Month: November 2024

Council – Nov 18, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

As the days get shorter, as do the length of Council meetings. We had a fairly compact agenda, though longer days are coming with Budget Workshops in the upcoming Council Calendar. We started with consideration of a Temporary Use Permit:

Temporary Use Permit for 502 Columbia Street
There have been a number of different activities in the building at 502 Columbia Street since all five Army & Navy retail locations in BC and Alberta were closed during the COVID-19 downturn. The front street side has hosted an emergency overnight shelter for a few years operating under a Temporary Use Permit.

They are now looking to a new and different TUP because the envisioned use is different, and we anticipate that this shelter will be converted to 24/7 operation as soon as funding is made available by BC housing. We will also create a community Advisory Committee similar to the successful model used in Queensborough to address community concerns around operations.

There has been a lot of community conversation about this shelter, and some concerns raised about the external impacts on the wider community. It has been clear that the current operation is not ideal. A night-time only shelter does save lives, reduces the occurrence of outdoor encampments, and other issues like warming fires in the winter. However, people using the shelter have to leave the shelter early in the morning and be present to check in early in the evening. Between these times they have nowhere to go, and face numerous challenges with no secure place to keep their belongings, no “address” for services to connect with them, no place to use the washroom, etc. Converting this to 24/7 will help address these needs, and reduce the need for folks to set up daytime “encampments” to stay warm and dry during the day or to gather as a community.

Over the last few months I have had hundreds of conversations with businesses and residents downtown, and the Crises Response Team and City staff have also connected thought the BIA and the Downtown Residents Association. The clear call has been for 24/7 shelter to replace this nighttime-only shelter, as most folks downtown see that as the right balance between compassionate support for people unhoused in our community and managing the numerous external impacts of the three overlapping crises. We received a fair amount of correspondence on this TUP, and on balance it supported what we have heard from the business community and residents.

There are some steps yet to get to 24/7 here, and we need BC Housing to provide some supports to make it viable, but this TUP was a necessary step in that direction.

This is still a Temporary Use Permit, because no-one (the City, BC Housing, the operator) think this is a long-term solution to unsheltered people in our community. We need transitional and supportive housing, along with a more permanent purpose-built shelter. This is set out clearly in our Housing Needs Report, and is an ongoing discussion with BC Housing. More will be coming on this soon.

In a split vote, Council approved the TUP.

The following items were Moved on Consent:

Community Advisory Assembly Update and Reports
The Community Advisory Assembly has met on a few topics, and this is a preliminary report back on two. They had a staff-led discussion on the city’s Road Reallocation goals under our seven bold steps and provided some feedback on how we might approach this goal. They then had a discussion that we led by the Assembly on the intersection between climate action and equity that our engagement consultants described as groundbreaking and inspirational. Having a disparate group of community members work to find common ground with each other when they don’t share their experience or opinions is what this process is all about.

This is a preliminary reporting out, with some recommendations to Council, and the next step is that staff will review the recommendations to report back to Council on opportunities towards implementation.

Local Government Climate Action Program 2023 Reporting Year and Program Funding
LGCAP is a funding program from the Provincial government to support local governments in climate action, with the only string attached being that we set goals and report back our progress to the province every year. This is that report. This is the third (smallest) contribution to our Climate Action Reserve Fund which is being used in the City to support implementation of our corporate and community emissions reduction plans. Starting in the 2025 budget year, allocation of the LGCAP funds along with the rest of the CARF will be supported by the Climate Action Decision Making Framework to assure we are spending them in the most effective way possible.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

New Westminster Chamber of Commerce – Request for Funding
The New West Chamber, like several other Chambers and Boards of Trade in the province, had some struggles through the COVID response with waning membership and tight finances. The New West Chamber is, by their own admission, in a rebuild phase, and have been doing excellent work over the last year+ in re-engaging business members, in providing value to their members and the larger business community.

The City has provided grants to the Chamber in the past, initially without performance indicators, though this model was ended a decade ago at the Chamber’s request and adopted a more fee-for-service model that relied on annual requests and agreement on deliverables, on the order of $25,000.year for the last few years. This report is about a request for a significant increase in the scope of support and resultant level of grant. This includes support in hosting an Economic Forum in the spring. Council voted to support the chamber in these requests, recognizing the value of the relationship.

