Month: February 2025

Council – Feb 24, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

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

On Electric Rates

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

As mentioned in last week’s Council Report, I brought a motion asking:

That the NW Electrical Commission include in its ongoing strategic planning and reporting back to Council a pathway to future residential rates that closely match BC Hydro rates while balancing other factors that assure the financial sustainability of the utility.

This was referred to the New Westminster Electrical Utility Commission for consideration, so I thought I would unpack a bit of my motivation for asking for this, with a bit of history of how we got here.

I have been on the Electrical Commission for about 6 years now, and am glad to have seen some significant evolution in how our Utility serves its community. Long appreciated for the reliability of the service and the professionalism of the crews that keep it buzzing, we are now in a time of bigger transition with new leadership and a modified corporate structure. These changes brought the need for the Commission to develop a renewed strategic plan, and they are currently starting that work.

One of the jobs of the Commission is to oversee the budget of the Utility (which is a bit separate from the rest of the City budget) and make a recommendation to Council about rate structures. Over the last 5 years, I would suggest this is somewhere I have sometimes disagreed with some of my Commission colleagues. I am not the Chair of the Commission, but as Mayor I am one of two Council representatives (along with Councillor Minhas) to serve on the commission along with members of the community who have subject matter experience. In my time on the Commission, I have invariably voted along with the consensus on the rate recommendation to Council, because that recommendation has always aligned with the priorities and mandate of the Commission and its existing strategic plan. So this motion is meant to engage the Commission in a discussion about those priorities and mandate and how those relate to rate setting.

As I have written here in the past, our rates need to cover the cost of operating the utility, including planning for significant infrastructure investment, and the utility has always returned a dividend to the City’s general coffers. Recently this dividend has been augmented by Low Carbon Fuel Credits that support the City’s capital planning.

To me, the value proposition of the utility has always been that we pay about the same as BC Hydro rates while we generally get more reliable service and have the ability to integrate other services like BridgeNet and District Energy. The Utility also gives us unique abilities to incentivize and promote community climate action measures like EV charging or air conditioners for low-income households, and allows us to “contract-in” city services like streetlight and traffic light maintenance. On top of this all, the utility still returns revenue to the City budget every year in the form of a dividend that benefits property tax payers. It is clearly a good deal for New Westminster residents and businesses, and makes suggestions that we sell off this valuable and profitable public asset a non-starter.

In the last few years, partly because of decisions we made at the Commission, but mostly because of unpredictable shifts in policy by several Provincial Governments and at BC Hydro, we have seen our rates here increasingly decoupled from BC Hydro Rates, with most New West Electrical residential customers paying a bit more than they would to BC Hydro. I am concerned if that trend continues, the value proposition above is eroded.

Council recently approved the recommendation of the Commission for 2025 rates, and in that reporting it was recognized our rates have increased more than Hydro’s over the last couple of years. This is largely because we anticipate upcoming increases in Hydro’s rates to reflect the significant capital investments they are going to need to support in coming years. Our practice has been to bring more rate stability to our customers, smaller increases every year instead of what we see happening at BC Hydro, where flatter rates will inevitably be accented by sudden jumps. The goals have been to buffer against random and unpredictable annual rate shifts, and to assure we have a stable fixed dividend to the city. See this graph from that report in our annual budget deliberations:

In my time on Council, we have never made explicit the goal of coupling our rates with those of BC Hydro, and it was my intent in this motion to ask Council whether this is an instruction we wanted to send to the Commission as they do strategic planning. Council unanimously agreed.

That said, rate setting is complicated, and includes in it a myriad of other policy goals, short and long term. This is part of the reason why we have a Commission to review this specific part of our budget setting. For those reasons, I didn’t think it was appropriate to hamstring the Commission or Council by suggesting our bills should look exactly like a BC Hydro bill. Instead, we sent a  message to the Commission that rates largely similar to BC Hydro’s should be one of the principles for future rate setting, and for them to come back with recommendations for how we get there while maintaining the economic sustainability of the Electrical Utility.

