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.

We had a full slate of delegations, and a presentation of the City’s new logo (which I will write about later) to start off the meeting that had a relatively short agenda.

We started with the following items being moved On Consent:

2024 Annual Water Quality Monitoring
This is our annual reporting out on our water quality sampling program – part of the public health measures that assure a healthy and safe community. We have 15 sampling stations in the city across different parts of our water system, and we tested 1,171 samples in 2024, testing for everything from bacterial presence, chlorine levels, turbidity (“cloudiness”), various metals and other criteria, all based on Health Canada regulations and guidelines. Short news – we are testing every day, and our water always meets the standard for public safety.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 2126 Seventh Avenue (22nd Street SkyTrain Station)
Translink is wrapping up its work at 22nd Street Station, and need a construction noise variance to complete last screen installs during non-train-service hours. This work has been ongoing since 2023 and we have not received any noise complaints, as the crews do their best to limit disruption to the neighbourhood.

Surety Development Bond Pilot Program
This is way Inside Baseball, but when a developer starts a new housing project in the City, they are often required to give the City a pile of money for “security”. As they are expected to do some work to the benefit of the City during development (repairing or upgrading sidewalks adjacent to their property, for example), the city wants to guarantee that work gets done, even if the developer runs out of money, so we get the money or a Letter of Credit up front so no matter what happens, the taxpayer is kept whole. Not surprisingly, this increases the amount of money developers have to borrow or secure upfront, because the need to provide it before they turn a shovel, and that may mean years before they start making money on the properties, especially if they are building affordable or rental housing.

A Surety Bond is a different financial instrument that assures the City is kept hold, but does not hold as much up-front cost for the development community, helping things move forward faster. So we are going to try allowing these as an alternate to the Letter of Credit with a few conditions attached.

---

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

2025 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
This is our First Quarter update on how close we are tracking our budget, both operationally and in our capital program.

In the Capital side, our 5-year Capital budget is $243.6 Million, and we spent or committed about $61M (~25%) of that by the end of Q1 2025. Staff are making a $13.5Million adjustment to the capital plan: $11.6M of which is “carryforward” form last year (money we didn’t get spent on projects budgeted to be paid for last year), $1.1M that will be offset by savings of scope changes on ongoing projects, and $0.8M which will need to be moved forward from future year budgets. Note, this capital budget is inclusive of general capital fund projects (parks, roads, etc.) and Utility capital projects (water, sewer, electrical). This report also includes a long list of capital projects the city is undertaking, with short progress reports on the larger ones. That looks like a 9-page spreadsheet that details the current budget for all of the ~450 capital budget line items, what are on budget or not, what have not been started and what are completed. That’s transparency.

On the operating side, we are projecting to exceed our revenue expectation by about $3 Million, and our operating expenditure is trending a bit below expectation. This means we are on track for a significant surplus, but it is early in the budget year, so let’s not start counting those chickens just yet. We are still short some personnel (which saves us money but keeps us from getting some things done while increasing workplace strain) but also have some collective agreements coming up that will impact our operational costs.

Fourth Street Stairs Project Update and Public Realm Enhancements
The area under the parking ramp at the foot of Fourth Street has been the site of a significant blackberry infestation, and over the last couple of years, a temporary staircase installation to improve access to Front Street. Over the last couple of years (really, since the development of the Front Street Mews), there has been a design developed to improve this city-owned site, including replacing the temporary wood stairs with something more permanent, management of the invasive blackberries, improve drainage, and integration of some public realm improvements to make it a space you might actually want to go spend some time on a sunny day. Several workshops and design discussions went on, and comprehensive consultation with the Downtown BIA. It is hoped this space can become more actively programmed not unlike the pre-COVID “Fridays on Front Holiday Edition” that was a fund evening Christmas market under the shelter of the Parkade. Works is happening right now and will hopefully be done by the Fall (recognizing retaining walls, high slopes and drainage issues may complicate matters and make this a site where timelines may need to be treated as estimates).

Response to Council Motion Referred to the Utility Commission Titled: “Providing Equity in the Delivery of Energy savings Programs for New West Electrical Customers”
This is a response to a motion last year asking the Electrical Utility Commission to better align various incentive programs with those offered by BC Hydro (a motion that failed to recognize this work was already happening at the EUC). The EUC has in turn recommended to Council that an updated MOU with BC Hydro be developed to better clarify the Power Smart / Energy Save New West synergies, and to confirm the partnership approach available for the Solar/Battery incentive program being offered through BC Hydro to New West Electrical Customers.

