Lower 12th

Posted on March 18, 2025. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

There was an interesting discussion at Council Workshop on Monday that is worth unpacking a bit. I don’t usually write up Workshop reports here, because these are not typical Council meetings. They tend to be more free-ranging conversations Council has about items that are preliminary or half-cooked; more of a check in and request for direction from Council on an ongoing initiative than final decision points. We talked about spending on Canucks viewing parties, about the Liquid Waste Management Plan, and about next steps on Vision Zero, but the most interesting item was staff checking in with Council on the Lower 12th Special Study Area.

Blue dashed line shows the “Lower 12th Special Study Area” in the City’s Zoning map.

…and in the City’s Official Community Plan land use designation map.

Lower 12th is a (mostly) grey spot on the City’s zoning map, and an equally distinct purple spot in our Official Community Plan maps. It was an area identified during the 2017 Official Community Plan discussions as being unique, and requiring a unique approach. The current OCP updates (being driven by Provincial mandate) and some preliminary applications by developers interested in putting mixed-use residential development here are pushing staff to ask Council how they want to deal with this space.

The background here is that Council back in 2017 saw this space as needing to continue to be a job-generating space. One of the larger policy goals of our OCP is to continue to develop job growth on pace with population growth (as we have managed to do over the last few years, despite the COVID blip). Staff and Council identified this area as being one of the last parts of the “mainland” where job creation is the main land-use driver. It is also unique in the downtwon area in that there are relatively large lots, it is generally flat, and the transportation connections are robust, including being a short walk from a SkyTrian station. This all means there is opportunity here.

Much of the land there is zoned as light industrial and commercial, and with no OCP designation (except “special study area”), significant development would require OCP amendment and rezoning. Although valuable commercial businesses, used car lots are not likely the “highest and best use” of properties in the centre of a dense urban city only a few hundred metres from a SkyTrain station. There is pent up value here that developers would love to release, and the most value in the region right now is in housing.

Up to now, much of the discussion of this area has been how to maintain ultra-light industrial and commercial space, maker space or light manufacturing while adding housing to help finance the redevelopment of an under-perfomring area. But the demands in New West in 2025 are different than those in 2017, and Council is more interested in learning how new modes of retail and commercial land use can be supported. Council also recognizes the increased need for green space in the Downtown and Brow neighbourhoods, need for school space and potentially other institutional spaces, and even need for expanded community amenity space for everything from a new Firehall to city administrative space and community centre space.

With all of this in mind, I opened the discussion at Council asking that we take a bit of a step back, and Council unanimously agreed. Staff is going to do more work on the Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, on our Economic Development plans (Retail Strategy, Employment Strategy), and bring Council some more options around how this unique part of the City might develop differently. That may, or may not, include significant residential density to support redevelopment, and this is where I think Council still needs to give some clear direction in the next little while. But we need to give that direction with a fuller understanding of the land economics and potential for this unique area.

We are not a City that has traditionally said “no” to housing, and have taken seriously our responsibility to meet our Housing Target Orders, and meet our regional commitment to housing need. Our upcoming OCP update will address our 20-year housing need as required by regulation. That said, it is not obvious that we need housing in this location to meet those commitments or obligations, and we certainly don’t need housing at the density envisioned by the early catalyst projects in this area. I don’t think we should preclude, however, the opportunity to leverage truly affordable (non-market supportive or transitional) housing in this area if senior government partners are ready to fund it.

Everyone recognizes we also schools, we need green space, we need institutional, community, and creative space to support the livability of our community, and this “grey area” is a place that may provide unique opportunity to fit more of those needs in one of the denser parts of the City. It was a great conversation at Council, and I’m happy we were all able to come to a pretty clear consensus on this.

More to come!

Council – Feb 24, 2025

Posted on February 27, 2025. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Another exciting Monday Night in New Westminster Council Chambers! We managed to get through a pretty deep agenda fairly quickly, starting with moving these items On Consent:

Development Cost Charges Expenditure Bylaw No. 8513
DCCs are money collected from developments in the City to pay for the growth proportion of infrastructure upgrades and replacements. This is the primary and regulated way development is charged its “fair share” of infrastructure costs. The City has multiple separate DCC accounts for water, sanitary and storm sewers, and parkland acquisition. For technical reasons related to how DCCs must be directly costed to identified projects, we run separate DCC accounts for Queensborough and the mainland related to the differing costs between developing utilities in Queensborough and the mainland.

In order for the City to apply accumulated DCC funds to projects, we first have to identify those projects through our annual Capital Plan, then we need to pass a Bylaw permitting the funds from the DCC reserves to be applied. This is that Bylaw.

By this Bylaw, we plan to apply $1.53M from the existing DCCs to our capital plan for 2025. Most of this is for the ongoing mainland sewer separation/upgrade projects and related water service upgrades, and for debt payments we are still making on the Pier Park purchase.

Proposed Delegation of Select Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Requests
We have been processing a lot of Construction Noise Bylaw Exemptions, and the way we currently process them is a bit onerous for staff. We had 23 applications come to Council in 2024, and all 23 were approved unanimously by Council, indicating that the screening method Staff is using to get these in front of Council is very well aligned with Council’s mindset on these. It is also noted that the vast majority of these applications are senior government projects over which we have limited regulatory recourse, and that we are somewhat disconnected from regional normal here, as our neighboring municipalities permit much more staff delegation of these routine requests. This raises the question of whether the effort and delay to get them in front of Council is needed.

So staff are recommending we shift to something more aligned with best practice. They are not suggesting changing the rules about when an application is deemed appropriate, and all applications for private development will still go through Council, but staff will screen senior government applications and only bring ones of specific concern or deemed questionable to Council. This should take something like 75% of applications off the Council agenda, saving everyone time and money. To make this happen, staff will need to bring Council an amended Bylaw, and Council asked staff to do so.

Next Generation 911 Implementation and Operation Contract
9-1-1 service is moving into the modern era, and this is a much more complicated process than you might anticipate. Moving from a land-line system you can call into with your cell phone, they are moving to an Internet Protocol model which can provide enhanced services from text messages to sending digital media (photo or video), and enhanced locational data.

This is a mandate of CRTC, and the contract is being administered by Metro Vancouver (proving, once again, that Metro Vancouver is not a “sewer company” as its vocal detractors like to say, but is a regional government constituted under the Local Government Act, but I digress…). The City is required to enter this contract, as we need have a common data sharing understanding and our data connections need to be compliant. The City has received an initial grant from UBCM to help with this integration, and is applying for more as this is not a costless exercise.

Alas, one thing not up for negotiation is the contract with a single multinational telecom company to operate our country’s primary emergency communications infrastructure. That decision was made in Ottawa.

