Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board Meeting Agenda May 28, 2012; 10:30 AM - 4:00 PM SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton BC
Item Item of Business and Page # Page
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Committee Reports and Recommendations
3.1. Committee of the Whole Recommendations of April 30, 2012: Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 3.1.1. BC Child Find - National Missing Children’s Month and Missing 9-11 Children’s Day
WHEREAS Child Find British Columbia, a provincial member of Child Find Canada is a non-profit, registered charitable organization, incorporated in 1984; AND
WHEREAS The Mandate of Child Find British Columbia is to educate children and adults about abduction prevention, to promote awareness of the problem of missing children, and to assist in the location of missing children; AND
WHEREAS Child Find has recognized Green as the colour of Hope, which symbolizes a light in the darkness for all missing children; AND
WHEREAS Child Find’s annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign will be held in the month of May and that May 25th be National Missing Children’s Day; AND
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: I, Susan Gimse, Chair of the Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, do hereby proclaim May as Child Find’s Green Ribbon of Hope month and May 25th as National Missing Children’s day. We urge our citizens to wear a green ribbon as a symbol of Hope for the recovery of all missing children; and to remain vigilant in our common desire to protect and nurture the youth of our Province. 3.1.2. 2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver’s Municipal Technical 12-15 Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations
Page 1 of 343 Item Item of Business and Page 3 Page
3.1. Committee of the Whole Recommendations of April 30, 2012: THAT Squamish-Lillooet Regional District CAO, Lynda Flynn, be appointed to the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Technical Advisory Committee.
3.2. Electoral Area Directors Committee Recommendations of May 14, 2012 Unweighted Vote 3.2.1. Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Plan - Area C 16-45
THAT the Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan - Area C (AAP) be adopted as Board policy. 3.2.2. Request for Decision - Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protection Society 46-48 Storage Building from ‘Post-Disaster Building’ Designation
THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board exempt the proposed Gun Lake Fire Protection Society storage building for a fire truck and related fire-fighting equipment from ‘post-disaster building’ designation. 3.2.3. Information Report - Civic Addressing/House Numbering Signs 49-51
3.3. Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Recommendations of May 14, 2012 Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 3.3.1. Recreation Services Manager Verbal Update
THAT staff apply for a grant from Fraser Basin Council to install two charging stations for electric cars in the Pemberton & District Cottonwood Community Centre parkade.
4. Bylaws Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 4.1. Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application for Official 52-66 Community Plan & Zoning Bylaw Amendment in Electoral Area D
1. THAT Bylaw 1239, a bylaw to amend ‘Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 495, 1994’ be read a third time. 2. THAT Bylaw 1240, a bylaw to amend ‘Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw No. 540, 1994’ be read a third time. 3. THAT prior to the adoption of Bylaw 1240, the following conditions be met:
A) The provision of an appropriate legal mechanism (s. 219 covenant or other agreement) to ensure provision of the following amenities
Page 2 of 343 Item Item of Business and Page 3 Page
4. Bylaws prior to the issuance of a development permit: i) A trail network at the upper terminal site, including connections to offsite trails, complete with cost estimates, and securities in the amount of 135% of the estimated construction costs. ii) An interpretive plan, including a signage plan, referencing the cultural and historical aspects of the area complete with cost estimates, and securities in the amount of 135% of the estimated costs.
B) The applicant will address the issues related to potential increases in search and rescue operations that may be generated as a result of this change in land use (to the satisfaction of the CAO and the Area D Director).
4. THAT the adoption of bylaws 1239 and 1240 not be considered until the BC Parks legislation has been brought into force. 4.2. Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & District 67-78 Community Swimming Pool Capital Improvements Loan Authorization Bylaw (Requires 2/3 votes)
THAT : (a) the Board, via Section 801(4) of the Local Government Act, by resolution adopted by at least 2/3 of the votes cast, provide that the participating area approval is to be obtained for the entire service area of the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool service; (b) THAT via Section 801.3 of the Local Government Act, participating area approval be obtained by alternative approval process; (c) THAT Bylaw No.1251-2012, cited as “Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Capital Improvements Loan Authorization Bylaw 1251-2012”, be introduced and read a first, second and third time; and (d) THAT the Board approve the Notice of Alternative Approval Process regarding Bylaw No. 1251-2012, establishing:
(i) the number of eligible electors within the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Service Area, (ii) the number of eligible electors required to prevent the Board from proceeding without the further assent of the electors, and (iii) a deadline for the last date on which objections to the bylaw may be received. 4.3. Request for Decision - Amendment Bylaw 1248-2012 - Changes to 79-82 Clarify FSR Calculations and Definitions - Britannia Beach, Area D
1. THAT the bylaw cited as ‘Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw 540, 1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 1248-2012’ be given third reading;
Page 3 of 343 Item Item of Business and Page 3 Page
4. Bylaws 2. THAT pursuant to s. 52 of the Highway Act, Bylaw 1248 be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for Ministerial approval. 4.4. Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-2012; and 83-93 Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101,2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1245-2012
1. THAT Bylaw 1247, cited as “Special Events Bylaw No. 1247- 2012” be introduced and read a first, second, and third time. 2. THAT Bylaw 1247 be adopted. 3. THAT Bylaw 1245, cited as “Fee Bylaw No. 1101, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1245-2012” be introduced and read a first, second, and third time. 4. THAT Bylaw 1245 be adopted. 4.5. Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Area D Noise 94-102 Regulation Bylaw No. 1234-2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 1236-2012 Weighted All Vote
1. THAT Bylaw 1236, cited as “SLRD, Electoral Area D Noise Regulation Bylaw No. 1234-2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 1236- 2012” be introduced and read a first, second, and third time. 2. THAT Bylaw 1236 be adopted.
5. Staff Reports & CAO Update Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 5.1. Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Context 103-149 Statement Update
THAT the District of Lillooet Regional Context Statement as contained within the Lillooet Official Community Plan is considered to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and that the District of Lillooet be invited to officially submit a regional context statement; and
THAT the District of Squamish Regional Context Statement (as presented to the SLRD Board on April 30, 2012) is considered to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and that the District of Squamish be invited to officially submit a regional context statement; and
THAT the Village of Pemberton be advised that the Regional Context Statement (as presented to the SLRD Board on April 30, 2012) is partially consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and that the Village of Pemberton be advised to amend their regional context statement to bring it into consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy, particularly with respect to those lands noted on Schedule B
Page 4 of 343 Item Item of Business and Page 3 Page
5. Staff Reports & CAO Update of the Regional Context Statement as Parcel #4 – Block A. Plan KAP9144, DL 7665 & 8784; Block A, DL 8788; DL 8785; DL 8787; DL 8788. 5.2. Information Report - Integrated Sustainability Plan Progress Update 150
5.3. Information Report - Translink's Public Consultation for Inter-Regional 151-153 Sea-to-Sky Service
5.4. Request for Decision - Gas Tax Funding Grants - Pemberton North 154 Water System & Bralorne Community Sewer Upgrade
THAT the resolution as made by the Board on April 23, 2012:
THAT staff develop two grant applications under the General Strategies Priorities System Fund for a Pemberton North water system and for the Bralorne sewer system
be amended as follows:
THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District submit an application to the Gas Tax Agreement's General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) and Innovations Fund (IF), for a water improvement capital project to provide a secure source of potable water for the Pemberton North region of Electoral Area C that will ensure residents have access to a safe, high quality and affordable source of water, now and in the future.
THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District submit an application to the Gas Tax Agreement's General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) and Innovations Fund (IF), for a capital project to upgrade the sewer infrastructure in the community of Bralorne in Electoral Area A that will reduce public health and environmental risk, improve water quality and foster sustainable local economic development. 5.5. Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Staggered Fee 155-162 Payment Structure
THAT staff prepare an amendment to Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008 in order to enable application fee instalment payments and refund provisions, as legally permissible. 5.6. CAO Verbal Update
5.7. 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report 163-272 with Bill Cox, BDO Dunwoody
THAT the 2011 SLRD Financial Statements with Auditor Report be
Page 5 of 343 Item Item of Business and Page 3 Page
5. Staff Reports & CAO Update received. 5.8. 2011 Directors Remuneration Report 273
THAT the 2011 SLRD Directors Remuneration Report be received.
6. Correspondence Requesting Action
7. Correspondence for Information 7.1. Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Amendments to the Fisheries 274-278 Act
7.2. Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential Benefits of the 279-287 Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)
7.3. City of New Westminster to LMLGA President - Rental Housing Stock 288-289 & Federal Government Transfer Funds
7.4. Gas Tax Agreement - Regionally Significant Project Funds (Letter 290 from City of Kelowna, District of W. Kelowna, City of Vernon, City of Penticton)
7.5. District of Squamish to Premier Christy Clark - Expert Panel Review 291 of Business Taxation & Municipal Revenue Sources Review
7.6. BC Ombudsperson's Report - January to March 31, 2012 292-293
7.7. Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations 294-301 (MFLNRO) - Sequoia Energy Inc. - Licences for: ● Quarry purposes ● Existing and New Road construction ● Powerhouse, Switchyard and Tailrace purposes ● Staging and Spoil Area purposes
7.8. Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Board 302-307 Decisions re: Treaty Negotiations & Aboriginal Affairs - April 2, 2012
7.9. Mary Polak, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation - Local 308-310 Governments Representation in Tripartite Treaty
Page 6 of 343 Item Item of Business and Page 3 Page
7. Correspondence for Information 7.10. Pemberton Valley Trails Association - Thank You 311
7.11. BC Hydro Smart Meters in D'Arcy - Letter from Anna Peszynska 312
7.12. City of Vernon to BC Hydro - Optional Refusal of Smart Meter 313 Installation
7.13. Sparc BC - Access Awareness Day - June 2, 2012 314-316
7.14. SLRD EPC Departing Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation EOC 317
7.15. Annexation Impact Study Funding Request - Reply from Thompson- 318-320 Nicola Regional District
8. Confirmation and Receipt of Minutes 8.1. Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 321-329 For approval as circulated or corrected.
8.2. Committee of the Whole Draft Meeting Minutes of April 30, 2012 330-332 For approval as circulated or corrected.
8.3. Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes of May 14, 333-338 2012 For information
8.4. Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Meeting 339-343 Minutes of May 14, 2012 For information
9. Business Arising from the Minutes
10. Decision on Late Business THAT the late items be considered at this meeting (requires 2/3 majority vote)
11. Late Business
12. Delegations and Petitions
13. Director's Reports
14. Board Closed Meeting
Page 7 of 343 Item Item of Business and Page 3 Page
14. Board Closed Meeting Resolution to Close the Meeting to the Public
THAT the Board close the meeting to the public under the authority of Section 90(1)(c)(e) and (j) of the Community Charter. 15. Adjournment
Page 8 of 343 BC Child Find - National Missing Children’s Month and Mi...
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Serving BritLch0oiumhia..nce 1984 Piownuol loll bte / 888689 /46? waw 1odocvhildl roio April 23, 2012 VIctoria OffIce 2.72.2.Fifth.Street, 208 Victoria, BC V8T 4B2. Dear Mayor and Councilors, (250) 38273i I Fax (250) 382.4)227, Re: Proclamation for National Missing Children’s Month and Emai.I: Missing Children’s Day childvichc@ shawca I write today on behalf of Child Find British Columbia, Child Find BC requests that your local government proclaim May as Missing Children’s Month and May th25 as missing Children’s Day.
Child Find BC provides “ALL ABOUT ME” ID Kits with child finger printing and photos, to at no cost to families and Child Find BC hosts “A charitable noraproti.t these Child Find ID Clinics throughout BC. Child Find BC provides organization working with. education, including public speakers, literature and tips for families to searching I/ier a.nd1(1w assist them in keeping all of our children safe.
incidence n/missing and We recently sent the 2012 posters of missing children from across exploited children.” Canada to your offices. ft is our hope that you have arranged for these posters to be placed at municipal facilities where children and families frequent. If you would like any additional posters they will be provided upon request.
We hope that you will raise this proclamation for consideration to your Council and your community at your next meeting. /4. 4,4fg25 C/if/A in f Most recent reporting from the RCMP show that over 10,000 cases of missing children were reported in British Columbia and over 50,000 cases in Canada. Through the support of municipal governments like yours we are able to educate and bring awareness to thousands of BC families on this important issue.
Thank you so much for your consideration of this request and your continuing commitment to Community Services in BC and the children and families of BC. If you have any questions regarding this request please contact the Child Find BC office at L888-689-3463.
Yours truly,
Crystal Dunahee President, Child Find BC
Page 9 of 343 BC Child Find - National Missing Children’s Month and Mi... ______day
Your Letterhead here
National Missing Children’s Month and Missing Children’s Day
WHEREAS Child Find British Columbia, a provincial member of Child Find Canada is a nonprofit, registered charitable organization, incorporated in 1984;AND
WHEREAS The Mandate of Child Find British Columbia is to educate children and adults about abduction prevention; to promote awareness of the problem of missing children, and to assist in the location of missing children; AND
WHEREAS Child Find has recognized Green as the colour of Hope, which symbolizes a light in the darkness for all missing children; AND
WHEREAS Child Find’s annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign will he held in the month of May and May 25111is National Missing Children’s Day; AND
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, (Mayors Name) of the (city, town, municipality, do hereby proclaim May as Child Find’s Green Ribbon of Hope month and May 25111 as National Missing Children’s day. I urge our citizens to wear a green ribbon as a symbol of Hope for the recovery of all missing children: and to remain vigilant in our common desire to protect and nurture the youth of our Province.
Mayor
Signed at this of May, 2012
Page 10 of 343 BC Child Find - National Missing Children’s Month and Mi... ______
Child Find BC/ Clinic Request Form r- kr i 5 Sr 11 ii ftF1i ( /Hifl/?1/ /‘1.S-4 1 ;j/ j,j/ /t / S1O j ;,/JtnJ/
208 — 2722 Fifth Street Victoria, BC. V8T 4B2 Phone: (250) 382-7311 FAX: (250) 382-0227 Email: hav a
Fingerprint Clinic Location:______Guest Speaker: Fund Raising event: Contact Name: Phone:______FAX: E mail: Organization: Address:
City Postal Code Date of Clinic: Time of Clinic: - to Inside / Outside venue: Number of Posters required: How are you publicizing this clinic?______Note: A Power Outlet is required for ID Clinics using the camera & printer. If no power is available contact Child Find BC @1-888-689-3463
The Child Find British Columbia office will provide your clinic with digital cameras, printers, and film along with ID Booklets, Literature and Finger Print Ink at no charge.
NOTE: Child Find BC requires this information for our EVENTS CALENDAR. On conclusion of the Clinic we require the number of children who participated.
Do you require camera equipment Yes No Name of person responsible for this equipment
Office information: Received Confirmation sent______Shipping date Pick Up date Returned date:
Page 11 of 343 2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver’s Municipal Technic...
Office of the Commissioner/Chief Administrative Officer Tel. 604 432-6210 Fax 604 451-6614
APR7 fl File: CR-14-O1-MTAC
Ms. Lynda Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer Squamish-Lillooet Regional District P0 Box 219, 1350 Aster Street Pemberton, BC VON2L0
Dear Ms. Flynn:
Re: 2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver’s Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations
In January 2012, Metro Vancouver’s Aboriginal Relations Committee was established by the Metro Vancouver Board to provide advice on treaty negotiations and Aboriginal relations to the Board and individual municipalities.
An important component in supporting the work of the committee is the establishment of a
Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC)on Aboriginal Relations. I am pleased to advise that Metro Vancouver is now establishing such a committee and invitingthe participation of your organization. MTACwillconsist of local government staff representatives from the Lower Mainland area, including the Fraser Valley Regional District, the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, and the Sunshine Coast Regional District.
The purpose of this Committee is to provide technical and strategic advice to Metro Vancouver staff on ‘pan-municipal’ treaty and non-treaty issues of significance to local government, including on active treaty negotiations, servicing agreements, First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act (FNCIDA), relationship-building, infrastructure projects, consultation/engagement processes and other issues emerging in, or of interest to, your respective jurisdiction. MTAC’s draft Terms of Reference are attached for your information.
We would like to schedule the inaugural MTAC meeting in late May. To ensure that your local government is represented, please send a letter indicating your staff appointment(s) to the MTAC as soon as possible, and no later than Tuesday, May 15, 2012, with complete contact information for your representative, including position, address, phone, fax and email address to:
Marino Piombini, Supervisor Aboriginal Relations Program Corporate Relations Department Metro Vancouver 4330 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4G8 [email protected] Fax: 604-432-6399
Page 12 of 343 2012 Lynda Relations
Page
Yours Supervisor,
If
E-Mail:
cc: DLJHS/mp Delia
Att:
Interim
6098042 2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver
you
Appointments
2
Flynn,
Laglagaron
have
of
truly,
Chair Chair
Commissioner! Draft marinopiombini
2
Chief
any
Aboriginal
Terms
Susan
Ernie
Administrative
questions
to
Daykin,
of
Gimse,
Metro
Reference:
Relations
Chief
@
Vancouver’s
Metro
metrovancouver.org.
or
Squamish-Lillooet
Officer,
comments,
Administrative
Vancouver
Municipal
Program:
Squamish-Lillooet
Municipal
please
Technical
Aboriginal
Tel:
Regional
Officer
Technical
604-432-6388;
do
Regional
Advisory
not
Relations
District
hesitate
Advisory ’ s Municipal Technic...
District
Committee
Committee
Committee to
contact
(MTAC)
(MTAC)
Marino
on Page 13 of 343
Aboriginal
on
Piombini,
Aboriginal
Relations 2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver metrovancouver which CONTEXT The Committee body • A COMPOSITION PURPOSE The • Agendas any The an The ORGANIZATION District, Mainland The ADMINISTRATION At attend. MTAC for PROCEDURES invited The Meetings
ED member the the MTAC To that To arising Mumcipal Chair Committee Chair Metro MTAC to conveys request consider provide membership Committee. to Metro may and and attend area, will agenda. shall of Vancouver may for Aboriginal may the require the be meeting Vancouver’s of consideration. Technical technical its including determine designate will Sunshine form and pan-municipal’ held Committee a recommendations member meet comprises a participate task-oriented at issues Corporate coordinated minutes Metro and Advisory the on an Coast the Aboriginal and shall a Fraser strategic of alternate agenda.
Terms
Committee
Municipal
quarterly Relations Vancouver local will interest matters in with Regional Relations be Committee the be municipal subcommittees Valley government to an the provided advice meeting. Relations to Metro Any to
of Aboriginal of basis consent attend Head local significance District. Regional Department
Reference member approach. on Vancouver or (MTAC) for government. Office Program Aboriginal MTAC at staff of
Technical each ’ Relations to intervals s Municipal Technic... the District,
on may address representatives on in to shall meetings Chair, meeting. Burnaby. Board’s Lower Aboriginal staff request
Aboriginal relations it the provide Program determines specific guests (see Mainland Squamish if Aboriginal that he/she organizational and Relations administrative or from staff technical a Advisory delegations matter treaty to local is representative. the Page 14 of 343 Lillooet be Relations unable is Lower negotiations; appropriate. governments be aspects an
chart), placed Regional support advisory to may of be on ______2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations
Metro Vancouver Canada & Board FN Govts1 I I Aboriginal Treaty Relations Tables Committee ’ I s Municipal Technic... Aboriginal Relations Program
Page 15 of 343 I Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
REQUEST FOR DECISION Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan Area C
Recommendation:
1. That the SLRD Board of Directors adopt the Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan (AAP) as Board policy.
Report/Document: Attached _X_ Available __ Nil __
Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined:
The last draft of the Pemberton Valley Agriculture Area Plan was referred out to various agencies and local governments for review and comment.
The attached draft is a revised version based on comments received through the referral process.
Relevant Policy: Electoral Area C OCP contains extensive policies in relation to agriculture. This plan provides elaboration of those policies, and recommends action steps to move towards implementing the policies.
Desired Outcome(s): That the Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan be adopted as Board policy.
Response Options: 1. Adopt the Plan as presented. 2. Adopt the Plan as presented, and direct staff to prepare an amending bylaw to the OCP to adopt the AAP as a sub-area plan to the Area C OCP. 3. Refer back to staff for further revisions and analysis.
Preferred Strategy: Option 1
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION:
General: Option 1 will see the AAP adopted as Board policy. Having a formal Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan strengthens agricultural policy, provides a framework for future policy work, and sets out specific actions steps.
Page 16 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan Electoral Area C
Prepared for meeting of: May 14, 2012
Issue Defined
The draft Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan (AAP) was referred out to agencies and local governments in September 2011. As a result of the referral process, comments from two agencies and the Village of Pemberton were received. This report summarizes the comments received, and the revisions that are proposed to address the concerns that were raised.
History
The process to develop a Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan began at the end of 2008 when the Board endorsed the Terms of Reference. Following the Board’s endorsement of the Terms of Reference, funding was granted through the Investment Agriculture Foundation (IAF), a consultant was selected to undertake the project, and work began in the spring of 2009. By the end of 2009 a Phase 1 Report titled “Agriculture Profile” was completed and presented to the community at a public meeting and brainstorming session on issues affecting local agriculture.
A draft AAP was first presented to the SLRD Board in March 2010. Following that there were substantial personnel changes within the planning department that resulted in the AAP process being significantly delayed. In the fall of 2010 work on the AAP was initiated once again, and a refined policy draft was prepared and was used as the basis for an extensive review process with the Area C Agricultural Advisory Committee. In March 2011 the Board resolved that the draft be sent out for agency comments.
In the time since the last draft was considered by the Board, and the preparation of this report, the Ministry of Agriculture provided, for the first time, the completed Pemberton Valley Land Use Inventory. This LUI has been included in the Appendices, and it is anticipated that it will be a valuable resource during the implementation of the plan, as well as for related projects, and future reviews of the AAP.
Current Status
The agency review process is complete, and staff present the current draft as a reflection of the comments received through that process.
Page 17 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Referral Process
The draft AAP was sent to several agencies. Comments were received from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the Ministry of Agriculture, and the Village of Pemberton. The full comments are attached to this report as an appendix. The table below summarizes the comments and provides a brief explanation of the revisions made, or staff response to the comment.
Section Description of Change Comments
Goal 1 Moved objectives 2.2, 2.3 and 2.6 from Previously Goal 1 and Goal 2 were in Goal 2 to Goal 1 the same section, with one list of objectives. This draft pulls out three objectives and moves them under Goal 1, so that now Goal 1 has three objectives, and Goal 2 has four objectives.
Objective 1.1 Minor rewording in opening paragraph no change to content
Action 1.1.1 UPDATED POLICY – to “consider Updated this action. Previously the amending the zoning bylaw as per the action was to support the development Minister’s bylaw standard regarding the of a Minister’s bylaw standard regarding size and siting of non-agricultural residential uses on agricultural land. developments on agricultural land.” The Minister’s bylaw standard is in place now, so this language is updated NOTE: in January 2010 the Board directed to reflect a possible next step. staff to begin a consultation and review process regarding this matter
Action 1.1.2 Inserted “that would apply to lands As per BC Ministry of Agriculture and adjacent to or nearby farmland” Lands (BCAGRI) comments, to clarify
Action 1.1.3 and Separated these into separate actions As per VoP comments 1.1.4 (previously they were both in one action)
Action 1.1.5 Deleted “request the province to delegate As per BCAGRI and VoP concerns authority to local governments to designate agricultural areas as development permit areas for the purpose of regulating form and character, including siting, of residential uses on ALR land.”
Objective 1.2 Minor rewording in opening paragraph no change to content
Action 1.2.2 Added phrase “Any signage within the As per the MoTI comments Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure right of way requires their approval.”
Page 18 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Objective 1.3 Reworded opening paragraph to soften As per VoP comments tone
Goal 2 Reworded to soften tone, no change to As per VoP comments content
Actions 2.1.2 minor edits for grammar and 2.1.3
Action 2.1.5 Reworded As per BCAGRI comments to avoid using the term ‘lobbying’
Objective 2.2 Minor rewording in opening paragraph no change to content
Action 2.2.5 Reworded to specify that it refers to water As per VoP comments for irrigation
Action 2.3.3 Clarified that it refers to ‘impacts to As per VoP comments agriculture as a result of non-agricultural uses of Crown land’
Action 2.4.7 Added ‘farm animals’ As per VoP comment to add ‘horses’
Objective 5.1 Reworded opening paragraph to soften tone
Action 5.1.2 Reworded to say “work with BCAGRI to BCAGRI explained their limited access extension services as they are resources but confirmed their desire to available.” continue to provide support to communities
Action 5.3.2 Added “such as a farmer’s market” As per VoP comment
Action 6.2.5 Reworded to say “work with MoTI to…” As per MoTI comments
Action 6.3.1 Added “Such signage could also warn As per VoP comments visitors about slow moving vehicles and animals in farm areas.”
Action 6.3.2 NEW POLICY – to “consider collaborating Based on discussion at the Agricultural with the Chamber of Commerce and other Advisory Commission review, and interested organizations to undertake a suggestion from a BCAGRI regional study (and create a report for the public) to Agrologist. In other communities they show the economic contribution of were surprised to see the total agriculture to the community and the net contribution of agriculture, and also to tax benefit of agricultural land.” see the difference in cost/benefit of agricultural land compared to other land uses (ie industrial, residential).
Action 7.1.6 Added “…as per the requirements of the At the request of the BCAGRI Agricultural Land Commission Act,
Page 19 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Agricultural Land Reserve Use Subdivision and Procedure Regulation and the Minister’s bylaw standard regarding residential uses in the ALR.”
Under DELETED - recommendation that a formal BCAGRI cautioned that they would not Agricultural Plan MOU be developed for signature by likely be able to commit to an MOU due Implementation participating organizations to limited resources. Staff believe that Body heading this commitment may be onerous for many organizations, and suggest that (pg 17) it’s removal does not jeopardize the spirit of the plan, or the call to action described under the Implementation section.
Glossary Added “Working Agriculture” as As per BCAGRI comment “Economically viable agriculture that can support an operator from the proceeds of farming.”
List of Acronyms NEW SECTION added to list acronyms used in the plan
Options
1. Adopt the Plan as presented. 2. Adopt Plan as presented and direct staff to prepare an amending bylaw to the OCP to adopt the AAP as a sub-area plan to the Area C OCP. 3. Refer back to staff for further revisions and analysis.
Analysis of Options
Option 1 – adopt the Plan as presented When this project was originally contemplated, it was envisioned that the Plan would be incorporated into the Area C Official Community Plan as a sub-area plan. Staff believe that shifting the direction of the AAP to become a plan that is simply adopted by the Board, akin to the Trails Master Plan, rather than a sub-area plan of the OCP is advantageous not only for a more timely completion and adoption of the plan, but also in that it allows greater flexibility in the future should amendments or revisions be desired. OCP amendments are still recommended in order to address any policy gaps that exist in the current OCP agricultural policies, and this way those amendments can be undertaken as one of the early implementation steps. Staff believe that adopting the plan independently from the OCP does not compromise the process or the strength of the policies, but simply allows greater flexibility in how the plan is implemented. It is noted that there are several jurisdictions that have adopted AAPs in place that are not sub-area plans, but rather act as a supplement to the OCP, and provide policy direction to the OCP as well as zoning and regulatory bylaws.
This option allows the fastest path to adoption of the plan, and to start implementation.
Page 20 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Option 2 – Adopt plan as presented and prepare amending bylaws to adopt plan as a sub-area plan to the Area C OCP Should the Board wish to proceed with adopting this plan as a sub-area plan of the OCP, amending bylaws will be prepared and presented for first reading. Following first reading, a formal agency review process can begin and comments and concerns can be addressed before recommending further readings. The benefit to adopting the AAP as a sub-area plan is that the policies are enshrined, and any bylaw enacted or works undertaken after it is adopted must be consistent with the plan. The downside of adopting this as a sub-area plan is that any future amendments to the plan would require an amendment to the OCP.
This option would require more time than option 1, because it will require the formal OCP amendment process to be followed.
Option 3 – Refer back to staff for further revisions and analysis If the Board would like further revisions prior to the draft plan being adopted, staff suggest that specific comments be forwarded to staff in order to ensure that the appropriate revisions are completed.
The timeframe for completion under this option is undetermined, as it would depend on the nature and extent of revisions that are requested.
Attachments Draft Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan
Page 21 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan
Page 22 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Acknowledgements
The plan was prepared with assistance from Zbeetnoff Agro-Environmental Consulting and Quadra Planning Consultants.
This project was funded in part by the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food (ACAAF) Program.
Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada (AAFC) is pleased to participate in the production of this Agricultural Area Plan. AAFC is committed to working with our industry partners and the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC to increase public awareness of the importance of the agriculture and agri‐food industry to Canada. Policies and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District and not necessarily AAFC’s.
Page 23 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... ii Introduction ...... 1 Policy Context ...... 1 The Process ...... 2 Plan Area ...... 3 Vision ...... 4 Guiding Principles ...... 4 Goals, Objectives, and Action Steps ...... 5 GOAL 1: Maintain the integrity of the ALR ...... 5 GOAL 2: Develop mechanisms to maintain the agricultural land base for working agriculture ...... 6 GOAL 3: Coordinate with other users to ensure that the natural advantages of the Pemberton Valley are protected ...... 9 GOAL 4: Diversify agriculture and comply with Seed Potato Control Regulation ...... 10 GOAL 5: Improve the economic viability of farming...... 11 GOAL 6: Increase community awareness of and support for agriculture ...... 14 GOAL 7: Attract new farmers and engage new workers ...... 15 Implementation ...... 16 Agricultural Plan Implementation Body (AIB) ...... 16 Financial Resources ...... 17 Human Resources ...... 18 Next Steps ...... 19 Glossary of Terms...... 20 List of Acronyms used in this Plan ...... 20
Appendix A – Pemberton Valley Land Use Inventory – 2009 (Ministry of Agriculture) Appendix B – Preliminary Market Opportunities Analysis Appendix C – SWOT Findings Appendix D – Selected Maps of Pemberton Valley
~ i ~
Page 24 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
Executive Summary The Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan was initiated by the SLRD in 2008 with the support of the Investment Agriculture Foundation. It is intended to be a Board policy, and to work in conjunction with existing policy documents such as the Official Community Plan, the Regional Growth Strategy, and others to inform future decisions related to agriculture, and provide guidance in decision making and priority setting related to agriculture in the valley.
This report represents the culmination of three phases of work and an extensive stakeholder engagement process including numerous open houses, public meetings, and committee review.
The plan covers all lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve within the SLRD Electoral Area C in the Pemberton Valley, and does not include those lands within the Village of Pemberton or on First Nations reserves.
The policies are informed by several guiding principles and a vision that includes an efficient, agriculture sector, with protected farmland, and a high level of recognition and respect for the value of agriculture to the broader community. The vision further includes a cooperative working environment between and among farms, engaged local markets, local secondary processing, and a balance of both new and continuing operations.
The plan describes 7 Goals, and then lists several objectives and action steps that stem from each goal. The goals are as follows:
1. Maintain the integrity of the ALR. 2. Develop mechanisms to maintain the agricultural land base for working agriculture. 3. Coordinate with other users to ensure that the natural advantages of the Pemberton Valley are protected. 4. Diversify agriculture and comply with Seed Potato Regulations. 5. Improve the economic viability of farming. 6. Increase community awareness of, and support for, agriculture. 7. Attract new farmers and engage new workers.
The last section of the plan looks at implementation, and breaks it down into three key elements: the creation of an Implementation Body, enlisting sufficient human resources, and securing sufficient financial resources. The recommended composition of the implementation body is described, and several suggestions to aid in the securing of financial and human resources are provided.
Lastly, the plan outlines that the next step, successful implementation, requires that opportunities for collaboration, coordination and cooperation be sought across governmental jurisdictions, and among agencies and community organizations.
~ ii ~
Page 25 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 1 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Introduction The Pemberton Valley agricultural land base consists of about 18,600 acres broken out between private lands (70%), Crown lands (18%) and First Nations lands (12%). The total area of farms consists of about 11,000 acres, almost all of it privately owned. In 2005, a total of about 72 farming units were operating in the Pemberton Valley
Pemberton Valley agriculture is an established community with an international reputation for high quality pest-free seed potato production, largely due to its pristine growing conditions and unique geographic isolation from other growing areas.
The Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan (PVAAP) was initiated by the SLRD in September 2008, and jointly funded by the SLRD and Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC with the purpose of elaborating on the agricultural policies of the Area C Official Community Plan, and providing additional policy direction and recommending specific actions to achieve the stated objectives.
While this plan is intended to be a stand-alone document, it is also intended to be adopted as a policy of the SLRD Board of Directors. As a Board Policy it will inform future decisions related to agriculture, and provide guidance in decision making and priority setting not only for the SLRD but for other organizations in the Pemberton Valley who are interested in undertaking actions to support and sustain agriculture.
Policy Context
Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) The RGS endorses Smart Growth principles, which includes ensuring the integrity of a productive agricultural and forestry land base. In addition, under the Goal to achieve a sustainable economy, one of the strategic directions is to undertake agriculture plans for Lillooet and the Pemberton Valley to provide a basis for new agricultural investment and protection of the ALR.
Area C Official Community Plan (OCP) The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) has adopted an Official Community Plan (OCP) for Area C that identifies several objectives for agriculture:
. To preserve the agricultural land base in the plan area. . To encourage diversification and economic sustainability of the farming community. . To minimize the impacts from non-agricultural development occurring at the edge of farming areas and within agricultural lands. . To accommodate housing that meets the needs of farmers and minimizes impacts on farm land. . To balance the interests of agriculture and protection of the environment. . To contribute to local and regional food security.
Page 26 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 2 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
In addition to the objectives outlines above, the OCP sets out 40 policies related to agriculture. The intention of the PVAAP is to further elaborate on the policies of the OCP, to strengthen the policy position, and to begin to set out a strategy to operationalize the plan.
Area C Zoning Bylaw No. 765, 2002 Under the Area C Zoning Bylaw, all lands within the ALR have been zoned Agriculture (AGR). Within the AGR there is a sub-zone for the lands in the immediate vicinity of Pemberton, called the Pemberton Fringe sub-zone. In this sub-zone, additional permitted uses include a garden nursery, and on parcels 2ha or greater, a second single family dwelling (subject to ALC regulations), a bed and breakfast, and a “horse-riding academy, boarding stable and indoor riding arena”.
