May is a busy month for many reasons, and we had a lot of delegates at Council this week talking about some of the fun activities over the next couple of weeks that will make it busier. But our Council agenda was way less fun that that, starting with an Opportunity to be Heard:

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw No. 6926, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8556, 2026
When the City changes Business Regulations, we generally have a Public Hearing-like process. Not a true “Public Hearing” (those are regulated differently under the Local Government Act) but an opportunity for businesses impacted by the regulatory change to make presentations to Council about the regulation. As our proposed bylaw around protecting tenant from heat is a business regulation, we had an opportunity to make representations. We received two pieces of correspondence (one supportive, one expressing concerns but not strictly opposed), and no-one came to present to council on the topic.

---

We approved the following items On Consent:

2025 Financial Statements
We are required, under Section 167(1) of the Community Charter to provide financial statements to the Province which outline our current financial position and a review of our books for the previous year. These statements have been audited and we received “clean” audit (nothing untoward was found by the independent Auditor), and our books are in pretty good shape.

The City has $414 Million in financial assets, mostly this is in our reserves. Our reserves have gone down ever so slightly (less than 0.2%) since the end of last year, but we have been building a lot this year, and reserves are there to support this capital investment. Our liabilities amount to just under $307 Million, which includes our long-term debt, which has gone down 6% to $150 Million. Overall, our net financial position is $139M in the black. Our Accumulated Surplus is over $1.1 Billion, but the largest portion of that is $952 Million in Tangible Capital Assets (buildings, roads, pipes, and computers).

When it comes to the operations side, we collected a little more (1.4% more) revenue than anticipated, due to increased utility revenue (new people moving to town), more recreation revenue as TACC is filling up, and timing of grant revenue from senior governments. Meanwhile we spent a little (2%) under what we anticipated, mostly in salary savings as hiring has been slower than anticipated, offset a bit by higher costs to deliver utility and recreation services (see increased revenue above).

We are in good shape overall, though we are still in the growing-reserves phase and have a lot of capital spending in the next few years. Nothing a few senior government grants couldn’t help with!

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of Transit Oriented Development Area Extensions and Regional Planning
We previously met the “letter of the law” when it comes to provincial regulatory changes for housing approvals, specifically Bill 47 changes to encourage higher-density use around SkyTrain stations (“Transit Oriented Development” or TOD). We are now looking at changes based on our extensive public consultation process to meet the spirit of the law, and make it fit better into the New West context. The conical results of the TOD regulations don’t fit smoothly into a rectangular street grid, existing subdivision and neighbourhood patterns, or topography, so we are adjusting the edges of those circles to make the results more practical and logical. This means changes to the Official Community Plan impacting about 100 properties.

We are also drafting a new Regional Context statement that aligns with the Regional Growth Strategy, and integrates our Community Energy and Emissions Plan to the OCP, to meet Metro Vancouver requirements. These changes are subject to a Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments on them until then to respect that process. If you have opinions, let us know!

Our City, Our Homes: Implementation of the Infill Housing Program
We have also met, as an interim, the letter of the Law for changes under Bill 44 (“Single Site Multi Unit Housing” – SSMUH) but had significant work to do, both technically and in community consultation, to make these changes fit the New Westminster context, including the heritage Conservation Area in Queen Park. We received support from the Federal Government under the Housing Accelerator Fund to do more detailed work on infill density, and are ready now to take these bylaw changes to Public Hearing.

These OCP and Zoning Bylaw changes would impact about 3,000 residential properties, not those in the TOD area (above), not those covered by previous townhouse implementation, and not those in Queensborough (as there are extra engineering works we need to do to deal with drainage and sewer works to implement these changes there). Based on the Provincial regulations, some would now permit fourplex (about 1,900 properties), some sixplex (about 1,100 properties), depending on their location relative to Frequent Transit, and depending on if they can make the Development Permit guidelines (height, density, setbacks, etc.) work on their lot.

Again, these Bylaws will be subject to a Public Hearing, so I will hold my comments until then to respect the process.

Metro 2050 Type 2 Amendment Application: City of Maple Ridge (North 256 Street Industrial Lands Area Plan)
Greater Vancouver has a regional plan. Much like our Official Community Plan, the region has a master plan for growth that reflects and is reflected in our 21 individual Official Community Plans (see “Regional Context Statement” two items above). Making significant changes in that plan, even at the local level, requires some regional buy-in. This is because the region shares a water supply, sewer systems, a transportation system, and an airshed. Changes in Maple Ridge impact us, and changes in New West impact Maple Ridge.

