Langley City’s Citizens’ Assembly Recommendations: Communication, Housing, and Continued Advocacy

Over the last little bit, I’ve been posting about Langley City’s Citizens’ Assembly on Community Safety, including about the Assembly and their first recommendation, their second recommendation, and their third recommendation. This is my last post on their recommendations.

The Assembly also made four supporting recommendations. The first supporting recommendation is to improve how Langley City communicates with residents and businesses, and how residents and businesses can communicate with the City. This means information from the City should be proactive, consistent, accessible, in plain language and available across multiple mediums (online, print, in-person). It also means that residents and businesses should have a one-stop shop for connecting with the City and service delivery partners.

The Citizens’ Assembly members felt strongly that housing is the foundation for safety and well-being, and that a Citizens’ Assembly on Housing would add value by focusing on practical options to deliver affordable housing in Langley City. The members also felt that it would help build community consensus around delivering housing, as it can be divisive at the neighbourhood level today.

The Assembly members also recommended that the City continue to advocate to the province for a Mobile Integrated Crisis Response team for Langley, where a police officer and a health care professional work as a team for certain calls. The Assembly also recommended that the City continue to advocate for the federal and provincial governments to fund the construction of affordable housing in the community across the housing continuum.

As the next step, City staff are working on an implementation plan for the Assembly’s recommendations. Council will then have the opportunity to discuss and potentially approve the implementation plan to put the Assembly’s recommendations into action.

Langley City’s Citizens’ Assembly Recommendations: Balancing Community Safety Prevention and Visibility

Today, I’m continuing my series on Langley City’s Citizens’ Assembly on Community Safety’s recommendations. You can read more about the Assembly and their first recommendation, as well as their second recommendation. Their third recommendation is Balancing Community Safety Prevention and Visibility.

Right now, our public safety system is more reactive than preventive. We all know we get better outcomes when we focus on prevention. This means that we need to shift our safety system so that people can access resources earlier.

A good example of shifting upstream is Project Black Feather, a joint program between the City, Township, and Langley School District, that reduces the likelihood of young people going down a dangerous path of gang and gun violence. Another example is improving how buildings and sites that are slated for redevelopment are secured to prevent fires.

Combining prevention with visibility is one of the Assembly’s major action items. The City and its partners would use data to proactively go to areas in our community with higher social needs or negative activity, working with RCMP, Bylaw, Fire, and other partners to increase visibility while also offering outreach, including housing stability, social support, and health options for all people in those areas. This would be meeting people where they are while also ensuring that parts of our community aren’t under- or overpoliced.

My next post will outline the Assembly’s supporting recommendations and the next steps.

Langley City’s Citizens’ Assembly Recommendations: Advocacy & Service Navigation

Over the next little bit, I’ll be posting about the recommendations from Langley City’s Citizens’ Assembly on Community Safety. You can learn more about the Citizens’ Assembly and their first recommendation on creating Resilient Neighbourhood Networks in a previous post.

What is Langley City's Citizens’ Assembly? Select the image to enlarge.

Their second recommendation is to create an Advocacy & Service Navigation Framework. People face a fragmented system when seeking safety services. When you need help, you may need to reach out to multiple departments, services, or agencies. You might not even know where to start, get bounced around, have Department A say it's Department B’s problem, only to have Department B say it is Department A’s problem. Service providers may not follow up with you.

A simple example at the City level is knowing whether a safety issue is bylaws or the building inspection department; you might have to make two calls. At a higher level, a 911 call for a domestic situation may have been handled differently if people had been referred to a service provider that delivers family support earlier.

Based on the existing work in our community on coordinated services for people experiencing homelessness, this model of providing a one-stop shop entry point with trained service navigators, who provide proactive follow-up and warm handoffs, should be expanded to all people who need to use safety services in our community. This would reduce overall calls for service and be more effective.

Next up, I’ll be posting about the third recommendation.