Residential density in the AGR is regulated according to parcel size (larger parcels are permitted an additional dwelling, subject to ALC regulations. In addition, there is a maximum floor area for dwellings in the AGR zone and in the Pemberton Fringe sub-zone there is a maximum floor area for horse riding academies, boarding stables and indoor riding arenas. The minimum parcel size in the AGR is 2ha, subject to approval from the ALC.
Energy Resilience Task Force Report The Task Force Report states that in the context of increasing energy costs, it will be “important to bolster the foundations of the food system in order to improve food security. In particular, the foundations of production, processing, packaging and delivery will need to be made more resilient”.
The report contains 21 policies related to agriculture and food systems, many of which are echoed in this plan. Of particular note is the first recommendation, to champion Agricultural Land Trusts to buy land for community food growing and protect in perpetuity as an investment in long-term food security.
Integrated Sustainability Plan (ISP) An ISP is defined as a “long-term planning, developed in consultation with community members, to help the community realize sustainability objectives it has for the environmental, cultural, social and economic dimensions of its identity.” It is anticipated that as the ISP process moves forward, objectives and action steps from various plans will be inventoried and worked into an Action Plan for Sustainability. While the AAP will stand alone as a plan, it is desirable to coordinate objectives and actions from across our policy documents, in an effort to realize opportunities for collaboration and cooperation in achieving common goals.
The Process The Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan (PVAAP) represents a further development of policies in support of agriculture. The specific tasks of the PVAAP process were to:
1. Complete an inventory of lands and crops; 2. Communicate with farmers to discover strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats affecting the local industry; 3. Conduct a preliminary market opportunities analysis for agricultural crops; and 4. Draft policies to address issues and capitalize on opportunities.
Page 27 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 3 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
In order to accomplish those tasks, work was undertaken in three separate phases: 1) the Situation Analysis; 2) identification of Issues and Options; and 3) drafting of the Plan. This report draws on the material gathered under the process, and puts forward policies regarding agricultural issues and opportunities. In the Appendices of this plan one will find the Land Use Inventory, the SWOT Analysis, the Preliminary Market Opportunities Analysis, and also a selection of mapping of the valley.
Plan Area The Plan Area is all ALR lands in Area C between the north end of Pemberton Meadows, and the west end of Lillooet Lake, as shown on Map 1, below. The Plan area does not include lands within the Village of Pemberton or lands in Indian Reserves.
Birkenhead Lake
r ve R i R y a n PembertonL Meadowsi l l o o e t R i v e r M i l l e r C r e e k
Mt Currie Pemberton Legend
Indian Reserve Land Approximate Boundary of Plan Area
5 2.5 0 5 Kilometers This map is for convenience only. Accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. AAP Plan Area ¯ Map 1: Approximate plan area of the Pemberton Valley Agriculture Area Plan
Page 28 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 4 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Vision
The agricultural land base in the Pemberton Valley is protected, the agricultural sector operates efficiently as a result of appropriate investments in infrastructure, and conditions for working agriculture are maintained and enhanced. All stakeholders are actively working together to protect the Pemberton Valley’s unique natural agronomic advantages, and both residents and visitors are aware of the uniqueness of the valley and the importance of agriculture to the valley. The value and contribution of agriculture is widely recognized and respected as a strength of the local community.
The seed potato and other agricultural sectors have developed cooperative relationships and protocols that facilitate inter-farm management, cropping diversity, and agricultural opportunity and are able to work together to expand agricultural opportunities and maintain necessary seed production conditions.
Local markets are a key to the success of Pemberton Valley agriculture, increasing the economic viability of farming operations and services. Agriculture is supported by expanded local storage, handling, distribution, processing and marketing infrastructure.
Opportunities have been created to make land available for working agriculture and sufficient new participants able and willing to respond to new and continuing agricultural opportunities have been attracted to the industry.
Guiding Principles
Through the planning process for the agricultural area plan; a series of principles to guide the plan have been collaboratively developed and articulated as follows:
1. The existing ALR is to be respected and protected. Exclusions and non-farm uses are generally not supported. 2. Sustainable agriculture is the highest and best use of the ALR and policy will support productive and profitable agricultural use of the ALR. 3. The unique agronomic advantages of the Pemberton Valley are to be protected. 4. Impacts on conditions necessary for seed potato production are to be addressed in promoting the Pemberton Valley. 5. Promoting local markets for local agricultural goods and services is key to a sustainable local agricultural economy. 6. Awareness of the contribution of agriculture by the public, politicians and students must be promoted to develop respect for farming and farmland and to maintain conditions for continued viability. 7. Recruiting new and younger farmers is key to perpetuating the agricultural sector.
Page 29 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 5 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Goals, Objectives, and Action Steps
Based on the Guiding Principles listed above, the plan is structured around 7 Goals, from which flow a number of objectives and actions.
GOAL 1: Maintain the integrity of the ALR Objective 1.1 – Retain the agricultural production capacity of the ALR
When farmland properties are purchased for rural-residential purposes there is a risk that non- agricultural structures will be situated without due regard to agricultural land use practices or the integrity of the land for agriculture. The resultant impacts on soil and possible fragmentation of fields, etc. are what many would consider ‘avoidable impacts’ on the agricultural production capacity of the land. Development on agricultural lands should be carefully planned to ensure that there are minimal impacts on current and future agricultural activities of the land.
Action Steps The Regional Board will:
1.1.1 Consider amending the zoning bylaw as per the Minister’s bylaw standard regarding size and siting of non-agricultural development on agricultural land. 1.1.2 Consider creating a Development Permit Area for the protection of farming that would apply to lands adjacent to or nearby farmland, and include requirements for screening, buffering, landscaping, fencing, and siting of buildings or other structures, in order to provide for the buffering or separation of development from farming on nearby lands. 1.1.3 Support the permanence of the ALR boundary by generally not supporting applications for subdivision or exclusion. 1.1.4 Discourage the purchase of farmland for non-agricultural uses by generally not supporting ALR non-farm use applications. 1.1.5 Request the province to consider establishing tax disincentives for creating large non-agricultural building footprints on agricultural land.
Objective 1.2 – Maintain the ALR in good agronomic condition
There is concern that if both farm and non-farm land in the valley is not properly managed to control the spread of noxious weeds and other pests that this can create negative consequences for farmland. Particularly, this can lead to the establishment of invasive weeds, higher pest populations, and ultimately lead to increased costs of pest control for working agricultural land.
All land owners are encouraged to maintain their properties so as to prevent the establishment of noxious weeds and pests in the plan area.
Action Steps The Regional Board will:
Page 30 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 6 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
1.2.1 Encourage corridor land owners, such as the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the PVDD, and CN Rail, to develop a weed management plan that sets out an appropriate mowing schedule to reduce the spread of seeds. 1.2.2 Encourage the placement of signage at trailheads and parking areas to educate recreational users in the risks associated with invasive species, and the best way to ensure they do their part to not spread invasive species. Any signage within the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure right of way requires their approval. 1.2.3 Investigate ways to support local invasive species councils with invasive weed mapping projects. 1.2.4 Work with local organizations to educate land owners about noxious weeds and other invasives and pests, and what the landowner’s responsibilities are in relation to these issues. 1.2.5 Support initiatives for land owners, particularly in the ALR, to maintain their farmland in pest-controlled condition. 1.2.6 Collaborate with the agricultural sector to develop and implement a code of good agricultural practice.
Objective 1.3 – Educate and increase awareness of farm practices for non-farming property purchasers
It may sometimes be the case that farmland is marketed to property purchasers more interested in the recreational and/or rural residential aspect of living in the Pemberton Valley rather than making a living from farming. To help offset non-agricultural pressure it may be helpful to inform purchasers buying farmland primarily for non-agricultural purposes of the scope and nature of agricultural activities so that the non-farm residents do not carry unrealistic expectations with respect to the ‘quiet enjoyment’ of agricultural land.
Action Steps To assist new property owners to adjust to conditions in a farming area, the Regional District will explore opportunities to:
1.3.1 Work with realtors and agricultural community to prepare a ‘Farmland Information Brochure’ that can be given to prospective purchasers to advise them of typical farm activities, and land owner responsibilities with respect to pests, noxious weed control, Seed Potato Control Area Regulations, etc. 1.3.2 Work with agriculture organizations to identify options for new non-farming agricultural land owners to learn how to make their land available for farming by others, particularly for seed potato rotations.
GOAL 2: Develop mechanisms to maintain the agricultural land base for working agriculture Objective 2.1 - Keep the farmland base in working agriculture
It is sometimes suggested that removing the real and perceived financial advantages associated with owning farmland for non-agricultural purposes can be an effective way to ensure that farmland values are determined by working agriculture competing for the land base. In addition,
Page 31 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 7 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
if non-farm property owners are encouraged to make their land available for farming activities, it can help keep the land available for working agriculture.
Action Steps The SLRD will:
2.1.1 Consider requesting the province to implement a taxation classification for rural residential ALR land that does not have Farm Class that assesses and taxes residential land and improvements in the ALR at a residential rate and eliminates any tax subsidy for non-farm uses of ALR land. 2.1.2 Support the establishment of a database to link owners of ALR land with potential renters wishing to farm. 2.1.3 Seek to provide attractive zoning opportunities for non-farm development in non- ALR areas. 2.1.4 Consider requiring that agricultural impact assessments are done as part of the development approval process, to identify the impacts of developments on agricultural lands and operations prior to development, including on non- agricultural farmland uses. 2.1.5 Engage with the Province to encourage them to require that provincially reviewable projects such as independent power projects 1) identify potential agricultural impacts at the project design stage and 2) to create a “no net loss to agriculture” policy for these developments (eg. mitigation be undertaken to protect and/or compensate agriculture where impacts are identified). 2.1.6 Investigate the establishment of an Agricultural Land Trust Fund that could be used to purchase and/or lease agricultural land. 2.1.7 Encourage property owners, perhaps through tax incentives, to amalgamate small parcels of land in the ALR into larger holdings. 2.1.8 Discourage non-farm use on agricultural land, however, where non-farm use is being considered, pursue an approach (e.g. development agreement or amenity zoning) that will create tangible improvements in the conditions for the agricultural sector and will ensure a “net benefit to agriculture”.
Objective 2.2 – Support the agricultural capability of the ALR with adequate infrastructure
While there have been significant improvements made over the years to flood control, drainage and irrigation infrastructure in the valley, there remain opportunities to improve the systems to create more favourable conditions for agricultural productivity and efficiency. Some of the issues that should be investigated include aging infrastructure, condition of existing infrastructure, cross jurisdictional co-operation, and possible changes in capacity that will be created by climate change.
Action Steps The SLRD will explore opportunities to address agricultural infrastructure needs throughout the valley by:
Page 32 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 8 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
2.2.1 Supporting the undertaking of a needs assessment to look at drainage and flood control measures using an agricultural standard, and looking across jurisdictions to find solutions that will support and enhance agricultural lands throughout the valley. 2.2.2 Encouraging collaboration among jurisdictions in the valley, including First Nations, to establish coordinated economic development objectives that will address infrastructure issues such as flood control, that impact agricultural lands. 2.2.3 Supporting the undertaking of a needs assessment to look at water demand and availability. 2.2.4 Seeking opportunities to improve irrigation infrastructure for agriculture, particularly in areas that do not currently have access to irrigation. 2.2.5 Seeking to ensure that water supply infrastructure provides water that is of a quality that is acceptable to farmers for irrigation.
Objective 2.3 – Ensure agriculture is considered in Crown land use decisions
It is important that proposed non-agricultural uses of Crown ALR lands consider the impacts on existing and potential agricultural activities. While it is recognized that conservation and recreation uses are permitted uses within the ALR, such uses require thorough review to ensure that impacts to existing and potential agricultural use are fairly considered.
Action Steps The Regional Board will endeavour to ensure that processes are in place to consider impacts of non-agricultural uses of Crown ALR lands on existing and proposed agricultural activities by:
2.3.1 Requesting agencies with control of Crown ALR to offer Crown ALR grazing leases or other agricultural tenures to Pemberton Valley farmers on lands appropriate for grazing/suitable for farming. 2.3.2 Requesting agencies with control of Crown ALR to perform agricultural impact assessments on all proposals to use Crown ALR for non-agricultural purposes. 2.3.3 Ensuring that if there are to be any adverse impacts on agriculture as a result of non-agricultural uses of Crown ALR lands, that such impacts are mitigated or off-set in favour of agriculture. This could involve both improved infrastructure and/or acquisition of land for agriculture.
Objective 2.4 – Minimize impacts at the agriculture/non-agriculture interface
Edge planning along borders of agricultural areas is an effective method for managing the transition from agricultural to non-agricultural areas and of minimizing impacts related to the agricultural/urban interface. Any encroachment of rural-residential into a farming area is likely to increase the zone of interface between agricultural and non-agricultural property owners.
Action Steps Potential conflicts at the rural-urban interface may be avoided by using appropriate land use planning mechanisms. The SLRD will consider the following initiatives to increase awareness and minimize conflict at the agriculture/non-agriculture edge:
Page 33 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 9 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
2.4.1 Where there is opportunity in conjunction with a Regional District approval, request that sale of property on the non-farm side of the ALR boundary have a notice registered on title informing purchasers of adjacent farming activities and associated sights, smells and sounds. 2.4.2 Request real estate vendors to inform prospective purchasers of ALR parcels that they will be residing in an agricultural area, where agriculture is practiced, and sights, sounds, and smells of agriculture are to be expected. 2.4.3 Explore the possibility of developing a farm bylaw that could regulate activities on both sides of the agricultural/urban interface, with the goal of minimizing and/or mitigating incompatible uses and activities. 2.4.4 Implement buffer guidelines recommended by the ALC. 2.4.5 Create signage to inform non-farming neighbours about where the farming areas are and farm practices are occurring. 2.4.6 Seek opportunities to create an agricultural festival called “Pemberton Farm Week” and use the festival to inform the greater community of farm / non-farm interface issues, and also to provide education and awareness opportunities, to market local farm products, to host specific events that will highlight local agricultural capacity. This could be organized around an existing event such as the Slow Food Cycle. 2.4.7 Work with appropriate Ministries to resolve potential safety issues with slow moving farm vehicles, farm animals, and logging trucks that are sharing Pemberton Meadows Road.
GOAL 3: Coordinate with other users to ensure that the natural advantages of the Pemberton Valley are protected The natural agronomic attributes of the Pemberton Valley are internationally recognized. These unique conditions bestow advantages ranging from “northern vigour” to the absence of invasive species and diseases affecting other growing areas of the continent. Current practices and precautions are inadequate to prevent the inadvertent introduction of invasive pests and disease. As well, precautions are insufficient to prevent the establishment of noxious weeds in the ALR.
The introduction of invasive pests and disease would threaten the agricultural viability of the area and livelihood of farmers. The establishment of these pests would eliminate an agronomic advantage of the Pemberton Valley.
Action Steps The Regional District will encourage the development of a coordinated approach to pest management with agricultural interest groups to ensure that mutually beneficial pest control protocols are implemented. All users of agricultural land in the Pemberton Valley should be engaged in a pro-active manner, and opportunities should be explored to:
3.1.1 Increase public awareness of pest risks through signage in recreational areas, brochures handed out to new property purchasers, supporting initiatives of the Sea to Sky Invasive Species Council (SSISC).
Page 34 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 10 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
3.1.2 Work with commercial users, such as recreation/tourist operations, landscapers, nurseries, and gardeners to provide education on the risks of invasive species, teach pest identification skills, and encourage vigilance in the approach to invasives. 3.1.3 Support the development of ways to assist recreation/tourism operators and recreationists to take precautionary measures with respect to invasive species, such as a ‘wash station’ in town to allow users to hose down their vehicles/trailers and thereby reduce seed spread. 3.1.4 Require recreation/tourism operations/initiatives to develop precautionary practices to protect against invasive pests/ disease/soil erosion as part of a master recreation/tourism plan. 3.1.5 Capitalize on the existing knowledge of farmers to develop a Code of Good Farm Practices that can be used as a resource by farmland owners in the Pemberton Valley.
GOAL 4: Diversify agriculture and comply with Seed Potato Control Regulation Pemberton was the first commercial seed potato area in the world to grow virus-free seed potatoes. Since 1967, the sector has carried out strict production practices, monitoring, inspection and testing, to ensure that Pemberton Valley potatoes remain free of all known viruses, bacterial ring rot and spindle tuber viroid.
Seed potato production is governed by the Seed Potato Act and the Seed Potato Control Area Regulation. Maintaining conditions for seed potato production is vital to the current agricultural viability of the Pemberton Valley and it is important to be cautious when exploring other agricultural opportunities, that such actions will not jeopardize the seed potato sector. The major concerns of the seed potato sector are that 1) precautions are taken to ensure that quarantine pests do not enter the valley, 2) that pest control in organic farming supports the Seed Potato Control Regulation; and 3) that potato growers access to rental lands for crop rotation is not restricted by property owners because of the potato growers use of pesticide.
Action Steps The SLRD supports the principles of the Act, and Regulation, and can seek opportunities to strengthen local bylaws and policies to align with the intention of the Act and Regulations.
It is important to recognize that management of invasive species is more easily managed by prevention rather than treatment, and that certain invasive species are very difficult to manage by any means other than spraying insecticides. In light of this, prevention should be emphasized.
The SLRD will explore opportunities to work with the agriculture sector and provincial agencies to develop a pro-active approach to:
4.1.1 Educate owners and users of Pemberton Valley ALR lands about requirements of the Seed Potato Control Area regulation. 4.1.2 Explore opportunities in the implementing bylaws to support and enhance Seed Potato Control Area regulations.
Page 35 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 11 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
4.1.3 Explore opportunities in the implementing bylaws to support and enhance the regulations of the Noxious Weeds Act. 4.1.4 Communicate implications of quarantine pest introduction on valley agriculture. 4.1.5 Establish and implement a Valley-wide precautionary approach to pests. 4.1.6 Re-evaluate requirements of the Seed Potato Act and Regulations from a pest control perspective. 4.1.7 Support and encourage research on methods of effective pest control in farming areas adjacent to potato farms, public lands, roads, and rights-of-way. 4.1.8 Encourage research projects that will identify pest control practices that might better meet the diversifying needs of the area.
GOAL 5: Improve the economic viability of farming Objective 5.1 – Support agricultural use of land base
When there is high demand for agricultural land for rural residential purposes it can result in higher prices being paid than would typically be affordable for farmers, based on the economic return from conventional agriculture. High land prices and low economic returns can keep farmers out of the market, and can also constrain farmers from expanding their holdings at affordable cost.
Agricultural operators can consider higher land costs only if margins from agriculture increase. Such increases in margins could be from reduced input costs, increased yields or through the production of higher valued crops. In addition, increased diversification on the farm will ensure that economic dips create less risk to the overall farm balance sheet.
Action Steps The SLRD will seek to support farmers in their competition for farmland by exploring opportunities to work with other organizations and agencies to:
5.1.1 Make improvements to increase the agricultural productivity of the land base. 5.1.2 Work with BCAGRI to access extension services as they are available. 5.1.3 Provide farmers with information to take advantage of local food trends. 5.1.4 Assist farmers in orienting themselves to local food markets. 5.1.5 Host local courses and training in new agricultural opportunities. 5.1.6 Investigate options for bulk purchasing of inputs.
Objective 5.2 – Pursue value-added opportunities
There is opportunity for local farmers and agricultural entrepreneurs to process commodities, create specialty items, and add value to products grown in the valley. The increasing inflow of recreationists and tourists promises a steady flow of potential customers seeking to purchase differentiated products that can be manufactured in the Pemberton Valley. The Village of Pemberton is well positioned to support opportunities to create business in the community.
Page 36 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 12 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Action Steps The SLRD endorses the following key actions that the agriculture sector and/or local government can pursue to provide the greatest potential for supporting local valued opportunities:
5.2.1 Encourage and support innovative value-added opportunities for farmers. 5.2.2 Seek investment, grant, seed capital, and local support to explore options for meat processing (e.g. mobile abattoir) and potato processing (e.g., vodka distillery). 5.2.3 Access small scale food processing technical programs (SSFPA) to “get it right” from the outset. 5.2.4 Conduct annual technical workshops for farmers and those interested in farming, perhaps in conjunction with a Pemberton Valley agricultural fair (e.g. Pemberton Farm Week). Invite speakers to discuss topics of interest to area farmers and the community. 5.2.5 Encourage the creation of an agri-industrial area within the existing urban footprint to centralize agricultural processing. 5.2.6 Include agriculture development in the local Economic Development Strategy. 5.2.7 Seek out other BC communities with strong agri-tourism markets and value added sectors and build relationships to share ideas and experiences.
Objective 5.3 – Pursue local and regional markets
The SLRD encourages local farmers to consider cooperating to capture the local food market to their collective advantage. This could focus on working cooperatively to eliminate redundant marketing costs; developing differentiated food products, promote processing of commodities grown in the valley, and providing high standards of food safety.
Action Steps The SLRD will explore opportunities to work collaboratively with other agencies and organizations to support Pemberton Valley agriculture in local and regional markets by:
5.3.1 Examining the feasibility of a local products marketing cooperative, including bulk purchasing of inputs. 5.3.2 Providing a permanent venue for country sales, such as a farmer’s market. 5.3.3 Investigating coordinated regional facilities for the handling, cooling and transport of valley agricultural products. 5.3.4 Collaborating with PFI and other local organizations to further develop and add value to the Pemberton brand and labeling initiative. 5.3.5 Encourage local chefs and restaurants to develop menus that enable them to purchase the ‘whole animal’ and not leave farmers with odd cuts that are difficult to market. 5.3.6 Work with local chefs and restaurants to further develop and market the Pemberton brand.
Page 37 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 13 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Objective 5.4 – Develop comprehensive approach to agri-tourism
The Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation defines agritourism as a “tourist activity, service or facility accessory to land that is classified as farm under the Assessment Act.” Such uses are permitted only subject to meeting specific criteria set out in the Regulation, and if the conditions are not satisfied, approval of the Agricultural Land Commission is required in order for the use to proceed.
Recreation and tourist use of the Pemberton Valley is expected to increase in the future. Agritourism represents an opportunity to increase farm operator revenues from farming by marketing to recreationists and tourists and attracting tourists to the Pemberton Valley for agritourism events. Agritourism also has the potential to be used effectively as a way of interacting with the consumer public and raising the awareness of agriculture.
In order to plan effectively for the nurturing and growth of benefits associated with agritourism, the concerns of all local agricultural interests should be addressed in a systematic manner. Agritourism needs to be coordinated within the farming community to provide broader benefits. Better communication and a policy of inclusion will help to overcome the challenges of tourism in farming areas. Agritourism is perceived as a tool for promoting other objectives of the plan such as increased local marketing and sales, improved farm viability, and increased agricultural diversity.
Action Steps The SLRD supports Pemberton agricultural interests working together to provide a comprehensive approach to agri-tourism that spreads benefits and manages impacts effectively and fairly for the benefit of all, by seeking to:
5.4.1 Communicate with other local governments to share ideas and learn from their experiences about how to successfully promote and manage agritourism. 5.4.2 Promote local food production in agritourism initiatives. 5.4.3 Promote broad based agritourism opportunities. 5.4.4 Encourage the appropriate agencies to consider improvement to transportation corridors to handle agritourism traffic. 5.4.5 Systematically coordinate upcoming agritourism activities with neighbours. 5.4.6 Work with appropriate agencies to develop and implement more flexible regulations to better accommodate small scale agritourism. 5.4.7 Link farmers and agri-tourism events to Whistler tourism. 5.4.8 Promote diversity of agritourism products. 5.4.9 Continue to promote Slow Food Cycle Tours. 5.4.10 Create local food events. 5.4.11 Research new and evolving approaches in other jurisdictions.
Page 38 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 14 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
GOAL 6: Increase community awareness of and support for agriculture Objective 6.1 – Increase agricultural awareness among youth Action Steps 6.1.1 Encourage schools to incorporate agricultural education materials in curriculum. 6.1.2 Encourage schools to develop school gardens. 6.1.3 Encourage school ‘farm days’ that could include tours of local operations. 6.1.4 Encourage schools to develop cafeteria menus that include local food where possible. 6.1.5 Gather and prepare materials such as brochures, reports, studies, and fact-sheets related to agriculture and make them available for reference, perhaps through an agriculture page on the SLRD website.
Objective 6.2 – Increase access to agricultural information and awareness of events and issues Action Steps 6.2.1 Encourage the creation of a regular “Agriculture Events’ page in local papers. 6.2.2 Consider developing an Agriculture web page on the SLRD website that would provide news and events information related to agriculture and provide links to other agriculture information and resources. 6.2.3 Develop interpretive signage for recreational trails to inform users of agricultural issues, and encourage responsible trail use. 6.2.4 Encourage positive relationships and collaboration between trail groups and farmers to work together to protect and preserve farmland and recreational land, and to protect private property rights while also preserving public access to public lands. 6.2.5 Work with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to explore the possibility of posting signage to advise of slow moving vehicles and farm equipment in appropriate areas.
Objective 6.3 – Develop tools to help promote agriculture Action Steps 6.3.1 Work with Village of Pemberton and Chamber of Commerce to explore the possibility of making gateway signage that will identify Pemberton as a farming community (i.e. “Welcome to Pemberton – This is a Farming Community”). Such signage could also warn visitors about slow moving vehicles and animals in farm areas. 6.3.2 Consider collaborating with the Chamber of Commerce and other interested organizations to undertake a study (and create a report for the public) to show the economic contribution of agriculture to the community and the net tax benefit of agricultural land. 6.3.3 Promote farm tours, public workshops and information meetings. 6.3.4 Hold an annual Pemberton Valley agricultural fair that includes a market, exhibits, farm tours, lectures, workshops, dining events, networking opportunities, etc. 6.3.5 Cross-market local products. 6.3.6 Encourage/promote purchasing of local foods at public institutions.
Page 39 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 15 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
6.3.7 Engage regional chefs, restaurants to promote valley agriculture. 6.3.8 Engage local food security groups to promote local food. 6.3.9 Engage Health Authority to promote valley agriculture.
GOAL 7: Attract new farmers and engage new workers While traditionally, replacement of retiring farmers with new farmers has been achieved predominantly within the ranks of farming families, this cannot necessarily be relied upon to meet the numbers required to have a critical mass of farmers. While there is a concern that a poorly targeted farmer recruitment program could contribute to tougher short term economic conditions for farmers locally, the need for replacement is critical in order to preserve the critical mass of farm operators. Farmer recruitment/succession should be promoted through initiatives to support farming families to continue family farms, and also initiatives that support new farmer entrepreneurship and increase access to farmland. These measures would contribute to needed diversification as well as bring new entrants into the sector.
Action Steps The SLRD supports in principle the following key actions intended to provide the greatest potential recruiting new farmers into Pemberton Valley agriculture:
7.1.1 Create incentives for non-agricultural property owners to make their land available for entry level lease farming. Incentives could include leasing arrangements, defining financial arrangements, and increased cost of keeping land out of production. 7.1.2 Facilitate access to farmland held by non-agricultural property owners by supporting the creation of a database that would link owners with leasees. 7.1.3 Coordinate mentorship and apprenticeship opportunities for young would-be farmers with established operators. 7.1.4 Pursue agricultural business and practices training workshops for aspiring farmers. 7.1.5 Pursue financing options to assist low asset new farmers to enter the sector. 7.1.6 Support the building of residences for farm families on family farms to allow and support family farming, as per the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission Act, Agricultural Land Reserve Use Subdivision and Procedure Regulation and the Minister’s bylaw standard regarding residential uses in the ALR. 7.1.7 Recognize and value the farming knowledge of current farm families as an asset to successful farm operations. 7.1.8 Support the creation of an Agricultural Land Trust that could offer leases to new farmers.
Page 40 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 16 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Implementation Implementation of the agricultural plan will require effective response in three essential areas:
Implementation body Financial resources Human resources Agricultural Plan Implementation Body (AIB) The implementation of the PVAAP is envisioned as a shared responsibility. The SLRD has a primary role stemming from its authority in terms of regulating land use through the Area C Official Community Plan and bylaws, however many actions require mobilization of both human and financial resources that go beyond the capabilities of the SLRD.
The implementation model for the agricultural plan should ensure that all stakeholders are included and have meaningful access to the implementation processes. Currently, the Pemberton Farmers Institute (PFI) and the Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) are active in agricultural affairs in the area.
If formed, an Agricultural Plan Implementation Body would have several functions, including but not limited to:
Prioritizing implementation actions and identifying lead implementation roles and support roles. Developing an annual work plan for implementation. Assisting with coordination of stakeholders. Identifying sources of funding and assisting with funding applications. Providing a forum for all stakeholders to share their concerns and to identify the appropriate organization(s) to address concerns. Being an advocate for agriculture in the Pemberton Valley. Monitoring the progress of implementation of the Agricultural Area Plan and preparing an Annual Report. Reviewing and revising the Implementation Plan every 5 years.
To initiate implementation of the plan, it is recommended that a PVAAP Implementation Steering Committee be formed with membership from the SLRD, Village of Pemberton, Pemberton Farmer's Institute, Lil'wat First Nation, Pemberton Chamber of Commerce, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, the Pemberton Seed Potato Grower’s Association, and the Pemberton Valley Dyking District. This committee would be charged with developing terms of reference for the implementation body, determining the best format (e.g., a Council, a Coordinating Committee, etc.), membership and mandate (functions).
To assist the Implementation Body, funding could be pursued for a Coordinator. The Coordinator would have appropriate training, qualifications and experience in agriculture and be a capable facilitator and communicator. The individual would need to work with the various interests involved and assist in pursuing financial assistance to implement recommendations. The Coordinator would also develop an annual work plan identifying priorities, responsible organizations and funding requirements.
Page 41 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 17 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Financial Resources There are several options that can be pursued to generate the financial resources to carry out key high priority items of the plan.
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Consideration can be given to establishing a joint service between the local jurisdictions (SLRD Area C, Village of Pemberton, and Resort Municipality of Whistler) to raise funds to support and promote agriculture. This could be similar to the one used to fund the Sea-to-Sky Recreation Trails Network and may be suitable for raising resources in a stable, coordinated manner.
Alternatively, the Local Government Act contains provisions for the Lieutenant Governor in Council to incorporate an area as an improvement district, approved by the Board of the Regional District. A Pemberton Valley agricultural improvement district could be organized and empowered to levy and collect taxes for the purpose of promoting agriculture,1 similar to provisions that have enabled incorporation of mountain resort improvement districts in BC.
Grant Funding The Investment Agriculture Foundation (IAF) manages a federal-provincial pool of capital that is well positioned to assist in funding project priorities identified in this plan. It is anticipated that this program will be readily accessible to the AIB through a variety of leveraged funding opportunities supported by the SLRD, BCAGRI and other provincial agencies.
Various federal, provincial and private organizations are available to provide expertise and advice to the Pemberton Valley in lieu of capital contributions. School, social and health programs are also paying more attention to food and nutrition issues and are partnering with agricultural interests.
Pemberton Farmers Institute The PFI is anticipated to become a more active organization specifically tasked with initiating some of the farm level aspects of the plan. This would require the development of a strategy of how to increase its support, membership base, and financial capacity.
First Nations There may be opportunities to pursue, with the Lil’wat Nation, federal agricultural initiatives targeting First Nations. Interest in exploring these opportunities has been indicated and specific well-coordinated proposals may have increased potential for success in the future.
Engaging Local Businesses It is anticipated that local business groups may be engaged (recreation and tour operators, restaurants, chefs) to assist in promoting the agricultural message. This may best be accomplished through interactions with the Chamber of Commerce.
1 See the Local Government Act, Part 23. http://www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/freeside/--%20L%20-- /Local%20Government%20Act%20%20RSBC%201996%20%20c.%20323/00_Act/96323_25.xml#section729 and the Mountain Resort Association Act http://qp.gov.bc.ca/35th4th/3rd_read/gov10-3.htm
Page 42 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 18 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Human Resources Human resources need to be enlisted to undertake agricultural area plan tasks. It is envisioned that the expertise of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission will be available on an as needed basis independently of the PVAAP, for specific requests and information needs.
Agricultural Plan Coordinator As discussed above, it is recommended that funding for a Coordinator be pursued. At this point it is premature to recommend whether this person would be a SLRD staff person or working directly for the Agricultural Plan implementation body. This is a decision that should be reviewed by the Implementation Steering Committee, discussed above. The Coordinator would assist in ensuring that the plan is advanced with informed knowledge of the agricultural considerations and communicated to the public and politicians at large. Terms of Reference for the Coordinator position would be determined by the Implementation Body.
Pemberton Farmers Institute (PFI) It is anticipated that a strong case can be made to the Investment Agriculture Foundation (IAF) to support a pilot project in local governance capacity building directly aimed at managing the impacts on agriculture in the Pemberton Valley. The first order of business for the PFI would be to apply for a 3-year AIF grant to expand its agricultural organizational governance capacity.
It is expected that this would include employment of a person in an administrative capacity. This person would be qualified to develop the role of the organization, complete applications for special projects, target high priority items identified in the agricultural plan, convey PFI concerns and positions to the Implementing Committee, and leverage financing received from partners.
In addition to a minimal staff to coordinate the initiatives proposed in this plan, the local agricultural sector should also seek to engage young leaders, particularly by capitalizing on the experience and knowledge of established and successful farmers. Retired farmers can seek opportunities to mentor new farmers. The PFI can also seek opportunities to collaborate with First Nations on agricultural initiatives, and coordinate efforts at obtaining support from other levels of government.
Page 43 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 19 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Next Steps This Agriculture Area Plan was developed as a living plan that is a reflection of the plan process and ideally provides representation of the vision and goals of the community with respect to agriculture.
The next step in this path is to look at how to take action, and how to move ahead with the implementation tasks described above. Other future tasks could include the development of specific indicators and a monitoring plan, to help gauge the success of the plan over time, and to help coordinate the actions taken in this plan with actions and initiatives throughout the valley and across organizations.
Success will be achieved by seeking opportunities for collaboration, coordination and cooperation across the governmental jurisdictions, and among other agencies and community organizations.
Page 44 of 343 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Pla...
DRAFT Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan P a g e | 20 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District
Glossary of Terms Agritourism
Agritourism is defined by the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation (BC Reg. 171/2002) as a “tourist activity, service or facility [that is] accessory to land that is classified as a farm under the Assessment Act.”
