Tag: New Westminster

Council – October 7, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

It was quite the Council meeting on Monday, not because of the regular business of Council, which was pretty straight forward, but because the level of political performance that occurred in the last half of the evening was outstanding. Some of my more unfiltered feelings about that part are best saved for the Newsletter (subscribe here, its free!), so I’ll keep to the straight goods on the agenda here.

We started with one piece of Unfinished Business.

Metro 2050 Type 3 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (7880 128 Street)
When a city in Metro Vancouver makes an Official Community Plan change that impacts the Regional Growth Strategy, it requires an RGS Amendment to be approved by the Metro Vancouver Board. There are a few different types of amendments, and Type 3 amendments require “consultation” with the member communities of Metro Vancouver. We are able to ignore this, respond to it saying “hunky dory”, or reply saying we don’t support it. The Metro Board will consider our feedback when making a decision, though they are not required to follow our recommendation.

This Type 3 amendment in Surrey is pretty minor in its regional impact, but New West Council asked for more info on it before sending feedback. Surrey declined to provide more info or present, and Council voted to send a note indicating we do not support this amendment.

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Extension Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
There has been significant traffic disruption as underground and surface paving works have been occurring around the RCH expansion. The priority here is always assuring emergency vehicle access and the safety of pedestrians in such a high-traffic area. This means convenience for through drivers has suffered quite a bit, but this is a unique place to do major road works. The final paving will be happening in October, and they need to do some of it at night in order to manage the traffic and assure road safety and emergency vehicle access, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption. There will be *significant* disruption for a three-night window here, so plan alternate routes if you can, folks.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 100 Braid Street (Wesgroup Contracting Ltd) – Crane Removal
The crane on 100 Braid Street is coming down, and its proximity to one of the busiest intersections of the City makes this much more viable at night, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption.

Expanding the Metro West Inter-Municipal Business Licence to Include Health Care Professionals and Services, and Annual Licence Fee Increase
The City works with our adjacent municipalities to allow shared business licences for those types of businesses that move across City boundaries, and we are adding home care providers to that list, meaning health care professionals can get just one license to operate in Vancouver, Burnaby, Delta, Richmond and Surrey. This simplifies their lives considerably. This report reads the Bylaw but provides an Opportunity to be Heard at the November 4 Council meeting before we adopt it. If you have opinions, let us know.

Licence Agreement at 203 Pembina Street
Folks are building townhouses in Queensborough, and need to pre-load a laneway, and will need to bypass a sanitary sewer through that laneway during pre-load, meaning they need to get a license agreement with the City to manage risk and liability.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Guidelines and Decision-Making Matrix for Designating Municipally Significant Events
British Columbia’s liquor laws are archaic. Several events in the City over the last two years have sought to be designated “Municipally Significant” so they can serve a different sized beer (believe it or not) and can set a price for alcohol that actually makes them a bit of money running a beer garden as part of their event. But there are no criteria for what is considered “municipally significant”.

This criteria (and delegating the authority to staff) is a first step, but in the report it is clear staff are working on some more comprehensive liquor licence reforms in the City, because the current provincial/municipal interface on this is Byzantine.

Update Regarding Council Motion Re: Improving the Public’s Access to Trees during the City’s Biannual Tree Sale
This report is no report – they are just to report that staff are going to report back once they have had the time to do the work required to inform the report.

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Anvil Theatre Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 8209, 2020, Amendment Bylaw No. 8482, 2024;
Climate Action, Planning & Development Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7683, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 8478, 2024;
Cultural Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 7875, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8477, 2024;
Electrical Utility Bylaw No. 6502, 1998, Amendment Bylaw No. 8476, 2024;
Engineering User Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7553, 2013, Amendment Bylaw No. 8472, 2024;
Fees Bylaw No. 6186, 1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 8479, 2024; and
Fire Protection Bylaw No. 6940, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8481, 2024
These Bylaws that all set their respective fees and charges rates for 2025 were adopted unanimously by Council. Now we can start working on the budget.

We then had a full schedule of Motions from Council:

Requesting an Inquiry Under Section 765 of the Local Government Act regarding Metro Vancouver
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the governance model at Metro Vancouver is over 50 years old and an independent review should be undertaken by the Province of BC; and
WHEREAS the Inspector of Municipalities of British Columbia has significant statutory powers including the ability to investigate any bylaw, order, decision, or action of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board; and
WHEREAS to date the Province of BC has not agreed to undertake a governance review of Metro Vancouver;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write a letter on behalf of Council to the Premier and request the Province of BC to immediately initiate an independent review of Metro Vancouver’s governance structure.

This was a weird motion, as it was never explained what the relevance of Section 765 of the LGA was about, but we don’t vote on the “whereas” sections, so opportunity lost for clarity there. Council agreed to send this letter, though I wonder what the purpose is (other than getting another media cycle out of this horse well flogged) as we are now onto a year of a very few people asking the same thing (including pervious motions at this Council) and no leader of the three parties vying for the Premier job in two weeks have expressed any interest in undertaking this right now, as it solves no problems and we have actual problems to solve.

Supporting Increased Tourism in New Westminster through the Introduction of a New “Photographable” Sign on Pier West Park
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Pier Park West is now reconnected to the eastern part of the Quayside boardwalk and provides a pleasurable place for locals and tourists to enjoy views of the Fraser River; and
WHEREAS a number of cities around the world have used enlarged signage in highly visible and photographable areas to attract visitor and help market their cities; and
WHEREAS we have the opportunity to install a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront with the backdrop including several bridges and the Fraser River;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff reach out to Tourism New Westminster and advise that Council would be supportive of installing of a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront as one additional method of attracting tourists to our city and downtown district.

Yet another weird motion, as it seems like a notion someone had that could have been an email instead of a Council motion. The will result in an email saying we might support something that is not defined to an organization that has not clearly indicated any intent to do the thing, so innocuous enough. And Council voted to support it.

To quote a colleague, I have a lot of questions around the actual proposal (do people actually travel to places specifically to get a picture of the place name? What is the evidence this will drive any of the massive spin-off economic development benefits the mover suggested, and how will those benefits be offset by the mover spending his time on regional media describing the neighbourhood as a dangerous, abandoned place few dare to tread? Isn’t this Tin Soldier Erasure? Wouldn’t it be more compelling and drive more regional interest if to have the sign say “Sto:Lo” or “sχʷəyem”? and many more, if we get to the point of actually reviewing a project).

Supporting increasing Cycling, Tourism and Economic Activity through a Pilot “Cycling Sundays on Front Street”
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia has already closed Front Street for extended periods of time and redirected traffic to other routes throughout the City; and
WHEREAS there is currently no ability for cyclists to easily and safely ride their bikes from Pier Park West to the Brunette Fraser Regional Greenway in Sapperton; and
WHEREAS other cities across North America have successfully closed roadways on weekends to permit alternate modes of transportation such as cycling and pedestrians.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back on the feasibility and operational issues pertaining to the development of a pilot project that would: during daylight hours, close Front Street on Sundays from May to September 2025 to vehicular traffic; and a during the period noted above, open up Front Street to cyclists, pedestrians and other forms active transportation while it is temporarily closed to vehicular traffic; b. seek interest from food trucks and other micro businesses who may want to set up on Front Street during the ‘Cycling Sunday’ closures.

This idea, first brought to you by Mayor Cote during COVID times as part of the “Streets for People” program of the time, is something the City always meant to explore further after the Pattullo Bridge project stopped occupying the space. It is still a god idea, not without its challenges, as there are significant costs involved, we need to work with the regional goods movement sector, the connections to Sapperton Landing Park still require Railway oversight, and the resultant impacts on Royal and Columbia Street of diverted truck traffic. Still, it’s a good idea to get a report back to Council on opportunities and challenges here. Council supported this motion.

Seek Support from the BC Ministry of Transportation to Undertake a Feasibility Study to Expand the Crossing Capacity between Queensborough and Connaught Heights
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster is currently undertaking a community consultation around the 22nd Street SkyTrain station which could result in up to 30,000 new residents moving into the neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS the residents of Queensborough can often suffer quality of life issues pertaining to delays crossing the four-lane Queensborough bridge during peak periods and beyond; and
WHEREAS it will take a significant amount of time, planning and inter-governmental discussions to undertake a future replacement or expansion of the Queensborough Bridge;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to develop a consultation plan to determine the level of interest from our residents/businesses regarding prioritizing the future expansion or replacement of the Queensborough bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any expansion or replacement proposal should prioritize the movement of TransLink operated buses, cyclists, taxis, ride-share and pedestrians across the bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write to the BC Ministry of Transportation to invite them to partner with the City during our Queensborough Bridge community consultation process.

This is one I will unpack a bit more in the Newsletter, because there are layers of weird governance ideas in here. In short, we just approved the Queensborough Transportation Plan in May after more than a year of public consultation and working with the Ministry of Transportation and are now implementing that plan. Consistent with the QTP, staff reported to us recently that active transportation and transit priority work is going on related to the bridge entrances, on both sides, both through the QTP and our recently approved partnership with TransLink on Bus Speed and Reliability program approved by this Council in July. So why this motion now, just as we are starting implementation of those plans?

I also have concerns with the language here, first because it asks the City to launch Public Consultation on a project that doesn’t exist to address a piece of infrastructure that doesn’t even belong to the City. Worse, it seems to envision expansion or replacement of the bridge, which is not consistent with our Transportation plans in the City, regional Transport2050 goals at Metro Vancouver or TransLink, or the Province’s own CleanBC goals, where the existing strategies for bus speed and reliability and active transportation are aligned with all of those.

Finally, I don’t want to get into a lecture here about the Fundamental Law of Traffic congestion, but adding lanes to a highway in an urban area has never solved congestion, and has almost always resulted in significant negative impacts on the communities through which those freeways are driven. This is not the first time someone has proposed that a community be plowed down and paved over in order to save that neighbourhood has been proposed, and in the end all that neighborhood got was more traffic, more congestion, more noise and pollution. The future here is alternatives, and the work that staff are doing to bring bus speed and reliability and safer active transportation connections on this route is the sustainable path that meets the Province’s CleanBC goals, the regionals Transport2050 goals, and the City’s Transportation, livability, and sustainability goals.

So Council severed this motion, didn’t support the first “Be It Resolved”, did support the second and the third, after the third was slightly amended to make clear the City will not lead a consultation. But if the province want to take this up, let us know.

Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster manages, maintains and prepares municipal infrastructure to protect our residents from future heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and other climate impacts, thereby safeguarding the health and safety of our residents and their property and as a result faces massive costs due to climate change, which are expected to increase; and
WHEREAS fossil fuel companies were warned by their own scientists decades ago that the ongoing burning of fossil fuels would cause massive suffering and climate costs, and chose to lobby against action on climate change so that the industry could continue to earn on average over a trillion dollars in profit each year in recent years; and
WHEREAS it is unacceptable and creates a perverse incentive for irresponsible fossil fuel development that local governments and taxpayers bear the full extent of these climate costs whilst multinational fossil fuel companies take no financial responsibility for the harm caused by their products; and
WHEREAS over 20 local governments in the United States and around the world, including nine local governments in BC, have filed lawsuits to recover a share of their climate costs (e.g. for loss and damage, adaptation, and climate preparedness) from fossil fuel companies, and Canadian legal experts recommend that Canadian local governments do the same;
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back on opportunity and cost for New Westminster to join the Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit and present potential cost and staff resource needs as part of the draft 2025 Operating Budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of joining the Sue Big Oil class action lawsuit be first assessed via the Climate Action Decision-Making Framework to determine the appropriate funding source.

This also gets a mention in the newsletter, because I cannot square indicated concern about the cost of this motion with a weird attempt to strip the City of Millions of dollars of Low Carbon Fuel Credit revenue in an attempted amendment, but that’s just politics.

I supported this motion, and it was supported by the majority of Council after several public delegations and a bit of a raucous Council debate. I can only speak to my reasons to support. The costs are real and being downloaded onto communities from one of the world’s most profitable industries every day. The Municipal Insurance Association of BC and UBCM are both calling for funding to address unprecedented climate disruption costs. We don’t have the power to end fossil fuel subsidies or tax big oil to the level that would reflect their corporate responsibility. What we can do is join our cohort municipalities across BC to use the courts to hold them accountable through the courts.

There can be no doubt that the oil industry knew that their products would have catastrophic impacts on global climate, and spent decades funding doubt-sowing “research” and suppressing their own evidence about this reality. Not only emulating the tobacco industries “deny at all costs” strategy about the horrific impacts of their products, but hiring the very same people (seriously, google Fred Seitz and Fred Singer) to run the denial machinery. They knew, they lied, and local government taxpayers are paying the bills for that choice they made. That should not go unpunished.

Finally, this motion is well drafted to add our support notionally, recognizing we will not be out of pocket unless a class action occurs, and allows us the opportunity to fund this small cost (in the scale of the cost of climate impacts in our community, this is tiny) through money we receive from the oil industry through the polluter pays principle and our Low Carbon Fuel Credit program. We are going to use the industry’s own money to sue them, and there is some elegance in that.

Finally, we had one piece of New Business:

Reconsideration of September 23, 2024 Motion on adoption the Interim Density Bonus Policy
After the last-minute decision last meeting to amend the Interim Density Bonus Policy for the City, I had some conversations with members of Council and staff about the implications for numerous in-stream applications. I was compelled to bring the Policy back to Council for reconsideration, because as amended, it varied greatly from our long-established and successful practice of incentivizing Purpose Built Rental over Strata in new development by not by giving them a free pass from DCCs and other development costs, but by exempting only the Density Bonus charge for space used for PBR. In staff’s attempts to make simpler and more transparent this very strange time with Provincial housing regulations being blended into our existing process while approvals continue to move forward, Council inadvertently made it less clear and more confusing by turning back on one of our key policy directions of the last decade.

Recognizing this is an interim measure, and Council always has the prerogative to vary from policy when it comes to approving any development, in the interest in supporting staffs efforts to keep the wheels moving during the transition, I suggested we adopt the motion Staff recommended in September, waiving DB payments for PBR as a policy until the full set of growth financing policies complaint with Bill 46 can be adopted next year. Council voted to support the reconsideration.

And that wrapped Council right at 10:30, the hour at which we are required by Bylaw to move for extension if we go past. So we’ll call that a full day.

Council – Sept 23, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

September 23rd is one of the most important days in the calendar (Happy Birthday Mom!), but for New Westminster Council it was another day at the office. Not just another day, but a relatively low-key return to Council of Jaimie McEvoy, which is a great thing for us as an organization, and for the community. The Agenda was fairly short, and started with us moving the following item On Consent:

Budget 2025: Fees and Rates Review, Amendment Bylaws
We received memos last meeting on the annual fee adjustments, and discussed them then. Staff has now taken that work and drafted bylaws to implement the changes. These are those 7 Bylaws. Council gave them all three readings today.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

2024 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
This is our regular quarterly update on the capital and operational budgets. We are making a relatively small ($0.7M) adjustment to our annual Capital budget to $199.8M, but are not changing the multi-year budget (are just moving anticipated expenditures across years). There are lots of details in these reports about everything from the last phase of work (street front improvements on East 6th Ave) for təməsew̓txʷ starting this fall to where we are in our $4.5Million pavement management plan for the year. Our annual operating budget is trending a bit high in both revenue and expenses, but well within 1% of budget.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: New Westminster Interceptor – Columbia Street Sewer Maintenance Project
Camera inspection of sewers generally has to happen at night when sewer levels are low, and we are granting a construction noise Bylaw exemption so this work can happen at night.

Council Strategic Priorities Plan Quarterly Status Update
This is the first term where Council is actively tracking progress on our Strategic Plan on an annual basis. The red-yellow-green stoplight model is a good visual of where progress is being made, and where we are falling short. The overall result is demonstrably that we are getting the work done, though have much more to do. Our major challenges are staffing and workload (which we knew was going to be a challenge from day 1, and managing the work load surprise of the Provincial Housing regulations.
We had a short debate at Council about whether these reports should be annual or semiannual, and council decided the more frequent option was useful.

Interim Density Bonus Policy and Revised Interim Development Review Framework
The introduction of Bill 46 (along with Bills 44 and 47) has thrown a bit of a curveball into how we finance infrastructure related to growth in every municipality in BC. Though the bills are now enacted, the Province has provided cities the ability to use an “interim approach” for pending applications while we get all of our updates done – they don’t want all housing approvals to stop while cities figure out how to make the new regime work. This report provides a proposed “interim approach” for the City to use until last 2025 when a more permanent regime aligned with Bill 46 will be brought in.

Quick recap: Cities used to collect Development Cost Charges and Voluntary Amenity Contributions from development to pay for infrastructure needs required to support population growth, under the philosophy that “growth pays for growth”. The VACs are no longer permitted in the new regulations, though we will still be able to apply Density Bonusing (DB), and have a new tool called Amenity Cost Contributions (ACCs). There is planning, engineering, costing and finance work to do to inform these approaches, so this interim approach will give staff the time they need to get there.

In short, we are going to apply a Density Bonus charge of $50.sq.ft for most development above existing entitlements. For this short period of time until the more permanent financing model is completed, all funds collected by DB will go into a reserve fund earmarked for land acquisition for future City projects (Parks, community amenities, etc.). Developers could also have this charge waived if they provide non-market (“affordable”) housing that meets the standards of our existing Inclusionary Zoning policy.

The debate that arose at Council was whether the City should continue to provide DB waivers to Secured Market Rental (or “PBR -Purpose Built Rental”) development. This is a significant part of how the City has managed to encourage Secured Market Rental to get built in the City, as it fundamentally shifts the economics of Secured Market Rental to make it viable even where strata condos may not be. In a split vote, Council decided to change this policy, which will have some repercussions for how the City develops that I simply cannot predict now. More to come.

Metro 2050 Type 3 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (7880 128 Street)
Cities hoping to amend the Regional Growth Strategy can apply to Metro Vancouver to do so, and some of those applications (“Type 3”) amendment. Asking all 20 municipalities in Metro to comment is part of this process. Staff recommended against this application for a variety of reasons, mostly around erosion of viable industrial lands and potential transportation and GHG impacts.

Honestly, I could go either way on this application. Though it meets many Metro needs around integrating commercial space with other uses, and meets several Metro2025 goals, the uses are as in demand as the industrial use it is displacing, and there will be a significant increase in trees and green space, and there is little anticipated impact on the regional water and sewer networks. In general, I am reluctant to oppose local zoning requests unless there is a clear and notable regional impact (like an earlier Surrey Proposal to expand heavy industrial land into greenspace outside the Urban Containment Boundary), and this doesn’t meet that threshold for me.

In the end, Council decided to defer the decision and ask Surrey if they want to provide us a presentation or more detail than exists in the reports received by Council. We will see this again next meeting, presumably.

Report Back on Council Resolution to Develop a City-Wide Public Toilet Strategy
The topic of Public Toilets is never boring. I’ll extract straight from the report here, because I can’t say it any better:

“Access to public toilets is a human rights, dignity and public health issue, and is essential to facilitating independence for seniors and people living with disabilities and underlying health conditions. It is also often the only option for people who are unhoused, who otherwise must use public and private spaces, which negatively impacts overall community health and wellbeing.”

The community needs better access to public toilets, including the ones we already operate and very likely some new ones we need to invest in building. They are not cheap to build or operate (and as we recently learned) are not without community concern. So we are taking a holistic view to how we enhance the service we have, and will ask the community and subject matter experts in gerontology and disabilities, and come back with some recommendations for us to do better in meeting this vital need.

That all said, Public Toilets are a challenge in most of North America, and I have (believe it or not) read a couple of books that delve into why this is. It’s a long complex history rooted in ableism, patriarchy and austerity, and if you are interested, here’s a really great summary with lots of links for a little bathroom reading

We then had a single Bylaw for Adoption:

2025 Permissive Property Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 8474, 2024
There are some properties in New Westminster whose exemption from property taxes is permissive (not statutory), and this bylaw lists the properties proposed to be exempted in 2025. This bylaw was adopted by Council.

Council – Sept 9, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

September’s first meeting continued our tradition of holding one fall meeting in Queensborough every year. It is a bit of a logistical challenge, and if you watch the video you see us managing as best we can with unfamiliar tech and layout, but I think staff did a great job in supporting us and it was good to see a full Queensborough audience at the event.

There is also something nice about holding a Council meeting in a room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking a green park with young families and seniors walking by and kids playing on the playground equipment. It reminds you of the work we do, and how it impacts people’s daily lives, even if they don’t realize we are doing it right now on the other side of that window.

Our agenda started with the following items Moved on Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 220 Salter Street (Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection – Fraser River Crossing Project)
There are major regional sewer lines under Salter Street, and they need nighttime (when the water is low) inspection, which requires a construction noise exemption for two weeknights, which Council is granting.

2024-2034 UBCM Canada Community Works Fund Agreement
The City will be getting a grant of about $160K to support infrastructure investment in the City, but need to sign this agreement to get the cash, and agree to spend it on qualifying projects as per the agreement. Easiest grant ever.

We then had these following items that were Removed from Consent for Discussion:

2025 Permissive Property Tax: Exempt Properties – Review of Application Result
There are two types of properties that are exempt from Property Taxes – Statutory and Permissive. The first are by Provincial Law, and are why most churches and private schools are exempt. The second are at the pleasure of the Local Government, land use we can choose as a City to exempt from property taxes. These could include social housing, sports clubs, social service not-for profits, and the such. They must apply every year, and in my time on Council, we have not added many to the list of permissive exemptions, though we often get new applications. As a policy, the City directs not-for-profits to the City’s generous grant program if they need financial support, as that is a more accountable process.

