We had a pretty light Council agenda on Monday, though we had pretty meaty daytime workshop talking Budget. The evening Agenda began with approval of the following items On Consent:

2025 Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw 8480, 2024
The City spends money every month, pretty much the same amount every month, because most of what we pay is salaries. However we get a big chunk of our income over a short period of time in the middle of the year – tax time. That means we need to operate a “float” to get us through, and there is a small, but not zero, chance that a major expense happens right before tax time or that something interrupts tax time. If we were a business, we would manage tis with a Line of Credit. As the City is not permitted to borrow money without Council approval by Bylaw, we need to pass a bylaw every year that allows staff to borrow up to $3 Million for a very short period (<1 year) in an emergency if current cash-in-hand cannot cover an emergent expense. This is that bylaw.

Official Community Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Development Variance Permit: 1135 Salter Street – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
The owner of 1035 Salter Street in the middle of Queensborough wants to build 45 townhouse units. This requires an OCP amendment, rezoning, and a DVP for tandem parking, which has been a pretty standard practice for townhouse developments in Queensborough. As an OCP amendment, this has gone through public consultation and consultation with external stakeholders and rights holders. Design Panel and ACP have recommended approval. This will go to a Public Hearing, and so I will hold my comments until then.

Response to Council Motion Re: Improving the public’s access to trees during the City’s bi-annual tree sale
Staff have looked at our annual tree sale program based on a council request from a few months ago to expand it. Staff reviewed the program and report that the current scope meets the goals of the program and the level of community interest (the current subscription rate is around 95%), so there is no compelling reason to expand the program, especially considering the taxpayer subsidy that would require.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Age-Friendly Community Strategy Update Work Plan
The City adopted an Age-Friendly Community Strategy in 2017, and were well into implementation of the plan when COVID forced staff to pivot to emergency-response then recovery work. Then came the Heat Dome, Wildfire impacts, food inflation, and ongoing housing instability among the factors that disproportionally impacted seniors in our community, and through our reactions to these crises as they emerged, it was recognized that our 2017 Strategy needs an update to meet the shifted needs of the seniors demographic. We received a grant from the Province to lead this work, and will be doing the background work over the winter that will lead to a fulsome consultation with the community next spring and summer, with a revised strategy prepared for the fall of 2025.

Budget 2025: Engineering and Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaws Report
We had an extended workshop discussion of the utility budgets last week, these are the bylaws that result. The reality is that the cost of providing utility services is going up, largely because the cost of building infrastructure that supports the delivery of water, sewer, electrical, and solid waste services is increasing at a rate much higher than CPI “inflation”.
I will follow up with a separate post that goes through these (if you just can’t wait, look at the flow diagrams I created previously, and see where the money actually goes), but here is the short info now.

Electrical rates will be going up by 3.5%, which is the same as predicted last year, and what the Electrical Utility Commission recommended. This represents a much smaller increase than BC Hydro is proposing this year (closer to 6.5%), and continues the practice of us trying to create consistency and predictability in our costs.

Solid waste and water increases are 12% and 6%, as we expected going into this year. The main driver in water is the increase in rates from Metro Vancouver for water (going up more than 10% this year), and the main driver in Solid Waste being our need to solidify our reserves as our vehicle fleet is coming up for renewal.

The sewer rates are going up more than anticipated (10%), as Council had a conversation about how to manage one-time costs related to major infrastructure costs from Metro Vancouver (mostly the North Shore Wastewater Treatment Plant). Again, smoothing it out so the impact is spread over several years was decided to be preferable than taking a big hit this year and lesser hits in the next couple of years.

These core services of the City, clean water, responsibly managed wastes, and reliable electricity to heat and warm our homes, are highly valued by our residents according to the recent ISPSO survey of the community. They are not inexpensive to deliver, but overall 87% of New Westminster residents think they get good value for their dollar for utility services.

We had a single Bylaw for Adoption:

Council Procedure Bylaw No. 6910, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No.8493, 2024
This Bylaw that shifts around the order of how thing happen in our Evening Council meetings was adopted, so next meeting it will be a bit different, but more of the same, just hopefully a bit more efficient.

We closed our meeting with two Motions from Council:

Vape Shops
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

Whereas there has been a significant increase in the number of vape shops that have been opening in the City of New Westminster; and
Whereas a proliferation of vape shops throughout our city does not support the City’s efforts at creating a balanced and community-based retail market; and
Whereas dramatically increasing easier access to vape shops could result in more youth regularly consuming a product that has known and serious health risks
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back regarding what options are within Council’s jurisdiction to limit the overall number and locations of business licenses issued for new vape shops

This motion was adopted by Council with Councillor Henderson adding an amendment asking that we take a resolution to the Lower Mainland LGA asking the Province to step up regulation of Vape shops to be more akin to the regulation of liquor and cannabis, which would give the City better tools and create a province-wide approach instead of city-by-city whack-a-mole approach.

