We had our now-semi-annual Council Meeting in Queensborough this week. It was good to see a full house, as often happens when we cross the bridge and set up in the ‘Boro. We had quite a few delegations, but a relatively short agenda, starting with moving these items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
Road works related to the Royal Columbian Hospital project are ongoing, and there is some work that needs to be done outside of regular construction hours for various traffic management and access reasons. Notice will be sent to the neighbourhood.

Next Generation 911 Base Funding Grant Application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities
As the entire country shifts to “Next Gen 911”, it will require a lot of technological changes in house for our first responders. There is a grant program facilitated by UBCM to help us pay for this, and we are applying for the grant, which requires a Council motion to commit to do what we are funded for if we get the funding.

Zoning Amendment and Housing Agreement (65 First Street): Bylaws for First, Second and Third Readings
There is a low-rise strata building at the east end of downtown that had some serious maintenance issues, enough that the owners decided to wrap up the strata and sell to a developer. A couple of years later, here is the development. It comprises two towers on a podium of townhouses, a 35-storey tower with 299 purpose built rental units and 30 below market affordable housing homes to be managed by the YWCA. The second 30-storey tower will have 304 strata condos.

Both buildings will meet the family friendly housing policy unit mix, the project is compliant with the City’s Official Community Plan, and was generally favored by the Design Panel and Downtown RA.
The City will get about $4.3M in density bonus cash above the DCC contributions required to fund infrastructure needs. There is much less parking that typical of a project this size, but being within the new Transit Oriented Area zone, provincial regulation prevents us from demanding more parking in a residential building.

There were both applicant-led and city-led consultations, in person and on-line. There was not a large amount of response, with some concern about the density and lack of parking. Council unanimously supported this project and gave the rezoning third reading.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No.8495, 2025
As our Zoning Bylaw is constantly being updated and speaks to various other local and provincial regulations, we occasionally have to do these omnibus updates to clarify language and align with the language in other bylaws. This amendment doesn’t change policy, it just updates the text to remove redundancies or contradictions.

The following item were Removed from Consent for discussion:

10-year Anvil Review Recommendations Update
As the Anvil Centre hit its tenth anniversary, and as there is more interest in optimizing public space in the downtown, the City went through a review process to determine how best to adapt the use of this prime public space. The review included online and in-person engagement, workshops, drop-in sessions, interviews, and input from several hundred people. There were recommendations made to Council last summer, and this report is an update on where we are with those changes. With the closure of the New Media Gallery, there is a further discussion about the adaptation of that space.

This is still an ongoing process, some increased activation is happening now, but we are anticipating some further discussion about the use of Anvil and inviting more of the public in. Council received this report and referred the report back to a future council meeting to continue the conversation about how we prioritize the recommendations in the July 15 report.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Storage Amendments Bylaw No. 8518, 2025
As discussed last meeting, staff are asking Council to assert a little more control over Self-Storage business developments in three zones in the City. I pulled this from consent and asked that staff provide Council some options around exempting two properties that are already in process (based on some correspondence Council received from applicants). This required a change in the Bylaw language that Council will have to consider before giving the first three readings, so this will come back in a future meeting.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Multiple Unit Residential Storage Requirements Amendments Bylaw No. 8519, 2025
Somewhat related to the above, we are adding to the requirements for storage in new mutli-family buildings, because storage space is an ongoing concerns for families living in apartments during a crises when so many families are under-housed. This will not of course impact the current housing stock, but it will make new builds a little more roomy.

Finally, we had one Motion from Council:

Inventory of Municipal Arts and Culture Indoor and Outdoor Spaces
Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS the arts and culture sector plays a crucial role in contributing to New Westminster’s local economy, promoting New Westminster’s tourism, and enriching community belonging and connections; and
WHEREAS it is important for the arts and cultural sector to have a comprehensive and centralized inventory of the availability and condition of indoor and outdoor spaces dedicated to arts and culture in the community;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff prepare an inventory of all municipal indoor and outdoor spaces within the city that are suitable for arts and cultural use, including but not limited to:
Public spaces utilized for arts events, performances, exhibitions, and installations; indoor venues such as galleries, theaters, performance halls, studios, and creative spaces; outdoor venues such as public plazas, parks, and other open-air venues used for arts programming as well as an any available data on capacity, site amenities, accessibility descriptions and types of arts programming possible in these spaces.

This is something the Arts community and event organizers have been asking for. Especially as we have many new residents and many new artists and organizations hoping to make fun things happen in the City, there really isn’t a single source of info about where you can make happenings happen. Council unanimously supported it.

We had a short agenda on Monday, but a long meeting. This is because we started with two hours of public delegations, many of them speaking to items on the agenda. We opened by a presentation from the new MLA for Queensborough, Steve Kooner, and in hindsight I should have suggested to him that he stick around an watch Public Delegations, and even bring a motion to Legislature that the Province begin having Public Delegations in the legislature. Its not fair to the public that local government is the only level where they get to come and speak to Council for two hours on any topic they wish.

But I digress. Our agenda began with the following items that were Moved on Consent:

Zoning Amendment Bylaw (Miscellaneous Zoning Bylaw Amendments) No. 8495, 2025: For Consideration
Our Zoning Bylaw is complicated, as we are almost constantly amending it and changing other bylaws that point to it, and at the same time the Province sometimes messes with language and their legislative levers, so we need periodic omnibus-type updates to fix the language, keep references up to date, etc. This is that amendment bylaw. It will come to Council for three readings, if you have opinions, let us know!

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

Tenant Relocation Policy – Engagement and Policy Update
Last year, Council asked staff to bring back recommendations to strengthen our rental protection policies. The City has had strong anti-demoviction policies for some time that have prevented demolition of older more affordable secured rental housing even as we built more rental and ownership housing. However, there are concerns that recent Provincial regulatory changes (especially the Transit Oriented Areas regulations included in Bill 47 may erode these protections, while some others (Bill 16) have given the City power to extend these protections. So Council wanted an update, and recognized that Burnaby recently adopted some strong policy that may provide a good guide to strengthening our policies.

Staff are reporting back that our policy frameworks are different (every municipality is unique!) but that the Burnaby policies do demonstrate some areas where we can strengthen our protections of the most vulnerable renters in town. Burnaby’s own program is relatively young, but has already been applied to 34 rezoning applications representing over 2,000 eligible rental units, and they report there are already 700 tenants in interim housing successfully receiving support through their program. 700 people in more secure housing instead of being displaced by new development, while Burnaby staff report the policy has not put a noticeable chill on the building of new homes.