Langley City’s Citizens’ Assembly Recommendations: Resilient Neighbourhood Networks

Community safety has been at the top of mind for many Langley City residents and businesses for as long as I’ve lived in this community. While it is important that we continue to invest in basic public safety resources such as police and fire, it is clear that we need to do something different to help move from a reactive to a more proactive public safety model. Council wanted to do this in a way that directly involves our community, giving them the resources they need to develop a made-in-Langley-City solution to create a safer community.

Langley City convened a Citizens’ Assembly on Community Safety. 29 people were selected to serve on the assembly via a lottery process that also ensured the assembly members were a representative sample of our community's demographics.

What is Langley City's Citizens’ Assembly? Select the image to enlarge.

Over the last year, they got to work and presented their recommendations on Monday night, which Council endorsed. The Assembly made seven recommendations, and I wanted to outline them over the next week or so.

The first recommendation was to stand up Resilient Neighbourhood Networks (RNNs). Safety starts at the neighbourhood level. People need to both be safe and actually feel safe. Strong neighbourhood-level connections between people are a proven way to build trust, reduce fear, and foster a sense of ownership in their community. When people come together, it also gives them the opportunity to actively improve their neighbourhood's safety, whether through emergency preparedness, first aid training, neighbourhood safety walks, learning from first responders, or social gatherings to build neighbourhood cohesion. This helps shift towards a more proactive safety model.

The City will support the creation of the RNNs and will pilot them in several neighbourhoods this year, starting now. The City will be sending out information on how people can get involved.

I will be posting about the next recommendations next week.

February 9 Council Meeting Notes: Liquor at the Seniors Centre, Development, First Responder Radios, and a Mural

On Monday night, Langley City Council held a public hearing on a proposed update to the zoning for 20605 51B Avenue, the location of the Langley Senior Recreation & Resource Centre. The Langley Senior Resources Society is seeking to add Liquor Primary Establishment as a permitted use at the centre to enable more flexibility in their ability to serve alcohol in their hall for various events, as their catering and hall use continue to grow. The only person to provide feedback was Kate Ludlam, who is the society’s executive director. She was, of course, supportive of the proposed zoning change.

Council gave first, second, and third reading to a road closure bylaw to enable the sale of a small section of cul-de-sac right-of-way located at 200A Street and 45th Avenue, which is no longer required.

Council also gave first, second, and third reading to a bylaw that will enable the City to require radio amplification equipment to be installed in new and existing buildings where there are dead zones for first responders' radio equipment. If given final reading by Council, all new buildings in areas with concrete walls will have this equipment and the City will work to get this equipment installed in older buildings in areas with concrete walls where there are known radio dead zones.

Due to an oversight in calculating the depth of the first floor’s brick façade at 20769 Fraser Highway, the building technically encroaches up to 17cm into the City's right of way in some areas. Council approved an easement agreement to enable a Section 219 Restrictive Covenant for the property to authorize the encroachment.

Council issued a development permit for a triplex at 5135 208A Street and also approved the Assistant Fire Chief Graham Wing to attend the 2026 Fire Department Instructor Conference held in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Rendering for approved triplex at 5135 208A Street. Select the image to enlarge.

Council gave final reading to updates to our Fees & Charges Bylaw and Municipal Ticket Information System Bylaw to reflect charges and fines resulting from our new Tree Protection and Management Bylaw.

Finally, Council approved a motion to enable the Lower Fraser Valley Aboriginal Society, in partnership with Expressive Youth Project, to install a mural funded by the Canada Council for the Arts in Council Chambers.

BC Builds Affordable Rental Mixed-Use Project at 49th and 200th Approved

On Monday, Langley City Council approved an update to our Official Community Plan, zoning bylaw, and issued a development permit to enable the construction of a rental mixed-use project at 49th and 200th. The project will have 302 rental units, of which 30% (91 units) will be rented at 20% below Langley City market rents for the life of the building. The affordable units are secured through a housing agreement, which Council also approved last night. The ground floor will contain a child care facility, commercial retail space, a community kitchen, church offices, and meeting spaces.

