We had yet another marathon Council meeting this week. I wish the work we were getting done was proportional to the amount of time spent in rhetorical argument that changes no-ones mind, but that is not the path we are on. Regardless, we did get some work done, and for technical reasons started the Agenda with the adoption of a Bylaw:

Adoption of Heritage Designation (109 Third Avenue) Bylaw No. 8381, 2023
As discussed at the January Public Hearing, this Bylaw that designates a home in Queens Park was adopted by Council. Following this, we handed out the plaques for homes in the City that are designated as Heritage Assets, including this one and a large rental building downtown. We haven’t done this is a few years in part because of the weirdness of hybrid council meetings, so we had some catching up to do.

---

We than had two Presentations:

Proposed Airspace Modernization Changes at Vancouver International Airport (YVR)
The Federal Agency that oversees aircraft navigation in Canada wants to change the system that manages planes coming into YVR, which means changing some of the routes. This involves some public consultation (over the last three months, with on-line and open house formats across the lower mainland), and they came to present to Council. Though some other communities are unhappy because they foresee more overhead flights (Especially North Burnaby and Port Moody, where the tracks have shifted), it does not look to me like there will be increased flights over New West, or that the planes will be lower. There were quite a few questions asked by Council, and staff will follow up with an information report.

Air Quality Permit Application from Cedar Island Forest Products Ltd
There is a small wood products manufacturer operating on industrial land in Queensborough, operating for 30 years. They create sawdust as part of their operations, and have systems they call “cyclones” to trap this sawdust so it can be recycled. These cyclones do have some “emissions”, in that some dust gets through, and that means an air quality permit is required, and Metro Vancouver is the government that issues that permit by Provincial Law.

There are two issues here. The one up for discussion is the regulation of these dust emissions. Unfortunately, the notice provided by Metro Vancouver did not include many details about the actual application, only a link to the company website that has no details. It is even unclear if this application represents an increase in emissions, a reduction, or no change, or even if there will be any monitoring requirements, or evaluation of the impact of the emissions on adjacent properties. As such, I requested that Staff ask Metro Vancouver to delay issuing the permit until these details (the complete application) is made available for the City and public review.

The second issue is proximity issues between this long-established industrial use and the adjacent residential properties – a proximity apparently approved in the 1995 Queensborough Plan with development permits issued in 2011. I do not think we would permit this proximity if this application came before us today, but that is cold comfort to the folks living there today and feeling those proximity impacts.

---

We then moved the following item on On Consent:

Request for Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption: 660 Quayside Drive (Bosa Development)
The Bosa site on the waterfront needs to move crane sections in, which has to happen outside of traffic hours because of the disruption caused. This means they need a Construction Noise Bylaw Variance.

---

We then had these items Removed from Consent for discussion:

A Year of Truth
The City is advancing along its reconciliation journey thoughtfully. This report outlines the actions the City and its various departments are planning to undertake in the year ahead, under the banner of “a Year of Truth”, in recognition that truth comes before reconciliation. There is a lot of education happening in house, and opportunities for the public to engage in learning, listening, and better understanding of our history, and why reconciliation is needed. This is hard and often uncomfortable work, but it is good work and will make us a stronger community for doing it.

Building Safer Communities Program from Public Safety Canada
The City received a $1.7M grant from Public Safety Canada under the Building Safer Communities program to deliver services to at-risk youth in the community. This report outlines how the City plans to deliver those programs. The Government of Canada approved this plan (it is their money, after all), and we have identified the many partners in the community who we will be bringing in to help support the programming, including local social service NFPs, the Canadian Mental Health Association, and the School District. This is real, proactive crime prevention that centers vulnerable people before they get into trouble, and a great example of partnership in the community.

Council also moved to strike a Working Group to guide this work, in a format similar to what worked well to bring PACT to the City.

Housing Agreement Bylaw and Development Variance Permit to Vary Residential and Visitor Parking Requirements: 311 Ash Street – Bylaw for Three Readings
This older rental apartment building in the Brow of the Hill Neighbourhood wants to convert some unused parking space into rental homes, going from 29 units to 34, and reducing their parking from 35 to 21 spots. This requires a Development Variance Permit. In exchange, they will enter into a Housing Agreement guaranteeing that the building will remain Purpose Built Rental for 60 years or the life of the building, whichever is longer. This property is across the street from my home, so I am recusing myself to avoid conflict of interest.

Notice of Motion Process
There was a request in a previous meeting (ironically, by “Notice of Motion”) that we clarify the Procedure Bylaw on Notices of Motion. This is the report back from staff on the process as it was, as it is currently, and as they suggest it should be moving forward.

Every city does this a bit different, and staff reviewed some other cities to see what worked and what didn’t. Any of our cohort communities simply don’t do Notices of Motion except in exceptional circumstances, others require Councilors who want to bring a Motion must work with staff to write a report supporting the motion. There is no “common practice”, but in New West, we have a history of being a little loose in this area. This worked when we had the average of 5 or 6 NoMs per year (as we did consistently from 2010-2021), where we now have that many per meeting. This creates a legislative logjam that threatens to prevent us from getting any priority work done, and also prevents us from giving all Motions their due consideration.

Some changes are proposed. Part 1 codifies the structure of a NoM so they are easier to manage and review, and to protect us from liability resulting from poorly worded or inaccurate recitals. Part 2 clarifies the submittal process and limits the number of NoMs per meeting, Part 3 the staff review practices. Part 4 reinforces the purpose of NoMs. After a long discussion, Council decided to workshop an approach here instead of making changes now. and I’ll hold my longer form response to this until after that workshop.

Temporary Working Space Agreement (GVSD590) for 590 Blackberry Drive
There is a big sewer pipe under Glenbrook Ravine, within which resides a big valve. That valve is old and needs to be replaced. This is a big job, being done by Metro Vancouver this summer. This means they need to close the north access to Glenbrook Ravine to pedestrians during these works, potentially for 6 months. I’m not happy about this. Glenbrook Ravine is one of the most important green spaces in our community, there are many people in the community for whom the Ravine Trail is part of their daily life, a respite of cool space and nature that is fundamental to their wellbeing, especially in the heat of summer. However, I am satisfied that all due diligence was done and there was no alternative found that could reasonably allow the important sewer work to be done while maintaining access via Glenbrook Drive.