Proposed 2025 Schedule of Council Meetings and Proposed Updates to Delegation Protocol and Notice of Motion Process Policy
This is partly an annual update report where we set the Council schedule for next year, and partly an update on some procedural changes for Council meetings that were proposed by our (still relatively new) Corporate Officer. They are experienced at running City Councils, and see some ways ours can run more efficiently, and as such are asking us to review a few ideas.

The first part is a new Council Schedule for next year, which will rely a bit more on Workshop style meetings in the off-weeks when we don’t have regular Council. Our current workshops on Council days often feel rushed and add to the chaos of a busy day, and moving them to the off weeks (as we have intermittently done over the last year) makes things work smoother, and gives Council more time to dig into meaty discussions in a public forum but in a less formal structure than Council.

On my recommendation, I also suggested that Workshop Meetings be chaired by the Acting Mayor instead of me. This is not an uncommon practice for Committee of the Whole type meetings in other Councils around the region, gives each member of Council an opportunity to experience the excitement and challenge of chairing this unruly bunch we all love. During these meetings, I’ll be just another member of Council.

For reasons confused by time, we have a practice of starting meetings at 6:00 and not starting public delegations until 7:00. This presents some sometimes strange procedural issues, but also leaves delegates confused about what time they are actually expected to start. We are going to put delegations at 6:00 right at the start of the meeting to make that clearer for guests.

The final recommended change was to our Notice of Motion procedures. The Corporate Officer made the case that NoMs are a bit resource-intensive, as they must be reviewed for a variety of policy and legal matters prior to being placed on the agenda. Most NoMs are simple, some are actually jurisdictionally complex, and the Corporate Officer’s job is to assure everything on the Agenda in its proper form. Last term, we had about a half dozen Motions from Council per year. This has shifted to more than 75 since we implemented the now NoM procedure last year (and it was up to 7 per meeting before the NoM procedure was brought in). Our current policy allows up to 154 per year, which means a significant workload just to manage the Notices, never mind the impact on workplans and budgets of Council approves most of them. Something had to give.

That said, I think in the last 6 months or so, Council has been pretty responsible in use of the new NoM procedures, and we have managed to find a functional balance in Council around giving Councillors space to bring new ideas and managing the existing workload. That, however, is in Council Chambers, and the increased resource needs of back-of-house required here is not something we can ignore. So Council agreed to a late motion that is essentially status quo, recognizing that there will likely be a requested budget enhancement in 2025 for Legislative Services staff to help manage this workload.

We then had two Bylaws for Adoption:

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Family Friendly Housing Policy) No. 8486, 2024
This Bylaw that updates our Family Friendly Housing requirements was adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment By law (Electric Vehicle Ready Requirements for New, Non-Residential Buildings) No. 8494, 2024
This Bylaw that requires 50% of all off-street parking in new non-residential buildings be EV ready was adopted by Council.

And that was the end of the meeting. Next week we start our budget workshops. I don’t usually report here on workshop meetings (there are only so many hours in the day and I have 400+ unanswered emails in my inbox), but you can tune in and watch along here.

Taxes – 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We are getting into the 2025 budget cycle in New West Council. We have already done some preliminary fee and charges setting work, but the workshops to discuss utility and tax rates for 2024 start in earnest in late November. It has been a while since I wrote a piece on this page directly about property taxes. There are a lot of myths and misunderstandings about how property taxes work, and I have written a tonne over the years (since even before I was and elected person) to address some of these. As mot of you are new, It is worth repeating some, as zombie ideas pervade the talk of taxes in New Westminster.

Maybe the easiest thing to do is link to those various pieces, but with a caveat: There may be some errors in how I understood the system before I was elected, so don’t pull up an 11-year-old blog post and say “the mayor is lying”. We all learn over time, and I’m happy to see examples of where I had something wrong, this stuff is actually more complicated than people think. Also, the numbers have changed since 2012 (check the dates on some of these posts), but the essential mechanism and comparisons haven’t really (more on that later).