Council – Feb 10, 2025

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Sorry I’m later than usual – it’s been quite a week. Monday’s Council meeting included presentations and delegations, and it is worth watching the video to hear the conversation. Our agenda started with a presentation from staff on a major project:

Crises Response Pilot Project: Prevention, Support and Transition Services Plan and Supportive Housing and Wrap-Around Services Plan
The City has been working since the beginning of this term on our multi-faceted response to the overlapping challenges of homelessness and untreated mental health and addictions. We have committed to addressing the needs of people who are experiencing the three crises with a focus on supportive housing, and on addressing the externalities associated with the three crises that are impacting residents and businesses without compromising our compassionate approach.

Since the beginning of this, we have known that the solution to homelessness is housing and the solution to untreated mental illness is health care, and those resources will take time and significant senior government funding to bring up to the level of need, so we need to take actions to mitigate impacts in the meantime. This report is an update from staff on the current work, and presents a bit of a roadmap for two time frames – both five and ten years ahead. It also clearly lays out what we can do as a City, and where we need to advocate to other levels of government, because people are tired of governments just pointing fingers at each other, we need to work together on the solutions.

Our commitment to this work includes the commitment that we would take a data-informed approach, and lean on the expertise of subject matter experts, and that we would track the progress of the work to assure we are applying resources where they will do the most good. As such, it is informed by the City’s Homelessness Action Strategy, our Housing Needs Reports, and the work of our Mental Health Roundtable. We are not (and cannot!) do this alone. And, of course, we are connecting with the community as we do this work to keep everyone informed and take feedback on progress.

This is the work the Downtown business community has been asking of us, this is the work downtown residents have been asking of us. This is the work the non-profit support community has been asking of us. I have never heard anyone serious about the livability of our community suggest the City slow down and do less of this work.

I wrote more about this project here, and more info about the longer history of our Three Crises Report dating back to 2023 is available here. Finally, despite harmful misinformation being spread in the community, the one thing Council didn’t do was “approve a new illicit drug inhalation centre.”

Along with the above, the following two items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Advisory Assembly Pilot Evaluation and Next Steps
The Community Advisory Assembly pilot project has run for a year, and it is time for us to assess the model and decide if this is something we need to invest in, and if so, what adaptations might make it work better.

Betraying perhaps my bias, I attended the wrap up event for the Assembly members, and it was an unexpectedly inspiring event. This model of true community engagement was a trial, starting with finding a space where a full representation of the diversity of our community could work though some complex issues and provide community feedback to Council. In the sense of community driving the direction of work at City Hall, the Assembly is clearly a success. What we didn’t expect was that we would be giving a group of three dozen residents a deeper and more meaningful connection to their community, and to each other as neighbours. This was a diverse group in every way and over a year of working together they created real bonds, friendships even. They were a bit sad to be ending the term, and the wrap event felt a bit like a graduation ceremony.

Of course, this was a trial, and we committed to reporting out on the first assembly before we commit to continuing this approach. We will measure the results, we will see a report back. We need data to back our good feelings, and to demonstrate value to the broader community. We also need to talk about the resource needs, and it will be up to Council to decide whether this pilot was the start of something sustainable and new.

Notably, the Assembly members unanimously agreed to recommend to Council that the Assembly model should be adopted as a permanent initiative, even if they are not invited back to participate in subsequent years. At a time when the very words diversity, equity, and inclusion are being vilified by the old power systems that fear the people they are elected to serve, this is yet another example of New Westminster doing things differently.

Procurement Strategy for Canadian Made Products
The City’s practices around procuring goods and/or services has always been to source Canadian made alternatives first before sourcing foreign made products all things being equal. However, there are circumstances where Canadian made products are not available or may be cost prohibitive. As a practice, if the cost variance is 10% or less, the City would procure the Canadian product. In situations where a Canadian product may not be available, the Supervisor has recently implemented sourcing off shore products prior to American products. Notably, 97$ of the vendors the City has or currently uses are Canadian vendors.