The Regional Growth Strategy includes an “Urban Containment Boundary”, a tool to permit intensified urban growth within the already built-up area within a fixed boundary, but requiring regional buy-in before expanding that UCB, or building more intensive land use outside the UCB. There are practical reasons for this (running sewer and water and roads and transit to far flung regions is expensive) and less tangible reasons (plowing down greenspace, covering farmland, impacting protected watersheds makes our region less resilient).

This application from Maple Ridge is to shift an area outside the UCB to more intensive industrial use. Much of it has already been industrialized (and old gravel pit and newer light industrial properties), though much of it is still relatively pristine forest and watershed with significant ecological values. The proposal will preserve some high ecological value areas for the long term, but does represent a significant shift in the UCB but for purposes that are aligned with the spirit of the regional plan (intensifying existing industrial space in a region lacking in it). Following staff’s advice, we are sending a note to Metro Vancouver expressing some concerns but not strongly opposing the application, in the hopes that the Regional Board will take those concerns into consideration and evaluate efforts by Maple Ridge to mitigate those concerns.

Metro 2050 Type 2 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (Hazelmere)
This proposal is similar to the above in process, but the proposal is quite different. Surrey applied to have these mostly green rural properties added to the Urban Containment Boundary a decade ago and was firmly turned down for a variety of good reasons. Here they are returning with exactly the same application, and have provided no good reason for us to agree now. The proposal is to build a neighbourhood of low-density single family homes near the US border a long way from the nearest edge of the Urban Containment Boundary, never mind sewers and pipes. This has all the negative impact of intensifying land our in rural areas (costs uploaded to government, environmental impact) while providing no regional benefits whatsoever (the region isn’t really lacking single family homes), and flies in the face of the regional plan. The City is sending a letter opposing this application, hoping the board at Metro Vancouver (at least 34% of them, as this change requires a 2/3 vote of the Board.

Updated Approach to Setting Parks and Recreation Fees and Charges and Access and Inclusion Policy
We update our fees and charges bylaw for recreation every year, this time staff want to have a bit of a review of how we do that work. Part is to make sure we are being fair and inclusive, including how we apply our financial assistance program. There is a structured approach here – with some programs with great public benefit (e.g. children’s swim lessons) receiving higher taxpayer subsidy than programs that only benefit a few individuals (e.g. private or specialized training). Overlaying these principles is the recognition that parks and recreation services are subsidized by the taxpayer – and cannot be 100% cost recovery if we hope for them to be accessible. We also have an inclusion policy that seeks to remove economic barrier to participation for everyone in the community who might need this support.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Response to Council Motion: Implications of Housing Legislation on Curbside Management
This is about parking, but a lot more, because the curbside is some of the most valuable land in the City, but people tend to care most about it when they want to park there. With the introduction of some new provincial housing regulation, our system of managing residential parking is going to need an update. If we are required to permit higher-density housing and will not be able to require off-street parking for much of it, people are going to expect that they can use public space for parking their vehicle, and there will be a commons problem, because we simply don’t have enough public space for everyone to park a car on, and there are many other demands for that public space that serve the common good better than the storage of private chattel, such as loading zones, mobility lanes, bus stops, etc.

Developing new policy here is going to be a complicated technical project, and will require extensive consultation with neighbourhoods. Staff is going to start the process working with consultants and have estimated about $200,000 for the technical work and the public consultation, which staff will include in the 2027 budget. Expect quite the public discussion around this over the next year or more, as this work progresses. And if you are really interested, here’s the book you need to read. Yes, 800 pages of parking policy, and it’s glorious!

New Media Gallery Environmental Scan Results and Next Steps for Exhibition Program
The New Media Gallery has been on a bit of a hiatus for a year since the previous Director-Curator team left the City for other opportunities. The space has been used with our Artist-in-Residence program, and in supporting the very popular learning lab in the Anvil Centre. Meanwhile, the opportunity of the hiatus was to do an environmental scan and determine the best course for both the Gallery as an operation, and the Gallery as a space. This is the result of that work.

