Council – Jan 9, 2017

We got right back to it at Council this week. After a rather eventful month off, there was much to discuss, and a full Agenda!


The following Agenda items were passed on Consent:

Festival Grant Recommendations
Our Festival Grant Committee did a great job while making some difficult decisions this year, given very limited resources to work with. We have lots of requests for festival support in the City ($306,000 this year), and since we adopted a new program of providing three-year funding certainty to help some festivals plan forward more effectively, much of the allowable budget (about $190,000 of the $225,000 budget) is eaten up by these multi-year commitments, leaving little room for newer events. This is not an ideal situation, as arguably it is the new events that require the most support, where established and proven programs have better access to sponsorship and other supports to maintain their events. I think we need, once again, to have a re-evaluation of how the longer-term granting process operates, and as I am now, as of February 2017, on the Festival Grant Committee, I guess that will be my job!

The good news is that the committee recommended (and Council Agreed) funding $235,000 worth of festival events, which is an increase of $10,000 over our budgeted $225,000. 10 events were already committed through multi-year grants or early grants that council already agreed to in the previous few months. Five more events were funded for the first time in 2017, all of them for significantly less than they requested.

Conceptual Design for the Connection between Waterfront Parks
As part of our new Waterfront RiverFront strategy, a seamless connection for pedestrians and cyclists from Queensborough to Coquitlam along the river is a major goal of the City and part of our Master Transportation Plan. The most challenging section right now is the connection between Westminster Pier Park and Sapperton Landing Park. During the summer closures of Front Street, it really demonstrated to the community how useful and fun that connection can be.

We don’t own all of the land we need to make this happen, and some significant engineering challenges exist, but the timing right now with improved connections along the Brunette River and upcoming work to replace the Pattullo Bridge footings, it is a good time to make sure we have clear vision and some conceptual designs in place for this vital connection.

New Street in Queensborough: Endorsement of Proposed Name
We have a process, or more a policy, in selecting names for new streets. “Mabel” is a name relevant to the community of Queensborough, where the new road is being designated. My only question is why we chose the first name of a woman when we name the street after her, but the last name of a male…

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7893, 2017 (Housekeeping Bylaw): Bylaw to make Minor Updates/Corrections to Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001 – Bylaw for First and Second Readings
This is a “housekeeping’ change to our Zoning Bylaw to address three separate and unrelated changes. One just updates the list of Liquor Primary operators in the City, one formalizes the allowance for offering animal daycare at animal grooming businesses, and one adds childcare as an allowable activity at schools. Nothing controversial here, but the Bylaw needs to be updated through a public process to make these changes.

612 – 618 Brantford Street: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7876, 2017, Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw No.7886, 2017 and Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 7885, 2017 for First and Second Readings
These are the First readings for a OCP amendment and HRA to support the building of a family-friendly 6-story apartment building and preserve a neighbouring heritage house in the Uptown neighbourhood. This will be going to a Public Hearing, so I’ll hold my comments until them.

Electric Utility Commission – Recruitment
Our Electrical Utility is overseen by a Utility Commission. Council hires them, and they report to us, but the commission is responsible for creating strategic plans and overseeing operations of the Utility. We have now assigned two new Commissioners as per the Bylaw.

520 Carnarvon Street: Proposed Heritage Revitalization and Heritage Designation – Preliminary Report
There is a little house on Carnarvon Street downtown surrounded by commercial buildings that has some Heritage Value. The owners want to keep it, but want to make some alterations to make it more functional while adding permanent heritage protection to it. This is the beginning of a process that will be going to public consultation.


The following agenda items were Reports for Action.

Update on Draft 2017 – 2021 Financial Plan – General Fund
Our budget process is ongoing. We are currently putting together the General fund numbers to prepare for some public consultation. In this report, we are going over (again) some of the capital project plans for the coming year. This includes money we are taking from reserves for various projects, money we are borrowing for others. None of these are new projects, some are ongoing maintenance projects (like the City’s annual $3M+ paving budget), and some are single projects that have been part of our long-term capital planning, but we are actually going to spend money on in 2017 (like the Library website upgrade).