Vision Zero
Submitted by Mayor Johnstone

Whereas many jurisdictions have adopted a Vision Zero strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all; and
Whereas a true Vision Zero strategy requires cooperation and coordination between agencies of the municipal and provincial governments, of the likes not yet achieved in British Columbia; and
Whereas Council’s 2023-2026 Strategic Priorities Plan includes a focus on “Safe Movement of People” which identified the need for collaborative relationships across agencies to advance a Vision Zero mindset; and
Whereas traffic calming and management was identified in a recent survey of New Westminster residents as one area the City needs to demonstrate more progress;
Therefore be it resolved that Council strike a Vision Zero Task Force including but not limited to representatives from engineering staff, NWFR, NWPD, ICBC, Fraser Health, TransLink, the Walkers Caucus and the disability community to make recommendations to Council to achieve Vision Zero.

This motion was also(!) amended by Councillor Henderson to include further potential representatives form community organizations, then queerly amended by Councillor Minhas to add his BFF Councillor Fontaine to the task force, which was strangely premature considering we haven’t even developed a Terms of Reference yet, but I am glad to see this work beginning and appreciate the community groups who came to speak to the need for a new approach on road safety. I will write more on this in a subsequent post.

And that was the end of the agenda. We have daytime workshops next Monday and the week after to discuss budget work. And though I don’t report on those here explicitly, they results will come to council and I’ll report on them then, or you can always go here and watch them in live action internet colour TV action!

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.

Some called it weird (it was a little), some called it unprecedented (it wasn’t at all), I call it another day at the office. We had a long and at times challenging council meeting on Monday, but we got a lot of good work done, and managed the full agenda.

It started with us moving the following items On Consent:

Acting Mayor Appointments for November 2024 through October 2025
Every year we create a schedule of acting mayors, members of council who do the specific things Mayors do (chair meetings, sign documents, represent the City at events) in the event that the Mayor is not able to do them. This is a repeat of last year’s schedule where every member of Council gets two months in the role.

Rezoning and Development Permit: 140 Sixth Street – Consideration of Additional Building Height
The Royal Towers site has been awaiting redevelopment for a long time. It is a large but challenging site for a number of reasons, and we don’t have a current development proposal in front of us, but regular council watchers (Hi Cathy!) may remember a pre-application report came to the City back in 2018 with two significant condo towers on the Royal Ave side, and two mid-rise rental buildings on the north side. At the time, the Land Use and Planning Committee (the project never got to all of Council) asked that tower heights be reduced, and the project appeared to have stalled.

As the owner is back looking at redevelopment of the site, though the only question in front of Council right now is whether we wish to maintain a 30 storey height limit on the site, or would permit up to 40 storeys to increase economic viability and the amenity value derived from the site. I have been consistent in having less concern for overall building height, as a few more floors 300+ feet in the air is much less impactful on the community than the groundscape and amenities that make up the bottom 5 storeys. Council agreed that additional height may be acceptable here.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Business Licence Bylaw No. 8473, 2024 for 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reading
Staff have been working to update and modernize our Business Licence Bylaw. We issue more business licences than ever before (up to 4,000 a year now). Though it was constantly being revised, this is the first top-to-bottom rewrite in almost 40 years, and definitely streamlines and simplifies the Bylaw while assuring staff still have the tools to regulate public safety and nuisance. There are also some new tools, like conditional licensing, which will allow businesses to start up quicker. There has also been consolidation of regulations to make things easier to interpret and enforce, and a wholesale review of our business licences fee structure to better match our cohort communities.

The most notable change is a reduction in most fees for liquor licensing, the one category where we were higher than our cohort communities. There is also some relaxing of regulations regarding moral panics of decades past (arcades, billiards rooms, etc.). Overall, Council supported these changes unanimously.

Rezoning: 88 Tenth Street (Columbia Square) – Zoning Amendment Bylaw for First, Second and Third Readings
This was our most complicated and time-consuming agenda item of the evening, and in the end we didn’t make a decision. The redevelopment of Columbia Square has been a project in development for almost three years, with the recognition that a (mostly) single-story auto-oriented strip mall within 100m of a SkyTrain Staion entrance does not fit with the model for a vibrant mixed-use urban centre envisioned in the Regional Growth Strategy or our Official Community Plan. That said, it is a challenging site with significant redevelopment challenges, from soil conditions (anyone else remember the old London Drugs here having a structural failure?) to the need to support the existing community-service businesses during redevelopment.