The analysis confirmed that the New Media Gallery is a unique and highly valued gallery offering locally and on the regional arts scene. A unique offering, as the only gallery in the region (and one of the few in Western Canada) concentrating on new media arts, and as a result it was one of the most popular galleries in the Lower Mainland during its first ten years of operation. This not only provides a valuable cultural asset contributing to New Westminster’s civic identity, it is also a contributor to the Downtown economic and cultural vitality. The decision by Council is to continue operating the Gallery within the existing budget, and start the search for a new director.

---

We then had two Motions from Council:

New West Schools and City of New Westminster Joint Working Group Terms of Reference
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS the New West Schools and City of New Westminster joint working group is a forum for collaboration on issues that impact the City, District, and community
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the working group Terms of Reference be amended to include three representatives from the School Board in alignment with the three representatives from the City.

We have a joint working group of City Council and School Board that help coordinate between the two bodies on things like new school sites, joint use agreements, and other areas of common interest. The group (through the Chair) has asked that the Term of Reference be adjusted to make it more equitable between the two bodies.

Consultation with Railway Association of Canada: 502 Twentieth Street
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS new information has been provided to Council by the Railway Association of Canada and several rail operators regarding the potential safety risks posed by the installation of a Tiny Home village adjacent to active rail lines; and
WHEREAS the railway companies indicate they were not adequately consulted prior to the approval of BC Housing’s Tiny Home village; and
WHEREAS Council’s top priority should be that we receive all critical information necessary to make decisions that may impact the safety of New Westminster residents – prior to a final decision being made
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff on an urgent basis to coordinate a public meeting within 30 days whereby we invite the Railway Association of Canada and other affected rail operators to present their concerns regarding safety issues pertaining to the installation of the new Tiny Home village in our West End.

Council has received correspondence from the Rail Association of Canada, and an adjacent railway operator about the Tiny Homes Village proposal. This has precipitated the City coordinating meetings between the RAC and BC Housing so their concerns can be addressed. As BC Housing is developing the Operations Plan, and is setting up the terms through which an operator will operate the village – these safety plans are a vital and important part of this. RACs request is that BC Housing develop a Rail Safety Plan, and BC Housing has confirmed to us that both a Rail safety assessment and an industrial Safety Plan will be undertaken, and BC Housing intends to convene a meeting with all stakeholders to review those findings and determine next steps collaboratively, as the safety of the operation of the site is paramount for its success.

So this motion is somewhat redundant to the work that is ongoing (and yes, the Councillor who moved this motion has all the information I have about this) so Council amended the motion above from “direct staff…” to “request BC Housing…” so the right people are doing the work, and increased the timeline to better coincide with the existing work. In short, Council unanimously agreed to ask BC Housing to do what it is already doing because we have already made this request of BC Housing. But, hey, politics.

---

We had one Bylaw for Adoption:

Tax Rate Bylaw No. 8576, 2026
This Bylaw that formally sets property taxation rates for 2026 was adopted by Council.

---

And we had a single item of New Business:

Motion for reconsideration – 800 Queens Ave
This is a bit of a deep dive, but let me keep it simple. The building of a new school at Simcoe Park needs a Development Variance Permit as it is bigger than anticipated (yeah! Building for growth!) and there are some parking and other requirements that need to be addressed. The province has the power to override the need for a DVP if conflict arises, but the School Board and Council (through the Joint Working Group – see above) are working well, and the DVP is not causing any specific delay, so we are following the normal path. At the same time, the City and the School District are working on a new Joint Use Agreement framework. Simcoe Park is heavily used by the existing Fraser Middle, and will see more use with the upcoming elementary school, and there are other spaces belonging to the City that the school will impacts during construction and ongoing, so it is good practice for the two governing bodies to clarify join use, rights and responsibilities. The City agreed recently that the Joint Use Agreement itself (which involves lawyers and such on both sides) might take too much time and muck up works, so agreed to co-develop the framework for the JUA (that is, the terms of the JUA at a principles level, without specific agreement language) prior to the DVP being issued. This Framework has been completed and agreed to by the City. So there is no reason to tie it to the DVP, and it is easiest to simply rescind the requirement for the JUA, and not have its language mucking up the DVP approval that is just around the corner. That’s all a complicated way of saying the School Board and the City are working well together to get the new School approved and develop new Joint Use Agreements for not just this school, but others in the district. The Working Group has been earning their pay!