I like to note that we are spending more now than ever on sidewalks and have an aggressive plan to install curb cuts to improve accessibility and improve the conditions of sidewalks across the City, but it still only represents 1/7th of what we spend on asphalt annually. We should always remember that, contrary to what most think, pedestrians of the City are, through their taxes, subsidizing the drivers.

These reports will be going to public consultation, if you have concerns about any of these projects or priorities, let us know!

412 Third Street (Queen’s Park): Heritage Alteration Permit for Demolition
This request is to allow the demolition of a house in Queens Park during the Heritage Control Period. The house is old enough to qualify as “heritage”, but was also gutted by a fire before the Heritage Control Period began.

I agreed to allowing this demolition because the report made clear that almost all heritage elements of the building had been removed in earlier renovations, and the balance of remaining heritage elements subsequently burned in the fire. If we ask for protection here, restoration will be very expensive, and will necessarily require reproduction of heritage elements, which is not ideal conservation. As the eventual replacement house will require a Heritage Alteration Permit, it will need to be built to meet guidelines that respect the heritage value of the property and the neighbourhood, within both the letter and the spirit of the conservation area.

705 and 709 Cumberland Street: Update and Removal from the City’s Heritage Register
This property was provided the benefit of a subdivision and increased density in exchange for restoration and permanent protection of the heritage home on the property. However, during renovation the heritage home was effectively destroyed. Having not received the benefit of heritage conservation, council removed the benefit the homeowner received, that being the subdivision and density increase. Not a great solution for the homeowner or the City, but there were some confounding factors here that Council had to consider, and I think we took the right path here.

Queen’s Park Arenex
We received a report from the Fire Chief and Director of Parks and Recreation on the Arenex collapse. I am tempted to say we got lucky, but the reality is that our staff acted quickly and professionally at the first sign of trouble, and in the few hours between noticing the problem and the eventual collapse, all the right decisions were made to keep public and the staff safe, and to reduce the impact of the building failure.

Staff have in the subsequent three weeks, worked hard to find temporary and middle-term contingency plans to help the programs that were housed at the Arenex maintain as much continuity as possible. This was not an easy task, as the three weeks over the holidays are not a great time to try to make complex agreements with other organizations, as pretty much half of the planet is on vacation. The solutions are not always ideal, but our staff did as much as they could, and most programs have been accommodated.

Fortunately, we have insurance for the replacement value of the building, and most of the equipment inside was not in the collapsed part of the building, so it was almost all salvaged and stored securely offsite. We have some decisions to make in the next few months about middle-term contingency plans for the programs that the Arenex hosted, while we plan for eventual replacement. We simply don’t know what that eventual replacement will look like, as that is an entire different discussion which will include our Insurance company and users of the facility. More to come.


The following items were Removed from Consent for some discussion:

Capture Photography Festival Public Art Projects
New Westminster is taking part in this regional festival and Public Art initiative. The plan is to take two large, blank walls in the city (one Downtown, one uptown) and apply a large original photographic work to each. They will be there for 1-5 years, based on how they weather. This is part of and funded out of our Public Art program, and paid for our of our Public Art fund. Look for the pieces being installed in April.

Building Permit Fee Reduction Incentive Removal
Our incentive program to encourage the building of dedicated rental buildings in the city has been very successful. After more than a decade without new rental stock coming on line (in a City where ~45% of the population rents, where vacancies are in the 1% range, and rents are going up at an unsustainable rate), we have more than 1,000 rental units now under construction, and a few hundred more planned. However, this part of the incentive program is not particularly attractive to developers (the savings are tiny compared to development and construction costs), and complicates our permitting process more than it is probably worth. Staff are suggesting this one small part of our incentive program be discontinued, which Council supported.

New Westminster Urban Solar Garden Pilot Project
This project will operate under our Electrical Utility and will operate on a model that has worked well in several Cities, including Nelson, BC. The idea is that citizens can purchase a solar panel which is installed as part of a “farm”, and the owner gets the benefit of the electricity produced in the form of having those kWH removed from your electrical ill. With some efficiencies of operations related to having a “farm” of panels instead of having panels all over the place (on the roofs of individual houses), the pay-back time looks to be about 20 years, based on current electrical rates.

An interesting idea, and the City will commit to setting up the farm as soon as we have commitments from the community to purchase 75% of the panels.