The proposal before Council was to replace the strip mall with up to 3,000,000 square feet of residential space in (up to) 8 towers, none taller than 53 storeys. 20% of the residential space would be Purpose Built Rental, all of the retail space (125,000 sqft) would be replaced with current tenants relocated through a complicated multi-phase development scheme. There would be 42,000 sqft of new office, between 9,500 and 23,000 sqft of childcare space, allowance for a new school, and 25% of the ground space dedicated to public green space including a 50,000 sqft public plaza. This would generate something between $20 and $30M in DCC funds for transportation, utility, and parks upgrades, and about $60M in Density Bonus money to the City as required under the Interim Density Bonus strategy and in lieu of non-market housing being provided.

This decision was to give the proposal three readings, and the process here is a little unusual because we are taking a pause between third and fourth readings (“adoption”) to do the master planning and hammer out details of the development plan.

In the end, Council decided to defer making the decision on this until a special meeting next Monday, so I will hold my further opinions on the merits/challenges of this proposal until after that, though I think I very tiredly telegraphed where I am at about 2:37 into the meeting video here. So tune in on Monday and see where this goes.

Rezoning and Development Permit: 140 Sixth Street – Consideration of Additional Building Height
The Royal Towers site has been awaiting redevelopment for a long time. It is a large but challenging site for a number of reasons, and we don’t have a current development proposal in front of us, but a pre-application report came to the City back in 2018 with two significant condo towers on the Royal Ave side, and two mid-rise rental buildings on the north side. At the time, the Land Use and planning Committee (the project never got to all of Council) asked that tower heights be reduced.

As the owner is back looking at redevelopment of the site, but the only question in front of Council right now is whether we wish to maintain a 30 storey height limit on the site, or would permit up to 40 storeys to increase economic viability and the amenity value derived from the site.

I have been consistent in not having concern for building height, as a few more floors 300+ feet in the air is much less impactful on the community than the groundscape and amenities that make up the bottom 5 storeys.

Rezoning and Special Development Permit: 65 First Street – Preliminary Report
Speaking of challenging sites, 65 First Street is an end-of-life strata residential building where the owners decided to “wrap up” the strata a couple of years ago and sold to a development company. At the time, many of the existing residents chose to remain and rent their suites until the development plan was put together, including a deal made with the developer and a housing agreement about what parts of the City’s tenant protection policies would exist between the 2021 sale and the approval for redevelopment.

We now have a report on the development plan for council to give a first review. As it currently looks, it is complaint with the Official Community Plan, and would have two towers, one strata and one market rental (with 10% below market rental). It would exceed the city’s requirements for family friendly units (2- and 3-bedroom). Parts of the adjacent streets would become redundant and be re-purposed as park space in a slightly expanded Albert Crescent Park.

Council agreed to move forward with this is a preliminary application, and it will go to both public consultation and internal review. If you have opinions, let us know!

Temporary Use Permit: 28, 32, 34 Sixth Street and 606 Clarkson Street (the Cliff Block Residence) – For Emergency Winter Shelter Use
This is an application to operate an emergency winter shelter in the Cliff Block for the winter of 2024-2025. This would address some capacity issues at the existing shelter on Front Street, and help keep people alive during dangerous winter weather. It would operate as a 24/7 shelter from November to the end of April.

The Cliff bock currently offers 23 transitional and supportive housing units, and this area of the building has previously served as an emergency winter and extreme weather shelter. This would temporarily add 25 winter weather beds.

This is a preliminary request – notice will be sent to adjacent properties, and Council will consider issuance on November 4th. If you have opinions, let us know

We then moved on to Motions from Members of Council:

Increase Affordability by Temporarily Eliminating the New Westminster Developed Climate Action Levy on Electricity Bills in 2025
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS according to a staff report dated April 20, 2020, the City’s Climate Action Levy imposed on New Westminster Utility “costs electrical customers approximately $15 per 1,000 KWH” and
WHEREAS in 2023 the temporary removal of the Climate Action Levy would have helped local residents and businesses deal with inflationary pressures by reducing their electrical costs by almost $2M; and
WHEREAS there is no clear evidence that imposing ‘made-in-New Westminster’ levies, taxes or fees on green energy generated by BC Hydro will reduce our carbon footprint; and
WHEREAS even the BC NDP government has now backed away from its support of the costly and unaffordable carbon tax currently imposed on consumer products;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff incorporate into the City’s 2025 Operating Budget a temporary one-year elimination of the 3.5% Climate Action Levy imposed by the New Westminster Electrical Utility.