Council has a good conversations about some of the details of the framework, and asked staff to prepare a policy based on these principles. This is good work!

Zoning Amendment to Remove Mini-storage Use from M-1, M-5 and CM-1 Industrial Districts, and to Require Storage in Multi-family Residential Districts
There is a bit of a boom in the self-storage industry right now, and Staff have identified some concerns in our ability to regulate how they are built in the City, and are recommending zoning controls be adjusted to give staff and council more discretion here. The intent here is not to stop the building of new self-storage businesses, but more to recognize that this commercial space use has a different impact than most other uses (parking, traffic, massing impact, etc.), and assure Council has power to mitigate those impacts. There are currently three zones which cover a small portion of the land in the city, where self-storage is as-of-right would be removed. Developers are still able to bring a rezoning to Council if they wish to build that use, and Council will have stronger power to restrict shape and character, and to determine it the location is appropriate in light of surrounding land use.

As our industrial and job creation lands are increasingly valuable, and self-storage is a relatively low-cost but also low-employment use with large potential land use impacts, it behooves us to give them careful consideration, and this bylaw gives us power to do so. This is consistent with Metro Vancouver guidelines around planning self-storage in industrial areas.

That said, families increasingly are living in smaller apartments, and are facing increased storage challenges. I’m not sure self-storage helps with this fundamentally (self storage doesn’t help when you have kids lacrosse equipment to store, etc.) but creating standards for storage space in new apartments, and incentivizing it by not including storage in floor space ratio math, seem like positive moves to make smaller homes more livable for families. So staff are going to bring rezoning changes that support those changes as well.

We then had two Motions from Council:

Placing the Naturalization and Rewilding Project in Queen’s Park on Hold
Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS there has been considerable feedback received by the City of New Westminster regarding the ‘rewilding’ and ‘naturalizing’ of the 5th and 2nd Street boulevards in Queen’s Park as part of our Biodiversity Strategy; and
WHEREAS it is important to properly consult with local residents before any further ‘rewilding’ or ‘naturalizing’ of the boulevards in Queen’s Park which is covered by a Heritage Conservation Agreement
BE IT RESOLVED THAT that the City’s Biodiversity Strategy, as it pertains to the ‘rewilding’ and ‘naturalizing’ of 2nd Street and 5th Street boulevards, be placed on hold until October 2026; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a neighbourhood consultation plan be developed and shared with Council regarding any future ‘naturalizing’ or ‘rewilding’ of the boulevards in Queen’s Park or other neighbourhoods throughout the City.

This was quite the lengthy discussion in Council, and we receive many pieces of correspondence on it, along with some public delegations, both for and against the intent of the motion. It is worth watching the Council Video to hear how those delegations went, because it is clear New Westminster is passionate about public spaces, even if we don’t all share the same opinion about how those spaces should look or how they best serve the community.

Although the framing of the motion was problematic, I was more concerned about how it was inconsistent with the commitments that staff had already made to the community about this project, and staff have had a considerable amount of correspondence with the community and with Council on this, so I think it is important that we keep that context in mind as we address the public concerns that were raised. I am concerned that this project is being politicized in the most egregious way, and that staff’s work to connect with the community here has been undermined by this. So I suggested the following amendment which (as requested in the original motion) pauses the naturalization work and asks for a more fulsome consultation with the community before expansion of the program in Queens Park:

BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff complete the revised naturalization work on the Fifth Street median between Third and Fourth streets, then take at least a year to allow the area to establish, and conduct an evaluation of the initiative with the neighbourhood regarding the initial work and any related next steps, consistent with the March 3rd, 2025 staff correspondence to residents and Council, and the 2022 City of New Westminster Biodiversity and Natural Areas Strategy; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT no further expansion of naturalized areas on Queen’s Park neighbourhood boulevards be undertaken until after this evaluation, and only after consultation with the community, including considerations of the Queen’s Park Heritage Conservation Area Landscape Guidelines, as per the March 3rd, 2025 correspondence.

To add to the context here for folks who may only have a passing understanding of just what’s happening here, changes to the grass-with-trees boulevard on Fifth Street began in 2023, more than a year ago, and I received a very small amount of both positive and negative feedback on it from neighbours. In my experience, people were more curious than concerned, and when talking about it, were willing to see where this was going prior to casting judgement. This until a month or two ago, when landscaping logs arrived on a second part of the boulevard. Once they started to receive more feedback on this, staff were quick to admit the landscaping features that were “out of scale” with previous work in the boulevard. They were also quick to acknowledge both that the visual impact was larger than they anticipated, and that they did not communicate effectively with the neighbourhood about the project. In their defense, after the placid reaction to the 2023 work, they might not have anticipated the push back they are seeing now.

The push-bask did arise, however, and in my observation, staff have been proactive at addressing the concerns raised by residents, and have been doing their best to respond to the community. On March 3rd, they distributed a letter to the community (which was, I note, distributed to Council before this Notice of Motion appeared on the agenda) that outlines what I think is a reasoned, professional, and respectful path in light of the feedback we have received. That they would not expand the program, they would de-scale some of the more challenging installations, and replant with a wildflower mix that meets some of the goals of the Biodiversity Strategy. It also committed ot taking a year to see how the new treatment greens in, and having a deeper consultation with the neighbourhood about the next step prior to any expansion to the program. To me, this is aligned with the stated goals of the original motion, but is clearer in language.

In the end, Council supported the amendment.

Providing Priority to New West Residents and Businesses for City-Operated Programs and Services
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster faces a significant infrastructure deficit when it comes to public assets like sports and recreation facilities and community centers; and
WHEREAS local taxpayers should have the highest level of priority to access various programs and services offered by the City of New Westminster; and
WHEREAS the City of Delta offers their families a two-week head start to register for all recreation programs, including swimming and skating lessons;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council regarding options for consideration to significantly enhance a “Priority New West” policy that provides local residents and businesses with priority access to City operated programs and services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the report include a comparison of other jurisdictions in our region regarding what initiatives they have implemented to provide their citizens and business owners with priority access.

Council supported this motion, along with a couple of amendment brought by Councillor Henderson (the text of which I don’t have handy, but you can watch the meeting and see for yourself, and remember these posts by me are not official minutes!) to address some other concerns with the current recreation program registration system. The important part here is that this motion will result in a report back on opportunities and potential costs prior to Council committing to any change in how we currently operate.

