Port Moody council approves public engagement strategy for new OCP; slew of town halls slated for spring

Opponents and supporters of Port Moody’s new official community plan (OCP) will be able to let council know just what they think about it in the coming months.

The updated public engagement strategy, approved by council on Tuesday, Jan. 9, includes townhall meetings, youth engagement sessions and an online survey.

“I think this is something that we are all behind, and that we can be proud of. It’s fabulous,” said Coun. Kyla Knowles. “Let’s do it right.”

The updated strategy comes after criticism of the city’s engagement practices prior to the approval of the OCP draft on Dec. 5.

Public input received was conflicting, specifically around density questions, according to staff. This led some in the public (and one councillor) to claim public survey input had been ignored.

While most on council did not agree with the criticisms, they did agree the city’s engagement process could be strengthened by capturing a wider array of interests and demographics.

Staff recommendations included two in-person town hall meetings, one attended by residents and one attended by the city’s committee members and a new citizen advisory group.

They suggested a format where participants would hear a presentation at Inlet Theatre and break into small discussion groups to discuss key topics and upcoming changes to the OCP.

A separate virtual town hall meeting also would be held, along with two youth engagement sessions targeting middle and high school students and an online survey.

The new strategy effectively doubles the amount of engagement events hosted by the city, and would require up to $50,000 to be drawn out of the new initiatives reserves.

All events are scheduled to begin this spring, with the various town halls and online survey slated for March or April.

There was some disagreement on council, however, regarding the style of the town hall event and how they should be funded.

A town hall with no council?

Most of the criticism focused on how the in-person town hall event deviated from the quintessential town hall format.

They did not allow members of the public to speak directly to councillors; councillors were not even required to attend.

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki, who introduced the amendment on Dec. 5 requiring a town hall event take place, said she expected residents to be able to address council directly through an open-mic.

She said the intent of the motion was clearly written, and town hall meetings have typically followed this format, including during prior OCP processes in 2013.

“I’ve honestly already had people come up to me and say that they’re looking forward to being able to come and speak to council,” Lurbiecki said. “I’m not quite seeing that described. What I’m seeing described is roundtable events . . . being called a town hall.”

Mary DePaoli, manager of policy planning, said the format was intended to allow for deeper high-level conversations, followed by a period where observations would be shared with staff.

She said it wasn’t anticipated council would need to be present.

City manager Tim Savoie added the small-group format was chosen because staff are still trying to refine policy.

He said what Lurbiecki was suggesting is a public-hearing format, stating there would be more opportunity for type of input later in the OCP process.

“Council certainly can attend,” Savoie said. “But I don’t believe it was envisioned that council would be sitting up on the stage.”

Mayor Meghan Lahti approved of staff’s suggestion and said she was not in favour of a public-hearing-style event, but added she thought council would be present.

Other councillors, however, largely supported Lurbiecki’s definition of a town hall.

Coun. Diana Dilworth said town hall events have always allowed an opportunity for members of the public to address council directly, and attendance has always been required.

“To suggest that we would have town hall meetings without council doesn’t seem right to me,” She said. “A town hall has always been a town hall meeting.”

Dilworth suggested an amendment which would tweak the events to make councillor attendance mandatory and allow for an open-mic period.

Lurbiecki added attendance of the roundtable discussions should not be a requirement to provide council feedback during the input period.

The amendment passed unanimously.

Funding source

Funding the updated strategy was another area of disagreement among councillors.

Knowles noted the city’s new initiatives reserve has been described by finance staff as “chronically oversubscribed.”

She said the city should try to pinpoint a more appropriate funding source, suggesting they could draw from the development reserve, “in the vein of growth pays for growth.”

“There’s criticism from the community, that I’m hyper aware of, that we just use this (reserve) as a catch all for any sort of expenses that come along the way,” Knowles said. “It’s important that we live within our means, and the new initiatives reserve, so far, has not borne that out.”

Tyson Ganske, manager of financial planning, said that staff believe the funding source is appropriate in this case, but agreed other reserves could be drawn from.

Knowles brought forth a motion for the finance committee to come back with a list of options.

Coun. Callan Morrison supported the motion, stating if the new engagement strategy had been planned well in advance, he believes the city would have drawn out of a different reserve.

“When we have other things come up, that will inevitably come up with development, I think there should be something that is more in line,” he said.

But Lahti disagreed, arguing the new initiatives reserve was created exactly for this type of expense.

Although she didn’t disagree there was some discussion in the wider community regarding the reserve, she said the amount of concern was being exaggerated.

“I don’t see it as a big deal,” Lahti said. “Nothing’s come across my desk that suggests that the public, generally speaking, is outraged about us using this reserve.”

The motion was defeated with Lahti, Couns. Samantha Agtarap, Dilworth and Lurbiecki opposed.