The good news here is that the Solar/Battery program will be available to interested New West residents, as will the new peak saver and demand response program, once our AMI network is completed.

---

We then had some Motions from Council:

Encouraging the Province of BC to Urgently Provide Additional Mental Health Care Supports
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia has expressed a commitment to supporting individuals suffering from acute drug addiction and serious mental illness; and
WHEREAS mental health and addiction services in British Columbia remain chronically underfunded, despite growing public need; and
WHEREAS a lack of timely and appropriate access to mental health and addiction treatment can result in significant harm to individuals, families, and the broader community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council recognize the urgent need to address the challenges faced by individuals experiencing acute drug addiction and serious mental illness, and continue to formally advocate for the Province of British Columbia to implement comprehensive, evidence based, and adequately funded systems of care that support safety, wellbeing, and long-term recovery;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council call on the Province to define and prioritize the implementation of secure care measures  including, where clinically appropriate and legally justified, involuntary treatment — for individuals whose condition poses a significant risk to themselves or others, a spectrum of publicly funded and culturally appropriate care options with clear safeguards to uphold individual rights, medical oversight, and accountability, and that balance confidentiality with providing information to family members;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council express concern that ongoing underinvestment by successive provincial governments has contributed directly to the widespread lack of access to critical mental health and addiction services across British Columbia;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT Council urge the Province to take emergency-level action to address the provincial mental health and addiction crisis, including consideration of declaring a public health emergency or enacting an equivalent coordinated response to mobilize resources, improve system integration, and protect public safety;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor, on behalf of Council, write to the Premier of British Columbia and relevant Ministers to communicate Council’s position and recommendations.

Note that the strike-through and italics above represent an amendment put forward by Councillor Nakagawa and supported by the majority of Council.

There was a robust discussion around this motion and amendment. I feel it was mostly redundant to work we are already doing at the City, especially as we have been doing active advocacy to the Province on the issue of the need for more health care funding in the areas of addictions and mental health, including motions supported in just the last few months which cover this same ground, and meeting personally with the Minister of Health. Indeed, we recently unveiled a two-phase advocacy plan in Council regarding health care and housing needs, and the mover of this motion has not always been supportive of this advocacy, so I’m glad to once again see a change of heart.

There was a challenge for me in the original motion about “prioritizing” involuntary care, and Council supported the “spectrum of care” as described in the amendment. In short the current involuntary mental health treatment program in BC already means 20,000 people are apprehended every year under the Mental Health Act. At the same time, we have inadequate resources for the voluntary care systems for those seeking help. I think that is where we need to “prioritize” our resources so people who want help can get it, reducing the chances of them ending up in a situation where they need to be incarcerated under the Mental Health Act. It simply shouldn’t take that long to get care – people shouldn’t need to become a danger to themselves or others to get care, and our priorities should not force that situation, in my opinion.

Again, happy to go along with Council’s wish here, though I note that we have already sent many letters to the Ministers and Premier reflecting this Council’s position on the issue, most recently following the February 24th motion linked to above. Meanwhile, Staff-to-staff collaboration has ramped up, and we are working with Fraser Health and BC housing on the Prevention, Support and Transition Services Plan and Supportive Housing and Wrap-Around Services Plan that this Council approved on February that outlined the short-and long term advocacy and partnership needs Identified by the City.

The advocacy doesn’t stop, nor does the work and collaboration.

Sikh Heritage Month
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Sikh Heritage Month, celebrated each April, recognizes the long-standing contributions of Sikh Canadians, who have enriched Canada’s social, cultural, and economic life since their arrival in 1906; and
WHEREAS the values central to Sikhism—service, equality, and compassion—continue to inspire community involvement, leadership, and charitable efforts across New Westminster; and
WHEREAS the City of New Westminster is committed to celebrating and supporting the diverse cultural and faith communities that shape its civic identity and strengthen its inclusive, welcoming spirit;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to add Sikh Heritage Month in April to the City of New Westminster’s official observances calendar;
AND FURTHER THAT the City of New Westminster acknowledge Sikh Heritage Month with an annual proclamation in line with other official City observances.

Council was quick to support this resolution, for all the right reasons.