We then considered the following items that were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Policy on Routine Release of Closed Council
There are some discussions and decisions we make at Council that can or must be discussed in Closed – that is strictly regulated, and Council acts on advice of the Corporate Officer or (if needed) the City Solicitor. Council does not decide what is in Closed – the law does. However, there is no such regulation about when items are released from Closed, and we have never developed a formal policy to guide the release of decisions made in camera when it is appropriate to do so, rather relying on an ad-hoc process.

The practical reality is that most decisions made in Closed are either never released because Section 90 of the Community Charter does not permit their release (such as personnel files, legal advice, or items regulated by FOIPPA or other senior government regulations), or are defacto released when said decision hits the budget (such as negotiations over land purchase) or operational reports (such as appointing people to Advisory Committees). There is a third category of things that might be discussed in Closed under Section 90 that never go anywhere – such as a land purchase the City decides not to make, or a confidentiality issue that no longer exists for example.

Up to now, we have not had a formal policy or process for Staff to determine to determine if these third type should really be released, or if there are FOIPPA or other statutory issues preventing their release. This does not make us unique in the region or province, most Municipalities larger than us (Vancouver, Surrey) have a process like this while most smaller than us (Port Coquitlam, Port Moody) do not, reflecting perhaps the resource requirements to exercise this process. Fortunately our recently approved budget included adding a staff member in Legislative Services to help us manage records and files, and it is anticipated they can administer a policy here.

Report Back on Community Advisory Assembly Recommendations on Belonging and Connecting
The Community Advisory assembly put a lot of recommendations in front of Council in their year of work, some were direction Council and staff were asking of the Assembly, some they were asked to provide more general advice over how the City can achieve its larger goals. This second category really drew out the creativity and collaboration of the assembly, and the ideas were wide-ranging. When addressing the concept of community belonging, they came with a firehose of ideas that they presented to Council last year. It took some time for staff to go through them and determine how best to proceed with the feedback. Some of the items were already being worked on, and the assembly’s advice demonstrated to staff that they were on the right track. A small number were things the City couldn’t practically or legally do, or were probably best done by other entities. The more interesting group were some new ideas that staff is now reporting back on practicality and potential.

This report includes details of 11 such initiatives, from an enhanced Busking program to an enhanced Grants program and reviewing our facilities rental programs to better support community partners, most of them in progress. With Council’s endorsement, staff will continue to further this work, and if additional budget or staff capacity is required, we will see enhancement requests in our budget process.

Council added two instructions to Staff rising from this, the first to advocate to the Provincial government to restore festival-supporting funds, and a second to expand the scope of the ongoing feasibility study on an all-weather field in Queensborough to include a track.

Response to Notice of Motion: Lower Mainland Local Government Association Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
Back in September this motion was brought by Councillor Nakagawa and unanimously supported by Council, with the idea that the lobbying activities that members of Council take part in should be made transparent. We publicly report on the resolutions we take to Lower Mainland LGA and UBCM, but how we vote on them is not made transparent. As most of the vote at these events are by raised hands in a crowded room, there is no current way to track this. However, electronic voting measures do exist, and are used in some of these events to assure accuracy of result in tight votes, and those may be adapted to keep a record of recorded votes to be tabulated and reported out on later.

This should be an interesting debate at Lower Mainland LGA – not every member of the organization is as committed to transparency as we might like and the extra cost and hassle of creating this transparency might be too much for those members.

Response to Notice of Motion: Regulating Vape Shops
Councillor Henderson brought this motion forward asking that the Province do a better job regulating the sale of vape products and e-cigarettes, in a similar model to alcohol and cannabis, recognizing that any reasonable analysis shows vape products are more harmful to health than cannabis, though the harm is much less that alcohol. I suspect that the Lower Mainland LGA members will pass this with little debate.

Response to Referral: Costs and Logistical Needs to Convene Additional Council Meetings at Queensborough Community Centre
Back in November when we were setting our Council schedule for 2025, Councillor Henderson asked if we could or should do more than one at Queensborough. Council decided a report back on costs and challenges was appropriate, and this is that report. The marginal cost of holding the meeting in Queensborough instead of City Hall is at least $10,000, as there are some significant A/V and site setup costs that are outside of regular costs, and this does not include the extra staff time to do the actual work of moving everything to the QCC, and moving it all back at the end of the night.

Still, we usually get a good turnout in Queensborough, and folks in the community appreciate the gesture that Council makes the trip over there. Staff ar recommending we augment our usual late-September trip to the QCC with another one in early April, and Council agreed.

We then addressed a couple of Motions from Council:

Supporting Advocacy Efforts of BC Urban Mayors’ Caucus
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the ongoing challenges of mental health, substance use, homelessness, public safety, and community well-being have become urgent priorities for communities across British Columbia, and;
WHEREAS local governments have a critical role in addressing these challenges and ensuring the well-being of residents, particularly in the areas of substance use treatment, recovery supports, sheltering, and community safety;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor continue to advocate to the provincial government the following:
a. Engagement with Local Governments: That the Ministry of Health engage directly with local governments to assess the need for substance use harm reduction, treatment and supports in each community, and to improve local-government involvement in the creation of community-specific mental health supports that are culturally safe and trauma-informed.
b. Expansion of Detox and Recovery Services: That the Ministry of Health immediately expand access to detox beds, sobering beds, and stabilizing beds in every community in British Columbia, ensuring that people in need of urgent care have timely access to appropriate facilities.
c. Provincial Recovery Communities: That the Ministry of Health increase provincially-funded recovery resources, and invest in a comprehensive range of evidence-based programs including recovery, OAT, withdrawal management and others that support individuals seeking long-term solutions to addiction and substance use disorders.
d. Shelter and Housing Standards: That the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, in collaboration with relevant colleagues, establish shelter unit minimums for each community in British Columbia, and set minimum care and operational standards for sheltering and supportive housing facilities, considering the impact on neighbourhoods and local communities.
e. Reforming BC Housing: That the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs implement reforms to BC Housing, including providing BC Housing with a new mandate to work urgently and proactively with municipalities, and establishing BC Housing as the leading agency responsible for sheltering and supportive housing solutions in the province.
f. Support for Community Safety Plans: That the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, in collaboration with the Ministry of State for Community Safety, create funding and support for local governments developing or implementing community safety and well-being plans.
g. Provincial Urban Safety Improvement That the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Ministry of State for Community Safety create a provincial urban downtown safety improvement plan, addressing the unique challenges faced by urban centers.
h. Bail Reform and Court Efficiency: That the Attorney General act on bail reform, and immediately increase funding for provincial court services to enhance the speed and efficiency in which violent and repeat offenders are processed through the court system.
i. Municipal Infrastructure Funding: That the Ministry of Infrastructure to collaborate with the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs, and the Minister Ministry of Finance to establish a permanent and predictable municipal infrastructure funding program that supports the development and maintenance of essential infrastructure in communities across BC.
j. Collaboration on Social Issues: That the Ministries of Health, Social Development and Poverty Reduction, Housing and Municipal Affairs, and Solicitor General to work collaboratively on the complex issues of poverty, encampments, community well-being, food security, mental health and addictions crises, and street disorder by establishing a roundtable, working group, or committee to address these challenges holistically and effectively.
k. Expansion of Mental Health Response Programs: That the Ministry of Health expand the PACT/CLCR programs and advance civilian-led mental health response initiatives across British Columbia to ensure timely, effective, and compassionate responses to mental health crises.
l. Cannabis Revenue Sharing: That the Ministry of Finance explore cannabis revenue sharing programs with local governments, ensuring that municipalities benefit from the revenue generated by cannabis sales to reinvest in local services and programs.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor share the content of this motion with the provincial government, including relevant ministers, with the request for prompt action on these critical issues affecting communities across British Columbia.