After some pretty entertaining presentations and open delegations featuring not one, but two separate references to Mongolia, and where we had a discussion about snow removal in the City, we moved onto the usual Bylaws shuffle:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 7893, 2017 (Housekeeping Bylaw): Bylaw to make Minor Updates/Corrections to Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001
These “housekeeping” changes to the Zoning Bylaw, discussed above, was given two readings. This will go to Public Hearing on January 30, 2017. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

612 – 618 Brantford Street: Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 7876, 2017
Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw No. 7886, 2017
Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 7885, 2017

These Bylaws to support the 6-story apartment building in Uptown, mentioned above, was given two readings, and will go to Public Hearing on January 30, 2017. C’mon out and tell us what you think.

Community Heritage Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 7897, 2016
This Bylaw changing the Terms of Reference for membership on the City’s Heritage Commission as discussed at the December 5th 2016 Council Meeting was Adopted. It is now the Law of the Land.

And that brought our meeting to an end, welcome to 2017!

Snowpocalypse?

I’m back from vacation, ~three weeks in a place far away from the snow. It started snowing here a week before I left, so I was fully expecting it to be long gone by my return – how often does snow stay on the ground for more than a few days in New West?

While I was sweating in tropical heat, my occasional checks with social media back home kept telling me the snow wasn’t stopping. Or if it did stop, it did so just long enough for the ice to harden up and make the next layer of snow more treacherous. From afar, it appeared there was a constant deterioration of conditions for drivers and pedestrians over the last three weeks.

Sure enough, criticisms of the situation became a theme in Facebook. People should shovel sooner, no salt or shovels are available anywhere, Translink schedules are useless, drivers need to slow down and buy snow tires, the City hasn’t done enough to make roads/sidewalks/sidewalks. On other social media (especially Instagram) I read more understanding of the conditions, encouragement to help your neighbour, and pics of once-in-a-lifetime sledding adventures. Something about Facebook…

It is worth noting this started with a pretty significant forecast failure. The first snow was on December 5, which was forecast to be morning flurries shifting to rain by noon, then a temperature drop in the evening. Instead, the snow started early in the morning and didn’t stop for 6 hours. I remember it well, as I did a quick light walk shovel before Council, then had to shovel again much more when I got home at 10 at night. A bit of an inconvenience, but nothing unusual for my 50 feet of sidewalk. By the next morning, I was already back out chipping ice. Something about the weather cycle led to really quick ice accumulation.

For City crews, this type of forecast miss is a much larger problem, because it requires an unexpected and complete change in approach. If Environment Canada tells you it is going to rain hard for 6 hours, there is no point going out and applying deicing, as it will be washed away before it can be effective. At some point, once the forecast proves to be going wrong, you need to re-equip and change approach, which costs you manhours, and impacts response time. You are already behind, and you haven’t even started.

In short, managing snow removal on a city-wide scale is a technical challenge, and for a City like New Westminster, where we usually only get one dusting a year, it is an equipment challenge. This is another good time to point out that New Westminster has the highest percentage of its land base covered by roads of any City in British Columbia, and an unusual amount of those roads are on steep hills. We are prepared to deal with a “typical” snow situation, and with situations like freezing rain forecasts, but a solid three weeks of new snow, partial melt, re-freeze, new snow, repeat, clearly challenges our resources.

And despite the prevailing narrative on Facebook, New West turned out to be doing a pretty good job compared to most other Lower Mainland communities dealing with the issue. Our works crews are out there, clearing priority routes, dealing with complaints as best they can, and prioritizing their resources with public safety their top priority. They were busting double shifts while I was on a beach in Sri Lanka and many others were warming their toes by the fire with their family. So if you have a chance to thank a Muni worker today, please do so!

Screenshot

That’s not to say everything is perfect in New West, and now a good 4 weeks in, there are still some sub-optimal conditions out there, especially for pedestrians. This is understandable for a few days in a snow emergency, but for it to go on for a month is a real hardship for many people. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to have a serious mobility issue right now, and to have spent the last 4 weeks struggling to get around town and even do basic shopping tasks.

So what can we do better?

