Category: Uncategorized

Timelines, FalconGates, Access

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This is a really important story that is well reported, with a timeline that tells you more in one graphic about the history of FalconGates and Translink’s alleged incompetence in rolling out the program than you will read in a year of PostMedia whinging.

From day one, this program was doomed to the embarrassing failures we are now experiencing, and TransLink knew the disaster was in the making. However, provincial interference in the operation of what they often claim to be an arms-length organization, fueled in part by a media unable (unwilling?) to understand the problem, led us down this path. Perhaps it is time those people stop pretending to be so shocked.

It is telling that a report from way back in 2005 on “controlled access” to stations starts by stating:

Over the past several years, the public and media have maintained a strong interest in implementing “controlled access” stations on SkyTrain as a potential means to deter crime and to reduce fare evasion on the rapid transit system.

Indeed, that study showed that the public perception, fueled by media reports speculation, was that 27% of people on SkyTrain pay no or insufficient fare, when the actual number was about 5%. This perception was in part linked to a measureable shift by ridership away from single tickets and faresavers towards monthly passes and U-Pass, where the “payment” action was less visible. Ironically, this shift actually resulted in a reduction in fare evasion, as people carrying monthly passes are not going to “forget” to pay for “just this one ride”, or otherwise self-justify not paying a zone change, etc. The logical response (with a defensible business case) was to step up visible enforcement and other measures to increase the perceived security of the system, including introducing expanded Transit Police service.

Back in 2005, the Smart Card model was assessed, which brought these telling and somewhat prescient quotes:

Smart Cards can also help to improve public perception of fare evasion on SkyTrain by implementing procedures such that all customers are required to “tag” their smart card upon entering a station. This will result in some level of inconvenience for pass holders, but would help to address the incorrect perception that prepaid fare holders are fare evaders.

This [Fare Gate] approach also assumes that there would be a booth or similar location at every station entrance/gate array staffed by a gate attendant. Faregate attendants would monitor gate operations, and also allow customers to bypass the gate if they had mobility impairments, excess luggage, a ticket that could not be electronically read (e.g. a promotional pass), or some other condition that prevented them from using the gate. [my emphasis]

That’s right, TransLink staff knew, and warned their Board in 2005, that there would need to be attendants on site to help people with mobility issues manage FareGates if installed. The estimate at the time was that this would require, for all the three transit lines post Canada-line introduction, 387 Full Time Equivalents.

Almost 400 staff. No wonder the business case was sketchy, and an alternate approach to improving the (I have to keep emphasizing this word) perceived security issue was to hire less than half that number of increased security staff, not the least because this would increase actual security, not just the perception of security.

The financial analysis in 2005 dollars was $32Million per year for operational and maintenance of the FareGates, extra staff, and annualized capital costs of the system, with an expected fare evasion reduction equal to about $3Million per year. Naturally, the TransLink Board said no. One would have to be insane to do it.

Enter Kevin Falcon.

In the former Minister’s defense, he was being lobbied by the Former Deputy Premier (his former boss) on behalf of the company that eventually sold TransLink what T like to call FalconGates. These are, perhaps coincidentally, the exact technology pictured on Page 23 of the 2005 Report that deemed the system uneconomic. This company, Cubic, convinced the Minister that their system was great, and would be up and running by 2010. This advice from his former Deputy was good enough for the Premier, despite TransLink continuing to reiterate that this was not going to be economical or practical to introduce.

This makes the recent questions over whether TransLink is making its own decision or is being run directly by Victoria seem rather late and academic, doesn’t it?

By the end of 2010, the defence contractor for whom the former Deputy Premier was lobbying unsurprisingly won the contract to install the FalconGates. The program had expanded somewhat to include the incredibly complex Smart Card system already discussed, and the budget expansion by 70% was neither the first nor the last time the business case got worse than hen it was first rejected. Cubic’s history of these systems was spotty (three years delay and significant usability issues in Minneapolis, two years delay and compatibility issues with the PATH SmartLink, operational and security issues in Brisbane), but these types of growing pains should not really be surprising for what is a pretty advanced and emerging technology. These examples should only have served as warning to everyone from the CAO of TransLink to Jordan Bateman that Compass and FareGate introduction was going to be a bumpy process, and there is no evidence anyone else could have done it better.

(For the purposes of this post, I am going to set aside the inside-government-lobbying-and-late-delivery model Cubic demonstrated in Sydney with the Opal Card which is at least as sad as here in British Columbia. That was military-grade bad procurement you need to read to believe).

This takes me to last Saturday afternoon when I hopped on the Skytrain and ran into a friend of mine with severe mobility restrictions (motorized chair, very limited manual dexterity). He was rather pragmatic about the situation, and recognized the FalconGate system was going to be problematic from Day 1. However, he also pointed out that there are many other accessibility issues in the system that are more problematic than requiring attendant help with Compass. To be frank, he was much more concerned about the cutting off of disabled transit pass assistance, but as cruel as that is, it’s another digression.

This chat and my work with the Access Ability Advisory Committee around our two downtown transit stations (both with significantly sub-optimal accessibility kludges), brought me to think about my experiences on other transit systems around the world. Recently, we were in one of the 20% of New York subway stations that is accessible, which I only noted because the elevator was out of order, leaving an elderly women frantic about how she was going to get home. London’s Tube is 30% accessible, Toronto’s subway about 50%, while Montreal’s Metro is less than 10% accessible. Aside from local and temporary (sometimes protracted) maintenance issues, TransLink’s light rail and heavy rail infrastructure is 100% accessible, and our bus system is reaching towards 100% accessibility.

TransLink is far from perfect when it comes to accessibility, but as an organization they have striven to reach a level of system-wide accessibility uncommon in large city transit systems. They have invested a huge amount of money in this, because it is the right thing to do. The more accessibility you install, the more potential for it to go wrong, and I hope we can do better than to hop on every snafu as if it is a massive failure of a damaged system, and recognize it as a place where improvements have, so far, fallen short.

So to take my seemingly Fletcherian mid-post thesis shift back to the original point: I wonder how much we could have improved accessibility of the system with the $200 Million we have instead pissed down the FalconGate black hole for no other reason than to make CKNW callers feel more secure that someone else is paying to ride the train they avoid while stuck in traffic.

A respectful retort

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 5 Comments.

I have received a significant amount of positive feedback on the idea of reducing urban speed limits to 30km/h. It hasn’t all been positive, a few people have given reasons why they don’t like the idea, some were even reasonable arguments, but overwhelmingly the people who have bother to contact me about it have provided support.

Then I read the letters section of the Record. I note that social media responses to the Record article were mostly supportive of the idea, but clearly letter writers do not correlate with that trend. Problem is, I’m not sure the letters in opposition to my request had much to do with what I was proposing, leading me to write this retort.