Preserving and Enhancing Vibrant Streetscapes with Local Businesses
Submitted by Councillor Henderson
WHEREAS the current economic instability is applying financial pressure on small businesses across our communities; and
WHEREAS local governments have an opportunity to identify zoning, development, and other policies that may support affordability for businesses; and
WHEREAS the City will be updating the Economic Development Plan in 2025; and
WHEREAS the Province has greater jurisdictional power to decrease the economic pressures on small businesses through a variety of policy changes;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff explore the impacts of restricting extended health services as a permitted use at ground level through retail zoning updates; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff report back on opportunities to remove barriers for property owners interested in subdividing commercial units through zoning bylaws and building regulations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff explore creating a commercial tenant relocation policy for small businesses (in BC, defined as businesses that have fewer than 50 employees) that could include principles like relocation support and/or first right of refusal at a comparable lease rate or with a reasonable increase; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City send a letter to the Minister of Finance and CC the Minister of Municipal Governments and Rural Communities, the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, and the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation advocating that a Property Assessment Review be expedited; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City send a letter to the Minister of Finance and CC the Minister of Municipal Governments and Rural Communities, the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, and the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation advocating for WorkBC programs offered to support the development of new businesses be extended to offer continued operational support to small businesses; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that given the economic instability small businesses are facing, that the City send a letter to the Minister of Finance and CC the Minister of Municipal Governments and Rural Communities, the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs, and the Minister of Jobs, Economic Development and Innovation asking that the Province pilot a program to temporarily regulate commercial rent increases through a rent cap to ensure sustainability over this period of extreme instability and potential recession.

There were a few amendments to this motion as well, with a couple of clauses referred to the Arts, Culture, and Economic Development Advisory Committee, and a clause added asking Council to try to keep taxes for businesses as low as possible, which reflects our current practice (again, this blog is not an official record, and my notes were light here, so go to the minutes or the video to get the detail for yourself!).

Overall, this is a comprehensive list of actions and advocacy to better support a local and small business against some of the challenges they are facing in an uncertain and sometimes predatory commercial property market. There are some things the city can (probably?) do to put our finger on the scale of what types of businesses set up on your favorite commercial street, but other things will require Provincial intervention, and advocacy at UBCM is our next chance to take the case to those who hold the legislative strings. We continue to work with the BIAs. Chamber, and the new Sapperton Business Collective on this, and take our lead on areas of advocacy from the small businesses that you value in the community.

As I said above, the advocacy doesn’t stop, nor does the work and collaboration.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

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

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

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

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

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

---

And this single item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

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

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

---

We then had two Motions from Council to debate:

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

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

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

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

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

Advocacy for Increased Investment in Public Transit
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

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

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

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

---

Finally, we adopted a couple of Bylaws:

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

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

Another exciting Monday Night in New Westminster Council Chambers! We managed to get through a pretty deep agenda fairly quickly, starting with moving these items On Consent:

Development Cost Charges Expenditure Bylaw No. 8513
DCCs are money collected from developments in the City to pay for the growth proportion of infrastructure upgrades and replacements. This is the primary and regulated way development is charged its “fair share” of infrastructure costs. The City has multiple separate DCC accounts for water, sanitary and storm sewers, and parkland acquisition. For technical reasons related to how DCCs must be directly costed to identified projects, we run separate DCC accounts for Queensborough and the mainland related to the differing costs between developing utilities in Queensborough and the mainland.

In order for the City to apply accumulated DCC funds to projects, we first have to identify those projects through our annual Capital Plan, then we need to pass a Bylaw permitting the funds from the DCC reserves to be applied. This is that Bylaw.

By this Bylaw, we plan to apply $1.53M from the existing DCCs to our capital plan for 2025. Most of this is for the ongoing mainland sewer separation/upgrade projects and related water service upgrades, and for debt payments we are still making on the Pier Park purchase.

Proposed Delegation of Select Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Requests
We have been processing a lot of Construction Noise Bylaw Exemptions, and the way we currently process them is a bit onerous for staff. We had 23 applications come to Council in 2024, and all 23 were approved unanimously by Council, indicating that the screening method Staff is using to get these in front of Council is very well aligned with Council’s mindset on these. It is also noted that the vast majority of these applications are senior government projects over which we have limited regulatory recourse, and that we are somewhat disconnected from regional normal here, as our neighboring municipalities permit much more staff delegation of these routine requests. This raises the question of whether the effort and delay to get them in front of Council is needed.