I added a motion here asking that staff explore including Country of Origin in our regular major purchase reports, and that staff to report to Council prior to making significant purchases where staff are only able to source from United States companies, including consideration if the purchase could be deferred or if an alternative can be identified. There are complications here (vehicles are typically mixed domestic and foreign-made; there are some specialty products like firetrucks that may only be available from American vendors). Councillor Fontaine added an amendment that we restrict travel to the USA by staff, and we asked staff to report back to us on that recognizing there may be necessary reasons such as specialized training or emergency support (such as in wildfire suppression) where we may want to permit such travel.

In the end, Council supported all of the recommendations, with reporting back form staff on how to implement them.

The following items were approved On Consent:

Dine Kanadiyan, 525 Seventh Street – Application for Patron Participation
Speaking of diversity, an older pub Uptown closed last year, and a new operator has a new model that maybe reflects our demographic shifts – Filipino comfort food. They have had music, but apparently karaoke and dine & dance requires a specific liquor license from the province (add this to the “provincial liquor laws are archaic” pile) which requires us to move a resolution supporting this. There was notice given to the neighbourhood, we got no negative feedback, so Council moved the resolution.

Extend Licence to Occupy BC Hydro Lands for Pollinator Meadow
A few years ago, the community of Connaught Heights approached the City about wanting to put a “pollinator meadow” on some of the green space under the BCHydro power lines that run through the center of their community. The City doesn’t own the land, but worked with the Residents Association to approach BC Hydro and get a license to permit this on their land. This is a great example of a community-driven project where the City can help out, and the birds and the bees can benefit! It is time to update that license agreement for another two years, and Council authorized me to sign that agreement.

Mobile Food Vending Licence Bylaw Amendment
The Food Truck industry has been though a lot of changes over the last few years. Though the boom of the last decade has clearly cooled, there is still a lot of interest in seeing pop-up and diverse food options in commercial areas to add to the active street vibe. The City went through an extensive process in 2016 to find a set of rules that work for the vendors and the business community, and last year added some park sites as a temporary measure due to some public interest in bringing food options to some popular park sites. At the time, we asked to review after a year, and no problems arose, so we are adopting permanent changes that add təməsew̓txʷ, Hume Park, Moody Park and Ryall Park as permitted locations, and made some changes to locations Uptown related to shifts in infrastructure in the neighbourhood.

Shark Fin Regulation Bylaw No. 7564, 2012, Repeal Bylaw No. 8511, 2025
Back in 2012 there was a regional push to ban the sale of shark fin soup due to the unsustainable harvesting practices of the shark fin industry. New West joined the wave. But our updated Business Licence Bylaw includes this, making this stand-alone bylaw redundant. So we are repealing it.

Council then adopted the following Bylaws:

Five-Year Financial Plan (2025-2029) Bylaw No. 8501, 2025
This Bylaw that codifies Financial Plan for 2025 through 2029 was adopted by Council.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Non-Profit Housing Development) No. 8502, 2025
This Bylaw that updates our zoning regulations to allow below- and/or non-market rental housing projects of up to six stories to forego rezoning in mutli-family zoned areas of the city was adopted by Council.

We then had a few Motions form Council:

Installation of Two Remembrance Day Themed Pedestrian Crosswalks in 2025
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to provide Council with a budget, potential sources of funding and operating impacts pertaining to the installation of two ‘Remembrance Day’ themed crosswalks with the goal of having them installed in time for the November 11, 2025 Remembrance Day commemoration ceremonies; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the two Remembrance Day themed crosswalk locations be chosen in consultation with the local Legion and representatives from the Canadian Military.

Commemorating Royal Canadian Legion 100 Year Anniversary in 2026
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

BE IT RESOLVED that staff liaise with the Royal Canadian Legion Branch #2 to explore and recommend meaningful opportunities to commemorate the centennial milestone in 2026 to honour the Legion’s tradition of helping veterans, supporting seniors, empowering youth and contributing to the broader community.