I’m sure there will be a discussion at Council about this on Monday, and I expect we will ask Staff to report about successes, issues, and failures. We can discuss the budget implications of any expanded response, and I want to put that in context right up front: You may not notice (say) a half-million dollars in expanded snow removal and ice management. Salt is expensive when you buy it by the tonne, especially in times of shortage. The trucks that distribute it are expensive, as is specialty equipment to clean sidewalks or park paths. By the nature of the unexpected timing of response, much of the work is overtime, at night, and on holidays. I’m generally curmudgeonly, but not such a Scrooge that I don’t think workers deserve more pay when they are taken away from their families at Christmas. You will, however, notice that half million dollars as a .8% tax increase. There is no cost recovery on snow removal, and fining people for not shoveling their walks will not come close to providing that kind of revenue.

So I think a more important discussion to have is how to prioritize the resources we have (or expanded resources we need), and how to best address each priority?

Fundamentally, we are talking transportation here, so the City’s Master Transportation Plan should be the basis for setting priorities. There is no clearer demonstration or the declared priorities than this one on Page 48:
heirarchy

Pedestrians (including those with mobility impairments) > cyclists > transit users > private vehicles. How do we address each of these?

Pedestrians: Short version, many are not feeling like they are top priority right now. Roads are cleared by a variety of City equipment by City crews working through the night when necessary, all at taxpayers expense (interesting side-point, I’ll have to check if we get extra money from TransLink for snow maintenance on MRN routes). For sidewalks, we rely on residents, businesses, and other building owners to clean the sidewalks adjacent to their property, with predictably unreliable results. I don’t know how to spin that into making it sound like pedestrians are a priority.

This system is not unusual in the Lower Mainland. Almost every municipality has a similar clear-your-own-sidewalk Bylaw (Richmond a notable exception). It is probably obvious why this approach is taken – we have 250+ kilometers of sidewalks, and employing enough people to clear them all in any kind of reasonable time (say, before summer starts) would be prohibitively expensive. If you can get 30,000 property owners to do a little bit each, well, many hands make light work.

Of course, this system only works if those “volunteers” actually do the work. Unfortunately it takes a depressingly small amount of non-compliance to make sidewalks less safe, especially for vulnerable users, and we have more than just a small amount of non-compliance. Which bring us to the topic of Bylaw enforcement.

I feel the need to repeat this so Facebook can hear: we cannot pay for snow clearing with fines. It costs a City a lot of money to issue and enforce a ticket, and fines (ours are $80, less if you pay sooner, more if you default) barely cover that cost. The idea that someone can just drive around in a car, snap a photo, and send a ticket in the mail is fanciful. Our justice system and the Local Government Act are just not structured to allow that (probably for good reason – you probably don’t want your local government given this power).

However, I think we can do a better job using Community Based Social Marketing techniques. There is a basic understanding that for social initiatives such as shoveling the public space near your home, some people (~10%) will do it automatically out of an abundance of civic duty, most (~80%) will do it if they are properly educated about the benefits and feel social pressure from their neighbours, and some (~10%) need to be threatened into doing something by Bylaw enforcement. I would suggest our non-compliance rate indicates more education and social pressure is needed before we ramp up Bylaws.

There is another aspect to this issue when we rely on public participation, and that is the unpredictability of snow itself. People need to prepare ahead of time, and once the situation hits, shovels and salt are invariably sold out. People, in general, are terrible planners (see comments below about snow tires). I don’t know how to address that, as in a situation like this year, even the City ran into resourcing issues.

A bigger problem is the parts of the pedestrian realm that aren’t clearly covered by the Bylaw. I snapped a couple of photos while riding my bike to a meeting today:

A common issue: Sidewalks cleared by homeowners cross un-plowed alleys.
A common issue: Sidewalks cleared by homeowners cross un-plowed alleys.
And of course, a shovelled sidewalk does not good with an unplowed crosswalk.
And of course, a shovelled sidewalk does not good with an unplowed crosswalk.

Who is responsible for these spaces? I’m not sure the Bylaw is clear, and unfortunately, these are important links in our pedestrian network that make sidewalks inaccessible for many people. We need to address this gap.