The current list of permissive exemptions equals about $1 Million (this is reported every year as part of our annual report), and this year we got applications for 6 more, totaling $244,000 more. Two new applications (both established church properties with new congregations) totaling about $30,000 were added to the list of exemptions as per the established policy.

Budget 2025: Fees and Rates Review
As a normal part of our annual Budget process, we need to set fee bylaws fort next year. This has to happen early, because financial modelling of cost recovery is part of what informs the rest of the budget, and cost recovery is obviously impacted by fees. If we reduce business license fees, for example, that’s not “free”, it impacts the tax rates we need to charge next year. Most rates are adjusted annually to meet CPI, as a proxy for what I costs us to deliver the service, and to avoid larger and more intermittent price spikes. CPI estimate this year is 3.0%.

There are others that need bigger adjustments, like the cost of providing brass plaques for the cemetery have gone up quite a bit, requiring a 24% increase to recover those costs. Others have external controls, such as our towing charges being set by ICBC. Yet other fees are adjusted to align to market conditions (on street parking not going up this year, short-term parkade parking rates going up a bit due to demand increases), and yet other being shifted to better align with regional municipal comparators (e.g. Fire Safety Plan Review fees).

All told, these changes average aout to about a 3% increase, driving an extra $450k in revenue. For context, $450K is about as much revenue as we would draw from a 0.4% property tax increase.

Business License Bylaw Modernization Update
Staff have been working on a Business License Bylaw update for some time now. Not just looking at fees, but making sure our approach to issuing licenses reflects the modern reality of the local business community. Business license counts are way up, we issue almost 4,000 a year, which is about 20% more than Pre-COVID 2019. Still, staff want to streamline the license process, remove outdated requirements, and provide more flexibility for start-up businesses so it is easier to start a business in New West. Regular readers will also remember that a comparison with surrounding municipalities was conducted and changes to the fee schedule are proposed to align better with regional trends.

There has already been several stages of engagement with the business community here, but there will be another check-in now that proposed changes have been developed. This report simply to update Council before it went out to consultation, and to check in for any red flags.

Response to Council Motion Regarding “Tenant Protections”
As per a motion put forward in a previous meeting, staff are going to update our tenant protection measures. There is an ongoing rental affordability crisis, and recent changes to provincial housing regulations may result in increased pressure to demolish and re-develop our most affordable rentals, which puts a lot people in a very precarious situation. Alongside this the Province has brought in new tenant protection powers through Bill 16. It’s time to update our progressive-in-2015 Tenant Relocation Policy to assure we don’t exacerbate the homelessness crisis.

We then had several Motions from Council (not necessarily in this order, as we delayed a couple until after Public Delegations because we had people come to speak to Council in favour of a few motions).

Regulate the Unsolicited Distribution of Graphic Images Depicting a Fetus
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS New Westminster residents have expressed concerns that unsolicited flyers showing graphic images of aborted fetuses are being delivered to homes and causing harm; and
WHEREAS a number of Canadian municipalities in Alberta and Ontario have established bylaws that; and
WHEREAS in accordance with British Columbia’s Community Charter, Section 8 (3) (i) A council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to public health; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT that staff provide council with proposed bylaw amendments to require all print collateral delivered to any premises or distributed to the public that shows, or appear to show, a graphic image of a fetus be delivered in a sealed opaque envelope with a graphic content warning, identify the name and address of the sender, and include measures to ensure individuals are not inadvertently exposed to graphic content on a leaflet, pamphlet, paper, booklet, postcard, or any other printed collateral.

This motion was driven by calls form the community we have received a few times over the last few years. I don’t have much to add to the wording above, except that this is just the beginning of a bit of a process Staff will have to go through to determine what our legal abilities are here, and how best to structure a bylaw so it is effective. I don’t know if anyone in BC has done this before, though local governments have been successful in Ontario and Alberta, so we will need to find a local context that fits with our Community Charter and Local Government Act. This was supported by all of Council, so more to come!

Lower Mainland Local Government Association Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS Local Government Associations, the Union of BC Municipalities, and the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities advocate for issues that impact their member municipalities; and
WHEREAS municipal Mayors and Councillors are financially supported to attend these conferences in order
to advocate on behalf of their local constituents, yet there is no way for constituents to know how their elected representatives vote on motions and resolutions,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster submit the following resolution to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association:
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lower Mainland Local Government Association begins tracking and reporting how attendees vote on motions and resolutions and that they submit a motion to UBCM and FCM advocating for those organizations to do the same.”

Your local government is represented at these regional meetings by elected members of Council, and advocate to senior government for policy changes. It is probably a good idea for you to know what your local elected officials are advocating for – or against. It seems like a good step towards improving transparency and accountability. There are some technical challenges that might be easiert to solve at the relatively small Lower Mainland LGA than the much larger UBCM and FCM, and it will involve some investment of resources by those parties, so it is appropriate to structure this as a request for those organizations to evaluate if that is something they want to do. Council moved to approve this.

Selecting an Inclusive and Accessible Site for the 2025 Canada Day Celebration and Festivities
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Canada Day offers the City of New Westminster an opportunity to celebrate and bring residents together in celebration and reflection; and
WHEREAS the Pier Park location for Canada Day festivities currently offers little opportunity for shade on hot days which often occur in early July; and
WHEREAS Queen’s Park has played host to previous Canada Day celebrations and offers more opportunities to keep participants cool on hot summer days;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff seek feedback from the public through our Be Heard system regarding their preference for the 2025 Canada Day festivities and celebrations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT several locations across the City be offered to the public as a potential site for the 2025 Canada Day festivities including at least one site in Queensborough.

This was a bit of a complicated conversation as Council got a bit into the weeds, but it was nonetheless a good discussion that will hopefully lead to a good community discussions, and I think the direction is clearer with some amendments.

Be Heard New West is part of a community engagement toolbox, not a public survey tool. As Councillor Nakagawa said, “Public Engagement isn’t just asking if a hotdog is a sandwich”, it is a process of sharing information and asking for feedback in ways that have meaningful input into decision making. The decision by Council was to have staff report back with resource needs to do a proper engagement on this.

There was a bit of preemptive discussion about locations as well. There is a complex history why the “main”
Canada Day program moved from Queens Park to Pier Park, and those decisions were made in consultation with the many partners that are required to make the event happen. In the pre-COVID times we got to a point where there were two locations, with some overlap. Post-COVID the Pier Park location became the primary location, and the numbers reflected a much higher interest in people being there than Pier Park (thousands instead of hundreds in attendance). However, it is important to note that Pier Park festivities were not the only events coordinated by the City at Canada Day in 2024. There were activations all long weekend in Queensborough, at Queens Park, at the Anvil, and other locations.

Finally, The City’s festivals budget is fairly limited, and massive expansions of the event would require budget decisions, and increased staff resources. Many events in the City are primarily run by partners (Uptown Live, Pride, Hyack Parade and Festival, Fridays on Front, etc.) with some significant City support, but City-run events have been pretty limited to “civic” dates, like Remembrance Day (our largest City-run event), Canada Day and Truth and Reconciliation day, where partners support the City more than vice-versa. But it is clearly a spectrum between the two end members here.

Anyway, this will be an ongoing discussion. Let us know what you think!

Increasing Openness and Transparency at City Hall by Registering Lobbyist Activities
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS lobbyist registries are intended to provide a public record that is accessible to residents of interactions between public servants, elected officials and lobbyists and to allow for rules regarding lobbyists to be enforced; and
WHEREAS British Columbia does not currently allow municipalities to use the provincial lobbyist registry nor does it extend the legal authorities municipalities would need to enforce lobbyist rules with a local registry; and
WHEREAS it is important for a functional local democracy that any lobbying efforts by entities such as corporations, labour unions, foreign governments or other similar foreign-based organizations be recorded and publicly reported in a timely manner
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City request the Province immediately take one of the following two actions:
The Province amend the Lobbyist Registration Act to cover the City of New Westminster and other similar mid-to-large-sized cities and administer the regulation of lobbying in the city; OR,
The Province amend the Community Charter to allow the City to establish a lobbyist registry and give the City the legal authority to register lobbyists, create rules for lobbyists’ conduct in their interactions with elected officials and public servants, as well as the power to enforce those rules. In addition, the Province further empower the Provincial Registrar of Lobbyists to work with the City to share information so as to reduce duplication and costs for both orders of government.

This was also a good discussion, and it was clear that everyone saw transparency and accountability as ideas worth supporting. There was a bit of procedural adjustment (to add this as an advocacy issue to the Lower Mainland LGA along with a letter to the province), but all in the interest in making our call for this louder.

I raised some concern about the difference between local politics and provincial/federal politics, and the need for us to clearly define what Lobbying is. I have dozens of conversations every week with people nt he community, residents, business operators, non-profits, and most some include discussions of City Bylaws or policies or practices. I would hate to think that every time I set up the Ask Pat booth at the Farmers Market that I would need everyone who asks me a question to register as a lobbyist. That said, there are clearly a few meetings I do have with people or organizations who are paid to advocate to me and fit the strict definition of Lobbyist. I just wonder if we can clearly draw a line between those two without finding exampled that straddle that line. So we have work to do there.

Finally, I added an amendment that asked that we engage the City’s new Ethics Commissioner, and ask them to report back on potential procedures or practices we could adopt as a form of practice disclosure for when we are being lobbied. I think the public is less interested in reading the names of lobbyists, and are more interested in what meetings we are taking and the purpose of those meetings.

So, more to come on that!

And with that we wrapped our Queensborough excursion, and considering the list of things above that ended with “more work to do”, I feel confident in saying we are back into the thick of it.

Council – Aug 26, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Our summer break slightly shortened, and the weather decidedly not summer-like outside , Council had its first meeting in 6 weeks, with a fairly short agenda.

We started with a number of items moved On Consent:

Application for Extension of Liquor Service Hours: #200-55 Eighth Street, Hyack Sushi
The owner of this restaurant downtown wants to extend their liquor service hours. There have been no issues with their current license, so the City is letting the Province know we are OK with this extension though a resolution that is required under provincial regulations.

Application for Grant Funding to the 2024 UBCM Asset Management Planning Program
The City often applies for grants from senior governments and those administered through UBCM or FCM. Some require a Council resolution to make the application complete. As we continue on our Asset Management journey as a City, there is some financial support available to do this work, for which we are applying. Cross your fingers!