And with that good feeling, another Council meeting comes to an end

Apologies to regular readers (Hi Mom!) for being so late at getting this Council report out. It has been a hectic week, with lots of exciting things going on, some big and public, some more about ongoing conversations that are just starting to see public news release, or aren’t ready for new release yet. It’s been busy!

Last week’s Council meetings was not without its drama (I could write an entire report just on the delegations!), and there will be some more fallout of that, but we also got a lot of great work done from a relatively concise agenda, and that’s what this report is about. It started with a Presentation from Staff:

People, Parks and Play: New Westminster Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan Update
This term of Council, following on the heels of the opening of təməsew̓txʷ, there has been a lot of work in the background and through several phases of public consultation on a new master plan for parks and recreation in the City. This is the culmination of that work, and sets the path for the next 10 years in recreation and parks investment in the City. It’s an exciting time of looking forward.

As our last Parks Plan from 2008 demonstrates, there has been a lot of change in 18 years, and the recreation needs of the community have evolved. It’s not simply a matter of “we need more of everything”, we have had to shift and adapt to long-term trends in recreation and parks use, driven by shifts in our demographics, to assure what we can offer in our limited 15 square kilometres best meets the needs of our residents.

Much like our Council Strategic Plan, this master plan is structured around clear goals (six defined goals in this case) and the three foundational lenses of Reconciliation, Equity and Inclusion, and Climate Action are used as lenses to define how we achieve those goals. Not surprisingly for a City that has grown in population by about 50% since 2008, out park-space-per-capita has gone down, though most residents still live within a 10 minute walk of an active park, only about half live within a 5-minute walk, and acquisition of new park land, especially in denser areas like the Brow of the Hill where most residents don’t have back yard, is a priority.

But to me the exciting part of this report and Council’s resolution to move forward rapidly on high priority projects is the commitment to the next phase of recreation infrastructure investment following təməsew̓txʷ.
New sports courts Simcoe Park, Grimston and Moody Park, and a new multi-purpose covered outdoor sport court, replacing our aging collection of outdoor lacrosse boxes; major upgrades at Westburnco; commitment to a third sheet of ice to compliment Queens Park Arena and Moody Arena; and commitment a new (2,800 square meters?) multi-purpose community center in the downtown.

The next 5 years are going to be a period of rapid parks and recreation growth in the City, and this plan is the roadmap we need to see that growth succeed.

---

The following items were then approved On Consent:

2026 Parcel Tax Roll Review Panel for Local Area Services
Parcel Taxes are the method through which the City collects money from some landowners to pay for a specific service, based on lots size or frontage as opposed to assessed value. In New Westminster that is limited to funding the BIAs Uptown and Downtown though a tax that applies only to members. As a matter of legal practice, we must review the Parcel Tax Roll every year, and province a venue for owners in the parcel tax area to appeal if they think it shouldn’t apply to them. This report is just outlining that process, and giving public notice that we will formally review the poll in an upcoming Council meeting.
FCM Resolution Amendment – Modernizing Federal Small Business Policy to Support Local Economic Stability and Succession
The way the FCM (our national advocacy body as local governments) managed resolutions is bit different than the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (our local body) and the Unions of BC Municipalities (our Provincial body). After reviewing the resolution we submitted, they are making some recommendations for modification of the resolution that doesn’t change the meaning or nature, just the process of its consideration at FCM. We approve.

Response to Council Motion: Municipal Practices for Allocation of Filming Revenue
There was some discussion in council recently about the “excess revenue” the City collects for filming in the City. Most of the revenue we collect is cost recovery (covering the costs of police attendance, traffic management, engineering support, etc.) but we do make a little but of extra revenue every year that goes into general revenues. This idea was whether some of this could be earmarked for new initiatives, likely through a reserve fund. Staff have looked around the region and found that the way we manage excess revenue is pretty typical region-wide, but will take the idea of earmarking some of the revenues to the ACEDAC.

Westminster Pier Park Westward Expansion- Additional Fee Request from PFS Studio
We effectively sole-sourced this phase of design work for the Pier Park western expansion, because there was a design team we were working with that knew the complexity of the site (building a park on top of a parkade structure!) and had been partnering with us through this work The total in fees now exceeds what were are able to sole-source without Council authorization, so here is staff seeking that authorization. This is not a budget change – the project is on budget, and will be completed this spring!