Now, there was a time that I would call a letter writer out and challenge them point-for point, or even write a reply letter dissecting the many ways the writer was wrong, hoping the Record would print it. I would use my humour and other rhetorical techniques to cast my “opponents” ideas in the least flattering light, in an effort to make my ideas (and, by association, myself) look brilliant. Tonight I had beers with a friend arguing that my Blog has lost it’s edge, because I don’t engage in that kind of argument anymore. The problem is, I’m an elected official now, and that removes both the fun from that approach, and the reasoning for it.

Mostly, this is because political rants, much like satire (separating it from other forms of comedy), really only work if the writer is “punching up”. To have a person in a decision-making role like mine dress down a non-politician who is just trying to communicate their ideas to me, is kind of a jerk move. There is an exception here for trolls, agnotologists, and other political opportunists who might bring a dressing-down upon themselves, but that is a pretty rare occasion, and it seems those people avoid me now. Instead, I find myself responding to people who actually want answers to their questions, and (usually) deserve them. So please don’t read this retort as in any way questioning the letter writer’s honest convictions or character. I’m going to try to not be a jerk, while explaining to the writer why I pretty much disagree with her on every point. Wish me luck.

“Let’s get real, Patrick. Drivers don’t care about speed limits – they ignore them now, so how will lowering speeds change that? Curb speed limits – no. Curb speeds – YES”

Well, yes and no. Obviously I care about speed limits, and you care about speed limits, so some drivers care about speed limits. Many drivers respect speed limits, some do not. A few drive like self-entitled idiots, but the majority of the others drive at a speed they self-determine to be safe, based on the speed of the traffic around them and the design of the road. We need to manage all three types differently.

Lowering limits deals with the first and the third: it reduces the average speed (because of people like you and me using the roads and being law-abiding) and it changes how we design and operate our roads. Building a road for 30km/h will feel safe at 30km/h, or (more likely, because of the way we design roads based on 85th percentiles and engineered redundancy) safe at 40km/h. If the limits are set at 50km/h we have to build the roads to be safe at 50km/h (or more likely 60km/h). So reducing the limits is not the complete solution, but it is a big help. For the smaller self-entitled idiot driving group, we need enforcement.

“Curb the voracious appetites of those who spend my precious tax dollars! Instead of wasting my tax dollars on all the rigamarole it will take to change speed limits, use those dollars to lower my taxes (and water, sewer and garbage bills)!”

That is actually my intent, even if I don’t agree with your characterization. The reason the City doesn’t just go ahead and change the speed limits in residential areas is because it would be prohibitively expensive to install the required signage to make it legally defensible, and even then, it is not clear we would be able to enforce a non-statutory limit. We also spend a lot of money in this City paying for the results of people using our residential streets as through-routes, and reducing the speed of that through-traffic both dissuades it, and reduces the cost of it.

“Get the police out there earning some of their salaries and enforce the current speed limits. Use the money all those speeding fines will yield to lower my taxes and policing costs – goodness knows policing is a gluttonous portion of the city’s expenses.”

The problem here is that the first and third clauses rely on the middle clause, and that one is based on a false premise. The City doesn’t get to keep the speeding fines it collects. Those go to the Provincial treasury where they are mixed with other “general revenue”. Some of that money is returned to Cities through a special fund, but the amount a City gets back is not increased based on how many tickets we give out, only by population.

The net result is that every time a Police officer in New Westminster writes a speeding ticket, it costs the City money. It increases your taxes and policing costs. It is not limited to the cost of having the police out there on the street writing tickets instead of doing the other things police do, but it also comes from the paper work the officers have to do when they get back to the station, the scheduling of court time (as everyone has the right to defend themselves in court), the preparation of a court case in the event of a challenge, etc.

We cannot use increased enforcement to lower taxes, and life as a Councillor would be much easier if we could! Indeed, the balancing of those costs against the need for enforcement is one of the more difficult jobs for the Police, for the Police Board, and for Council.

“Need some ideas of the best places to do that? Park zones, especially around Moody Park, where drivers fly, and put our seniors going to Century House and families going to the playgrounds, pool and the new dog park in peril. How about the fly-high ways on Stewardson and McBride? How about a school zone? A number of them are notorious for the speeding.”

While we are at it, I have my own list of places where we need more enforcement. Third Ave in front of my house (natch), or Quayside Drive, or Eighth Ave through Massey Heights, or 12th Street where the London Greenway crosses, or Derwent Way or… the list goes on, and we have a limited number of Police and a limited budget. However, we are both getting away from my original point, which is that Police enforcing a 30km/h speed limit on our residential streets will make our streets safer than police enforcing a 50km/h speed limit. And having them enforce the lower limit will be no more difficult than enforcing the higher one.

As a bonus, the lower limit will better allow us to design and build streets that keep pedestrians safe, and will improve the livability of our front yards and neighbourhoods. And that is my job.

Council – February 29, 2016

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

As is typical on the last meeting of the month, our Leap Day meeting began with a Public Hearing on three projects, all HRAs with slightly different flavours:

Bylaws 7800 and 7801: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation for 205 Clinton Place
This is a small house on the edge of Queens Park with significant heritage character/quirks. If it was being built today, we would call it “infill density” or “sensitive infill”, but instead it was built in 1912, so we call it a historic cottage. The owners want to put a full basement in the house to increase the living space beyond what is currently allowed in the zoning, and in exchange they will give the house permanent protection through a Heritage Designation.

The QPRA, the Community Heritage Commission, and the Advisory Planning Commission, all indicated support. We received no correspondence on the application, and the proponent and one neighbour spoke in favour of the project. Council referred the Bylaws and they were given third reading in the subsequent Council Meeting.

Bylaws 7802 and 7803: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation for 335 Buchanan Avenue
I love this project, because it slightly pushes our idea of what a “Heritage House” looks like in New Westminster (see banner above). This small home in Upper Sapperton was built in 1937 (almost 80 years ago) in the Early Modern style. Similar to the previous project, it is a small house by modern standards, and the owners want to expand the living space in exchange for Heritage Designation.

The Community Heritage Commission and the Advisory Planning Commission indicated support, and there were no concerns brought to Council from the MSRA. We received no correspondence on the application, and only the proponent spoke in favour of the project. Council referred the Bylaws and they were given third reading in the subsequent Council Meeting.

Bylaws 7806 and 7807: Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Heritage Designation for 1407 Sixth Avenue
This project will bring back a pretty run-down heritage home in the West End, in exchange for a subdivision and the building of a relatively modest new home on the infill lot. The protected house doesn’t look like much now, but it is one of the oldest intact houses in the West End, built in 1890. The restoration plan looks to bring it back to its historic character.