---

We then read some Bylaws including these for adoption:

Community Heritage Commission Amendment Bylaw No. 8384, 2023
This Bylaw that increased the number of members on the Community Heritage Commission from nine to ten was adopted by Council.

Development Cost Charge Reserve Funds Expenditure Bylaw No. 8371 2022
This Bylaw to allow us to spend DCC money on upcoming Queensborough drainage, sewer, and parkland improvements was Adopted by Council.

---

We then had some Motions From Council:

Gurdwara Sahib Sukh Sagar Emergency Management Partnership Opportunities
BE IT RESOLVED that the City of New Westminster Fire Department explore Emergency Management partnership opportunities with The Gurdwara Sahib Sukh Sagar to support the emergent needs in Queensborough

This is a good idea. The Gurdwara in Queensborough has been a great informal partner with the City when emergencies happen in Queensborough, and also show up across the region when people need support. Coming out of a couple of recent events, there were some conversations with our emergency services about how we could both support this work, and assure that we are not working at cross purposes with their massive volunteer force. A more formal relationship would open up some funding opportunities for supplies, training or other supports to help the Gurdwara help the community.

Increasing safe access to the Fraser River for residents and tourists
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back to Council regarding opportunities to provide increased direct access and connectivity to the Fraser River for our citizens and tourists;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we identify opportunities and possible funding sources to plan and develop additional userpay pleasure craft moorage on our City’s waterfront; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff be asked to identify possible new access points for a user-pay pleasure craft launch facility; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff identify the costs, challenges and opportunities of establishing a walkable link along the waterfront between Sapperton and Pier Park; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff prepare a key stakeholder consultation strategy to be presented to Council as part of this review; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff report to Council regarding the necessary budget, possible sources of funding and resources required to undertake the work as noted above.

The City developed a Riverfront Vision strategy, adopted in 2016. There were some positive moves on aspects of the vision, including the QtoQ, Front Street Mews, and the development of the public space plans for the Bosa development on the Riverfront. There are other aspects of it that are works in progress, including the connection of Pier Park to Sapperton Landing (set back seriously by COVID and the Pier Park Fire), and finding opportunities to better connect people to the River.

There was a tonne of work done a decade ago regarding private moorage along the Quay, it was one of the visions related to the original development of Pier Park under Mayor Wright. The Port made clear (and continues to assert) that the riverfront along the Quay is a working riverfront, and not a place where they would support pleasurecraft moorage, for a raft of safety and practical reasons. There *is* public moorage in New West in Queensborough where the Port supports it, and there is some potential for “touching” the river in the North Arm as we develop Poplar Landing, but that is a few years off. In the end, Council did not think this was a motion that merited support, as work under the Riverfront Vision has already been appropriately prioritized.

We also had an afternoon workshop where we worked through aspects of the City’s Capital Plan, in preparation for further budget development. That will be the focus of the next meeting, though no doubt there will be lots of opportunities for us to drift away from that focus.

Before our regular evening meeting on January 30th, we had a lengthy daytime workshop on the budget, which will be a topic of ongoing discussion and future blogs. In the evening meeting, we had the first Public Hearing of the new Council Term, and despite a pretty full Council chambers, it was a gentle introduction to Public Hearings for the folks new to the Council.

Heritage Designation Bylaw No. 8381, 2023 for 109 Third Avenue
The owner of this home on Queens Park volunteered to “designate” it, meaning it will have permanent protection as a heritage asset in the community beyond the protection provided by the Heritage Conservation Area. By Provincial Law, this designation requires a Bylaw change that actually requires a Public Hearing. We received no correspondence on this application, and we had one delegate come to express support.

In the subsequent Regular Meeting, Council approved giving this Bylaw third reading.

---

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
If you have noticed the new RCH Acute Care Tower going up in Sapperton, you might have noted that the floor plate size is really big. For structural reasons, these big floor slabs need to be poured all at once, which means pouring and finishing the floors before they set is technically very difficult within a 12-hour window allowed by our Construction Noise Bylaw. They are asking to exceed allowable construction hours three days a month to allow the floor finishing to be completed before the big pour sets. They will send notice to the neighborhood on timing, and do their best to limit noise leaving the site.

DCC Expenditure Bylaw No. 8371, 2023
The City collects Development Cost Charges from developments to pay for infrastructure to support that development and the growth that comes with it (water, sewer, drainage, parks, and transportation). This is a strictly managed process by Provincial law, as the DCCs must go into a specified Reserve, and must only be spent on a specified infrastructure project. One of the controls on that is that money can only be moved from these reserves to actually pay for the project by Bylaw approved by Council. This Bylaw approves the spending a little more than $1Million from those reserves for the projects they were designated.

Recruitment 2023: Appointments to Advisory Committees, Commissions, Boards, and Panels
We have appointed members of the community to various commissions and committees. We do this in Closed Meeting first as these appointments are recommended to Council by staff after extensive review of their applications, which includes personal information of volunteers and unsuccessful applicants, but the final appointments are brought to open meeting in this information report.

Rozzini’s Restaurant, 211 Ewen Avenue – Application for Patron Participation Endorsement
This popular family restaurant in Queensborough wants to have live music. Our Byzantine provincial liquor license laws require that they get a formal endorsement from City Council to allow this, and that they do a public consultation. A public consultation to decide whether a restaurant that has been operating for decades can have live music, eating up their time, City time, costing thousands of dollars. Anyway, that’s the law and here we are passing that resolution.

---

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Changes to the Terms of Reference of the Accessibility Advisory Committee and the Community Heritage Commission Bylaw No. 6423
The City is striking a new Accessibility Advisory Committee, and we are adding representatives from the NW Police Department and the NW Library. At the same time, we are adding another seat on the Community Heritage Commission. Both of these are committees with Provincial Regulatory structures, with Bylaws behind them, so these changes need bylaw amendments.