(note: We went through some edits of the language of this motion multiple amendments, I think I got them all here based on my notes, but this is a good time to remind you this is my blog and not an official record, and we can wait until the minutes come out to see exactly what the result was, but I think I am close)

This list of advocacy items was cut-and paste from a letter the BC Urban Mayors Caucus sent to the Premier prior to the Mandate Letters going out to Cabinet, and that slightly clunky approach required us to edit on the fly in Council to make the advocacy points make sense post-Mandate letter. I guess I should be glad that a member of Council who repeatedly insisted that housing and health care are 100% Provincial issues and we should stay in our lane now realizes “local governments have a critical role in addressing these challenges”. Especially after last meeting, when the many advocacy action of the Crises Response Pilot project (eerily familiar here) were opposed by the Councillor moving this motion today.

But today is a new day, and the good news is that we now have unanimity of Council that housing and shelter are critical needs in the community, that the City has a critical role in addressing homelessness, mental health and substance use challenges in our City. So I’ll take that as a win. I think it is important that we speak as one voice on this, and over the last few months staff and council have worked very well to develop a clear vision for our Crises Response work, and I think the best way to assure that vision is realized is if we have a unified voice to the Provincial government on what the collective will of the community is. I will take the items above with me to Victoria next week as I received and invitation from the Minister of Finance to attend the Budget Speech and already have meetings with a number of Cabinet Ministers lined up while I am over there.

Consolidation of Public Compensation for Council Members
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS it has been reported that select Mayors in the Metro Vancouver area can earn as much as the Prime Minister of Canada and significantly more than the Premier of British Columbia on an annual basis;
WHEREAS a large portion of income for a select group of Metro Vancouver elected officials includes work that is performed for other agencies, organizations and governing bodies funded by municipal taxpayers;
WHEREAS a significant portion of the additional income and payments made to Metro Vancouver elected officials is for work performed during regular business hours.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster prepare a comprehensive annual financial report (starting in the 2024 calendar year) that details the total compensation received by Council members who serve on regional or provincial/national organizations, including but not limited to EComm911, Municipal Finance Authority, TransLink, and Metro Vancouver, Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM), Federation of
Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and that this report be made accessible to the public; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the annual financial report provides a complete itemization of each Council member’s base salary and benefits, as well as per diems, stipends, allowances, retainers, expense reimbursements, and any other compensation associated with their roles.

I have no problem with this as a concept, noting that all payments from organization paid by taxpayers (or ratepayers, in the case of utilities) is publicly disclosed, though the effort to cobble all of this together for 7 members of Council every year when each member serves various roles might be resource intensive, when in the end we’ll just have another report of already-publicly-available information that few people will read except those who revel in the name-and-shame aspect of the very idea that elected officials get paid. Anyway, Council supported it, and we’ll see where this goes.

Just for fun, I used the Google to find my public disclosures from last year:
City of New Westminster: $149,591 (salary) and $17,808 (expenses)
Metro Vancouver: $28,350 (remuneration)
TransLink: $21,440 (remuneration) and $1,177 (expenses)
Municipal Finance Authority: $898 (remuneration)

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Zoning Bylaw No. 6680, 2001, Amendment Bylaw (805 Boyd Street) No. 8411, 2025
This Bylaw that expands the variety of retail and service businesses that can operate at Queensborough Landing was adopted by Council.

Mobile Food Vending Licence Bylaw No. 7850, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8498, 2025
This Bylaw that expands opportunities for Food Trucks in the city was Adopted by Council.

Shark Fin Regulation Bylaw No. 7564, 2012, Repeal Bylaw No. 8511, 2025
This Bylaw that repeals a bylaw made redundant by our new Business Licensing Bylaw was adopted by Council.

Finally, in a bit of New Business:

Zoning Amendment Regarding Mini Storage
This was a motion brought by staff to reduce the number of zones in the City where Mini Storage would be permitted as-of-right. In effect, it would require that anyone wanting to put a new mini-storage business on a lot with one of three zoning designations (M-1, M-5 and CM-1) would now have to apply for a rezoning, not just a development permit. This would give Council more control over where minis-storages are located.

This motion does not make that change, but askes staff to prepare a Rezoning Bylaw that would make that change. Council voted to support them doing that work, though a number of people on Council raised concerns or points that will no doubt be explored further as the Bylaw is developed and as that zoning bylaw comes back to Council.

And with a few announcements, that brought us to the end of another exciting Monday Night in New West Council

Action

Posted on February 11, 2025. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media (Social & Anti)

Posted on January 30, 2025January 31, 2025. by Patrick Johnstone. 4 Comments.

I have been asked recently quite a bit about this story, North Vancouver District ending its twitter account, following Twitter itself quitting Twitter and becoming something else entirely. People have asked me when New Westminster is doing this. The short answer is something like this (apologies for my ham-fisted kerning):

Here is a bit of a longer answer.

The City is challenged in getting its stories out these days, as are many organizations. When I was first elected 10 years ago, there were two local newspapers covering New Westminster, each printing two editions a week, with multiple reporters and photographers asking questions, snapping photos and writing stories. Now we have one “paper” that is only digital, and one reporter doing her best to cover it all.

That same decade ago we also had a pretty healthy Social Media ecosystem in New West, with a pretty successful and active local webpaper called Tenth to the Fraser, a few New West oriented blog sites (of which this is probably the last one?), and (mostly) healthy, (mostly) self-policed Facebook and Twitter communities where (mostly) people actually talked about issues in a (mostly) friendly way. As the City’s communications staff began finding new ways to reach out, they waded into that space, probably quite slowly and deliberately as Cities do, recognizing that their role of informing the public is different than most people’s tendency to editorialize at random on the internet.

As social media has evolved, so has the City’s use of it. In part necessary because the City has a responsibility to reach out to the public and inform them on everything from upcoming development public hearings to unexpected changes in the garbage pick-up schedule. Social Media became tool to inform, but was always a poor tool for engagement. The difference is important. It is also necessary because we are in a different political environment in the post-COVID world, and there is no doubt that something broke (or was intentionally broken) in the way we engage with one another on line over the last few years.