---

The following items were Removed from consent for discussion:

Budget 2027 Public Opinion Survey Methodology
Every couple of years, we pay for a formal scientific poll of the community as part of our budget consultation process. This is different that the workshops, opportunities to be heard, Facebook (oh, god) comments, and other processes we do, as it is actually a scientifically defensible survey of public opinion on the budget, taxes, and level of service in the community. The last poll in 2025 showed people are generally satisfied with the value they get for their tax dollar in New Westminster and are not in favour of cutting services to keep tax increases down. We will repeat this process in 2026 to survey the community and hopefully use that feedback to frame our discussion about the 2027 budget. Public polling like this, to get reliable results, costs money, but as part of a broader strategy of hearing from the community, it is worth while doing these check-ins every couple of years.

Business Regulations and Licensing (Rental Units) Bylaw Cooling Amendments and Next Steps
I don’t have to remind regular readers about the 2021 heat dome, and the devastating impact it had on our community. I wrote about it here, and after 33 coroner-confirmed direct deaths (and other related to the event), I am still committed to the City doing everything within our power to prevent a repeat. We have already taken many actions, from expanding our heat emergency response efforts, reevaluating how we operate and advertise cooling centres, and working with residential property operators on “one cool room” and other strategies to assure that older and less efficient buildings in the City don’t become death traps during the next major heat event.

We have done a lot of work, and have implemented several “carrots” to support residential property managers to make homes safer. We have struggled with the “sticks” part of that same policy goal. We have already passed a bylaw regulating that landlords cannot arbitrarily ban air conditioners from rental apartments, we are now moving forward with what we think is a pragmatic and defensible position that landlord are required to maintain safe indoor temperatures in at least one living space in a rental unit. We already have laws that require heating to a safe temperature be provided, we are adding to this that beyond a safe minimum temperature, there must be a safe maximum temperature.

Alongside this, and as part of our ongoing Vulnerable Buildings Assessment project, a pilot project is simultaneously being developed to support building owners and tenants to identify, access and implement indoor cooling solutions on a case-by-case basis.

This report brings the first three reading of the Bylaws, and we have some work and consultation to do prior to adoption, then we will have some communications work to do following adoption, but I think this is another example of New Westminster going above and beyond to protect the most vulnerable people in our community, and I’m proud that staff were able to find a bold and pragmatic approach that might just save lives.

Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application: 807-823 Sangster Place and 39 E Eighth Avenue – Application Update
This is a challenging project that has been under development for several years, and has run up against the deadline of June 30 that the City has for implementing our Bill 46-mandated funding structure for DCCs and ACCs. In short, after that date we are no longer able to negotiate Community Amenity Contributions, and instead must charge Development Cost Charges and Amenity Cost Charges to get funding for amenities from developers. This project was developed without the updated DCC and ACC costs included, and the developer was given the option to proceed under the new rules or under the old rules, on the condition that in the latter case all work required be completed in time for Council to provide approval before June 30th. The developer chose that second path. That has resulted in the unusual situation where staff are bringing the project to Council while not recommending approval.

To the biggest point here, the applicant has missed the deadline to provide the information necessary to prepare the Bylaws. As this project is not just a rezoning, but necessitates an amendment of the Official Community Plan, legislations requires significant external agency consultation and public consultation leading to an Public Hearing based on the prepared Bylaws, and now the timelines to get all of that done by June 30th are too tight.

That is a process problem, and what led to Council making the decision to vote against advancing this application, but there are some other problems with the development that can be summed up as it representing an OCP amendment without public amenity contribution sufficient to warrant OCP update. The applicant can re-apply at a future date, but the project will now be subject to the new DCC and ACC regulations.

Planning for the 2026 General Local Elections
Hey! There is an election coming in October! And the City has to run the election for both Council and the School Board, so this report outlines the election plan from the our Corporate Officer. There will be some changed arising out of the post-election summary provided to Council back in, and the only recommendation coming out of that that council did not agree with was moving the date for installing lawn signs forward to the start of the nomination period. Instead lawn signs will be permitted at the start of the 28-day campaign period to align with provincial practice.