Here’s a long bit about how Mill Rates work and why they are a bad way to compare between municipalities: https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2013/01/on-assessments-and-mil-rates.html

A couple of years later, I compared tax charges on a “typical house” here: https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2013/01/what-is-mil-worth.html

And then added utility charges: https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2013/01/what-about-utilities.html

Shortly after I was elected, I wrote this comparison: https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2015/04/talking-taxes-pt-1.html

I also compared how regional property taxes have changed over time here: https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2016/02/more-taxes-with-colour.html

And there was also a fun conversation about how tax increases relate to property value increases, with a surprising coda at the end: https://www.patrickjohnstone.ca/2020/07/taxes-2020-part-2.html

I do think it is worthwhile doing an update on our regional comparators. I have repeatedly emphasized this isn’t a competition, because a race to the bottom is rarely a good way to get positive governance results for a community. However, if we are anomalous and doing something so different than our cohort, that’s a good sign we need to check on ourselves, because communities have different scales and priorities, but similar challenges. The general feeling in New Westminster that we are a high-tax municipality is a myth that deserves analysis.

Cities report their numbers in different ways in their public reports, and some make it very difficult to find their actual budget spreadsheets. Fortunately, we are all required to report our finances to the Provincial Government in a consistent way, and the province puts those stats out for public review here: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/governments/local-governments/facts-framework/statistics/tax-rates-tax-burden and all of the data below is pulled form Schedule 707 spreadsheets. Feel free to check my math!

Here is how the property tax burden per resident compares across the 21 municipalities on Metro Vancouver:

You will note that Schedule 707 separates property taxes paid by residents (charged to households) and those paid by other property classes (industrial and commercial, for the most part). The overall tax revenue (from all property types – shown in orange) collected in New Westminster per capita is $1,264 which puts us slightly below the regional average of $1,319 and rans us as the 7th lowest of 21 municipalities. The property tax paid by residential property owners only (shown in blue) is $820 per capita, which puts us a little above the regional average of $785, though we are still the 8th lowest of 21 municipalities.

Overall, we are pretty close to the middle and overall slightly below the middle when it comes to tax burden on our residents.

As the province provides these numbers back through time, we can go back as far as 2005 and see New West has always been in about this position relative to our regional cohort, though it varies a bit most years. Graphically, I have drawn this up to show how we have changed since the last “Wayne Wright” budget of 2014 and today, a good 10 year run to spot trends.

Note the y-axis here isn’t the relative tax level, it just ranks every municipality from 1st (Surrey) with the lowest taxes to 21st (West Van) with the highest taxes every year for the last 10 years. New West has gone from the 10th lowest to the 8th lowest over that time, trading places a few times with Delta and Langley Township, while Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, and Vancouver have passed us going the other way.

When you add all the non-residential taxes to this, it gets a bit messier, as industrial land and residential land change value at different rates and again, cities have different priorities and opportunities when it comes to balancing resident needs and those of businesses. Here, New Westminster goes form 13th lowest to 7th lowest over the last decade. Note Anmore goes from being one of the highest taxed municipalities in the resident-only chart to one of the lowest here – they simply don’t have the business or industrial tax revenue to reduce the burden on taxpayers. And don’t ask me what is happening in Lions Bay.

There are a LOT of factors that play into these comparisons – whether a City is higher growth or lower growth, the timing of when Cities bring in major new operational costs like a new recreation centre, or how the city manages its capital reserves. Some cities have casinos which help reduce tax burden, we have an electrical utility which does the same. So direct comparisons are not easy to make, or even particularly useful, but it is good to have some data to back up discussions about relative tax loads and to spot trends over time. Of course one might argue that all Metro Vancouver property taxes are “too high”, but I encourage you to see how Toronto, Calgary or Seattle compare, and you might be surprised.

John

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Like many of you, I am saddened by John Horgan only getting 65 years. He filled them with meaning and influence, but it doesn’t seem enough for anyone, never mind someone who put so much into the people around him. He was a man of principle and natural leadership. He brought meaningful change to the province, including the adoption of DRIPA and CleanBC, and it was his steady leadership though COVID-19 and his efforts to address affordability that most impacted our community. He supported healthcare workers, brought in tougher renter protections, and kept our regional transit system fully funded through a pandemic. Those were big moves that helped the most vulnerable in New West and province-wide.

However, watching the media (social and anti-social) over the last few days, you can’t help but be uplifted by the many stories of people whose lives were touched by him in more personal ways. I wrote a bit about how he made a personal connection with me in my Newsletter this week (Subscribe here!) but in this space I just want to share a few of my own photos that popped out of my archive.