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 32 Eighth Street (New Westminster SkyTrain Station)
Some work at the New West Skytrain Station needs to occur at night when trains are not running and the platform isn’t full of people. We previously gave a permit for this off-hours noise exemption, but the work is delayed, and they need an extension, which council granted them.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: Metro Vancouver Queensborough Pump Station – 304 Wood Street
Sewer upgrade work also needs to sometimes happen at night, because that is when sewer flows are lowest. This upgrade to vital pump station in Queensborough will happen over two days in September or October (when the weather is amenable, as that also impacts sewer flows), and requires a noise bylaw exemption, which Council is granting.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
There is a unique electrical conduit installation happening at the Hospital upgrade that takes about 24 hours to perform, and cannot be stopped once it is started, meaning they have to work through the night. This means noise bylaw exemption, which Council is granting.

Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application for 1084 Tanaka Court: Preliminary Report
This is a bit of an unusual one. There is a vacant property in Queensborough near the casino that was originally zoned for Industrial use until 2018, when Council granted them a rezoning to permit the building of a 3 story commercial building including a banquet hall, offices, and retail spaces. The owner has now decided that project is not financially viable, and wishes to sell the property. They wish to rezone again back into industrial, probably reflecting the change in industrial land values over the last few years due to a regional shortage. So we are looking at an OCP Amendment and rezoning. This is a preliminary application report, and will see consultation and a Public Hearing (as required by OCP Amendments), so I’ll hold my comments on the merits of the application until then. If you have opinions, let us know!

Provincial Housing Target Order for New Westminster
As was widely reported, the City is subject to a Housing Target Order from the province. We received the order officially on July 30, and this is an information report updating Council and the Public on the details of that order and what comes next.

Unfortunately, the order increases, not reduces, the confusion related to the provincial intent here. The number (4,432 new housing units by 2029) reflects 75% of the total estimated housing need determined from some slightly opaque provincial methodology. Notably, this is a different Housing Need number than the City has calculated using the methodology the province requires us to use for our own Housing Needs Assessment Report. So we have two sets of estimates driven by different methodologies coming out of the same Ministry in Victoria. Though the province “encourages” us to meet 100% of their new assessed need, we are only “ordered” to meet the 4,432 number, which should have everyone scratching their head about why we are striving to meet 75% of need, and how the last 25% of housing need will be met.

For the even stranger part, these “orders” are for occupancy, the day people are able to move into a newly built housing unit, where previous metrics have been for approvals. This is a problem because Cities may approve housing, but we don’t build it. We have no tools to force landowners to build what is approved on their lot. Look at the Tanaka Court application above: the City approved the banquet hall project, but we cannot force the owner to now build it, we simply don’t have the legal ability to do that. If you come into City Hall to apply for a permit to build a laneway house, we can grant you that permission, can approve it, but we can’t force you to build it on our timeline just because you applied and were approved. It would be a very different market if municipalities held this power, and it is unclear how the Minister thinks we are going to force building to happen.

Further, large development projects at the scale that will be required to hit 5,000 housing units in 5 years take years to plan, design, finance, and build. The two large towers being completed on the riverfront right now are going to receive occupancy permits this year meaning those ~700 units will be all we need to hit our occupancy target in year one of the Provincial Order, but that project was approved in 2017 – more than seven years ago! It is safe to say that our meeting this “target” in years 2, 3 and 4 will rely on rapid completion of projects that are already either approved or so far down the approval road that these new targets are meaningless to their success. So what’s the point?

But that all seems Inside Baseball.

Looking at the report, it’s clear that aside from tracking numbers and reporting out, there is no fundamental change the City needs to make, or can make, to meet this housing order. We have enough “zoned capacity” in the City to accommodate this number of units, and are working on our OCP updates to comply with the provincial Transit Oriented Area and SSMUH regulations. We currently have about 6,000 units in process (under construction, approved, or under planning review), however, we simply cannot predict, nor have any legislative or coercive control over, which of these are completed an occupied in the next 5 years. So we are complying with provincial regulation, doing our job as ordered, then getting back to work on the important stuff like planning for the infrastructure needs of the City.

We then had a raft of Bylaws for Adoption:

Council Procedure Bylaw No. 6910, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No.8467, 2024
This Bylaw that brings out Council Procedure Bylaw in compliance with new provincial regulations on Public Hearings was adopted by Council.

Heritage Revitalization Agreement (203 Pembina Street) Bylaw No. 8425, 2024 and
Heritage Designation Bylaw (203 Pembina Street) No. 8435, 2024
These Bylaws that enable construction of six townhouse units at 203 Pembina Street and designate an Oak Tree as a heritage trees was adopted by Council.

Parks and Recreation Fees Amendment Bylaw No. 8465, 2024
This Bylaw that amends our Parks and Recreation fees (after comparison to other Lower Mainland communities – which is relevant to a later motion) was adopted unanimously by Council.

Riparian Areas Protection Bylaw Miscellaneous Amendment Bylaw No. 8468, 2024
These Bylaws that update the language of our RAP Bylaw to comply with Provincial language was adopted by Council.

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8469, 2024
Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8470, 2024
These bylaws that simplify our ticketing an fining bylaw were adopted by Council.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (1005 Ewen Avenue) No. 8452, 2024
This Bylaw that permits the development of 23 townhouse and duplex units and a commercial building in Queensborough was adopted by Council.

Zoning amendment Bylaw (1923 and 1927 Marine Way) No.8466, 2024
This Bylaw that permits the construction of a 90-unit affordable housing building near 22nd Street Station was adopted by Council.

Then we had three Motions from Council:

Enhancing Commercial Areas and Corridors in New Westminster
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS The City’s Retail Strategy identifies current and emerging trends in the retail ecosystem, namely Micro Retailing and Combination Stores, and the Retail Strategy further underscores that both retail concepts have direct positive implications on the evolution of commercial areas and corridors in New Westminster; and
WHEREAS Micro-Retailing includes multiple vendors ‘co-locating’ in a shared space, utilizing shared resources or may encompass individual retail units that are much smaller than the average, with the intention to provide entry-level ‘gateway’ for small businesses to establish a bricks-and mortar location, without the financial requirements and risks typically expected in a standard retail lease; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED The City of New Westminster identify potential location(s), operating considerations, necessary resources and local partners to activate Combination Stores and Micro-Retailing commercial areas using shipping containers or similar concept to create a retail ecosystem that provides small businesses, artists, artisans, crafters and other vendors with affordable storefront locations and, at the same time, enhances commercial areas and corridors in New Westminster, with a report back to council on implementation feasibility.

This is an idea supported by our Retail Strategy, and discussed at and supported by the Arts Culture and Economic Development Committee. It also supports the nurturing of small local entrepreneurs by reducing risk and cost for set up, especially at a time where commercial lease rates are making it more difficult to find a place to start a brick and mortar operation in the City. The part I’m not sure about is what the role of the City is other than making sure we have a supportive permitting process, so I look forward to the reporting back form staff now that this was approved by Council.

Determine fee structure of New West business licenses and park and recreation programs compared to other Metro Vancouver cities
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS it is important for New West families and businesses to be charged fees for licenses, programs and services that are in line with other Metro Vancouver cities; and
WHEREAS there is no readily available and up-to-data analysis regarding how much our fees compare to other neighbouring municipalities; and
WHEREAS we strive to make New Westminster as affordable and competitive as possible;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to conduct a review of business license fees to determine how we compare to other Metro Vancouver cities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to conduct a review of the charges and fees imposed by the Parks and Recreation Department for similar programs and services that are also delivered in other Metro Vancouver cities. The review should encompass core services such as: a. Annual gym pass; b. Swimming passes; c. Exercise classes; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this information be incorporated and provided to the public as part of the 2025/26 budgeting process.

This motion completely baffles me. I don’t know how to square it with paying attention in Council meetings over the last two years. Because this motion asks for us to do things we already do every year, including in the most recent Council meeting in July. This seems like something I can unpack a but more in my next Newsletter, but here’s a quick timeline with links to the relevant public reports:

June 12, 2023 we received a report on the process to adjust Parks and Recreation fees, including this quote: “This will align the resulting proposed fees with the City’s comparative neighbours and keep costs relatively similar for residents who may have utilized services in those communities”. That report was approved unanimously by this Council.

July 10, 2023 Council reviewed and voted to update fees based on the process approved above, with the report including a spreadsheet comparing our fees to comparative municipalities, prior to 2024 Budget adoption.

July 8, 2024 Council received a report on the 2024 fee schedule, including this quote: “The annual staff review of existing fees and comparative data from neighbouring municipalities suggests relatively few modifications are required to the existing Parks and Recreation bylaw.” an attachment entitled “Comparative Municipal Analysis of Admission and Pass Fees” was included in that report.

Aug 26, 2024 (this very meeting!) Council unanimously adopted the new fee schedule informed by the above report.

On the business licence side, this is a work item identified as part of the 2024 work plan for our Economic Development department and was included in the resource ask for 2024 budget enhancements in the December 11th and January 22nd workshop reports. Progress on the work was reported back in April to the Arts, Culture and Economic Development Advisory Committee, of which the mover of this motion is a member. The Agenda and the minutes of the meeting where this was discussed are online with a spreadsheet comparing our Biz License fees to cohort municipalities.

So this motion asks staff to do again what it just did, or are already doing. I simply don’t understand how someone present at Council meetings could be unaware of this, and just what they thought they were voting for when they raised their hand to support those several reports previously received. Its baffling, and perhaps a bit concerning. Council did not support the motion, it being redundant.

Provide long-term funding to support the Walking School Bus Program to support the City’s stated goal of tackling climate change
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the Walking School Bus program reduces vehicle congestion around schools, greenhouse gas emissions as well as improves air quality in communities; and
WHEREAS the Walking School Bus program improves a student’s physical and mental health; creates an opportunity to make new friends through shared experiences; provides an inherent sense of belonging in being a part of a group; and
WHEREAS the City of New Westminster has a longstanding commitment to tackle climate change; and
WHEREAS the City’s Climate Action Reserve Fund has approximately $42 million as of Dec. 31, 2023;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff continue to work with the New Westminster District Parent Advisory Council, Society of Children and Youth, TransLink and SD 40 to seek out opportunities to expand the Walking School Bus program to other neighourhoods throughout New Westminster; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT to reduce the impact to residential taxpayers regarding the expansion of this program, that the City’s Climate Action Reserve Fund decision-making framework be applied, and that potential partnership funds be sought from the School District, Translink, and/or senior government(s) before the City commit to long-term funding, and that the Society of Children and Youth be directed towards the City Grant application process.

I wrote the motion here as it was amended through a lengthy discussion at the Council meeting. The Walking School Bus is a good program run as a pilot at a half dozen schools in the Lower Mainland (two in New West) by the Society for Children and Youth of BC, with support from the City, the School District and TransLink. There is some uncertainty about its longer-term funding, never mind how we might fund an expansion of the program. It is important that we connect with the people whose program it is before we start barging in with changes, which is the nature of the amendments brought forward.