So staff are recommending we shift to something more aligned with best practice. They are not suggesting changing the rules about when an application is deemed appropriate, and all applications for private development will still go through Council, but staff will screen senior government applications and only bring ones of specific concern or deemed questionable to Council. This should take something like 75% of applications off the Council agenda, saving everyone time and money. To make this happen, staff will need to bring Council an amended Bylaw, and Council asked staff to do so.

Next Generation 911 Implementation and Operation Contract
9-1-1 service is moving into the modern era, and this is a much more complicated process than you might anticipate. Moving from a land-line system you can call into with your cell phone, they are moving to an Internet Protocol model which can provide enhanced services from text messages to sending digital media (photo or video), and enhanced locational data.

This is a mandate of CRTC, and the contract is being administered by Metro Vancouver (proving, once again, that Metro Vancouver is not a “sewer company” as its vocal detractors like to say, but is a regional government constituted under the Local Government Act, but I digress…). The City is required to enter this contract, as we need have a common data sharing understanding and our data connections need to be compliant. The City has received an initial grant from UBCM to help with this integration, and is applying for more as this is not a costless exercise.

Alas, one thing not up for negotiation is the contract with a single multinational telecom company to operate our country’s primary emergency communications infrastructure. That decision was made in Ottawa.

---

We then considered the following items that were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Policy on Routine Release of Closed Council
There are some discussions and decisions we make at Council that can or must be discussed in Closed – that is strictly regulated, and Council acts on advice of the Corporate Officer or (if needed) the City Solicitor. Council does not decide what is in Closed – the law does. However, there is no such regulation about when items are released from Closed, and we have never developed a formal policy to guide the release of decisions made in camera when it is appropriate to do so, rather relying on an ad-hoc process.

The practical reality is that most decisions made in Closed are either never released because Section 90 of the Community Charter does not permit their release (such as personnel files, legal advice, or items regulated by FOIPPA or other senior government regulations), or are defacto released when said decision hits the budget (such as negotiations over land purchase) or operational reports (such as appointing people to Advisory Committees). There is a third category of things that might be discussed in Closed under Section 90 that never go anywhere – such as a land purchase the City decides not to make, or a confidentiality issue that no longer exists for example.

Up to now, we have not had a formal policy or process for Staff to determine to determine if these third type should really be released, or if there are FOIPPA or other statutory issues preventing their release. This does not make us unique in the region or province, most Municipalities larger than us (Vancouver, Surrey) have a process like this while most smaller than us (Port Coquitlam, Port Moody) do not, reflecting perhaps the resource requirements to exercise this process. Fortunately our recently approved budget included adding a staff member in Legislative Services to help us manage records and files, and it is anticipated they can administer a policy here.

Report Back on Community Advisory Assembly Recommendations on Belonging and Connecting
The Community Advisory assembly put a lot of recommendations in front of Council in their year of work, some were direction Council and staff were asking of the Assembly, some they were asked to provide more general advice over how the City can achieve its larger goals. This second category really drew out the creativity and collaboration of the assembly, and the ideas were wide-ranging. When addressing the concept of community belonging, they came with a firehose of ideas that they presented to Council last year. It took some time for staff to go through them and determine how best to proceed with the feedback. Some of the items were already being worked on, and the assembly’s advice demonstrated to staff that they were on the right track. A small number were things the City couldn’t practically or legally do, or were probably best done by other entities. The more interesting group were some new ideas that staff is now reporting back on practicality and potential.

This report includes details of 11 such initiatives, from an enhanced Busking program to an enhanced Grants program and reviewing our facilities rental programs to better support community partners, most of them in progress. With Council’s endorsement, staff will continue to further this work, and if additional budget or staff capacity is required, we will see enhancement requests in our budget process.

Council added two instructions to Staff rising from this, the first to advocate to the Provincial government to restore festival-supporting funds, and a second to expand the scope of the ongoing feasibility study on an all-weather field in Queensborough to include a track.

Response to Notice of Motion: Lower Mainland Local Government Association Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
Back in September this motion was brought by Councillor Nakagawa and unanimously supported by Council, with the idea that the lobbying activities that members of Council take part in should be made transparent. We publicly report on the resolutions we take to Lower Mainland LGA and UBCM, but how we vote on them is not made transparent. As most of the vote at these events are by raised hands in a crowded room, there is no current way to track this. However, electronic voting measures do exist, and are used in some of these events to assure accuracy of result in tight votes, and those may be adapted to keep a record of recorded votes to be tabulated and reported out on later.

This should be an interesting debate at Lower Mainland LGA – not every member of the organization is as committed to transparency as we might like and the extra cost and hassle of creating this transparency might be too much for those members.