So young, so impressionable. This was at a Labour Day event in Burnaby, and judging by my lapel I was running for Council for the first time, and he had just become leader of the BC NDP.
A couple of years later at the UBCM conference in Whistler. The UBCM crowd can be tough on Premiers – local governments are always disappointed by perceived or real lack of Provincial supports. John showed up with smiles, straight talk, and a keen ear to our concerns.
There are a few photos circulating of John in a ‘Bellies Jersey. He wore it to be sporting after a bet with Judy Darcy, but John was the consummate Shamrocks fan. Here he is at a ‘Bellies Game, wearing his home colours, and showing off his Honourary Shamrock Mann Cup Ring.
A quip so good, I got the Pin. When John stunned Andrew Wilkinson during a televised debate with the line “If you were woke, you’d know Pro Rep is Lit!”. Both stunningly out of character yet right on the money. And for the record, Pro Rep is lit, we just aren’t woke enough yet.
I love this photo. The Day Premier Horgan was sworn into office, the Legislature was opened to the public, they were handing out icecream bars, it felt like the most gentle and hopeful day of revolution. And John was out front on the lawn, meeting people , getting selfies, having conversations and just enjoying the hell out of a day of seeing people smile. This is the gregarious, generous, and open guy I will always remember – doing one more little thing (taking the selfie) to make others happy. Rest in peace, my friend.

Halfway

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The half way mark in this Council term arrived yesterday, and an interesting two years it has been.

People often ask me if it what I expected, and my honest answer is not really. The job is different than the Councillor job, and there is no doubt we are in a different political environment now than we were two years ago. Folks who followed my path here (Hi Mom!) know that I got into this work without a “politics” background, but a background of working and volunteering in the community. When your mindset to problem solving has always been what works best practically (follow the evidence) and where does the community want to go here (follow the community), the shift to include how will this be torqued for political speaking points (follow the meme) takes learning a new set of skills, and a tremendous amount of patience. Not being a trained political lobbyist, this is a steep learning curve.

That said, there are many successes to celebrate from the last two years, and more clarity on the challenges facing us in the next two. In my mind, there are three big news stories in the first half of the term:

Changing Legislation. The provincial government took some bold action on the overlapping housing crises that have been plaguing our region for a decade or more. There was a lot of talk about this, and some pitched political battles between a few local governments and the province. I didn’t stay out of the fray. I said at the time, and continue to believe, that big changes had to happen, and to my Mayor cohort who were gnashing teeth and rending garments, my response was mostly to say “you really should have seen this coming”.

The path we were on was not sustainable, and as radical as the changes proposed seemed at the time, they are not immediate shifts, but long-term system changes that will take a decade or more to demonstrate their value. I am still concerned that the changes they emphasize the wrong tool (“the market”) to solve a problem caused by overreliance on that same tool. None of these changes will make a substantial change unless we have senior governments significantly increase their investment in building non-market housing. And I continue to push to province on our need for investment in schools, child care, and other infrastructure the needs to come with new housing.

Like in other Cities, the sudden legislative changes caused significant work load challenges for staff. Unexpected and foundational shifts in our OCP and Zoning bylaws are not easy to implement, and our new Housing Division did incredible work, met our regulatory deadlines, but also set a path to a new OCP that fits in our community. We were also fortunate to have secured Housing Accelerator Fund support that overlapped with this work, and allowed us to staff up and bring in additional resources to get the job done.

Opening təməsew̓txʷ. No doubt the opening of the single largest capital investment the City has ever made is big news. The doubling of aquatic and recreation space is an important investment, as our population has almost doubled since the CGP was opened in 1972. As expected with a state-of-the-art facility (filter and water management technology that is first in Canada, being the first Zero Carbon certified aquatic facility) of its scale, there were a few technical teething problems, but they are being managed under warranty, and have not taken away from the popularity of the facility. To find out it was listed by the Prix Versailles as a 2024 Laureate is unexpected and something the City of New Westminster should be proud of.

The big decisions about təməsew̓txʷ were made by the previous Council (including the critical “Go-or-No” decision during the uncertainty of summer 2020 that almost certainly saved the City a hundred million dollars), but the opening of the pool means that a myriad of operational decisions, and finding room in the budget for the new staff compliment, is something this Council oversaw. And now with the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan being developed to envision the next decade of recreation investments, it is an exciting time for asset renewal in the City.