So staff are doing a review of the City’s use of Social Media, and will be making changes and reporting back to Council in a future meeting. This is not something I directed (I am, after all, only one of seven on Council, and don’t have the power of Executive Orders), but work staff had already recognized they need to do. This was based on some recent incidents related to the City’s Social Media pages where profane, insulting, and ignorant comments (which is about half of Facebook now) started to require staff to burn midnight oil doing moderation, or simply turn off comments. Alongside this, the remains of Twitter simply lacks the traffic it used to have that made it a reliable means of disseminating information, especially during critical times. BlueSky is also not there (yet?) in usage, and there is a cost-benefit discussion of any Social Media engagement by staff. The shit doesn’t post itself, so if we are posting to 5 people who are already engaged elsewhere, its not a good use of resources.

There are no easy answers right now, because we are in a time of rapid change in how people receive and share information. The City needs to tell stories, when your garbage is missed or a Public Hearing is upcoming, and traditional media has been hollowed out such that local news simply has no capacity to share the volume of info needed, while most social media is at best untrustworthy and at times harmful.

To answer the question above, I enjoy BlueSky because it is not algorithmically driving me to terrible places, and the culture is to apply the block and mute functions generously. I also personally think the City needs to get off “X.com”, because people should not have to be exposed to the fascist propaganda and hate that the X algorithm clearly pushes into every feed if they only want to keep track of happenings in the City. But City staff are going to deal with this thoughtfully, are talking to their cohort around the region and the province, and are trying to keep the politics out of it as they seek better ways to inform and engage in a really challenging communications environment. Stay tuned. And in the meantime, if you want more news from me, subscribe to my weekly newsletter by clicking here.

2025

Posted on January 12, 2025. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Is it just me, or did the Christmas break seemed a little extended his year? Maybe it’s the pace of media events unfolding faster than real life, maybe it’s the mid-week Christmas and New Years day that seems to encroach on two weekends, maybe its the existential dread…

This first week I was really back at it in the office, and it involved quite a bit of planning for what is coming in 2025. It looks like it’s going to be a big year, so I thought I would jot down some thoughts about what is on the horizon for New Westminster in 2025.

The biggest body of work in front of us right now are updates to our Official Community Plan to comply with the provincial housing regulations introduced last year. We have several interim measures in place to address SSMUH, TOA development and Amenity Funding, but much has changed, such that our understanding of the legislation and how it integrates with the City’s existing policies and Bylaws, that those three links I just pointed to are probably no longer very accurate. By December, 2025, we will need to have updated our OCP to include SSMUH across the City and TOA, to align our OCP with the newly regulated Housing Needs Assessment reports, and to figure out where townhouses and row homes fit in this new model. There will be some level of public consultation in regards to these OCP updates, so keep tuned to Be Heard New West if you are interested.

We will also be bringing forward new policies to address the provincial regulatory changes in how we finance growth. With new housing comes new infrastructure needs, from roads to sewers and parks, and new amenity needs like recreation and childcare. We use DCCs to pay for the former, but now have the tool called ACC to pay for the latter. However, this new tool comes with complications, and impacts our Density Bonus and other programs. We have an interim measure in place now, but by mid-2025 will have to have new ACC and Density Bonus policies in place, and will need to have a better understanding of the community need projected for ward a decade so we know what exactly it is we are trying to finance.

Fortunately, we are almost completed our new Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan, and expect to adopt a plan in 2025 that will set the course for the next generation of Parks and Rec investments. We have already been through some extensive public consultation on this, both from the “general public” and directed consultation with user groups like organized sports teams, youth, seniors, and neighbourhood groups. There is a tonne of reporting out you can read here. This consultation will be backstopped by detailed analysis by staff and consultants on anticipated needs for the decade ahead, recognizing the recreation space is different than it was even a decade ago as our population grows and demographics shift, as youth gravitate to less formal sports structures, as the regional offerings of fields, rinks, and pools has evolved, and as emergent trends (pickleball, anyone?) and shifting interest in park use towards more passive uses mean what we used ot need is not what we will be needing looking forward. I’m really excited to see where this study takes us as a community.

You may have heard the news that Lisa Spitale is retiring at the end of 2025, and the hiring of a new CAO is a pretty significant piece of work for Council – the only time we really get involved in HR projects. I also can emphasize how much of a shift this represents. Lisa has worked for New Westminster since 1992, and was appointed CAO in 2013. She has worked for five different mayors, and seen the population of New Westminster double during her New West career. She is one of the most respected City Managers in the province, highly respected by her staff, by the business community, and by the professional and academic planning communities. She is also a pleasure to work with. Council will have our work cut out for us filling those shoes.

The City is working with the Chamber of Commerce on an Economic Forum this February. The idea is to bring local and regional business leaders together for the first time in the Post-COVID world and discuss challenges and opportunities for both the local and regional economy. With the integration of Economic Development and Arts and Culture under the new Community Services department, and with our local economic indicators all trending in a positive direction (even compared to numbers from before the COVID dip), there are a lot of reasons to be positive about economic growth in New West. But there is still nervousness around affordability and with the chaos down south and in Ottawa, we are looking at uncertainty in the future. The conversations at the forum about how we can better support and future-proof local businesses should be a positive one, and should help us set a course for EcDev work for the rest of the term.

I am also excited to see where the Youth Climate Leadership Team will be taking us in 2025. This new program brings a group of local folks between 15 and 24 years old to work on a project of project s of their own choosing with City support, with the goals of giving youth some leadership experience, and moving the needle on climate action in the City. There have been two meetings so far, and the group is deep into the forming and visioning stages, with a plan to come to Council before the beginning of summer with project proposals.

We will also be striking a Vision Zero task force this spring to shift the mindset around road safety in the city. I don’t expect there will be a lot of public-facing results from this task force right up front, as the first phase of work involves bringing partners and stakeholders together (engineering, police, fire, and provincial agencies involved in transportation and public health) to understand who is doing what, who holds jurisdiction where, and who is collecting what data. This aligns with the multidisciplinary and data-driven approach that makes Vision Zero different than the traditional models of road safety. I’m excited about this work!

And then there are ongoing programs that are ramping up in 2025: continued implementation of the Active Transportation Network Plan that hopes to bring mobility lanes to all major destinations and within 400m of every home in New West; full staffing and activation of the Crises Response Pilot Project; continued work with the development community, senior governments and the non-profit community to address our Housing Needs Report; and more.

It’s going to be a busy year, and let’s hope the political distractions (federal elections, American instability, social media enshittification, etc.) don’t distract from the value of this good work, and our ability to meaningfully engage the community in a positive and proactive way about the work.

Halfway

Posted on November 9, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council – Nov 4, 2024

Posted on November 7, 2024November 7, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

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

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

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

We then had a Temporary Use Permit to approve:

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

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

Council moved to approve this Temporary Use Permit.