Council voted unanimously to support this, and will reach out to the partners operating the program and find potential funding sources.

And that was the end of business for a shortish agenda. Hopefully you get to go out and grab one more sunny long weekend of summer before we are back in the whirlwind of September.

Paving Sixth Ave

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Paving a stretch of road in the City shouldn’t be news-worthy, the City spends something like $4 million a year on pavement management, and there are lots of roads that have seen recent paving, but the stretch of Sixth Ave in the West End has been such a bouncy boulevard of broken seams for a while now that people have been asking me why this key road in the City is so bad.

Now that we have timeline for re-paving, it’s a good time to talk about why it took so long, and why bumpy roads are sometimes running on top of a good news story. The West End has been the location of a lot of infrastructure upgrades over the last couple of years, and some of it is coming to an end.

The big project is the West End Sewer Separation and Watermain Replacement project. The main drive behind this project is replacement of the City’s old combined-flow sewer systems in the area with separate sanitary sewers (wastewater from homes that goes to the sewer treatment plant) and storm sewers (rain run-off from roads that goes to the river). This includes 8.4 km of new sewers, along with 24 rain gardens designed to decrease peak flow runoff. This will result in less storm water going unnecessarily to the water treatment plant for expensive treatment, and less chance of combined sewer overflows in to the Fraser River during storm events. There are also some older water mains in the area that need to be replaced and upgraded, , and it only makes sense to coordinate that work at the same time if you are tearing up the road anyway.

The timing of this project was also influenced by the significant support we received from senior governments to make it happen. The total project cost is $14.3 Million, of which $3.8 Million will be paid off over time by water and sewer utility users. The rest was paid by infrastructure grants from senior government: $5.7 Million from the Federal Government and $4.8 Million from the provincial government.

At the same time, this project overlapped with two major Metro Vancouver projects – the Annacis Island Water Main and the Central Park Water Main, and although only one of these crosses Sixth Ave specifically, the overlap with the bigger West End project was such that timing needed to be coordinated to manage traffic flows, cross-cutting infrastructure, and some excavation works.

Finally, because of new federal requirements, these projects required archaeological assessment work and the development of new chance find protocols for the City. This is a new area of work for the City, but an important step in reconciliation and meeting our UNDRIP commitments. This requires (you guessed it) digging of various test holes to identify where the native soils and underlying non-organic sediments interface, and identification of potential hot spots for archaeologic findings.

Overall, this was about a year and a half of work, and there were many occasions to break pavement during these works: various trenches for sewer or water lines or relocation some existing infrastructure, along with installing access chambers, valves, flow monitors, and tie-ins and the occasional archeological test pit. At some spots poor quality soils needed to be removed and replaced with competent backfill to support the sewer works or roadway above. Over that year and a half, there is really little point in spending a lot of money re-grading the road base and repaving when there are so many more excavations coming. Those temporary backfills begin to pile up, and the road becomes the bumpy patchwork quilt that is Sixth Ave. With the bulk of digging work now completed, the pave is about to begin.

There are a couple of spots that will still need one more excavation, likely in the spring, for good technical reasons. So that means a couple of the intersections are not going to be re-paved this time around, but will see their permanent paving next year. But for most of Sixth Ave from 12th to 20th, a smoother ride is coming soon. Sorry it took so long.

This Happened

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

I might have mentioned that I have a Newsletter. Over there, I talk a bit more about day-to-day events in the City, a bit of politics, a bit of opinion. You need to sign up to get it, which you can do by hitting this link. They come out (almost) every Wednesday night. Here is a preview of a few things that I wrote about this week, sign up if you want to know more!

It’s Pride Week, so we raised a few flags, including this one at Douglas College.
New Westminster has a vibrant Recovery community, and their family event in Tipperary Park last week is a manifestation of that community focus.
What is Brewhalla? A lot of sun, a bit of beer, a bit of music, a lot of fun.
The ‘Bellies are still in it, against all odds!
Sometimes that exotic looking thing is just a Lancia past its prime. Peripherally related, I wrote a bit about the history of the Show & Shine, and where it went.

Pride 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

It’s Pride week in New West.

For the 15h year, New West is marking its own Pride Week with a series of events, you can check out the entire calendar here, because it isn’t just about the Street Festival on the 17th.

As the week kicked off with the Flag Raising at Douglas College (the DSU and the College itself have been incredible supporters of New West Pride, and were there to help it grow from a small, one-day walk to a week-long-plus event!), and a flag Raising at Friendship gardens at City Hall, and a flag raising at the NWPD department on Columbia Street. These events have had be thinking a bit more recently about the evolution of the Pride movement (represented in part by the evolution of the Pride Flag), and how recent events, locally and globally, have changed the context of Pride.

I think some of us (yes, there is a cis-normative and euro-colonial bias here) have felt that the “fight” has been won, and Pride is more of a celebration of that than a protest against continued injustice. Right to have your marriage recognized, protection from state discrimination or persecution, the end of sodomy laws, these were big fights worth celebrating. But there are active movements right now here in North America to move backwards on these rights, and to prevent basic human rights and appropriate informed medical care to people who are not cis-conforming, with Trans and Intersex people facing the brunt of the intolerance and hate. The inclusive pride flag reminds us that until we all have rights, none of our rights are safe.

It shouldn’t take the persecution of a cis-gendered woman on an international stage, simply because she didn’t conform to a Eurocentric standard of beauty or sense of gender stereotypes for people to speak out about the harms faced every day by Trans and Intersex people, but here we are.

I am not trans, I am not intersex, but I try to be an ally, and often don’t know what allyship looks like, especially when I have this bully pulpit (that term being used in the strictly Rooseveltian sense). It is one thing to say we will not tolerate offensive of discriminatory speech in Council Chambers, and to take action to limit that even with public delegates, but what about the broader discourse in the City? There are a few vocal anti-Trans activists in New Westminster, and a small number of familiar local Social Media denizens who post discriminatory and often hateful rhetoric about members of the Trans and Intersex community. What is my duty as a leader in the community to call this out? To call these people out?

Should I stay out of it or be more vocal? Would I only be calling attention, adding to their audience or even legitimizing their “alternate view” by daylighting it, considering they are operating in a small bubble? Do I run the risk of being a “bully” (in the literal sense) by punching down at people who are, in turn punching down? Or am I being complicit in my silence when I see it and don’t denounce it every chance I get? What’s the balance?

I have taken to opening this conversation with folks I am chatting with at Pride events, especially to people I recognize from social media. Because I think I need to take some guidance from the community on this, and from the community impacted. What’s my role? Learning, listening and thinking about this is my work this year to exercise my allyship. I’m sure it won’t be a consensus on what my role is in combatting local on-line hate, but I’d love to hear from you if you have an opinion.

Workshop – July 8, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Council has been holding more “workshop” style meetings, with the idea that these meetings are where staff and council can dig into more details about programs, strategies, or ideas, prior to them coming to Council. There are a few advantages to this. They reduce the number of staff who have to come to evening Council meetings, which can go quite late, leading to significant overtime costs. They also allow us to have a bit more informal presentations and toss around ideas, raise concerns prior to Bylaws or strategies being fully cooked for approval at Council.

I rarely report out on Workshops, as these are generally preliminary things that will be reported out in the evening meeting when ideas are more fully baked. However, our workshop last week had 6 items that I thought were interesting to write about, and fit a bit with the theme of the evening meeting that I reported out on here (and complained about in the newsletter, for you subscribers). Workshops are public meetings, so you can watch them here and read the agenda if you like.

Massey Theatre Capital Project Additional Scope Items
The City made a decision more than a decade ago to “Save the Massey Theatre”. At the time, the theatre belonged to the School District and the School Board of the time decided that they didn’t want the hassle of updating or maintaining an end-of-life theatre with 1,300 seats, and determined it would be demolished with the old NWSS. A community uprising ensued, and City Council decided to take on the theatre in a land swap with the School District.

Of course, the Council of the day had no idea what the financial impacts of that decision would be. The Massey is a 75 year old building, and the School District did not spend a lot on maintenance or upgrades for quite some time, expecting the building to be demolished. We have already committed $22 Million in what we consider important life safety, building envelope, and accessibility upgrades, including the demolition of the north gym, for which there is simply no business case for preserving. That work is ongoing. It was hoped that the gym removal and envelope work would allow us to get a few more years out of the end-of-like HVAC systems (as it would significantly reduce the load on those systems). But it looks like the AC is failing sooner than we hoped.

Staff are going to develop a project plan for HVAC repair, upgrade, or replacement. Very preliminary estimates of replacing the heating and AC systems is $8 Million, but again, this is the kind of thing where estimating costs is not easy until you start doing the planning work. There is hopefully opportunity for us to avail ourselves of Green Municipal Fund or other senior government grants. There will no doubt be energy saving and greenhouse gas reductions coming with these upgrades (the Massey is now the largest single source of GHG emissions in the city’s facility stock, another unanticipated cost Council might not have thought of 15 years ago), and that combined with the Heritage and Arts and Culture aspects, make it a pretty attractive project for senior government partnership.

Council Strategic Plan – First Annual Report
A compliment to the Annual Report that was presented in regular Council, this report is more of a status report on progress toward the Strategic Priorities Plan that was adopted by Council in early 2023. There is a bit of a “stoplight” report here, with green for things on track, yellow for things falling behind, and red for things not moving forward enough.

Clearly, the elephant in the room is the massive shift in housing regulations that we could not anticipate when developing our Strategic Plan, and the workload related to those changes in regulation. I think when it comes to the need to increase housing supply near transit, and diversity of infill housing, our approach to these provincial changes will support goals in the long-term, though the road may be a bit rockier than we anticipated. I am still disappointed in the lack of rapid funding for affordable and supportive housing, never mind our persistent lack of a 24/7 shelter, but we continue to advocate to the province for these.

One of our strategic Plan pillars was around making transportation safer, and though we are doing the engineering work, there are identified safety governance and culture challenge. I will be bringing a motion to Council by the fall that asks for support to commit New Westminster to become a Vision Zero community. Bringing a safe systems approach to road safety and that may be a test of our ability to coordinate between departments in the City and other government agencies. We have suggested this direction in our strategic plan, but I think we need clear direction from Council if staff are to make this a priority and commit the resources to make it happen.

I also note that the biggest risks identified to moving our priorities forward are staff and resource shortages. We have been hiring, and are filling positions as fast as possible in this hypercompetitive labour market, but we still have a lot of staff doing too much off the side of their desks, and are at the limit of what we can deliver as a City until we give staff some space to breathe. The other stress is increasing cost escalation for all engineering projects – construction cost inflation is much higher than CPI right now, and our capital plan will be strained to keep up.