And that was Council for March. I cannot believe it is April already. Happy Easter everyone.

Our Council meeting on Monday had a Back-to-School feel after our short summer break. The late august meeting always is a strange one, feels more like getting a few things out of the way before the real works starts in earnest in September, but we actually had a lengthy agenda and lots of good discussion on important issues, so I’m going to split this reporting out into two posts. It all started with a Presentation:

Building Safer Communities Fund Program – At-Risk Youth Update
The Federal Government provided the City a grant through the Building Safer Communities Fund to work with local non-profits and youth to develop a Youth Resilience Strategy, and over the last almost two years staff and partners in the community have been working to make this happen through the New Westminster Youth Hub, Dan’s Diner, the New Westminster Situation Table and preventative programming for middle schools across the City.

There was some good news coming out of this work – youth involvement in crime and gang activity is lower than pre-COVID levels, there are a lot of youth at risk getting support at the key time when they need it, and the better coordination between service providers means fewer cracks for youth to fall though. This report provides a lot of statistics about the number of youth served and the measurable success of this suite of programs.

We now need to move this momentum into a sustainability model – and yeah, that means funding beyond the $1.7 Million offered by the federal government and approved by Council in 2023. We will start now hitting senior governments for the ~$600K/ year in sustainability funding, and worst case scenario, look at City providing some funding in the 2027 budget.

---

We then had a few items of Unfinished Business after the last meeting in July unexpectedly ended early:

Supporting Longstanding Civic Non-Profits through Prioritized and Multi-Year Funding
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS non-profit organizations such as those behind the May Day celebrations and the Hyack Parade have been delivering signature community events in New Westminster for over 50 years, contributing significantly to the city’s cultural identity, civic pride, and tourism economy; and
WHEREAS over the past decade, funding for these legacy events has been dramatically reduced, including a decrease in annual City support for the Hyack Festival Association from $150,000 to just $15,000 per year; and
WHEREAS these long-standing non-profits are now forced to compete for limited grant funding against newly formed organizations, creating barriers to sustainability and threatening the continuity of historic civic traditions;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster direct the Grants Review Committee to prioritize funding for long established non-profit organizations that have demonstrated sustained contributions to civic life and cultural heritage over several decades;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Committee explore the implementation of multi-year funding agreements, for up to three years, to support the financial stability and long-term planning of eligible legacy organizations.

I amended this item to add the following two clauses:

THAT staff be instructed to include a 50% increase in the Community Grant funding envelope for 2026 as part of the 2026 Budget deliberations; and
THAT the City continue to actively advocate to the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport to increase the B.C. Fairs, Festivals and Events Fund and also advocate to the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation to provide increased support to local festival organizations, including arts and business improvement organizations who activate our communities, support cultural exchange and connection, and boost small business prosperity through festivals, fairs and events.

This was a bit of a divisive conversation last meeting, but Council had ( I think) a much better discussion of relative values this meeting. My main emphasis was that over my decade on Council, we have made a conscious shift to get the politics of favoritism out of community grant awards. We have created a system where grant criteria are approved by Council and are then provided to applicants through staff. We then have volunteer members of the community work with staff to review applications and determine how best allocate the funds. As much as possible, we have tried to take Council’s finger off the scale, because successive Councils have felt it was perilous for elected folks to play favorites with different groups in the community through funding, and I stand by that principle.

Directly to the first “be it resolved”: I think what an organization delivers to the community is a more important criteria than how long they have been around. The Hyack Festival Association has done great work for this community, the Hyack parade was great this year, a tonne of people loved the fireworks last weekend, and those volunteers and staff work hard to deliver great events. But so did the Dia de Campo folks who are relatively new grant applicants, delivering something new and exciting to the City, and they should not (in my opinion) have to wait 50 years to get equal access to funding.

And it’s not just me who thinks this. Council did a review of the Community Grant Program last year (it was reported to Council on July 8, 2024 if you want to read the report). This included a community survey, focus groups with grant recipients, an Arts Culture and Economic Development committee review, and more than 600 people in the community taking part in the consultation. The first recommendation was and I quote “evaluate grant applications using a values-based matrix, rather than Council priorities, to remove any potential political component”. Further, the results of that public engagement specifically said the City should continue to provide balanced support for established and emerging organizations. Only 9% of the public felt we should prioritize longstanding organizations through this mechanism. The question was asked, and this motion appears to be diametrically opposed to how the community wants us to allocate grant funds. For these reasons, I could not support that part of the motion.