Food Security
According to the website of the World Health Organization, food security is premised on three concepts: food availability, food access and food use. In 1996 the World Food Summit defined food security as existing “when all people, at all times, have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life.” (http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story028/en/)
Sustainable Agriculture
Broadly speaking, sustainable agriculture is agricultural practices that meet the needs of the present without compromising the needs of the future. The key pillars of sustainability, in relation to agriculture are the ongoing production and availability of food, protection of the environment, and economic viability of both the farm and community.
Working Agriculture
Working agriculture is economically viable agriculture that can support an operator from the proceeds of farming.
List of Acronyms used in this Plan AAC – Agricultural Advisory Committee AAFC – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada AAP – Agricultural Area Plan ACAAF – Advancing Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food AIB – Agricultural Implementation Body ALC – Agricultural Land Commission ALR – Agricultural Land Reserve BCAGRI – Ministry of Agriculture and Lands ERTF – Energy Resilience Task Force IAF – Investment Agriculture Foundation ISP – Integrated Sustainability Plan MoTI – Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure OCP – Official Community Plan PFI – Pemberton Farmer’s Institute PVDD – Pemberton Valley Dyking District SLRD – Squamish-Lillooet Regional District SWOT – Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats VoP – Village of Pemberton
Page 45 of 343 Request for Decision - Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protecti...
Request for Decision
Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protection Society Storage Building from ‘Post- Disaster Building’ Designation
Date: May 14th, 2012
Recommendation: THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board exempt the proposed Gun Lake Fire Protection Society storage building for a fire truck and related fire-fighting equipment from ‘post- disaster building’ designation.
Recommendation Attachment : Map
Background: The Gun Lake Fire Protection Society wishes to construct a building for the storage of a fire truck and fire-fighting equipment. The BC Building Code designates this type of building as a ‘post-disaster building’ unless exempted from this designation by the authority having jurisdiction.
The 2006 BC Building Code definition of a post-disaster building is: “Post-disaster building” means a building that is essential to the provision of services in the event of a disaster, and includes Hospitals, emergency treatment facilities and blood banks, Telephone exchanges, Power generating stations and electrical substations, Control centres for air, land and marine transportation, Public water treatment and storage facilities, and pumping stations, Sewage treatment facilities and buildings having critical national defence functions, and Buildings of the following types, unless exempted from this designation by the authority having jurisdiction: Emergency response facilities Fire, rescue and police stations and housing for vehicles, aircraft or boats used for such purposes Communications facilities, including radio and televisions stations.
Key Issue(S)/Concepts Defined: The Building Code is divided into two parts: Part 9 deals with buildings not exceeding 600 m2 in building area, and not of assembly occupancy nor a ‘post-disaster building’. This part of the building code is prescriptive and the object is to minimize the registered professional involvement. Part 3 deals with buildings exceeding 600 m2 in building area, buildings of assembly occupancy and ‘post-disaster buildings’. This part of the building code requires registered professional involvement: architectural, structural, plumbing, mechanical, electrical and geotechnical.
The proposed building the Gun Lake Fire Protection Society wishes to build is not a traditional fire hall. It is a building for the housing of a fire truck and related fire-fighting equipment to protect them from the elements. This building will not have any plumbing, office space or any other occupancy other than what is required for the storage of the fire truck and equipment.
To require that this building be designated a ‘post-disaster building’ would substantially increase
Page 46 of 343 Request for Decision - Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protecti...
Request for Decision
Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protection Society Storage Building from ‘Post- Disaster Building’ Designation
the cost of construction beyond the means of the Society. The ‘post-disaster building’ designation would require the proposed storage building to be constructed under Part 3 of the building code, and the Society would be required to retain the services of an Architect, a Structural Engineer, a Plumbing Engineer, a Mechanical Engineer, an Electrical Engineer and a Geotechnical Engineer.
The intent is that this building be constructed under Part 9 of the BC Building Code. However, since non-standard construction (shipping containers) is proposed, a structural engineer will be required to provide signed and sealed drawings and letters of assurance. A geotechnical report may also be required depending on the existing soils on the site. It is common at Gun Lake for properties to have pockets of volcanic ash which would be required to be removed and structural fill may be required.
Although this building would be constructed under the 2006 BC Building Code, it is informative to note that the 2012 BC Building Code will be adding seismic provisions for Part 9 buildings. The Gun Lake area will have ‘no seismic provisions’ - see attached map (an excerpt from the draft manual – Lateral Load Requirements, Part 9, BC Building Code 2012).
Response Options: 1. Exempt the proposed Gun Lake Fire Protection Society storage building for a fire truck and related fire-fighting equipment from ‘post-disaster building’ designation. 2. Do not exempt the proposed Gun Lake Fire Protection Society storage building for a fire truck and related fire-fighting apparatus from ‘post-disaster building’ designation.
Preferred Strategy: Response option 1.
Implications Of Recommendation
Legal implications: none.
Financial: none for the SLRD. The exemption will substantially reduce the construction design costs for the Gun Lake Fire Protection Society.
Follow Up Action: none.
Communication: via the building permit application process.
Submitted by: Belinda Moen, Building Inspector Reviewed by: Peter DeJong, Director of Administrative Services Approved by: Lynda Flynn, CAO
Page 47 of 343 Request for Decision - Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protecti...
Request for Decision
Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protection Society Storage Building from ‘Post- Disaster Building’ Designation
Page 48 of 343 Information Report - Civic Addressing/House Numbering Si...
For Information Only House Numbering Signs
Meeting Date: May 14, 2012
Recommendation: Receive the Civic Addressing Status Report
Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined
At the March meeting the Board of Directors requested that staff prepare a report to outline the options for providing standard house numbering signs throughout the SLRD. The Directors noted that they had seen examples of the types of signs they are interested in on the roads within the Thompson Nicola Regional District, and in the Okanagan Similkameen Regional District.
Relevant Policies
SLRD Civic Addressing Regulatory Bylaw No. 1123 requires that house numbers be posted, and sets out a minimum requirements for the size of the numerals, but does not set out any other requirements related to the size or style of the sign.
Background
As per the EAD Committee’s suggestion, staff consulted two other Regional Districts whom it was noted appeared to have standardized signage in place, the RDOS and the TNRD. Staff at both of those jurisdictions clarified that they actually do not have any sign programs in place, and that when standardized signs are seen they are essentially the product of local area initiatives, not a coordinated effort or regulation across the Regional District. Below is a summary of the information gathered from those Regional Districts.
The Regional District of Okanagan Similkameen (RDOS). The RDOS did initiate a house number sign program a number of years ago, likely as part of their 911 implementation, but it was taken up by the individual electoral areas or local communities. According to the recollection of current staff, in some cases the Area Director (perhaps through select funds and pulling together volunteer labour) supported the acquisition of signage. In other areas it was volunteer groups such as the volunteer fire departments that set up a program for their service area. In the case of it being a volunteer group, the way it typically works is that the volunteer group canvasses the neighbourhood, takes ‘orders’ for signs, then prepares (and sometimes even installs) the signs for a set fee, with proceeds going to the organization.
Staff at the RDOS explained that the house number sign program was a one-time initiative, and that there are currently no requirements to post any particular type of house number sign. At this time it is up to individuals to post any sign they like; there are no on-going programs.
The Thompson Nicola Regional District (TNRD) TNRD does not have any program in place for house number signs either. TNRD staff explained that several of the First Nations communities within their area have contracted out the work to establish civic addressing, and often as part of those contracts, the company includes the acquisition and posting of standardized metal, reflective signs, such as one sees on Highway 12 between Lillooet and
Page 49 of 343 Information Report - Civic Addressing/House Numbering Si...
For Information Only House Numbering Signs
Lytton.
TNRD staff also explained that in some other communities the volunteer fire departments or other community organizations undertook a house number sign program as a fund-raising initiative.
They clarified that they do not have any on-going programs in place.
Options for Consideration
Option 1 – buy signs for all existing addresses
If the SLRD wanted to simply purchase a house number sign for all existing addresses within the Electoral Areas a very rough estimate is about $40,000. This is based on a very rough calculation of 2000 addresses, at $20 per sign. Recently the Upper Squamish Valley neighbourhood ordered 50 reflective, metal house number signs for their community. The price of those from a sign making shop in Squamish was $22 per sign.
The advantage of this option is that it would establish standard signage throughout the Electoral Areas.
There are a number of possible issues for the SLRD under this option, from the high cost at the outset, to staff time and resources required for administration, to the logistical challenges of handling and distributing hundreds of signs. This option also raises the question of whether this is a one-time service offer, or if the SLRD would continue to supply new numbers in the future; who replaces stolen or damaged signs; and how to ensure that the signs are posted at all.
Another consideration is whether all neighbourhoods actually would benefit from new signage. For example, in much of Howe Sound East the communities have street lights and small lots with short driveways, where requiring a standard reflective metal sign would not be necessary or desirable for the community. However in more rural neighbourhoods where many houses are not visible from the road, where there is no street lighting, and where vehicles are often travelling at faster speeds, standard reflective metal signs may be the best option.
Option 2 – encourage local communities or emergency service organizations to initiate programs
The SLRD may want to consider encouraging community groups and volunteer fire departments (VFD) to initiate a house number sign program for fundraising. As noted above, that is the main way that the TNRD and the RDOS ended up with some standardized signs within the their regional districts. It appears that it is most often fire departments who are interested in having clearer signage, and who often have ‘labour’ on hand to help organize the program and may even offer a service to come and erect the sign at an appropriate location on the house or driveway. Staff believe that in some cases the VFDs have fabricated the signs themselves, perhaps using reflective stick on numbers on blank metal plates, thus saving on the production cost, and allowing them to offer the sign for a reasonable price and still make a ‘profit’ to go into the department.
Under this option the SLRD could consider offering support in terms of staff on a particular day to help assemble or erect signs. The Electoral Area Director could also consider contributing matching funds, though the use of select funds, to what is raised under the program.
Page 50 of 343 Information Report - Civic Addressing/House Numbering Si...
For Information Only House Numbering Signs
The advantage of this option is that it would work towards each community having standardized signs that would be clear for emergency responders. It also has the advantage of being driven from within the community, and each program can be adjusted in terms of how it is set-up, to suit the particular needs and desires of that community or organization.
Option 3 - status quo
SLRD Civic Addressing Regulatory Bylaw No. 1123 requires that house numbers be posted, and sets out minimum requirements for the size of the numerals, and that they be either reflective or high contrast, but does not actually set out exact specifications for the size or style of the sign. The SLRD does not actively enforce this bylaw requirement, and staff suggest that it would be a significant undertaking to begin enforcing it.
Staff have occasionally received a call from a resident who is concerned that neighbours on their street have not posted their addresses, but generally it appears that most residents want to post their house number, and are careful to ensure that emergency responders and others can quickly and easily find their house.
Analysis
Having highly visible, reflective, standardized signs may be something that certain neighbourhoods or communities would like, and is likely something that most fire department and other emergency responders would support. It appears that it is not something that is typically undertaken by Regional Districts as a broader initiative, but rather it is something that is most often a local initiative.
Given the broad range of neighbourhoods, from Britannia Beach to Tyaughton Lake, and the varying degrees of need for ‘standardized’ signs, it appears that local programs may be best suited to meet the local needs, and to keep the program at a scale that is more easily managed.
Staff suggest that if VFDs are interested in pursuing this type of program we can provide a list of addresses within their fire service areas. At the Direction of the Board, staff could encourage the VFDs to undertake such a program.
Submitted by: Tracy Napier, Planner Reviewed by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Approved by: L. Flynn, CAO
Page 51 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
REQUEST FOR DECISION Sea to Sky Gondola application for OCP and Zoning Bylaw Amendment in Electoral Area D
Meeting Date: May 28, 2012
Recommendation: 1. THAT Bylaw 1239, a bylaw to amend ‘Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 495, 1994’ be read a third time.
2. THAT Bylaw 1240, a bylaw to amend ‘Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw No. 540, 1994’ be read a third time.
3. THAT prior to the adoption of Bylaw 1240, the following conditions be met: A) The provision of an appropriate legal mechanism (s. 219 covenant or other agreement) to ensure provision of the following amenities prior to the issuance of a development permit: i) A trail network at the upper terminal site, including connections to offsite trails, complete with cost estimates, and securities in the amount of 135% of the estimated construction costs. ii) An interpretive plan, including a signage plan, referencing the cultural and historical aspects of the area complete with cost estimates, and securities in the amount of 135% of the estimated costs. B) The applicant will address the issues related to potential increases in search and rescue operations that may be generated as a result of this change in land use (to the satisfaction of the CAO and the Area D Director).
4. THAT the adoption of bylaws 1239 and 1240 not be considered until the BC Parks legislation has been brought into force.
Report/Document: Attached _X_ Available __ Nil __
Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined: At the February 27, 2012 Board meeting, both Bylaw 1239 and Bylaw 1240 received first reading, and the referral process was initiated. At the March 26, 2012 Board meeting, both Bylaw 1239 and 1240 received second reading. The public hearing regarding bylaws 1239 and 1240 was held on April 19, 2012 at the Britannia Beach Community Hall (minutes attached). The deadline for referral comments was March 28, 2012, and only three agency comments were received (see background report). This report describes the comments received through the referral process and the public hearing and recommends that the bylaws be given third reading subject to a number of conditions.
Relevant Policy: Electoral Area D OCP Bylaw No. 495, 1994; Zoning Bylaw No. 540, 1994, Regional Growth Strategy
Strategic Relevance: The proposal is consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS).
Desired Outcome(s): Land use management that is consistent with SLRD policy.
Response Options: 1. Give the bylaws third reading with additional conditions as proposed. 2. Defer third reading and refer back to staff for more information.
Preferred Strategy: Option 1
Page 52 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION:
General: The application, if approved, would redesignate and rezone an area of unsurveyed Crown land in Electoral Area D, to the southeast of the District of Squamish. No major issues have yet been identified that would prevent the process from receiving third reading. It should be noted that before the bylaws could be adopted there are several existing conditions to be fulfilled, and an additional condition is hereby proposed. Since the purpose of the project is to provide gondola access, it is proposed that approval of the bylaws be subject to receipt of the necessary approvals from the Province regarding gondola access through the park and Crown land authorizations.
Communication: Advise the applicant of the resolution, and next stage in the process.
Submitted by: I. Holl, Planner Endorsed by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Reviewed by: L. Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 53 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
Background Report
Prepared by: Ian Holl, Planner Prepared For: SLRD Board of Directors Meeting, May 28, 2012
Subject: Sea to Sky Gondola OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaws
Issue Defined: An application for amendment to the Electoral Area D OCP bylaw no. 495, 1994 and SLRD Zoning Bylaw No. 540, 1994 has now progressed through the public hearing stage (minutes attached). The proposal is with respect to the Sea to Sky Gondola which includes a top terminal site proposed to contain restaurant, retail, theatre, office, interpretive and educational uses as well as trails available for hiking with viewpoints around the site. The project is intended to establish a sight-seeing gondola that rises to 2835 ft on Habrich Ridge, and will provide an accessible alpine experience for visitors and residents. The bottom terminal and staging area is located on private lands within the District of Squamish, the gondola path crosses the Stawamus Provincial Park, and rises to the upper terminal site and associated facilities that are located on unsurveyed Crown land within SLRD Area D.
Public Hearing: The public hearing was held on April 19, 2012 at the Britannia Beach Community Hall. It was well attending by over 100 people. Approximately 60 people spoke at the hearing, the majority of whom spoke in favour of the application, with only 16 people speaking against the application. There were approximately 15 written submissions provided at the hearing in addition to the 22 submitted prior to the meeting. Approximately half of all written submissions were in opposition to the proposal. It should be noted that many of the people who spoke against the application were from outside of Squamish and Area D and a number of the people who spoke against the application were of the belief that the Sea to Sky Gondola was to be located on the Squamish Chief (it is not).
Concerns raised by verbal and written submissions included: There were several people who supported the idea of the gondola, but not in that location or where park land would be affected. The park land reclassification was one of the main issues raised. The potential consequences of building gondola structures through the park, which was perceived as splitting the park: o This would potentially interfere with the integrity of the lands, the enjoyment of park users, and the accessibility of the park. Negative effects on wildlife and habitat both in the park and outside it due to increased number of people. The ramifications of constructing gondola structures in the park and having the proponents go bankrupt and the costs for remediation. Access was raised as a potential positive and negative: o increasing accessibility for people who are currently unable to access the hiking, climbing, and other backcountry areas could be positive o increasing the numbers of people accessing areas where previously few had tread could be negative and adversely affect wildlife and habitat. The apparent lack of public engagement by BC Parks as part of their application review process: o Despite the numerous meetings and open houses that the proponents have conducted there was a view that those types of meetings are not equivalent to nor substitute for public review and engagement efforts conducted by the governments and agencies involved in the potential approval of the project. The apparent incompatibility of the proposal with principles and policies of the Regional Growth Strategy, the Electoral Area D Official Community Plan, and the applicable zoning bylaw.
Page 54 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
Agency Referral Process: The bylaws were referred to Squamish Nation, District of Squamish, Resort Municipality of Whistler, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development, Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure, Ministry of Forests, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations, and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. At the end of the referral period there were only three agency comments received. The SLRD also received a letter of support for the project from the Mayor of the District of Squamish, Rob Kirkham.
Ministry of Forests, Lands, & Natural Resource Operations The Province is currently reviewing the Sea to Sky Gondola proposal for multiple authorizations including those under the Land Act and Water Act. The land tenures all require that the proposed use aligns with local zoning and bylaws.
Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure Comments concerned only with base site and requirement for access permit application of which the applicant is already aware. Otherwise MOTI interests are unaffected by the upper terminal site.
Vancouver Coastal Health Authority General comments refer to legislated requirements for public health issues including sewerage disposal systems, drinking water source protection and supply systems, and food premises. Other comments refer to air quality in the Sea to Sky corridor. Vehicle based transportation is currently the most significant factor influencing air quality in the Sea to Sky airshed. The response includes a recommendation that the applicant work with transit companies and others to provide alternative transportation options that would reduce the number of single occupant vehicles on the highway.
Safety & Emergency Planning: At the February 27, 2012 Board meeting it was resolved: THAT prior to the adoption of Bylaw 1240 the applicant will address the issues related to potential increases in search and rescue operations that may be generated as a result of this change in land use (to the satisfaction of the CAO and the Area D Director).
The applicant has currently drafted a safety and emergency procedure overview plan (see attached) as a response to both the Board request and the requirements of the Crown land tenure application. The draft document includes information on general safety procedures, responsibilities, codes of conduct, signage, fire management, enforcement, safety and emergency protocols for different project areas, and funding of services. It describes the roles and responsibilities of the different responders depending on the location of a potential incident. Based on the information provided by the applicant, staff feel confident that this condition of adoption has been addressed.
OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 1239: The OCP amendment bylaw redesignates an area from Resource Management to Backcountry Commercial Area (BCA), which is an existing designation. The BCA category is modified slightly to require that lodge uses be subject to a rezoning application, in order to provide an adequate level of review. Two Development Permit Areas (DPAs) have been drafted and included in the proposed OCP amendment bylaw. One DPA addresses form & character objectives as well as water and energy conservation goals. The other DPA establishes wildfire protection for Electoral Area D. The proposed bylaw amendments do not conflict with the RGS, and offer several opportunities to address goals and directions as outlined in the strategy.
The proposed commercial operation provides access to multiple recreation and adventure tourism options as well as accessory commercial activities. The provision of public trails connecting to existing hiking, climbing, and mountain biking areas, along with the employee and public bicycle parking facilities will be valuable amenities. The form and character DPA mentioned above will
Page 55 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
address water and energy conservation objectives aligned with SLRD sustainability policies and strategies.
Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1240: The zoning bylaw amendment changes the existing zoning from Resource Use to a new zone Backcountry Commercial 1, and adds new provisions to the general regulations for bicycle end of trip facilities including bicycle parking, showers, and change rooms. The amendment also adds a provision allowing temporary commercial and industrial uses in all zones through the temporary use permit process.
Options:
Option 1 Give the bylaws third reading with additional conditions as proposed.
Option 2 Defer third reading and refer back to staff for more information.
Conclusion: The proposed zoning and OCP amendment bylaws 1239 and 1240 are in keeping with SLRD policies and provide significant tourism amenities to the region. At the public hearing there was a mix of support and opposition to the project, however, generally more people spoke in favour of the project than spoke against it. As such, staff support giving the bylaws third reading subject to the noted conditions.
Attachments: Proposed OCP & Zoning Amendment Bylaws. Draft S2S Gondola Safety and Emergency Procedures Overview
Page 56 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
PUBLIC HEARING Bylaw 1239 and Bylaw 1240 Sea to Sky Gondola
SQUAMISH-LILLOOET REGIONAL DISTRICT
Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board, held in the Britannia Beach Community Hall, Britannia, BC on April 19, 2012, at 7:00 p.m.
Present were: M. Freitag, Chair; S. Gimse, Co-Chair; K. Needham, Director of Planning & Development; I. Holl, Planner; J. Hanna, Recording Secretary and 110 members of the public.
CALL TO ORDER Director Freitag introduced himself as the Chair and Director of Area D Director along with Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (“SLRD”) Board Chair and Area C Director, Susan Gimse; and called the Public Hearing to order at 7:09 PM.
CHAIR’S Good evening, my name is Moe Freitag, and as the Electoral INTRODUCTORY Area D Director for the Squamish Lillooet Regional District COMMENTS Board, I will be co-chairing this public hearing along with Susie Gimse, SLRD Board Chair. I would like to introduce Kim Needham, Director of Planning & Development, Ian Holl, Planner, and Jennifer Hanna, Administrative Assistant who will be recording your comments.
I would like to note that we are on the traditional territory of the Squamish Nation and the Tsleil-Waututh Nation. This public hearing is convened pursuant to Section 890 of the Local Government Act to allow the public to make representations to the Board respecting matters contained in the proposed bylaws.
Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 495, 1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 1239-2012 Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw No. 540, 1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 1240-2012
This public hearing was advertised in the April 6 & 13, 2012 issues of the Squamish Chief, and the April 5 & 12, 2012 issues of the Pique. Every one of you present who believes that your interest in the property is affected by the proposed bylaws shall be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard or to present written submissions respecting matters contained in the bylaw. None of you will be discouraged or prevented from making your views known. However, it is important that you restrict your remarks to matters contained in the proposed bylaws.
When speaking please address the co-chairs and commence your remarks by clearly stating your name and address.
Page 57 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 2 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Members of the Regional Board may ask or respond to questions following a presentation. However, the function of the Board representatives at this public hearing is to listen rather than to debate the merits of the proposed bylaws. After this public hearing has concluded, the Regional Board may, without further notice or hearing, adopt or defeat the bylaws, or alter and then adopt the bylaws, provided that the alteration does not alter the use or density.
May I remind you that tonight is your opportunity for input on the bylaws and that after the conclusion of this hearing, no further public comments can be received.
To date, we have received about twenty two submissions regarding the gondola project and the public hearing. I will now ask Ian Holl to introduce the bylaws. He will also speak to some of the key issues raised in the public hearing submissions. After Ian’s presentation, the developers will be given a brief opportunity to speak.
Following that, the floor will be opened to members of the public, and you will be given the opportunity to speak to the bylaws. Each person will have a maximum of two minutes to speak and then they will be asked to sit down.
Director Freitag then introduced Mayor of Squamish, Rob Kirkham and SLRD Director Patricia Heintzman, who were present in the room.
PLANNER Ian Holl, Planner offered an overview of the project which PRESENTATION included the general project overlay and some of the issues and views. He then showed a power point presentation. Ian Holl then briefly touched on other agency processes involved in the gondola project. BC Parks has a separate application process which is outside of SLRD jurisdiction. The proponent must perform a full environmental assessment as part of that process.
There is concern that this will be precedent setting, but that is unlikely because land has been reclassified or removed from parks before for a variety of reasons, including recreational activities.
Another key issue raised is what happens if the project is approved and the proponents go bankrupt. BC Parks would typically require performance bonds as part of an application so that if it was approved and something happened there would be resources available to rectify the situation.
Page 58 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 3 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Chair Freitag Chair Freitag thanked Ian Holl and introduced David Greenfield to the podium, who gave a brief presentation, after which the floor was opened to public comments.
PROPONENT I have lived in the Sea to Sky corridor for 17 years and have COMMENTS raised my family here. It is a place I value and I see a lot of good potential. I have over 20 years’ experience both locally and internationally. We have been trying to find sustainable projects. This area has struggled with outflow of residents. Tourism is a key foundation element that can be looked at. 9 million people travel the Sea to Sky highway annually and we feel the Sea to Sky gondola can play a huge part in this. The synergies created through the benefits to the community could be a huge win for the community and Province of BC.
This is not a gondola up the Chief. This is a gondola up Habrich Ridge. We see this project employing 30 – 80 people. This is a sustainable amount. This could ease crowding in BC Parks. It can provide a mechanism where people can see the view without having to hike the Chief trail. We are looking to provide new trails and upgrades to existing trails. We are also looking to provide more interpretive elements. This activity can be accessed by all and will allow hiking, new climbing access, backcountry skiing, extension of the alpine trail, etc. There will be a shuttle service between Squamish and Britannia Beach and huge cross-marketing for downtown Squamish etc.
Dozens of meetings have been held over the past year, along with open houses and presentations. We have listened to concerns and questions. This is a project for the community. This has been a very tough process. We don’t mind that being tough. The SLRD, District of Squamish, BC Parks and Crown lands all have their own defined process. We have continued to follow this process.
There were no significant environmental impacts identified as per our environmental assessment. Thank you to everyone that we have been working with, and we look forward to working with you again.
Co-Chair Gimse Welcome to everyone and our job here is to ensure that each and every one is given an opportunity to be heard. This is the last opportunity the public has to provide your views to the Board of directors of the SLRD.
When you come up to the podium, provide us with your name and address as they comprise part of the public record. So, as you can see there are a lot of people here – at this point we have 60 people on the speakers list. We will limit you to two minutes
Page 59 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 4 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
so it’s really important that you are concise and to the point with your comments. If you have written submissions, please hit the high points and turn those written comments into us. The full letter will be part of the full report to the Board.
We won’t allow second speakers until everyone that wants to speak a first time has been given that opportunity. This is not a debate. We are not here to debate the merits, we are here to listen to you and receive your comments. It is also not a debate amongst yourselves, so please no cross-room discussion. Direct your comments to the Chairs and not to the proponents. It is really important that we are all respectful. Everyone has a right to share their views and opinions and part of our job is to ensure the environment is conducive to receiving that information. I look forward to hearing your comments.
With that I will turn it over to Director Freitag to call up the first 8 people.
Chair Freitag I would like to recognize Alternate Director Brian Raiser and Alternate Director John Turner – they are also Directors of the SLRD and in the process that one of us is unable to attend, they would step in for perhaps Director Heintzman or myself for clarification.
Co-Chair Gimse Pointed out the sign-up sheet for speakers who had arrived late.
Chair Freitag I am going to call forward the first 8 people in no particular order, although I will recognize the first person on the sheet as Councillor Dale Harry from the Squamish Nation.
Councillor Dale Harry I am a member of Squamish Chief and Council. My Council Squamish supports the proposal of the Sea to Sky gondola. We objected to the one on the Chief and the one at Shannon Falls but this one we support. I would like to say we share our support of the Sea to Sky Gondola.
Nancy Hamilton Real estate agent - Sea to Sky Remax. I am definitely for this Squamish gondola project. (The proponents) answered every question; they are very professional, very qualified. Great job.
James Retty My business is directly involved in tourism. I think this is a great Squamish opportunity to take that ball and run with it. I believe the Sea to Sky gondola project will give access to terrain that many people will never see. I support this concept and am glad to see it here.
Sue Doyle I see this as a positive development and I fully support the Sea Squamish to Sky gondola.
Page 60 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 5 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Jared Sissons I represent Tourism Squamish, whose Board of Directors Squamish unanimously voted to support the Sea to Sky gondola. Tourism Squamish Board and its’ members fully support the Sea to Sky project.
Kirstin Clausen Executive Director, Britannia Mine. The museum supports the Squamish SLRD proposed bylaw revision as part of the process to enable the Sea to Sky gondola.
Megan Tadsden I represent the Executive Suites Hotel. The hotel feels the Sea Squamish to Sky gondola will be a fantastic addition. We support this project.
Peter Harker It would be a tragedy to cut this park in half. I’ve used the park Squamish for 30 years. This park was put there to protect this area from this type of thing, to maintain the beauty.
Auli Pamainen I strongly support this proposal and it will bring benefit us all. Squamish John Harvey I am co-founder of the Trails Society. This is about access. This Squamish makes total sense and I hope it gets the support it needs. I wish you luck in the next process.
Anders Ourom Friends of the Squamish Chief. We have concerns with this Vancouver project. We are opposed to the idea of gondola through Stawamus Chief Provincial park. We do not believe this land should be removed from Class A provincial park, period.
Donna Wall The gondola will make the park more accessible to young Squamish children, older adults and to those in wheelchairs. The gondola is not going to detract from the wonderful view.
Paul Zuckernick I enthusiastically support the Sea to Sky gondola. My Squamish background is working with people with disabilities and this is an opportunity for us to share the natural beauty with those who need a helping hand to enjoy the experience.
Jill Carter Remax Sea to Sky Realty. I have lived here for 10 years and Squamish strongly support this project.
Michael Feller The Federation of Mountain Clubs is neither opposed nor in Richmond favour as we have a number of concerns, issues and questions that we cannot answer.
Christine McLeod I fully support the project and everything it means to our Squamish incredible region and welcoming community.
Rob McLeod I would like to voice my support for the project; it will do a Squamish number of things for our community. I believe this should be
Page 61 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 6 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
supported.
Scott McQuade President of the Downtown Squamish Business Improvement Squamish Area. I think you can be a friend of the Chief and support this project too.
Jack Cooley Co-chair of the Squamish Dreamkeepers Society. I speak for the Brackendale Society and we are greatly in favour of this project.
Gary Taylor I am very much in support of this proposal. This would be a Lions Bay great boost for Squamish economy.
James Morris Local business owner and a Search and Rescue volunteer. I am Squamish here to voice my overwhelming support for the Sea to Sky gondola. I have a vested opportunity in protecting this area and this is a tremendous opportunity for the community.
John Howe I am here tonight in favour of this project and the re-zoning. It Squamish will improve access to back country and relieve pressure on the trail system up the Chief which is quite deplorable condition. I wish the project luck.
Glenn Woodsworth I am opposed to the gondola. Find a place to put it elsewhere. Vancouver
Frank Baumann I am a member of Mountain Equipment Co-op. I recognize that Squamish there are many benefits to this proposal, but I am opposed for a number of reasons.
Bill McNeney Chair of the Squamish Oceanfront Development Corporation. I Squamish am here to support the proponents of the Sea to Sky gondola. This project is a clear fit. I would certainly encourage members of the SLRD to endorse the project.
Don Serl One of the main reasons to support this proposal is that it’s a Vancouver way to get back into the Sky Pilot area. My prediction is that … 20 years from now the whole valley will be a park.
David Daniels I fully support these guys. I think David and Trevor are Squamish responsible individuals. I couldn’t be happier to be here and support this cause.
Heather Dunham I have many reasons to support the Sea to Sky gondola in our Squamish community. I would like to take a moment to thank the proponents and I respectfully urge the SLRD Board to approve third and fourth reading and the rezoning.
David Rittberg I am here to fully support this project for a lot of the reasons Furry Creek spoken before me. I am fully satisfied this would be a huge
Page 62 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 7 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
benefit for the corridor.
Derek Christ I think it’s wonderful to support the project, it’s amazing. I think Squamish greater forethought needs to be done before the project is approved.
Gregg Smyth I fully support the proposal. I think it’s the best opportunity and it Squamish would be the next step in the revitalization of Squamish.
Marie Campbell I don’t agree with the removal of land from a Class A park. I am Squamish not opposed to the gondola.
Rika Lyne I love the Chief, I love the Class A park and want it to stay that Squamish way so I oppose the project.
Mel Lyne I am strongly against the gondola proposal in or through this or Squamish any Class A park. If they really want to do this project, do it outside the park. Why not right here in Britannia in partnership with Mining Museum?
Gus Corey At this stage I am in favour of the gondola project. I think this Squamish proposal, if it goes through where it is, will help …..yes I am in favour
Brian Moorhead I am on the Board of the Furry Creek Residents Association. We Furry Creek had an election last week and the Board has two new Directors but I can relay that the former Board was in favour of the project.
Chris Rommel I am in extreme favour of the project both economically for Squamish Squamish and also because I don’t think there’s anything better than being able to go into the hills with both generations (of family members).
Rob Weys I think we should support it and I do believe in the project. Squamish Esta Evans This would put Squamish squarely on the map. I’m obviously in Squamish favour of the project.
Sean Easton My main opposition to it is the fact that we are taking a beautiful Squamish landscape and running a cutline through it. A Class A park that the residents of BC decided to preserve shouldn’t be changed.
Lance Iverson I am totally in favour of the project, I think it’s wonderful where it Britannia Beach is but I think if it went up the Chief, it would be a World Class destination.
Nelson Bastien I am really in favour of this thing for a little different reason than Black Tusk the others. I’m really happy, I want to see the thing and I’m really supporting it.
Page 63 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 8 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Jane Iverson I support this amendment to the bylaw and the project for a Britannia Beach number or reasons. It would be a good complement to the Britannia Mining Museum and the Railway Museum. I would like to offer my full support.
Toran Savjord I enthusiastically support this development. As the Chairperson Squamish of the Chamber of Commerce for seven years, I can reiterate the value to the community. I’ve watched Trevor and Dave over the last year…. and the most important thing is their quality of character and high standards. I fully support this.
Theresa Negreiff I’m here today to voice my opposition to the proposed gondola Squamish project. This is not in the best interest of our community. Keep protected areas protected.
The meeting recessed at 8:57 PM The meeting re-convened at 9:02 PM
Geoff Park My business is Camp Summit, an outdoor education centre. I am Squamish fully in support of this and excited to work on the curriculum ...for the Sea to Sky gondola.
Sandy Millar I am in support of the amendments to the bylaw. I am very North Vancouver familiar with work of proponents and some of the work they have done over the years and have full confidence in their ability to deliver on their commitment with respect to the quality of the facility itself. I look forward to the amendment.
Brian Vincent I am here to vigorously oppose the gondola, as a rock climber. Squamish My wife also opposes the project. Opening up an area like this to more traffic is a recipe for disaster in terms of encounters with wildlife.
