which involved drilling a 2.4km tunnel. As they are wrapping this drilling up, the builders need to remove the Tunnel Boring Machine from the shaft on Auckland Street, which will require some work outside of permitted times over a four-week period. The work will involve running a crane and some generators, not particularly loud work, but a notice exemption is required.

Distributed Antenna System to Improve Cellular Network Coverage within Anvil Centre
The Anvil Centre is built in a way that makes cell phone signals weak inside. Telus already has antennae inside the building to boost their signal, this is an agreement to let Rogers do the same thing. The cell company pays us for the electricity they use plus a small monthly rack space rental fee, as the City needs to charge fair market value for use of public space to private entities.

Update of Section 72 Remedial Action Requirement for 1823 Hamilton Street
A property owner in the West End was served a remedial order by the City a few years ago relating to some renovations of his house/property that did not pass inspection. The City also put a notice on his title about these deficiencies to inform a potential buyer if the owner decided to sell. Though much of the work has been completed now, the owner will not permit inspection to confirm it was done to code, so the remedial action order will be removed, but the notice of lack of inspection will remain on the title.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw and Cannabis Retail Store Licence: 416 East Columbia Street
There is no cannabis retailer in Sapperton, because the one the City approved was not able to maintain a lease, but instead a second operator has tried to set up in the property identified in the process the City went through to choose the first tranche of cannabis retail locations in the City. This is not consistent with the spirit or letter of Council’s intent when we went through an extensive process to approve new cannabis operations. The successful applicant is hoping to open in another nearby Sapperton location, and Council is now moving ahead with removing cannabis retail as a permitted use on the original site. That would take a zoning amendment, so the only step we are taking right now is instructing staff to prepare that zoning amendment for Council approval.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

40 Begbie Street: Good Neighbour Agreement and Issuance of TUP for Health Contact Centre
The Health Contact Centre downtown is a healthcare service that has saved scores of lives and made more than a thousand referrals to treatment and other health care services since it opened in 2021. But there has been a shift in drug use in the community, with smoking becoming the most dominant mode of intake. Though the HCC still provides lifesaving services to those who inject or orally consume drugs, they cannot provide the same support to those who smoke drugs in this location.

The City has been advocating to Fraser Health to include inhalation services, but we have been recently informed that it won’t work on this site for engineering reasons, so the City and Fraser Health are working on an alternative. In the meantime, the current HCC is applying for an 18-month extension of their permitting to facilitate the transition to a new service.

New Westminster has been a strong supporter of harm reduction, along with being a strong supporter of recovery and of increased funding for detox and transition beds here in New Westminster and across the province. Meanwhile, we are investing in direct crises response and non-clinical outreach. Befitting a public health emergency, we are taking every measure to keep our residents alive and assuring they have access to health care they need.

We have received feedback both pro and against this application (by my account, 60% of the correspondence we received was in support), as we do with many zoning application in the City. New Westminster is a compassionate community, and when I talk to residents and businesses downtown, they want the City to do more to help residents that are suffering, not less. Fundamentally, this is health care, and I have to follow the recommendations of the Public Health Officer, the coroner, and the health experts that say closing this HCC now will lead to unnecessary deaths.

Council spent more than an hour working though some details of the Good Neighbour Agreement, and amendments from several different Councillors were deliberated upon until we got to consensus on that language. In the end, the vote to support the TUP was not unanimous, but the majority supported the extension and the HCC will continue to save lives in New Westminster.

2024 Statement of Financial Information
Accompanying the Annual Report, here is our SOFI report, as audited by KPMG and required by Provincial regulation. This outlines our financial position at the end of 2024, and it is pretty solid.

Overall, the City is about $140 Million in the black, and our accumulated surplus (including the value of our assets after depreciation) is up 5% over last year, and just over $1 Billion. Our surplus last year was just under $50 Million, which is higher than the $38 Million budgeted. This is a result of a combination if higher than expected revenue, and lower than expected expanses. When you take assets and depreciation out of the math, our net financial assets went up about $27 Million. This is called a “surplus”, but remember this is the money that we use to pay for our capital plan for upcoming years. One big part of this is that we made more money than expected on our investments (~$18 Million) than we spent servicing out debt (~$8 Million).

We are still working on assuring we have sufficient reserves relative to the value of our assets, but overall the City’s financial picture is strong.