We then had a Report for Action:

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

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

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

We then approved the following items On Consent:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following item was Removed from Consent for discussion:

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

We then had two Motions from Council

Guide Dog Access Awareness
Councillor Campbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 105

Posted on November 4, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Council – October 7, 2024

Posted on October 8, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

It was quite the Council meeting on Monday, not because of the regular business of Council, which was pretty straight forward, but because the level of political performance that occurred in the last half of the evening was outstanding. Some of my more unfiltered feelings about that part are best saved for the Newsletter (subscribe here, its free!), so I’ll keep to the straight goods on the agenda here.

We started with one piece of Unfinished Business.

Metro 2050 Type 3 Amendment Application: City of Surrey (7880 128 Street)
When a city in Metro Vancouver makes an Official Community Plan change that impacts the Regional Growth Strategy, it requires an RGS Amendment to be approved by the Metro Vancouver Board. There are a few different types of amendments, and Type 3 amendments require “consultation” with the member communities of Metro Vancouver. We are able to ignore this, respond to it saying “hunky dory”, or reply saying we don’t support it. The Metro Board will consider our feedback when making a decision, though they are not required to follow our recommendation.

This Type 3 amendment in Surrey is pretty minor in its regional impact, but New West Council asked for more info on it before sending feedback. Surrey declined to provide more info or present, and Council voted to send a note indicating we do not support this amendment.

We then moved the following items On Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Extension Request: 330 East Columbia Street (Royal Columbian Hospital Redevelopment Project)
There has been significant traffic disruption as underground and surface paving works have been occurring around the RCH expansion. The priority here is always assuring emergency vehicle access and the safety of pedestrians in such a high-traffic area. This means convenience for through drivers has suffered quite a bit, but this is a unique place to do major road works. The final paving will be happening in October, and they need to do some of it at night in order to manage the traffic and assure road safety and emergency vehicle access, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption. There will be *significant* disruption for a three-night window here, so plan alternate routes if you can, folks.

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 100 Braid Street (Wesgroup Contracting Ltd) – Crane Removal
The crane on 100 Braid Street is coming down, and its proximity to one of the busiest intersections of the City makes this much more viable at night, which requires a Construction Noise Bylaw exemption.

Expanding the Metro West Inter-Municipal Business Licence to Include Health Care Professionals and Services, and Annual Licence Fee Increase
The City works with our adjacent municipalities to allow shared business licences for those types of businesses that move across City boundaries, and we are adding home care providers to that list, meaning health care professionals can get just one license to operate in Vancouver, Burnaby, Delta, Richmond and Surrey. This simplifies their lives considerably. This report reads the Bylaw but provides an Opportunity to be Heard at the November 4 Council meeting before we adopt it. If you have opinions, let us know.

Licence Agreement at 203 Pembina Street
Folks are building townhouses in Queensborough, and need to pre-load a laneway, and will need to bypass a sanitary sewer through that laneway during pre-load, meaning they need to get a license agreement with the City to manage risk and liability.

The following items were Removed from Consent for discussion:

Guidelines and Decision-Making Matrix for Designating Municipally Significant Events
British Columbia’s liquor laws are archaic. Several events in the City over the last two years have sought to be designated “Municipally Significant” so they can serve a different sized beer (believe it or not) and can set a price for alcohol that actually makes them a bit of money running a beer garden as part of their event. But there are no criteria for what is considered “municipally significant”.

This criteria (and delegating the authority to staff) is a first step, but in the report it is clear staff are working on some more comprehensive liquor licence reforms in the City, because the current provincial/municipal interface on this is Byzantine.

Update Regarding Council Motion Re: Improving the Public’s Access to Trees during the City’s Biannual Tree Sale
This report is no report – they are just to report that staff are going to report back once they have had the time to do the work required to inform the report.

We then had the following Bylaws for Adoption:

Anvil Theatre Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 8209, 2020, Amendment Bylaw No. 8482, 2024;
Climate Action, Planning & Development Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7683, 2014, Amendment Bylaw No. 8478, 2024;
Cultural Services Fees and Charges Bylaw No. 7875, 2016, Amendment Bylaw No. 8477, 2024;
Electrical Utility Bylaw No. 6502, 1998, Amendment Bylaw No. 8476, 2024;
Engineering User Fees and Rates Bylaw No. 7553, 2013, Amendment Bylaw No. 8472, 2024;
Fees Bylaw No. 6186, 1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 8479, 2024; and
Fire Protection Bylaw No. 6940, 2004, Amendment Bylaw No. 8481, 2024
These Bylaws that all set their respective fees and charges rates for 2025 were adopted unanimously by Council. Now we can start working on the budget.

We then had a full schedule of Motions from Council:

Requesting an Inquiry Under Section 765 of the Local Government Act regarding Metro Vancouver
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the governance model at Metro Vancouver is over 50 years old and an independent review should be undertaken by the Province of BC; and
WHEREAS the Inspector of Municipalities of British Columbia has significant statutory powers including the ability to investigate any bylaw, order, decision, or action of the Greater Vancouver Regional District Board; and
WHEREAS to date the Province of BC has not agreed to undertake a governance review of Metro Vancouver;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write a letter on behalf of Council to the Premier and request the Province of BC to immediately initiate an independent review of Metro Vancouver’s governance structure.

This was a weird motion, as it was never explained what the relevance of Section 765 of the LGA was about, but we don’t vote on the “whereas” sections, so opportunity lost for clarity there. Council agreed to send this letter, though I wonder what the purpose is (other than getting another media cycle out of this horse well flogged) as we are now onto a year of a very few people asking the same thing (including pervious motions at this Council) and no leader of the three parties vying for the Premier job in two weeks have expressed any interest in undertaking this right now, as it solves no problems and we have actual problems to solve.

Supporting Increased Tourism in New Westminster through the Introduction of a New “Photographable” Sign on Pier West Park
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Pier Park West is now reconnected to the eastern part of the Quayside boardwalk and provides a pleasurable place for locals and tourists to enjoy views of the Fraser River; and
WHEREAS a number of cities around the world have used enlarged signage in highly visible and photographable areas to attract visitor and help market their cities; and
WHEREAS we have the opportunity to install a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront with the backdrop including several bridges and the Fraser River;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff reach out to Tourism New Westminster and advise that Council would be supportive of installing of a large “New Westminster” sign on our waterfront as one additional method of attracting tourists to our city and downtown district.

Yet another weird motion, as it seems like a notion someone had that could have been an email instead of a Council motion. The will result in an email saying we might support something that is not defined to an organization that has not clearly indicated any intent to do the thing, so innocuous enough. And Council voted to support it.