Mim Andrews I am opposed to the development. When the back country is Squamish gone, its gone forever.
Eric Anderson I have become a convinced supporter. I am impressed with the Squamish professional approach by the proponents. I am involved in two local tourism ventures. There are very exciting opportunities here for interpreting and celebrating the past present and future activities in the corridor.
Kerry Brown I tree planted in that valley back in the mid 70’s, it was a mess. I Brackendale would like to see that land out of the resource based area into the recreational area - that’s what the zoning amendment does.
Stewart Kerr I support this project. If it is utilized, there is a possibility to try to Squamish expand parks in this area. I support this project.
Page 64 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 9 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Jayson Faulkner I am in favour of this project. I very much believe in the idea of Whistler conservation through education and engagement. This is a very positive move. I am in full support of this.
Chair Freitag opened the floor to any first-time speakers who have not yet spoken.
Ken Bailey This project is important enough to rush down from Squamish to Squamish speak to this group. I want to lend my support to the proposal. I have been to a number of open houses and (the proponents) were more than willing to listen to both sides of the debate. In closing, I would like to say I am in support of it.
Chair Freitag opened the floor to any second- time speakers with any new information to add.
Anders Ourom Several people have asked us why we haven’t spoken up before. Vancouver The simple reason is we didn’t know about it. I didn’t know what was happening and it seems like an awful lot of other people didn’t.
Mel Lyne I am against the gondola project in the park. I’m in favour of it Squamish going here in Britannia.
Peter Harker This will be another highway development like London Drugs Squamish that will have no spinoff downtown. Secondly is that they are wrecking a provincial Class A park.
Clive Sissler I’m still opposed. What back country access opportunities would Vancouver come out of it?
Proponent There is a forest service road to access close to the site we use at that top terminal that would remain as a forest service road. It is up to forest service to determine what access beyond what is already there today. Certainly, given the kind of activities at the top terminal, we would not like to see a lot of vehicles up there in that part and some sort of gate would be installed.
Lance Iverson Everybody here is living in a house that used to be wilderness. Britannia Beach You know who paid to have those animals pushed out of that wilderness area? You did when you bought your house.
Chair Freitag opened the floor to any third-time speakers with any new information to add
Stewart Kerr If the land conservancy were the ones that bought the land in the Squamish first place and now they are allowing this to take place, I can only presume that they must support the project.
Co-Chair Gimse asked people to please submit their written submissions at this time.
Page 65 of 343 Request for Decision - Sea to Sky Gondola Application f...
This is Page 10 of the Minutes of a Public Hearing convened by the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00p.m.
Chair Freitag called a third time for any submissions.
Proponent The Squamish Trails Society wishes to speak but is at their AGM,is there a way to submit their piece?
Chair Freitag Ithink that I received a submission from them in the last two
hours but I am not certain, IfI have received the submission before the close of the meeting Co-Chair Gimse, willthat suffice?
Co-Chair Gimse Yes, as long as you have received it.
TERMINATION Director Freitag called three times for further comment. There being none, he thanked everyone for taking the time to attend the meeting, and termThated the meeting at 9:36 PM.
The foregoing report, containing a summary of the nature of the representations that were made at the Hearing respectThg the Bylaws is hereby certified as being fair and accurate.
M. Freitag, Chair S. Gimse, Co-Chair
J J. Hanna, Secretary
Page 66 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Request for Decision
Squamish District Pool – Loan Authorization Bylaw
Date: May 15, 2012
Recommendation: THAT: (a) the Board, via Section 801(4) of the Local Government Act, by resolution adopted by at least 2/3 of the votes cast, provide that the participating area approval is to be obtained for the entire service area of the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool service;
(b) THAT via Section 801.3 of the Local Government Act, participating area approval be obtained by alternative approval process;
(c) THAT Bylaw No.1251-2012, cited as “Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Capital Improvements Loan Authorization Bylaw 1251-2012”, be introduced and read a first, second and third time; and
(d) THAT the Board approve the Notice of Alternative Approval Process regarding Bylaw No. 1251- 2012, establishing: (i) the number of eligible electors within the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Service Area, (ii) the number of eligible electors required to prevent the Board from proceeding without the further assent of the electors, and (iii) a deadline for the last date on which objections to the bylaw may be received.
Recommendation Report/Document: Attached (Y) Available __ Nil __
Key Issue(S)/Concepts Defined: The Squamish District Community Pool is operated by the District of Squamish and funded through taxation of the District of Squamish and a portion of Electoral Area D. Squamish sent in a budget request for 2012 that includes a 25 year loan of $1,000,000 to upgrade the facility with an Aquatic Deck Air Unit (HVAC) and pool boilers.
The following is an excerpt of their 2012 budget submission:
Aquatic Deck Air Unit (HVAC) and pool boilers @ $1,000,000 The project involves the total removal of the existing FS-1 and all four natural draft gas boilers (heats 3 pools and Domestic Hot Water). A new system will include a highly efficient air unit designed for the pool environment and condensing boilers with plate and frame heat exchangers for heating the pool water and domestic hot water. The project will also include installation of a HVAC unit which will incorporate (take advantage of) the emergency heat unit installations in December 2010.
The new system is extremely efficient with a longer life cycle of 20 - 25 years due to design being specific for a swimming pool environment. Redundancies will be built into the system to dramatically reduce impact on customers during maintenance (avoid shut downs). Substantial energy savings and GHG reductions would push us further toward zero emissions. It is impossible to estimate these until the system is designed and specified. The proposed new system has additional capacity to accommodate future expansions such as slides, splash park, exterior showers, etc.
Page 67 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Request for Decision
Squamish District Pool – Loan Authorization Bylaw
Staff believe this project does need to be accomplished as soon as possible. We have experienced a failure of the main pool boiler in October 2011, and temporary repairs were made and we were able to keep the pool operating (at reduced temperatures). As well, both of the HVAC compressors failed in May 2011 requiring extensive repairs. This system has been operating for 19 years, consultants recommend replacement as this system has reached the end of its life expectancy and repairs are not recommended.
As per Section 823.1, participating area approval is required for this Loan Authorization (LA) Bylaw. In Section 801.1 of the Local Government Act it explains how the participating area approval can be obtained. If participating area approval is to be obtained for the entire service area as a whole, the Board may choose the method of either alternative approval process or assent of the electors (referendum).
This Loan Authorization bylaw meets the criteria for using the alternative approval process (AAP) as the requisition needed is less than $.50/$1,000 of assessed value. AAP for the full area is the recommended option. This gives the full area the opportunity to indicate whether we may proceed with the LA Bylaw. If at the end of the time available for receiving elector responses, there is less than 10% of the electors objecting to the LA Bylaw, the LA Bylaw can be approved by the Board. If more than 10% of eligible electors object to the borrowing, then it will not move forward without electoral approval by way of petition or by way of voting (referendum). A petition requires that we receive the consent of at least 50% of the property owners holding at least 50% of the assessed value of all properties within the service area. This is a difficult task as BC’s voter turnout rate for the 2009 elections, as referenced by Elections BC, was 55%. A referendum requires an election process for the Bylaw and an opportunity for voters to vote yes or no to the proposed bylaw. An alternative approval process is most commonly used in relation to long-term borrowing bylaws. It is a less expensive option than using a referendum to gauge public opinion. It can be used whenever the legislation requires a local government to obtain the approval of the electors.
Option 2 - The alternative to the above is to have the participating area approvals obtained separately for each area (i.e. for each of the District of Squamish and the portion of Area D). The District of Squamish Council may choose the method of approval for the municipality and would be responsible for obtaining their own participating area approval. This would allow the council of the District of Squamish the ability to give consent on behalf of the electors [Section 801.4, consent on behalf of the municipal participating area], via council resolution. The specified area of Electoral Area D will then have to complete the approval separately by the alternative approval process. Having separate approval processes leads to a greater chance of reaching the 10% threshold under the AAP, as the smaller portion of Area D would be measured on its own (i.e. only 64 of 644 eligible voters, as noted later on, would be required to defeat the bylaw).
The Aquatic and Facilities staff at the District of Squamish are anxious to get moving on the HVAC/Boilers project so they can be ready to install during the fall shut down of the pool. There is much concern with them that the systems will fail in the short term, in which case there will be costs for emergency repairs or a closure of the pool if repair is not feasible or advisable.
If an AAP were to falter, the next available borrowing would be in spring of 2013. A Temporary Borrowing Bylaw could be completed using funds internally or externally through the MFA in order to
Page 68 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Request for Decision
Squamish District Pool – Loan Authorization Bylaw
fund the project until the borrowing is received.
Relevant Policy: The Squamish Pool is an established service of the Regional District under Bylaw # 438-1990.
Strategic Relevance: Introduction and 3 readings of a Loan Authorization Bylaw and Notice of AAP will enable commencement of the AAP process with the eligible electors (of the Squamish District Pool Specified Area and District of Squamish) after approval of the bylaw and notice of approval by the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.
Desired Outcome(s): Completion of necessary capital improvements to the Squamish pool in an expedient process in order to lessen the risk of emergency repair costs and extended pool closures.
Response Options: 1. Approve the recommendations to the Board as presented; 2. Approve the recommendations to the Board replacing recommendation (a) with a resolution to have separate approvals for each participating area and recommendation (b) with alternative approval process of alternative approval process/council resolution, (see ‘Option 2’ Bylaw , AAP Notice and Elector Response forms attached); 3. Do not approve the recommendations and request more information.
Preferred Strategy: 1. Adopt the recommendations as presented.
Implications Of Recommendation
General: If the Board approves moving forward with the Loan Authorization Bylaw and AAP, then these documents will be forwarded to the Ministry for approval prior to being put to the electors of the participating area. Once the approval from the Ministry is received the AAP will begin and 2 weeks of advertisements are required. After the second advertisement, the AAP requires 30 days for the electors to object to the borrowing. If more than 10% of eligible electors object to the borrowing, then it will not move forward without electoral approval by way of petition or by way of voting (referendum).
Organizational: If approved as recommended, SLRD staff will organize the AAP with a view to achieving certified approval by mid-July with the matter back before the Board for the July 23rd meeting, thereby enabling the borrowing to be included in the Municipal Finance Authority’s (MFA) fall borrowing for 2012.
Financial: The long term tax burden of the capital improvements (principal and interest x 8.5% provincial admin. fee) is estimated to be $81,587 or .01607/$1,000 of assessed value per year for 25 years. A home valued at $500,000 would pay approximately $8.04 per year.
Legal: Most of the essential elements required are noted above, within the draft Loan Authorization Bylaw and Notice of AAP. The Board has the legislative obligation to set the number of electors eligible to object to the Loan Authorization bylaw and to set the last day on which such objections may be received.
SLRD staff recommend the following formula for determination of the number of eligible electors:
Page 69 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Request for Decision
Squamish District Pool – Loan Authorization Bylaw
Note: the number of estimated eligible electors must be formulated and be reasonable. The District of Squamish has supplied their 2011 Eligible Voters list which is deemed to be the best indicator of number of electors for the District of Squamish. As no voter’s list is available for the specified service area of Area D (only for the full area of Area D), BC assessment data and Census information for 2006 (as 2011 full census information is not yet available and on a draft basis is only 3 persons different from the 2006 Census data) for Area D were used.
Specified Area of Electoral Area D 350 folios in the BC Assessment roll that contain improvements and are located within the specified area of Area D; 350 x 2.3 average household size (2006 Census for Area D) = 805 people 805 x .8 (80% average population over 18 yrs. – using 2006 Census data) = 644 eligible electors in specified area of Area D;
District of Squamish 12,087 eligible voters (District of Squamish 2011 Voter’s list).
Combined Total 644 + 12,087 = 12,731 Total eligible electors in the service.
10% Threshold Option 1 = 1,273 eligible elector objections received will prevent the Board from proceeding in this manner. Option 2 = 64 eligible elector objections received will prevent the Board from proceeding in this manner.
Follow Up Action: Staff will proceed to work in accordance with the recommendations/resolutions of the Board.
Communication: Staff will continue to work with the District of Squamish and inform the participating area electors of any processes regarding this matter in accordance with legislative obligations and the directions of the Board.
Submitted by: Suzanne Lafrance Reviewed by: Peter DeJong Approved by: Lynda Flynn, CAO
Page 70 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
SQUAMISH-LILLOOET REGIONAL DISTRICT
By-law No. 1251-2012
A bylaw to authorize the borrowing of $1,000,000.00 for capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool.
WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District has established, by Bylaw No.438 - 1976, a service for the purpose of providing a Community Swimming Pool for the District of Squamish and a portion of Electoral Area D;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient to perform capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool;
AND WHEREAS the estimated cost of the capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Service Area, including expenses incidental thereto, is the sum of $1,000,000.00 which is the amount of debt created by this bylaw;
AND WHEREAS the maximum term for which a debenture may be issued to secure the debt created by this bylaw is for a term not to exceed 25 years;
AND WHEREAS the authority to borrow under this bylaw expires five years from the date on which this bylaw is adopted;
AND WHEREAS the Regional Board has received participating area approval of the service by assent of the electors in accordance with sections 801.1(1) and 801.3 of the Local Government Act [approval by alternative approval process] and section 86 of the Community Charter;
NOW THEREFORE, the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. The Regional Board is hereby empowered and authorized to perform capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Pool and to do all things necessary in connection therewith and without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
a) To borrow upon the credit of the Regional District a sum not exceeding $1,000,000.00;
2. The maximum term for which debentures may be issued to secure the debt created by this bylaw is 25 years.
3. This bylaw may be cited as “Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 1251-2012”.
READ A FIRST TIME this th day of , 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this th day of , 2012.
READ A THIRD TIME this th day of , 2012.
RECEIVED the approval of the Inspector of Municipalities this th day of , 2012.
Page 71 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
ASSENT OF THE ELECTORS within the Squamish and District Community Pool Local Service Area obtained this ____ day of, 2012.
ADOPTED this ____ day of , 2012.
______Susan Gimse Peter DeJong Chair Secretary
Page 72 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Box 219, 1350 Aster Street,
Pemberton, BC V0N 2L0
Ph. 604-894-6371, 800-298-7753 F: 604-894-6526 [email protected] www.slrd.bc.ca
Notice of Alternative Approval Process
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 801.3 of the Local Government Act and Sections 86 and 94 of the Community Charter, that the Squamish Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) has proposed the following By-law: Squamish and District Community Pool Loan Authorization Bylaw No.1251-2012.
The purpose of this bylaw is to authorize the borrowing of up to $1,000,000 for capital upgrades to the pool, including an Aquatic Deck Air Unit (HVAC) and pool boilers.
Repayment of the borrowed funds is intended to be spread out over 25 years, the cost of which is to be borne by the taxable properties within the District of Squamish and Electoral Area D Specified Area for the Squamish Pool service. The estimated tax requisition for this purpose is 0.01607/$1,000 of assessed value per year.
The deadline for elector responses in relation to this Approval Process shall be July 16th, 2012. The SLRD Board may proceed with this matter unless, by the deadline, at least 10% of the eligible electors of the entire service area indicate that the Board must obtain the assent of the electors before proceeding. In order to vote, the person must be: registered to vote on or before July 16th 2012, 18 years or older, a Canadian citizen, a resident of BC for at least 6 months, a resident of the Squamish District Pool service area (District of Squamish or Electoral Area D Squamish Pool service area) for at least 30 days. must not be otherwise disqualified by law from voting.
A person must not sign more than one elector response form in relation to the same Alternative Approval Process. The number of eligible electors has been determined at 12,731 and the number of elector responses required to prevent the Board from proceeding without the further assent of electors has been determined at 1,273.
Elector responses must be given in the form established by the Board and are available online at www.slrd.bc.ca and at the offices of the SLRD. Forms will be provided by the SLRD to any eligible elector and any persons wishing to receive an Elector Response Form may contact the SLRD as follows:
a. by telephone: 604-894-6371 or 1-800-298-7753; b. by email: [email protected]; c. by mail: PO Box 219, Pemberton, BC, V0N 2L0 d. in person: 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC.
The only persons eligible to sign the Elector Response Forms are the electors, as defined above, as described in section 161(1)(a) of the Local Government Act, of the participating area to which the approval process applies. Copies of the proposed loan authorization bylaw and related documents are available for public inspection any business day from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
Page 73 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Elector Response Form Alternative Approval Process
Squamish and District Community Pool Loan Authorization Bylaw No.1251-2012
With respect to the SLRD Board’s intention to adopt Bylaw No.1251-2012, which will authorise the Board to borrow up to $1,000,000 to perform capital upgrades to the Squamish District Pool, I hereby indicate that the Board may not proceed with the bylaw unless it is approved by assent of the electors.
I understand that:
if the number of responses received is less than 10% of the number of electors of the area to which this approval process applies, approval of the electors is received; that if the number of responses received is greater than 10% of the number of electors of the area to which this approval process applies, the Board may not proceed in this matter without obtaining the assent of the electors by voting; The number of eligible electors has been determined at 12,731 and the number required to prevent the Board from proceeding in this manner has been set at 1,273; The deadline for receiving Elector Responses is July 16, 2012.
I certify that: I am a Canadian Citizen; As at July 16, 2012, I am, or will be: o 18 years of age or older; o A resident of British Columbia for at least 6 months immediately preceding that day o A resident of, or registered owner of, real property within the Squamish and District Community Pool Service Area (District of Squamish or Electoral Area D Specified Area for the Squamish and District Community Pool service) for at least 30 days immediately preceding that day; I am not otherwise disqualified by law from voting.
Signature of Elector:
Full Name of Elector
Residential Address of Elector:
And, if applicable, the address of the property for which you are eligible to register as a non-resident property elector (indicate your actual residential address above):
Completed Elector Response Forms will be received via mail or in person until 4:30 pm, July 16, 2012 at:
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Box 219, 1350 Aster Street Pemberton, BC V0N 2L0
Page 74 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
OPTION 2
SQUAMISH-LILLOOET REGIONAL DISTRICT
By-law No. 1251-2012
A bylaw to authorize the borrowing of $1,000,000.00 for capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool.
WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District has established, by Bylaw No.438 - 1976, a service for the purpose of providing a Community Swimming Pool for the District of Squamish and a portion of Electoral Area D;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable and expedient to perform capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool;
AND WHEREAS the estimated cost of the capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Service Area, including expenses incidental thereto, is the sum of $1,000,000.00 which is the amount of debt created by this bylaw;
AND WHEREAS the maximum term for which a debenture may be issued to secure the debt created by this bylaw is for a term not to exceed 25 years;
AND WHEREAS the authority to borrow under this bylaw expires five years from the date on which this bylaw is adopted;
AND WHEREAS the Regional Board has received participating area approval of the service by assent of the electors in accordance with section 801.3 of the Local Government Act [approval by alternative approval process] and section 86 of the Community Charter and pursuant to section 801.4 of the Local Government Act [consent on behalf of municipal participating area] the Council of the District of Squamish has consented, by resolution, to the adoption of this bylaw;
NOW THEREFORE, the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District in open meeting assembled enacts as follows:
1. The Regional Board is hereby empowered and authorized to perform capital improvements to the Squamish and District Community Pool and to do all things necessary in connection therewith and without limiting the generality of the foregoing:
a) To borrow upon the credit of the Regional District a sum not exceeding $1,000,000.00;
2. The maximum term for which debentures may be issued to secure the debt created by this bylaw is 25 years.
3. This bylaw may be cited as “Squamish and District Community Swimming Pool Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 1251-2012”.
READ A FIRST TIME this th day of , 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this th day of , 2012.
Page 75 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
OPTION 2
READ A THIRD TIME this th day of , 2012.
RECEIVED the approval of the Inspector of Municipalities this th day of , 2012.
ASSENT OF THE ELECTORS within the Squamish and District Community Pool Service Specified Area of Electoral Area D obtained this ______day of , 2012.
Consent of the Council of the District of Squamish obtained this _____ day of , 2012.
ADOPTED this ____ day of , 2012.
______Susan Gimse Peter DeJong Chair Secretary
Page 76 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Box 219, 1350 Aster Street,
Pemberton, BC V0N 2L0
Ph. 604-894-6371, 800-298-7753 F: 604-894-6526 [email protected] www.slrd.bc.ca
Notice of Alternative Approval Process – OPTION 2
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given in accordance with Section 801.3 of the Local Government Act and Sections 86 and 94 of the Community Charter, that the Squamish Lillooet Regional District (SLRD) has proposed the following By-law: Squamish and District Community Pool Loan Authorization Bylaw No.1251-2012.
The purpose of this bylaw is to authorize the borrowing of up to $1,000,000 for capital upgrades to the pool, including an Aquatic Deck Air Unit (HVAC) and pool boilers.
Repayment of the borrowed funds is intended to be spread out over 25 years, the cost of which is to be borne by the taxable properties within the District of Squamish and Electoral Area D Specified Area for the Squamish Pool service. The estimated tax requisition for this purpose is 0.01607/$1,000 of assessed value per year.
The deadline for elector responses in relation to this Approval Process shall be July 16th, 2012. The SLRD Board may proceed with this matter unless, by the deadline, at least 10% of the eligible electors of the Electoral Area D specified service area indicate that the Board must obtain the assent of the electors before proceeding. In order to vote, the person must be: registered to vote on or before July 16th 2012, 18 years or older, a Canadian citizen, a resident of BC for at least 6 months, a resident of the Electoral Area D specified area of the Squamish District Pool service for at least 30 days. must not be otherwise disqualified by law from voting.
A person must not sign more than one elector response form in relation to the same Alternative Approval Process. The number of eligible electors has been determined at 644 and the number of elector responses required to prevent the Board from proceeding without the further assent of electors has been determined at 64.
Elector responses must be given in the form established by the Board and are available online at www.slrd.bc.ca and at the offices of the SLRD. Forms will be provided by the SLRD to any eligible elector and any persons wishing to receive an Elector Response Form may contact the SLRD as follows:
a. by telephone: 604-894-6371 or 1-800-298-7753; b. by email: [email protected]; c. by mail: PO Box 219, Pemberton, BC, V0N 2L0 d. in person: 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC.
The only persons eligible to sign the Elector Response Forms are the electors, as defined above, as described in section 161(1)(a) of the Local Government Act, of the participating area to which the approval process applies. Copies of the proposed loan authorization bylaw and related documents are available for public inspection any business day from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
Page 77 of 343 Request for Decision - Bylaw No.1251-2012 - Squamish & D...
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Elector Response Form Alternative Approval Process
Squamish and District Community Pool Loan Authorization Bylaw No.1251-2012 – OPTION 2
With respect to the SLRD Board’s intention to adopt Bylaw No.1251-2012, which will authorise the Board to borrow up to $1,000,000 to perform capital upgrades to the Squamish District Pool, I hereby indicate that the Board may not proceed with the bylaw unless it is approved by assent of the electors.
I understand that: if the number of responses received is less than 10% of the number of electors of the area to which this approval process applies, approval of the electors is received; that if the number of responses received is greater than 10% of the number of electors of the area to which this approval process applies, the Board may not proceed in this matter without obtaining the assent of the electors by voting; The number of eligible electors has been determined at 644 and the number required to prevent the Board from proceeding in this manner has been set at 64; The deadline for receiving Elector Responses is July 16, 2012.
I certify that: I am a Canadian Citizen; As at July 16, 2012, I am, or will be: o 18 years of age or older; o A resident of British Columbia for at least 6 months immediately preceding that day o A resident of, or registered owner of, real property within the Electoral Area D Specified Service Area for the Squamish and District Community Pool service for at least 30 days immediately preceding that day; I am not otherwise disqualified by law from voting.
Signature of Elector:
Full Name of Elector
Residential Address of Elector:
And, if applicable, the address of the property for which you are eligible to register as a non-resident property elector (indicate your actual residential address above):
Completed Elector Response Forms will be received via mail or in person until 4:30 pm, July 16, 2012 at:
Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Box 219, 1350 Aster Street Pemberton, BC V0N 2L0
Page 78 of 343 Request for Decision - Amendment Bylaw 1248-2012 - Chang...
REQUEST FOR DECISION Amendment Bylaw 1248-2012 Changes to clarify FSR calculations and definitions Britannia Beach, Area D
Meeting Date: May 28, 2012
Recommendation:
1. THAT the bylaw cited as ‘Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw 540-1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 1248-2012’ be given third reading; 2. THAT pursuant to s. 52 of the Highway Act, Bylaw 1248 be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for Ministerial approval.
Report/Document: Attached X Available __ Nil __
Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined: Bylaw 1248 proposes a few minor changes to establish a limit on how much the maximum floor space ratio can be reduced on the few large lots in Area 1 of the Area D Zoning Bylaw. The changes also provide a more clear definition of “basement”.
Relevant Policy: The proposed amendments are consistent with the Area D OCP Bylaw 495.
Strategic Relevance: n/a
Desired Outcome(s): Greater clarity for staff and the public in the Area D Zoning Bylaw, and a means of establishing a maximum FSR that does not unduly penalize some larger properties in Area 1 (Britannia Beach).
Response Options: 1. Give the bylaw third reading and forward to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure for approval pursuant to Section 52 of the Highway Act; 2. Do not give the bylaw third reading; 3. Defer giving readings to the bylaw and refer back to staff to address concerns.
Preferred Strategy: Option 1
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION:
General: If adopted, the bylaw will be more clear and concise, and will increase the permitted FSR and parcel coverage on three lots in Area 1 that are large, but that have other constraints on them that limit the buildable area.
Financial: None
Legal: The proposed amendments are consistent with the OCP Bylaw 495, thus the public hearing was waived, pursuant to S. 890 of the Local Government Act.
Follow Up Action: Consolidate Bylaw 540 as per Bylaw 1248-2012.
Submitted by: T. Napier, Planner Endorsed by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Reviewed by: L. Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 79 of 343 Request for Decision - Amendment Bylaw 1248-2012 - Chang...
BACKGROUND REPORT
Amendment Bylaw 1248-2012 Changes to clarify FSR Calculations and Definitions
Britannia Beach, Area D
Date of meeting: May 28, 2012
Issue Introduction The Board gave second reading to Bylaw 1248 on March 26, 2012. Bylaw 1248 proposes to amend the Area D Zoning Bylaw 540 by clarifying Floor Space Ratio calculations, and providing a clearer definition of basement.
Following second reading, the bylaw was referred to several agencies for comments. As a result of that process three responses were received, and all of them indicated that their interests are unaffected by the proposed bylaw. No concerns were raised.
At this time staff present the bylaw for third reading, and request that it be forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for Ministerial approval, pursuant to Section 52 of the Highway Act, which requires that bylaw amendments affecting land within 800m of an intersection of any highway with a controlled access highway be approved by the Minister.
History / Background
Over the last several years staff have identified a number of minor amendments that would provide clarity and correct small errors in the Area D Zoning Bylaw. Recently when an issue was identified with the SLRD’s method for calculating the maximum permitted Floor Space Ratio (FSR) on certain lots at Britannia Beach, staff took the opportunity to include in the amending bylaw a few ‘housekeeping’ amendments as well. All of the proposed amendments are described below.
Referrals
Following the Board giving Bylaw 1248 second reading on March 26, the bylaw was referred to the Squamish Nation, the Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, Ministry of Transportation and infrastructure, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, Resort Municipality of Whistler and District of Squamish.
Three responses were received, and all of the indicated that their interests are unaffected. No concerns have been raised.
Waiving of Public Hearing
The public hearing was waived pursuant to Section 890 of the Local Government Act, which states that a local government may waive a public hearing on a proposed bylaw if the proposed amendment is consistent with the OCP. In this case the proposed amendments are consistent with the Area D OCP Bylaw 495.
Page 80 of 343 Request for Decision - Amendment Bylaw 1248-2012 - Chang...
Options
1. Give the bylaw third reading, and forward to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for approval; 2. Do not give the bylaw third reading; 3. Defer giving readings to the bylaw and refer back to staff to address concerns.
Implications
The proposed amendment to impose a lower limit on the FSR for Area 1 provides a solution that impacts the fewest properties, and solves an issue for a lot on Rainbow Lane that has a very large easement area. In fact, the FSR amendment acknowledges the three properties that are very large, but that have small building areas because of other constraints, and helps establish a maximum floor area for buildings on those lots that is more consistent with adjacent properties.
The proposed amendments related to the definition of ‘basement’ and to Section 4.6 – Floor Area Calculations clarify how the SLRD determines if a floor is a basement, and eliminate the redundancy between the definition and the later section.
The term ‘basement’ is used in only one other section related to calculating the FSR in Porteau Cove, and this proposed amendment does not affect that section.
Page 81 of 343 Request for Decision - Amendment Bylaw 1248-2012 - Chang...
SQUAMISH LILLOOET REGIONAL DISTRICT Bylaw No. 1248-2012
A bylaw of the Squamish Lillooet Regional District to amend Squamish- Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw No. 540-1994.
The Board of Directors of the Squamish Lillooet Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:
1) This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the ‘Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw No. 540-1994, Amendment Bylaw No. 1248-2012.
2) The Squamish Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Zoning Bylaw No. 540-1994, is hereby amended as follows:
(a) The definition of “Basement” is deleted and replaced with the following:
BASEMENT means that portion of a building between two floors, the lower of which is at least 1.2m below the lower of the average natural grade or the average finished grade, but does not include a crawlspace;
(b) The numbers under Section 4.6 immediately following the words “and shall exclude” are renumbered from 1, 2, 3 to 3, 4, 5
(c) In the newly numbered Section 4.6.4 the text following “basements” is deleted;
(d) The number under Section 4.7 immediately following the words “and shall exclude” is renumbered from 1 to 5;
(e) By deleting paragraph (b) under Section 8.1.6 Parcel Coverage and Floor Space Ratio Subsection (1) Area 1 and replacing it with the following:
(b) For parcels greater than 400m2, Floor Space Ratio shall decrease by 0.01 for every additional 50m2 of parcel area, or portion thereof.
(c) Notwithstanding Subsection (b) above, no parcel shall have a Floor Space Ratio of less than 0.20.
READ A FIRST TIME this 26th day of March 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this 26th day of March 2012.
PUBLIC HEARING waived pursuant to Section 890(4) of the Local Government Act this 26th day of March 2012.
READ A THIRD TIME this day of 2012.
APPROVED BY THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION this day of 2012
ADOPTED this day of 2012.
Susan Gimse Peter DeJong Chair Secretary
Page 82 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
REQUEST FOR DECISION Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-2012 Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1245-2012
Meeting Date: May 28, 2012
Recommendation: 1. THAT Bylaw 1247, cited as “Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-2012” be introduced and read a first, second, and third time. 2. THAT Bylaw 1247 be adopted. 3. THAT Bylaw 1245, cited as “Fee Bylaw No. 1101, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1245-2012” be introduced and read a first, second, and third time. 4. THAT Bylaw 1245 be adopted.
Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined: As the occurrence of large special events being held in the Regional District appears to be increasing, especially in Electoral Areas C & D, the SLRD would like to replace the Control of Special Events Bylaw No. 17, 1970. The updated special events bylaw is intended to address several issues that have been raised including adjusting the threshold to encompass large events that are under 500 people but are still composed of several hundred participants. For the new special events bylaw, rather than a single participant threshold, a three category system (Class I, II, and III) is proposed similar to examples from other jurisdictions. A fee structure is also established for each class, as well as revised provisions addressing the requirements for each class of permit. With the establishment of a fee structure, an amendment to Fee Bylaw No. 1101, 2008 is necessary.
Relevant Policy: Control of Special Events Bylaw No. 17, 1970
Desired Outcome(s): Land use management that is consistent with SLRD policy.
Response Options: 1. Give the bylaws first, second, and third readings, and adopt the bylaws. 2. Defer readings of the bylaws and refer back to staff to address concerns. Preferred Strategy: Option 1
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION:
General: The establishment of class sizes for special events will affect a broader array of events starting from a level of three hundred participants and up.
Financial: An amendment to a fee bylaw is required to establish an application fee structure to address a portion of the costs associated with the processing of applications. There will be costs associated with any enforcement actions, e.g. obtaining a court injunction, which in some cases could be significant.
Legal: This will depend on the nature and extent of enforcement actions that the Board is willing to pursue.
Other Comments: None
Submitted by: I. Holl, Planner Endorsed by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Reviewed by: L. Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 83 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
Background Report
Prepared by: Ian Holl, Planner Prepared For: SLRD Board of Directors Meeting, May 28, 2012
Subject: Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-2012 Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008, Amendment Bylaw No. 1245-2012
Issue Defined: The Control of Special Events Bylaw No. 17 was adopted in 1970. Since that time, there has been a rise in the number of large events occurring in the region as well as a lack of clear established procedures regarding application for, and issuance of, special events permits. It is now deemed advisable to replace the bylaw. The intent is to provide for adequate health, sanitation, and protective measures for people attending large events. Minor amendments to a fee bylaw and the Area D noise bylaw (to reflect this new Special Events Bylaw) will be required as well.
Background: Many of the original powers regarding regulation of special events comes from supplementary letters patent for the Regional District. There have been some updates through the Community Charter and Local Government Act, but much of it still resides in the letters patent. Legal advice was obtained in the development and refinement of this draft bylaw.
For example: Section 523 of the Local Government Act refers to the heath protection authority of a local government.
LGA s.523 (1) Subject to the Public Health Act, a board may, by bylaw, (a) regulate and prohibit for the purposes of maintaining, promoting or preserving public health or maintaining sanitary conditions, and (b) undertake any other measures it considers necessary for those purposes. (2) Section 9 [spheres of concurrent authority] of the Community Charter applies to a bylaw under subsection (1).
Originally, the threshold for triggering the special events bylaw was 1,000 participants. This was lowered to 500 in an amendment (Bylaw No. 81) in 1975. Since that time there has been no other amendment to the special events bylaw other than Bylaw No. 847-2003 that delegates authority from the Board to the CAO with respect to the approval of special event permits. The delegated authority is subject to the CAO consulting with the appropriate Electoral Area Director(s) for the area(s) in which the event is to be held.
Over the last five years or so there has been an apparent rise in the number of large (and in many cases annual) special events being held in the region. Not all events begin at a size that triggers the threshold therefore part of the proposed amendment is to address events smaller than 500 people, but without lowering the threshold so low that it would prevent family gatherings, weddings and similar small events. The proposed class system and levels are consistent with examples of similar bylaws from other regional districts.
The system as outlined in the bylaw is: “Class I Special Event” means a Special Event having an attendance of three hundred (300) or more people and less than five hundred (500) people.