Cyclists: As a cyclist and someone who commutes by bike regularly, I know protracted snow is about the worst thing for cycling access. Snow is often plowed off of the driving lane and accumulates in the shoulder. Our cycling infrastructure is such that transitions from road to bike path or shared path and back are a constant part of any trip, and those transitions are where snow accumulates. The “narrowing” of roads by accumulated snow means bikes are forced to “share the lane” in a way that, although perfectly legal, frustrates drivers and makes cyclists feel less safe. Add to this that ice that may make a car slip a little will make someone on two wheels immediately fall down.

bike

Aside from assuring greenways or designated bike routes are cleared curb-to-curb, and perhaps requiring the removal of parked cars from greenways during snow events in order to facilitate this, I’m not sure what we can do to make cycling safer in these conditions, “Fat Bikes” and studded tires aside.

bikebutton

Transit: This follows on pedestrian access a bit. I think it is obvious that transit routes should be top priority for road clearing and de-icing. However, without curb-side clearing, access to busses is seriously impaired. Currently, our Bylaw treats bus pads like sidewalks – the adjacent property owner is responsible for keeping them clear. To me, this is a recipe for problems, and is something I think we need to address. I think bus pads and adjacent curb areas are a place where City Crews need to be assigned to do the cleaning. Transit should be the safe, accessible option for people in the lower mainland unsure about driving in the snow. We need to step up and make it accessible.

busstop

Drivers: What can I say? I grew up in the Kootenays, so I hold a smug opinion about my ability to drive in the snow. Mostly, though, I just avoid driving in terrible conditions, and looking around the lower mainland, mostly wish others would exercise such restraint. It’s crazy out there: Our cities are not equipped to deal quickly with deteriorating conditions, a huge number of drivers have *no idea* what they are doing, and few have the tires or other equipment to handle frosty conditions.

But people have to drive, I get it. Some are limited in other options, some have businesses to run and responsibilities to be met. If that is your case – for the love of Chione – get yourself some proper tires and slow the hell down.

speedbump

From a City point of view, we handle the car part pretty well. We concentrate on major routes, and especially on important and dangerous intersections. The situation with ice this year was really hard to manage as far as removal: it is neigh impossible to remove packed ice without tearing up the underlying asphalt, which is really expensive to replace. The increased number of speed bumps on secondary roads (see above) are quickly damaged by even the most gentle plow technique. At this point, sand is our best friend, as anyone who has lived in Montreal or similar ice-bound cities will recognize.

If we are going to vary from the MTP priorities, it needs to be for good public safety and risk management reasons. Access to RCH for ambulances, access on priority routes for fire trucks and other first responders, and assuring high-risk intersections (Sixth Street at Royal is the first example that comes to my mind) are safe or closed should be high on the list. Fire Hydrants need to be cleared so they are accessible. One could further argue vulnerable populations (pathways around schools, seniors homes, etc.) could get bumped up priority-wise, as may access to the Works Yard (so people working to remove snow and ice can get to and from work) .

There is another issue we have not yet covered: what happens when all of this melts? If we get hit by a Pineapple Express next week, then we may have a dreaded “rain on snow event” – a condition where local flooding is likely. Where do we prioritize assuring catch basins and drainage infrastructure are cleared and functioning optimally? Are there locations (like the Works Yard) where snow is accumulating that are likely to flood if a significant rain event occurs?

I am raising more questions than I am answering, because I recognize my lack of expertise in this. I’m just an elected guy, whose job it is to relate public expectations into performance on the ground. There are crews at our yard with decades of experience at this, who no doubt have clear ideas how to get these priorities done. I assume most of them are not on Facebook. All we can do as a Council is give them clear guidance on priorities, and give them the tools they need to do the job. Operationally, they are the experts. And frankly, I am looking for ideas. How can we do this better?

In many ways, the logistical challenges of New Westminster road management (lots of roads and through-traffic, steep hills, lots of pedestrians, smaller city budget- and equipment-wise) are similar to North Vancouver City. We are more inland (and get more snow all around), but they go up higher (so probably have more persistent snow). I am hoping to do a bit of comparison/contrast with them in coming weeks. Vancouver is very different beast, because of sheer scale (however it has been funny to hear half of Vancouver complain that the bike routes are impassable, while the other half complain that the roads are impassible because bike paths were cleared first – which makes it no different than any other Vancouver issue!)

There is much to learn here, and I am happy to hear your constructive suggestions. Tune into Council tomorrow, as we are likely to have a discussion on this topic later in the meeting. And let’s all try to help each other a little out there. Let’s be more Instagram, less Facebook.