To quote a colleague, I have a lot of questions around the actual proposal (do people actually travel to places specifically to get a picture of the place name? What is the evidence this will drive any of the massive spin-off economic development benefits the mover suggested, and how will those benefits be offset by the mover spending his time on regional media describing the neighbourhood as a dangerous, abandoned place few dare to tread? Isn’t this Tin Soldier Erasure? Wouldn’t it be more compelling and drive more regional interest if to have the sign say “Sto:Lo” or “sχʷəyem”? and many more, if we get to the point of actually reviewing a project).

Supporting increasing Cycling, Tourism and Economic Activity through a Pilot “Cycling Sundays on Front Street”
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS the Province of British Columbia has already closed Front Street for extended periods of time and redirected traffic to other routes throughout the City; and
WHEREAS there is currently no ability for cyclists to easily and safely ride their bikes from Pier Park West to the Brunette Fraser Regional Greenway in Sapperton; and
WHEREAS other cities across North America have successfully closed roadways on weekends to permit alternate modes of transportation such as cycling and pedestrians.
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff report back on the feasibility and operational issues pertaining to the development of a pilot project that would: during daylight hours, close Front Street on Sundays from May to September 2025 to vehicular traffic; and a during the period noted above, open up Front Street to cyclists, pedestrians and other forms active transportation while it is temporarily closed to vehicular traffic; b. seek interest from food trucks and other micro businesses who may want to set up on Front Street during the ‘Cycling Sunday’ closures.

This idea, first brought to you by Mayor Cote during COVID times as part of the “Streets for People” program of the time, is something the City always meant to explore further after the Pattullo Bridge project stopped occupying the space. It is still a god idea, not without its challenges, as there are significant costs involved, we need to work with the regional goods movement sector, the connections to Sapperton Landing Park still require Railway oversight, and the resultant impacts on Royal and Columbia Street of diverted truck traffic. Still, it’s a good idea to get a report back to Council on opportunities and challenges here. Council supported this motion.

Seek Support from the BC Ministry of Transportation to Undertake a Feasibility Study to Expand the Crossing Capacity between Queensborough and Connaught Heights
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster is currently undertaking a community consultation around the 22nd Street SkyTrain station which could result in up to 30,000 new residents moving into the neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS the residents of Queensborough can often suffer quality of life issues pertaining to delays crossing the four-lane Queensborough bridge during peak periods and beyond; and
WHEREAS it will take a significant amount of time, planning and inter-governmental discussions to undertake a future replacement or expansion of the Queensborough Bridge;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT Council direct staff to develop a consultation plan to determine the level of interest from our residents/businesses regarding prioritizing the future expansion or replacement of the Queensborough bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT any expansion or replacement proposal should prioritize the movement of TransLink operated buses, cyclists, taxis, ride-share and pedestrians across the bridge; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Mayor write to the BC Ministry of Transportation to invite them to partner with the City during our Queensborough Bridge community consultation process.

This is one I will unpack a bit more in the Newsletter, because there are layers of weird governance ideas in here. In short, we just approved the Queensborough Transportation Plan in May after more than a year of public consultation and working with the Ministry of Transportation and are now implementing that plan. Consistent with the QTP, staff reported to us recently that active transportation and transit priority work is going on related to the bridge entrances, on both sides, both through the QTP and our recently approved partnership with TransLink on Bus Speed and Reliability program approved by this Council in July. So why this motion now, just as we are starting implementation of those plans?

I also have concerns with the language here, first because it asks the City to launch Public Consultation on a project that doesn’t exist to address a piece of infrastructure that doesn’t even belong to the City. Worse, it seems to envision expansion or replacement of the bridge, which is not consistent with our Transportation plans in the City, regional Transport2050 goals at Metro Vancouver or TransLink, or the Province’s own CleanBC goals, where the existing strategies for bus speed and reliability and active transportation are aligned with all of those.

Finally, I don’t want to get into a lecture here about the Fundamental Law of Traffic congestion, but adding lanes to a highway in an urban area has never solved congestion, and has almost always resulted in significant negative impacts on the communities through which those freeways are driven. This is not the first time someone has proposed that a community be plowed down and paved over in order to save that neighbourhood has been proposed, and in the end all that neighborhood got was more traffic, more congestion, more noise and pollution. The future here is alternatives, and the work that staff are doing to bring bus speed and reliability and safer active transportation connections on this route is the sustainable path that meets the Province’s CleanBC goals, the regionals Transport2050 goals, and the City’s Transportation, livability, and sustainability goals.

So Council severed this motion, didn’t support the first “Be It Resolved”, did support the second and the third, after the third was slightly amended to make clear the City will not lead a consultation. But if the province want to take this up, let us know.

Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit
Submitted by Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS the City of New Westminster manages, maintains and prepares municipal infrastructure to protect our residents from future heat waves, wildfires, flooding, and other climate impacts, thereby safeguarding the health and safety of our residents and their property and as a result faces massive costs due to climate change, which are expected to increase; and
WHEREAS fossil fuel companies were warned by their own scientists decades ago that the ongoing burning of fossil fuels would cause massive suffering and climate costs, and chose to lobby against action on climate change so that the industry could continue to earn on average over a trillion dollars in profit each year in recent years; and
WHEREAS it is unacceptable and creates a perverse incentive for irresponsible fossil fuel development that local governments and taxpayers bear the full extent of these climate costs whilst multinational fossil fuel companies take no financial responsibility for the harm caused by their products; and
WHEREAS over 20 local governments in the United States and around the world, including nine local governments in BC, have filed lawsuits to recover a share of their climate costs (e.g. for loss and damage, adaptation, and climate preparedness) from fossil fuel companies, and Canadian legal experts recommend that Canadian local governments do the same;
BE IT RESOLVED that staff report back on opportunity and cost for New Westminster to join the Sue Big Oil Class Action Lawsuit and present potential cost and staff resource needs as part of the draft 2025 Operating Budget; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the cost of joining the Sue Big Oil class action lawsuit be first assessed via the Climate Action Decision-Making Framework to determine the appropriate funding source.

This also gets a mention in the newsletter, because I cannot square indicated concern about the cost of this motion with a weird attempt to strip the City of Millions of dollars of Low Carbon Fuel Credit revenue in an attempted amendment, but that’s just politics.

I supported this motion, and it was supported by the majority of Council after several public delegations and a bit of a raucous Council debate. I can only speak to my reasons to support. The costs are real and being downloaded onto communities from one of the world’s most profitable industries every day. The Municipal Insurance Association of BC and UBCM are both calling for funding to address unprecedented climate disruption costs. We don’t have the power to end fossil fuel subsidies or tax big oil to the level that would reflect their corporate responsibility. What we can do is join our cohort municipalities across BC to use the courts to hold them accountable through the courts.

There can be no doubt that the oil industry knew that their products would have catastrophic impacts on global climate, and spent decades funding doubt-sowing “research” and suppressing their own evidence about this reality. Not only emulating the tobacco industries “deny at all costs” strategy about the horrific impacts of their products, but hiring the very same people (seriously, google Fred Seitz and Fred Singer) to run the denial machinery. They knew, they lied, and local government taxpayers are paying the bills for that choice they made. That should not go unpunished.