“Class II Special Event” means a Special Event having an attendance of five hundred (500) or more people and less than one thousand (1,000) people.
“Class III Special Event” means a Special Event having an attendance of one thousand (1,000) or more people.
Page 84 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
The requirements of a special event permit have also been modified in accordance with the proposed class system where a Class I event has fewer requirements than a Class II or III event. The Board, and CAO, still have the discretion to add further conditions or consider other pertinent issues that may be identified regardless of the size of the event and the primary requirements acknowledged in the bylaw.
Options & Analysis:
Option 1 Give the bylaws first, second, and third readings, and adopt the bylaws.
Option 2 Defer readings of the bylaws and refer back to staff to address concerns.
Special Events Permit Issues:
Class Size By providing three classes of special event permits, the SLRD can address both the size issues as well as scaling the requirements of a permit to the scope, scale, and nature of the event. As the primary purpose of the bylaw is to address health and safety issues, the minimum requirements for a Class I permit are focused on obtaining approval from the appropriate Health Authority regarding the arrangements made for the event with respect to potable water and toilet facilities, for example. All classes of permits must follow the BC Wildfire Act and Regulations. With the Class II and III permits, minimum requirements are expanded to include signoff on the event plans from the appropriate Police authorities.
Fee structure It should be noted that the supplementary letters patent do not allow the Regional District to charge a fee for the permit application unless the applicant intends to charge a fee for the public to attend the special event. Establishing a nominal fee structure tied to the three classes of permit allows the SLRD to recoup a portion of the costs for processing a special event permit application, where possible. While the processing costs are not high, it is not unreasonable to establish a fee that is scaled to the size of the event as long as the public is being charged a fee to attend.
Security Updated security requirements have been included in this bylaw. A default amount has been set for each class of event. There is a subsequent provision that allows the Regional District to raise or lower the amount of security required. This could be considered if it is believed that the scope, scale, and nature of the event has an increased or decreased risk of damage to land and property. The Board and the CAO by delegation has the authority to exempt applicants from some or all of the requirements including the security, if it is deemed appropriate.
Public notification Another aspect that has been identified is some form of public consultation/notification process. The Local Government Act does not require a public process (e.g. neighbour notification, newspaper ads, public hearing, etc.) as part of this or any other special events permit bylaw. However, given that there can be issues arising from the occurrence of large events that might have been mitigated before the event took place, some form of notification could be considered. One method that is currently underused at the SLRD is the deployment of signs – notification signs for development activities, whether they are permits, bylaw amendments, etc.
The use of signs to notify neighbouring property owners to the special events permit application could be a simple and effective way to raise public awareness, which may help to identify issues and concerns as an application is being considered. It is not necessary to resolve this issue prior to adopting the bylaws, it is something that could be explored at a staff level in the future.
Page 85 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
Enforcement At this time there is no clear enforcement procedure or goals associated with the Control of Special Events Bylaw No. 17. The SLRD could pursue court action regarding a violation of an issued permit, or if an event holder failed to seek a permit before the event occurred. If the SLRD became aware of an event ahead of time that they believed would trigger the need for a permit, but no application had been received, enforcement actions could also be taken in that regard.
If there was the opportunity to seek voluntary compliance ahead of time it should be undertaken. For example, getting an event holder to submit an application for the necessary permit of which they were previously unaware, or believed did not apply to their event. If the SLRD becomes aware of a proposed event that may trigger the bylaw, or if someone has misrepresented the scale and nature of an event in an attempt to avoid the requirement of the permit, then actions would need to be taken. Seeking a voluntary resolution to the issue would be the first option, in keeping with typical bylaw enforcement actions for other types of infractions and types of bylaws.
It is important that the SLRD determine the extent to which they will seek to enforce the special events bylaw. As with other bylaw enforcement actions where legal remedies may be sought, the time and resources required to achieve an outcome may be high. The Regional District should be prepared to enforce any applicable bylaw otherwise there would be little point in establishing regulations that anyone could ignore without consequence. If there is no voluntary resolution available or if voluntary resolution proved to be unsuccessful, then criteria would need to be considered as to whether or not to proceed with legal action such as injunctions. Costs to enforce may be costly in some cases. In some instances, several bylaws may be contravened at the same time. If legal remedies are considered for contraventions to the special events bylaw (or zoning or other bylaws) then sufficient resources would need to be set aside.
Conclusion: The proposed replacement of the Control of Special Events Bylaw No. 17, 1970 with an updated bylaw and the amendment of Fee Bylaw No. 1101, 2008 will help to provide the SLRD with a more comprehensive approach to addressing special events permitting with the region.
Attachments: Proposed Bylaw No. 1247-2012 Proposed Amendment Bylaw No. 1245-2012
Page 86 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
SQUAMISH LILLOOET REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 1247-2012
A bylaw of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District to provide for the regulation of special events.
WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to provide adequate health, sanitation, vehicle control, and security for persons attending special events;
AND WHEREAS the Regional District may regulate a function, gathering, or entertainment;
AND WHEREAS the Regional District may impose a permit fee for any function, gathering, or entertainment;
AND WHEREAS the Regional District may require as a condition of issuance of such a permit, the posting of security by the owner, occupier, or the person or persons promoting the function, gathering, or entertainment in such form and amount as may be stipulated for the reimbursement of any costs incurred by the Regional District because of and as a consequence of the function, gathering, or entertainment;
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:
SECTION 1 APPLICATION
1.1 This bylaw applies to Special Events held in all the electoral areas of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District.
SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS
2.1 For the purpose of this bylaw, the following words or expressions are defined:
“Board” means the Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District.
“Class I Special Event” means a Special Event having an attendance of three hundred (300) or more people and less than five hundred (500) people, or any Special Event the Regional District expects will have an attendance of three hundred (300) or more people and less than five hundred (500) people.
“Class II Special Event” means a Special Event having an attendance of five hundred (500) or more people and less than one thousand (1,000) people, or any Special Event the Regional District expects will have an attendance of five hundred (500) or more people and less than one thousand (1,000) people.
“Class III Special Event” means a Special Event having an attendance of one thousand (1,000) or more people, or any Special Event the Regional District expects will have an attendance of one thousand (1,000) or more people.
“Medical Health Officer” means a person designated as a medical health officer under the Public Health Act, S.B.C. 2008, c. 28.
“Permit” means a permit issued by the Regional District.
“Permit Holder” means a person holding a permit issued by the Regional District.
Page 87 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
“Regional District” means the Squamish Lillooet Regional District
“Special Event” means any public show, exhibition, carnival, fair, concert, or commercial event or performance attended by more than 300 people or any public show, carnival, fair, concert, or commercial performance that might reasonably be expected to be attended by more than 300 people.
“Special Event Permit” means a permit granted by the Regional District pursuant to the provisions of this bylaw.
SECTION 3 GENERAL
3.1 If the Regional District has reason to believe that more than three hundred (300) people are expected to attend at any location with respect to a public show, exhibition, carnival, fair, concert, or commercial event or performance within the Regional District, the Regional District may give notice in writing to the promoter of the Special Event, and/or the owner or occupier of the lands upon which the event is to be held requesting them to apply for a permit to hold a such Special Event and to comply with the provisions of this bylaw.
SECTION 4 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
4.1 An application, in writing, for a permit to hold a Class I, II, or III Special Event shall be made to the Regional District office not less than Sixty (60) days before the first day on which such a Special Event is to be held. An application for a Class I, II, or III Special Event permit shall:
i) state the legal description of the property (or properties) at which the Special Event is to occur
ii) state the name, address and telephone number of the promoter of the Special Event and the name, address, and telephone number of the owner or occupier of the property (or properties) at which the Special Event is to take place
iii) the dates of the Special Event including setup and teardown
iv) the total number of expected spectators and participants including volunteers
v) include a sketch plan of the property showing the following: a) the location and use of existing structures b) the location and use of any temporary structures proposed for the Special Event including any temporary seating arrangements which may be proposed c) the location and size of parking areas d) the location, number and arrangement of washrooms and other sanitation facilities as part of a maintenance plan e) the location, size, and nature of garbage disposal, recycling, and composting containers as part of a solid waste and wastewater disposal plan f) the location, size, and nature of domestic water dispensing facilities g) the location of cooking facilities and other food and drink preparation, if such are proposed h) the location of any water body within 30 metres of the proposed site i) the location of First Aid sites as part of an emergency response plan j) where a Special Event is to occur on more than one property, a sketch plan showing a) to i) above is required for each property
Page 88 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
vi) be accompanied by a statement describing the proposed arrangements for the following: a) access and egress to and from the Special Events site(s) b) security and crowd control c) fire protection d) first aid e) water supply systems as defined by the Drinking Water Protection Act f) sanitary facilities g) garbage, recycling, wastewater, and organics collection and removal h) food premises including offsite storage of food and food related equipment, cold storage and ice trucks i) emergency medical facilities j) source of heat for cooking facilities (if any) k) power to support all of the above l) land disturbance, dust and sediment control m) noise issues
vii) if the applicant intends to charge a fee for the public to attend the Special Event, the application must be accompanied by a fee of: a) $100 for a Class I Special Event b) $200 for a Class II Special Event c) $300 for a Class III Special Event 1) plus $100 for every one thousand (1,000) participants or any part thereof between two thousand (2,000) participants and ten thousand (10,000) participants. 2) plus $200 for every one thousand (1,000) participants or any part thereof between ten thousand (10,000) participants and twenty thousand (20,000) participants. 3) plus $300 for every one thousand (1,000) participants or any part thereof over twenty thousand (20,000) participants.
4.2 All applications for a Class I, II, or III Special Event shall be accompanied by the following: i) written approval from the registered owner and occupier of the land(s) upon which the Special Event is to be held. ii) written confirmation from the Medical Health Officer responsible for the area in which the Special Event is to be held, that he or she is satisfied with arrangements relating to public health. iii) written undertaking by the applicant to indemnify and save harmless the Regional District and its directors, officers, servants, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors, and others from and against all costs, losses, damages, compensation, claims, demands, actions, judgments and expenses, including actual legal expenses of every kind, description and nature whatsoever, in any way connected with or arising from the Special Event, in whole or in part, including but not limited to, any death or injury to persons or property loss or damage resulting from any acts or omissions of the Permit Holder, its directors, officers, servants, agents, employees, contractors, subcontractors and others, or that would not have occurred but for the use or occupation of the property by the Permit Holder.
4.3 In addition to the requirements of Section 4.1 and 4.2, applications for Class II and III Special Events shall be accompanied by the following: i) written confirmation from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officer or designate in charge of the area(s) in which the Special Event is to be held, stating that they are satisfied with arrangements relating to public order and security. ii) written confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure stating that they are satisfied with arrangements relating to access to the Special Events site(s).
Page 89 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
iii) if access will be from a forest service road, then written confirmation from the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations stating that they are satisfied with arrangements relating to access to the Special Events site(s).
SECTION 5 SECURITY
5.1 The Regional District will require as a condition of granting a Class I, II, or III Special Event Permit, the posting of a security by the owner or occupier of the premises, or by the person or persons holding the Special Event.
5.2 An application must be accompanied by a security deposit in the form of a standby irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of: i) $5,000.00 for a Class I Special Event ii) $10,000.00 for a Class II Special Event iii) $30,000.00 for a Class III Special Event.
5.3 The Regional District may set a higher or lower amount for the security required in subsection 5.2 if the Regional District believes that the scope, scale, and nature of the proposed Special Event creates an increased or decreased risk of damage to land and property.
5.4 The Regional District will hold any security deposit for a maximum of 90 days following the conclusion of the Special Event, at which time the Regional District shall return the security or such portion of the security not returned under subsection 5.5.
5.5 If, in the opinion of Regional District, the Special Event causes damage or results in the Regional District incurring financial costs and expenses for the cleanup, repair, reconstruction or replacement of any public place or Regional District property which is not remedied immediately upon demand, the Regional District may from time to time draw down on the security posted to the extent of any cost incurred or expected to be incurred by the Regional District in connection with the cleanup, repair, reconstruction, or replacement.
5.6 For the purposes of Section 5, damage caused by the Special Event includes damage caused by a participant or spectator at the Special Event.
SECTION 6 INSURANCE
6.1 As a condition of granting a Special Events Permit, the Regional District will require proof of insurance to cover the agreement to indemnify and save harmless the Regional District, as follows: i) Commercial General Liability of $2,000,000 minimum per occurrence in Canadian funds ii) the document must include a cross liability clause iii) the following must be “named insured” included in the coverage: Squamish-Lillooet Regional District iv) 30 days prior written notice of cancellation or material change.
6.2 If the Regional District believes the nature of the proposed Special Event creates an increased risk of injury to participants or spectators, or an increased risk of damage to property, the Regional District may require the applicant to provide additional insurance coverage.
Page 90 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
SECTION 7 COSTS, FEES AND EXPENSES
7.1 All costs and expenses incurred in meeting the requirements of this bylaw shall be borne by the applicant.
SECTION 8 POWERS OF THE REGIONAL DISTRICT
8.1 Where the Regional District considers that because of the nature of the proposed Special Event, including but not limited to, considerations as to the: i) small number of participants; ii) small number of spectators; iii) minimal need for traffic control, crowd control, security or parking; iv) minimal need for emergency services and personnel; v) few anticipated community impacts; vi) proposed dates and times of the Special Event; or vii) proposed route and use of public places.
An applicant may be exempted from providing some or all of the information and materials prescribed in Sections 4, 5, or 6 of the bylaw.
8.2 The Regional District may impose one or more of the following conditions as part of the Permit: i) the permitted venue(s) and/or route(s) of the Special Event ii) the permitted dates and times of the Special Event iii) the maximum permitted number of participants iv) the procedures required to be in place to address access and egress to and from the Special Event for participants, spectators, event personnel, and emergency medical, police, and fire vehicles, equipment and personnel v) the number and qualifications of emergency medical personnel and equipment that must be available during the Special Event vi) the number and qualifications of traffic control and security personnel and equipment that must be available during the Special Event vii) the procedures required to be in place to address traffic control, traffic direction and safety concerns viii) the procedures required to be in place to address crowd control and security concerns ix) such reasonable terms and conditions as are, in the opinion of the Regional District, reasonably necessary to protect the safety, health, welfare and property of the participants and spectators of the Special Event and the general public.
8.3 The Regional District upon being satisfied with compliance of the provisions of this bylaw may issue a Special Event Permit for the holding of a Special Event.
8.4 The Board delegates to the Chief Administrative Officer of the Regional District the authority to approve, exempt, and revoke on behalf of the Regional District, applications for Special Event Permits under this bylaw. When exercising this duty, the Chief Administrative Officer must consult with the appropriate Electoral Area Director(s) for the area(s) in which the proposed Special Event is to be held before reaching a decision.
Page 91 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
8.5 The Regional District may refuse to issue a Special Event Permit if: i) the applicant has not submitted all the information and the letters required in Sections 4, 5, and 6 ii) the applicant has submitted false or misleading information iii) the issuance is prohibited by, or contrary to, another bylaw, act, or regulation iv) the applicant is not in compliance with all the provisions of this bylaw.
8.6 Where the Regional District considers that in the holding of the Special Event, the applicant is unlikely to be able to meet the conditions of the bylaw or the conditions of a Special Event Permit, the Regional District may revoke the Special Event Permit.
SECTION 9 INSPECTIONS
9.1 Bylaw enforcement officers and members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are hereby authorized to enter, at all reasonable times, on any property subject to this bylaw, to ascertain whether this bylaw is being observed.
SECTION 10 PENALTIES
10.1 Any person who commits an offense contrary to this bylaw is liable upon summary conviction to a penalty of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per day in addition to the costs of prosecution.
10.2 Each day a violation is caused or allowed to continue constitutes a separate offense under this bylaw.
SECTION 11 PROHIBITIONS
11.1 Every person commits an offense contrary to the provisions of this bylaw who: i) organizes or holds a Special Event, unless the Regional District has issued a valid Special Event Permit for such an event ii) obstructs the entry of any person or persons charged with the administration or enforcement of this bylaw iii) allows a Special Event to take place contrary to the terms of a valid Special Event Permit or other written approval issued pursuant to this bylaw.
SECTION 12 SEVERABILITY
12.1 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase in this bylaw is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, the decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the bylaw.
SECTION 13 REPEAL
13.1 Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Control of Special Events Bylaw No. 17, 1970, and Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Special Events Permit Approval Delegation Bylaw No. 847-2003 are repealed and replaced by this bylaw.
SECTION 14 CITATION
14.1 This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the ‘Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-2012.’
Page 92 of 343 Request for Decision - Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-201...
READ A FIRST TIME this day of , 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this day of , 2012.
READ A THIRD TIME this day of , 2012.
ADOPTED this day of , 2012.
______Susan Gimse Peter DeJong Chair Secretary
Page 93 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
REQUEST FOR DIRECTION
Noise Bylaws
Meeting Date: May 28, 2012
1. THAT Bylaw 1236, cited as “SLRD, Electoral Area D Noise Regulation Bylaw No. 1234-2011, Amendment Bylaw No. 1236-2012” be introduced and read a first, second, and third time.
2. THAT Bylaw 1236 be adopted.
Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined: This report deals with the topic of noise bylaws. While a noise bylaw does provide some tools to address noise related matters, the establishment of a noise bylaw should not be considered as a full remedy. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with such regulation and every jurisdiction encounters challenges enforcing this type of bylaw. Noise bylaws can provide some additional options in dealing with noise issues, but can be difficult to enforce, and tend to only respond to the symptoms and not the causes. Best practices associated with government regulation would suggest that before intervening in relation to a specific issue, there should be: clear evidence that an issue exists, taking into account the views of those who are affected; an analysis of the likely benefits and costs of action and non-action; and consideration of alternative approaches for addressing the problem. It should be noted that in areas where there is a noise bylaw, such as in Electoral Area D, events that have been issued a valid special event permit are exempted from the noise bylaw.
Relevant Policy: Electoral Area D Noise Control Bylaw No. 1234-2011. While other electoral areas are looking at it, no other areas within the SLRD have noise bylaws established at this time.
Desired Outcome(s): Land use management that is consistent with SLRD policy.
Response Options: Option 1: Do not establish any additional noise bylaws in the SLRD at this time.
Option 2: Do not establish any additional noise bylaws in the SLRD at this time. Amend the Area D noise bylaw to fix inconsistencies and conduct a review of the effectiveness of the Area D noise bylaw after it has been in operation for a year to determine how it has functioned during that time, and whether any changes are required to make it more effective and enforceable.
Option 3: Consider establishing noise bylaws in other electoral areas. These bylaws would need to apply to an entire electoral area in order to be fair. A service establishment bylaw must be enacted first before the noise bylaw regulations could be created.
Preferred Strategy: Option 2
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION:
General: The Area D noise bylaw requires some minor corrections - mainly typographical errors and some slight wording changes. If the proposed Special Events Bylaw No. 1247-2012 is adopted then an additional correction to the special events exemption provision will also be required in the Area D noise bylaw. In Q4 2012 a review of the Area D noise bylaw could be undertaken to ascertain how it has functioned since its inception, and whether any changes are required with respect to effectiveness or enforceability.
Page 94 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
Other Comments: None
Submitted by: I. Holl, Planner Endorsed by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Reviewed by: L. Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 95 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
Background Report
Prepared by: Ian Holl, Planner Prepared For: SLRD Board of Directors Meeting, May 28, 2012
Subject: Bylaw Enforcement & Noise Bylaws
Issue Defined: The report addresses pros and cons of establishing noise bylaws.
Policy: Electoral Area D Noise Control Bylaw No. 1234, 2011 No other Electoral Areas have noise bylaws at this time.
Background:
Noise Bylaws Planning staff have contacted six local governments (one municipality and five regional districts) as part of an investigation into noise bylaws and their operation in other jurisdictions. Only one member municipality was contacted as the challenges facing regional districts may be different than for municipalities. With the exception of one of the regional districts, the other five local governments all have some kind of ticketing system as part of their bylaw enforcement function. All agree that noise bylaws of any kind are difficult to enforce regardless of the systems in place and the resources available. Based on a legal perspective that was sought, the establishment, operation and enforcement of a noise bylaw can be difficult, which can reduce the general effectiveness of the regulation as well. This perspective also informs the use of decibel readers, which do not necessarily provide a suitable tool for enforcement, as the reader measures noise levels that may not translate into an accurate measure of real or perceived effects on people.
Municipal Ticket Information (MTI) was introduced in 1989 at the provincial level in order to provide a simplified approach to the enforcement and prosecution of minor local government bylaw infractions. The MTI system allows both the enforcement officer and the alleged offender to avoid appearing in court in terms of issuing the ticket and admitting to the offence and paying the penalty. A comprehensive bylaw must be adopted to enact this system in a local government. If a ticket was disputed it would end up in a Provincial Court to resolve the matter.
Regional District of East Kootenay (RDEK) No ticketing system, if a complaint is received then a letter is sent. Would seek an injunction if necessary but they do not actively pursue court action.
Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) Use an MTIS (municipal ticketing information system) RCMP can enforce and issue tickets – e.g. nighttime noise (after 10pm) Construction noise – may monitor after the fact i.e. if a complaint states that operations were started at 6am (outside bylaw timeframe) then bylaw enforcement officer may visit the site at that time to confirm the report – if verified then the offender would be notified and informed of rules. Do not measure decibels (not for the last nine years). For dog barking – would require complainants to submit a log of barking incidents. Focus is education first then enforcement.
Page 96 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) Use an MTIS, but are currently piloting a new system BEN (Bylaw Enforcement Notice) – pilot project does not include noise bylaw at this time BEN system has greater functionality than MTIS – is recommended by SCRD – it can facilitate mailing of tickets either manually or, with additional software, automatically. RCMP can respond and issue tickets. Two complainants are required as well as evidence – logs of incidents. The bylaw enforcement procedure is to send a series of three letters/notices (1st, 2nd, 3rd) – after the 3rd notice with no response the offender would be ticketed.
Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) One bylaw for all electoral areas – from the 1980s – CVRD is currently reviewing it and may incorporate new aspects. They have purchased a decibel reader, but it is not a requirement of the current bylaw and they may or may not incorporate quantitative measures into a new bylaw. The use of decibel readers was flagged as a potential issue in that relying on a set level in a bylaw as the indicator of disturbance may not be effective – noise could be disturbing (or perceived as such) at levels outside what the meter is measuring. They have had a ticketing system since 2009, there is a long process before issuing a ticket. They note that even if a bylaw enforcement officer is witness to a disturbance i.e. onsite and hears the noise, the officer cannot determine if the noise is disturbing, only the neighbours can make that determination.
Cariboo Regional District Adopted a Bylaw Notice & Adjudication System along with their ticketing system. Referred to Local Government Toolkit (2005) Bylaw Dispute Adjudication System – was piloted originally in the North Shore – adjudication costs may be shared by local governments if they adopt the same approach. The adjudication system mentioned above is an attempt by the Province to create a simplified, cost effective, and fairer system for dealing with minor bylaw infractions. This model eliminates some requirements that were part of the previous approach (MTI system). If applied, it can replace the Provincial Court as a venue for resolving disputes of minor local government bylaw breaches. Local governments would need to request that the Ministry of Attorney General enact a regulation to make the Local Government Bylaw Notice Enforcement Act apply to them. RCMP can enforce and issue tickets for parties. BNAP approach similar to BEN system noted by SCRD – allows mailout of notices/tickets. Have complainants record logs of dog barking incidents as evidence.
Analysis: While the jurisdictions that use ticketing systems find them to be an acceptable means of bylaw enforcement management, the jurisdictions that do not use such a system do not consider themselves lacking. All jurisdictions interviewed seek voluntary compliance first including sending warning letters/notices, and then following up with additional letters if warranted before issuing tickets, if that ability is available. At this time there does not appear to be a demonstrated need for a ticketing system and a heavily resourced bylaw enforcement function within the SLRD. With the exception of the Building Inspection issues, bylaw enforcement issues are relatively few in number on an annual basis.
The Village of Pemberton has recently been reviewing their noise bylaw with the intention of adopting a revised version in the next month or two. That bylaw introduces two new aspects, one regarding the establishment of general quiet hours, and the other to define “unreasonably loud and excessive noise”.
Page 97 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
The Area D Noise Bylaw No. 1234-2011 does include a similar general provision regarding creation of noise, but does not establish a timeframe for quiet hours. The Area D bylaw does not define noise in any fashion. A noise bylaw for any electoral area may also need to consider issues such as agricultural activities and operations to avoid adversely affecting normal farm practices.
With respect to best practices for regulatory approaches, a description of the nature, frequency, magnitude, and impact of the issue is generally undertaken. Regarding noise issues: How are people being affected? How often are incidents occurring and where? Are there particular times when this is most problematic?
Several key points should be noted: A resource intensive bylaw enforcement system, such as an MTI system would consume significant staff time, detracting from other key functions such as providing land use information and conducting day to day planning activities. The regional district sees only a few violations each year that seem to be amplified by neighbour to neighbour disharmony. The violations of planning bylaws and other regulations may not have negative economic effects on the SLRD. The introduction of an intensive bylaw enforcement system, software, and personnel to remedy the situation may not be justified in light of the lack of significant impacts. There would need to be sufficient resources made available in order to pursue court actions related to further noise bylaws. These costs would be at the expense of other SLRD services.
Enforcing noise bylaws in any jurisdiction is a challenging procedure, and requires significant resources to investigate and pursue even basic enforcement actions although seeking voluntary compliance is always the first required step. As well, pursuing enforcement of a noise bylaw to the level of legal resolution may not yield a satisfactory result. Seeking a court injunction, if successful, may not shut down an offending operation, but it might cause an operator to change some aspect of their activities. However, this is something that could potentially be achieved through voluntary compliance without the expense and time of court action. If an operator was issued with a court order, but did not follow it then they would be in contempt of court. It should be noted that neither an injunction nor being held in contempt of court could actually close down an operation or business completely; it would only ‘shut down’ the noise potentially. So at best a legal remedy could cause the owner to change some part of their operation, however, as stated previously this could potentially be done voluntarily.
Pros –Noise Bylaws Provides a tool for the regional district to address noise issues. Provides local government regulatory support to an RCMP response. RCMP officers can refer to the requirements of the bylaw when responding to calls. Noise bylaw provides a middle ground for RCMP response as opposed to relying on Criminal Code. Provides the ability to pursue court action that could yield a change in behaviour, if seeking voluntary compliance was unsuccessful.
Cons –Noise Bylaws Noise issues would be dealt with after the fact, while there are some preventative aspects to such bylaws, they do not prevent noise. Without a Municipal Ticket Information System or similar system the RCMP response is less effective even with a noise bylaw since there is no immediate enforcement mechanism available. Voluntary compliance must be sought first before pursuing court action. This is not necessarily a con since it could yield positive results, but it adds to the time required in an enforcement process before court action could proceed. Noise meters are not the main tool for enforcement as they are not an effective means to assess the effects of the disturbance. Noise meters do not show the real impact on people, and so evidence must be provided by neighbour complaints.
Page 98 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
Evidence must be based on detailed neighbour complaints, and the question that arises is whether the complainants are acting reasonably and the violators acting unreasonably. Court action can have both a high monetary and time cost. Resolution of an infraction may not occur until many months after the violation occurred. Even if court action is successful, an offending event/operation would only its behaviour modified; it would not be shut down. Court action is a resource and time intensive process and may not provide a satisfactory resolution. It potentially provides few immediate benefits, while imposing certain immediate costs. The longer timeframe for completing legal action along with rising costs could dampen the initial benefits and perhaps degrade any long term benefits received even if a resolution was successful. The most effective conflict resolution approach would probably not include litigation. This should not automatically preclude court action, as it could be determined that it is warranted, and other approaches have failed to generate the appropriate behaviour change. Given the lack of a dedicated Bylaw Enforcement department within the SLRD, further noise bylaws would place a larger workload on existing staff. While a bylaw enforcement workload is not necessarily continuous throughout the year, it can escalate and interfere with other responsibilities. A noise bylaw must be applied across an entire electoral area (they cannot apply only to small portions of an electoral area without potentially being perceived as targeting a particular area or property). Therefore, they are a broad instrument for addressing specific noise issues. There are a significant number of residents who are not in favour of noise bylaws as they can inhibit various rural activities if not very specific in context. The SLRD has received a number of complaints about the existence of the Area D noise bylaw. In this way, noise bylaws themselves can generate as many complaints as the noise complaints that they were intended to address.
The choice of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches is not an either or decision, as both could be employed in a complementary fashion. Regulatory approaches would primarily be based on one or more bylaws. If the noise issue has been clearly defined and it is apparent that local government action is warranted decisions around the suitable mix of regulatory or non-regulatory approaches arises. In the case of noise issues, a regulatory approach would require a service establishment bylaw and its attendant regulatory bylaw. Enforcement actions would typically be predicated on written complaints and would proceed initially with voluntary compliance before pursuing legal action. However, before taking a regulatory path, are there other options that could be explored to achieve the desired outcomes? If there are certain types of activities, businesses, etc. that are contributing to the noise issue then are there opportunities to employ non-regulatory measures such as public education, dialogue, self-regulation, and voluntary codes or agreements?
Non-regulatory approaches are not necessarily limited to solely those mentioned above, but they are worth exploring further. Through monitoring of potential issues one could adopt a method to collect and report relevant data for a set time period so as to assist with defining the scope and scale of the issues and possible consequences. Informal dialogue could be used as an approach to raise awareness among people or organizations that may be unaware that their actions or inactions are negatively affecting others. There are many options for dispute resolution that lie outside of government intervention. Given that voluntary compliance is typically a prior step before seeking legal remedies, the employment of public education, or even a social marketing campaign could assist in that objective by providing residents and businesses with reliable and timely information and other materials to achieve the desired outcomes.
One sample tool to assist with the initial evaluation of regulatory and non-regulatory approaches is the table outlined on the following page. It is adapted from the Regulatory Best Practices Guide from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal, and Women’s Services (2004):
Page 99 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
Criteria Definitely Definitely Probably Maybe Unlikely Definitely Not
There would be immediate benefits to the community as a whole
There would be immediate benefits to individuals
There would be immediate benefits to the business community
There would be immediate benefits to interest groups
There would be long term benefits to the community as a whole
There would be long term benefits to individuals
There would be long term benefits to the business community
There would be long term benefits to interest groups
There would be financial benefits to the local government (e.g. increased taxes, fees) There would be financial costs to the local government (e.g. enforcement, administration) There would be financial costs for law enforcement (e.g. police, prosecutions)
There would be financial costs to individuals
There would be financial costs to the business community
There would be financial costs to interest groups
Options
Option 1 Do not establish any additional noise bylaws in the SLRD at this time.
Option 2 Do not establish any additional noise bylaws in the SLRD at this time. Amend the Area D noise bylaw to fix inconsistencies and conduct a review of the effectiveness of the Area D noise bylaw after it has been in operation for a year to determine how it has functioned during that time, and whether any changes are required to make it more effective and enforceable.
Option 3 Consider establishing noise bylaws in other electoral areas. These bylaws would need to apply to an entire electoral area in order to be fair. A service establishment bylaw must be enacted first before the noise bylaw regulations could be created.
Conclusion: While concerns regarding noise issues have been raised every so often, a comprehensive description of the nature, frequency, magnitude, and impact of these issues has not been undertaken. It appears evident that while a noise bylaw is a potential regulatory tool, it is one that has some challenges. The resources, time, and costs involved with enforcing a noise bylaw may be significant and may outweigh many of the benefits that might be accrued in certain circumstances. The probability of a successful and satisfactory outcome from a legal remedy cannot be quantified and may, in certain cases, exceed the cost and effort required to complete the process.
Page 100 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
______
Squamish Lillooet Regional District Bylaw No. 1236-2012 A Bylaw to Amend SLRD, Electoral Area D Noise Regulation Bylaw No.1234-2011 ______
WHEREAS the Squamish Lillooet Regional District has established a Nuisance and Disturbances Regulatory Control Service for Electoral Area D, Bylaw No. 954, 2005;
AND WHEREAS the Squamish Lillooet Regional District has established SLRD Electoral Area D Noise Regulation Bylaw No.1234-2011, in order to regulate noise pursuant to Section 797.1(1)(d) of the Local Government Act;
NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Squamish Lillooet Regional District in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:
Amendment of Electoral Area D Noise Regulation Bylaw No.1234-2011
1. Subsection 1 of section 3 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefore as subsection 1 of section 3:
3. GENERAL PROHIBITIONS
1. No person shall make, cause to be made, or continue to make any noise or sound in Electoral Area D, which unduly disturbs the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of the neighbourhood or of reasonable persons at or near the source of such noise or sound.
2. Section 4 is hereby amended by deleting the introductory clause in its entirety and substituting the following introductory clause:
4. SPECIFIC PROHIBITIONS
Without limiting the generality of the prohibitions contained in Section 3, no person shall cause or permit:
3. Subsection 3 of section 4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefore as subsection 3 of section 4:
3. any noise or vibration made by the operation of machinery or equipment which disturbs the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays and between the hours of 10:00 pm and 8:00 am on weekends and holidays;
4. Subsection 4 of section 4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following substituted therefore as subsection 4 of section 4:
Page 101 of 343 Request for Direction - Bylaw 1236 - SLRD, Electoral Are...
4. any noise or vibration made in the construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or demolition of any building, structure or thing, including the excavation or filling of land which disturbs the quiet, peace, rest, enjoyment, comfort or convenience of individuals or the public between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays and between the hours of 10:00 pm and 8:00 am on weekends and holidays.
5. Subsection 7 of section 5 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
7. A special event, where a permit under the Special Events Bylaw No. 1247- 2012 as amended from time to time, has been issued.
6. This bylaw may be cited as “SLRD, Electoral Area D Noise Regulation Bylaw No.1234- 2011, Amendment Bylaw No.1236-2012”.
READ A FIRST TIME this day of , 2012.
READ A SECOND TIME this day of , 2012.
READ A THIRD TIME this day of , 2012.
ADOPTED this day of , 2012.
______
Susan Gimse Peter DeJong Chair Secretary
Page 102 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
REQUEST FOR DECISION
Member Municipality Regional Context Statement Update
Meeting Date: May 28, 2012
To: SLRD Board
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the District of Lillooet Regional Context Statement as contained within the Lillooet Official Community Plan is considered to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and that the District of Lillooet be invited to officially submit a regional context statement.