The Community Heritage Commission and the Advisory Planning Commission indicated support, as did both the BOTHRA and WERA. We received no correspondence on the application. The proponent spoke in favour, and one resident of Queens Park expressed concerns about the project. Council referred the Bylaws and they were given third reading in the subsequent Council Meeting.

The Regular Meeting started with Council providing third reading of the above Bylaws. We then had an Opportunity to be Heard:

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw No. 7777, 2016
This addresses how the City manages it’s role under the provincial Motor Vehicle Act to administer chauffeur licenses, and more specifically the duties around suspension of those licenses and the appeal process.

Under the Act, our Chief Constable is responsible for issuing, suspending or cancelling chauffeur permits, and has a lot of discretion on what constitutes grounds for suspension or cancellation. The NWPD manage that discretion through a clear, written policy that outlines requirements to get a permit (age, fitness, etc.) and grounds for suspension (impaired driving convictions, assault, loss of drivers licence, etc.). This creates appropriate transparency and is a guideline for drivers (who may wish to appeal a suspension) and to City Council (who may have to hear and reply to that appeal).

Through a review and update of these policies started in 2014, including a comparison to the ways other Municipalities address this issue, several “housekeeping” changes to the City’s Commercial Vehicle Bylaw were recommended, mostly to assure it complied with the policy as updated. This new Bylaw makes the changes to that old Bylaw.

No-one came to speak to this bylaw during the Opportunity to be Heard, and later in the meeting, we gave the Bylaw third reading.

We then covered a report form staff on the Draft Financial Plan.

A draft version of the 2016-2020 Financial Plan was presented to Council. There is a period for public comment starting soon, and I recommend you have a look at the report and comment upon it. The way things look now (and this is subject to change), we are looking at about a 2.73% tax increase for 2016.

One part of the plan that interests me is the state of our reserves and our debt load. With many significant capital projects on the immediate horizon (animal shelter, Canada Games Pool, Q2Q bridge, etc.) we need to make some decisions about how to manage those costs. One of Council’s strategic goals this term is to put together a comprehensive Asset Management Plan, so that we can properly price and plan for the maintenance and replacement of our major capital assets. Our reserve fund and our potential need to borrow are intrinsically linked to this plan, and it makes no sense to do a serous review of any one without looking at all three together.

Council approved the Draft plan in principle, and staff will spend March seeking public input. Of course I am always interested in receiving comments, and have been doing some blogging on this topic. I have a few more ideas in the queue to help me (and hopefully you) put our annual budget and tax situation into better context, and hope to get those out in the next couple of weeks, including one really cool Ask Pat that arrived recently.

The following items were moved on Consent by Council:

Changes to the 2016 Schedule of Regular Council Meetings
We are continuing to hone the schedule for Council Meetings to better allot our time and Staff time on Mondays. The part you care about is that Regular Meetings will start at 6:00, with Public Delegations starting at 7:00. Adjust your Monday Night schedules accordingly.

Community Heritage Commission Appointment
We have had to appoint a replacement to the CHC, as one of the selected applicants could not serve.

School Board Appointments
Several of our advisory committees have representatives from the School Board, selected by the School Board, and we are happy to have their help. Although our jurisdictions are separate, there are many things in the City (like transportation around school sites and the future of the Massey Theatre) that require Council and the School Board to work together and be on the same page. We are happy to have their support!

QPRA Representative on the Neighbourhood Traffic Advisory Committee
Every Residents’ Association has a representative on the NTAC, and this appointment s just to approve the Rep recommended by the Queens Park Residents Association.

Fraser Health Representatives to the Community and Social Issues Committee
We are lucky to have representatives from Fraser Health helping with this committee. They recommend ‘em, we appoint ‘em.

We then moved through a few BYLAWS

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw No. 7777, 2016
As discussed above, this Bylaw was given Third Reading.

Amendment to Delegation Bylaw No. 7820, 2016
As discussed on the February 15 Meeting of Council, this Bylaw was formally adopted. It’s now the Law of the Land, please adjust your behaviour accordingly.

Housing Agreement (320 Salter Street) Bylaw No. 7805, 2016
As discussed on the February 15 Meeting of Council, this Bylaw was formally adopted. It’s now the Law of the Land, please adjust your behaviour accordingly.

Then, after receiving a bit of correspondence and a few announcements, we were done for the night! But not before Councillor Harper moved to recommend Staff explore opportunities to honour Dorothy Beach, who recently died after 102 years of living in New Westminster, with more than a few of them actively fighting to protect the natural environment of the Fraser River. I suspect there may be a few opportunities arising soon…

More taxes – with colour!

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 2 Comments.

My main argument last post was that New Westminster’s property taxes, on a per capita basis, are not out of line with the rest of the region, and are actually significantly enough below the average that the difference works out to a pretty nice chunk of money.

However, it was noted to me that we don’t actually pay property taxes on a per-capita basis, we pay per household. So I took the same sets of statistics from the BC Government site to see how much each City was collecting in taxes from Residential properties only (not business or industry), and compared it to the number of Households in each community, which is a statistic collected by Metro Vancouver for their own purposes.

table1crop
Total residential taxes collected by Municipality per Household (BC Gov’t and Metro Vancouver data)

As you can see in this colourful chart, New Westminster slips down into one of the lowest-taxed communities in the Lower Mainland in this comparison. We have a relatively low number of residents per household (2.28, compared to a regional average of 2.73) likely because of the larger number of rental suites and apartments in New Westminster than other Municipalities.

Although the presence of taxes irritates some people, the issue really arises whenever taxes are raised, so how do we measure up in the constantly-increasing-taxes department? Every year Council discusses a potential tax increase to keep up with inflation, growth, wage increases and paying for new programs. Again, the Province’s annual reporting is a useful dataset for comparing these increases between Municipalities, in this case the table called Schedule 703, which lists the annual “Total Property Taxes and Charges” for all Municipalities. I calculated the % increase every year for all 21 Municipalities, and to facilitate comparison between Belcarra’s $2M budget and Vancouver’s $1.4B budget, I indexed all of the taxes to the 2005 baseline, which I arbitrarily set at $100.

table 2
Taxes and fees collected by Municipalities, 2005 to 2015, as a percentage of the baseline amount collected in 2005.

As you can see, between 2005 and 2015, New Westminster’s taxes went up about 65%, which puts us right about the middle of the pack regionally. Anmore was off the scale in their increases, and Vancouver was (perhaps surprisingly to some) one of the most conservative in their tax hikes. To answer your question, I have no idea why Langley Township has that big jog in 2014, except to say that’s what the stats report, and it was an election year in Jordan Bateman’s riding!