It is worth while watching the presentation from staff here, as they did a great job framing not just the pillars of the strategic plan, but also talking about how staff are keeping us abreast of the “lenses and foundations” part of the plan – how we are assuring the things we are doing are being done in a way that aligns with the expressed values of the Council around reconciliation, DEIAR, and climate action (for example).

For reasons never made clear, because there were no question or comments offered by the members to explain why, two members of Council voted against receiving this report.

Comprehensive Public Toilet Strategy Council Motion: Confirming Direction
This was actually a short discussion, as the direction from last week’s meeting on the Public Toilet strategy was from Council directly, not from a staff report. So staff put a quick report together to reframe those instructions in a way that is clear for them and aligned with previous instructions, and gave it to us to approve. The majority of Council moved forward with, and get us to approve it, but two Councillors voted against moving forward with a public toilet strategy.

Budget 2025 Public Engagement Methodology
We are going to do a commissioned survey on budget priorities to help inform the next Budget discussion. This is external to the Public Engagement process we usually go through, as it isn’t really “public engagement” as it would be defined by IAP2. There is a good article talking about the challenges of surveys as engagement here. However, it has been a few years since we did a public opinion survey in the City (I seem to remember one in my first term of Council, 6 years ago?), and so I’m not opposed to going through this process. However, we do need to be sure we put it in the right context.

I also thought it was funny to see this exchange on BlueSky the week we approved this:

Not an opinion I necessarily endorse, just one that made me laugh.

Procurement Policy Update
This is very Inside Baseball, but our procurement strategy has not been updated since 2013, and there have been significant shifts in construction costs over that decade. One part of the change is to align our thresholds for public procurement with those in the New West Partnership Agreement, a public procurement agreement that covers all of Western Canada. The second part is to update the values at which an emergency sole source contract can be awarded by the Purchasing Manager or CAO to align better with practices in neighboring communities and keep up with practical needs. A couple of Councillors voted against the second part here, but the majority of Council supported the update.

Development Application Process Review
One of the common narratives in the current housing crisis is that municipalities are to blame because we are slow approving new homes. There is no doubt that the steps to approve a new high-density building are complex, and include a huge number of geotechnical, engineering, building code, and other approvals to assure the building is safe, but also reviews about how a new building connects to the sewer system, the electrical grid, the road network, etc. The City of New west has been, since 2023, going through a Development Application Process Review to find out if there are redundancies, pauses, issues that make the process slower than it needs to be. The initial report from the Consultant is clear in its conclusion: “the City’s current development review process does not include any fundamental steps or requirements that would unnecessarily lead to slower approval times”. This is good. But there are opportunities to make things work smoother and more predictably in our approvals process, including better recordkeeping and increased digitization of records. These processes will require people to do them, but we fortunately have access to grants to pay for those people while the processes are updated, and permit fees for development should pay for most of their work going forward.

The purpose of this report is twofold. First, to seek Council’s endorsement of the results of the City’s Development Application Process Review, and second to seek Council’s endorsement of bringing new staff positions to the 2025 Budget discussion, recognizing the positions would be initially be offset by the UBCM Local Government Approvals Grant.

Council voted in a slim majority to approve this work, with two members voted against both receiving the report and doing anything about it, raising concerns about possible future impact on taxpayers. But I need to put this particular “no” into context. It was a year ago (May 29, 2023, I wrote about it here) when a motion asking for this very thing was proffered by a City Councillor. Council at the time voted it down because these processes were already going on, and the motion looked to be doing nothing but adding layers of bureaucracy to it. But Council voted that motion down knowing the work would go on because it was already happening. Now that the DAPR process has returned results, that Councillor who was so interested in “reviewing the effectiveness of and efficiency of our planning processes and procedures” opposes both the receipt of a report that outlines this, and the allocation of resources to make those processes and procedures work better. It simply baffles the mind.

After all that, the summary is that we are getting the work done, from Massey to DAPR, the City has a lot going on, and are making progress on so many fronts. I’m really proud of this work, but we have a lot more to do.

Council – July 8, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

It was a bit of a marathon day for Council on Monday, as isn’t uncommon as we try to get things done before the summer break. Its a long one, but trust me there’s some juice down there for those willing to scroll! We had a busy afternoon workshop with lots of items – so much so that I might break tradition here and post about a workshop in a follow-up, but first let’s try to get through the evening agenda!

We started the meeting with a Public Hearing:

Official Community Plan Amendment (801 Boyd Street) Bylaw No. 8448,2024
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (801 Boyd Street) No. 8449, 2024
The owner of Queensborough Landing wants to convert some unused buildings to self-storage, which is a slightly different land use designation, but different enough in class that it requires an OCP amendment to make happen, and therefore a Public Hearing. The request is to subdivide off the 1 acre corner of the much larger lot, and apply the OCP change to only that lot. OCP amendments are a bit of a complicated process, including significant consultation, which has been ongoing for more than a year now.

The New West Design Panel and Advisory Planning Commission approved the application. The Ministry of transportation expressed no concerns, and First Nations were consulted with no opposition to the application. The community meeting was not attended by anyone, and sparse feedback on the community survey had very low response, almost all negative. We received one piece of correspondence in favour of the application and had no-one present to the Public Hearing.

Council moved to approve third reading of both the OCP amendment and the rezoning.

We then had a Presentation from the CAO:

Presentation of the 2023 Annual Report
Unlike the Mayor’s State of the City Address, this is the *Official* annual report of the City. It is a summary of everything the City got done in the last year, and to me the best part is the numbers pages: 3,236 SeeClickFix requests responded to; 257 staff hired; 271,000 Library visits; 156,000 registered recreation participants; 240 Anvil Centre events; 3,890 Business licenses issued; 3% population increase; 600 large trees and 4,000 seedlings planted in City lands; 520 Street lights repaired; 64,000 QtoQ trips; it goes on and on, because there is a lot happening in the City every day. You can read the annual report HERE.

Council then moved the following items On Consent:

2024-2034 Canada Community- Building Fund Agreement
The City receives a little over $300,000 a year through the Canada Community-Building fund, and we need to sign an agreement with UBCM (who help administer the fund for the Feds and Province). This used to be called the Federal Gas Tax Fund, but has been rebranded as it isn’t really linked in any meaningful way to the gas taxes collected by the Federal government. We are a little limited on what we can spend it on (basically, infrastructure only), and will have that conversation during our budget deliberations. For now, we are signing the agreement to get the money.

Community Excellence In Service Delivery Award Application
We are applying for an award, in recognizing some great work our EMO is doing as a follow-up to coordination and communications challenges during the 2021 Heat Dome disaster. Cross your fingers!

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 220 Salter Street (Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection – Fraser River Crossing Project)
Its Sewer maintenance season, and some work needs to happen at night when sewer flows are low. Sorry, folks, but this should not really be very noisy work other than a few vehicles and generators running.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 252 Brunette Avenue (Sapperton SkyTrain Station)
There is going to be some upgrade work at Sapperton Station this summer, and some of that work has to happen when the trains are not running, which means night work.

New West Pride Municipally Significant Event Designation LCRB Resolution
At risk of repeating myself, I’m just going to quote my comments from a couple of weeks ago, with a few words changed: “Our provincial liquor licensing regulations are ridiculous and archaic, and everyone involved (manufacturers, retailers, events coordinators, even cities) are always trying to find a way through or around them to make things happen while keeping letter-of-the-law legal. For festivals, especially, this can be daunting. For a festival, not only does the Province regulate the size of a glass of beer or wine that can be served, they regulate a maximum price it can be sold at – a maximum price that has not been raised in 9 years. So if a festival wants to charge a little more and make a bit more money from alcohol sales to pay for other aspects of the festival (like hiring talent, security, advertising, etc.), they can’t do that. Unless they are designated a “Municipally Significant Event”, whatever that means. The request here is to designate Uptown Live PRIDE as “Municipally Significant” so they can charge a little more for beer to help offset the other costs of a free to the public festival.

Proposal to Change Liquor Licence for The Royal Canadian Legion Branch No.2
More on liquor laws, this one is a bit easier to understand. The Legion has a private club liquor license that requires guests to sign in, and wishes to shift to a regular liquor primary license. There are no issues identified with the change, and the City is endorsing this application that needs to go to the Province for approval.

Riparian Areas Protection Miscellaneous Amendment Bylaw No. 8468, 2024
These Bylaws are required to keep the City complaint with the Provincial Riparian Areas Protection Regulation and regulate how development happens in the riparian areas (upland dry areas where plants, shade, and slope provide ecological function to the stream) of streams and rivers in the city. We are updating them to address a typographic error in the earlier adopted versions. Because law.

The following items were then Removed from Consent for discussion:

2024 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
This is a regular update on our budget. No surprise to anyone dealing with capital projects right now, costs are going up, and some things we budgeted for in previous years are costing more to deliver in 2024 than we expected. However, the biggest change here (92% of the change) is carryforward adjustment for projects we simply didn’t get to completion in 2023. The money we didn’t spend in 2023 needs to be budgeted for in 2024, so we are therefore adjusting our $180.4M 5-year capital budget to $199.1M, though only $1.5M is an actual increase of overall costs. There are a few new capital item included in that $1.5M, like the need to reconfigure some City Hall spaces to deal with a space crunch ($250k), upgrades to the Columbia Station elevator to address chronic repair issues ($138k). One of the complications of Capital budgets is that we need to include things here that won’t cost the taxpayers anything, like a donation we received for the library to purchase an electric vehicle ($60K), upgrades to the QtoQ dock infrastructure to be paid by DAC funding form the province ($800K), and spending money to support development projects ($175K) that will ultimately be paid to us by the developer.

On the operating side, we are running a little ahead of forecast on both revenue and expenditure, with the combined variance leaning on the revenue side, which is good news. We are in good shape financially.

2024 Council Remuneration
Council gets paid. Our remuneration policy provides a cost-of-living increase every year, linked to CPI. This year, that means a 4% increase, which is essentially the same as the collective agreement the City has with union staff. This is policy driven, so Council doesn’t need to approve it. If they want to make changes, they need to change the policy.

It’s not a great system, elected people choosing their own salary, but it’s the system available to us under provincial regulation. Previous Council set up a process where changes to that policy be reviewed every term (so, every 4 years), to be implemented after the next election, so there is a bit of a political check-in around this policy before the elected receive any benefit of changes. We skipped the least review in 2022 because we were severely short-staffed in HR coming out of COVID, so we are overdue for a review. This report asks if Council wants to continue that practice – do a review before the next election to be applied after the election – or wants to follow a different path.