On the Second “be it resolved”: the City grants program already has a multi-year grant process, with many organizations already applying for three-year terms, others choosing only one year grants, the resolution is moot as the three year grant option already exists, and the program is actually expanding to permit five year terms starting this year.

I added the amendments because in discussing this issue with staff and applicants, I found the issue is that our grant program is over-allocated. Though we have slowly increased our grant amounts over the last decade and are now over $1 Million a year, we had only enough in the budget to support 55% of the requests received. So when a valued community organization doing great work like Hyack received 90% of their requested funding from a program that is only only 55% funded – isn’t about political bias, it’s about an underfunded grant envelope relative to what we expect organizations in our community to deliver. This is why my amendment would ask Council, as part of budget deliberations for 2026, have an option that increases this funding envelope by 50%. And we should take this opportunity to remind senior governments that this is a great investment in community, and they might be able to help us.

In the end, Council did not support the two original clauses, but supported the amendment clauses unanimously.

Review of City’s Speed Hump Installation Policy
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster’s current speed hump policy primarily relies on resident-initiated requests, which may unintentionally favour areas with greater resources or civic engagement capacity;
WHEREAS traffic calming measures, including speed humps, are an important tool for improving road safety and livability—especially near schools, parks, and in high-pedestrian areas;
WHEREAS a more equitable and standardized approach to the installation and design of speed humps would ensure consistency, fairness, and prioritization based on need and data;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to undertake a review of the City’s Speed Hump Installation Policy, with a focus on improving equity in access, standardizing implementation practices, and incorporating data-driven criteria for identifying priority locations, and
report back with findings and recommendations.

The City has a Speed Hump policy that is about 5 year old now. When it was established, it represented regional best practice, and the description in this motion describes exactly how the program was designed: to assure equity in access, standardize the decision making, and be data-driven in prioritizing locations. So we don’t need an all-new program, our existing program meets these criteria the best we know how. That said, any program like this that was rather innovative when we launched it and has been operating for 5 years can benefit from a review to see if we are meeting our established criteria, so I support this motion, as did all of Council.

---

We then did our regular Consent Agenda work, which I will report on next post, so I can skip down to the end of the meeting when we considered a few new Motions form Council:

Ukrainian Sister City Proposal
Submitted by Mayor Johnstone

WHEREAS New Westminster has previously identified Moriguchi, Japan (1963) Quezon City, Philippines (1991) Lijiang, China (2002) and the six communities of the Tŝilhqot’in Nation (2020) as Sister Cities; and
WHEREAS New Westminster has both deep historic ties to the Ukrainian community and a growing population of more recent arrivals from Ukraine, centered around the Holy Eucharist Cathedral and a burgeoning local Ukrainian business community; and
WHEREAS Canada has been resolute with our NATO allies in supporting Ukraine and the Ukrainian people in the face of illegal occupation and horrific destruction wrought by the deadliest war in Europe since WW2; and
WHEREAS since 2022 communities across Canada have sought twinning agreements with communities in Ukraine to show support for the Ukrainian people, and as a means to stronger cooperation between communities to the benefit of both nations;
BE IT RESOLVED that New Westminster work with the local Ukrainian community to identify an appropriate partnership city in Ukraine with whom to develop a Sister City relationship.

This motion, I think speaks for itself. It arose from discussions I had with Rev. Ozorovych at Holy Eucharist Cathedral after a meeting with him and (then-) Member of Parliament Peter Julian. The Reverend spoke about the experiences of many Ukrainian people who are finding refuge in Canada because of the illegal occupation by Russia, and the thousands who are finding home and community connection in New Westminster. We discussed how the City can help folks here feel more welcome and supported, and how we can support them as they try to support their loved ones and friends back in Ukraine. When Rev. Ozorovych mentioned Ukraine’s interest in developing Sister City ties to help forge connections, cultural sharing, and pathways to support, I recognized that the City of New Westminster does not yet have a Sister City relationship with a European city, and I suggested that I would take this idea to Council hoping that the rest of Council would agree this would be beneficial.