Here we go again. For the fifth(?) time in less than a year, the same Councillor has brought the same request. It is tiresome because every time it comes back, it seems to be less informed (or more misinforming) than the previous time. Every “whereas” clause here is factually challenged, rhetorical arguments made with no basis in fact, and Brandolini’s Law makes it challenging to unwwrap it all, so I’ll keep it brief.

The Climate Action Levy was a partial replacement of half of the 5% BC Hydro Rate Rider, it was not a new charge, but a shift from a rate rider that went into general electrical utility funds to one that was earmarked for a Climate Action Reserve Fund. After a COVID hiatus, it was lifted from 2.5% to 3.5%. The Levy costs electrical utility users about $4 per 1,000kWh, not $15. It collects about $2 Million a year, but removing it won’t “save” taxpayers $2 million, unless we stop funding the things the levy pays for: Climate Action staff and programs in the City. Primarily, the Energy Save New West program, which is funded from this, and saves New Westminster homeowners and renters money every day. It also demonstrably reduces greenhouse gas emissions in the community, because that is what the Energy Save New West program is designed to do. It is one of the very few tools we have to reduce community emissions (as opposed to corporate emissions, which will also be reduced through the Climate Action Levy, but I digress). This is not a carbon tax, nor is it an income tax or an inheritance tax or a property tax. To purposely conflate it with provincial or federal Carbon Taxes is intentionally misleading.

The mover of this motion has repeatedly opposed Climate Action in the City, and has tried several times to remove funding from climate action in the City. During his defense of this motion, he even invoked the John Rustad argument that “Taxes can’t fix the weather.” This is late-stage climate change denial writ large, folks, and has no place in serious discussion for policy makers in 2024. Council, for the 6th time in the last 12 months, agreed with following the Electrical Commission recommendations here and voted this down.

Produce at least One 2025 Operating Budget Option that is Pegged at No More Than 4.5% for Property Taxes
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Canada’s inflation rate is now 2%; and
WHEREAS property taxes have increased by almost 15% over the past two years and if this continued at the same pace property taxes could increase over 30% this term; and
WHEREAS countless property taxpayers in New Westminster are struggling under the weight of an increased cost of living;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed as part of the Budget 2025 process to develop at least one budget scenario for Council’s consideration that incorporates a property tax increase of no more than 4.5%.

In preparation for this discussion, I went through the motions and amendments just in 2024 that were moved or seconded by the mover of this motion, some that were endorsed by Council, some that were ultimately not supported by this Council, but all of them had a material cost for the city – a cost of staff time and resources, or a significant reduction in specific revenue streams in the City. My Back-of the envelope math adds all of the silent spending of these 20 motions up to $1.4 Million in new spending, and more than $3 Million in lost revenue. That’s an estimated $4.5 Million budget impact. Eerily close to a 4.5% tax increase on these motions along. And that does not include the $2Million potentially removed from our budget if the motion we just debated on the Climate Levy was supported.

This motion is an example of, as was mentioned in a previous meeting, council trying to “suck and blow at the same time”. The Member wants us to spend, spend, spend, and to not raise taxes. It’s either disingenuous, or an example of someone really now knowing how budgets work. I’ll leave it to you to interpret which.

That said, I support this motion (as did all of council), because it is completely in line with how we have done budgeting for the last few years (and the mover, having been in those rooms, must know that). It was our December 11 workshop last year when staff provided us the first budget numbers related to tax rates, outlined what the “baseline” number must be to meet our contractual requirements, then three options (5.5%, 6.6%, 8.5%) with different levels of program enhancement and demonstrated exactly what we could deliver or would need to cut to meet those levels.

It was always clear when we settled on 7.7% what we were paying for that put this above the baseline. including staff resources to do the business license program update (delivered this very meeting), a backfill strategy to address staff shortages in Police, the Crises Reponses Teams that are addressing the challenges in our downtown and across the City today, new Firefighting resources and more. What I like about the way we do our budget workshops in the City is that we are 100% transparent about what the public services people demand of us cost, and when we agree to provide them, we agree to pay for them. So, yeah, 4.5% might be one of the option next year, but I’m not sure the public is going to like what they see under that option.

And two months from now when we reach that stage in budget discussion, be ready for when a certain member of council starts saying “our tax increase was going to be 4.5%, now it has ballooned to [whatever number is actually possible]”, pretending that 4.5% was an actual budget proposal, and not a random number thrown at the wall long before any of the actual budget information was available to Council.