Response to Notice of Motion: Regulating Vape Shops
Councillor Henderson brought this motion forward asking that the Province do a better job regulating the sale of vape products and e-cigarettes, in a similar model to alcohol and cannabis, recognizing that any reasonable analysis shows vape products are more harmful to health than cannabis, though the harm is much less that alcohol. I suspect that the Lower Mainland LGA members will pass this with little debate.

Response to Referral: Costs and Logistical Needs to Convene Additional Council Meetings at Queensborough Community Centre
Back in November when we were setting our Council schedule for 2025, Councillor Henderson asked if we could or should do more than one at Queensborough. Council decided a report back on costs and challenges was appropriate, and this is that report. The marginal cost of holding the meeting in Queensborough instead of City Hall is at least $10,000, as there are some significant A/V and site setup costs that are outside of regular costs, and this does not include the extra staff time to do the actual work of moving everything to the QCC, and moving it all back at the end of the night.

Still, we usually get a good turnout in Queensborough, and folks in the community appreciate the gesture that Council makes the trip over there. Staff ar recommending we augment our usual late-September trip to the QCC with another one in early April, and Council agreed.

---

We then addressed a couple of Motions from Council:

Supporting Advocacy Efforts of BC Urban Mayors’ Caucus
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the ongoing challenges of mental health, substance use, homelessness, public safety, and community well-being have become urgent priorities for communities across British Columbia, and;
WHEREAS local governments have a critical role in addressing these challenges and ensuring the well-being of residents, particularly in the areas of substance use treatment, recovery supports, sheltering, and community safety;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor continue to advocate to the provincial government the following:
a. Engagement with Local Governments: That the Ministry of Health engage directly with local governments to assess the need for substance use harm reduction, treatment and supports in each community, and to improve local-government involvement in the creation of community-specific mental health supports that are culturally safe and trauma-informed.
b. Expansion of Detox and Recovery Services: That the Ministry of Health immediately expand access to detox beds, sobering beds, and stabilizing beds in every community in British Columbia, ensuring that people in need of urgent care have timely access to appropriate facilities.
c. Provincial Recovery Communities: That the Ministry of Health increase provincially-funded recovery resources, and invest in a comprehensive range of evidence-based programs including recovery, OAT, withdrawal management and others that support individuals seeking long-term solutions to addiction and substance use disorders.
d. Shelter and Housing Standards: That the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, in collaboration with relevant colleagues, establish shelter unit minimums for each community in British Columbia, and set minimum care and operational standards for sheltering and supportive housing facilities, considering the impact on neighbourhoods and local communities.
e. Reforming BC Housing: That the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs implement reforms to BC Housing, including providing BC Housing with a new mandate to work urgently and proactively with municipalities, and establishing BC Housing as the leading agency responsible for sheltering and supportive housing solutions in the province.
f. Support for Community Safety Plans: That the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, in collaboration with the Ministry of State for Community Safety, create funding and support for local governments developing or implementing community safety and well-being plans.
g. Provincial Urban Safety Improvement That the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Ministry of State for Community Safety create a provincial urban downtown safety improvement plan, addressing the unique challenges faced by urban centers.
h. Bail Reform and Court Efficiency: That the Attorney General act on bail reform, and immediately increase funding for provincial court services to enhance the speed and efficiency in which violent and repeat offenders are processed through the court system.
i. Municipal Infrastructure Funding: That the Ministry of Infrastructure to collaborate with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, and the Minister Ministry of Finance to establish a permanent and predictable municipal infrastructure funding program that supports the development and maintenance of essential infrastructure in communities across BC.
j. Collaboration on Social Issues: That the Ministries of Health, Social Development and Poverty Reduction, Housing and Municipal Affairs, and Solicitor General to work collaboratively on the complex issues of poverty, encampments, community well-being, food security, mental health and addictions crises, and street disorder by establishing a roundtable, working group, or committee to address these challenges holistically and effectively.
k. Expansion of Mental Health Response Programs: That the Ministry of Health expand the PACT/CLCR programs and advance civilian-led mental health response initiatives across British Columbia to ensure timely, effective, and compassionate responses to mental health crises.
l. Cannabis Revenue Sharing: That the Ministry of Finance explore cannabis revenue sharing programs with local governments, ensuring that municipalities benefit from the revenue generated by cannabis sales to reinvest in local services and programs.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor share the content of this motion with the provincial government, including relevant ministers, with the request for prompt action on these critical issues affecting communities across British Columbia.