One Man Down: Jaimie McEvoy having a serious heart attack and missing a big portion of this year was also something the framed how Council operated, and the work that the rest of Council was able to get done. It also created some procedural uncertainty around what we do when a Member of Council needs to take a medical leave longer than a few days – believe it or not, we didn’t have procedures around this, nor does the Community Charter, or (as best we can tell) any other local government in BC. We are glad Jaimie is now able to transition back into the job and provide his voice to Council, and do those many other things in the community that keep us all grounded.

Halftime is also a goodtime to measure how we are doing in the goals we set for ourselves as a Council. Fortunately, we have two recent reports to Council on this. At the end of September, we received a report called “Council Strategic Priorities Plan Quarterly Status Update” which outlined staff’s assessment of where progress is on the 5 Strategic Priorities and the 49 action categories, using a traffic light model. The majority of items are “green”, indicating we are on track and meeting our performance indicators. Sixteen are “yellow” – meaning at least one performance indicator is falling behind and there are concerns to address. There are seven items that are “red”, indicating we are not on track, and there are concerns about our ability to achieve them.

The biggest challenge in the “red” category is simply resources: staff time and the ability to finance more staff time. There are also some senior government regulatory and funding issues we need to be more effective in advocating toward. However, progress on track or near track for 86% of our objectives is an excellent measure.

The bigger question isn’t how staff feel we are doing, but how the community feels about it, and the good news here is found in our recently-completed Ipsos Survey of the community. This was discussed in Workshop last week, and you can read it all here.

These kind of things always work better graphically, but the short story is that 88% of New West residents find the quality of life in new Westminster Good or Very good, 77% are Satisfied or Very Satisfied with the level of service they receive from the City, and 78% think they get Good of Very Good value for their tax dollar in New Westminster.

On Council Strategic Priorities, most residents feel are doing a good job on most of the priorities:

Meeting the City’s housing need is the only area where the majority feel we are not meeting community expectations, but traffic safety also comes in lower than most. It is perhaps no surprise that housing affordability, homelessness, and traffic are the biggest issues in the community in the extended survey questions. We know this, we can feel it when we talk to folks, but it is good to have come confirmation that what we hear in the bubble is connected to what is happening in the community. With all due respect to Facebook comments and partisan jabs, it is valuable to have actual random survey data that connects with the community and gets a defensible “mood of the room”. If I can summarize: we are doing well, mostly on target, but most certainly have some work to do. That is a good half-way mark check in.

The one thing we are not doing as well as I would like to celebrating our wins. There has been great foundational work this term – region-leading work – that hardly gets the fanfare it deserves, because it is hard stuff to “cut a ribbon” in front of. Our new Code of Conduct Bylaw and functional Ethics Commissioner; bringing the Electrical Utility and Climate Action together into a new Department of Energy and Climate; amalgamating various service areas into a new Department of Community Services; changes that fast-track Childcare and Affordable Housing approvals; our provincially-recognized and lauded Community Advisory Assembly model. This is progress that builds us for future success.

No resting on laurels, but I do feel proud of the work we have done to date, especially considering significant political headwinds and a surprises like the new provincial housing regulations. On to year three!

Council – Nov 4, 2024

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

We got through a significant agenda fairly quickly this week, though we still had the time for some political performance, which is a good reminder that along with reading the agenda and reports, you can always watch the video of any Council meeting here. We started with two Opportunities to Be Heard:

Inter-Municipal Business Licence Agreement Bylaw No. 8487, 2024 and Inter-Municipal Business Licence Scheme Bylaw No. 8475, 2024
The City collaborates with other municipalities on the Metro West Inter-Municipal Business License Scheme to issue multi-city business licences to business that operate across municipal boundaries – so they can operate legally with a single licence. We are proposing to add Health Care Professionals and Services to this scheme, recognizing the nature of home Health Care as a business. Nothing controversial here, no-one sent correspondence or took the opportunity to be heard, so Council approved the Bylaw changes.

Business Licence Bylaw No. 8473, 2024
We talked last meeting about the work Staff has been doing to update our long-in-tooth Business Licence Bylaw. It is a good body of work that will streamline things, make it easier to start a business, in New West, and reduce some staff workload. No-one came to speak to the opportunity here, so Council moved to approve the Bylaw.