Renewed Child Care Protocol between the City of New Westminster and New Westminster School District No.40
The issue of Childcare has been front of mind for Council and the community. Recent changes in school space needs along with the Provincial integration of Childcare into the Ministry of Education have made it clear that there is an advantage to both parties if Council and SD40 more closely coordinate their child care initiatives. Some austerity hawks will argue this is not a “core service” of the City, but we have an active role to play in finding and supporting the full spectrum of childcare needs in the community.

The City and the School District had a 2009 Childcare Protocol, but the massive changes in this landscape warrant an update to that protocol; indeed this is a task identified in our updated Child Care Strategy. Informally discussed with School Board members, we need a more formal correspondence, including endorsement for some terms of the Protocol and timing of the completion. This report is asking Council to endorse those.

Rezoning Application for Detached Accessory Building: 228 Seventh Street – Comprehensive Report
This supportive housing operator in the Brow of the Hill neighborhood wants to expand their existing garage into an accessory building that will house some administrative uses. This needs a rezoning. I am not going to say any more about it, or take part in the decision here because I am a direct neighbor and this arguably results in a pecuniary interest, so I am recusing myself to avoid perception of conflict.

---

We then spent some time going through another raft of Motions from Members of Council

Mitigating traffic and transportation issues and improving pedestrian safety on Ewen Avenue in Queensborough
BE IT RESOLVED that staff provide a memo to Council regarding the opportunity to modify the current “no right turn on red” policy at Ewen Avenue and Howes Street so it only applies during peak rush hour traffic; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as part of the Queensborough Transportation Plan, staff seek feedback from local residents and business regarding their interest in the installation of a new pedestrian-activated crossing at the corner of Wood Street and Ewen Avenue

The First Phase of Consultation on the Queensborough Transportation Plan update was completed recently, and have are available on the City’s Be Heard New West website. There is a comprehensive survey in there, and some results from the stakeholder meetings, the Q’Boro Residents Association, and some pop up events in the community.

To be honest, this resolution could have been an email. I am not prepared to say whether these are good or bad ideas, though they are certainly more granular than we usually get here in Council when talking Transportation Plans. Looking at the relatively-recently completed Sapperton Transportation Plan, you can see these types of intersection improvements are evaluated and prioritized, but need to be done so in the context of their neighbourhood-wide effects, not as one-offs.

My reflex here is to support the Council proposal to refer these local ideas the Q’Boro Transportation Plan process that is ongoing, but as the second half refers already to the Plan, and the first half is a simple request Staff are willing to respond to without work plan changes, I was able to support the motion as it stands. Council moved to support this motion.

Increasing year-round usage of city park spaces through the installation of additional all-weather tracks as part of the capital plan
BE IT RESOLVED that staff prioritize the sourcing of funds required to install an increased number of all-weather fields in New Westminster over the next five years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as part of the 2023 Budget process staff identify the funds necessary to undertake a planning and community consultation process to determine the feasibility of prioritizing an all-weather field at Ryall Park in Queensborough.

A quick look at the City’s 5-year capital plan show there is $2 Million set aside in 2024 for another all-weather field, and during our tours of Queensborough, staff talked about the work they have done to evaluate potential options for Ryall Park. Notably, a full-sized 400-m track like at Mercer Stadium will not fit at that site, but there is potential for a smaller track, with consideration that building anything at Ryall is technically challenging (read: more expensive) for the very same soils conditions that make the current field wetter than some others.

Council is very aware of the calls for more sport and recreation facilities in Q’boro, though a lacrosse box / multi-use court was generally higher priority to folks I spoke with. That said, this all speaks to the need for a Comprehensive Parks Plan informed by full public consultation, which is in this year’s work plan. Council moved to refer these specific requests to that planning process so that conversation can take place before we commit those millions of dollars.

Requesting an update from local MLAs regarding a 2020 election commitment to provide a free bus service to Queensborough students
BE IT RESOLVED that Mayor Patrick Johnstone write to MLAs Aman Singh and Jennifer Whiteside to request a meeting be established with Councillors Tasha Henderson, Nadine
Nakagawa and Daniel Fontaine (School Board Liaisons) regarding the status of the provincial government’s 2020 campaign commitment to the parents and students of Queensborough for a free bus service to New West Secondary School.

There is some work going on in this space, though I have not heard of any public announcements yet. I’ve had a chance to have some informal meetings with MLA Singh at community events and check-in phone calls, and this is actually a topic he brought up in a recent chat. I have also been talking with TransLink colleagues about the Queensborough transportation plans, and they are evaluating the results of the recent additions to bus service levels related to schooltime queuing at 22nd Street station.

I am happy to write a note to MLA Singh, though Council also thought it appropriate to invite the School Board representatives to the Council/School Board joint working group to this meeting, as this seems like a conversation we should include them in.

Halting the City’s rebranding exercise as previously approved by Council in July 2022
BE IT RESOLVED that staff reduce the potential burden to residential and commercial taxpayers by ceasing work on any corporate-wide rebranding projects through to December 31st, 2024.

To be clear, and made clear numerous times by City staff, there is no burden to taxpayers related to the current work plan on rebranding, it is currently operating within the normal operational budget. There will not be any burden to taxpayers until a plan is returned to Council to seek guidance on next steps here whether this work occurs now or in 2025 (as the motion suggests) has no material effect to the budget. Putting aside the political hyperbole about the eventual cost of rebranding, Council will be able to opine on actual numbers once there are actual numbers. Council moved to defeat this motion.

Clarifying Matters Related to Notice of Motion in the Council Procedure Bylaw
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to report back on the apparent discrepancy between how the Council Procedure Bylaw No. 6910, 2004 was and is being interpreted and applied in the present, notably at the November 28, 2022 Council meeting with respect to Notice of Motion, and how the Bylaw was interpreted and applied by previous Councils in order to clarify the situation and determine what the correct procedure is, and
FURTHER THAT staff report back at the February 13th Council meeting with recommendations to improve Section 21 of the Council Procedures Bylaw 6910 to ensure it no longer lacks clarity and is less subject to interpretation.