These numbers, however, mask that over those 10 years, there was a lot of regional population growth, so as taxes went up, so did the number of taxpayers. Your individual tax increase as a resident of one of these Cities is not represented here, so I took data from Schedule 201 to track the rate of population growth with the same set-2005-as-100 indexing, and the same line colours:

table 3crop
Municipal population, as a percentage of the 2005 baseline population.

The data here is, unfortunately, a little choppy, as the BC Government does estimates between census years, and the 2014 Census leaves something to be desired. Why they reported no changes in population in 2013 or 2015, you will have to ask them. Perhaps most surprising are the 6 Municipalities that saw their population shrink since 2005 (we need to sit down and talk about the Regional Growth Strategy here, folks). As you can see, New Westminster was one of the fastest-growing communities, behind Surrey and Port Moody, and quite a bit faster than all of the municipalities to the north and west of us, even those with similar dense urban cores and rapid transit access.

So combining those two charts together, I calculated the “Total Property Taxes and Charges” (from Schedule 703) and divided by population (from Schedule 201), then again indexed the resultant taxes per capita to the 2005 rate, which I arbitrarily set at 100:

Taxes and fees per capita, as a percentage of the 2005 value.
Taxes and fees per capita, as a percentage of the 2005 value.

Not surprisingly, taxes didn’t go down per capita in any Municipality over the last decade, but Vancouver’s rapid growth combined with its relatively conservative tax increases make them look pretty good, and they were the only Municipality whose tax increases were (at least until 2014) on pace with the National Inflation Rate, which I added as a dashed line, mostly for Ed’s benefit. Notably, only 4 municipalities (Vancouver, North Vancouver City, Langley City and Surrey) have increased their taxes at a lower rate than New Westminster. It is interesting that these are amongst the most “urbanized” municipalities, and that taxes are increasing fastest in more rural/suburban municipalities, a correlation I have no theories to explain.

As a summary, New Westminster is far from the most-taxed municipality, and are trending towards being one of the lowest-taxed. Based on BC Government data, I am confident that our taxes, no matter how you count them, are comparatively low, and our increases to date are low relative to the other municipalities in the Lower Mainland.

Tax time again

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

As it is budget time again at New Westminster Council, people will soon be asked to provide some feedback to our somewhat byzantine financial planning.

The feedback the City receives during tax time can usually be summed up in one phrase: Stop raising taxes. Unfortunately, that advice usually offers a paucity of practical suggestions of how to save the money, with the exception of a general idea that we need to fire some number of “gold-plated staff”. For every suggestion of a practical way to save money (“stop wasting money on flowers”), there are other suggestions or how poorly we prioritize our spending (“what happened to the flowers that used to be on the boardwalk?”)

This is an area where the City’s public engagement process could definitely be improved, but it may be the most challenging part of community engagement, because there are a variety of barriers between making municipal financing understandable to most people, while still providing a complete enough picture of how our budgeting works and where our your money actually goes. The City’s books are, by regulation and practice, completely open, but that doesn’t mean the data presented is put into a context that is useful for most people. This is augmented with a general lack of understanding of how municipal financing works, including the Public Service Accounting Standards, auditing, and formal reporting that is done by every City in the Province.

So to start the conversation here about the 2016 budget plan, I want to put to rest, once again, one of the myths we commonly here in New Westminster: that we are “The Highest Taxed City” in the Lower Mainland. To challenge that idea, I am once again going to the standardized financial reporting data that every City provides to the Province.

I have already talked about Mil Rates, and not much has changed since I wrote that blog post all them years ago – Mil rates are still a terrible way to compare taxes between Cities. Actually, pretty much any way to try to compare taxes between Cities is a terrible way. Every comparison includes some confounding variables hidden in the data, because (back to the top) municipal budgeting and taxes are a complicated topic.

So for the purposes of this post, I will provide a couple of charts showing that we are not, as some would assert, the highest-taxed City in the Lower Mainland. Again, all data from the BC Government sources cited above, which is about the most impartial source of data available for local government finances.

Table1
Residential property taxes collected in 2015 per capita.

Table 1 shows the amount of residential property tax paid to the Municipality per person who lives in the Municipality. This does not include taxes paid by industry or businesses, or other fees the City collects, but right off the top, you can see that New Westminster is no-where near the most taxed Municipality.

But this is only Residential Property taxes, and Cities vary somewhat in the amount of industrial and commercial taxes they collect relative to residential taxes.

Table2

As a bit of an aside, Table 2 shows how much of the taxation burden is carried by residential homeowners, relative to how much of the present assessed land value is residential. In every City (except those few lacking commercial or industrial taxpayers), the business community subsidizes the homeowners. The few Munis with almost all of their revenue collected from residential land are the anomalies, but the “gap” between tax burden and assessed land value here in New Westminster (~25%) is not out of line with that of our “competition” with similar tax rates.

Table3
All municipal taxes collected in 2015 per capita.

If we widen our focus away from only taxes collected from residential property owners, and put all municipal taxes (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) into the bin, we end up with Table 3, the amount of municipal taxes collected from all sources per capita. Again, New Westminster is somewhere in the middle, skewing slightly (but probably not significantly) towards the lower-tax side of the spectrum. The Cities that moved up are (naturally) those with the largest commercial and industrial land bases. Vancouver moved up 11 places from one of the lowest-tax cities to 5th from the top, Delta from the middle of the pack to the second highest (thanks to their low population and the Annacis Island cash cow), while residential bedroom communities like Anmore, Lions Bay and (sorry) Maple Ridge move way down to where they look more like comparatively lower-tax communities.

However, there is one more way these comparisons of taxes are not fair between jurisdictions, and that is in the other ways some municipalities choose to collect money from residents and businesses. Fees, Local Area Service Taxes, and Parcel Taxes are ways that tax burden can be kept off the “Mil rate”, but still appear on your bill. These are, fortunately, reported to the Province, which allows a more fair comparison between the Cities (Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam) that collect millions in Parcel Taxes with others (Vancouver, Richmond, New Westminster) that collect none.

Table4

Table 4 shows what happens if these additional taxes are included with your variable property taxes, and the Cities are compared, again on a per-capita basis. Not only does New Westminster compare well against out neighbours, we are significantly below the average per-capita taxes for the region, shown by the dashed red line.

For the fun of it, I calculated what it would mean for New Westminster to raise its taxes to match the per-capita regional rate. To get there, we would have to collect $18.5 Million more every year, or $264 per resident. To put that in perspective, an extra $18.5 Million per year would pay outright for a new Canada Games Pool in 3 or 4 years, a new Animal Care Facility in less than 6 months, or enough money to raise our annual grant fund for festivals and other services by 20 times. That is a crazy amount of money, and that is the amount we are below the average for the region.