I supported this reporting, but will take a few concerns into the discussion when this comes back to us. I don’t like the idea of getting into an arms race with other municipalities about “my city first”, when I fundamentally think it is better if we work together. I don’t see putting up walls around our City as a progressive approach. There are residents of other Cities who come to use rec facilities here in New West. If you are curler living in Burnaby, you come to New West to play, if you are a squash player in New West, you are likely to go to Burnaby or Richmond to play. This isn’t inherently a bad thing.

I am also concerned about what it may mean to some organized sports leagues and programs. I know Minor Lacrosse is almost 100% New Westies, but I’m not sure the same is true of Track and Field, Trampoline, or Baseball, and I would hate to be undermining youth sports programming by creating a two-tier registration system unless the sport itself sees value in that.

Again, these are uncertainties, and so I am happy to see a report back from staff on this so we can base our decisions on facts, and not presumption.

Finally, we had a couple of Bylaws for Adoption:

Street and Sidewalk Patio Bylaw No. 8318, 2022, Amendment Bylaw No.8514, 2025
This Bylaw that expands patio service hours for one of two bars in the city was adopted by Council.

Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 7142, 2008, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No. 8515, 2025
This Bylaw that makes a bunch of minor amendments to our Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw was adopted by Council. Adjust your behavior accordingly.

Now, actually finally, we had one item of time-sensitive New Business:

Rescheduling the April 28th Council Meeting
The Feds wen and scheduled an election on the date of our Council Meeting. This is uncomfortable, because people don’t really want to go to Council on that day, and because our statutory requirement to provide 4 free hours while the polls are open to all staff might challenge our ability to actually staff a Council meeting. So council is moving the meeting off by one week, making for a very busy May.

We had a pretty quick Council meeting on Monday, considering the length of the Agenda, though many items were under the category of “getting Council caught up on progress” so didn’t require lengthy discussion. We started with moving the following items On Consent::

707 Queens Avenue: Remedial Action Requirement
There was a fire that destroyed a house on Queens Avenue a few weeks ago. After a fire, it is important for a variety of reasons that the building be demolished ASAP, and normally this is the case because property owners and their insurance companies don’t want to deal with the liability of delaying this action. In the event that work is not moving fast enough, the City has the power to order the demolition and removal of materials, or that order failing, enter the site and do it ourselves sending the bill to the property owner. However, that Order needs to come though Council resolution, which is what we are doing here. Council agreed to the order.

Council Strategic Priorities Plan – First Semi-Annual Report for 2025
This semi-annual report shows that staff are making real progress on our Strategic Plan priorities. The areas we are falling short are related to some regional labour market challenges impacting staff recruitment and contracted services, the massive and unanticipated shift in housing regulations that require a lot of staff time and energy to implement, while some of them are aligned with our strategic plan. There are also a couple of IT projects that are falling behind because of recent shift in cyber security risk and other emergent IT challenges that simply need to take priority over some of the more strategic long-term initiatives. Overall, considering how disruptive and disrupting the last two years have been, this amount of green showing up on this dashboard is a testament to the incredible work and dedication of the city’s staff.

We are getting stuff done!

Proposed Revised Terms of Reference for the Arts, Culture and Economic Development Advisory Committee
A group of business owners in Sapperton have formed a registered society to co-organize business support and advocacy. This is not a BIA (which is regulated by the Province, has effective taxation powers of its members) but more of a “Business collective”, and they would like a seat at the ACEDAC table alongside BIAs. The rest of the ACEDAC said “sure, c’mon in!”, so we need to update the Terms of Reference to make it all official.

Subdivision and Development Control Bylaw No. 7142, 2007, Miscellaneous Amendments Bylaw No. 8515, 2025
This is the Bylaw that regulates how the City manages requests to subdivide and develop property, two of the fundamental land use powers of local government under the Local Government Act. At the heart of this is the City managing how properties connect to City services (like water, sewer, electricity) during development to assure we can provide those services sustainably, and how much of the cost providing those services fall on the individual property owner, as opposed to taxpayers or (in the case of utilities) ratepayers. One change here is that we are now happy to receive a “letter of assurance” from senior government on affordable housing projects instead of requiring other security, recognizing the province is not likely to go broke and leave us hanging, so in turn we can remove one more potential financial barrier to development of affordable housing.

It’s the little details that help.

We then discussed the following items that were Removed from Consent:

Extending Patio Hours – Street and Sidewalk Patio Bylaw Amendment
Back in June of last year, we quickly approved a temporary policy to extend patio hours for pubs that have their patio on City lands. The temporary policy change was time limited and expired November 1, 2024 and was an opportunity to gauge public support and identify gaps. This time extension was applicable to only two liquor primary establishments, only one of which participated in the extended closing time. Regardless, there were no issues arising, so Council is moving to make the change permanent.

New Westminster Awarded $1.466 Million from Health Canada’s Emergency Treatment Fund for the Crises Response Pilot Project
This is a significant announcement for the City, and a demonstration of confidence from the federal government in our approach to the health crises that are impacting every community across Canada. I remembering it suggested in Council once that we should NOT take this work on, because we were letting senior governments off the hook, and they would never support us if we went ahead. That was of course wrong, and fortunately this Council chose to take the leadership position that the work needed to be done, and our advocacy is best done from that position of leadership, not from blaming out and finger pointing.

Being the only City in BC to get ETF Funding, and getting the second highest grant in the entire Country, are evidence that the feds recognized our commitment to the work, and that the plan put together by staff was viable, evidence-based, and defensible. This contribution will not only relieve some of local cost, but will allow us to expand the program and provide longer hours of service to people who need it the most.

Finally, in my conversations with the Provincial Minister of Health last week, she expressed strong support for this program, and we will be working with Fraser Health teams to integrate the many services Health are already providing in the City, as the CRP model outlines. The road to addressing homelessness and untreated mental health crises is long, but we are committed to the work, and appreciative of our partnerships federally and provincially in making this work happen. We are leading from the front in New West!

Provincial Housing Target Order – Six Month Interim Progress Report
You may have heard that the Province gave many cities in BC “Housing Target Orders” last year – setting fixed targets that they expect the City to reach. We are required to report out on our progress toward these targets every six months. This is that report.

The City is “required” to complete 656 new housing units in the first year of our target order (Aug 2024 – July 2025). In the first six month of that period, the City saw 702 net new homes, exceeding our year one target by 7% in only the first 6 months.

Excuse me for not taking a victory lap, because this demonstrates how misguided the BC target model is in the first place. Almost all of that net increase is due to the occupancy being completed on the Bosa Pier 1 project, which was approved by Council no less than 7 years ago. An unsophisticated look at the headline “we doubled our target in the first six months!” would suggest that we are moving faster than the province requires and should slow down, except that decisions made now will have ZERO effect on the number of units that come on line over the next 6 months, or two years for that matter. We are ahead now, but the gap between Council approval and occupancy can be 3-7 years, and is 95% mediated by market forces outside of the City’s control. The project we approve or deny today will be the statistic in some future Council’s targets 5 years hence. That’s why to the tool is bad.