This is both meta and Inside Baseball. The current practice at Council, as codified in the Procedures Bylaw, is for Notices of Motion from members to appear on an agenda then be debated and voted upon in the subsequent meeting. This was not the regular practice last term. Though this has been discussed in several meetings, there is a request here for clarity. The Procedures Bylaw can, of course, be amended by Council as suits their need, and staff have some ideas about how to improve the current Procedures Bylaw to make Council work better, and were planning to report back on this, so the request here is work already in progress. Council moved to approve this motion.

Investments in new pedestrian infrastructure to support the City’s active transportation network in Queensborough and reduce our carbon footprint
BE IT RESOLVED that staff incorporate into the 2023 Operating Budget a new two-year 50/50 matching grant Pedestrian Improvement Pilot Program that will support Queensborough residents who wish to accelerate the covering up of unsafe ditches with paved sidewalks that support non-fossil fuel based active transportation; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that $300,000 from the Climate Action Reserve Fund be used to fund this pilot project over two years; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff seek out funds from the senior orders of government to offset or match the City’s contribution to the pilot program

This Motion is unfortunately timed, as it arrived for debate right after our lengthy daytime Operating Budget workshop where the mover of this motion suggested slashing millions of dollars from that budget (with no clarity to where those millions will come from) just before this request to commit to an unfunded and unaccounted program that could add millions to the operating budget. That said, it looks like a capital program, so the effect on the operational budget is unclear, especially as vague and unrealistic funding models are being proposed. I could add the concern that a partnership funding model similar to the one proposed already exists for the ditch infill program (though it cannot be applied property-by-property, because you can’t just do storm sewer upgrades property-by-property, they need to be performed on a block-by block basis for a variety of engineering and cost reasons); that the Federal Active Transportation Fund money cannot be applied to a resident opt-in program because there is no way for us to predict the amount of funds we would need in any single grant year; and that there has been no costing or impact modelling to justify pulling the seemingly random number of $300,000 out of the Climate Reserve Fund.

So, I may sound a little frustrated, but this proposal demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of how the city works, of how governance works. Not just in the little details I point out above, but in the bigger picture. It seems to be built on the assumption that long-standing concerns of the community (in this case, open ditches and associated pedestrian issues) have been completely ignored by the City, and all we need is one boutique program sketched on the back of a napkin to solve the problem. The reality is that these problems are long-standing because there are no simple solutions. We have applied decades of professional planning and engineering staff to find solutions (including the existing Local Area Service Plan program), and are making slow progress, but also need to apply them judiciously to manage costs, and to manage knock-off effects (e.g.: what happens during intense storms to the older homes in a neighbourhood if the road is raised to a flood level that is higher than the first floor of the homes?). As in most things in politics, if it was easy, it would already be done.

In light of this, Council decided that this proposal should be taken to a workshop with Council to go through those complications, the challenges, opportunities, and the practical costs, so Council has the information it needs to make a decision like this before we commit what would likely be millions of dollars.

Finally, we wrapped with one piece of New Business:

Nomination of Councillor Ruby Campbell to the Election to FCM Board of Directors
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities put out a call for nominees for Board Positions, as they had a couple of vacancies. Councillor Campbell expressed an interest and prepared and application, but needed our endorsement. This does not mean she will be appointed (that is up to the FCM Board), but Council unanimously supported her nomination.

Happy New Year! We were back at Council on January 9th, with a fairly light agenda. We did however continue to have lengthy discussions at Council, this time peppered with selected quotes from this very blog. It is great to see that folks (even my new Council colleagues!) are still leaning into the legacy of my 10+ years of writing about local government and New Westminster, even if quotes are being pulled more for rhetorical purposes than to improve people’s understanding of how local government works. I guess you take the bad with the good!

We first moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 660 Quayside Drive (Bosa Development) – Construction Activity
The Bosa project needs to close a piece of road to deliver large crane components to the site, which they want to do when it will cause the least traffic disruption, but it will mean trucks operating outside or regulated construction hours, so they need this exemption. Council said OK.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: New Westminster Interceptor – Columbia Sewer Rehabilitation
The never ending sewer rehab work downtown needs to do a bit of night work to meet their timelines, and to allow then to do a bit of work that has to happen when sewer flows are low (at night). Council agreed to give then this exemption.

Funding Submission to the Provincial Community Emergency Preparedness Fund for Emergency Support Services
The City wants to upgrade some computer equipment related to tracking people who are displaced or evacuated as a result of an emergency, and to allow us to better coordinate with Emergency Management BC. Good news is there is a Provincial funding through the CEPF to pay for this, so we are asking for the $20k.

Heritage Designation (109 Third Avenue) Bylaw No. 8381, 2023 for First and Second Readings
The owner of this Queens Park home is requesting Heritage Designations to protect the home in perpetuity. That requires a Bylaw be approved and (by Provincial regulation) a Public Hearing. Council agreed to give the designation bylaw two readings to allow the scheduling of a Public Hearing.

---

The following item was Removed from Consent for discussion.

Council Appointments to Residents Associations
A few years ago, we decided to “Appoint” City Councillors to be designated contacts for Residents Associations so they have a single point of contact. Lucky we have 12 RAs and 6 Councillors, so two each. We don’t pick them, but staff make a recommendation based on Councillors not being the rep in the Neighbourhood where they live and that no Councillor be appointed to the same RA for more than one term. Read the list in the report, if you want to know your key contact.

---

Our Bylaw Readings included no Bylaws for Adoption this time around, so nothing to report there.

---

We then moved on to the Motions from Council:

Reducing the cost and time related to the development of new housing in New Westminster
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back to Council by April 30, 2023 with a plan for the City of New Westminster to develop up to 15 standardized and pre-approved housing designs for implementation by December 31, 2023

This was, in my opinion, a populist idea that doesn’t solve an actual problem. That opinion was reinforced when I talked to people more knowledgeable than I am about building approval and design. This is not something builders, architects or developers are asking from us, as they recognize that every lot is unique – even in places like the West End where lots sizes are almost standard, the changes in grades, utility connection sites, grade and spoil conditions would mean a “universal” design simply would not remain universal. The building code would require a comprehensive review of any universal design the minute it was fit into a non-standard location, so there is no indication this would speed up processes.