Massey Victory Heights Street Lighting Replacement Project Update

The engineering team have been working on replacing the lights in Massey Victory Heights for some time. For those who read my Newsletter, I described a bit of the history recently, but in short the existing light poles and wiring are from the 1950s, and well past their functional lifespan. Despite them not meeting modern standards for the primary job – lighting the street and sidewalk – and presenting challenges with uplight, backlight, and glare (“BUG”), they still have some aesthetic appeal to some folks in the neighbourhood.

Engineering were working on a replacement strategy, as even replacing the non-conduit underground wiring will be a technically challenging project, and the poles and bases are failing structurally – and it important to realize that there is a significant safety issue here. However after informing the neighbourhood about the first phases of this work, some in the community reacted that they value the aesthetic appeal of the existing light structures, though they had not been identified in the City’s heritage inventory (and had been significantly modified since their 1950s installation).

We did have the option to pause the safety repairs here while we talked more ot the community about the existing lights, but the report makes clear that the lights need to be replaced, there is no outcome here that has the existing lights preserved where they are and continuing to operate in the long term. They are simply end of life and becoming a safety concern. At the same time, pausing the first phases of this work will cost the taxpayers a lot of money for questionable gains. There is no heritage assessment that is going to tell us that the existing lights will become safe.

I have met with folks from MVH, and have heard their concerns, but I also talked with some people who were surprised to hear that the light upgrades might be delayed after all these years. I also went up there both in the day and in the evening to see how the lights along, for example, Churchill work as opposed to Jackson crescent and the area below Richmond where davit-style lights already exist. And it is easy to see the concern that Engineering has, and why this project is important for community safety.

So I moved a motion that might Community Services staff be directed to conduct the research and community consultation required to complete a heritage assessment of the street light standards in the Massey Victory Heights area and share the findings with council and the community. And in the meantime, Engineering Services staff proceed with scheduled Phases 1 and 2 while working with the heritage assessment and the community to protect and preserve the existing light poles as decorative elements where possible, in a way that celebrates the neighbourhood’s unique history. Council voted to support this.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit Applications: 611 Agnes Street – Preliminary Report
The owner of this office building on 6th and Agnes would like to replace it with a new building with 299 purpose built rental homes in a 37 storey tower with two levels of office and retail at grade, along with a childcare. That is a lot of density on the site (11+ FSR), exceeding by quite a bit that expected in the Transit Oriented Development Area. 300 rental homes near SkyTrain is a good thing, and consistent with many City needs, including the need for new secured rental in our Housing Needs Report. The ability to build new rental with zero displacement of current renters is a definite positive of this proposal.

The project has evolved quite a bit since first pitched to the City in 2018 (!), but essentially found this form just before COVID caused the proponent to put the project on pause in 2020. The developer is now concerned that the provision of two floors of office space totaling 32,000 square feet might make the project unviable. The current building has 55,000 sqft of office. So the question in front of Council at this early stage is whether we want to hold firm on 32K sqft of office, or whether we are willing to see flexibility in that part of the project.

The provision of office space here was established back before the Pandemic, and there is a good question if the current estimates of office need have kept track with the changes in how office space regionally is being developed. According to Colliers, New West has one of the lowest office vacancy rates in the region, well below the regional average.

In the end, Council referred this back to staff to work with the property owner and determine if there is an option to add supportive affordable housing in lieu of office. So expect this to come back to Council sooner than later.

Rezoning Application: 140 Sixth Street (Royal Towers) – Preliminary Report
The owner of the Royal Towers wants to replace it with a new residential development, and have come up with an innovative way to protect the existing affordable housing. They are proposing a two-phase development where they build two buildings on the north side of the property, one purpose built market rental, one affordable non-market rental. They would then offer the current residents of the towers a move to the new affordable housing building at the same rent they pay now (with inflationary increases as permitted by the RTA) before they tear down the Royal Towers to build 850 condo homes in two towers on the Royal Avenue side of the site, along with 65,000sqft of commercial space.

This project would provide a mix of market ownership, rental, and secured affordable homes that meets our housing needs and goals as a City, and avoids displacement of residents while a very much past its lifespan building is demolished.

This is the first Council review of the complete project (though Council saw an earlier draft and unanimously approved the 40-storey tower heights in principle last year), and there needs to be quite a bit of planning review and public consultation before Council can provide third reading to the Zoning Amendment, and as the market is very tight right now, there is a sensitive timeline on this project. This report is really to get Council familiar with the proposal so that planning and consultation work can begin. That said, there is some time pressure to get to third reading to secure the affordable housing commitment from the funder.