The government of the Ukraine has a process they have developed to connect Cities there with appropriate Canadian counterparts, and now that Council has approved this motion, city staff can work with Father Ozorovych to identify a candidate City in Ukraine, and we could draft a formal agreement to be approved by Council at the appropriate time.

London Street Active Transportation Route
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS the City is considering improving parts of the London Street Active Transportation Route and in addition to these options, other active transportation improvements are being proposed along the London Street route.
WHEREAS input will be reviewed following the community engagement and will be used to adjust and refine the proposed improvements along the London Street Route and final designs are expected to be completed in the fall, and construction of the new active transportation route is expected to begin in winter 2025.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back to City Council with London Street Route public engagement results prior to tendering any work.

We had another delegation from folks on London Street irritated by plans to make the London Street Greenway safer for all users. The London Street section of the ongoing Active Transportation Network Plan was planned for some upgrades this year, and through the public consultation we have heard back from an activist group in the neighbourhood who don’t want to lose their free street parking and have some other concerns about how the changes would impact circulation and traffic patterns in the West End. This is why we do public consultation (more on that below) and like many of the other projects in the ATNP, staff put out some draft designs and expected to iterate the design based on feedback prior to building. There usually isn’t a role for Council in that iteration (the Network Plan is approved and is Council policy, this is staff operationalizing that policy). However, as this particular section has garnered an unusual amount of feedback, Council is asking that staff check in to Council with the results of the public consultation prior to tendering any work. Council (even those who oppose bike lanes) agreed unanimously to this approach.

Listening to Residents and Temporarily Halting the London Street Bike Lane Capital Improvements
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS the residents of the West End have started a petition and have asked this Mayor and Council to reconsider the decision made by a previous Mayor and Council in 2022 to implement significant enhancements to the bike lane on London St; and
WHEREAS over 100 residents attending a regular meeting of Council on June 23rd to voice their concern regarding what they perceive to be a severe lack of consultation and communication regarding the London St bike lane project; and
WHEREAS the two options put forward for consideration regarding the London St bike lane project do not necessarily reflect the desired outcomes for a significant number of West End residents;
BE IT RESOLVED that Council direct staff to temporarily pause the London Street bike lane improvement project until an enhanced communications and community consultation plan can be developed and implemented; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the public survey be reopened for at least another 60 days with the addition of a “none of the above” option for residents to express their dislike of either option should they wish to do so; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it become city policy moving forward that all public surveys, where practicable, include a ‘none of the above’ option to allow residents to express their desire to not support any of the options put forward for consideration.

Yes, a second motion on the same topic. My understanding is that staff and Councillors Campbell and Henderson attempted to set up a meeting to amalgamate these into a single motion, but that effort was to no avail.

The first part here is somewhat redundant after Councillor Henderson’s motion, except that it requests a new round of consultation, which at this point I cannot imagine would garner any different results. It is safe to say after months of consultation (and a preliminary extension of consultation earlier in the year) and several delegations to Council that the opponents of any change on London Street have been heard, and the commitment to bring this back to Council with a reporting out on the public engagement so far gives Council the ability to decide next steps when the information is available to them. As this motion was “severed” (each clause was voted upon separately), this first clause was not supported by Council, nor was the one asking for yet another round of consultation, at least until Council has an opportunity to hear the results of this round.

The third clause led to some interesting discussion and but for the presence of the weasel words “when practicable”, I was not keen to support it. For clarity, our Public Consultation teams already include the do-nothing option when it is appropriate. If we are doing public consultation about something “nice to have” like closing roads to hold a Canucks viewing party, then staff include that option – “is this something the City should do?”. The same question is disingenuous when talking about things the City needs to do, like sewer separation and upgrades, adding green infrastructure to new drainage projects, or important road safety upgrades. Even projects like our Urban Reforestation program, the 22nd Street visioning project, or the Massey Theatre upgrades (as three recent examples from Be Heard New West) where there is significant senior government funding and/or the project is aligned with City policies, long-term plans, or commitments that Council has already made to the public, engagement can be helpful in developing program details or how to prioritize different parts of the work, but it is disingenuous to ask “none of the above” when the City is already committed to and vested in the work.

In the end, Council supported this last clause, with an emphasis on the “when practicable”, as it is fairly well aligned with our current practice.

---

That’s long enough for now. I will follow up with a post about the rest of the agenda in the next couple of days.