The project is possible due to funding and support from the provincial government through their BC Builds program, a land donation from the Church of the Nazarene, and a land contribution from Langley City.

You can read more about the project in a previous blog post.

As part of any rezoning, the City requires the payment of developer costs charges. These charges are mandatory and help pay for sewer, water, drainage, parks, roads, solid waste and recycling facilities, fire protection facilities, and police facilities required to accommodate growth.

Some municipalities, like Langley City, also have Community Amenity Contributions, which are voluntary contributions that local governments seek to further help fund infrastructure to support population growth. Langley City has a guiding policy for this, but at the end of the day, it is optional, negotiated, and cannot be a requirement to grant approval of a project. This was recently upheld in a BC court.

Council’s guiding policy would suggest a Community Amenity Contribution of $1,208,000 as cash in lieu. The project’s applicant instead proposed to provide amenities in the form of a Community Hub that would enable at least 25 hours a week of City-run programs, including cooking and food security programs, various recreation activities (music classes, social clubs, low-intensity fitness, etc.), and after-school care on the site. This would be like a mini rec centre or neighbourhood house. Also, the project will include a greenway trailhead as part of the contribution. Council agreed to this proposal.

One of the changes to the project since it received third reading for rezoning in April of last year is its exterior design. The change was to the building's cladding and the layout of the windows and balconies. While the original proposal was a metal cladding which many commented felt too institutional, the updated design uses cement fibre-board cladding, which is typical for residential buildings in Langley City and looks less institutional.

Rendering of BC Builds project at 19991 49 Avenue, 19990 50 Avenue, and 4951-4975 & 4991 200 Street. Select the image to enlarge.

The project will not have motor vehicle access via 49th Avenue; there will only be right-in, right-out access on 50th Avenue. Primary motor vehicle access will be via the Grade Crescent/200th Street intersection.

Metro Vancouver Governance Model: Changing the Board Structure

A few weeks ago, I posted about proposed changes to the governance model at the Metro Vancouver Regional District based on recommendations by Deloitte earlier last year. The Regional District is currently working through these recommendations via its Governance Committee. One of the more complex areas that may require provincial collaboration is any change to the board's makeup, which currently has 41 Directors who are elected representatives: 39 appointed by their municipal councils, 1 by Tsawwassen First Nation, and 1 directly elected in Electoral Area A.

Directors were recently polled about what works and what doesn’t at the board level.

What works:

• The Regional District governance model is fundamentally sound.
• Strong commitment and engagement from Directors.
• Broad regional representation is valued and legitimate.
• Collaboration across jurisdictions has historically delivered results.
• Governance fundamentals and processes are largely in place.

What is a challenge:

• Board size can be unwieldy and inefficient (with 41 people in the room, discussing a single matter can take hours).
• Fiduciary duty to Metro Vancouver is difficult to balance with municipal obligations (municipal political expectations conflict with regional responsibilities).
• Board culture and turnover can inhibit constructive deliberation (who is elected matters, and every four years, there is normally a large turnover due to local government elections).
• Volume, structure, and timeliness of Board materials limit effective preparation (the agenda can be large and highly technical).
• Committee structure and meeting processes can be duplicative (committee decisions are often re-assessed at the board level).
• Perceived lack of subject matter expertise on Boards with high-risk exposure

Given my experience on TransLink’s Mayors’ Council and my involvement at the regional level through my role as mayor, I fully agree with both what works and the current challenges.

The governance committee will be looking at how to possibly restructure the board to most effectively accomplish the following objectives:

• Governance effectiveness (including proportionality, transparency, accountability, risk, and resilience).
• Stakeholder impact (including building public trust).
• Municipal representation
• Transition readiness (including ease of implementation and support from municipal and provincial governments).

Having a good governance structure is important, but even the best governance structure cannot prevent people who are only in it for power or self-interest from making decisions that are not in the region's best interest. I’ve also seen how challenging governance structures, such as those at TransLink, can deliver solid decisions when we all work together, as with the unanimously approved Investment Plan.