We also just went through Council onboarding discussions where Policy Planning staff made it clear what their Council-directed priorities are in the upcoming year, and the number of thing they already don’t have capacity to move at the speed Council would like. Developing this plan on the timeline suggested would take a lot of policy planning work, which would mean taking staff away from those already-strained work plans to achieve higher-priority work (like our current infill density review, review of our inclusionary zoning policy, the Downtown Livability Strategy). We have a *lot* of ongoing housing policy based on our priorities set out in our Housing Needs Report, to divert resources to this without knowing if it even aligns with our priorities for housing is a bad idea.

That said, we have an Affordable Housing Task Force that can evaluate those priorities and work with staff to do some preliminary work to determine if this approach will even achieve any of the City’s expressed goals, so Council decided to refer this idea to that Task Force for further evaluation before we commit limited staff resources to developing it.

Supporting the need for a ‘Snow Summit’ in Metro Vancouver to review the impacts of recent climatic event
BE IT RESOLVED that Council request Mayor Johnstone, as our representative on Metro Vancouver, introduce a motion requesting a ‘Snow Summit’ be held as soon as possible to review and analyze the circumstances which led to a record level of traffic gridlock in our region on Tuesday, November 29th; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Anvil Center be offered as a possible venue for this summit which should include, at a minimum, representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, Metro Vancouver, BC Ambulance, TransLink, ICBC, Mainland
Contracting and senior officials from the various municipalities in our region that can speak on behalf of our first responders including fire and police.

The Snow Event of November was clearly unique, one not repeated with the major snow and ice event in December. I suspect the extra communication work we saw leading up to the December event by both the Minister of Transportation and the new Minister for Emergency Preparedness and learnings from the November event were part of why we did not have a similar event. As I mentioned in Council, Snow and Ice plans are constantly adapting here in the City and regionally. I don’t think we need an expensive get-together of politicians to make that process work better. Maybe a session at UBCM would help elected folks understand the processes and ask questions

However, it is important to note that Metro Vancouver’s mandate does not include transportation or snow removal. It would be weird to ask Metro to wade into an area so far out of their mandate when they have their own priorities. Metro is also not a body that typically advocates for transportation policy changes for local government, it is a Regional District, not and advocacy organization. That is the role of UBCM and its area associations. I also note that all of the agencies listed in this motion were well made aware of the call for a Snow Summit, and none seem to have expressed interest, and the Chair of Metro Vancouver (in his role as Mayor of Delta) has already opined extensively on the topic, so I see little value in raising his attention to the matter. Council voted to oppose it.

Delaying the demolition of the Centennial Community Center and beginning to address our city-wide infrastructure deficit
BE IT RESOLVED that the demolition of the Centennial Community Center be temporarily delayed and the building continue to operate in its current form until an equivalent capacity for new recreational facilities and meeting space can be identified and/or constructed in our city; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that staff report back to Council on the financial implications on the city’s operating budget related to delaying the Centennial Community Center demolition

During Council on-boarding, we took a tour around the Centennial Community Centre. It was clear from that tour that the building is at end of life. If it was to continue to operate, it would require significant structural and operational upgrades to address hazardous building material and seismic code. It is a very inefficient building that challenges our Energy and Emissions plan, it is nowhere near meeting modern accessibility standards, and even its layout and function no longer suits what is needed in New Westminster for recreation programming.

This is why the decision was made to remove the building and not just replace its capacity – but provide double its capacity for recreation programming and community meeting space in the new təməsew̓txʷ Aquatic and Community Centre, which will be universally accessible and the first Zero-Carbon Aquatic and Recreation center of its kind in Canada – allowing the City to meet its corporate climate goals for 2030. It also meant we needed to fit the new TACC on a very constrained site, which requires the removal of the CCC for road access, for mechanical back-end service access to TACC, and to expand open and green space on around the building.

The idea of keeping this building meets none of the City’s goals, and again solves no actual problem, while generating unknown costs. To suggest keeping a building that is past its useful life, will need significant upgrades and repairs to keep functional, and does not fill a required need will somehow reduce our infrastructure deficit is to fundamentally not understand what the term “Infrastructure Deficit” means in the Asset Management and Municipal Finance dictionary of terms. Council did not support this motion.

Quantifying the downloading of costs from senior orders of government as it pertains to the City of New Westminster 2023 operating budget
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back to Council, as part of the 2023 Budget development process, with an itemized list of expenditures [and Senior Government revenues] the City of New Westminster has incorporated into the draft operating and capital budgets which are typically considered outside of municipal jurisdiction and are not part of our ‘core services’

The key term here is in ‘scare quotes’. That’s not a good idea when writing a resolution you want Council to endorse; hanging direction on unclear definitions will bring unexpected results. This was also a motion that brought a Delegate with an advanced degree in Philosophy to discuss the ethics of even asking this question, which was one of the most intriguing public delegations I have heard in my 8 years on Council. But all that aside…

This motion hopes to duplicate work done in Vancouver a few years ago that was celebrated by austerity hawks in local media and largely ignored by everyone else. The problem is that no-one can agree on what is “typical”, what is considered “core service”, or even who gets to make that determination. The Constitution is silent on the role of Municipalities, and our empowering legislation (the Local Government Act and the Community Charter) really avoid the topic. Nowhere is it written that operating a skating rink (for example) is a “core local government service”, but many do it. So if we are going to undergo this type of exercise, it is going to involve first a conversation (which will no doubt have a political aspect) on what *we* deem ‘core service’. Or more pointedly, what we don’t. Notably, the mover was asked a few times to provide an example of a non-core service the City provides, and chose not to do so.