Do all cities charge too much taxes? Some would argue that, while other question whether cutting municipal costs to the bone is really worth the erosion of livability that usually results. And threading that needle, my friends, is where we need to have a better discussion around the City’s budget.

Council Report – Feb. 15, 2016

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Council Report – Feb 15, 2016

My Council meeting report is a little late, but its been a heck of a week, and with no meeting this Monday, I figured I would have some free time Sunday. Then my “Sunday without a Council package to read” came along and I slept in a bit, did some yard work, pruned a fig tree, put the compost on the garden, attended a Residents Association meeting, made my award winning meatloaf for dinner, and spared for a curling team in the evening. Time flies when you have free time…

But the belated report is finally here, and you can follow along with the Agenda here. We started by moving the following items on Consent: 

Amendment to the Delegation Bylaw
The City has a Delegation Bylaw, through which Council allows our Staff to make decisions, mostly smaller spending decisions, that are strictly the duty of the Council. This allows the City to operate more efficiently, as we don’t need a Council Report every time we order a ream of paper. As we are doing a bit or re-organizing within the City, the Delegation Bylaw needs to be adapted a bit to fit the new Org Chart.

Recruitment 2016: Advisory Planning Commission Appointment
The Advisory Planning Commission advises Council on planning applications to bring a broader community focus to those discussions. We have filled a recently-vacated position.

Recruitment 2016: New Westminster Design Panel Appointments
The Design Panel provides Council advice on the design and planning aspects of developments, and is usually populated with people with professional skills in those areas such as builders, architects, and landscape architects. We have filled two vacancies on the Panel

Recruitment 2016: Chamber of Commerce Representative to the Access Ability Advisory Committee
The Access Ability Advisory Committee has a spot for a member of the New Westminster business community, and we have formally accepted their nominated representative.

Official Community Plan Amendment for the (UC) Uptown
Commercial Designation:
The idea here is to increase the viability of 6th Street between Royal and Fourth Ave by providing more flexibility in how that stretch is developed. The thinking is that at-grade residential use here may enhance the commercial operations that already exist. This Report was just to get approval to start the statutory consultation for the required OCP amendment under sections 475 and 476 of the Local Government Act, which was granted.

320 Salter Street: Housing Agreement Bylaw
This is a Bylaw through which the aforementioned development on Salter Street will be secured as market rental units. As the Mayor was on CBC radio this week talking about the rental squeeze in the Lower Mainland, it is good to see the incentives that New West is providing is resulting in more developers looking at rental as a marketing strategy. Council agreed to give this proposed Bylaw 3 Readings.

After the Consent agenda, Council went through the Regular Agenda items, which started with a presentation:

Reflective Products for Non-Professional Road Users
After a presentation from Staff and Vic Leach, and a bit of discussion, Council moved resolutions to support calls for CSA standards for consumer reflective safety products, and to ask staff to draft a resolution calling on the Province to make 30km/h the statutory speed limit for urban areas. I’ve already blogged on that topic here with a little more detail, so I won’t belabor the point.

Front Street Security
Councillor Puchmayr brought to Council the concerns of Front Street businesses around security issues around the ongoing work to remove the Parkade and build the Front Street Mews. Although the construction company has security, the NWPD has just begun to work with the businesses down there to improve come of the lighting and other security issues on this expanding construction area.

Port Metro Vancouver and Marina Fees
We had a delegation a couple of meetings ago around several City residents in Queensborough feeling pinched by rapidly increasing water lot rental costs from the Port. Council moved to send a letter of concern to the Port, and engage senior governments in a review of the recent, seemingly quite onerous, increases.

These items were removed from Consent for discussion:

Proposed Amendments to Commercial Vehicle Bylaw
Remember those discussions we had about Uber? This is part of the complex regulatory environment we were talking about that was designed to make the taxi industry safer and more accountable. After a couple of denied chauffeur licenses over the last year or two, staff have provided some feedback with suggestions on ways we can make the administration of our responsibilities under the Motor Vehicle Act better. Some amendments to the City’s Bylaw were recommended, that Council moved to support.

100 Braid Street (Urban Academy): OCP Amendment
This proposed development in Sapperton is beginning its public consultation process, and again, this report was to outline the statutory consultation process that all OCP amendments are required to follow (due to sections 475 and 476 of the Local Government Act), including senior governments and external agencies. The public consultation on this project is progressing quickly!

Metro Vancouver Draft Regional Food Systems Action Plan:
I went on a bit of a rant here, as food security is a major component of regional sustainable planning, and I am generally supportive of the regional vision being put forward by Metro Vancouver. Councillor Harper brought up the interesting link between food security and food waste, which dovetails with the good work that Danison Buan is doing right here in New Westminster to crack that troublesome nut.

There is another aspect of food security that we rarely talk about in New West, because we are one of the few communities with no ALR land. But that does not mean we cannot support the protection of life-sustaining farmlands in the region. The two largest threats to farmland and our domestic food security are the development of farmland for residential sprawl, and the re-purposing of farmland for industrial use. We need to continue to oppose both of these, and make it part of our food security policy.

The first threat is enhanced by the current emphasis on building our regional transportation system to facilitate sprawl – the insane proposal to build a 10-lane bridge to replace the Massey tunnel, even the proposal to increase road capacity over the Pattullo Bridge – act to facilitate further sprawl, in contravention of the smart growth principles embedded in the Regional Growth Strategy. This is part of the reason we are looking at an OCP update that allows more intelligent growth near the regional transit spine. We often hear in New West talk about the traffic impacts of that sprawl to the south and east of our City, because of the traffic impacts we continue to suffer because of it, but we rarely talk about food security and other aspects.

The second issue – the ideological position of the Vancouver Port Authority that we will achieve food security by replacing farmland with warehouses to move imported food around – is something that we again have to continue to oppose.

Metro Vancouver Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy
Council also moved a motion in support of the Metro Vancouver regional Affordable housing strategy. More to come on this soon, I hope…

We then read some Bylaws:

Commercial Vehicle Amendment Bylaw No. 7777, 2016
As discussed above, these are the changes to the Bylaw relating to how we regulate Taxi drivers in the City. Council gave the Bylaw changes two readings, and will provide a Public Opportunity to be Heard at our February 29 meeting. Come on out and tell us what you think!

Amendment to Delegation Bylaw No. 7820, 2016
As discussed above, these are the changes to the Bylaw relating to how we delegate powers to staff. Council gave the Bylaw changes three readings.

Housing Agreement (320 Salter Street) Bylaw No. 7805, 2016
As discussed above, this is the Bylaw to secure Market Rental as the housing use for this development. Council gave the Bylaw three readings.