Finally, this motion is well drafted to add our support notionally, recognizing we will not be out of pocket unless a class action occurs, and allows us the opportunity to fund this small cost (in the scale of the cost of climate impacts in our community, this is tiny) through money we receive from the oil industry through the polluter pays principle and our Low Carbon Fuel Credit program. We are going to use the industry’s own money to sue them, and there is some elegance in that.

Finally, we had one piece of New Business:

Reconsideration of September 23, 2024 Motion on adoption the Interim Density Bonus Policy
After the last-minute decision last meeting to amend the Interim Density Bonus Policy for the City, I had some conversations with members of Council and staff about the implications for numerous in-stream applications. I was compelled to bring the Policy back to Council for reconsideration, because as amended, it varied greatly from our long-established and successful practice of incentivizing Purpose Built Rental over Strata in new development by not by giving them a free pass from DCCs and other development costs, but by exempting only the Density Bonus charge for space used for PBR. In staff’s attempts to make simpler and more transparent this very strange time with Provincial housing regulations being blended into our existing process while approvals continue to move forward, Council inadvertently made it less clear and more confusing by turning back on one of our key policy directions of the last decade.

Recognizing this is an interim measure, and Council always has the prerogative to vary from policy when it comes to approving any development, in the interest in supporting staffs efforts to keep the wheels moving during the transition, I suggested we adopt the motion Staff recommended in September, waiving DB payments for PBR as a policy until the full set of growth financing policies complaint with Bill 46 can be adopted next year. Council voted to support the reconsideration.

And that wrapped Council right at 10:30, the hour at which we are required by Bylaw to move for extension if we go past. So we’ll call that a full day.

Council – Sept 9, 2024

Posted on September 10, 2024. by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

September’s first meeting continued our tradition of holding one fall meeting in Queensborough every year. It is a bit of a logistical challenge, and if you watch the video you see us managing as best we can with unfamiliar tech and layout, but I think staff did a great job in supporting us and it was good to see a full Queensborough audience at the event.

There is also something nice about holding a Council meeting in a room with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking a green park with young families and seniors walking by and kids playing on the playground equipment. It reminds you of the work we do, and how it impacts people’s daily lives, even if they don’t realize we are doing it right now on the other side of that window.

Our agenda started with the following items Moved on Consent:

Construction Noise Bylaw Exemption Request: 220 Salter Street (Metro Vancouver Sewer Inspection – Fraser River Crossing Project)
There are major regional sewer lines under Salter Street, and they need nighttime (when the water is low) inspection, which requires a construction noise exemption for two weeknights, which Council is granting.

2024-2034 UBCM Canada Community Works Fund Agreement
The City will be getting a grant of about $160K to support infrastructure investment in the City, but need to sign this agreement to get the cash, and agree to spend it on qualifying projects as per the agreement. Easiest grant ever.

We then had these following items that were Removed from Consent for Discussion:

2025 Permissive Property Tax: Exempt Properties – Review of Application Result
There are two types of properties that are exempt from Property Taxes – Statutory and Permissive. The first are by Provincial Law, and are why most churches and private schools are exempt. The second are at the pleasure of the Local Government, land use we can choose as a City to exempt from property taxes. These could include social housing, sports clubs, social service not-for profits, and the such. They must apply every year, and in my time on Council, we have not added many to the list of permissive exemptions, though we often get new applications. As a policy, the City directs not-for-profits to the City’s generous grant program if they need financial support, as that is a more accountable process.

The current list of permissive exemptions equals about $1 Million (this is reported every year as part of our annual report), and this year we got applications for 6 more, totaling $244,000 more. Two new applications (both established church properties with new congregations) totaling about $30,000 were added to the list of exemptions as per the established policy.

Budget 2025: Fees and Rates Review
As a normal part of our annual Budget process, we need to set fee bylaws fort next year. This has to happen early, because financial modelling of cost recovery is part of what informs the rest of the budget, and cost recovery is obviously impacted by fees. If we reduce business license fees, for example, that’s not “free”, it impacts the tax rates we need to charge next year. Most rates are adjusted annually to meet CPI, as a proxy for what I costs us to deliver the service, and to avoid larger and more intermittent price spikes. CPI estimate this year is 3.0%.

There are others that need bigger adjustments, like the cost of providing brass plaques for the cemetery have gone up quite a bit, requiring a 24% increase to recover those costs. Others have external controls, such as our towing charges being set by ICBC. Yet other fees are adjusted to align to market conditions (on street parking not going up this year, short-term parkade parking rates going up a bit due to demand increases), and yet other being shifted to better align with regional municipal comparators (e.g. Fire Safety Plan Review fees).

All told, these changes average aout to about a 3% increase, driving an extra $450k in revenue. For context, $450K is about as much revenue as we would draw from a 0.4% property tax increase.

Business License Bylaw Modernization Update
Staff have been working on a Business License Bylaw update for some time now. Not just looking at fees, but making sure our approach to issuing licenses reflects the modern reality of the local business community. Business license counts are way up, we issue almost 4,000 a year, which is about 20% more than Pre-COVID 2019. Still, staff want to streamline the license process, remove outdated requirements, and provide more flexibility for start-up businesses so it is easier to start a business in New West. Regular readers will also remember that a comparison with surrounding municipalities was conducted and changes to the fee schedule are proposed to align better with regional trends.

There has already been several stages of engagement with the business community here, but there will be another check-in now that proposed changes have been developed. This report simply to update Council before it went out to consultation, and to check in for any red flags.

Response to Council Motion Regarding “Tenant Protections”
As per a motion put forward in a previous meeting, staff are going to update our tenant protection measures. There is an ongoing rental affordability crisis, and recent changes to provincial housing regulations may result in increased pressure to demolish and re-develop our most affordable rentals, which puts a lot people in a very precarious situation. Alongside this the Province has brought in new tenant protection powers through Bill 16. It’s time to update our progressive-in-2015 Tenant Relocation Policy to assure we don’t exacerbate the homelessness crisis.

We then had several Motions from Council (not necessarily in this order, as we delayed a couple until after Public Delegations because we had people come to speak to Council in favour of a few motions).

Regulate the Unsolicited Distribution of Graphic Images Depicting a Fetus
Submitted by Councillor Campbell and Councillor Henderson

WHEREAS New Westminster residents have expressed concerns that unsolicited flyers showing graphic images of aborted fetuses are being delivered to homes and causing harm; and
WHEREAS a number of Canadian municipalities in Alberta and Ontario have established bylaws that; and
WHEREAS in accordance with British Columbia’s Community Charter, Section 8 (3) (i) A council may, by bylaw, regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to public health; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT that staff provide council with proposed bylaw amendments to require all print collateral delivered to any premises or distributed to the public that shows, or appear to show, a graphic image of a fetus be delivered in a sealed opaque envelope with a graphic content warning, identify the name and address of the sender, and include measures to ensure individuals are not inadvertently exposed to graphic content on a leaflet, pamphlet, paper, booklet, postcard, or any other printed collateral.