Of course, there are other issues – most of the units approved were market ownership units (again, it was almost all one project) when we need more rental and affordable housing. The 52 units of subsidized housing downtown that Council approved in early 2022 will likely contribute to our 2026 targets, and the affordable housing we recently approved in the 22nd Street area will contribute to 2027 targets. It’s just not a good tool.

We then had a single Motion from Council:

Support for a New High School in Queensborough
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS there has been significant growth in Queensborough over the past decade with the population now estimated at over 11,000 people; and
WHEREAS Queensborough high school students face significant challenges getting to and from New West Secondary School each day; and
WHEREAS the School District 40 has been asking for capital funding to construct a new high school in Queensborough since 2022; and
WHEREAS New West Secondary School is over capacity with more than 2600 students – making it the largest high school in British Columbia;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT a letter be written to the Minister of Education in support of School District 40’s ongoing requests for site acquisition to build a new high school in Queensborough.

This motion led to a lengthy discussion, one that was ironically made much longer by Council actually agreeing on the main issue – that we need more schools, including in Queensborough. However, the School Board took the extraordinary step of sending Council a request to NOT approve this request, as their board unanimously asked that we instead stay aligned with them on advocacy to the province. I think we need to respect not only their authority, but also in the work they are doing to advocate for new school spaces in New Westminster. Writing the letter as requested here would likely create confusion, and risks sending the impression to the Ministry that this Council is not 100% aligned with the School District on the priorities they have identified. That not only undermines the advocacy that is ongoing, but puts at risk important an pending capital investment decisions being made right now to support expanded elementary and middle school spaces at Simcoe, in the Downton, in the West End, AND in Queensborough.

No-one wins here is we play neighbourhoods against each other, we need to work to assure the resources we are asking for address the most pressing need, and work together to improve space and programs across the entire school district.

In meeting with the Minister of Education last week, I supported the School Districts capital priorities as set out by the School District planning team. I reiterated the priorities of the SD, which included addressing secondary needs in Queensbrough, but only after the more pressing elementary needs downtown and in the West End, and a new middle school are addressed.

The City has a role here, both in site approval and in advocacy. This is why this Council, only a few months ago, approved unanimously the 2024-2025 Eligible School Sites Proposal presented us by the School District, and committed at that time to continued collaboration and joint advocacy on the School District’s stated priorities. It should be no surprise to members of this Council what those priorities are, and how disrespectful it is to the School Board and disruptive it is to long term planning to arbitrarily shift the focus of this work. So Council amended this motion so instead we write a letter endorsing the School District’s Long-term capital plan, which includes, as everyone in Council agreed during the deliberation, a new school in Queensborough. Council unanimously supported the amended motion.

We closed with a few Bylaws for Adoption:

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (1084 Tanaka Court) No. 8483, 2024 and
8.2 Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (1084 Tanaka Court) No. 8484, 2024
This Bylaw that rezones a lot in Queensborough back to light industrial at the request of the owner was adopted by Council.

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 8513, 2025
The Bylaw that authorizes staff to spend up to $1.53 million from the Development Cost Charge Reserve for designated water, sewer, and drainage projects was approved by Council.

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.

Our Monday meeting started with the now-unusual process of a Public Hearing. These are less common now (we used to have one a month or so in the before times) mostly because they are largely illegal now. Where they used to be required for most rezoning, provincial regulations now forbid them if the project is residential and the project is aligned with the Official Community Plan. The two projects on this Agenda were OCP amendments:

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (1135 Salter Street) No. 8454, 2024 and Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (1135 Salter Street) No. 8455, 2024
The owner of this lot in the western part of Queensborough wants to build a 45-unit townhouse complex, similar to surrounding townhouse developments, along with a 1000sqm park dedication for part of the lot. This requires an OCP amendment, a rezoning, and a Development Variance Permit for tandem parking.

The application has spent more than a year going through design review and consultation with the community, stakeholders, and First Nations. At request of the latter, the developer hired and had an archeological assessment completed. The community engagement had limited response with tacit approval, Design Panel review resulted in some changes to the project, and Advisory Planning Commission expressed support.

The Public Hearing received a single letter of concern about use of the park dedication, and one person called in to the Public Hearing to ask about property impacts to adjacent properties during construction. Council moved to give these Bylaw amendments Third Reading (effectively approving the project)

Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7925, 2017, Amendment Bylaw (1084 Tanaka Court) No. 8483, 2024 and Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (1084 Tanaka Court) No. 8484, 2024
The owner of this lot in Queensborough wants to do a OCP amendment and rezoning from a Special CD zoning supporting commercial and assembly hall use (brought in a couple of years ago) back to Light Industrial like the surrounding properties. There is no specific development yet proposed. There was community consultation and consult with stakeholders and First Nations, and the Advisory Planning Commission approved the change.

We received no correspondence, and no-one came to speak to the Public Hearing. Council moved to give these Bylaw amendments Third Reading (effectively approving the project)

We then approved the following items On Consent

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 2126 Seventh Avenue (22nd Street SkyTrain Station)
TransLink is needing to do renovations of the 22nd Street Skytrain stations to increase train capacity, and some of the work cannot be done while the track is being used, so they need a construction noise bylaw exemption to permit the work.

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (Non-Profit Housing Development) No. 8502, 2025
Council discussed this at length in workshop last week, and these are the resultant Bylaws to make what Council discussed into a reality. In short, the City is going to “pre-zone” all RM (Residential Multi-family) properties in the City to permit affordable housing to be built as-of-right on sites owned by registered non-profit housing providers or non-profit housing co-operatives, assuming the project meets some specific criteria (no more than six storeys, vehicle access, etc.). This removes one delay and uncertainty for non-profit affordable housing providers and accelerates the approval process. Acceleration is the key word here, as this is part of the Housing Accelerator Fund program for which the City has received federal government funding support.

This funding also allowed us to perform a multi-faceted Public engagement process, through Be Heard New West, though direct interviews with community non-profit housing providers, a community discussion with open to all interested members of the community. Overall, there was support for this measure, and Council has now given it Third Reading.

Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment: 805 Boyd Street – Bylaw for First, Second, and Third Readings
The owner of Queensborough Landing is looking to broaden the available types of retail at the site to include amusement arcades, animal boarding, car washing establishments, commercial schools, delivery and express facilities, food and beverage manufacturing which is associated with a lounge endorsement area or retail component, second hand stores, and trade schools. Times change and the types of uses for retail spaces should be able to change along with them, and there are no specific concerns related to the suite of services that the proponent is proposing here.

We then worked on these items Removed from Consent for discussion:

2024 Seven Bold Steps and Environment Progress Report
This report is an update on our Seven Bold Step framework on Climate Action, and a bit of check-in on how progress is being made towards our 2023 targets. And it’s a bit of a mixed bag:

Step 1: Carbon-Free Corporation: 30% reduction in emissions, work to do, but on track;
Step 2: Car light: need 60%, at 35.5% – we have much work to do – and need senior government support;
Step 3: Carbon-Free Homes: Are bringing in Zero Carbon step code in an aggressive way, and though existing building stock reductions are hard to measure, this is definitely an area of keen interest for the City and the Province;
Step 4: Pollution free Vehicles: We are not likely to make this target, but accelerating in uptake or electric vehicles is happening, just not at the pace we would have liked;
Step 5: Carbon Free Energy: on the path, and assuring we have sustainable electricity and a robust grid;
Step 6: Robust urban Forest: Thousands of trees planted, this is definitely a good news story;
Step 7: Quality Public Realm: Only 1% re-allocated, we have much work to do here!

It was also interesting that some of the items look like they are going the wrong way, mostly because we now have better and more accurate baseline measures than we did even a couple of years ago. It is clear our per capita emissions are going down, but population and business growth put upward pressure on all of these numbers.

From this point forward, staff are going to be presenting this data on an ongoing way through a “climate dashboard” on the City’s website so we can be held accountable to our targets and goals, and can be transparent on where we need support to be successful.

Budget 2025: 2025 – 2029 Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw
These are the Bylaws that come out of our 4 month long budget discussions. No new news here on the main item if you have been following along, but I will try my best to get some more detailed reporting out on this page about what the 5-year plan entails.

There was a bit of last-minute wrangling as one member of Council wanted to reduce the Police Budget by cutting the stipend to the chair for non-specific reasons. This was procedurally ill-informed as Council does not have the authority to make this change (allocation of Police Board budget is the authority of the Police Board under the Police Act), and if we did reduce the budget by this small amount there is no way for us to demand what part of police operations are impacted, and as we have an approved provisional budget) it would likely result in a conflict between Council and the Police Board that would require arbitration (ironically, costing Council and the Police Board more than this small cost reduction), so Council voted against this.

There was also a last minute very small change to provide some increased funding to the Walking School Bus program, after Council voted earlier in the year to support expansion of the program but to encourage staff and the provider to determine the most viable funding mechanism through City grants or other means. Turns out with some timeliness concerns, the best means was to just approve as part of the budget.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 651 Carnarvon Street (Provincial Courthouse) – Signia Construction Ltd.
The Provincial Courthouse is undergoing huge envelope renovations that the courts cannot permit to happen during court hours. It has been a difficult process for some neighbours, and frustrating for the City, as we hear complaints but have little authority here- If we deny them a permit and they will work anyway (they are, after all, the Province) or we can provide a permit with some conditions and use that to keep neighbours in the community informed and provide a conduit to reporting complaints.

Financial Statements Audit Planning Report for the year ending December 31, 2024
Every year the city needs to have an independent auditor review our financial reporting and assure we are compliant with Public Service Accounting Standards, and that there are sufficient checks to assure there is no malfeasance in how the public’s money is collected, counted, and spent. This is the report where our auditor explains what their process will be for reviewing our finances, and Council approves it.

Revised Council Travel and Expense Policy
I brought a motion last year asking that staff review and revise Council’s travel expense policy. Since I’ve been on Council, the process has basically been “each Councillor gets ~$5k (the Mayor ~$10K) to spend on travel to conferences or training every year, if you exceed that you need to ask Council for more”. The new policy expands on this to put more control on out-of-province and international travel, and requires more reporting back to Council on travel that isn’t just the usual Lower Mainland LGA, UBCM and FCM trips. There is an increase in transparency here, and perhaps a bit more accountability in demonstrating why the travel or education is of value to the City.

Times have changed. The Mayor of New Westminster used to travel internationally on a pretty regular basis, be it Wayne Wright going to China with a group of local businessmen to Mayor Cote and a few members of Council attending a Sustainable Cities conference in Portland, Oregon. I think the travel-for-education part and the networking and advocacy work at events like UBCM is really valuable and something we should support, where I think the old-school idea that we need to travel to visit our Sister Cities in Asia every term to “maintain relationships” (yes, this used to happen, before my time on Council) is not something the average citizen sees as a valuable use of local government resources anymore.

Transparency and accountability – these are good things!

Rezoning: 88 Tenth Street (Columbia Square) – Affordable Housing Legal Agreement
Council gave Third Reading to the rezoning for this large development project late last year, and the developer and staff are working though the various conditions and Master Planning steps that need to be completed prior to the City adopting those Bylaws and giving “final approval”. As the City requested a provision of Affordable Housing as part of the development (20% of the total rental residential floor space), the tool we use to secure this is a Section 219 Covenant – a legal agreement between the City and the Developer regulated by Provincial Regulations. This report is asking Council to give the Mayor and the Corporate Officer the authority to sign that covenant.

We then had two Motions from Council:

New Westminster Hospice
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster is driven by the vision to be a vibrant, compassionate, resilient city where everyone can thrive.
WHEREAS the New West Hospice Society is dedicated to building a grassroots hospice initiative from the community level up, based on the Compassionate City model with a major underlying purpose to acknowledge and affirm that dying, death and grief are natural parts of the life-cycle.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster work with the New West Hospice Society and external partners to explore potential locations for Hospice services, and to advocate to the Provincial Government for the supports required to bring adequate and compassionate end-of-life care beds to New Westminster.

New Westminster Hospice Society has been doing incredible work in the City for about 8 years now, raising awareness of Hospice, and raising the conversation about dying with dignity and death as a natural process we need to be comfortable talking about. We are all getting there, sooner or later.

New Westminster does not have a stand-alone hospice and the one or two hospice care beds in the City do not meet our community’s needs. The Society wants to change that, and this motion results from them asking the City to support them in locating space and in advocating to the Provincial Government to support the operation of a hospice space in the City.