We then had a Temporary Use Permit to approve:

Temporary Use Permit No. TUP00033 for 28, 32, 34 Sixth Street and 606 Clarkson Street
Lookout Society has been providing supportive housing at the Cliff Block for many years. They have a space appropriate for expanded services that they can immediately open for emergency weather shelter. They have longer-term plans for the site related to a health outreach centre, so are only seeking the TUP for emergency shelter for this winter season, when the need is immediate and acute.

We did receive some correspondence on this, and it is important that we acknowledge the community concern we are hearing whenever increased services for the unhoused are raised. We hear you, we know that you don’t want to see people sleeping in alcoves, are chagrinned by human waste and other litter related to people not having homes, and that some in the community correlate this with a feeling of being unsafe. No-one is ignoring or belittling these concerns, instead, we are working on many different approaches to address these while we wait for the bigger, systemic solutions (which will require substantial senior government investment). I have talked about Crises Response, and other efforts we are undertaking, and emergency shelter is one part of this suite of approaches. Every person in an emergency shelter bed is a person not sleeping in an alcove or lighting a warming fire to stay alive during the winter season.

Council moved to approve this Temporary Use Permit.

We then had a Report for Action:

Appointment of Municipal Director to Metro Vancouver
As reported by the Record, I am finding Metro Van Board and Committee work is taking up more of my time, and I would rather spend that time back here in New Westminster working on local initiatives. The half way mark in a term (both here in the city and at Metro) is a good time for me to reflect on where my energies are best applied, especially as the new Board Chair has signaled changes in the committee structures may be upcoming, and this opens up new opportunities for some of my Council colleagues to take on some additional regional roles.

I intend to continue to serve on the Mayors Committee at Metro, and the Mayors Council at TransLink, but am happy to step back a bit from regional committee work and open up those opportunities for my Council Colleagues. Council (yes, this is a Council appointment, not an appointment I make as Mayor) appointed Nadine Nakagawa, who was serving as my alternate, to the role, and Jaime McEvoy as her Alternate. The appointment of members to Metro Committees is not done by Council or me, but by the Chair of Metro Vancouver.

There was some interesting discussion of this appointment at the Council table, but not alternate appointment was moved. I have some strong opinions about why Nadine is the right choice for this role, but that gets into politics, and I’ll save it for my Newsletter (subscribe here!)

We then approved the following items On Consent:

Amendments – Massey Theatre Working Group Terms of Reference
The City established a Massey Theatre Working Group to help communications between the Massey Theatre Society Board and the City through the work the City is doing to restore the theatre. There are changes being made to the term of reference to better reflect the way the Working Group has been operating over the last year.

New Provincial Housing Legislation: Official Community Plan Amendments – 2025 Work Plan
We are now one year in since the new provincial regulations were introduced that require us to update our Official Community Plan to include the new Transit Oriented Areas (TOA) and Small Scale Multi-Unit Housing (SSMUH). Fortunately, we received Housing Accelerator Fund money and capacity funding from the province to support us in getting this work done. The first phase of implementation work has been done, and this report outlines the work plan for staff to get the next phase of work done over the next 12 months. This will include some public consultation in early 2025 and eventual Council consideration of an updated OCP in summer 2025 to meet our Provincial deadlines.

I am really proud of how our small but mighty Housing Division staff have taken on this totally unexpected task and made it work, and have confidence that the long-term results of this will be good for the City and the region.

Temporary Use Permit: 502 Columbia Street for Emergency Shelter Use
The operator of the shelter at Army and Navy will need to renew or replace their Temporary Use Permit if they want to continue to provide this service. They have applied for a new TUP, and this report is the background and notice that the permit will be considered in a future Council meeting.

This TUP would permit 24/7 operation, though there is still some code work to make that a reality. The proposal also includes a community advisory committee to manage potential conflict with surrounding users (a model that worked well in Queensborough for a supportive housing building there). Council having supported this on Consent, we will consider this permit at our next meeting on November 18.