I look forward to seeing the committee's recommendations on possible changes to the board.

Net Financial Assets or Debt by Municipality in Metro Vancouver - Langely City A-OK

Earlier this week, I posted about the debt load of municipalities in Metro Vancouver based on recently released 2024 local government financial information data from the provincial government. This is the latest year available from the provincial government.

Net financial assets or debt are an indicator used in public accounting. A full explanation is included in “Understanding Canadian Public Sector Financial Statements”. A short explanation is that a local government in a net debt situation will require additional financial resources (taxes, further debt, or funding from other orders of governent) to continue delivering services and investments in tangible capital assets such as roads, water, sewer, parks and other facilities, while a municipality in a net financial asset situation will be able to investement in tangible capital assets with exisiting resources.

While being in a net-debt situation doesn’t mean a municipality is broke, it is an indicator that a local government is using debt more than its own savings to fund capital assets. If the net-debt continues to increase over a period of time, it could indicate that a municipality’s revenue is not keeping pace with its capital improvement program. All municipalities in BC have a debt limit which they cannot exceed.

Municipalities	Net Financial Assets or (Net Debt) at Year End
Township of Langley	(8,529,000)
Bowen Island	(245,281)
Belcarra	940,978
Lions Bay	4,348,455
Anmore	10,812,567
Pitt Meadows	34,864,663
Port Coquitlam	35,566,150
Langley City	51,584,299
Port Moody	66,233,649
White Rock	116,115,312
City of North Vancouver	133,668,685
New Westminster	139,599,807
West Vancouver	157,754,468
District of North Vancouver District	167,415,833
Maple Ridge	168,077,934
Delta	222,571,861
Coquitlam	1,010,804,000
Surrey	1,019,806,000
Richmond	1,212,467,935
Vancouver	1,489,852,000
Burnaby	2,101,833,906

Exploring a Resident-Permit Parking Program in High-Demand Areas

Yesterday, I posted about proposed changes to on-street parking and parking in City-owned lots in Downtown Langley City to ensure parking availability to support businesses as part of Langley City’s Public Parking Strategy. This plan calls for introducing two-hour, four-hour, and expanded monthly long-term parking options in Downtown. Today, I wanted to touch on the proposal for on-street residential parking.

Currently, people can park their vehicles for up to 72 hours on all streets in Langley City that aren’t signed otherwise. The community has expressed concern about on-street parking in certain neighbourhoods. Research by the City shows that some streets have high demand for on-street parking, as indicated by the dark purple on the following map.

Typical on-street parking utilization on Saturday, the busiest night of the week for overnight parking. Select the map to enlarge.

As all residents have on-site parking, some reasons people choose on-street parking are that on-site parking is priced (e.g., rental buildings or a university), used for reasons other than parking (e.g., storage), or not suitable for someone's vehicle (e.g., a commercial van). Of course, visitors also use on-street parking, and some people may have many vehicles.

To fairly manage residential parking in areas with high demand, such as the dark purple areas, the City would explore implementing a resident-permit parking program. A resident-permit parking program would encourage households to use available off-street parking, re-evaluate whether using off-street parking for alternative uses (e.g., storage) is optimal, and address chronic spillover parking from major destinations (e.g., a university). There are still many things to consider if the City were to implement a resident-permit parking program in select areas. Further work is required.

There will be a further opportunity to provide feedback on the City's proposed Public Parking Strategy. Follow “Let's Chat, Langley City!” to stay up to date.

Parking in Downtown Langley City: 2-Hour, 4-Hour, and Long-Term

Last summer, I posted about the work the City is doing to improve on-street parking management in our Downtown, Douglas and Nicomekl Neighbourhoods. After seeking additional public feedback, the City has further refined a proposed new on-street parking management strategy.