I am putting these together, because Council decided to move a modified version of the first motion that included enough of the second motion that the second motion was withdrawn as being redundant. I don’t have a copy of the final motion approved (wait for the minutes to be released, or watch the Council video) but I’ll try to summarize here, hoping I don’t miss anything, and recognizing this blog is not, and had never been, an official record!

The idea of a Memorial Crosswalk (though the mover confusingly kept referring to it as a sidewalk, which may mitigate some concerns) for Veterans is not a new one, and Council is happy to explore this along with other possibilities. I know staff have some concerns specifically about crosswalks as memorials, as they are surprisingly expensive and ultimately very short-lived because placed in prominent locations they often wear out quickly and can lead to a feeling of disrespect if not constantly maintained. In effect, they look great the day the politicians are there to cut the ribbon on them, but degrade quickly, while not providing any real tangible benefit to the veterans they are meant to honour. This is part of the reason the Orange Shirt Day crosswalk idea from last year was changed to a sidewalk mural in Hyack Square – they simply last longer and have longer-term impact if heavy traffic is driving over them all day.

So Council was interested in opening up the discussion to a crosswalk or other similar-veined commemoration, and will have staff report back on that. At the same time, the 100th anniversary of the Royal Canadian Legion Branch #2 is coming up next year, which seems an appropriate time for the community to mark the occasion with an appropriate memorial. The important first step is to actually engage with the Legion and have them tell us what they think is appropriate instead of the City imposing one idea or another. In the end, all of Council agreed on this path.

Conducting Market Value Assessment of New West Electrical Utility Assets
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council request the New West Electrical Utility conduct an independent assessment of its current market value prior to January 2026 and the results be shared with Council; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the New West Electrical Utility Commission be requested to concurrently seek public feedback regarding potential alternate governance and operating models that can provide better value for ratepayers.

I appreciate Councillor McEvoy calling this motion out for what it is: a clear precursor to privatization of public assets. You only spend time and money to do a “market value assessment” if you are interested in putting something on the market. And it raises a bunch of questions about what other public assets the Councillor is interested in selling off to private interests.

I don’t think selling the Electrical Utility off is a good idea for the City. I will write a longer blog post about my amendment to the above motion, which read:

That the NW Electrical Commission include in its ongoing strategic planning and reporting back to Council a pathway to future residential rates that closely match BC Hydro rates while balancing other factors that assure the financial sustainability of the utility.

After approving the amendment, Council decided to refer the entirety of this motion the Electrical Utility commission, who are currently undertaking a Strategic Planning process, and who are really the best body to provide advice to Council on infrastructure planning, governance, and rate setting for the utility.

That was it for a full and meaningful Council week. No meeting next week, as it is Family Day long weekend, and we need to see what’s been rattling around inside that Tin Soldier for the last 25 years.

McBride

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

Last night, another New Westminster pedestrian was struck by a vehicle on McBride Boulevard, and died of their injuries. My heart aches for the person who died, their bereaved family, and the driver or drivers involved who are no doubt dealing with their own trauma today. Everyone is harmed by an incident like this, including our First Responders who yet again have to respond to tragedy.

We don’t know the details of this tragic incident, and cannot rush to judgement, but this is the third serious incident involving pedestrians in less than 6 months on this 1km stretch of McBride, all with differing causes and impacts. We need to take action on the common thread.

With that in mind, I will be calling on ICBC to immediately install intersection cameras at two key intersections in New Westminster, and for the Minister of Public Safety to expeditiously act on the calls from UBCM member municipalities to give local governments the authority to install and operate these life-saving interventions, so that our City can take quick action to save more lives moving forward.

McBride Boulevard is a part of Highway 1a, a Provincially-regulated truck route and key connection to the Pattullo Bridge for regional commuters. It is also a local-serving road that connects New Westminster residents to key destinations, including schools, shopping and recreation areas. The intersections of McBride with Sixth and Eighth Avenues are important crossroads in our community for all modes of travel, and New Westminster residents need to feel safe when using them.

Along with this recent spike in serious incidents where pedestrians were killed or seriously injured, residents are sharing their numerous anecdotes of drivers far exceeding the 50km/h speed limit on McBride and ignoring the existing traffic lights in these heavily-travelled intersections with frightening regularity.