And that, after the Announcements and the receipt of some correspondence, was council for the week. Which explained to people why some of us were in hockey Jerseys.

on 30km/h

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 5 Comments.

We had an interesting discussion in Council this week about pedestrian safety, a particular concern of mine. And although I have not yet completed my Council Report for this week (its coming…I promise), I wanted to get some words out about this story, as it appears in the newspaper under my photo this week, so I expect some feedback.

The conversation arose out of some good work Vic Leach has been doing in the Sapperton neighbourhood about increasing pedestrian safety through encouraging higher visibility. I support his call for the federal government (through the CSA) to produce standards for reflective products, so that consumers who know when they buy what are essentially safety products, that those products represent an actual increase in safety. This is a great idea.

But I also need to emphasize that I do not think lighting up pedestrians like Christmas trees is the solution to road safety. Putting responsibility for pedestrian safety wholly on the pedestrian is a perverse form of victim-blaming, akin to asking if a cyclist run over by a truck was wearing a helmet, implying that if there was no helmet, the truck driver and crappy roadway infrastructure that made them share space was immediately absolved of blame.

Ultimately, the responsibility for the personal safety of persons sharing space with 1,500kg high-speed metal boxes should fall on the persons operating the 1,500kg high-speed metal boxes and the persons designing the infrastructure where pedestrian and the metal boxes are expected to share space.

As the City, we are responsible for creating those safe spaces, and we are working towards that goal. We have a long way to go, but the emphases in our Master Transportation Plan are on protecting the pedestrian and in making all forms of active transportation easier and safer. We are prioritizing our spending on those aspects, truly putting our money where our mouth is.

However, there is one proven way to improve the safety of the pedestrian realm that is (for the most part) outside of the authority of the City, and that is speed limits in residential and urban areas.

During his presentation to Council, Mr. Leach cited how long it takes a car going 50km/h to stop, how much distance a car going 50km/h covers in 2 seconds. But there is another statistic we need to talk about: a pedestrian struck by a driver going 50km/h has a better than 50% chance of being killed (up to 80% according to some studies)* where a pedestrian struck at 30km/h have a less than 10% chance of being killed. This does not even factor in the fact that the collision is more likely to be avoided if the car is going 30 km/h. The fact that Stockholm, a City similar to Vancouver in weather, size, population, and transportation patterns has such a remarkably lower incidence of pedestrian fatality is a product of many things, including the higher reflectivity standards in Sweden, but it is notable that pedestrian deaths dropped there in 2007, when urban speed limits were reduced to 30km/h.

It is my opinion, backed with a significant amount of accident research, that 50km/h is a dangerous and unsupportable speed for automobiles to be traveling on residential streets. If we want to take the next steps in supporting pedestrian safety, to make a real change to the conditions that cause 400 pedestrian deaths in Canada every year, 60 deaths in BC annually, we need to make changes to how the automobiles operate, not limit ourselves by making the pedestrians – the victims – more visible.

The Province has a “statutory” speed limit of 50km/h for municipal areas. A City like New Westminster may choose to do local speed reductions around schools, parks, or high-pedestrian areas, but there is an onerous requirement for signage to make this enforceable. I would like to see the statutory limit in urban residential areas reduced to 30km/h, and provide the Cities the authority to allow 50km/h on major arterial streets where they see fit.

The potentially most effective way for us to move this forward as a City is to get the Lower Mainland Local Government Association to pass a resolution of support, then take that resolution to the Union of BC Municipalities meeting, where the municipalities can actively lobby the Provincial government to make the change. That is the path we will be hoping to take.

The safety of our citizens is, and should be, the #1 priority for all local governments, and the demonstrated safety benefits of 30km/h make this a no-brainer. I hope we can get it done!

*here is a list of studies, if you don’t want to take my word for it.
A great literature review from the NHTSA in the USA;
A recent published study with slightly different results;
Research from Australia;

Meters and Metres of Water

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Last Council Meeting, the New Westminster Environmental Partners brought a presentation to council on the topic of water conservation. I summarized Council’s resolutions resulting from that discussion in last week’s report, but it is worth expanding on the topic.

Full disclosure: I was actively involved with the NWEP before I was elected to Council, and even served as President for a few years. I have been less involved since I got elected, but am proud of the work we did in this community, and am supportive of the continued work the NWEP does.

The ideas that the NWEP brought first to the City’s Environment Advisory Committee, then to Council with that Committees’ recommendation, were a result of last summer’s unprecedented drought and the Stage 3 water restrictions. Those events saw most lawns in the City turn brown, and had many of us wondering if this was going to be a new reality with the double-whammy of population growth and climate change pushing our reservoirs to the limit.

It was a rainy day in February when Council talked about this topic, but much like it is easier to patch your roof when the sun is shining than when it is leaking, Council sent recommendations back to staff to review and update our water conservation approach in preparation for the next dry season. The approaches could be summed up as the stick, the carrot, and the meter.

The Stick

If I can characterize a common theme at the Environment Advisory Committee, there was frustration expressed about a perceived lack of enforcement in New Westminster during the water use restrictions in the summer of 2015. I think we can all remember noting a lawn or two that was spectacularly green in August, against all odds. On early-morning Sunday FR Fuggitivi bike rides through New West and Burnaby, we saw a lot of sprinklers or tell-tale wet asphalt deep into Stage 3.

For most situations dealing with taxpaying citizens and Bylaws, the City understandably takes an education-first approach. Make sure people violating bylaws understand they are breaking the law, order them to stop, then pull out the fine book if these approaches don’t work. The cost of enforcement Is rarely covered by the fines that can reasonably be applied, social pressure is essentially free, and many more people are obtuse of bylaws than deliberately flaunting them.

However, there are scofflaws, and for them the Bylaws need to be enforced. Council asked staff to report back to us on how the enforcement issues was managed last year, and whether Bylaws Staff had the tools they needed to make enforcement as easy as possible in the event of restrictions in 2016.

The Carrot

Different cities have different levels of water-conservation programming. In New Westminster, rainwater collection barrels are (were?) available from the City’s public works department at a discounted price, so gardeners have a little extra supply around. Other cities have in the past offered “water savings packages” that include things like aerators for your kitchen sink, low-flow shower heads, and spring-loaded outdoor faucets, or rebate programs for those switching to low-flow toilets, in order to incentivize the reduction of water consumption year-round.

I’m actually a bit embarrassed to admit I had very little knowledge of what type of incentive programs like this New Westminster has in place. We asked staff to report back on opportunities for active conservation programs, and to provide a bit of analysis about what works best elsewhere. Hopefully we can high-grade the best ideas from other jurisdictions, and bring them to New West.

The Meter

A basic truth of resource management is that you cannot manage what you don’t count. When it comes to managing our limited resource of clean potable water, water meters are the basic tool of conservation.