Uptown Business Association and Downtown New Westminster BIA – 2025 Business Promotion Scheme Budget Approvals
The City’s two Business Improvement Areas collect a small tax from their members (the commercial property owners in the BIA area) and use that to do “business improvement”. As this is a program regulated by the Local Government Act through the City, the BIAs are required to submit to the city what they plan to do with the money they collect every year. These are their reports.

Zoning Amendment Bylaw: Electric Vehicle Ready Requirements for New, Non-Residential Buildings 
The City already requires that all off-street parking spaces for residential buildings must be “ev ready” – not necessarily have a charger, but must be wired and energized so a resident can plug in their charger (which may be proprietary to their vehicle type) if they want without re-wiring the building. This zoning bylaw would bring a similar requirement to new non-residential buildings (commercial and office), but only require ev-readiness in 50% of spots, recognizing that home charging is likely to be the default form of charging in the post-carbon economy.

This was approved on Consent, though the subsequent three readings of the Bylaw raised some questions about the public outreach that took place. Questions answered in detail in appendix 3 of the report.

The following item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

Crises Response Team Pilot Project: Grant Funding Application under the new Emergency Treatment Fund
There is a federal grant available to which we think the Crises Response Team work we are doing in the city applies. So we are applying for said grant, hoping to reduce impact of the CRT on our property taxes while strengthening the work our CRT can do by expanding the scope and reach.

We then had two Motions from Council

Guide Dog Access Awareness
Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS September is Guide Dog Access Awareness Month and is about educating people on proper guide dog etiquette, the rights of guide dog handlers and the legislation that protects them, and championing equal access for guide dog handlers.
WHEREAS Canada’s provinces and territories, human rights legislation prohibits discriminating against a person with a disability who is working with a guide dog and despite the legislation, people partnered with guide dogs continue to encounter discrimination when they’re denied access to public places and services, such as stores, restaurants, hotels, and taxis.
WHEREAS many of the barriers guide dog handlers face stem from a lack of awareness and refusing access to a guide dog team.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT The City of New Westminster place Guide Dog Welcome decals the entrance of all any municipal buildings to raise awareness that guide dogs are legally allowed anywhere the public has access and provide City Staff with Guide Dog Etiquette information from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That the City promote placement of Guide Dog Welcome decals at the entrance to New Westminster businesses/organizations and, in the promotion, provide information from Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB) on where to obtain decals.

This is a motion arising from direct advocacy from the community, and though the request for us to designate Guide Dog awareness Month came too late for us to get it on our Proclamation schedule, the follow-up conversation by Councillor Campbell was centered on what tangible actions we can take a City. Happy that Council supported this.

Providing Equity in the Delivery of Energy Saving Programs for New West Electrical Customers
Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS New Westminster Electric Utility customers are not being treated in the same manner as BC Hydro customers when it comes to accessing a variety of program offerings; and
WHEREAS New Westminster Electrical Utility customers are not currently eligible for the BC Hydro Solar Panel and Battery Storage program; and
WHEREAS BC Hydro currently offers rebates up to $5,000 on eligible grid-connected solar panels and up to an additional $5,000 for battery storage systems to qualifying residential customers; and
WHEREAS New Westminster Electrical Utility customers are not eligible to participate in BC Hydro’s demand response and peak saver programs
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to report back as to how the City could systematically provide better alignment regarding program offerings between BC Hydro and New Westminster Electrical Utility; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to report back on the cost and feasibility of establishing our own hydro solar panel and battery storage program and/or partner with BC Hydro to offer their program to New Westminster Electrical Utility customers

There is a bit to unpack here, but the end result of the discussion at Council is that this is an item to be referred to the Electrical Utility Commission, and was discussed at length at the last EUC meeting. Staff in Climate action are already actively engaged in this work, but have not yet reported the results of that work to Council.

There are some details in here that are worth talking about. New West Electric customers have been able to receive the benefits of BC Hydro incentive programs such as air conditioner and heat pump rebates, and at times have had access to additional incentive programs funded by Energy Save New West. The Solar/Battery program mentioned in the motion is not a BC Hydro program, but a Provincial government program that they tasked BC Hydro with delivering. The difference between a program funded by “ratepayers” and those by “taxpayers” may seem a bit arcane, but is actually fundamental to whether New West customers (and those in Fortis-served areas and other municipal power utilities like Nelson and Summerland) can apply. The Demand Response and Peak Saver programs mentioned above also cannot be implemented until our AMI rollout is completed, because it requires modern metering technology. It seems funny to me that the guy who tried to defund the AMI meter program is interested in something only the MAI program can deliver, but nothing shocks anymore.