We must work to assure it is safe for New Westminster residents to move around in their City. Engineering improvements to McBride are already being considered following a recent Intersection Safety Review. With the upcoming opening of an expanded (and safer!) replacement for the Pattullo Bridge, we will be engaging with the Ministry of Transportation to determine what speed control measures are required to assure there won’t be negative impacts on vulnerable road users as new traffic patterns emerge. However, engineering alone cannot change the dangerous behaviours that are resulting in death and injury on our streets.

This year, the City of New Westminster is launching a Vision Zero task force to bring partners in from all provincial and municipal agencies involved in local road safety to change the culture of road safety in New Westminster, with a vision to put an end to these unnecessary injuries and deaths. In the meantime, we can still take action in areas where we know immediate intervention is possible.

Intersection and speed cameras save lives and reduce injuries. This is why ICBC funds the Integrated Safety Camera Program. With 140 cameras province-wide, it is insufficient to the current need, and local governments are not empowered to install cameras where we identify safety concerns in our communities.

Give us the cameras, and we will save lives.

Three serious pedestrian incidents in a 6 month period should be a wake-up call to everyone. Drivers need to slow down and follow the rules of the road, and governments have to work together to make the engineering and enforcement interventions we know will save lives. I’ll be delivering this message straight to the BC government when I meet with elected officials in Victoria next month.

Stay safe out there folks.

Action

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Full report to follow, but last night Council endorsed a comprehensive package of actions arising from our ongoing Crises Response Pilot Project. After more than a year of coordination with provincial and non-profit partners, consultation with health care professionals and other jurisdictions, and conversations with residents and businesses in the community, staff have developed a road map of actions for the year ahead and beyond. And there is a lot there.

These two overlapping action plans, a Prevention, Support and Transition Services Plan and Supportive Housing and Wrap-Around Services Plan are about addressing the needs of people who are experiencing the three crises with a focus on supportive housing, and addressing the externalities associated with the three crises that impact other residents and businesses.

There are more than a dozen specific actions – too long a list to include here (though you can read the comprehensive report here). This includes introducing a situation table approach to connect people with services, supporting seasonal and temporary shelter capacity, a Health Connect and Resource Centre, improved harm reduction services, working with RCH in discharge planning, expediting construction of supportive housing with wrap-around care and a continuum of care from detox (where needed) to recovery (where appropriate), trauma informed and culturally-safe Indigenous housing, and much more. At the heart of this work is better coordination with and between the existing Assertive Community Treatment Team, the Integrated Homelessness Action Response Team, the Peer Assisted Care Team and the Substance Use Services and Access Team. All of this in collaboration with BC Housing, the Ministry of Health and the Fraser Health Authority.

What we didn’t discuss much last night was the work that out Operations Support Teams are doing to address waste management, hygiene, and Bylaw compliance or the work of our Community Liaison Officers in support of local business and residents who are also impacted by the three crises.

The community has been asking us to act, and we are acting. We are not pointing fingers, we are not punching down, we are not kicking this down the road or giving up in defeat. We are showing leadership. We are working with our partners in the province and supporting our community using evidence-based approaches. We don’t need to re-invent the wheel here, we are applying the knowledge gained and learning from the experiences (good and bad) of other jurisdictions, and are approaching this work with clear purpose. We are putting resources where they are needed, and better supporting the resources already out there, and are advocating ceaselessly with senior government to better fund the long term solutions our community and every community needs: housing and healthcare.

I want to thank the many members of the community who showed up yesterday at Council and those who wrote to Mayor and Council expressing support for this work. I also want to thank the many business owners and residents who helped guide us through this planning process. You asked hard questions and deserve clear answers, and I expect you will continue to hold us accountable. We hear you, and will continue to listen and adapt as the conditions on the ground change. As was emphasized at the Economic Forum last week, we are a community, and only by working together will we assure everyone is supported, kept safe, and able to prosper in this incredible, proactive, compassionate and engaged community.