Re-establishing Vancouver Canucks Outdoor Community Gatherings in New Westminster
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS after over 50 seasons, there remains eternal hope that our cherished Vancouver Canucks will one day bring home the cherished Stanley Cup.
WHEREAS New Westminster Canucks fans would like to have the opportunity to demonstrate their support for the team right at home rather than having to travel to Vancouver.
WHEREAS the City of New Westminster has approved funding for the purchase of large outdoor TV screens and is preparing to host public activities in conjunction with the FIFA World Cup in 2026.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff be directed to begin preparations to host, in potential partnership with the Downtown Business Improvement Area and the New West Chamber of Commerce, a series of outdoor Canucks viewing events if they make it into the playoffs in 2025; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT staff report back to Council prior to March 31, 2025 with the operational and financial impacts as well as revenue generating opportunities associated with hosting outdoor/indoor
Canucks playoff events

This idea got bounced about a bit, and Council seemed to provide at best tacit support, mostly because there didn’t seem to have been much thought put into the details, and so there is a need to figure out some of those details before the City commits to it.

Mostly, there doesn’t seem to have been any attempt to determine if the Downtown BIA (as representatives of the downtown business community and organizers of public events downtown), Chamber of Commerce or Tourism (as Business promotion orgs funded in part by the City) have any interest in this happening. Does the downtown business community want this? Is the proposal to do this every night (current Miller / Pettersson / Demko uncertainty aside, the Canucks could play 20+ playoff games in the next two years without ever getting out of the second round) or a sub-set of games? Why Hockey and not any other sport? To quote another member of Council I have a lot of questions

In the end, Council didn’t say “no”, but suggested we need to talk to potential partners at the Arts Culture and Economic Development Advisory Committee and have staff report back to us on resource requirements. At least this year we are talking about it before the playoffs start. Go Canucks Go.

Back at it! We had our first Council meeting of 2025, and our first with some changes in the schedule and procedures as approve by Council at the end of last year. Not sure if it was a result of the new scheduling, fairly light agenda, or everyone chilled from a good holiday break, but the meeting went relatively quick and smooth. We started by approving the following item On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 1031 Quebec Street, New Westminster – Metro Vancouver Annacis Water Supply Tunnel, Fraser River Crossing
The big watermain tunneling project under the Fraser is facing a few delays, and need to extend their construction noise Bylaw exemption. They are anticipating the Tunnel Boring Machine will break through to the shaft in New West at the current construction site on Quebec Street early this spring, and they will need to work quickly to get the equipment out of the hole to reduce risk of flooding impacts on the in-ground works. This shouldn’t be too noisy at the surface, as it is mostly carne operations above ground, but bylaws be bylaws and they need an exemption.

We then dealt with the following items Removed from Consent for discussion:

Budget 2025: Proposed Consolidated 2025 – 2029 Five-Year Financial Plan
Council has held several open workshops covering the various aspects of the annual budget, operational and capital, utility and general, and now staff have consolidated that input into the (regulated) framework of a Five Year Financial Plan. In New West, we have all of these budget discussions in open meetings (unlike many cities) and if you are detail-oriented, you can follow along with those discussions with the reports, the spreadsheets, and the video here:

October 7 (Police Department provisional budget)
October 28 (Report on the Budget Survey)
November 25 (Utility Budgets and Strategic Plan update)
December 2 (General Operating Fund, proposed enhancements and tax rate impacts)
December 9 (Five-Year Capital Plan)

When it comes to the headline item – the annual operational budget and property tax impacts – Council reviewed a variety of budget options for the year ahead, ranging from a 4.5% increase (which would have required significant cuts in programs, something our public opinion polling clearly showed the vast majority of New Westminster residents and businesses do not support), a 5.5% increase (which would keep us at current service levels with inflationary increases and contract commitments kept intact), up to a 7.6% increase (which would support the requested 0.9% from the Police Department and a few other enhancements that Council had requested over the last year). We settled on deferring some of those enhancements and found a balance at 6.6%. of the enhancements that make up that 6.6% increase this year. For a typical New Westminster household, they break down like this:

More than half of the increase (shades of orange) are fixed and inflationary costs – work we have already committed to that is going up in cost around the 3% inflation rate. I broke out E-Comm (the organization that provided emergency communications for the Fire and Police Departments) because their increase is significant again this year, well above inflation, and we simply don’t have an alternative but to pay for it. The blue zones are the enhancements to services that Council agreed to and had a property tax implication. As you can see, most of this is police as we face higher recruitment costs and are managing a backfill strategy that will reduce burnout and assure we have adequate frontline folks at all times. The cost of software and cyber security is going up, as local governments are both moving to more digital services (such as building approvals) while we are increasingly victims of hacking and ransomware attacks, we can’t scrimp here.

We also approved a Capital Budget for the next 5 years that will include some significant investments in the community, from renovation of the Massey Theatre to advancing of the approved Active Transportation Network Plan and significant upgrades to our Electrical Utility to support higher reliability in Queensborough and expanded substation capacity to address anticipated demand growth. Those investments in the community will result in a drawdown of reserves, which we anticipate to be mitigated somewhat as we continue to work senior governments for support in infrastructure funding.

I will follow up through this month with more detailed posts about different aspects of the budget, but for now Council has asked Staff to write up the appropriate Bylaws to support this financial plan so Council can move recommendation. If you have feedback, let us know!

Follow-up Report on Council Motion: Strategy and Resources to Require Cooling in Existing Rental Buildings
The Heat Dome of 2021 still stands as a stark reminder (not that we need one this week with LA burning down) of the climate-disrupted future we need to address. The City has been doing a lot of work to reduce the impacts of future heatwaves, from our vulnerable building survey and one cool room programs, but these are responses that react to a situation, while better emergency management practice would be to use experience to prevent future vulnerability. We have not had people freeze to death in rental buildings of late, but we have had dozens of people die of heat exhaustion in their rental homes. Council has asked staff to explore what regulatory tools are available to the City to enforce maximum temperatures for rental buildings, much like minimum temperatures are already regulated.

This report outlines the work plan and gives Council a heads-up of the cost (mostly for external legal advice), which Council approved. We will also explore the appropriate fund (or senior government support tool) to pay for this, as it overlaps with climate mitigation work.

Response to Council Motion: “Cycling Sundays on Front Street” 2025 Pilot
As Front Street is planned for reopening in the spring after being closed for months for Pattullo Bridge replacement work, there was a request by Council to explore closing it on Sundays for cycling or walking, like done during 2020 as part of the City’s Safe Space to Move project during the COVID pandemic.