In New Westminster, all commercial and industrial users are metered, and pay for their water per cubic metre consumed. Every multi-family residence is also metered, and residents may pay by the cubic metre or a bulk rate to their property manager. Only single-family residences are currently not metered, with all houses paying a “flat fee” for a year of water service. Those with legal secondary suites pay 50% more for their flat rate, to pay for the alleged extra use of their tenant, and some seniors living alone get a discount on the presumption that they use less water.

According to a 2008 report done by staff on this very topic, about 80% of the water hook-ups are not metered, however almost 75% of water use is metered through our existing system. The largest pipes are metered, if not the majority of pipes. It is also reported that New Westminster has one of the lowest rates of water use per capita in the Lower Mainland, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we have the most conservative practices. Compared to most Cities, we have a general lack of large industrial and agricultural users, and have a high proportion of our population living in multi-family dwellings, where water use is typically much lower. These facts point to why we have not been all that motivated in the past to implement a potentially-costly universal metering program, but some things have changed since 2008.

First off, Metro Vancouver (who supplies all of our water) have indicated that they are going to be studying whether mandatory metering is something they may require for their customer municipalities. The 2015 shortage and monumental capital costs required to expand our reservoirs may force their hand, which may in turn force our hand. It serves the City and our rate payers if the City is prepared for this eventuality.

Second, the cost of water per cubic metre from Metro Vancouver has gone up substantially, as will the cost of receiving and treating our liquid waste (which is directly related to the volume of water use). Where the cost of saving water has in the past been overshadowed by the cost of implementing a large-scale metering program, this gap may be closing. Especially as more municipalities move towards metering, and the technology costs come down.

Council asked staff to update the 2008 report, and provide us some models for how a voluntary or mandatory metering system for single family homes might be implemented and operate in New Westminster.

Most of the feedback we have heard so far is positive, and I am reflexively in favour of water meters for all single family homes (including my own). However, I need to emphasize that Council has not made any decisions about this other than to explore the idea, and there is a lot of work for the City to do, including costing, engineering, planning and public consultation, before we have a deliverable program. In the meantime, take shorter showers, ok?

Curb Extensions

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Sorry, I’m not blogging much, and I would insert the usual “I’m too busy!” excuse here, but my busy-ness right now is at least partially because I have been doing a little better on the work-life balance thing and have spent some weekends away. I’m sure I’ll fall off the wagon soon, but here is something to hold my readers (Hi Mom!) over.

This is the beginning of a (possible) blog series that grew from a single post on the “Rattled by Traffic in New Westminster” Facebook Group. A regular Poster there, member of the Neighbourhood Traffic Advisory Committee, professional driver and all-around good guy Dave Tate wrote a comment that summarized a series of common questions in the City about traffic planning. I genuinely enjoy talking traffic with Dave, both agreeing and disagreeing with him, as he brings a pragmatic and relatively dogma-free approach to “the traffic issue”, which is pretty rare in this City. Anyway, upon reading his rant long list of suggestions, I commented that it was too much to digest on Facebook, but I would chew on it and provide a Blog response or two. This is the first, on the topic of curb extensions, and I hope I can get around to touching on the others in future posts.

Dave’s (slightly paraphrased) comment was:

“Curb Extensions. I understand their purpose and I do agree that they have a use. Having them in places like 12th St between 10th and 6th on the side streets is a good idea. They help protect pedestrians by making them more visible in uncontrolled intersections. But installing them on Royal and 6th at a controlled intersections is a bad idea. If you had a right turn lane there it would allow cars turning to get over and allow others to pass, rather than stopping an entire lane of traffic.”

With all due respect, I think you only understand part of their purpose, and some purposes are different on Royal than on 12th. Arguably, they are *more* important on Royal, and have more uses. I’ve written this before, and there is a significant amount of published information on the value of curb bulges or extensions, or whatever you want to call them, from the fact they lead to better yield compliance by drivers to how they improve overall safety in the urban realm. However, aside from the dusty boring research, I’ll quickly summarize what I see as the benefits of the specific curb bulge at Royal and 6th, as that one commonly comes up in conversation.

First off, it is a tremendous aid to pedestrians when you have a road like Royal Ave. There are six lanes of traffic (including turn lanes) and a significant median, all on a hill. With the curb extensions, the crossing length is almost 30m. For you and I that is no problem, but not everyone is as young and spry as us. Reducing the crossing length by 6 or more metres at each end makes it more accessible and safer for users from 8 to 80.

Royal6_1

Those extra metres have another effect. The timing for a walk cycle is measured based on the distance of the crossing, and a general flat-ground rule of thumb is 1 to 1.2m per second. By adding curb bulges we actually reduce the amount of time that drivers face a red light, and increase the green light time for the cross traffic, increasing the efficiency of the traffic signal cycle for everyone involved.

Another benefit is by extending the radius of the corner, so right-turning drivers have a less extreme curve, and have better visibility through the turn, which significantly improves the safety of pedestrians from being clipped by right turners (one of the most dangerous interactions for pedestrians).

Also, curb bulges tend to slow drivers down when they enter an intersection, regardless of their intended direction (turn or straight through). This is because the narrowing creates visual “roughness”, making the road appear narrower than it actually is, which causes drivers to self-regulate. This is one of those basic road safety concepts: wide straight streets lead to higher speeds and more dangerous conditions for all road uses.

Now back to those right-turners. Why do we want them to skip the queue when traffic is backed up on Royal? Part of the traffic management goals of the City that pretty much everyone can agree on is that through-commuters should be encouraged to stay on the major routes, and not avail themselves of our residential side-streets for their daily rip through town. But you know if you are that through-commuter coming down Royal one morning and see the line-up of 10 cars at the red light, you are more likely to take that empty right-turn lane and go up 6th, and maybe turn left on Queens or Third or Fourth and try to get to Stewardson or places west. Of course, it is a fools errand, because as you mentioned, there is traffic calming in the Brow neighbourhood to make this choice less appealing, in order to make those residential neighbourhoods more comfortable and safe for the people who live and walk there. So it is easier of everyone if people stay on Royal in the first place. The curb-bulge does not reduce through-capacity (unless we made it a through-lane, not a right-turn lane, then we need to talk about making Royal 4 lanes, which is a whole different discussion). Creating a queue-jumping lane for rat-runners is not a great reason to remove a structure that provides so much pedestrian benefit.

So, yeah. You may have to wait an entire light cycle to make the right turn on Royal, and I’m sorry about that. But if that is the cost we have to pay for the multiple safety and neighbourhood benefits provided by that curb bulge, then I’m happy with the choice we’ve made.