THAT the District of Squamish Regional Context Statement (as presented to the SLRD Board on April 30, 2012) is considered to be consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and that the District of Squamish be invited to officially submit a regional context statement.
THAT the Village of Pemberton be advised that the Regional Context Statement (as presented to the SLRD Board on April 30, 2012) is partially consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy and that the Village of Pemberton be advised to amend their regional context statement to bring it into consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy, particularly with respect to those lands noted on Schedule B of the Regional Context Statement as Parcel #4 – Block A. Plan KAP9144, DL 7665 & 8784; Block A, DL 8788; DL 8785; DL 8787; DL 8788.
KEY ISSUES/CONCEPTS:
This report is intended to provide the Board with information so that they may provide direction to member municipalities regarding regional context statements (RCS) associated with the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). RCS were presented to the Board at the Regional Context Statement Committee of the Whole meeting held on April 30, 2012. Once member municipalities officially submit their regional context statements, the SLRD Board will be required to officially reject or accept these statements. If the Board does not accept a regional context statement the matter will be taken to a dispute resolution process. By providing comments to member municipalities prior to official submission, dispute resolution may be avoided.
Regional Growth Strategy:
The Regional Growth Strategy was adopted by the SLRD Board in June, 2010 by acceptance of all member municipalities and participating electoral areas as well as all seven adjacent regional districts. The RGS “provides broad policy framework describing the common direction that the
Page 103 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
regional district and member municipalities will follow in promoting development and services which are sustainable, recognizing a long term responsibility for the quality of life of future generations.” Based on a 20 year planning approach, the intention of the RGS is to “guide development and encourage collaborative approaches to a sustainable future.”
The development of the RGS included extensive consultation with neighbouring regional districts, First Nations, member municipalities, senior levels of government and various stakeholders. Guided by a Steering Committee, the RGS included extensive dialogue and participation involving numerous Elected Officials Forums, various sub‐committees including a Land Use Committee and an Inter‐Governmental Advisory Committee. The RGS was also subject to a broad public review process.
Regional Context Statements‐ General:
The Local Government Act requires municipalities to include regional context statements in their official community plans. Regional context statements must be accepted by the board of the regional district within 2 years of the adoption of an RGS. In the case of the SLRD, the deadline for submissions is June 28, 2012, as the RGS was adopted on June 28, 2010.
Local Government Act Chapter 25 Section 866 (5) – For the purpose of subsection (4), (submittal of a proposed regional context statement as part of the regional growth strategy process) the board must respond by resolution within 120 days after receipt indicating whether or not it accepts the regional context statement or amendment and, if the board refused to accept the regional context statement or amendment, indicating (a) Each provision to which it objects, and (b) The reasons for its objection.
District of Lillooet Regional Context Statement: The District of Lillooet included the regional context statement as it pertains to the SLRD Regional Growth Strategy within their Official Community Plan amendment process. The District of Lillooet has therefore adopted a regional context statement guided by the SLRD RGS. Staff believes that the District of Lillooet Regional Context Statement is consistent with the spirit of the Regional Growth Strategy of the SLRD.
District of Squamish Regional Context Statement: The District of Squamish has submitted a regional context statement in keeping with the policies and land use direction of the Regional Growth Strategy for the SLRD. The context statement pointed out two mapping errors on the part of the SLRD which are deemed minor in nature and it is recommended that the RGS be amended to reflect these corrections.
Resort Municipality of Whistler Regional Context Statement: No regional context statement was presented by the Resort Municipality of Whistler (RMOW) at the April 30, 2012 Board meeting. Staff will provide the Board with a review of the RMOW context statement once it is submitted. The RMOW anticipates that they will submit their context statement prior to the June 28, 2012 deadline.
Page 104 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Village of Pemberton Regional Context Statement: The Village of Pemberton submitted a regional context statement showing 8 mapping conflicts. The Village of Pemberton Regional Context Statement is in keeping with the RGS only in part. The Village of Pemberton has pointed out minor inconsistencies, some of which do reflect mapping errors or oversights deemed minor in nature (1 through 3 and 5 through 8). They have asked that the SLRD amend the RGS mapping in order to address these mapping inconsistencies and to re‐designate the parcels in question from “non‐settlement lands” to “urban”.
The Regional Growth Strategy allows for a minor amendment process under certain conditions:
SLRD Regional Growth Strategy, Bylaw No. 1062, 2008 – Criteria for a minor amendment
Criteria under which a proposed amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy may be considered a minor amendment include the following:
1. Where a land use or development proposal is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy, and, in the opinion of the Board: a. is not considered to be of regional significance in terms of scale, impacts or precedence; and b. contributes to achieving a compact, complete and sustainable community. 2. Text and map amendments which are not directly related to enabling specific proposed development may be considered minor if, in the opinion of the Board, the amendment is not of regional significance.
Staff considers the proposed parcels of land shown as #4 in Appendix C as large enough to be deemed major amendments as they do not meet the criteria established in the minor amendment process. Adding several hundred hectares to future settlement lands is considered to be potentially precedent setting. These parcels were not included as Settlement Areas in either the Sub‐Regional Planning Study for Pemberton or the Area C Official Community Plan which informed the SLRD Regional Growth Strategy.
Furthermore, the SLRD Board has previously made a decision regarding the Hillside Planning Area in September, 2011. At that time, the Village of Pemberton brought forward a bylaw referral to the SLRD and Staff recommended the following in regards to Village of Pemberton OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 675 Referral – (Hillside):
1) That the Board advise the Village of Pemberton that the proposed mapping shown on Schedule B of proposed OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 675 should be revised in order to be consistent with the lands designated as “Future Growth Node” on the Settlement Planning Map of the Regional Growth Strategy.
Staff do not recommend a change to that decision as no new or compelling information has been presented in regards to the lands in question, hereafter referred to as the ‘Hillside Lands’.
Refer to Appendix C for more comprehensive background documentation.
Page 105 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Finally, as noted in the Village of Pemberton staff report dated April 3, 2012, Brent Mueller, Growth Strategies Manager, Vancouver Island and Sea‐to‐Sky Regions has stated in correspondence to Village of Pemberton staff:
“The RGS was premised on identifying an appropriate amount of land to accommodate growth and to protect additional lands from urban development/sprawl so that they are available for other uses. If Pemberton has identified a new urban development area, thought has to be given as to how the Board might be able to accept this. Are there policies in the RGS that might apply to build a reasonable rationale? Is it possible to delay development on these lands for at least 5-years to coincide with the requirement for an RGS review?”
Given the precedent setting nature of the proposed RGS amendment and the overall inconsistency with the RGS and the supporting Sub‐Regional Planning Study, and taking into consideration the lack of planning rationale for such a major deviation from the intent of the RGS, it would be considered prudent to postpone review of the Village of Pemberton’s proposed amendment until the 5 year RGS review is completed in 2015.
RELEVANT POLICIES:
Electoral Area C Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 689, 1999 – Section 5 – Special Planning Area and Map 1B. Map 1B “Pemberton Area Land Use Designations” primarily designates the land in question (the “Hillside Lands” shown as #4 in Schedule B of Appendix C) as “Community Watershed Protection Area” and shows it being outside of the “Special Planning Area”. The “Special Planning Area” designation (which is designated as “Future Growth Node” in the RGS) applies to land adjacent to the Hillside Lands (and is not subject to an RGS inconsistency). The Area C OCP speaks to the need for a further planning study that would be required to assess the appropriateness of developing the land designated as “Special Planning Area”. No suggestion of future development potential is associated with the Hillside Lands.
Sub Regional Planning Study for Pemberton and Area – The Sub Regional Planning Study was a special study conducted as part of the RGS that focused on determining the future growth needs for Pemberton and Area. It identified a number of options for accommodating growth, based on a variety of growth rates. The study includes only the eastern parcel of the Hillside Lands as a “Potential New Growth Area.” Although the study identified the potential need for 97 ‐ 207 additional units in the Pemberton area by 2016 (p. 6), the actual growth of the Pemberton community has been much less than what was predicted by the study. There does not appear to be any justifiable need to add more land to the developable inventory at this time as growth can readily be accommodated within existing zoned and serviced land.
Page 106 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Local Government Act, Part 25 Division 1 – Application and Content of Regional Growth Strategies. Section 849 (1) The purpose of a regional growth strategy is to promote human settlement that is socially, economically and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and other resources.
(2) Without limiting subsection (1), to the extent that a regional growth strategy deals with these matters, it should work towards but not be limited to the following:
(a) avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exits or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner; (b) settlement patterns that limit the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling and the efficient use of public transit; (i) adequate inventories of suitable land and resources for future settlement;
SLRD Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1062, 2008– Settlement Area Mapping in the Regional Growth Strategy does not show Hillside Lands as a settlement area.
SLRD Regional Growth Strategy, Bylaw No. 1062, 2008 – Goal 1: Focus Development into Compact, Complete, Sustainable Communities
The Regional Growth Strategy aims to encourage compact, complete sustainable communities as the basis for land use planning throughout the region. ‘Compact, Complete, Sustainable Communities’ refers to settlement that takes a long‐term view of the quality of life for future generations, promotes the efficient use of land at higher population densities with greater transportation choices, protects agriculture, natural areas and open spaces and provides an opportunity to live and work in the same community. Focusing settlements into compact complete, sustainable communities or nodes moves us toward a vision of sustainable, highly livable communities with accessible services, public spaces, parks, and cultural and recreation amenities.
BACKGROUND:
1999 – Area C Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 689, 1999 is adopted and Hillside Lands are not included in OCP mapping as urban development.
2007 – Sub‐Regional Planning Study for Pemberton Area. Two key elements from the study that inform the RGS are 1) growth projections and 2) special study area is identified, known as ‘Hillside Lands’.
2008 –Area C OCP and Pemberton Sub Regional Study inform SLRD Regional Growth Strategy – Hillside Lands proposed for development are not included in either OCP or RGS mapping.
Page 107 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
2008 – RGS Bylaw is referred to all member municipalities. No referral comments are received regarding proposed development for Hillside Lands.
2010 – RGS is adopted and all member municipalities are signatories.
2011 – VoP OCP Amendment Bylaw is referred to SLRD regarding ‘Hillside Lands’ development (now located within the Village of Pemberton boundaries) and SLRD Board opposes the mapping amendment, requesting that Village of Pemberton revise their mapping to reflect the SLRD Regional Growth Strategy.
2012 – The Village of Pemberton presents a regional context statement to the SLRD Board that remains inconsistent with RGS mapping and policies.
IMPLICATIONS
General:
The Regional Growth Strategy was created through many years of vigorous planning, consultation, review and approvals at all levels; including the approval of all signatory member municipalities. Future growth and development needs were carefully taken into consideration in the establishment of RGS policies, including planning for future growth and the designation of appropriate settlement mapping based on Smart Growth principles. The Local Government Act requires that the SLRD Board either accept or reject regional context statements based on their consistency with the RGS. Due legal process requires that all regional context statements be considered carefully so as to uphold the requirements of the legislation. Any major proposed changes to the Regional Growth Strategy must be subject to a major RGS amendment process as defined in the Local Government Act.
By advising member municipalities of their need to ensure that regional context statements are consistent with the RGS, the SLRD Board can encourage an amicable approach toward achieving consistency.
Legal:
Once member municipalities officially submit regional context statements, the SLRD Board will be required to officially reject or accept the statements. If the Board does not accept a regional context statement the matter will be taken to dispute resolution. By providing input to and discussion with member municipalities prior to official submission, member municipalities are enabled to revise their regional context statements accordingly, thereby potentially avoiding a dispute resolution process.
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
Letters to be sent to member municipalities informing them of the SLRD Board’s resolution.
Page 108 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
CONCLUSION:
The Regional Growth Strategy process was built on a legislative framework that involves multiple jurisdictions working together to plan for a future that all parties have agreed to. Having made commitments to the RGS by participating in the drafting process through to the acceptance of the final document, the member municipalities of the SLRD have committed to implementing the directions, policies and land use designations contained in the RGS document. Through well‐ considered acceptance of regional context statements that are consistent with the RGS, the SLRD can ensure that the spirit and substance of the RGS is maintained for the benefit of all participants and signatories.
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A – District of Lillooet Regional Context Statement. Appendix B – District of Squamish Regional Context Statement. Appendix C – Village of Pemberton Regional Context Statement , VoP COW Minutes, SLRD Request for Decision – VoP OCP Amendment Bylaw 675 referral as well as Background Report.
Submitted by: K. Salin, Planner Endorsed by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Reviewed by: L. Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer
Page 109 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Page 110 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Appendix A —
? tcienr access to existin serstees suater,roads sewer. ohools, et.c. natural river setnng and high vtsihilirvpnnide tttradnve ocauonnew cultural, residennalor tourism lusalopmcnts.
? ettewsu developments can create positive first tmprcsgish oi the region and os d reononue aciasIrS ,‘ taciitiitts ne’s-rariners! itpe satit \ r hero ttahtrhc ( ,ittnioniitcs
— dd ic’s anti iisCS anti deceititinen ts ru’,rt c mrnerciil as ‘acii a— pponunities tot rrsidcntaaiItas
iii cr5tt c m nunitS drstr’,its m I a i’ ilnn cli it t r tea. ii ire nc I r c ‘lI-ihorar;veaovcrnance
riw pnttoc s and partnerships ri-gutted.
a sigticant amount or time is regutred to comprehensively facilitate cihplex innlwparrv processes, including the Band Land Designanon //‘process.
‘ servicing is close, but not adiaceni to the sites,sonae upgrading is required. / 1rixuires ti ii plain and nanan area setbacks.
2.8 Regional The Dtsrrict I Iiliooct is pItssicaliv separated from the other ilcvtlttnctl areas of
Context rIte aquatnlsn I ill it ct Regional District. [he closest Rational District Statement \Iutueipalirv is tilt km away. Die Dtsirict is surrounded by foresred areas,
Rc-scie lands intl acu1naral areas IThis t cant in gives Iallot cr an isolated context wtth bmitecl relationship to oilier developed areas and provides a unique try ft ippi rtunirv leternune its settlement tim with tut impacung , ther communities.
The Grcswth Strategies Act anti the Ixseal (,ovemmenr Act provide mechanisms to link local community pians with regional plans. Section 866 of the Local Government Act requires that where a Regional District has prepared a Regional Growth Strategy, the DfficialCommunir Plan (OCP must prepare a RegitinalContext Statement that is accepted lay the Regional District Board. Ar the rime iNs ()CP was written, the Squarmsh4illooet Reional Dismct (SiR1) was in the process of drafting a Reonal Growth Strategy April.2(817)and this draft provided die following vision and goals
DISTRICT OF LILLOOET 2-19 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN - BYLAW NO. 320
\\PC- 180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 111 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Scuamish.U1Iooet Regional. Disu1ct Regional Growth Strategy (Draft April, 2007)
iis u..tI. ‘i’fTflih l.Ci’,rRC ttlDi—tni’ 1
.4 tlt’ifiii fnhipri.c(f of diverc, di,tniL1 inS In ca/i/c (-o,n,nh,nh,w that sl,ar .1 (i,iii(Iif(tiifi?( U,: — l’ri (iLL’ L’Li)il( ‘(FilL, ‘,Of i.jl ,g,i,l en Iro,;n,c ni.,! -i,, itairi.ilul,t; — I’iuh’ct Sic rci,ior, ‘, natur,il lwaiiti Iii/i.iie i/Ic’ rc-i,,rI ‘, ii rrIiI—cl.i’,.’ ,‘i,rtloor rccrc’arion; 1 tc ( /i.il.IIIILl (I fill! i’qiiit.iblc’ CCC i(iC)i(I!C. 4roic i/i; iiiil — iLiAc C/ccjchin% (Inn cna,’agc’ local. proriiic-ni4 /i.’ilc’r.,I inS I iri
\.liiofl ,‘o;C’rrIriIcntS, .s,,tI retleL I i/ic c .,I,,c.i C,I’C’,’riI,li,,ii,rlcs-.
Giiais
N ne broad stateinents pr CVtdedie ‘tratirOic direcuins mu will he n-cd t mOulress
,w1 h m.tfl:u2SntlUilt 1 ltiIlCtii!rn-cver the next .1t years,
(,oal 1: locus Development into Sustainable, Compact Communities
G al 2: Impri rte Pransportanon irikagcs and Options
Goal 3: Support a Range of Affi rdable Housing
, ol 4: \chievc .i Sustainable Laonornv
,oai n-: i’rr,teet Natural Leo-system [-uticuoninia
Goal o: Encourage the Sustainable [Sc f Parks and Natural .‘.rcas
Create f-!ealrhvand Safe (;unsmunines
Goal 8: Enhance Relations with \bonginal Cominuisines
Goal 9: Improve Collaboration among Jurisdictions
These nine oals reflect a preference for new development that is guided by the Smart Growth principles The policies and strategies of the ()CP ire also consistcnt ‘ebb these uirhng principles although some pnnciplcs ‘all be relanveh- less relevant to Ialh oct due to its small, mr:d character. The niunicinaltrv’s p licies ,n regmonalin win us they relate to lailo. ct arc outlined in temas or the following
DISTRICT OF LILLOOET 2-20 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN - BYLAW NO. 320
\\PC18O\PIanningAndDev\Reports\2O12\12O528 RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 112 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Y 10(0111 ,(ttletnctIt . 1,110 uaI -otets
— ir_in—pi,rtnn, in an, I encrip — cvnaintncntal pr ,tccta in
brute clcvcloprncnt — trcresitton & cultural hcnt:sec
‘— i Ilahirinon nd cia pt r:itiiin
I Itiman ‘c-ttiemynt
Thc District of I illooct 1xAces of the ( )fficial Conimunirr Plan are consistent with the polities i- tttined in the dratt Regional ( dowth Strategy R( S).
Ialki ct ii rein c’nized is die artiest municipal centre in the ti ,rtncrn
rn fl lie Restional I)rstnct nd new rcoa nai ,le\ (rIipmrltt is
coo urtived I I icate \s thin the tttunictpalitv ciinststem with the Smart ( rowth principles and oblcctivcs.
Ic The District of lillnoet -sill support and work cooperanvely with ill ii” rcinal crops as bc-v r-ndcac, ur iii izhtevc cc ,n rule relisutfiutener (cci ,titnu idtie tutunt rind and reeti red irov iii.
i. liw Linnict will support -iritrgles ci psranvclv and in llih rsting plan turuire growth on Resets es, tnchidmg the facilitation of servicIng and land use planning partnerships.
l. Die District enc urages vonipact urhan des ckpment as the preferred. mitiant —inclementformat but also supports growth inirlauves -utside the urban area sshere there is a clear regional lienetit and devel ‘pine-nt is soundly planned l-uirnples -it supported rural itunatises include destination resorts, master planned comnauninc-s and ihii-r res urce developments where ilcvelopments can meet the goals of cosrteffecnve, ustainahle develiipmenr.
it. The District it Ial]uocr supports establishment of a Regional \ffordalile Ilousing Strategy rccognarirtg tltat the District of Iallooct is uniuciv positioned as ui existing source affordable housing that 9 if requires attention to maintain and enhance rhe existing inventory. As well. additional regional strategies are necessary to service specilic populations including housing for seniors and suppi irtive transitional housing.
t fite District encourages intensification and intill over peripheral decch pment ro rnsure that munteipal services are provided in an effleicnt and eost-e[fecnve manner. fopographv and exisnnir ansI tenures mean
DISTRICT OF LILLOOET 2-21 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN - BYLAW N0 320
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 113 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
ilite are 1’dinit reaii fit-hI’ iics is-il hIt sstilun h1 rs it c-tI ica ui u, Ict el inetit ‘ nt re et ci tctt,vc thin he tata-itsi fl I -c ioj 11
pe-taheril tints —uth c ito IalI,’mt A rtsth iit.lttat’cnitflt -trtie-:n ,itrccrs next tic’,cl pmi-ltr 1, tpia tic ;rt-as w-re --, rv:stni Is 1’ re i st itt tt!5t and r ‘ti etshipsne is tI iNc
t’c2 Jogio
lie 1)raft Regional Growth Strateirs -tuphasizes rransporrtitton within a sinart growth context whcre transportation etlietcitcics ire achieved through compact .k-saIopmcnt, rlnimlzing auto—dependence and supporting a regional transit system Liii,let SFtIVCS to address these principles and is storking towards creating a walkable, pedestrian cndly, compact communirv A BiucL slasrer Plan was prepared in 21tn and is hung implemented throggli a varit-ts d pr peers
11w draft Regional Growth Strarcgv also recognizes the relatively remote northern
ti ‘it fling si I1lo let and the trip ‘I tIom ‘f rite regional air, rod aid rail i cm ‘rks
•s-tihtn his ci Intcxt The pnr tots asks I ‘r all ‘let arc to ensure that ransp mitt, lii linsatics air maintained to high suaiiiv and saictv standard
lIt Dtstrict uppi ‘ru retitotial ctt( ‘its to cnn ‘orage mm 1(1100 ‘ii ri ad 0 network ;ntpr ts cmrni s including tntprovtrrncnts to I liith’sas rn in
cnulwrroii to ( ache I reck attil I ll,s’cr--I—liehwav2 r’lute tt , enhance l5‘con’ smw Ipporrunints wiiliin the NIl ti area. h. [be District cneourae’es r ‘ad ruhalitlirari’to lmpisvem(’nrs ,ia ill pr’s miii and municipal activities r it
arc inmo, late pedusirein and hicscle needs:
— teplace all one-lane lindetits:
mprove e ,mmunieauon coverlet as a safety strareirs: nd
> atklress erosion and slide issues through long temi si ilorions
283 ggngm
IThedraft Regional Growth Strategy has provided gotils and policies to broaden the economic base througli diversitication and expansion associated with growing economic environments. Smart growth principles of dcnsiticanon anti mixed use des e]oprncnrs fbr example, are more easily achievable in areas with expanduig cinolnics (eg. Whistler, uarnish, Pemltemsnti Etacontrast, in the northern areas of lie region, economies arc1S declining and it is more challcnong to ;nrroclucc Smart
DISTRICT OF LILLOOET 2.22 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN - BYLAW NO. 320
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRGSContextwAttachdocx
Page 114 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
;n minim cv .\ccorc!iimgimIc di-ari R wami] ( ;- •‘ith irategs- n’-hoe’ rel.ittng to I milksmet o neentrate tu p.irinursl ps rcsCarchnd re invs-’cinmeni.with in ti phismson tnulanng rather than rnan.iging econonmic leech ipinent.
i. limel)istrtet will pursue a ‘ artery f strategic initiatives to
.— snide uvestiticnt into the I jib set economy;
— partner sm:lm\ rthcrn r-it’iinc I mmmnunines ‘ms no ta nuc mmmt;auvcs;
— t’\pi re srrticm res to SlitS enilaisrausek with \crthern Shatinie .iniilunmttes; aimd
— Iaimcipste ii Regional Eel n hue l)cuelopnicnt irtitianves.
E The I)istriet wifl participate with the Regional Dmsrrietin specilic sectora hasd development strategies, including strategies on: industn. igaregate resources; tourism arts and culture; alternative energy; education; enculture: timrestrimu il,sabinanutacrunng
2n4 I nyu muinuentalPu ,recnon
Ike draft Reuttunal Growth Strategy seeks to protect and unlumee the ens uronrnenr through stewardship principles. The environmental assets include: living organisms, \vater, air, Lund.vegetation and the habits and ecological processes that support living rganisms. ‘limequality of life in I ullooct usdirectly ned tO environmental quality with “students nf he em,mmunirv (sting envirnnmeiatal factors ‘climate and heaurt’) is the
m’,vtnost trcquenhtv mentioned tacrers they liked hcst ah ut living in I ilks ( a tiumunin- Nun’cv,di,[fl,
Die t )ftieial ( ominunitv Plait Contains pmln.:ues to establish a \X’.stetcoutse \Ianagcrnent Dcvekipmcnt Pemsut :\rea to protect sensitive nparian areas consistent with provincial regulations dus well, Develpment Permit r’rea criteria are included in he ( )CP to resrnct development iii areas sulsiect to hazardous conditions-e.g. steep slopes, flnodins,
a. ‘lime Distruct will oppose development which potentially impacts the I)btnct’s potable water supply.
Ii [he Dusmet uppoi-ts protecn us of environmentally sensluse areas. including nparian areas and grasslands ecosystems,
e fle District supports research out ecologically-sensitive :ireas and lii sliversitv values and mncorporanng this information torts the arid use decision making process.
DISTRICT OF IILLOOET 2-23 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN - BYLAW NO. 320
\\PC-18O\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRG5ContextwAttach.docx
Page 115 of 343 \\PC180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 Request for Decision
accessible I District approach relation ‘ecreatti involvement,
1 OFFICIAL DISTRICT
hcIrafi
Sf3 :renntnants
,iumunltx ii
st-n omunitv
values -
J.
I a. b.
e. d c.
P of n. Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Icalth to:
Rsnional
also
comniunines
straregtes
I inanagetrienr reduce
interests 11w The The contributes
Coninussitin :tt lie-aids, The proradcts
p l’lan. relationship land
l’he
11w un v the [he tno. lie
illooer
RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx that land
of
ivernmcnt
here
political
recognizes and
,til:ibie COMMUNITY OF
I i)orrict
(
District
L)istnet
Dinner
)tstncr
health
District
Disrncr Dinner -
Reserve.
Dismct itt
Ire Safety
(
iritnunits
nerighhtours
nun
has
a
se and
to
rowth LILLOOET
and
t( ,mpaet
perceived
h
to
reduce
commitment, between suppi
and
a mmtntal
are
on roe
public improve
plan will
ss-tll
sr-ill
Act
using will
these will supports health I
role
recognizes
Sitters
issues
the
lie
support
and
urages \
design: n-i
and encourage
and anlagetinnwater
rrs
continue
water
work
in p
sion
irk pilicv
interact
values
and as
health
respi
they Community waikable Bsr
unpacts,
l)isrnc-r
a
relating
creating
supports
a
being PLAN
lid
local
stater consump000.
tot
stell
ith
with
land
nansporranon: ,nsibilirv
\lanaeemenr
hat pp recoemlaring
waste
volunreensm,
and
and
the
to
I
with local
the
allis
being to
foi suppi
ineltiling
ci rrs
use
os ree coin
a
the
work
access
includes
retention
immunity
enriergencv - tniplernenranon
sat-ti, ohlectives
safere. ti
the
wiated ci
agencies
neit’onoors.
tsp ionizes
planning
ers of Regional BYLAW
ecurav rut
1
aniculaics
with
,sii
commLintry
to ala healthy
ten
senior
comnionttv
that \ui
Pnii
anon
aetivines
healthy with
plan. in itt cm partnerships
that
tOrI the in
planning.
initiatives
nes cit access
lands of
nd
District
tronmetital s
levels
c
a ntis
hides, 1 NO. painters
RCMP, i
food. [he tin-ti
caring mrnnnirv, mpg
tot
dc-site
of
the
residents.
to
rein
within ‘aitltv,
health. 0,
the it
trw
increase
if
ltc.ilthv
that -
acknowledging 320
,rts sh
Agricultural itt
lids’
nd ii,
e
among government
and
relaxed tt
Bicycle
derl ut
the i ecure.
planning: s-si
rilahie
contribute
maintain nianv
the particularly irnpknienr
a
enl
local
n ii ci community
‘gncultural
pntent immunity 51000
Provincial
\ervork and risva’cr
different Site
housing Page 116 of 343 2-24 if
‘c service
small
I
and.
said and to
iris
and
dir the
rhe 0
an
in
a Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Dit-titur sill ark u.ith lv to iridruss mad aFo isoiirs.
‘ohs. R ueaurrn rod Cuituraliirrjtiig
I1w draft Regionai ( i truth Strategy i, triers hat most f the region’s settled treat ire located wirhtn large areas rt natural rico 5 ace, lirese tllO laces it tue support for economic activlts’ (fr testis, recreation and rnlmng) as well as providing conwat fur recreation, culture and heritage values (eat. First Nations historvL The contest of these lands niust he recognized in plarirung(hr the future ot the District
‘X thin lie municipality p° itt. ctton o open space. parks and the pros tsiott ot reereall’ ri ,rrrninirte’t continues to have a ittith pnr inn’. ‘Frailnet’s,’‘rks ire coo ruraged is part t tire iiietcle Nerw rh [‘Ianhut iso air‘nranatural sr:itc’rci,urses err Fraser River
.i [lie District upporrs the prr s isbn of’ rarks and i-ecrearirrn opportunities rod the preservation. celehrati ri rod nrerpretatir ,n 1cultural tint, rv
ti lire District supports liii, rug tsrrrking relationships with V riuntcer irganizatrirns in the stewardship of natural and recreation areas.
e, The District will conutrue to provide recreation services servicing a regional population (eg. pool, nok, tournament hall fields)and will esplore new i ippi rtviruttes to cost share in the delivers’of these services.
1,, rllaborauon and Ci ropirranon
‘[‘he draft Regional ( ,r’,rvth Strare u supports cxpandiiig the means ut dialoitue and it uperation with First N,inons. Sigrtilieanrlr. the draft Reei,’niI (;riisvih Strategy rceol!nlzes ihat
\‘Chile the Sipiamish, I,il’wat and Sr’at’ime Nations are riot signatories I) an RGS tindet ti-se Iasi’alGsisw,,eni lit, there are mutual benefits in coordinating land use and servicing issues, The strategic direction under RGS recognizes the unplications for aboriginal communities and endeavoors to set up processes to align Regional District and First Nations’ visions anti plans, without preiurlice to treart negotiations or other negonanons with senior ri,r’crr’.mctrts, recognizing a common interest in a sustainable future I’ rr the [ilk,’ ret region.
Iall,,,ret is eriinrnirtcd to strengthening ties with Northern st’it’iotc (:uiiaamunrues arid rer’r,ntmends formalizing prr’ccsses for dialogue, and exploring opportunities Fr runt ,ieeisiirn making tn issues of ri,rtrrflon Interest. ()f particular focus are Issues elating
DISTRICT OF LILLOOET 2.25 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN - BYLAW NO. 320
\\PC- 18O\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\12ct528 RFDRGSContextwAttach,docx
Page 117 of 343 \\PC-i8O\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 Request for Decision
to
OFFICIAL DISTRICT
tnavcmdnt
o
trd -
a.
ft. Member Municipality Regional Cont...
plantttttg,
The
traflaizenlent, parties Its
I)kirtct
‘
ll:c —
Sehilath (tmmunttes
— iosttltLtltlc —
.anc-rshps
— — bite
—
RFD_RGSContextwAttach,docx ‘
vernance
rio
urcc.
foster
I)ttonct
t-stahhFt
(z(tiitllCt Distnet
:staltltsh
management leveltp
hans
-,ettlernent levelop transportation environmental economic kialing
I COMMUNITY OF
Dtsrttct
t,(
and urcc
growth
Municipality,
as
(
ongoing lot
LILLOOE’T
caace
l]tc
partnership,
wIth
tumre
well will cofltprehettslve
resoluin
a-ill
tOfliunhitel
nh ci (11(1
participation
econ
M(
grtund
(ll:ilaran,
development vtll
rcsctrch
it
and
teck
mianro support
and
rcgtonal
as
>1
dtiti
and
tot-
rtncenwnt, collalaoranon
ltt’ct,
and
the
sen-icinit nite protects
‘s,
work
cultural
fl
Fttkling
the
deciston
roles
should
Squarnislolillooer
entry
protocol
expinded
c
it
development.
e
regional
“hating
PLAN
md 01
rtatton
pttncrsittps
operative
colLIsorsrivclv
along
(IVI
in
ess
research
and
hentage
pal
traits--Ia
ri-lIt-I
to
making input-es
naIl
ec wnh
prrt
((St
ems
ninat
Issueso
other
al’reetncnts -
l)tsrncr
tnatc
nomtc
ft
ii
include
BYLAW ,undarv
Northern
(((Is
\WiStLtfl,
to
on
struenare lute.
servtnniz at
tliitl vet
a
mmumtv
protocol
tt)ortuntncs
stall
fsustainahilirv pron.os
Mtinictpaiitx
Re
uti
wtoh to:
le
tlttlttOtcd
al
tonics;
lonal
csnsultati,n (0(1
and
t
\a’{itp.
Statanc gm
-II
and
NO.
the -
,nIent
to
measores
admintstrati
council, (01
emance
I)istrict
and
working work
the
Northern
III
and
320
irclude:
iskWtIaXb.
(.rnniuntncs:
mantatement r
lob
10th
tt
ITitflt,
on
,i rt\
to
hersl
sub
prions
csnimttrics
,n
Ilahorarn Icing
achieving
tis
Northern
(teal
-regional
Statirnc levels.
:.oth o Page 118 of 343
oh
2-26
at
c
stoth
Old o1
ol g.
i:
a Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
o mmarv, the l)ismet ,f Iallott2 2 id a ill hero mpi it h tie principles f the
R n rid C roath tiriii\ tOO tlw pint ‘tn io ii sib t niini Iii ii nc ii tid geographic context will present inipleitientain in challenges over the a og term
a 2.) Affordable The 4vision of safe, af[ordable houstng 5tot ill estdttiis ‘ a ml COtTIftoftent if 1 [lousing healthy isrd sustainable atnia ntis \fidrdabie hoosin is ehired as:
nmalor iwned housing provided to low Inc tine h oseholds who have an at2abthrv problem (pay in excess of 20 if their income on hising) and tsm less than the median income for allot ct, and
ci tvpicall publicist owned or owned and operated by a nomprofir agency, is ubsxiiz ha senior levels of government it he a nonsprotit agency, which enah1\ rent to he provided at below market mtes on a geared to IOCOIOC hasis;id
— does not nclude shtiete or transitional housin
1e ltousmg market in lailooet\as picallv provided rental rites hat are below
provincial averages, however thclst arc ‘till populations in I illooet that have iffirdahilitv issues and an affijrdahle husiog aratcgv ci 15resutred
\ fIt irdabte Housing Policies:
2) 1 \fft irdable h usinc is penriirwd in iii tones thai permit resitlentcii uses and wide eorrnaunrrv wrtcr 2)2 lIre District will conttnue to pursue the 5follosvfn affordable housing strategy: rnei,uraee a sousing mix and a broad range it Ii UsinC vhoicc in all neiithbnrirhoods iii the District, mielulrng multiple family housmg and iffhirdable housing where coiiiniunirv water en1C is available ic. within the prtoritv development arcai; -
encouratac mill development on exisonC services ‘its primit ri penpheral development which retluires the conStruction it rxtenOiSfls ti tnunicip:d utilities:
encourage higher densmnesand iniensirleation:
DISTRICT OF 111,10057 2.27 OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN - BYLAW NO. 320
\\PC-18O\PlannngAndDev\Reports\2o12\12o52 RFDRGSContextwAttachdocx
Page 119 of 343 Appendix
\\PC-180\PlanningAndoev\Reports\2012\120528 Request for Decision
WHEREAS
Community enacts
NOW
READ READ
APPROVED PURSUANT this PUBLIC ADOPTED READATHIRDTIMEthis
B
THEREFORE
2.