The big question Council needed to address – do we want to do the review now, recognizing that any change we implement won’t be applied until after the 2026 election, or have the review immediately before the election, which made me paraphrase Kim Campbell “an election is not time for serious public policy discussion”. Council agreed with the former Prime Minister, and agreed to start the review sooner

Bus Speed and Reliability Study
New West is a Transit City – likely the highest transit mode share of any municipality in BC. Alas, there is still too much through-traffic slowing the buses down, and TransLink has a region-wide program to boost “speed and reliability” of bus service through the region to make the system run smoother, and ultimately save the system money. They will cost share capital programs (up to 100%!) with the City to build infrastructure that improves BSR, and we have been successful in applications for BSR funds, so Staff are ready to get moving, because it will never be less expensive than now to do this work.

This report identifies 12 projects that can be implemented in the next 5 years to address bus delay hot spots. It is important to note many of these align with our Bold Step to re-allocate road space from car-primary use to sustainable transportation. It’s also the right thing to do, when Translink data shows 62% of the people travelling on Sixth Street during peak times (when there is congestion) are in a bus, and getting them out of the traffic of single passenger cars is a priority.

The majority supported moving this forward, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, an indication of a trend on the night.

E Columbia Street/Brunette Avenue Road Safety Review
There has been a lot of engineering work looking at East Columbia by Cumberland for the last year. It’s a difficult spot that has been an uncomfortable bone of contention for active transportation users for a decade or longer, but with no easy answers because of a variety of engineering constraints.

One interesting aspect of why it took so long to do this analysis once Council asked for it last year, and it has to do with conflicting ideas about what the real safety challenge is here. Statistically, it is not an “unsafe” piece of sidewalk, and data would suggest the highest safety priority here is reducing risk of car-truck collisions. However, it definitely “feels” unsafe on that sidewalk, and that creates a barrier to use for many people. Engineering stats also have a hard time counting “near miss” data, which is typical of many safety system analyses, but lacking in most road safety planning. So staff did some work to collect “near miss” data in this area using video-based conflict analysis.

As suspected, there are some short-term measures we can take to make the space a little more comfortable for active transportation users, but it is not going to be the big solution that some folks would like to see. We don’t have the authority or permission to close the sidewalk-adjacent lane to trucks, speed enforcement along here is difficult and only acts as a short-term measure (bring on speed cameras!) and there simply isn’t room to put in a physical barrier without increasing the risk of vehicle-vehicle collisions. Real change is going to come with a complete intersection redevelopment, which will cost millions, and involve partnerships with TransLink and the Ministry of Transportation as this is a Major Road Network corridor and a designated regional truck route.

Grant Review
The City has a generous community grant program, about $1 Million a year given to city organizations and groups to encourage community building, provide social services, support the arts and youth sports – more than any other surveyed City in the lower mainland. The program was last reviewed in 2018, and needs another review as things are changing fast in this space in the post-COVID world, and aligned with Council’s strategic plan to build “community belonging & connecting.” This has been run though the ACEDAC, community survey, a municipal scan, a focus group, and personal Interviews with people connected to the granting programs.

Through this engagement, a few changes to the grant program are going to be rolled out gently over a couple of years, not a big shock change all at once, starting with a non-line registration platform and tiering the reporting requirements based on the size of the grant received – instead of the same reporting for a $500 grant that we might expect for a $15000 one. A bit of a “small community Grant model for smaller grants for less sophisticated applicants will also be coming. Longer grant terms, earlier payment, and improved mentorship for emerging initiatives are things that will come a little later. We also need staff to do this work, as it has been off the side of desks for some time, and needs to be given proper support if we are going to properly serve the many organizations doing great work in the community.

Mobile Food Vending Licence Bylaw Amendment – Temporary Locations
Our Food Truck program is one of those things that got a little sidelined by COVID, in part because of the uncertainty around impact on existing brick and mortar restaurants during the health restrictions, and in part because staff were really busy with other COVID and Recovery work. However, they have spent some time over the last few months looking updates of our licensing to provide more flexibility and more locations for food trucks based on community feedback. This includes near park spaces, TACC, and a few others. This will be a change for 18 months, which gives enough time to test it out. Let us know how it works out, as even the “food truck” thing seems hit and miss these days, as the boom times of the early 2000s may be passing?

The majority supported moving this forward, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it after their attempts to re-write the bylaw in the middle of the meeting surprisingly couldn’t come up with a better output than the professional work of Economic Development staff working with the business community to determine a practicable bylaw.

Parks and Recreation 2025 Fees Bylaw Amendment
Every year, we review Parks and Recreation fees, based on inflationary increases and year staff analyze how our fees compare to other neighboring municipalities in a public report, to assure we, as best as possible, balance cost recovery with service and accessibility while managing the amount of subsidy we provide to recreation programs. We do this a bit out of cycle with other budget work and review of engineering or development fees, because of the seasonality of program development and registration that doesn’t really line up with the budget process.

Not much changed this year in our regional comparison except that Burnaby reduced their recreation centre fees by almost 27%. This might be hard to compete with, as we have a brand new recreation facility that is already seeing huge crowds, while Burnaby is delaying of cancelling their recreation centre expansion projects. That said, we will still be within the regional means for recreation passes.

Report on Council Motion: Cooling Bylaw in Rental Units
The first really warm weekend just passed, and this has again raised the conversation about the work the City is doing to address the 2021 Heat dome disaster. The response form staff in the Emergency Management Office and other departments, working with external partners like Fraser Heath, has been impressive (communications to vulnerable communities, one cool room program, subsidized air conditioner program for vulnerable people, a connect and prepare program, a new Emergency Monitoring Centre and improved medical responder training, etc., etc.). We are better prepared to respond to the emergency now, but it would be preferable if heat events didn’t constitute an emergency, because our housing stock was resilient enough to manage what will be a more common occurrence.

Every rental building is required, by law, to have a heating system than can maintain a life-reserving temperature in residential units. No such requirement exists for cooling, and during the heat dome we learned that many apartments were so hot that they were deadly. The question arises: shouldn’t life safety be a rental license requirement? The BC government is taking action here with updates to the BC Building Code to require one cool room in new buildings, and are developing a path to encourage the updating of existing buildings. That’s a big challenge. In New west we have started a vulnerable building inventory and are going to push the province to accelerate their building renewal program. We are also going to ask staff to do some further work on regulatory approaches available to us as a City, because when people die in your city, you need to take action.

The majority of Council supported moving this three-prong approach, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, continuing the trend of the night.

Response to Council Motion Regarding Fee Summary for Development Applications
In a previous meeting, Council asked that all rezoning applications include a comprehensive list of all fees, charges, and levies related to that project. I tried to make the point that we already get such a report as best as staff can estimate at the time of rezoning, because there are other steps in the development process (development Permit, Building Permit, etc.) that include fees and levees, and every project is different, meaning that a separate report would have to be generated for each project based on myriad of factors – how many trees are on the site, what is the grade? Is the available sewer connection on the upslope or downslope side of the property, does the builder want fiber optic connection, and does that require trenching across a city road? It’s complicated, and the cost and complication of providing this report ahead of time (for what reason exactly?) will doubtlessly increase the cost of development, because someone has to do the work, and on principle, this is a cost that should fall on development, not on taxpayers.

So the best we can do is estimate fees and apply deposits on the cost-for-service parts that are less certain at the time of rezoning, like the current Engineering and Service Memo attached to every rezoning already does. But as is common of motion made up on the fly in the heat of a Council meeting, those complications could not be fully considered by Council prior to voting on the motion, and that is a recipe for bad decision making.

In this report, staff are recommending that the recently-completed Development Application Process Review output of moving to more electronic approvals might give us tools to better estimate these numbers, at least as far as fixed fees go, this work will be rolled into that.

The majority of Council supported this sensible approach that best utilizes staff resources, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for unclear reasons, keeping the trend alive.

Westburnco Reservoir License of Use Agreement Renewal
There is a big underground water reservoir belonging to Metro Vancouver on the top of New Westminster called Westburnco. On the roof of this reservoir are some sports courts that were installed more than a decade ago by the City, under a license agreement with Metro Vancouver. It’s time to update that license agreement.

That said, the courts are looking pretty beat up, and I asked staff to initiate a conversation about updating the offerings in those courts, and my mind is on Pickleball. There is a unique opportunity here for us to build a multi-court pickleball facility to serve the growing community. As we are currently undertaking the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan process, I confirmed with staff that is the appropriate channel through which to develop this idea, especially as there is likely to be a significant capital component in renewing the surface treatment on the reservoir. Staff will also check timelines around the membrane replacement or other renovation at the reservoir to determine if the timing or this type of capital investment is good.

Cross your fingers, there is a pickleball opportunity here

Zoning Bylaw Amendment: 1923 & 1927 Marine Way – Bylaw for Three Readings
Aunt Leah’s society wants to build a 90-unit affordable and supportive housing building on a couple of lots where land assembly is occurring near 22nd Street station. The project looks exceptional in how it meets a pressing housing need identified in our community, providing three levels of affordability (50% Rent geared to income, 20% deep subsidy at shelter rates, 30% below market) to serve the needs of youth aging out of care and young moms with families. This is within the Transit Oriented Area designation from the Province’s Bill 47, so the thought here is to rezone to that density (12 storeys/4 FSR) which is a bit bigger than Aunt Leah’s is trying to build (5 storeys / 2.2 FSR). There are tight funding deadlines here (the project has been approved by BC Housing to receive financial support!), and the project aligns with the OCP, so we are did our best to fast-track to third reading through our Affordable Housing Acceleration Initiative to meet those deadlines.

The majority of Council supported this much needed and already-funded affordable housing development, though the two “progressive” members of council voted against it for reasons, as best as I could interpret, because they were afraid it might reduce the profitability of future land speculation on adjacent properties.

We then read several Bylaws, including the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Development Cost Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 8456, 2024
This Bylaw that makes inflationary increases to our DCC bylaw – the infrastructure costs we put on developers for new growth – was adopted by Council.

Street and Traffic Bylaw Amendment Bylaw No. 8459, 2024
Engineering User Fees and Rates Amendment Bylaw No. 8458,2024
These Bylaws that will facilitate the launch of a Shared Mobility Service (Bike Share!) in New Westminster were adopted by Council.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (310 Blackley Street) No. 8450, 2024
This Bylaw that rezones a portion of the Eastern Node in Queesnborough to facilitate the building of townhouses was adopted by Council.

Then we launched head-first into Motions from Council:

Improving Public Safety through a Community Ambassador Pilot Program
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

Whereas the City of Vancouver previously partnered with Business Improvement Areas to implement and expand an Ambassador Program whereby Community Ambassadors provide assistance to business owners, customers, residents, and visitors in the BIA area by providing hospitality services and addressing community safety; and
Whereas Community Ambassadors’ primary functions include connecting those in need to resources, conducting community patrols, contributing to increased safety and order on the streets, and contributing to social responsibility; and
Whereas Community Ambassadors can work closely and collaborate directly with the City’s bylaw officers as well as the New Westminster Police Department and can become an integral part of a proactive recruitment strategy;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster prepare a business case to determine the feasibility of piloting a made-in-New Westminster Community Ambassador program by 2026;and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the local Business Improvement Areas be consulted regarding their potential role in supporting or operating a fully funded Community Ambassador pilot program on behalf of the City of New Westminster.