One of the big changes is switching on-street parking in Downtown from 3 hours to 2 hours to encourage more parking turnover, which is good for most businesses. Some customers may need to stay for more than 2 hours, so the City is also planning to increase the parking time limit in City-owned lots from 3 hours to 4 hours. Finally, we know that many employees need a place to park. Monthly, long-term parking will be expanded to include select parking spots at the Timms Community Centre. The following map shows the proposed parking time-limits for the Downtown area. Missing are the on-street parking spots west of 203rd Street in Downtown. I asked that they be included in the final strategy.

Proposed changes to on-street parking and city-owned lot timing limits in Downtown Langley City. Select the map to enlarge.

This change to the time-parking is something that the City would do as soon as possible. In preparation for SkyTrain, the City will also continue studying paid parking. The earliest paid parking would be considered for implementation would be in 2029 to coincide with the opening of SkyTrain in our community. The City would use paid parking to increase turnover and availability of parking for businesses near SkyTrain stations and to manage commuter parking. Any profit from paid parking would be directly reinvested in Downtown.

Other short-term projects to enhance the parking experience in Downtown include improving wayfinding, especially to City-owned lots, and modernizing and enhancing parking enforcement. In the longer-term, the City would look to implement real-time parking availability like in Kelowna, so people would know exactly where parking is available, either through an app or on-street digital displays.

Finally, the City will look to secure additional off-street public parking near SkyTrain stations as part of redevelopment projects.

Tomorrow, I’ll post about the recommendations for residential parking.

Debt Load of Municipalities in Metro Vancouver in 2024

Every year, the provincial government releases general and financial statistics for local governments in BC. This year, many of the statistics were released signficiant later than normal. The 2024 data has now been fully posted, which is the latest year available. Over the next little bit, I’ll be sharing some financial statistics for municipalities in Metro Vancouver, highlighting where Langley City stands.

Today, I wanted to share some long-term debt statistics. Local governments can use long-term debt for infrastructure, and most do, though there is a limit on the amount of debt they can take on. The following table shows the total debt used, total debt authorizied, and the debt ceiling for municipalities in Metro Vancouver in 2024. The debt ceiling is based on the maximum annual principal and interest payments a local government may not exceed, known as the “Liability Servicing Limit.”

Municipalities	Total Debt Issued	Total Authorized Debt	Liability Servicing Limit	Liability Servicing Capacity Available	Percent of Servicing Limit
Burnaby	0	0	177,393,128	177,393,128	0.0%
Delta	0	0	82,783,033	82,783,033	0.0%
West Vancouver	24,505,023	24,505,023	57,536,831	55,499,404	3.5%
Langley City	21,653,047	21,653,047	19,906,014	19,096,643	4.1%
Surrey	295,608,000	295,608,000	306,465,013	285,087,961	7.0%
Richmond	89,113,339	89,113,339	165,165,193	152,689,932	7.6%
White Rock	19,631,379	19,631,379	17,301,835	15,943,335	7.9%
Port Moody	22,468,218	22,468,218	24,187,398	22,207,963	8.2%
District of North Vancouver	43,212,589	71,012,589	71,322,552	65,114,987	8.7%
Coquitlam	9,938,000	99,938,000	101,811,250	91,870,250	9.8%
Pitt Meadows	22,179,362	22,179,362	14,325,348	12,544,678	12.4%
Anmore	2,436,997	2,436,997	1,482,232	1,295,993	12.6%
Port Coquitlam	87,841,404	87,841,404	35,851,443	31,283,516	12.7%
Maple Ridge	34,467,441	62,342,441	54,704,541	45,582,841	16.7%
New Westminster	158,211,877	158,211,877	73,735,070	59,481,378	19.3%
Lions Bay	1,461,149	1,461,149	1,212,137	955,719	21.2%
Vancouver	1,027,970,000	1,301,995,000	636,181,645	459,647,582	27.7%
Township of Langley	317,305,000	417,379,847	94,880,500	67,329,681	29.0%
City of North Vancouver	872,552	164,700,000	40,665,687	25,739,150	36.7%
Belcarra	2,813,955	2,813,955	673,811	404,248	40.0%
Bowen Island	12,088,448	17,863,978	3,604,125	2,136,898	40.7%