Staff looked at the request, and reported back that they recommend against it. The experience from 2020 was that it worked as a short-term pilot during the COVID times (reduced traffic, uncertainty about safety of traditional public gathering spaces) but also raised concerns from TransLink around truck capacity reductions, safety around the rail corridor and access to the couple of riverfront industrial properties on Front. Add to this the Pattullo Project already causing significant traffic disruption on adjacent streets (even after Front Street re-opening, they are going to need to start building and re-routing onramps) and a sense of general weariness in the local business community about these kind of closures (notably, they didn’t ask for this). There is also uncertainty if TransLink would even approve this change to a regional Truck Route, and it would cost time and effort to put the traffic impact studies together to make the case to them.

These are all technical challenges, and though some may be hard to address in time for the 2025 summer season, they can probably be overcome with significant cost. In the end, staff are suggesting that adding $120,000 – $200,000 to our budget plus the additional staffing resources might not be the best way to promote active transportation, never mind extra cost related to any active programming if the City wanted to take that on as well. In the end, Council unanimously agreed to not support this for 2025, though we are not closing the door to similar programs after the Pattullo work is done or a special occasion arises where it makes sense for the community to invest a bit here.

We had one Motion from Council:

Strong Cities Network
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster has a focus on Community Belonging and Connecting as a core priority in the current strategic plan, and
WHEREAS division, extremism, and polarization are on the rise both locally and globally,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster join the Strong Cities Network.

This discussion was framed by a delegation from the Strong Cities Network that talked about the work they do, and the partnerships and resources available to Cities who want to come along on the journey towards stronger community connections. There is not cost for us to join, but there are clear benefits. One of the most compelling parts of their presentation to me was discussion of the work they did after the Hamas terror attacks of October 7, 2023 and ongoing Israeli reprisals, where they sought to bring local Israeli and Palestinian communities together in North American cities to engage in dialogue and break the cycle of blame and polarization. We felt that polarization here in New Westminster (and in other cities in the Lower Mainland), and struggled to find ways to support constructive dialogue. I hope our joining with the Strong Cities Network (as Council voted to do) we can access some better tools and share our experiences, and not just make our City stronger, but support better social cohesion and understanding.

We then had a long raft of Bylaws for Adoption:

Official Community Plan Amendment (102/104 Eighth Avenue and 728 First Street Bylaw No. 8374, 2023
Zoning Amendment Bylaw (102/104 Eighth Avenue and 728 First Street) Bylaw No. 8375, 2023
These bylaws that support a 10-unit townhouse development in Glenbrooke North were adopted by Council. Infill coming!

Graphic Image Delivery Bylaw No. 8488, 2024;
Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 7318, 2009, Amendment Bylaw (Graphic Image Delivery) No. 8499, 2024;
Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw No. 8077, 2019, Amendment Bylaw (Graphic Image Delivery) No. 8500, 2024
These bylaws that require printed material that shows or appears to show a graphic image of an aborted fetus be delivered in a sealed opaque envelope with a warning and the name and address of the sender was adopted by Council.

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw No. 7318, 2009, Amendment Bylaw (Business Licence) No. 8489, 2024;
Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw No. 8077, 2019, Amendment Bylaw (Business Licence) No. 8490, 2024
These Bylaws that support enforcement of our updated Business Licence Bylaw was adopted by Council.

And that was the end of the work for the night. Happy 2025.

It’s Christmas time, but we had one more Council Meeting to get done before we take the year end break. Pa-rum pa pum pum. You can, as always, read the agenda or watch the video by selecting the date here. We started this meeting with a special presentation.

Recommendations on Cultural Observances from the Community Advisory Assembly
This was a recommendation to Council from the Community Advisory Assembly, a large group of regular folks from the community who the City has asked to come together once a month and make recommendations to Council. The model is innovative, and you can read about it here, but this report is about their suggestions on how we should address “Cultural Observances” in our remarkably diverse and growing city.

The way the City approaches Cultural Observances is some combination of “what we have always done” with occasional additions to reflect some identified cultural group in the community. We decorate City Hall with lights and poinsettias at Christmas because we always have, we light up City Hall at Diwali because we identified (relatively recently) that it was meaningful to the Sikh and Hindu members of our community. But we don’t really have a clear policy or practice around how we make these decisions, and we can’t mark every conceivable occasion or we would be doing nothing but that. So it is a good question to ask the community – how should we do this?

There are some great recommendations here, based on a better understanding the three types of events the City marks (Collective identity / Community led / Awareness-raising), and the different roles the city plays in each. Some of the changes suggested will require resources to action, and may lead to bigger discussions about how we allocate funding and support for events in the City, so we are referring back to staff to figure out how to function.

We then moved the following items On Consent:

2024 Capital and Operating Quarterly Performance Report
We get quarterly financial reports, so this is how we are doing today not directly related to the budget work we are doing for next year, but obviously informing of it.

As of the end of Q3, we have spent or committed $68.3M of our $199.8M Capital budget. Inflation and other pressures have increased capital costs by $5.1M (about 2.6%) but staff found internal savings and scope changes to reduce this impact to $500K.

On the Operating side, we are trending positively in both revenues (0.4% in surplus) and expenses (0.3% below budget), so overall very close to budget.

If you are a budget geek, there are about 50 pages of spreadsheets and departmental memos attached to this report about where we have spent money, where we are over an under budget. Fun part of about City budgeting is that we are about as open a book as possible, from who we paid $$3,645,435 to for paving services to the cost of the Crises Response Pilot Project or the cost for people to run recreation programs at təməsew̓txʷ. It’s all in there.

Bylaw Notice Enforcement Bylaw and Municipal Ticket Information Bylaw Amendments (Business Licence) for First, Second and Third Readings
We updated our Business License Bylaw, and need to update our Bylaw Enforcement and Ticketing bylaws so we can enforce it.

Official Community Plan Amendment and Rezoning: 1084 Tanaka Court – Bylaws for First and Second Readings
The owners of this vacant property in Queensborough changed it from Heavy industrial to a Comprehensive Development to support public assembly and retail use back in 2018. With market conditions changing, they want to now rezone it to Light Industrial to match the adjacent properties. This requires an OCP amendment, and these are those Bylaws.

The application is aligned with City policy and adjacent land uses. The proponent completed their required community and regional consultation and no red flags were raised. As it’s an OCP amendment, it will require a Public Hearing, which will happen early in the new year. Send us a note and let us know what you think.

Temporary Amendment to the Vehicle Procurement Process
We had a report last year on some challenges our purchasing department had in acquiring new vehicles in a difficult time for the supply chain of some specialty vehicles, especially newer lower-carbon options. We approved a temporary measure to accelerate the purchasing process, and staff are asking us to extend this change until the end of 2026 to support our current Capital Plan.