(note: We went through some edits of the language of this motion multiple amendments, I think I got them all here based on my notes, but this is a good time to remind you this is my blog and not an official record, and we can wait until the minutes come out to see exactly what the result was, but I think I am close)

This list of advocacy items was cut-and paste from a letter the BC Urban Mayors Caucus sent to the Premier prior to the Mandate Letters going out to Cabinet, and that slightly clunky approach required us to edit on the fly in Council to make the advocacy points make sense post-Mandate letter. I guess I should be glad that a member of Council who repeatedly insisted that housing and health care are 100% Provincial issues and we should stay in our lane now realizes “local governments have a critical role in addressing these challenges”. Especially after last meeting, when the many advocacy action of the Crises Response Pilot project (eerily familiar here) were opposed by the Councillor moving this motion today.

But today is a new day, and the good news is that we now have unanimity of Council that housing and shelter are critical needs in the community, that the City has a critical role in addressing homelessness, mental health and substance use challenges in our City. So I’ll take that as a win. I think it is important that we speak as one voice on this, and over the last few months staff and council have worked very well to develop a clear vision for our Crises Response work, and I think the best way to assure that vision is realized is if we have a unified voice to the Provincial government on what the collective will of the community is. I will take the items above with me to Victoria next week as I received and invitation from the Minister of Finance to attend the Budget Speech and already have meetings with a number of Cabinet Ministers lined up while I am over there.

Consolidation of Public Compensation for Council Members
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS it has been reported that select Mayors in the Metro Vancouver area can earn as much as the Prime Minister of Canada and significantly more than the Premier of British Columbia on an annual basis;
WHEREAS a large portion of income for a select group of Metro Vancouver elected officials includes work that is performed for other agencies, organizations and governing bodies funded by municipal taxpayers;
WHEREAS a significant portion of the additional income and payments made to Metro Vancouver elected officials is for work performed during regular business hours.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster prepare a comprehensive annual financial report (starting in the 2024 calendar year) that details the total compensation received by Council members who serve on regional or provincial/national organizations, including but not limited to EComm911, Municipal Finance Authority, TransLink, and Metro Vancouver, Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), Federation of
Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and that this report be made accessible to the public; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the annual financial report provides a complete itemization of each Council member’s base salary and benefits, as well as per diems, stipends, allowances, retainers, expense reimbursements, and any other compensation associated with their roles.

I have no problem with this as a concept, noting that all payments from organization paid by taxpayers (or ratepayers, in the case of utilities) is publicly disclosed, though the effort to cobble all of this together for 7 members of Council every year when each member serves various roles might be resource intensive, when in the end we’ll just have another report of already-publicly-available information that few people will read except those who revel in the name-and-shame aspect of the very idea that elected officials get paid. Anyway, Council supported it, and we’ll see where this goes.

Just for fun, I used the Google to find my public disclosures from last year:
City of New Westminster: $149,591 (salary) and $17,808 (expenses)
Metro Vancouver: $28,350 (remuneration)
TransLink: $21,440 (remuneration) and $1,177 (expenses)
Municipal Finance Authority: $898 (remuneration)

---

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (805 Boyd Street) No. 8411, 2025
This Bylaw that expands the variety of retail and service businesses that can operate at Queensborough Landing was adopted by Council.

Mobile Food Vending Licence Bylaw No. 7850, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8498, 2025
This Bylaw that expands opportunities for Food Trucks in the city was Adopted by Council.

Shark Fin Regulation Bylaw No. 7564, 2012, Repeal Bylaw No. 8511, 2025
This Bylaw that repeals a bylaw made redundant by our new Business Licensing Bylaw was adopted by Council.

---

Finally, in a bit of New Business:

Zoning Amendment Regarding Mini Storage
This was a motion brought by staff to reduce the number of zones in the City where Mini Storage would be permitted as-of-right. In effect, it would require that anyone wanting to put a new mini-storage business on a lot with one of three zoning designations (M-1, M-5 and CM-1) would now have to apply for a rezoning, not just a development permit. This would give Council more control over where minis-storages are located.

This motion does not make that change, but askes staff to prepare a Rezoning Bylaw that would make that change. Council voted to support them doing that work, though a number of people on Council raised concerns or points that will no doubt be explored further as the Bylaw is developed and as that zoning bylaw comes back to Council.

---

And with a few announcements, that brought us to the end of another exciting Monday Night in New West Council