Anyhow, the motion was amended to remove the 2023 budget timeline (as this conversation about what constitutes core service will take some time, and the 2023 budget timeline and work plan is already established by staff), and to add an evaluation about what senior government funding we receive to support our programs (as the numerator here needs a denominator). I’m not convinced the end result number will be a useful as the mover hopes, but am interested in Council having this conversation. Council approved the amended motion.

---

And that was an evening’s work at Council. We have another two weeks of Council Onboarding, then a Strategic Planning session, then deep into 2023 Budget work. The next couple of months are going to be busy for our new Councillors. Try not to spook them.

We had a bit of a marathon Council meeting on Monday. A lot of things added to the agenda, a bunch of new Council members (myself included) learning the ropes and working our way through procedures and processes. There was also a fair amount of grandstanding and political theatre, which is a new vibe, but I’ll try my best in this post to stick to the decisions made, and not the distractions.

The meeting started with Reports and Presentations from staff:

Downtown Livability
This was a comprehensive reporting out and two reports to update Council and the public on all the work going on Downtown right now. A lot of this arose from a mid-Pandemic motion asking for some more proactive approaches to downtown streetfront activation, but is also related to recent delegations to council regarding interface challenges with the emergency shelter. Staff have taken a package of short-term, medium-term and long-term tactics and strategies (those are two different things) and called it a “Downtown Livability Strategy”. These reports outline a few of the measures and plans, to get both the new Council and the public caught up.

The first report was about capital investments, and goes back to the removal of the parkade and building of the “Mews” on Front Street, which has become a great public space. There were plans to expand this activation to the east all the way to the 4th street overpass, and some preliminary work was done to test out some concepts. The more permanent work got delayed by COVID as Council and staff chose to prioritize the support of businesses and the community through the pandemic. However, there is money in the 2023 capital budget to do that work (though it may need to be updated as the current cost estimate is from 2018, and inflation is a thing).

Then there was a more operational report. Staff from Community Planning, Economic Development, Engineering, Fire Services, Integrated Services (“Bylaws”), Parks and Recreation, Finance, and Police Service have all been a part of its development and ongoing implementation.

There are five main areas of action: Improved general cleanliness and enhanced access to 24/7 public toilets; Enhanced homeless outreach and added emergency shelter capacity; Opioid epidemic and illicit drug response; Business support and engagement; and mental health response and support. Each is outlined in the report and detailed in the presentation, so I won’t belabour that here.

There is also an accounting for how much we have spent, how much we anticipate spending, how much support we have received from senior government, and how much more we are going to ask. The big cost items will be Public Bathrooms, both the capital cost of long-term solutions, and the ongoing operational cost to assure they are clean, safe, operational, and comfortable for all users.
There are costs, but this detailed report is an excellent rebuke to some who would suggest nothing is being done. Challenges are daunting, the responses are not simple but require inter-departmental and interagency coordination, and they cost money. Success looks like people being safer downtown, people having access to social services they need to get through their day, people have a dignified place to go to the bathroom and to sleep at night.

As this is ongoing work, this was in part an update report, but it was also notice there would be requests coming from staff in the new year for new monies as part of our budget deliberations to support some of the medium- and longer-term goals. There is also a commitment to seek senior government support for much of the work.

Feedback from Businesses about Sixth Street Bike Lanes
Coming from last meeting’s delegations, we asked staff to engage with the business community about the construction site Uptown (“construction site” because the bike lanes are not built yet and any impacts they are feeling now will be related to construction, not bike lanes). As staff had a very limited time to connect with businesses and prepare this report, the summary is necessarily incomplete. The bulk of the comments were about snow removal and lack of bikes using the new lanes (though, of course, the lanes are not opened yet but are a construction site), though there are concerns about parking availability and some other concerns they would like addressed.

The report also goes through the two years of multi-phase engagement with the 1,000+ residents, businesses, and stakeholders during two years of active engagement and co-design of this project. And the many years stakeholders (Including the City’s Active Transportation and Youth Advisory Committees) were asking the City to provide safe cycling infrastructure to the new High School – a conversation that started long before the new school was even built.

Staff did identify some potential mitigation strategies to address some concerns raised during the engagement, which council endorsed.

---

We then moved the following items Moved on Consent:

Amendments to the Community Heritage Commission Bylaw No. 6423, 1997
These are basically housekeeping updates of the Bylaw that empowers the CHC. Since we were opening it up to appoint two Council members it was timely to make these updates to align with other City policies and changed provincial regulatory language.

Staffing Challenges Update
Like many organizations, we are short staffed. About 10% down in simple vacancies, another 5% with people on leave (medical, parental, etc.). This makes it hard to operate. This report is mostly for information, to get the new council up to date on the conversation had with the last council. Staff will bring another report back in the near future with some new strategies to address workload and staff culture in a time of being under-resourced.

---

We then had the following items Removed from Consent for discussion:

Budget 2023: Engineering and Electrical Utility Amendment Bylaw
We reviewed and debated Utility Rates last meeting, and approved the increases, asking Staff to prepare the necessary Bylaws. These are those Bylaws. There was once again a motion to divert money from reserves for a one-time rate reduction, but Council did not vote to support this. There will be much more discussion of the importance of reserves and their relationship to asset management best practices in upcoming budget discussions.

Child Care and Community Uses on School Sites
This report outlines a lot of the background behind the closing of community spaces (childcare and Family Place) in downtown schools as they struggle to meet their capacity needs for elementary students in the downtown. This has resulted in an exchange of formal letters, and several meetings at the staff and Council-to-School-Board level to talk about the current situation, but more about how we can work together to address the critical space shortage and longer term to better plan for school space needs.

Efficiencies – Processes and Council Meetings
This report has a collection of ideas from staff on how to make the Council Meeting process more efficient. This is one of those reviews that typically happens at the beginning of a new term. There are a few things here, and we voted on them separately, so I’ll try to be concise.