1
A
A as
HEARING
SECOND FIRST
follows: follows:
District
Amendment This
the
Plan this
TO
Statement’ By
BY
bylaw
District
this
amending
THE
Bylaw
THE
of
TIME
Official
HELD
Squamish
the
may
LOCAL
SQUAMISH A
of
Bylaw
No.
Council
bylaw
with
this
Squamish
on
be
Community
2100,
Part -
the
the
cited
(Regional
DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Official BYLAW
to
of
2,
text
amend
2009:
RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
the
LILLOOET Community as
deems
contained
Rob
R.
“District
Community
District
Plan
NO.
Context
Arthurs,
the
OF
Kirkham,
it
2223,
Bylaw
SQUAMISH
District
necessary
of
of REGIONAL
ACT,
Context,
day day
day
day dayof day
in
AND
Squamish,
Statement)
Squamish
General
Plan
Schedule
2012.
No.
of
of
of
of
of
Mayor
of
NOTICE
Squamish
2100,
Bylaw
and Subsection
Manager,
DISTRICT
OCP
in
No.
appropriate
A’
2009.
WAS
No. open
2223,
Bylaw
2100,
ADVERTISED
7, meeting
Corporate
Regional
2012.”
No.
2009 to
amend
2100,
assembled,
is
Services
Context
amended
2012. 2012.
2012. 2012.
2012. 2012.
2012.
2009,
Official ON Page 120 of 343
as
\\PC-180\PlannirigAndoev\Reports\2012\120528
Request for Decision
opportunities
The
greater
basis
consistency This
established
The
the
Regional
Official The
Statement
major
settlements,
RGS
On
Schedule
Regional
Regional
District’s
section
District’s June
Local
for
contains
transportation
goals,
Community
b.
a.
Goal
land
Goal Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Goal
Board
28,
GovemmentAct
A
(RCS)
in
with
of
if
the
Growth authority
-
use
2010
to
9: as
8:
Regional
7:
6:
5:
4:
3:
the 2:
and
1:
it
strategic Bylaw
the
agree
is
extent
live
Create
Improve
Enhance
Support well
Encourage Achieve
Protect
Improve
Focus
the
following
planning
Regional
not
to
RS
the
and
Plan
RGS,
ensure
Strategy
as
No.
upon
consistent,
choices,
Squamish
Context
Development
illustrates
to
to
Healthy
a directions
Context Natural
work
a
a
(OCP)
Collaboration
Transportation
section
Relations
2223,
make
which
proposed
throughout
Sustainable
Range
adoption
Growth
requires
the
matters
efficient
aims in
-
the
conforms
Statement
Sustainable
and 2012 local
Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Ecosystem
the the
Ullooet
on
of
how
how
RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx
to
protection
to with
Strategy.
actions Safe
that
of
Quality
same OCP
implementation
of
into promote
planning
use
encourage
the
the
the
legitimate
Economy
among
the
Aboriginal
each
Communities
Linkages
is
Regional
of
to
Compact,
community. District
is
region.
municipality
consistent
RGS.
Use
Functioning
are
Affordable
public
the
a
Where
Statement
of
member
key
decisions,
socially,
Jurisdictions
also
of
provisions
The
agricultural
compact,
regional
of
The
and
implementation
District
Parks
facilities,
Communities
1
Complete,
outlined.
changes
Squamish
intent
and
with
efficient
Options
economically,
municipality Housing
intends
and
while
monitoring:
adopted
interest.
of
complete
the
of
land,
land,
Natural
to
the
this
Sustainable
ensuring
will
use RGS,
to
the
RGS,
and
bring
natural
RCS
assist
mechanism
a
of
District’s
prepare
and,
Areas
Regional
sustainable
and
other
land
outlining:
is
itself
that
to
in
environmentally
areas
Communities
is
indicate
achieving
resources.
the a
promoted,
OCP
into
Growth
Regional
for
and
Council
communities
are
consistency
the
how
open
the
required
Strategy
RGS.
It
Context
fostering
and
Squamish’s
establishes
nine
spaces,
healthy
It
the
maintains
over
goals
as
for
(RGS).
the
and time.
Page 121 of 343
nine The
\\PC-180\PlanningAnd Request for Decision
The Schedule
Settlement
future Special ‘Urban
The reflect reflect Growth comprehensively housekeeping delivery
The Consistent development, Comprehensive Reserve plans development.
within The infrastructure
‘Destination Transportation.
Support transportation, covering
The improve incorporating commercial, bicycle exploring addressed Multi-Modal supported Any any must
RGS
District’s
RGS
RGS
future
RGS
future
to
be development
the
future
Area’ the
Study
routes
Management
directs of are
revitalize
strategic
for
encourages
A
the taken directs
marine
Dev\Reports\2012\120528
correct its
services.
with
District’s -
Planning
through
referendums. limiting
policy
identified
a
Bylaw
polygon
Resort
safety
Area
OCP industrial, development regional Transportation
collaborative
amendment
focusing is
marine, Council
that
into
major
which the
redevelopment
and
contained
that
transportation
planned
direction prevents
the
exercise boundaries
(OCP
No.
provide
use
and
Squamish Special
RGS,
account, Parks, are
boundaries.
Maps.
Energy
compact,
in
regional
and
downtown
settlement
role,
as
has is
air,
2223, higher
of
the
generally
and
Area
reliability
reflected
Smart Limited
(See
and
Area
the
directed
and
natural
to
Within
will within
if Study
in major
to
approach
RGS for
policies.
employment
any,
Plan.
in
Planning
create 2012
the
of
air Squamish
OCP prevent complete density
policy -
rail
mixed-use
be
safe
Growth Planning
particular,
of Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Squamish
linkages,
(See Squamish’s
Use.
service
and
growth
Area’ consistent
development District.
is a of
subject
in
areas, the
The
into
the
policies
that
development
hiking,
intended
the better the
RED
gap
policy
to adjacent
in
District’s
Waterfront Map,
resort
OCP
the
to
strategies
additional
a residential
Airport close OCP’s
regional
policies
be environmentally
to
the
RGSContextwAttach.docx
purposes.
‘C’
development to (See
regional
provide
Settlement
the
identifying local biking,
alignment
also
approached
gap
‘Urban
Schedule
northern
the with
in
development
Squamish
as
proximity
community
policy
Growth
waterfront
Tablet)
OCP
in
to encourages
a
public
limitations
‘B’in
limit
road
the boundary
future
are the
and
guidance
Landing
OCP small-scale, transportation
communities Areas,’
Developing
mapping,
2
gap
RGS
development
neighbourhoods,
promoted between I).
‘Non-Settlement
Planning Table
the
network
commuting
transit
Management
policy
as Port,
to
The
in
policy
sensitive
‘A’
maps.
importance
areas
referendum a
which
a and
the
from
will supported
for
the proactive
1.)
collaborative
RGS
partnering in
networks, be
lands
downtown local
the
exercise.
is Map the
any
Tablet)
be a
continued
through
creating
throughout One
suitable developed,
map are
addressed
long-term
system
in
addressed
Oceanfront
lands,
two
resort in
that
operations
(Map
the set
inconsistency
Community
the
means would of
by
undertaken
Areas’
which
documents
on
The
out are
Previous
compact,
the
region.
urban
and for
is
the
community
manner. development
core. la)
development
regional
provided
vision
through
the intended
in
Squamish in RGS
efficient
benefit
of
community
through
the does fall
designated
a are
the
servicing
sprawl
addressing
Squamish
series
strategic
south
Agricultural
planning Services,
for
mixed-use
part
form
This in
is not
and
transit,
from
Squamish’s
through
identified:
2000 and
to
the
for
future
and
Airport of
accurately
of
is accurately
of
proposed
of
of
the
referendum, current
in RGS
partially airport cost
the
a
the direction
OCP.
processes that a
to
Residential, regional
trails
and
the
community.
OCP
OCP
ensure
Land District’s
Cheekeye
effective
for
RGS.
The
2031 and
and and
policy
for
policy Page 122 of 343
to
or
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2o12\120528
Request for Decision
The
aquatic
Squamish
ecologically
Consistent
international
OCP development
strategy,
watershed The
(IPP)
gap
committed
Squamish’s
building
of
The
production,
protection
healthy
commit
industries,
The
appropriate
marine-based
proposals
reserve Affordable
range and The
District’s
Schedule
agriculture,
OCP
RGS
policies
0’
RGS
RGS
proposed
community
RGS
resources, of
in
encourages
tax
the
to
encourages
fund
addressing encourages
strategic
ecosystem
housing strategic
Table
with Residential
management. A
that
of
protecting
sensitive
forestry,
to
agricultural
base,
Housing
processing,
also
agriculture to
-
awareness
of
the
for
develop
Bylaw
activities,
but
within
the
the
include
low-impact,
1.)
support
groups
affordable
and
Agricultural
and
forms
direction
strong
direction
RGS,
region
community
use
film,
areas
mapping Strategy,
further
No.
member
OCP
the
Squamish’s
higher
encourages
more
an
lands
industry
sale,
of
of
and
the
to
the
2223,
The
the
and
support
SLRD
is affordable
policies.
through
the
innovative
support
to
work housing,
OCP
addressed to
renewable
municipal
tenures,
in-depth
paying
and
RGS
through
outdoor District’s
-
project.
Land
adopted
municipalities
support
region’s
consider Member Municipality Regional Cont...
2012
and
values
is
encourages
distribution
strategic
employment
to
for
RFDRGSContextwAttachdocx
the
not
The
Sub-Area
Reserve
residents
member
jobs.
advance
and
housing
maintaining
supports
policy
development
the
development
recreation
provided.
airport,
OCP
further in
and
suitability throughout
District
energy
a
2005.
where
future regional
direction
environmental
encourages
(AIR).
to
to
municipalities,
Plans, with
a
a
of
component.
sector-based
the
support
collaborative alternative
commits
sources.
land
regional
provide
The
locally
appropriate,
To
development
are
for
lands
The
limited
affordable
3
development
the
the
standards achieve
OCP
of
base
to
sustainable emphasized
District’s
water
OCP.
collaboratively
grown
Sea
local
the
within
participation
strategy
to
supports
in
housing
energy
protection,
working
to
basis
order
framed
alignment
economic
agriculture
approach
The
conservation
density
housing
Sky
products,
for
the
of
OCP
addressing
of
for
business
an
importance
stormwater
in
to
technology,
Sensitive
policies
choices,
Agricultural
secondary
in
within
the
Agricultural
new
create
supports
in
bonusing
co-operation
strategy
as
enhance development
to
with
development
and
policies.
and
well agricultural
inventorying
and
investments.
the
and
policies
a
Habitat
the
Independent
the
recognizes
diversified
to
as
urban
suites,
management knowledge-based
regulations
context
is
Land
for
implementing
national
RGS,
the
preservation
support Area
addressed
Industrial
development
and
with
Atlas.
local
Reserves
strategies
agriculture
the
maintaining
investment
of
Plan.
and
of
programs.
the
this
economy,
other
and
District
for
integrated economy
and
Power
to
land
protecting
(See
through
importance
to
regional
the
ensure
of
and
its
the
agencies
preserve
policies
and
policy
has
Projects
and a
Page 123 of 343
of
the
the a
\\PC- Request for Decision
180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528
Schedule The
Sky
The single established Plans.
Management
species. The projects, management preparation sustainability trademarked strategies transit-oriented and
providing (See The
support and policies establishing
land to development Regional with open are designated for Reflecting
Channel, OCP noise space in
the formalize
Air
RGS
off-road
OCP
RGS
frameworks
to
RGS
provincial
policy
for
local
policies
vehicle Transportation
space
and
Quality
system.
RGS, be
supporting strategic
adventure encourages Community contains
parks
are
strategic
A
Trail.
support
local
incorporated toward
organizations
pollution
the -
gap within
as of
and
system,
Bylaw
a
encouraged motorized
and
occupancy and
are program framework, support
of
no-net Management
and a
‘Park,’ parks
RGS’s
RGS
rivers,
‘E’
design,
regional
public
for
the
maintain
a direction
policies
Energy
sustainability.
direction
for
the
in
work
requirement
No.
tourism
direction
green
improving
associated
the
trail member stewardship within
direction
Table
policies
loss management the
the
sea
OCP.
that
access
2223,
recreation
into
are
to with
to District’s
climate through polices.
system,
which
requiring preservation Natural
dykes,
corridors,
policy
a
to
sets improve
promote
1.)
and to
activities also
the
trail
Plan
to
government identify 2012
strive
municipalities
to
support
to
our -
with
explore out
adjacent open Member Municipality Regional Cont...
has of
Other implemented
is
these
and
network.
change
The
protect and
efforts, assisting
the
Step,
OCP
should
also
development,
communities,
environmentally
plans
a for
air
strong
‘blue
these
rock
RFDRGSContextwAttachdocx
other
is
series application
alternative
OCP’s Smart
space
policies sustainability
existing
lands,
of
reflected continuous quality.
reflected
Smart
options
strategy
wildlife to
should
climbing including
undeveloped ways’,
be,,Lnldentified
agencies,
The
activities with
support waterbodies
of
the
Environment Growth system
to
Access
Growth,
within steps
state
explore District
provincial
the
Greenhouse municipality
for
an
balance
in the
and transportation
of
the
and
is
and
improvement
the
Bear
managing
maintenance
supported. in
and interconnected
Smart
must
that community
and principles
responsible frameworks,
4 to
OCP’s
District
the
other
striving
the
commits
and
mountaineering
the
OCP.
oceanfront
Crown
stream
Smart
are
principles
within ecological
SLRD,
parks in
policies.
be
Sea
Growth
other
possibility
Park
valued
conjunction
recognized
OCP
gas
managed. is encourages
for
green
to
land
is
programs recognized.
To
as
crossings
to
developments,
options policies.
organizations,
reduction management
Sky
addressed
of of equivalent zero
policies
such
recreational
Bear
engaging reflect
principles ecosystem
that
locations,
designated
preservation network
regional trails
spaces
Corridor.
of
waste
as
Smart
organisations activities.
as
adopting
and with
The a and
and
are direct
Smart the
critical
minor
targets
There
at
through
the
sustainability
air of
is encourage
is
the to importance ecological
other range
facilities,
components a principles
The
of
encouraged.
and
and
required as
trails,
lands
quality the regional
be community Growth
with
weeds
amendment are Mamquam
to the
‘Non-Settlement
and
Natural
minimized.
natural
private
stakeholders,
of
District
the
the
a
along and
can
Natural
recreation.
possible
actions
via number
and
restoration reduction
and
OCP’s in
in
principles District’s
level,
of
the
use
frameworks.
the
all waste Step
areas,
landowners
within
water
to
partnering
The
municipal
in
invasive
Blind
Sub-Area
Sea-to-Sky
Step to
acquire to
Sea and Growth
the are
On
methods
of
is
build
the
Areas and and open a
courses
the
of
to lands also
and
Areas’ Page 124 of 343
RGS
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528
Request for Decision
conjunction
The
policies
to
Nation
The
resource coordinated
Nations.
or
development,
development
protocols of The
addressed
and
The
the
management,
providers
with
management
for
network, The
municipal development
healthy
provision These
recreation
facilities The
and
Schedule
share
revision
intent
RGS
a
2011
2008
RGS
reduction
RGS
RGS
Vancouver tourism
RGS
community
Protocol
address
amenities
information,
encourages
The
community
strategic
plans,
to
directs
strategic
Intergovernmental
and Squamish
are
encourages
and
to
of
through
services,
of
A
with
collaborate
destination.
local OCP
-
identify
access,
District
to
opportunities
industry.
consultation
are
of
compact, Bylaw
organizations,
and
strategies
and
Agreement,
this.
be
the that
Coastal
hazard
sets
government
health
are
direction
addressed
direction
911
the
provided,
provide
youth
Nation
the
SLRD
For
is
facilities,
collaborate
emergency
No.
policy
and
intended
out
municipalities
supported
The
emergency
2008
with
development
examples,
walkable
areas.
Water-based
address
Health,
to
2223,
address
and
commitments
programs,
tools
Protocol
OCP’s
are to
the
services on
be
to
the
Cooperation
Squamish
through
School
including
support
member
land and
-
The
developed
Crown
work
to
also 2012
Member Municipality Regional Cont...
2011
School
Squamish
for
planning
community
with
communities by
social
Park
promote
RFDRGSContextwAttach,docx
services
under
services
OCP’s
use
included matters
Agreement,
to
Districts,
a
to
in
environmental
Intergovernmental
the
other
of
recreation,
land,
range
fair
policies
conjunction
reserve
Nation sports
provide
planning
municipalities
District
needs
to
regional
Growth
Community
District’s
Accord
with
be
and
Nation
work
for Squarnish,
are
and
jurisdictions,
of
of
gardens,
approached
in
the
fields,
Protocol
these
and
timely reflect
joint
lands senior
OCP
#48,
addressed. all
suitable
the
future
through
with
planning
working
meets
rock
Management,
RCMP,
on
contribute
OCP.
5
issues,
with
OCP.
policies.
government
interest,
principles,
natural
activities
under
matters
Services
the resolution
to this,
levels
universally
and
climbing,
treaty
Agreement.
recreation
the
Referral
regional
manage
Cooperation
and
discussions
and
on
Squamish
for
groups
and
the
stating
The
negotiated
of
RGS’s areas,
Support
a
Tribal
such
to
fire
negotiations.
resoLve
relating
are
policies
region
to
government.
regional
OCP
safety
a
bouldering,
the
of
requirements
agencies,
growth
maximize
health
accessible
protection,
and
healthier
supported.
that
strategic
as
trails,
facilities
aboriginal
Police
This
encourages
Nation
District
and
land
for
as
conflicts.
memorandums
Accord,
to
and
state
community
servicing
basis.
a
authorities,
agreement
land
parks
through
and
referral
whole,
to
use,
reliability
and
to
Information
social Squamish.
direction
for
is
housing,
that
mountaineering,
promote
natural
other
In
use, rights
and
directed
harmonize
servicing,
and
during
The
the
other
the
hazard
agreements.
the
as
processes
service
regional
economic
a
parks
trail
growing
special
2008
a
and
District’s
includes
range
of
local
District
hazard
aging-in-place,
to
non-profit
of world-class
the
public
Additional
the
to
risk
networks,
sharing
encourage
title
understanding
and
and
Squamish delivery.
land
social
work
development
of
planning.
regional
purpose
assessment
population
with
is
policy
statements
is
economic
OCP open
OCP
and
use
to
in
service
First
policies
work
outdoor
the
and
and
space for
Page 125 of 343
road
areas.
The
and a
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 Request for Decision
Schedule
exercises OCP
serves As
implementation, the
The
recommendations The monitoring Table
consistency
A.
accurately the
boundary appropriate within northern B. Planning requires in-depth or C. any. long-term
iv. iii.
ii. v,
set i.
The
The
The
explore
nine
also OCP
following FIGS
out
to 1.
the OCP ‘Urban OCP
a support commitment a other recognition community
RGS
contains
Squamish Regional
also of
A
implement
additional
review
policy Map
bi-annual
neighbourhoods. in
of
vision -
reflect
District
its Policy core
regional
policy does
with
Bylaw Part
resort
Goals Squamish’s
states
agencies;
table
regional
Area’ (Map
exercise.
for
indicators of
the
4
the
for
not
policy
Gap Context
the
to
made
of
Settlement boundaries
No.
the
development
review coordination,
that summarizes trends, District
detail that
interest,
la) polygon the
RGS
the
guide
to RGS
the provide
correct
role,
Growth
2223,
and,
initiate stating
does
changes
RGS
the
airport,
in
sets
RGS,
overtime.
and
Statement of
within
the
and policies
if
District’s
directives
in
should
District 2012
a not
out
an
preparation -
RGS.
Management the
a
priorities. Member Municipality Regional Cont...
the
to
monitoring
cooperation,
the performance
District’s
addressing
the
Squamish’s la
set neighbourhoods. OCP Recommendation: for developed, Special
exploring Further implementation
planning, OCP planning
they RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
The
population
OCP
OCP
Implementation
be
within
the of
OCP
to
policy
District
be
amended
development
monitoring
monitoring
and
accurately
‘Destination
Study
OCP
established. may
commitment
program
Strategy
exercises.
and
the
regional
and this
adoption
monitoring
will
specifically,
northern
projections,
will
policy
Action
be
Area.’
District’s
reflecting
include:
monitoring
be
according
6 required
steps
consider
within
every framework.
program reflect
developed,
air
That
will
parameters
Resort
of
service
to
required
objectives
OCP.
be the
a
RGS five
previous
participating
two and
in
new
incorporating
to
of
is RCS
response
years; To
Map
the
dissemination
years transportation
to
is measure to
reflect
and
a
bring
of
key
Dependent
2-5
RCS. 5 RCS.
to -
OCP
suggests in
10 the
implementation
the
RGS changing
committees
years
progress
years
adoption;
monitoring
of
District’s
at
performance
population
from
a
key
on
Timeline
from
regional
conditions,
in
SIRD
indicators
adoption
RGS
and
OCP
adoption
tool
process.
planning
level;
data
into
that
for
of
to
of Page 126 of 343
the
the
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528
Request for Decision
referenced
framework,
possibility
Natural municipalities
E. and
industry
preservation
D.
Schedule
The
Strong
building
Ff65
Step
is
support
A
of
lacking.
encourages
in which
-
the
sustainability
adopting
of
Bylaw
the
to
agricultural
agriculture
explore
OCP.
for
is
No.
not
the
the
member
2223,
the lands
- 2012
Member Municipality Regional Cont...
RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
additional
susta
be
An
developed.
Recommendation:
amended
Agricultural
inability
support
to
frameworks.
7
Area
provide
That
for
Plan
equivalent
the
will
RGS
be
Dependent
2
RCS.
years
from
on
adoption
SLRD
process.
of the Page 127 of 343
Appendix
\\PC4SO\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 Request for Decision
C
WHEREAS
AND establish AND Local later Plan,
the AND Plan Strategy intends AS
THEREFORE 1.
2. READ READ NOTICE
PUBLIC PUBLISHED —
Regional
FOLLOWS:
approved
is
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
Government
The
consistent A A Village a) CITATION This (Regional
AMENDMENT b)
to
does
an
HEARING
FIRST
SECOND
Inserting
bring
OF this Schedule Inserting
Regional
pursuant
Official
Bylaw
Growth A
IN
not
bylaw.
by
the
INTENTION
of
bylaw
itself
TIME
THE
the the
pursuant
Context the
with
Pemberton commit
Act
Council
may
as
into Community
TIME
Context
A,
HELD
Village to
Strategy, Council
into
Squamish
Whistler
to
“Map
the
shall this
of
Section
be Section
amend
consistency;
this
this
or
Statement)
Regional
to
cited of 17th
this
adopt
N
of
Statement - authorize
TO
of
Section the Member Municipality Regional Cont...
bylaw. —
Official
Pemberton Question
day
the 875
Plan;
3.0
Lillooet
as
Regional
day
Official VILLAGE
Village
AMEND
a
day
RFDRGSContextwAttach,docx
‘Village
of Village
the BYLAW Growth
Regional
of
of
865
Bylaw
April.
the the
of Community ______,
recognizes
“Regional
Regional
of
April, Community
.2012.
Context
(3)
Village Local
endorsed
of
Pemberton,
Official OF
of
Strategy
2012.
No,
No.
of
Pemberton
Context
Pemberton
2012.
PEMBERTON
the
Government
698,
698,
District
to
Context
Statement”
the
Local
Plan
proceed
the
Community
and,
2012
2012”
2012
Statement
Plan
extent
in
Regional
Board
in
Bylaw
Official Government
if open
Statement’
and
accordance
not Bylaw
with
Act
to ______,
as
consistent,
on
meeting
which
No.
into
attached
Community a
any
Growth
Plan
No. June
Council
654,
their
as project
the
Act,
654,
with
assembled, 28,
Bylaw attached
2012.
2011 Strategy
Official Official within
then
may,
a
20’ 2012.
Section
that
Plan
Regional
is
how
No.
Schedule
by
Community Community
is amended
within Amendment
that
bylaw
specified
the ENACTS 866
654,
was Growth
Village
of
B,
the
2011
by: Page 128 of 343
of
in
Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
READ A THIRD TIMEthis day of 2012,
ADOPTED this day of 2012,
Mayor Corporate Officer
\\PC-18O\PIanningAndDev\Reports\2o12\12o52 RFD_RGSContextwAttach,docx
Page 129 of 343 \\PC-1SO\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 Request for Decision
The 3.0 The
region Regional The and human use shouid As Context and the
Map
required
of
Village
RGS. Local
SLRD’s strategic natural
and
public
The 3.1
policies
to
include
settlement
REGIONAL
Statement.
Growth
move
the
1.
Paragraph Gave 2.
3.
following
of
Regional
areas,
by
facilities
Village
Regional
Focus
consistency followed objectives prevents
Improve
Boundary
Support
strategic OCP’s
directions
Pemberton
and
rnment
goals
the
towards
Strategy
economic
that
strategic CONTEXT
Local
Development ‘ V
‘ “
V V V
V V V
Lend
Official
Growth subsections 3,2
and Paragraph
and
a
Growth Transportation
the development
Act approach
Supports
the Supports Encourages
and
is
Supports Supports with Supports Supports Encourages
Encourages Range Participates supporting
far
achieving
identifies
GovernmentAct,
objectives
Use of
socially,
Official
services, (RGS)
RGS
recognizes
development -
the
Map
the
Community
directions Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Strategy
the
development,
STATEMENT
Maps
Strategy
Strategic of
SLRD
3.1
Village’s
are
regional the
to Ministry
RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
B—
indicate
the
improved Community broadband
Affordable into
region-wide
small economically
sustained
land a
reviews
transportation affordable
and
compact the
related complementing
in
in
participation
Land
range and
provision
is
that
Linkages
Compact,
a
of
Non-Settlement
cortinued comprised
Policies
inconsistencies
a and
coordinated
Directions
land
Plan
of
initiatives the of member
that
process
Use
the
the
of
safety greenhouse SCHEDULE
affordable and to
Transportation
other economic,
Internet
mixed
Housing
Regional
use Plan
housing Consistency
Village
housing, the
911 housing, Designations) purpose
of
and and
confirms
and
Complete,
designation regional
of
or
and
Village’s
resources. (OCP) development
linkages,
municipalities.
and
of
whereby
for
use
environmentally
Options
documents
community Strategic
actions
approach
of
a
services. —
forms;
reliability
housing Growth
affordable cell
vision, of
transportation,
Areas social
notably:
between
developments; The gas
Pemberton
and
that
a
transit
with
A
Official
phone
Sustainable
emission and Regional
notably:
Village’s
the
are to
-The
the
and and
maps the
Directions.
nine
In
Strategy.
initiatives;
to
move
the
that
Infrastructure;
addressed of OCP of
organizations addition
Squamish
the
service;
OCP
improve
encourages environmental service;
housing;
OCP
Community
trails the
jg>
has Squamish (notably
assist
Growth healthy
OCP
directs
RGS’s targets
towards
goals
is
regional
is regional
Communities prepared
and
consistent
consistent
is
the
and
regional municipalities
Regional in Lillooet
supportive
(with
growth
and
Map and bike Strategy
Section
Act
consistency
Smart
and Lillooet
Plan
road
district
other
health that
the
routes;
associated indicates A
individual
Regional
air
with
is —
with
to
Settlement
Growth.
network,
following
3.2.
Urban consistent
- is makes
service;
Regional
the
The
of regional services,
and
‘to
the
RGS within
the
over
Urban
that
Village promote
Growth District policies vibrancy.
policies) efficient
initiatives
goat
RGS’s The
working
time,
Regional
Page 130 of 343 matters,
Area a the District’s
parks
with
Areas,
RGS
and
has
of
the
in Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
V Supports working cooperatively to explore creative mechanisms to encourage affordable housing; and ‘ Continues to assist in the facilitation of low cost housing options for seniors.
4. Achieve a Sustainable Economy — The OCP is consistent with the deections relating to supporting a vibrant economy, specifically it: Supports the development of regional initiatives and partnerships to strategically enhance various sectors of the economy; Will strengthen the multimodal transportation system; ‘ Will work to enhance the awareness of the region for business investment; i Recognizes that an agricultural plan for the Pemberton Valley wit provide for new agricultural investment and the protection of the ALR;and ‘ Recognizes the importance of a regional lndeendent Power Plant development strategy.
5. Protect Natural Eco-system Functioning — The CCP’s land use document recognizes the importance of minimizing possible environmental impacts, supporting ecological restoration and enhancement, and protecting habitat and wildlife and specifically: V Supports consolidating ecologcai and biodiversity data in the region; V Promotes Best Management Practices to limit environmental impacts; V Recognizes the importance of water quality and conservation; ‘ Supports the Sea to Sky Air Quality Management Pan; V Supports the SLRDSolid Waste Managemen.t Flan.; ‘ Supports intiatives to eliminate noxious weeds; V Recognizes the importance of community stewardship and support for the Bear Smart program; and / Moves towards the implementing Initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: and V Considers other positive initiatives to preserve and protect the natural environment moving towards sustainable means.
6. Encourage the Sustainable Use of Parks and Natural Areas — The Village also recognizes the value of these open spaces within the OCP, notably: V Supports the retention and provincial operation of provincial parks (Nairn); V Support for the ongoing management and coordination of greens spaces and natural areas outside Village boundaries; V Recognizes the importance of regional open space connectivity while respecting wildlife corridors, growth boundaries and wildfire interface areas; V Supports the Sea to Sky Trail and Trans Canada Trail initiatives; ‘ Supports the preparation of a recreation opportunities and facility inventory as part of a Recreation Master Plan; and V Supports community initiated stewardship projects.
7. Create Healthy and Safe Communities — The OCP considers health and safety as it relates to the quality of life in a community, neighbourhood design and land use. The following RGSstrategies are supported in the OCP: V Promotes multi-iurisdictional approach to public health and wellness; V Supports the WincisofChaoge initiative; V Encourages the development of a compact and walkable community that embraces the Smart Growth Principles; V Commits to emergency planning on a regional basis;
\\PC—180\PlariningAncloev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 131 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
v Supports community initiated projects to mprove the community’s wellbeing; V Pursues initiatives to improve the quality cf life and security for the community; and Provides for infrastructure, trails and greenways that link regionally.
8, Enhance Relations with AboriginalCommunitW&The OCP encourages dialogue and collaboration with the Lilwat Nation and furtter the plan v’ Supports the collaboration with First Natibris on joint interests; ‘ Apply various consultation tools in discussions with First Nations on the Official Community Plan, subsequent amendments and other land use considerations.
9. Improve Collaboration Amongst Jurisdictions — The Village is supportive of inclusive, coordinated, and transparent decision making that provides mutual respect and ongoing and early communication, The protocol measures and approach identified by the SLRD, specifically: ‘ Supports ongoing commu nications and coordination in the region; “ Encourages the use of various innovative and effective approaches to assist with the resolution of regional issues.
3.2 Regional Settlement Area Map and the Village’s Official Community Plan Land Use Maps
A comparison of the ROSs Regional Settlement Area Map and the OCPs Land Use Maps indicates several inconsistencies in the land use designations related to urban growth. Map N — Regional Context Statement identifies the physical location of the subject properties, while the following summaries highlight the inconsistencies and the manner in which the Village and the SLRDare able to work towards consistency. In many cases a minor amendment is requested in keeping with the RGS Minor Amendment Process where” it is in the opinion of the Board that the change is not considered to be a/regional significance in terms of scale, impacts or precedence; and contributes to achieving a compact, complete and sustainable community’.
Parcel #1: Southern portion of Lot B, KAP73119, DL202 and Block H, DL202 These lands are currently within the Agricultural Land Reserve. In 2009, the Agricultural Land Commission indicated that subject to certain conditions the Commission may consider removing the ALRdesignation for the purposes of residential uses. The proposed residential use is a small development whereby the ALCand the Village generally support an urban use if in accordance with Smart Growth principles and improving surrounding farmland.
ACTION: The Village request that the SLROinitiate a minor amendment for Parcel ill within the Settlement Area Map for an urban area designation, if the lands are removed from the ALR.
Parcel #2: Unsurveyed Crown land immediatehj north of DL2297, south of Collins Road. It appears that these lands have been overlooked in the approval of the Benchlands Neighbourhood Concept Plan and subsequent boundary extension requests.
in the original review and approval of OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 594, 2007 the lands were identified as part of the Benchlands Neighbourhood Concept Plan even though they were not within the Village’s boundary. The jurisdiction of these lands was not questioned and on April 23, 2007 the SLRDBoard indicated that the subject OCP Amendment was “consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy Memorandum
\\PC480\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 132 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
of Understanding for urban development”. Regardless, the lands were not highlighted in the Regional Growth Strategy as being within the Regional District and therefore were not designated for future urban growth.
ACTION: The Village requests that the SLRDinitiate a minor amendment for Parcel #2 to the Settlement Area Map for an urban area designation. The Village will add these lands to their next boundary extension request to the province.
Parcel #3 — KAS1994 This is clearly a mapping error in the Settlement Area Map as there has been a residential subdivision on these lands for 10 years. The land was developed in the Village.
ACTION: The Village requests that the SLROinitiate a minor amendment for Parcel #3 to the Settlement Area Map for an urban area designation.
Parcel #4 — Block A, Plan KAP8144, DL7665 & 8784; Block A, DL8788; 018785; DL8787; DL8788
In 2006, the provincial government entered into the Sea to Sky Highway Agreement with the Lil’wat Nation as part of its accommodations benefit package. Included in this agreement was the transfer of 600 acres of fee simple land (plus a further 600 acres of option lands). Parcel #4 comprises a portion of these lands.