Council – Feb 1, 2016

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I can’t believe it is February already, or maybe it was the jet lag related to my cancelled flight, 12 hours in airports, and waking up in Calgary a few hours before the meeting that had me all worn out. If I was more incoherent than usual, that’s my excuse. Regardless, our first Februarian meeting of 2016 started off with a presentation from the Finance Department on the Draft Financial Plan and the Capital budget.

This topic is going to be the subject of several blog posts between now and May when we finalize our budget. This is an early draft version of the budget, and there will be an opportunity for the public to comment on this (as they have already begun to do), and we will be having further talks before the tax increase (if any) for 2016 is decided. You can go to this page to read about the last 5-year Financial Plan, and can read lengthy reports about the Draft proposed budget starting at page 29 of this document . It’s pretty exciting stuff if you like spreadsheets, but I encourage you to ask questions of me and the rest of council about this; it really is the most important thing that Council does every year, so we need to get it right.

We then passed the following items as part of the Consent Agenda:

Proposed Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) Bylaw 7754, 2016
I’m actually surprised we do not already have one of these. This is a bylaw that regulates how the sediment and sand that may run off of a construction site is managed. This helps keep our streets clean, but more importantly sand and sediment loading into our storm sewers is both harmful to the fisheries habitat the water will eventually reach, and is damaging to our storm drainage infrastructure, which can result in higher maintenance costs.

It is also part of our Good Neighbor Policy, where we are trying to reduce the impacts of construction and capital works on adjacent property owners, residents, and businesses. Council moved to give this bylaw three readings.

205 Clinton Place: Proposed Heritage Revitalization Agreement and
Heritage Designation Bylaws
This unique HRA project in Sapperton was approved for two readings. I’ll hold my comments until after the Public Hearing.

1407 Sixth Avenue Proposed Heritage Revitalization Agreement and
Heritage Designation Bylaws
This rather more typical HRA project in the West End was approved for two readings. I’ll hold my comments until after the Public Hearing.

The following items were Removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion:

Anvil Centre – VIBE Update and Programming
and
Upcoming Exhibitions at the Anvil Centre
There are many aspects to the Anvil Centre. Besides the bustling convention business, there are incredibly successful museum and gallery programs, and a burgeoning performing arts program that is just starting to operate on full steam. The “arts programming” program is also burgeoning and growing rapidly. The big picture of putting art in front of people, putting people in front of art, and (most importantly) getting people engaged in creating and enjoying arts are starting to merge together to make the anvil a fun place to be.

Investment Report to December 31st, 2015
City has $128.9M in the Savings Account, which is $28.7M more than last year. The base capital is largely our “reserves” that are committed to future capital investments (sewer, water, roads, etc.), though some is uncommitted reserves, which is true “savings” put aside for the financial security for the City

This increase mostly reflects the fact that some capital projects are running behind, and the money we have put aside to pay for them has not yet been paid out. Our interest gains are only $2.7M (although 2.7%, is not bad in a year like this). Most of our savings are in the Municipal Finance Authority intermediate and bond funds which are super secure and diverse.

Filming Policy Amendment and Film Permit Bylaw No. 7793
When film companies shoot in New Westminster, they need a permit that covers everything from the fees they pay for police services to the requirements the City sets as far as parking, road closures, noise bylaws, etc. The report indicates that the current policy would be strengthened with a Bylaw to make the permitting regulatory.

I raised a concern about the wording of the proposed Bylaw, which I felt was much too broad in how it defined “filming”. It is intended to catch the professional film industry) and indeed Creative BC was OK with the change), but with the broadest definition of filming (essentially, anyone filming anything in the City except inside a private studio requiring a permit), and no language around giving the Film Coordinator or other senior Staff Member the authority to waive the permit requirement for (as a simple example) three youths at a Skatepark with a DSLR, we create a confusing Bylaw that is difficult to enforce. So we moved to have staff review that language and come back with a better defined approach.

We then moved through the Bylaws part of the Evening’s program:

HRA (205 Clinton Place) Bylaw No. 7800, 2016
Heritage Designation (205 Clinton Place) Bylaw No. 7801, 2016
As discussed above, this HRA in Sapperton was given two readings. There will be a Public Hearing February 29th, 2016. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

HRA (1407 Sixth Avenue) Bylaw No. 7807, 2016
Heritage Designation (1407 Sixth Avenue) Bylaw No. 7806, 2016
As discussed above, this HRA in the West End was given two readings. There will be a Public Hearing February 29th, 2016. C’mon out and tell us what you think!

Erosion and Sediment Control Bylaw No. 7754, 2016
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Amendment Bylaw No. 7819, 2016
As discussed above, this Bylaw was given three readings.

Community Heritage Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 7808, 2015
This Bylaw was discussed on January 18 and given Third Reading on January 25. It has now been adopted. It is the Law of the Land, please adjust your lifestyle to suit.

We then dispatched with one piece of New Business:

OCP Moody Park Meeting
The public engagement on the “housing conversation” stage of the OCP process has continued. I have commented at length about this, but want to point out one of the most insightful comments by one of the other members of Council at this meeting.

Councillor McEvoy reminded us that the conversation (debate?) going on right now around the OCP is a conversation/debate within and between neighbours, not a debate between Council and the public, or even Staff and the public. There is no OCP to debate right now, because staff has not written one yet, and Council has not reviewed one yet. The plan has yet to be developed, and the conversation going on right now is designed to get the residents, businesses and other stakeholders in the City talking in order to inform that plan as it is being drawn up. Surely some preliminary and very conceptual models of things like density increases have been put together to engage people in a conversation, but no-one on staff should be “encouraging” any specific model ,and Council has definitely not advocated for any specific path forward except in the broadest terms.

There are more opportunities for you to take part in that conversation, and if you are wondering if it is worthwhile for you to take part, this is an interesting article that talks about one of the bigger challenges in Public Engagement in Cities today. If you don’t get involved and make your voice heard, whose voice will be heard?

After a break and Public Delegations we covered one topic that was brought up during the delegations.

The New Westminster Environmental Partners (full disclosure: I used to be President, still a strong supporter!) have been working on making the case for metering residential water in the City, as part of a comprehensive water conservation program. Coming out of the drought of 2015 and Stage 3 Water Restrictions, they did their research and brought a presentation to the Environment Advisory Committee last month. The Committee made some recommendations to Council, and we discussed those recommendations.

As this is already a long report, I’ll write a longer Blog post on this topic soon, but for now will just point out that Council supported reviewing the concept of voluntary and even mandatory water metering for residential customers, and will ask Staff to provide an updated report on what the economic and technological model for this looks like. We also asked Staff to review both water restriction enforcement and our suite of water conservation programs in preparation for next summer’s water shortage season.

And that was the meeting that was