This motion was driven by calls form the community we have received a few times over the last few years. I don’t have much to add to the wording above, except that this is just the beginning of a bit of a process Staff will have to go through to determine what our legal abilities are here, and how best to structure a bylaw so it is effective. I don’t know if anyone in BC has done this before, though local governments have been successful in Ontario and Alberta, so we will need to find a local context that fits with our Community Charter and Local Government Act. This was supported by all of Council, so more to come!

Lower Mainland Local Government Association Tracking and Reporting of Votes on Motions and Resolutions
Submitted by Councillor Nakagawa

WHEREAS Local Government Associations, the Union of BC Municipalities, and the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities advocate for issues that impact their member municipalities; and
WHEREAS municipal Mayors and Councillors are financially supported to attend these conferences in order
to advocate on behalf of their local constituents, yet there is no way for constituents to know how their elected representatives vote on motions and resolutions,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City of New Westminster submit the following resolution to the Lower Mainland Local Government Association:
“THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Lower Mainland Local Government Association begins tracking and reporting how attendees vote on motions and resolutions and that they submit a motion to UBCM and FCM advocating for those organizations to do the same.”

Your local government is represented at these regional meetings by elected members of Council, and advocate to senior government for policy changes. It is probably a good idea for you to know what your local elected officials are advocating for – or against. It seems like a good step towards improving transparency and accountability. There are some technical challenges that might be easiert to solve at the relatively small Lower Mainland LGA than the much larger UBCM and FCM, and it will involve some investment of resources by those parties, so it is appropriate to structure this as a request for those organizations to evaluate if that is something they want to do. Council moved to approve this.

Selecting an Inclusive and Accessible Site for the 2025 Canada Day Celebration and Festivities
Submitted by Councillor Minhas

WHEREAS Canada Day offers the City of New Westminster an opportunity to celebrate and bring residents together in celebration and reflection; and
WHEREAS the Pier Park location for Canada Day festivities currently offers little opportunity for shade on hot days which often occur in early July; and
WHEREAS Queen’s Park has played host to previous Canada Day celebrations and offers more opportunities to keep participants cool on hot summer days;
BE IT RESOLVED THAT staff seek feedback from the public through our Be Heard system regarding their preference for the 2025 Canada Day festivities and celebrations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT several locations across the City be offered to the public as a potential site for the 2025 Canada Day festivities including at least one site in Queensborough.

This was a bit of a complicated conversation as Council got a bit into the weeds, but it was nonetheless a good discussion that will hopefully lead to a good community discussions, and I think the direction is clearer with some amendments.

Be Heard New West is part of a community engagement toolbox, not a public survey tool. As Councillor Nakagawa said, “Public Engagement isn’t just asking if a hotdog is a sandwich”, it is a process of sharing information and asking for feedback in ways that have meaningful input into decision making. The decision by Council was to have staff report back with resource needs to do a proper engagement on this.

There was a bit of preemptive discussion about locations as well. There is a complex history why the “main”
Canada Day program moved from Queens Park to Pier Park, and those decisions were made in consultation with the many partners that are required to make the event happen. In the pre-COVID times we got to a point where there were two locations, with some overlap. Post-COVID the Pier Park location became the primary location, and the numbers reflected a much higher interest in people being there than Pier Park (thousands instead of hundreds in attendance). However, it is important to note that Pier Park festivities were not the only events coordinated by the City at Canada Day in 2024. There were activations all long weekend in Queensborough, at Queens Park, at the Anvil, and other locations.

Finally, The City’s festivals budget is fairly limited, and massive expansions of the event would require budget decisions, and increased staff resources. Many events in the City are primarily run by partners (Uptown Live, Pride, Hyack Parade and Festival, Fridays on Front, etc.) with some significant City support, but City-run events have been pretty limited to “civic” dates, like Remembrance Day (our largest City-run event), Canada Day and Truth and Reconciliation day, where partners support the City more than vice-versa. But it is clearly a spectrum between the two end members here.

Anyway, this will be an ongoing discussion. Let us know what you think!

Increasing Openness and Transparency at City Hall by Registering Lobbyist Activities
Submitted by Councillor Fontaine

WHEREAS lobbyist registries are intended to provide a public record that is accessible to residents of interactions between public servants, elected officials and lobbyists and to allow for rules regarding lobbyists to be enforced; and
WHEREAS British Columbia does not currently allow municipalities to use the provincial lobbyist registry nor does it extend the legal authorities municipalities would need to enforce lobbyist rules with a local registry; and
WHEREAS it is important for a functional local democracy that any lobbying efforts by entities such as corporations, labour unions, foreign governments or other similar foreign-based organizations be recorded and publicly reported in a timely manner
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City request the Province immediately take one of the following two actions:
The Province amend the Lobbyist Registration Act to cover the City of New Westminster and other similar mid-to-large-sized cities and administer the regulation of lobbying in the city; OR,
The Province amend the Community Charter to allow the City to establish a lobbyist registry and give the City the legal authority to register lobbyists, create rules for lobbyists’ conduct in their interactions with elected officials and public servants, as well as the power to enforce those rules. In addition, the Province further empower the Provincial Registrar of Lobbyists to work with the City to share information so as to reduce duplication and costs for both orders of government.

This was also a good discussion, and it was clear that everyone saw transparency and accountability as ideas worth supporting. There was a bit of procedural adjustment (to add this as an advocacy issue to the Lower Mainland LGA along with a letter to the province), but all in the interest in making our call for this louder.

I raised some concern about the difference between local politics and provincial/federal politics, and the need for us to clearly define what Lobbying is. I have dozens of conversations every week with people nt he community, residents, business operators, non-profits, and most some include discussions of City Bylaws or policies or practices. I would hate to think that every time I set up the Ask Pat booth at the Farmers Market that I would need everyone who asks me a question to register as a lobbyist. That said, there are clearly a few meetings I do have with people or organizations who are paid to advocate to me and fit the strict definition of Lobbyist. I just wonder if we can clearly draw a line between those two without finding exampled that straddle that line. So we have work to do there.

Finally, I added an amendment that asked that we engage the City’s new Ethics Commissioner, and ask them to report back on potential procedures or practices we could adopt as a form of practice disclosure for when we are being lobbied. I think the public is less interested in reading the names of lobbyists, and are more interested in what meetings we are taking and the purpose of those meetings.

So, more to come on that!

And with that we wrapped our Queensborough excursion, and considering the list of things above that ended with “more work to do”, I feel confident in saying we are back into the thick of it.

Patrick Johnstone

Fan of cities; Mayor of a great one.

Tag: Politics