---

We then had this Motion from Council:

Transparency in Business Improvement Area Levy Communication
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Business Improvement Area (BIA) levies are collected by the City of New Westminster through property taxes on behalf of designated BIA organizations;
WHEREAS many business owners may not be fully aware that a portion of their property taxes is allocated specifically to fund BIA activities, particularly when taxes are paid by landlords rather than tenants;
WHEREAS improved transparency and communication can help strengthen accountability and awareness of how public funds are being used to support local business areas;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster develop and implement a process to proactively inform all commercial property owners and business tenants, on an annual basis, of the amount of property taxes allocated to Business Improvement Area levies, including a clear breakdown with their property tax notices or through other direct communication methods.

I do not understand the motive of this motion, or why the mover is suggesting that BIA operations are anything but transparent and accountable. BIAs are strictly regulated under sections 215 and 216 of the Community Charter. All members of the BIA are already “proactively informed” of the levy charged to them on behalf of the BIA. It is line item on their tax bill under the category “City of New Westminster Municipal Taxes” with a line item that reads “Business Improvement Area” with both the rates and calculation of their charges.

Further, the BIA publicly reports their finances to their membership every year in an annual general meeting, which Members of Council are routinely invited to. They also provide reporting to the City when they do levy setting that sets the rates to be charged to their members, and include a public budget for Council’s review. Council should recall the November 4 meeting of last year when this Council unanimously and on consent approved those budgets for the City’s two BIAs.

Council did not support this motion, and speaking only for myself, I fear it sends the wrong message to the community about how this Council supports and values the work of our two Business Improvement Areas. It may even send the impression that they are anything but transparent and accountable to both the public and their members. And I leave it to others to interpret what it means when a Council starts challenging the funding mechanisms for organizations in the City that may coincidentally be outspoken about issues in the City.

---

We had a few more items on the agenda, but at 11:30 Council decided to adjourn. We had started out (closed) meeting at 1:00 in the afternoon, and after a dinner break, had been at Council for 5 -1/2 hours. Our regular Public Delegation period, where up to 10 people can sign up to talk to Council for up to 5 minutes each, took us 2 ½ hours to get through. With short breaks, we spent about the same amount of time dealing with items on the Agenda, but our Procedures Bylaw requires that we need Council to approve going on past 10:30. We added a half hour at 10:30, then another at 11:00, but the 11:30 vote failed, and we adjourned. All of the remaining items will be added to next agenda on July 7.

Our last Council meeting in May included a Public Hearing – not something we have as often as we used to since the Province banned them for residential developments that are aligned with the Official Community Plan, but Heritage Revitalization Agreements still require them. After the Public Hearing, our regular Council Agenda started with consideration of those Bylaws:

Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8509, 2025
Heritage Designation Bylaw (318 Sixth Avenue) No. 8510, 2025
The application here is to subdivide a lot on Sixth Avenue, do minor restoration and permanent designation of the heritage house, and build a complementary but slightly smaller second house in the newly formed lot.

Aside from the subdivision, the variances being requested are relatively minor, including shifting a bit of density from the existing house to the new one, minor variances on the garage, and the shape of one lot means the frontage is slightly below the 10% perimeter requirement. As the heritage house was build on the very edge of the exiting lot, the lot can be subdivided without moving the heritage house, and the spacing between houses will still be larger than that between the houses across the back alley that were subdivided decades ago. The result here will be three housing units in two buildings (two main houses and a rental unit in the new house) where three housing units are currently permitted.

This application was delayed by the City’s pausing then de-prioritization of the HRA processes to concentrate on more pressing housing issues, and is the first HRA in the Queens Park HCA in this Council term. Aside from the proponent, we had five people come to delegate on the application, four opposed and one supportive, all of them familiar faces at New Westminster Council on Queens Park heritage issues. There were concerns about whether the HRA is the right tool for this purpose (it is), about spacing between buildings, and appearances of the streetscape. Both immediately impacted neighbours expressed support for the application, one in person and one in writing.

In the end, Council voted to give these Bylaws third readings, effectively approving the applications.

---

Council then moved the following item On Consent:

Response to Council Motion: School Zone Time Limits
Following up on a request form Councillor Henderson, we will be updating out School Zone Speed Zone hours to align with those in Burnaby, meaning 30km/h is the speed limit between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM on school days. Not quite 30 everywhere, but moving in the direction of improved safety.