Committee of the Whole is a model used by many Local Governments, and was the standard way of doing business in New West when I was first elected in 2014. I didn’t like the way we did them then, because I saw it as being very duplicative: there was an afternoon meeting where decision were made, and an evening meeting where they were (sometimes performatively) made again. I envision them working differently now, by treating them as topic-specific Standing Committees, with all members of Council included. For example, I can see a place for a Finance and Asset Management Standing Committee, and another to address actions directly related to the 7 Bold Steps. I also think this model could replace the function of LUPC, bringing all of council into those earlier conversations on planning and development, so the Standing Committee on Development as proposed here can serve that function.

As I see a Standing Committee of the whole offsetting some of the existing Task Forces, I want to keep my commitment to Council that we not make significant changes to the tasks forces or committee structure until after Strategic Planning, so I suggested we postpone striking these Standing Committees until after that time.

There are suggested changes here to the Preliminary Application Review process (an early-review for some developments), and a new policy for Voluntary Amenity Contributions that council supported and staff will develop for our future approval.

We also approved the idea of moving “For Information” reports off of the regular agenda, and instead making the available on the city website and providing a link to them on the agenda. If there isn’t a decision for Council to make, we don’t’ need to spend a bunch of valuable Council time reviewing the reports. They are available for us (and the public) to read, and if a Councillor has questions or concerns rising from them, they can request that report be brought to the subsequent council meeting for discussion.

There were some proposed changes in delegation powers related to the noise Bylaw that we sent back to staff to give us a more fulsome report before we make any changes.

---

We then read several bylaws, including the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw No. 8370, 2022
This Bylaw that gives staff the authority to draw temporarily form our line of credit in case of low cash flow was adopted by Council.

---

After all of that, the night was only half done as we had a bunch of Motions from Council, but I think I’ll skip those for a follow-up post, and get right to the bottom of the agenda where we had two pieces of New Business:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: Front Street from Tenth Street to McBride Boulevard – Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection
Metro Vancouver needs to do inspection and maintenance of the major sewer line under Front Street. It has to happen at night (so the sewer flows are low enough that they can “shut down” the line for a period of time), and when it isn’t pouring rain (for the same reason – yes, a lot of rainwater gets in to the sewer. So we are granting them a Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption to do this work.

Electric Utility Billing Credit
The BC Ministry of Energy and Mines is giving BC Hydro Customers a one-time credit ($100 for most residential customers), and as New West Electrical is a BC Hydro customer, we also get a Credit. Council agreed to pass that credit on to customers the same as BC Hydro. If you had a NWE account in October, you should see the credit on your first bill in the new year.

---

That was the bulk of the work done in the meeting. I’ll write about the rest of the evening in a follow up. Lucky I have some vacation time coming up.

Have I mentioned I’m busy? It’s not necessarily something to be proud of. Being busy is often the opposite of being productive, and usually can’t be sustained, but there is a lot of stuff (good and bad) going on that is taking away from my time to sit down and write these. So a little late but here is my report on what we did on Monday with a fairly light Council agenda:

We started by moving the following items On Consent:

2023 Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Amendment Bylaw
The City spends money all year round, but about half of our income comes in a very short period when people pay their property taxes. This means the “cash on hand” the City has to pay day-to-day bills is cyclical, reaching a nexus at tax time. We also want to limit the amount of “cash on hand” we have, as we would rather be providing services with that money (or earning investment income in reserves). So we have a line-of-credit with a bank just in a case we have a sudden need for cash at the time when our cash on hand is low. We don’t use it much, but it is better to have it there than to default on a bill because of a short-term crunch. This borrowing authority relies on the City passing a Bylaw every year to approve it. This is that Bylaw. We approved giving it 3 readings.

Appointment of Chair to the Accessibility Advisory Committee
In part related to changes in Provincial regulation, the City is reconstituting an Accessibility Advisory Committee. We approved the Term of Reference in the last meeting before the Election, we are now appointing Councillor McEvoy to serve as the Chair. Councillor McEvoy has been increasingly open about his mostly-hidden disabilities, and his lived experience will serve the community well here.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: Front Street from Tenth Street to McBride Boulevard – Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection
MetroVancouver is going to do late-night sewer inspections along Front Street. This happens at night because the traffic disruption is reduced, and because the flow in sewers is reduced late at night, allowing the temporary and necessary shutdown of the sewer pump station for the work to be done. We are granting a nighttime construction noise variance for five nights.

Proposed 2023 Schedule of Council Meetings
The proposed schedule for Council meetings in 2023 would include about two meetings a month except July August and December that each have only one meeting, totaling 21 meetings. This is consistent with the meeting schedules for the last few years, while recognizing there is an ability to add an emergency meeting if need be. Set your calendars!

---

The following items were then Removed from Consent for discussion:

Community Grant Program: 2022 Highlights and 2023 Program Adjustments
The City has a generous grant program for organizations providing a variety of community-building services. In 2022 about $1 Million was given out through 105 grants to 93 organizations. These are a variety of social service, childcare, sports, environmental, arts and festival organizations that make our City a richer place to live.

This report called attention to many of the successes that came from grants in the last year, and looked at some adjustments to the grant process to make it work smoother. In essence, one of the three intake periods was not working very well due to a variety of challenges, including weirdness of trying to organize grant application and approval during the summer months. Staff is recommending we reduce the intakes to two: the “regular” fall one and the in-cycle late spring one. Council approved unanimously.

Q3 2022 Capital and Operating Performance Report
This report outlines quarterly changes to our annual Capital Budget, 5-Year Capital Plan, and overall 20222 Operating Budget, based on progress on various capital projects in the City. There are a few details in the Capital part here (the pool might be delayed a bit, the Queensborough Substation may come in under budget, the AMI meter upgrade in the Electrical Utility may go over budget, etc.) but pending further reports, there is only a small adjustment ($771K, or 0.4% of the annual budget) that will be offset within the existing 5-year plan.

The operational budget update is a good-news-bad-news thing. There are reports from each department and overall we are looking at surplus numbers (revenue exceeding spending more than anticipated) but a lot of that is a result of us being short staffed and unable to deliver on a lot of programs and projects because of that shortage. Council voted unanimously to make the required adjustments.