This is an ongoing body of work for the Electrical Utility commission, as they have the mandate and ability to evaluate what programs like this the City should support, and can make recommendations to Council on fundamental questions about whether a program should be supported by ratepayers or taxpayers.

Section 105

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Most of you have heard by now that the City’s Ethics Commissioner ruled on a complaint about my participation at the Local Climate Action Summit and COP28 last year. Our (New! Updated!) Code of Conduct process requires Council to receive and consider the ruling, and any suggested remedies. That happened in Council today, and I have been reluctant to write too much about this before Council completed that process today.

If you want all the lengthy details, there is a long report on the complaint here, including all of the spaghetti-at-the-wall complaints that were dismissed by the Commissioner.

A summary report from the Ethics Commissioner here outlines the issue that was the subject of the investigation.

And a link to my formal response (written to the EC and Council) here.

The short version in that response covers all I need to say to the process. Our Code process allows the option for me to attend the Special Council meeting and plead my case, but I don’t see that as a useful way to spend Council or the Commissioners time when I fully agree with the findings and recommendation (I have nothing the “plead”). I think the brief response makes that clear, and better for Council to deliberate on that report without me staring them down or seen to be putting my finger on the scale. That said, now that is over, I can expand on that brief response and talk to the community about process and what I see as some initial learnings may be.

First off, I do think it is important to apologize for getting us all involved in this process, and I am disappointed that the adjudication process makes it difficult to do so before now. I honestly had no suspicion that my actions constituted a breach of Section 105, and (as the Ethics Commissioner clearly states in her findings) there was no reason for me to doubt the soundness of the advice that I had received. Still, no-one but me holds the responsibility for my actions, and for the downstream results of them. There was a breach of the Charter, and good faith or not it has been an un-needed distraction from the important work we are doing, and need to continue to do, on climate action. I take responsibility and apologize for that.

It is important to clarify where the breach occurred, because it is not clear in most of the reporting around this issue. The Commissioner determined that there was no problem with the City’s participation in the Local Climate Action Summit or COP28, with the way I communicated about this event with staff, Council, or the public, or with the travel itself. The commissioner found that I acted in good faith with the motivation to further Council’s stated goals relating to climate action, and that my participation was consistent with the duties that accompany the office Mayor.

Even the receiving the benefit of the participation in COP28 was determined to be “received as an incident of the social obligations that accompany the office of Mayor and consistent with his duties” and therefore not a breach of  Section 105, which is consistent with the legal advice I received from counsel at the time. However, it was the “luxury” nature of the travel – that being Business Class travel and what is being interpreted as a luxury hotel – was not consistent with these duties, and that part of it constituted a breach of Section 105.

This is definitely a nuanced legal interpretation, and I leave it to the lawyers to debate that. I appreciate the Commissioner’s recommendation that coaching be offered on this, and I’m sure it will be in interesting conversation as the detail is all in how one interprets the sections of the Charter, not the language of the Charter itself. As I mentioned in my response to the Commissioner, a request for coaching on Section 105 was adopted by Council back in January. Now that this review is behind us, we can get on with that.

Finally, I do commend the Ethics Commissioner for the thoroughness of her work, and to staff and counsel who helped Council develop this (New! Updated!) Code of Conduct process. I can’t claim to be happy that I am the “respondent” to the first complaint to make it to this resolution stage, but I am proud that we have a process that brings procedural fairness, transparency, and arms-length review. When we see how Codes of Conduct and ECs are facing challenges around the province, I am happy New Westminster is once again showing leadership. I might further argue that these processes would operate better, and would build more public confidence, if they were led consistently by a Provincial body, and not by local Councils, but I also know we are not a City that shrinks away from doing important work because it is “someone else’s job”.

That includes Climate Action. As COP29 starts next week in Baku, there is no Local Climate Action Summit component, with the LGMA mandate being fulfilled through the CHAMP process that was ultimately the product of LCAS at COP28. We will have some better idea about the success of this model when Belém hosts COP30 next year. Until then, Local communities will still be leading the way in direct climate action, in empowering youth to take power over their future, and in addressing the impacts of a disrupted climate.