Our purchase process is still transparent and accountable to the public – nothing is purchased until approved by Council in a capital budget, and the price paid and seller is reported in our quarterly financial reports (see above!) under Major Purchasing Report.

We then had these items Removed from Consent for discussion:

Cannabis Store Relocation Requests: North Root Cannabis Ltd. and the Queensborough Cannabis Company
When we introduced our first policies around the regulation of cannabis sales in New West, we are entering unknown territory, and were looking at a significant “gold rush” mentality where a lot of people were hoping to be the first in the door or a potentially lucrative but likely risky business area. Our response as a City was to limit the number of applications we would consider, and use a screening mechanism to determine which applications would be considered on the first tranche. Then 2020 came and priorities changed, and we have not had a second or subsequent tranche of applications.

Lots has changed in the cannabis business (the gold rush is clearly over) and in the City since 2018. We have had two of the originally-approved applicants ask us to revise their permits, for different reasons. Staff are recommending we wait until we have an opportunity to revise our approval program in 2025.

As neither of these operators are of any concern to the City, they both passed initial screening and have viable business plans, and we are not dealing with the same pressures as in 2018, I felt it was unfair to make them wait until we get a revision of the policy done. So we are asking that their applications be advanced ASAP, as they have both been waiting quite a while to get to this point.

The second question is whether we want to remove the cannabis retail use from the existing properties. If we don’t then there may be two cannabis retailers in Queensborough (the same as there is now) and Sapperton (where there currently aren’t any). If we do, there will still be only one cannabis retailer in Sapperton instead of two. Council made a decision (I was a dissenting vote) to remove the permitted use from the existing sites.

Graphic Image Delivery Bylaw No. 8488, 2024 for First, Second and Third Reading
The community called on us to do something about the deplorable practice of Anti-Women’s Healthcare Activists of dropping graphic abortion-related flyers in mailslots and mailboxes. After councillors Campbell and Henderson brought forward a motion on this, staff have drafted a bylaw that does not infringe on activist’s right to political speech, but requires that graphic images be inside an opaque envelope that clearly indicates what the contents are.

We are the first municipality in British Columbia (but not the first in Canada) to take this step, and I’m proud of the community for pushing this, and our staff for finding a clear legal process.

Response to Council motion re: Selecting an inclusive and accessible site for the 2025 Canada Day celebration and festivities.
Council moved a recommendation to review our annual Canada Day event back in September, or more to ask what resources would look like to review this. A proper engagement with the community will cost money, and will take several months. As Canada Day events themselves take several months to organize (is actually starting right now), we are not likely to have a fulsome consultation prior to July 1, 2025. So staff recommendation is to roll this work into the work coming out of the Community Advisory assembly discussion (above), recognizing this will not occur before the 2025 events.

Another advantage of this is that part of this engagement can happen at and around the 2025 Canada Day events.Of note, the event at Pier Park had some logistical challenges related to the construction at Pier West, but still had more than 6,000 people come and attend (compared to ~400 estimated at the last Queens Park Canada Day event), and this was a real boost for the Downtown businesses appreciated by the BIA, so it is important that we engage with them and not use anecdotal info to inform how we organize these events.

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Electrical Utility Bylaw No. 6502, 1998, Amendment Bylaw No. 8497, 2024
This Bylaw that sets the City’s electrical rates for 2025 was adopted by Council.

Engineering User Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7553, 2013, Amendment Bylaw No. 8496, 2024
This Bylaw that sets the City’s water, sewer, and solid waste rates for 2025 was adopted by Council.

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw No. 8489, 2024
This Bylaw that permits the city to use a line of credit to cover short-term cash shortages prior to taxes being received was adopted by Council.

We then had two Motions from Council:

Tin Soldier Time Capsule Opening
Submitted by Councillor Campbell

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED That Staff report back with a plan and budget to host a Tin Soldier Time Capsule Opening on Friday, February 14th(Valentine’s Day) that it is open to the public, invites individuals and associations who helped design and construct the Tin Soldier, and works with community partners, including Tourism New Westminster, River Market and the Downtown Business Improvement Association in order to promote the Time Capsule Opening and includes opportunities for local restaurants and services to attract event attendees to their establishments before or after the Time Capsule Opening.

This motion doesn’t need much explanation more than what is above, but if anyone has a cd-rom drive we can borrow to read what is likely inside a time capsule sealed in 2000, let us know!

School Streets Pilot Program
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS one of Council’s Strategic Priorities is the Safe Movement of People, outlining a commitment to prioritize the movement of people on foot, cycle, and transit on streets that are safer for all; and
WHEREAS Bold Step #2: Car Light Community in the City’s 7 Bold Steps for Climate Action plan references school area improvements that support walking, transit, and cycling to school as potential capital projects; and
WHEREAS Bold Step #7: Quality People-Centred Public Realm states that a minimum of 10% of today’s street space that currently only serve motor vehicles, excluding transit, will be reallocated for sustainable transportation or public gathering by 2030; and
WHEREAS the streets around local schools experience marked increases in motor vehicle traffic at drop-off and pick-up times when there is a high concentration of children on and near roadways; and
WHEREAS there are both provincial and national initiatives that fund the creation of car-free spaces on streets in front of schools at the start and/or end of the school day;
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back to Council on the opportunity for the City of New Westminster to partner with the Society of Children and Youth BC to explore safe streets initiatives around selected schools; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff work with School District 40 to identify which schools would be appropriate to launch a School Streets Pilot Program that would reflect the principles of the National and/or BC Active School Streets Initiative; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff report back on the capital and operating costs associated with the implementation of a School Streets Pilot program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be directed to work with SD40 and other partners to update our Safe Routes to Schools maps.

Councillor Henderson has been working with the local schools community around various aspects of road safety. This is one of the results of that collaboration.

School Streets programs are popular in other jurisdictions, where road around schools are shut down for car traffic for fixed times around school hours, creating safer walking and cycling spaces for students and parents alike. There is a provincially-supported pilot program, but we missed the deadline for application this year, which doesn’t mean we can’t explore doing the program anyway if the School District is onboard.

As an edition to this, it was recognized that the City’s Safer Routes to Schools maps, which were developed in the early 2000s, might need updating as school catchments have changed, as has some of the transportation network. So Councillors is asking staff to work with the School District to see what updates might be needed here.

And that was it for the last Council meeting of 2025. We’ve beed seeing Santa around a lot lately, so we have been reducing our shouting, crying, and pouting, as instructed by song. I hope you l have a great holidays, and that 2025 is good to you and your family. 

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!