At first glance, this appeared to be  a repeat of a motion brought by Councillor Nakagawa this time last year about emulating the Chinatown Stewards model, a motion that led to a decision by Council to instead advance the I’s on the Street program, both motions that the mover of this motion voted to support at the time.

But at second glance, it appeared this was a very different program, one that is a resurrection of a failed program from Sam Sullivan’s Vancouver mayorship, the City’s partnership in it abandoned after complaints about it violating the human rights of targeted indigenous people, people with addictions, and those suffering mental and physical disabilities in a way that constituted discrimination according to a BC Supreme Court ruling, resulting in costs being awarded against the City and the BIA. Of course, Mayor Sullivan and his Chief of Staff were voted out of office before those costs were ever awarded, so out of term, out of mind, I guess.

Council did not vote to support this initiative.

International Travel by Members of Council
Submitted by Mayor Johnstone

BE IT RESOLVED: That international travel by members of Council to attend conferences, events, and meetings on behalf of the City of New Westminster be subject to Council approval which includes a summary of request to Council in an open meeting including:
• projected travel and other expenses related to attendance to be charged to the City;
• name of the attendee(s) and relevance to Council or Committee roles; and
• a statement of expected value to be derived as a result of attending the function from the attendee; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That any participation by members of Council at conferences, events, and meetings (aside from LMLGA, UBCM, and FCM) which require overnight accommodations or travel outside of the province but otherwise fall within allowable Council expense limits shall require a written summary to Council by the attendee(s) in an open meeting within 3 months of the completion of travel which includes:
• a summary of actual expenses incurred; and
• a description of participation, learnings, and value derived from participation at the event; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That staff be directed to bring back to Council for consideration revised travel policies for Council members that is consistent with the above resolutions, including any recommended changes to existing policies, expense limits, or reporting requirements that recognizes the benefit of Council participation in exchange and learning.

I think the motion speaks for itself. There is more interest in public transparency around these types of events than in the past, and it is a good idea to update our policies to reflect that. I have always had the practice of reporting out publicly on my attendance at conferences, including UBCM and FCM, the Canadian Association for Police Governance and the Local Climate Action Summit last year, even local conferences like the recent Active Transportation Summit, because I think they are valuable learning opportunities, and I think the extra l value found in them is being able to share your experiences and things you have learned with your colleagues and the community.

This parallels a motion I sponsored at Metro Vancouver that was referred back to staff. Here it was amended by Councillor Campbell to include considerations around travel funded by third parties or by the member themselves, as I have travelled to attend Municipal Finance Authority meetings and the City doesn’t pay for that, so our policies need to reflect those types of situations. The next step here will be for staff to conduct a review of existing policies and integrate the changes as proposed for Councils consideration.

Paradoxically, though the majority of Council supported this amended motion, the two “progressive” members of Council who have spent the last 6 months bombarding the regional media calling for this kind of transparency and accountability, voted against it for apparently not understanding the term “third party”, despite staff’s repeated attempts to clarify that a third party is anyone other than the City or the traveling member. It was a sight to see.

Increasing Accountability and Transparency regarding Travel for Municipal Elected Officials
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS Mayor and Council have an interest in the information and outcomes of member-attended conferences, events, study tours, and meetings; and
WHEREAS transparent and equitable policies should be created for use of all City resources applied to Mayor and Council representation at such functions; and
WHEREAS the above is in service of good governance, transparency, and strong relationships between Mayor and Council, our community, and the public they serve in the disposition of limited resources;

BE IT RESOLVED THAT international travel to attend conferences, events, study tours, and meetings on behalf of the City of New Westminster by the Mayor or Councillors be subject to prior approval by Council which includes a summary of the request to Council in an open meeting including:
• Name of the attendee and relevant Council or Committee role(s);
• A statement of expected value to be derived because of attending the function from the attendee and staff;
• Projected travel expenses;
• Projected remuneration expenses; and
• Projected amount of other expenses expected to be incurred; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any participation by the Mayor or Councillors at conferences, events, study tours and meetings that would incur overnight accommodation outside of British Columbia shall require a written report of the function by the attendee(s) in May or October of each calendar year. This report shall be provided at an open meeting of Council, and include:
• A summary of the event and key activities;
• The value to the City of New Westminster because of
• the attendee’s participation in the event; and
• A summary of actual expenses incurred; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT this new policy would apply to all city-paid travel or travel incurred as part of a ‘sponsorship’ intended to be paid for by a 3rd party; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT in the case of any sponsored travel, the attendee would be obliged in an open meeting to seek prior approval from Council to receive these funds and this would include full details regarding the source of funds and financials related to the entire sponsorship package being offered.

I’m not sure what cliché to use first – deja vu all over again? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? The member here literally cut and pasted my Metro Vancouver motion, with some minor amendments, and put their name on it. For the record, they were informed that the motion above was on the agenda, but still chose not to withdraw the notice of motion, wasting a bunch of staff time, because every notice requires staff policy and legal review prior to going onto the agenda. Then after NOT voting to support the almost exact same motion above, they decided during the meeting to withdraw this motion. I simply cannot explain this behavior, but am no longer interested in trying.

Increasing Council Oversight and Involvement in the Issuance of Official Public Statements
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS excluding any statutory powers provided to the Mayor through the BC Community Charter Act, all other authority is delegated to the Mayor by Council; and
WHEREAS the Mayor is designated by Council as the chief spokesperson who will speak on behalf of the entire Council on matters relating to City business; and
WHEREAS not all members of Council are routinely notified in advance nor consulted regarding non-emergency communications issued by the Mayor through the City of New Westminster Communications Department;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the effective immediately the Mayor and the Department of Communications conduct timely, adequate and thorough consultation with all members of Council in advance of the issuance of any public statements, media advisories or media releases that are non-emergency related.

At one end of the spectrum, this appears to be a censure measure against the Mayor that seeks to silence me and keep me from doing the job I was elected to do for reasons I can only assume are political. At the other end, it appears to put an unreasonable block on all City Communications, severely limiting the City’s ability to talk about what is happening in the City. There is no City in the world that waits for Council approval before posting (to quote the motion) “any public statement” because it would not allow the City to function in the modern sense. This Council meeting is July 8th, our next official meeting is August 26th. We can’t have the City wait 6 weeks for “thorough consultation with all members of Council” before putting out their regular daily communications or responding to media inquiries. It boggles the mind to think how this would work, never mind the extra communication resources it would require to work.

The majority of Council did not support the motion, so conversations like this one can go on.

Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS between 2016 and 2021, the number of seniors living in New Westminster increased by 17.2%. By comparison, the overall population increased by 11.2%; and
WHEREAS In 2021, 24.1% of New Westminster’s seniors lived in unaffordable housing (30%+ of income spent on housing costs) including 42.8% of senior renters and 16.9% of senior owners; and
WHEREAS the Office of the Seniors Advocate Report Ageing Matters: What We Heard From BC Seniors released in June 2024 states the Provincial Government’s Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters subsidy program does not address the financial pressures experienced by seniors who rent;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council write a letter to the Premier of BC, Minister of Housing and Minister of Health asking for immediate financial relief for low-income senior renters by redesigning the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program so that seniors’ rents are 30% of their income and rent ceilings are adjusted to reflect the current reality of the rental market.

This is advocacy that grew from work Councillor Campbell has been doing with seniors in the community, and based on calls from the Seniors Advocate, and a report they released last month. Council voted to send this advocacy to the Provincial Government.

And that was all the work done during the evening meeting. As I suggested, I might follow up with a report on the workshop, because is covered interesting things, and continued a bit of the trend of the evening meeting. Until then, go outside and enjoy some sun, we miss it when it’s not here.

Housing and Growth

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The discussion around provincial housing regulations hasn’t slowed down, as the first of several deadlines related to bills 44, 46, and 47 came and went. Some Cities have complied, some have chosen a different path. In New Westminster we adopted two Bylaws in June that make us complaint, and staff are busily working on the next steps- a renewed Housing Needs Assessment, OCP updates, and revising our DCC, ACC, and Density Bonus programs.

City staff are also working with provincial staff on their Housing Target Order methodology, so we can respond on the expected timeline, likely in August. I was on the radio last week alongside the Mayor of Langley Township talking to Belle Puri about this (you can listen here!), and we had slightly different takes on the core issue. I actually agree with the Minister that the introduction of Small-scale Multi-Unit Housing and Transit Oriented Area regulations will be a good thing. IT is clearly a massive hassle and staff time suck to implement, and will likely slow down development for a short period of time while everyone finds their path through the massive changes, in the end it will be a positive for the reshaping of the next era of regional growth.

My problem remains that we have had some significant tools taken away that we have used to fund infrastructure and amenities in our community. Equally troubling is that our ability to compel developers to build childcare, to provide spaces for new schools or parks, or to include affordable housing as part of their developments, has been eroded at the same time that the cost for development has gone up. It is unclear whether the Province is going to give us the money needed to make up for these shortfalls, or expect property tax to fill the void.

That said, I did appreciate the Minister’s thoughtful responses the next day (you can hear them here!). We are all trying to get the same thing done on housing, and I hope that the province brings the kind of aggressive, proactive change to our funding model that they did to our building approvals model. Dare to dream.

There was another related piece of news that snuck out last week, and it was related to a report we received at Metro Vancouver Regional Planning Committee. Metro staff working with academic demographers have created updated regional growth projections. These are not “targets” the region is aiming for, but instead projections of what is likely to happen given demographic changes, birth/death statistics, immigration, and inter-regional and inter-provincial migration patterns. The numbers are all here in this report.

The local angle on this might surprise some folks, especially my colleague on the radio last week from Langley Township who always refers to his community as the “high growth region”, that the City projected to grow fastest over the next 6, 16, and 26 years is New Westminster. Here’s the numbers:

These are numbers for the medium-growth scenario, but both the low-growth and high-growth scenarios have us in a similar spot: top of the charts for proportional growth.

There are a lot of factors that drive this, including our commitment to Transit Oriented Development and the large proportion of our City that is near that transit, but also the balance of housing types, the “sweet spot” between affordability and location on the north side of the River, and the attractiveness to both young families in the growing stage, and new arrivals to Canada and the Lower Mainland – for every reason you choose to live here.

This speaks to our Housing Needs Report, but it also speaks to our need to invest in infrastructure now to support that growth, and the community amenities that residents want in a thriving, growing community. Adding austerity to this trend will be a disaster for the livability of our community, we need to show leadership to shape a community that serves today/s residents, and the people arriving tomorrow.