---

We had a couple of pieces of New Business which were both brought forward from a previous closed meeting:

Recruitment 2023: Appointment to the New Westminster Library Board
We have a Library Board as constituted by the Provincial Library Act. As per the recommendation, we appointed the current Chair to another 2-year term.

Release of Motion regarding School Capacity and Child Care options
We received a letter from the School Board a couple of weeks ago, and also received a delegation speaking to concerns around the movement of childcare spaces from Downtown Schools where the capacity is needed for teaching spaces. We are responding to the correspondence with some shared concerns, and setting the stage for working together to address childcare capacity concerns downtown.

---

We had presentations, delegations, and a few readings of Bylaws, but the list above are the decisions made by Council in the meeting on Monday. We had a few referrals to staff coming out of delegations, but I will report on these when they get back to Council with staff reports.

Yep, I’m busy. So to keep something happening on this page, and in the spirit of recycling and placemarking, Here are the notes I used for the inauguration speech I delivered on Monday. Share and Enjoy.

Thank you.

I am honoured to be here, and humbled to receive the support from the community for this role.

I want to start my remarks by expressing deep gratitude to Mayor Jonathan Cote. I am so grateful for the work he did on Council and 8 years in this chair to move New Westminster forward. His work and vision have left a strong foundation for this Council to build upon – leadership on housing, on climate, on public engagement. Even through this last term with a global pandemic and so much economic uncertainty, we weathered the storm and are a stronger City now than we were 8 years ago.

And personally, having worked with Jonathan for 8 years, I also appreciate his mentorship and his friendship. His knowledge of the job, and his keen eye of my own strengths and weaknesses made our conversations over the last few weeks invaluable. I appreciate his sage and candid advice during the transition, and appreciate the time he took with the new Council Members to inspire their confidence in the work to come.

I also want to thank Chuck Puchmayr, Mary Trentadue, and Chinu Das for your service to this community. I have watched as all three of you put your hearts and souls into this work, each leaving indelible marks on the City. Especially through the challenging last 4 years, I am proud or our reputation as one of the most functional councils in the Lower Mainland, and the work you did to make that happen. We found consensus on most issues, and were respectful in our disagreements. It wasn’t easy, but most Mondays I walked home from the council meeting feeling we did good work for the community, and I thank you for that. I thank you for the sacrifice of your time and energy, the time away from your families, your other plans put on hold, in service to the community.

To the four new members of this Council, Ruby, Tasha, Paul, and Daniel, and to our returning champions Jaimie and Nadine, congratulations on earning the support of the voters, and thank you for stepping up to do this work. I look forward to each of you bringing your unique and diverse perspectives to this Council. My commitment to you is to do my best to empower each of you to do your best work here. This is a council of seven members, and I ask you to remember the community is best served when all of council engages in robust discussion of matters on our agenda, seeks consensus where it can be found, and does not let disagreement prevent us from taking firm and decisive action on the issues important to this community.

We have all spent the last 6 months (or more) knocking on doors and speaking with the community, we have heard the issues that are top of mind: housing, climate, transportation, safety for all in the face of overlapping crises in our region. We also heard that the community wants a proactive and forward-looking Council, not one that shrinks away from these challenges.

I also want us to be mindful of the voices we didn’t hear during the campaign, to recognize that political engagement is often the privilege of the few. It is incumbent upon us to continue to reach out and engage the entire community, especially those who face structural barriers to representation.

I also ask that all of council engage meaningfully in the journey towards reconciliation that we are undertaking as a local government. Be mindful that we are only the latest representatives of a system of erasure, built on the theft of land and of history. As we do the work commanded of us by legislation, we must also do the parallel work of exposing the truth and of building meaningful relationships with the people indigenous to these lands. That work is both collective and individual, and it is at times difficult, but it is your responsibility now, and as important as anything you will do in the next four years.

I also want to make special note of the work the City is doing to address climate change. You will be in these seats at least until 2026, taking us half way to 2030, a year for which bold targets for emission reduction have been set by this City, by the Province and the Nation. Everything else we do in the City – from housing and transportation to recreation and public safety – will be impacted by climate disruption, and will need to adapt to meet these targets. This is the term of council that will decide if our City meets our legislated goals, there can be no delay.

Perhaps an unintentional symbol of this responsibility, City parks staff have planted seven new trees on the front lawn of City Hall to mark the inauguration of the new Council. Let them remind us of our responsibility and the work ahead.

In the next few months, we will engage in a strategic planning process to set out our collective goals for the term, and in this job the consultation with the community never stops. I look around the council table, and I see our community represented by the many different life paths and experiences that brought you here. I know you are ready to do this work, and will make New Westminster proud.

But we cannot do this alone. We need to work as a team, we need to support and empower our staff to find creative and innovative solutions to the unprecedented challenges facing the community and the region. And we need to empower the broader community to be partners in these solutions. New Westminster is a city of incredible teams doing great work – non-profits and social profits supporting community, neighbourhood organizations, Arts and Sports organizations, Business organizations formal and informal. As a City we can harness that energy and talent to do amazing things.

So I close with an invitation to everyone in this room and everyone watching at home, to get involved. Connect with your Residents Association or your local Business Improvement organization, volunteer with the Arts Council or New West Little League. Come to a community engagement session, and bring a friend or two. This is your City, and your community, and you can shape it, but first you have to show up. By taking active part in your community, you in turn empower this Council to achieve the community’s goals.

Working together to support the community we love is a New Westminster tradition I hope we will all embrace.

Believe it or not, we had a Council Meeting on Friday. The shortest council meeting ever, with only one item on the Agenda. But  I’ve reported here on every other council meeting over 8 years, so it would be a shame to miss this one and break the streak.

Permissive Property Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 8366, 2022
The City provides permissive property tax exemptions to some properties that are used for community service of charitable purposes. Every year we need to update the Bylaw that empowers this. Our council schedule got messed up by the stat holiday to mark the death of the Queen, and this one outstanding piece of business needed to be addressed on a legislated timeline. So we met to Adopt this Bylaw. And voted unanimously to adopt it.

The new Council is sworn in on November 7th. See you there!