---

And the following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Grants Program Update and Updated Terms of Reference for Grants Advisory Committees
The City’s Grant program has been evolving over the last few years from a partisan process where Council picks and chooses who gets grants to become a less political process where Council sets strategic goals for grants (community connection, economic development, etc.), and staff work with volunteer citizen committees to determine how to best meet those goals based on the applications received. The program continues to be refined as staff bring in better controls and accountability, based on recommendations approved by Council in July 2024, and are asking here for updated to the Terms of Reference for the three Grants Advisory Committees who advise Council on grant allocation. These have not been updated since 2020, and staff have done some community consultation to determine these changes.

Unsurprisingly, the non-partisan nature of grant awards rubs some people the wrong way, and there was a motion brought forward to put Council’s fingers on the scale and favour one or two “historic” organizations above others. There were vague suggestions that this would secure them more funding, but it was not clear if this would be an expansion of the grant program or taking from other awardees. In the end, Council voted to not create a new category at this time, as staff are already doing a lot of work to streamline and make more functional the existing process, and we have yet to see the results of the Community Advisory Assembly’s recommendations on Cultural Observances, which will no doubt interact with this process.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 Columbia Street – Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project
The cladding work on the hospital project is delayed for a variety of reasons, requiring an extension of their construction noise Bylaw exemption for the rare times that specific cladding work needs to happen outside of regular construction hours on Saturday Mornings. We have received exactly two noise complaints on this project since 2022, and both were resolved, I think the construction company is doing good work to address neighbourhood concerns, and the only message I hear from Sapperton now is they want this project done ASAP, so Council approved the exemption.

Response to Council Motion: School Streets Pilot Program
This program would be a partnership between the City and external organizations to pilot closing roads adjacent to a school during pick up and drop off times to create “safe Streets”. Staff recommended against us doing this pilot due to limited resources and higher cost priorities on road safety, but apparently there is a new grant available to pay some (all?) of those costs, so Council moved to refer this back to staff to review once more those funding opportunities and bring this report back. So we neither agreed to do it nor agreed not to, we will do one or the other in a future meeting once we have the updated info in front of us.

Temporary Use Permit: 40 Begbie Street – Health Contact Centre
The Health Contact Centre downtown is, to everyone’s agreement, not working as intended. As the site was operating under a Temporary Use Permit which now either needs renewal or replacement with a formal rezoning, it is giving us an opportunity to review that operation. The good news is that the centre is providing life-saving services every day, has reversed hundreds of toxic drug events and making more than 1,000 referrals to support, treatment, or detox services. As a provider of life-saving and life altering health care services, it is a positive story.

However the nature of the drug supply has changed in the last few years, and up to 77% of drug use is now by smoking, not injection or insufflation, meaning there are more people standing outside the Centre smoking dangerous drugs than inside injecting them. This is why the City has been advocating to bring inhalation services to the HCC. However, Fraser Health has determined the site is not suitable for engineering/cost reasons. So through negotiations, Fraser Health has agreed to wind down overdose prevention services at 40 Begbie Street and transition to an alternate overdose prevention service delivery model accommodating individuals who consume unregulated substances by inhalation, injection, nasal insufflation and oral ingestion. During this transition, the life-saving services of the HCC are still required, so Fraser Health is recommending a Temporary Use Permit for a further 18 months to allow Fraser Health and partners to transition to an alternate overdose prevention service delivery model.

A TUP will require consideration at an upcoming meeting, and Council agreed to Fraser Health’s recommendation on timing and transition. The TUP will be considered at an upcoming Council meeting.

---

We then had one Motion form Council:

Remove US Flag from Queen’s Park Arena and Replace it with City of New Westminster Flag
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS there are few if any formal occasions that require the American flag to be prominently displayed at Queen’s Park Arena;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to permanently remove and replace the American flag with the City of New Westminster flag at Queen’s Park Arena; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be authorized to temporarily reinstall the American flag if it is required to be displayed for official protocol purposes in relation to an event held at this facility.

I was pretty ambivalent about this motion, except that I found amusing that the mover, after several social media posts and radio interviews about the topic, now emphasizes the “quiet” removal of the flag. Clearly, the Councillor is passionate about this, so I have no problem supporting it.

---

Finally, we had a single Bylaw for Adoption

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Storage Amendments Bylaw No. 8518, 2025
This bylaw that removes mini-storage as permitted use within some light industrial and zones was adopted by Council.

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!

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.