At the time the Village identified its final boundaries for the 2009 expansion application a portion of these lands were included. The identification of these lands was based on several technical studies that also informed the Regional Growth Strategy. It is understood that since the Regional Growth Strategy was nearing completion a notation was added to the Settlement Area Map stating that: *Exact boundary to be determined through further consultation. This notation was only added to the Pemberton Mount Currie Settlement Area Map.
ACTION: The Village requests that the SLRDinitiate a minor amendment for Parcel #4 to the Settlement Map for an urban area designation.
Parcel #5 — A portion of Lot 2, EPP1353, DL211 The proponents for an independent school on this site received approval from the Agricultural Land Commission on August 5, 2009 for a non-farm use. Although the rezoning was initiated in the SLRDin 2008 (then restarted following the ALCdecision) the lands were not designated or zoned for the school use until they were brought within the Village’s jurisdiction in 2011. As these lands continue to be within the ALR, the non-settlement area designation is appropriate even if the property is developed as an independent school. As a result the OCP and the RGSmap designations are deemed by the Village to be consistent.
Parcel #6 — A portion of Lot 2, EPP1353, DL211 (north of the rock outcrop, south the rail right of way and east of Pemberton Farm Road)
These lands were included by the Village in the 2011 boundary extension as the property was seen as a potential site for recreation amenities including playing fields and facilities. The lands are considered to be a key component in addressing
\\PC-180\PlanningAnd Dev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 133 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
recreational needs, although since the property is within the ALR,permission must be received from the ALC. The site was initially identified as a potential recreation site as early as 2007. A fundamental aspect of the proposed Hillside development identified in the RGSis to ensure that the new neighbourhood is compact, complete and sustainable. The introduction of the independent school (employment> and recreation will reduce vehicular trips to the Village downtown and provide a focal point to the neighbourhood. The development of recreational facilities for the Pemberton Valley is also intended to reduce vehicular trips and social reliance on the Whistler facilities.
ACTION: The Village request that the SLRDinitiate a minor amendment for Parcel 116within the Settlement Area Map for an urban area designation, If the lands are removed from the AL!?.
Parcel #7 — A portion of Lot 2, EPP1353, DL211 (comprising the quarried rock outcrop) This rocky knoll is currently within the Agricultural Land Reserve, yet at one time was a BC Rail quarry and (due to an early mapping error> outside the ALR. The development of the rocky knoll will increase the density in the neighbourhood and may provide a small opportunity for a neighbourhood commercial store, thus reducing vehicle trips.
ACTION: The Village request that the SLRDinitiate a minor amendment for Parcel #7 within the Settlement Area Map for an urban area designation, jf the lands are removed from the AL!?.
Parcel #8 — Block A, Plan B3576 These lands comprise a rural residential property that is not within the Agricultural Land Reserve, is within municipal boundaries and is surrounded by other lands designated for urban use within the RGS. Including this small isolated parcel in the Settlement Area will increase the density of the development and responds to Smart Growth principles.
ACTION: The Village request that the SLRDinitiate a minor amendment for Parcel #8 to the Settlement Map for an urban area designation.
\\PC480\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRG5ContextwAttach.docx
Page 134 of 343
\\pC18O\PIanningAndDeV\ReP05\2012\1 2 O 52 S
Request for Decision
H
VILLAGE
L
O
PEMBERTO\ LET
- rJ
Member Municipality Regional Cont...
LJ 9 J
RED
RGSConteXtWAttach.dOCX
SCHEDULE
!
/
—
B
N 1\
Page 135 of 343
1
I I
Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
VILLAGE OF PENBERTON -(:ONIM ITT FE OF[ HE WHOLE. MEETING MINUTES Minutes for the Committee of the hoIe of Council of the Village of Pemberton held Tuesdav pnl t 2012 itIl 00 a in in th. CounLil Olti 7400 Prospd Str.t lins is \ltin \o O7 ATTENDING: \1aor Jordan Sturds Councillor led Craddock Council br klan 1cBlanc Council br .Iames Iinklater Councilbor Mike Richman
STAFF: i)aniel Sailland. Chief Adminisirative Officer Sheena Fraser. Manager of Administrative Services & Corporate (tilicer \ikki (ii Imore. Manager of Finance Caroline I amont. Manager of l)evebopmeni Services
I. (‘AlT. ‘10 ORIWR
Al 12:25 pm \iavor Sturdy called the April 3. 2012 Committee of Whole meeting to order.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved Seconded T1IX the agenda he approved as presented. CARRIEI)
3. DRAFT BUDGET
Nikki Gilmore, Manager of Finance, presented the Draft Budget for 2012 noting discussions have taken place with all managers for input and met with Councillor Craddock to review the budget. Gilmore noted that it is not a balanced budget as it currently stands at $343,000 over. This draft budget includes all wish items and that more work will he required including incorporating items from the Strategic Plan. Gilmore also noted that she is still waiting confirmation of rates from other government authorities
Council reviewed the budget by department and discussion took place regarding a number of items including, but not limited to, the following:
• Community Forest budget • Council remuneration • Snow clearing • Street paving • Water:Sewer Rates and consideration that these rates may need to increase in order to accommodate reserve development • Pemhcrton North Water Service (PNWS)
\\PC-180\PlanningAndoev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRGSContextwAttach,docx
Page 136 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Committee of the Whole Meeting \o. 75
Tuesday April 3. 2011 Pace 2 o14 • Quarterly billing of utilities and the possibility of seeing it in place for January 2013 • Negotiations (recreation, community centre etc.)
Daniel Sailland reviewed the draft Strategic Plan that came out of the Strategic Planning Retreat in February. Council was asked to provide comments and input to the CAO for inclusion in the next draft which will he presented at the next Committee of the Whole.
Council also discussed further priorities and provided input with respect to their own priorities that include, but are not limited to. the following:
• Focus on municipal & boundary extension • Council remuneration increase of COLI • Trail development Poplar Street to the Community Centre (under hydro
lines — Lot 12) • How to deal with the PWNS funds owed • Development/acquisition of ‘een space for a field house and recreation use • Develop (clear and grade) Lot 13 along Portage Road (next to Signal Hill Elementarv) • Community Power Project • Recreation Review • Bylaw Enforcement - is there a need for another Officer?
Council requested that Stall’prioritize the projects listed in order of’must have, need to have, nice to have and possibly find 10% per department to cut.
Council will review and provide feedback to the CAO by Tuesday. April 10111,
At 3:10 p.m. the Committee of the Whole was recessed for five minutes. Nikki Gilmore left the meeting. At 3: 15 p.m. the Committee of the Whole was reconvened.
3 ‘illae of Pemberton Regional (ontet Statement — Regional Gnrn di Strategy
‘ ont, r of Dev rt re staf
• I or each ol the ( joals ol t.._ ide a paragraph over’ the ()CP is c.’nistcn1 The s _nt then sped icill refers I l)irections for member municipalities noted in the RGS; • Identifi where the OCP is inconsistent and indicate how it will be brought into consistenc: • Indicate any components of the RGS which are not applicable to the \lunicipalit
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 137 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
(ornnhit1ee t the \Vhol Meeting \o 7S Tuesday April 3. 2)11 Page 4 ot 4 Cou&il res ieed the R(S and indu.ated ‘.upportof the draft doLunkOttiih a tess minor changes which will he reflected in an ()CP Amendment Bylaw to he presented at the next Council meeting.
5. Downtown Enhancement Initiatives & ClIalIen2es — Update
Caroline Lamont, Manager of Development Services, provided an overview of the status of the Downtown Enhancement initiatives and challenges and requested Council s direction regarding the following items:
l’arking:
Council indicated that they would not direct enforcement on parking requirements of existing businesses. Alternatively, Council indicated that they would like to see the new Zoning Bylaw consider alternative parking standards more in keeping with requirements established in similar compact and walkable communities as well as a single generation fonnula based on all the uses possible in the zone.
Unsightly properties:
Council supported staffs idea to distribute a positive message to business to undertake a spring clean-up of their properties.
Outdoor Storage:
Staff was asked to prepare a policy for Councii’s consideration that vill establish a minimum standard for outdoor storage containers that focuses on the size, colour, condition, location and use.
Business Visibility/Signage:
Council is supportive of establishment of a new Sign Bylaw that will include sandwich board design and designation. Concerns were expressed that the process not be overly complicated, costly or bureaucratic.
Patios:
Council is comfortable with the status quo, however, the Village will consider the long term plans for the AG Foods Plaza working with existing businesses and the property owner.
Budget:
Staff was asked to continue to pursue any grant opportunities that may be available as well as the creative application of parking in lieu hinds to assist with Downtown Enhancement. StatYindicated that there is some interest in the community (and a potential grant) in initiating discu.ssions on the proposed barn structure on Frontier Street.
\\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttachdocx
Page 138 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
Conirniuee of the Whole bledung No 7S Tuesday April3. 3u] Pa c-I of 4
(hani p1ons of 1)owntowu Enhancement Stair is to reengage the Chamber how to bring together downtown business and properly owners in supporting and participating in downtown enhancement initiatives
6. ADJOURNMENT
\t 4:30 pm. the Connnirtee of the \Vhoie meeting was adjourned.
Mayor Corporate Officer
\\PC-18O\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx
Page 139 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont...
______
REQUEST FOR DECISION: 5u Recommendation: 1) That the Board advise the Village of Pemberton that the proposed mapping shown on Schedule B of proposed OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 675 should be revised in order to be consistent with the lands designated as Future Growth Node’ on the Settlement Planning Mapof the Regional Growth Strategy. CAO Comments: Who Votes: All x Participant — Weighted Vote: No — Yes — ReportlDocument: Attached _X_ Available Nil — Key lssue(s)IConcepts Defined: A referral from the Village of Pemberton for an OCP amendment requires a response Relevant Policy: SLRD Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 1062, 2008—Smart Growth Principles and Future Growth Node designation. Part 25 ofthe Local Government Act — Division 1-Application and Content of Regional Growth Strategies. Section 849 (1) The purpose of a regional growth strategy is to promote human settlement that is socially, economically and environmentally healthy and that makes efficient use of public facilities and services, land and other resources. Section 851 (1) . .A regional growth strategy must apply to all of the regional district for which it is adopted. Electoral Area C OfficialCommunity Plan Bylaw No. 689, 1999 Amendment Bylaw No. 1008, 2008—Section 5 — Special Planning Area and Map 1B. Strategic Relevance: The subject property until 2011 was in SLRD Electoral Area C. A portion of the subject property was the only site in the SLRD Electoral Areas designated for future urban growth, Other portions of the subject OCP amendment bylaw are designated as Agriculture in the Area C OCP and “non-settlement area” in the Regional Growth Strategy. Desired Outcome(s): Approval of a development that adheres to the core smart growth principles of the RGS and the development guidelines established in conjunction with the Pemberton Area Sub-regional Land Use Study and subsequently the Area C OCP. Response Options: 1) That the Board advise the Village of Pemberton that the proposed mapping shown on Schedule B of proposed OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 675 should be revised in order to be consistent with the lands designated as “Future Growth Node” on the Settlement Planning Map of the Regional Growth Strategy. 2) That the Board advise the Village of Pemberton that a Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) amendment willbe required with respect to the proposed OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 675, as the proposed bylaw is inconsistent with the Regional Growth Strategy Preferred Strategy: Option 1 \\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx Page 140 of 343 \\PC4SO\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 Request for Decision Submitted Other Reviewed Reviewed Communication: wishes public Follow Legal: there Financial: Organizational: be General: Future IMPUCA19ONS required. is Comments: hearing Growth to Up Part a proceed significant by: by: by: The Action: May 25 date). proposed Node of be OF May the S. D.Back with significant Forard area RECOMMENDATION: An Olmstead in be Local the the RGS OCP significant of processing RGS. Government land comments amendment staff amendment - Member Municipality Regional Cont... J included An RFD_RGSContextwAttach,docx time staff application the to expended time Act. in OCP may the bylaw the expended Village be amendment OCP for is part as inconsistent an part map of of RGS as Pemberton future of designation part as amendment an it of follow RGS with is an currently by the RGS amendment up that the Regional based action amendment September is presented. not on if designated the process. Growth the Village 2O expanded process. Strategy deadline of as Page 141 of 343 Pemberton part area in (and of that would the \\PC48O\PIannngAndDev\Reports\2O12\12O528 Request for Decision amendment 30th On Issue townhomes of Background: On to redesignate and Pemberton portion Appendix proposed referral. Bylaw The Option Urban lands. Planning That on RGS the Option revised Node” Strategy OCP jamik- development accommodate Schedule July August Regional to (with Board the that Defined: Amendment 675 Growth re-designate on The of 27, I 2 in A / Board (RGS) Area. the the need bylaw B. SLRD order copy contains 30, advise to second and lands concerning the B Growth holdings Settlement amend Boundary A of to at advise of There the amendment to 56 referral \ comments SLRD future referral proposed be in the the Ravenscrest Bylaw - be single is SLRD two Member Municipality Regional Cont... lands their addressed. [of Strategy. their to consistent Village Village are lying the received development. RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx the extends basic / designate to was No. Planning OCP family on received inconsistencies OCP Village include to Hillside above OCP will the 675, of of received amendments. be and under Pemberton Pemberton in lots. a be with beyond Hillside provided Amendment The of as order referral the Map a the Zoning lands. another required Pemberton new the the The an following The CN from Biro/Sabre of Village Amendment Request Background to the above application lands proposed neighbourhood the from area Rail between by extend mapping bylaw that referral referral the lands with The September Regional Bylaw right designated the tv the under Village of the that to respect first their lands subject Pemberton Village ON bylaw is Bylaw options from accommodate of proposed associated that a No. for attached is No consideration way. Regional Rail of urban Growth the and the involves 675 2QM) - to is Pemberton 675 to 675 of the Decision as Report could right extension the inconsistent the Village the Pemberton should growth “Future mapping (Hillside) Hillside regarding and to OCP Strategy. with proposed Growth July Ravenscrest of this 230 be the the way of is this considered: be 27th boundary on report Growth of the Special first SLRD shown in with the an to August lower order phase OCP as Page 142 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont... Analysis of Options: Option 1 — Revise the OCP map to make itconsistent with the RGS Future Growth Node Section 2 c) of Bylaw675 designates the “subject lands identified in Schedule A of the proposed bylaw as within the Village of Pemberton’s Urban Growth Boundary. This is consistent with the RGS, except for about 27 hectares of land south of the CN Rail right of way (the Sabre gravel processing area) and the wetlands south of the Pemberton Farm Road east right of way which is designated Non-settlement Area in the RGS. The wetland area in our view should not be designated Urban in the OCR Ifthe Agricultural Land Commission approves, the Sabre gravel area Urban designation could remain. With respect to the proposed Hillside Special Planning Area designation, Bylaw 675 varies significantly from the RGS. In particular the definition of the Hillside Special Planning Area states that this area: ‘comprises a new neighbourhood. Land use designations be incorporated into the OfficialCommunity Plan upon the approval of site specific development applications that are generally consistent withthe directions of the Hillside Lands, Planning Status Report (July 26, 2100) and Council approval.” The new neighbourhood, on the basis of the map attached to Bylaw675, is approximately 606 hectares (1497 acres) - about 185 hectares (455 acres) larger than the Future Growth Node in the RGS. The 185 hectares are designated Non-settlement Area in the RGS. A map showing the land subject to the proposed OCP amendment and the land designated as Future Growth Node in the Regional Growth Strategy is attached as Appendix A to this report. In total, the proposed bylaw includes approximately 420 hectares (1040 acres) of land that lies within the RGS designated Future Growth Node and 185 hectares of RGS Non-settlement Area. The Pemberton Area Sub-regional Land Use Study that was conducted as part of the RGS process, indicated that the 420 hectare Future Growth Node area would have a development capacity ranging up to over 2000 residential units (at 5 units/hectare density). Atthe 5 units per hectare density target in the sub-regional planning study; an additional 925 units could be developed on the Hillside lands. In our view the existing Future Growth Node has more than sufficient capacity to accommodate growth for at least the next 20 years. There is no demonstrated need to further extend the boundary of the Future Growth Node at this time. Ifsome minor refinements to the Future Growth Node boundary are needed in the future, the Village of Pemberton Regional Context Statement could address that matter. Given the potential scale of the development contemplated by the Village of Pemberton OCP Amendment Bylaw No. 675, 2011, an application for a general \\PC480\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttach.docx Page 143 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont... RGS amendment would be required in order to facilitate the contemplated land use changes. However, staff strongly recommend that the mapping associated with Village of Pemberton QCP Amendment Bylaw No. 675, 2011 be revised to match the lands designated in the Regional Growth Strategy Future Growth Node designation. Analysis of Options: Option 2 — Amend the RGS to make the OCP consistent As noted above, staff are of the view that there is no need at this point to consider designating land to accommodate up to 925 residential units more than already provided for in the RGS for the Hillside lands. Staff therefore do not support the option of amending the RGS. \\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttch.docx Page 144 of 343 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont... \\PC-18O\PlanningAndDev\Repoi-ts\2012\120528 RFD_RGSContextwAttachdocx Page 145 of 343 \\PC48O\PIannngAndDev\Reports\2O12\12O528 Request for Decision AND Being the WHEREAS No. 2 NOW meeting 1. Official 675, WHEREAS THEREFORE a) This Amendment a 675, the “There Village b) Area uses incorporated Urban c) d) assembled bylaw 2011 lands Community 2011 the that Bylaw by Growth THE Adding Inserting this Amend Amend this use are of Council to are the Pemberton are is are Hillside Plan the Planning Land description bylaw bylaw certain amend CORPORATION Bylaw amended into ENACTS may the within the Boundary), Map either Council Map Agricultural generally - upon after Plan Member Municipality Regional Cont... use may the as as Council following lands No. be the A Special B Status RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx within the “Hillside OCP’s to removed designations amend the to the to Official for by: AS of 675, Village cited accommodate Agricultural south designate designate BYLAW the “Benchlands consistent approval of the last the FOLLOWS: Report land Land 2011.0 Urban the Planning Special its OF Village following: Community for of paragraph Urban from of Official Corporation use THE the NO. (July all Pemberton Commission, the Growth the be of Land the CN Planning with description of Growth VILLAGE site 675, a purposes “subject Special incorporated “subject Community Area 26, Pemberton site Rail ALR in Reserve Plan specific the Boundary 2011 2011) for Section of Boundary. Line comprises or Area”. Planning directions Official the lands” (Hillside) lands” institutional OF in then are as and in development (ALR). Section Village deems Plan PEMBERTON the into 5.1 (Map permitted ‘Official identified Council identified these Community Area”: Hillside .3.2 from Amendment the a of of A)” it It 6.0 purposes; new (Growth desirable is the Pemberton Official time approval. lands Community following recognized in certain Special in applications neighbourhood. Hillside Schedule to Schedule Plan time: will Community Strategies, Bylaw to non-farm Planning the Page 146 of 343 in amend Bylaw should Lands, that open Plan A, land B that No. of of if Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont... e) Amend Map C to designate the ‘subject lands” as identified in Schedule A of this bylaw as “Development Permit Are No 5 - Intensive Residential”. f) Amend Map C to designate the “subject lands” as identified in Schedule A of this bylaw as “Development Permit Area No 6 - Multi-family and/or Commercial Development”. g) Amend Map C to designate the “subject lands’, as identified in Schedule A of this Bylaw as Development Permit No. 3 - “Enhancement of Agriculture” h) Amend Map Kto designate the “subject lands”, as identified in Schedule A of this bylaw as “Development Permit No. I — Environmental Protection”. READ A FIRST TIMEthis 26 day of July, 2011, READ A SECOND TIMEthis 26 day of July, 2011. PUBLIC HEARING HELD this day of , 2011. READ A THIRD TIMEthis day of 2011. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2011. Mayor Corporate Officer \\PC-180\PlanningAndDev\Reports\2012\120528 RFDRGSContextwAttach.docx Page 147 of 343 \\P&18O\PlanningAndoev\RepOrts\2012\1 2 O 528 Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont... RFDRGSContextwAttaChdOCX 11 L’ — N Page 148 of 343 \\p18O\PIanningAfldDeV\ReP01ts\2012\1 2 OS 2 S Request for Decision - Member Municipality Regional Cont... RFDRGSC0flteXtWAttaChd00c Schedule Page 149 of 343 B Information Report - Integrated Sustainability Plan Prog... Information Report Integrated Sustainability Plan Progress Update Meeting Date: May 28, 2012 This report is to provide the SLRD Board with an update on the Integrated Sustainability Plan (ISP) process and progress: Information on the ISP was revised and uploaded to the SLRD website. The Crowdbrite online tool was revised and made more user-friendly. The Whistler Centre for Sustainability hosted an action planning workshop with all SLRD staff on April 3rd at which staff had the opportunity to learn about Crowdbrite and brainstorm the “Descriptions of Success” (DoS) and potential actions. A Committee of the Whole meeting was held on April 16th. At this meeting, the Whistler Centre for Sustainability gave a presentation on sustainability planning and provided a review of the proposed ISP. At the end of the meeting, members of the Board did an exercise and provided input on Descriptions of Success which are the vision statements in the ISP. Committee of the Whole meetings were held on April 23rd and 30th to complete the review of the draft “Descriptions of Success”. The Board discussed each DoS and made amendments to various DoS. Any further changes were to be provided by email. An ISP Steering Committee meeting was held on May 3rd to review draft Descriptions of Success as revised by the Board. The Steering Committee went through each DoS statement and added input. Any further changes were to be provided by email. The Steering Committee also reviewed the “Description of Current Reality” and attending members were tasked with reporting back on any changes required to that document. The final Descriptions of Success (as amended by the Board and the Steering Committee) were loaded onto the Crowdbrite tool. A paper version was created and made available for community members who preferred an alternative to Crowdbrite for the input process. Advertisements were placed in newspapers (the first and second week of May) throughout the region in order to encourage feedback on the ISP. Emails were sent to numerous regional stakeholders (ie. member municipalities, First Nations, tourism associations, etc.) in order to collect feedback on the ISP. Public open houses are being planned for each of the four municipalities for the weeks of June 11th and 18th. Submitted by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Services Approved by: L. Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer Page 150 of 343 Information Report - Translink's Public Consultation for... INFORMATION REPORT Meeting re: Translink’s Public Consultation for Inter-Regional Sea-to-Sky Service DATE: May 28, 2012 At the regular meeting of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District on February 27, 2012 the Board of Directors passed the following resolution: THAT a letter be sent to Translink requesting further consultation with the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District on public transit initiatives within the Regional District. This resolution arose as a result of the Board becoming aware that Translink was conducting public consultation regarding a potential transit link to Squamish. SLRD staff contacted Translink staff and set up a meeting in order to gather information. On May 10th, staff met with Theresa O’Reilly, Manager of Translink’s Area Transit Plan Program, and Andrew Brooke, Manager of Public Consultation. Ms. O’Reilly explained that public input in the development of Translink’s 2040 Transit Network Vision for the North Shore Area Transit Plan, adopted in June 2011, resulted in a Sea to Sky link to Squamish being identified as one of about 70 potential projects worthy of further investigation. They then selected 10 projects based on public interest to that point for further public consultation and analysis against a multiple account evaluation developed for the 2040 Vision document. The Inter- Regional Sea-to-Sky Service was one of the 10 projects chosen for this further analysis. For the purposes of the evaluation, the service was assumed to be a commuter service only with a couple of morning and afternoon peak trips. However, at the request of some Squamish respondents, mid-day options were added to the scenario for the final evaluation. While Translink did not share the actual data obtained during their consultation process, the project did not score particularly well in several important categories, as shown on the attached Project Information evaluation sheet. In terms of relative priorities, the Project Evaluation score placed it in the “medium” range on Translink’s North Shore Area Plan Service and Infrastructure Priorities Chart. Projects in the “high” range are considered within a 1-10 year window. The following is the Evaluation Summary for the proposed Sea-to-Sky Project: New inter-regional service would provide new coverage and connections, with potential to reduce long-distance vehicle trips. Existing stakeholder interest/support, but relatively low expected demand and cost-effectiveness, including midday and reverse peak trips. New service and funding agreements and unique fleet requirements challenge near-term deliverability. Translink staff repeatedly emphasized that inclusion of the Sea-to-Sky Project in their long-range Vision document was not intended to connote any particular designs on operating a transit service in the corridor. They had simply received some public feedback asking them to put it on their radar. They have had no discussions with MOTI or BC Transit or Greyhound or CN or anyone else and suggested that any future engagement might simply consist of an agreement with BC Transit regarding an inter- change point within Translink territory. For the foreseeable future, they intend to take no further action. As a final note, BC Transit has advised that they have a staff member working on governance options for Regional Transit and are planning to commence work on a Sea to Sky 25 Year Transit Future Plan in 2013/14. Submitted by: Peter DeJong, Director of Administrative Services Reviewed by: Lynda Flynn, CAO Page 151 of 343 Information Report - Translink's Public Consultation for... Page 152 of 343 Information Report Bowen Island - Translink's Public Consultation for... Miller Vision Context Vision Objectives Snug Cove Ferry Terminal Maximize Minimize Grafton Supports future growth and development patterns on North North Shore Area Transit Plan Shore and aligns with unique geography FTN Alignment with transit- Single occupant supportive development vehicle use while Accommodates a 50% increase in mode share and demand based maximizing the Not to scale on anticipated growth and development Transit mobility for travel both within proportion of and beyond the sub-region walking and cycling 2040 Transit Network Concentrates fast and frequent service where most North Shore trips Lions Bay trips are expected Financial sustainability of the Page 153 of 343 operating agency Environmental Improves internal east-west mobility while enhancing north-south impacts from daily connections to rest of region System e ciency and e ectiveness travel Vision Sea to Sky Hwy 99 Hwy (potential) Horseshoe Bay Grouse Mountain Connections to Ferry Terminal Major Tourist and Frequent East-West Recreation Destinations Transit Infrastructure Connections Supports Basic Service Internal Travel Demand Coverage Maintained Transit Passenger facilities balance customer Connections to experience with operational requirements Regionally- Signi cant Queens 29 St Improved exchanges well-integrated with Destinations LYNN VALLEY MUNICIPAL surrounding urban design and land use TOWN CENTRE Transit Priority provides speed and reliability Dundarave bene ts Capilano Trans Canada Hwy Lynn Valley Rd 15 St 15 Deep Cove Park Royal LIGHTHOUSE Marine Dr PARK Hwy Mountain AMBLESIDE MUNICIPAL TOWN CENTRE Keith Grand 3 St Lillooet Capilano University Rd Cove Deep Extended Span of Mt Seymour Pkwy Rapid Service Linking Existing Esplanade Service to Meet Shifting Lonsdale Keith and Emerging Network of All-Day Travel Demands LONSDALE Centres on the North Shore and REGIONAL LOWER LYNN TOWN CENTRE Transit Service Network Regional Connectivity CITY CENTRE Lions Gate Bridge Frequent Service Types 3 St Main Dollarton Hwy Service every 15 minutes, more as needed, on corridors to accommodate a variety of trip DIA N AR M types, from early morning to late evening, 7 days a week N Improved Transit I Rapid Frequent Travel Speeds and Conceptual Rapid (Transport 2040) Conceptual Frequent (Transport 2040)* STANLEY Reliability Expanded Network of Transit Connections to New Faster, more reliable travel times to be Network of frequent corridors PARK Passenger Facilities to Enhance Development Centres more competitive with autos connecting major local destinations throughout the day Customer Experience of Region Ironworkers B U R R ARD I N L E T B U R R ARD I N L E T Memorial Bridge Georgia Other Service Types McGill Transit that further enhances connections with service types based on demand METROPOLITAN CORE Basic/Supportive Inter-Regional Hastings Connections to Major Destinations Long-distance connections outside the Burrard Metro Vancouver region Service for residents, workers and visitors with frequency, capacity and Granville time of day appropriate to demand re w f n Main Rupert e Knight Victoria R Boundary Nanaim o Willingdon Legend Map not to scale *Not all Conceptual (Transport 2040) corridors are shown New or Improved Exchange Highway Areas of Concentrated Road North Shore Population Points of Regional Interest and Employment Trans Canada Hwy Existing Rapid Transit Request for Decision - Gas Tax Funding Grants - Pemberto... REQUEST FOR DECISION GAS TAX FUNDING GRANT RESOLUTIONS Date: May 18, 2012 Recommendation: THAT the resolution as made by the Board on April 23, 2012 THAT staff develop two grant applications under the General Strategies Priorities System Fund for a Pemberton North water system and for the Bralorne sewer system. be amended as follows: THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District submit an application to the Gas Tax Agreement's General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) and Innovations Fund (IF), for a water improvement capital project to provide a secure source of potable water for the Pemberton North region of Electoral Area C that will ensure residents have access to a safe, high quality and affordable source of water, now and in the future. THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District submit an application to the Gas Tax Agreement's General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) and Innovations Fund (IF), for a capital project to upgrade the sewer infrastructure in the community of Bralorne in Electoral Area A that will reduce public health and environmental risk, improve water quality and foster sustainable local economic development. Key Issue/Concepts: At the April 23, 2012 Board meeting, the Directors made the following resolution: THAT staff develop two grant applications under the General Strategies Priorities System Fund for a Pemberton North water system and for the Bralorne sewer system. In order that the above resolution may be attached to the 2 separate grant Applications and provide more context, it is deemed advisable to separate the resolution as made above into 2 more complete resolutions as follows: Regarding Pemberton North Water System: THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District submit an application to the Gas Tax Agreement's General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) and Innovations Fund (IF), for a water improvement capital project to provide a secure source of potable water for the Pemberton North region of Electoral Area C that will ensure residents have access to a safe, high quality and affordable source of water, now and in the future. Regarding Bralorne Community Sewer Upgrade: THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District submit an application to the Gas Tax Agreement's General Strategic Priorities Fund (GSPF) and Innovations Fund (IF), for a capital project to upgrade the sewer infrastructure in the community of Bralorne in Electoral Area A that will reduce public health and environmental risk, improve water quality and foster sustainable local economic development. Submitted by: Lynda Flynn, CAO Page 154 of 343 Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Stag... REQUEST FOR DECISION Taicheng Group – Request for staggered fee payment structure Meeting Date: May 28, 2012 Recommendations: THAT staff prepare an amendment to Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008 in order to enable application fee instalment payments and refund provisions, as legally permissible. Key Issue(s)/Concepts Defined: This report deals with the topic of the Fees Bylaw. The SLRD has received a request from Taicheng Development Group to be allowed to pay their forthcoming rezoning application fees in instalments rather than by full payment at the time of rezoning application. In order for this request to be granted, the Fees Bylaw must be amended in order to provide for instalment payments. Relevant Policy: Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008 (May 2011 consolidation). Response Options: 1. Prepare an amendment to the Fees Bylaw in order to enable instalment and refund provisions (based on legal review) in order to allow large developments some financial flexibility with regard to development applications; 2. Do not amend the Fees Bylaw; 3. Refer back to staff for more information. Preferred Strategy: Option 1 IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION: General: The Fees Bylaw currently does not allow for the staggering of rezoning application fees, nor does it allow for any refund options. In order to address the Taicheng Development Group’s request for rezoning application instalment payments and concerns about the non-refundable fee structure, an amendment to the fees bylaw would be required. Submitted by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Reviewed by: L. Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer Page 155 of 343 Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Stag... Background Report Prepared by: K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development Prepared for: SLRD Board of Directors Meeting, May 28, 2012 Subject: Taicheng Development Group’s request for instalment of payments under the Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008 (May 2011 consolidation). Issue Defined: The report addresses the issues related to Taicheng Development Group’s request to stagger fee payments relating to their forthcoming rezoning application. Policy: Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008, (May 2011 consolidation). Background: Taicheng Development Group owns the lands immediately south of Britannia Beach that were formerly known as the “Makin Lands”. Britannia Beach south is currently designated for roughly 850- 1,000 units in the Area D OCP, however, a rezoning is required in order to achieve that density. Taicheng Development Group also owns a number of other District Lots in the vicinity of the gravel pit that may also be subject to the forthcoming rezoning application. Based on an application for 1,000 units, the minimum fee for the rezoning/OCP amendment application would be $230,000. The Fees Bylaw requires that additional fees be added for each additional dwelling unit at $100 per dwelling. Any commercial uses would also add to the rezoning fee payment. Without knowing the contents of the forthcoming rezoning application it is difficult to assess what the total application fees would be, however, it is assumed that the application could result in fees ranging from $260,000-$600,000. The Taicheng Development Group has requested a staggering of fees to be paid in instalments over a 4 month timeframe. It should be noted that rezoning/OCP amendment applications of the magnitude of the forthcoming Taicheng rezoning/OCP application are rare in the SLRD. The current SLRD Fees Bylaw does not allow for instalment payments or application refunds. Analysis: Use of fees: Rezoning application fees are intended to offset the costs for the SLRD to review rezoning applications. In the case of large and complex applications this fee covers the costs associated with hiring external consultants to help to review and provide technical assistance to SLRD staff. Such costs assist in paying for staff and consultants’ time, public meetings and other associated processing costs including geotechnical, development, environmental, engineering and other professional expertise as required to review a proposal. Fee payment by installment: Taicheng’s request to stagger their fee payments into instalments to be paid over a 4 month period should not detract from the SLRD’s ability to engage external expertise in assisting with project review (while also enabling Taicheng Development Group some flexibility with their project financing). It is not anticipated that the SLRD would need to spend more than the anticipated instalment fees during the 4 month payment period. As previously noted, the Fees Bylaw does not currently allow for the payment of application fees by instalment payments. A bylaw amendment would be required in order to allow the development community this flexibility. Based on discussions with legal counsel, they would need to review whether instalment payments are in keeping with the provisions of the Local Government Act. If Page 156 of 343 Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Stag... instalment payments are considered acceptable, the terms of the instalment payments would need to be clearly defined in the bylaw and cannot be left to the discretion of staff or the Board. Refund provision: The current Fees Bylaw does not provide for a refund option, which may dissuade some developers from applying for large development proposals. A bylaw amendment could allow for a refund option as seen in other jurisdictions. According to SLRD legal counsel, refund payments must be established by bylaw and provide for refunds based on set amounts at pre-established points in the application process. As with instalment payments, any provision for application fee refunds cannot be discretionary. Options for Taicheng Development Group: 1. Taicheng can submit an application for their intended development plans and pay the full amount for their proposed rezoning and OCP amendment application, with no option for refund. This amount could be as high as $600,000. 2. Taicheng could submit an application based on the minimum fee for 1,000 units (roughly $250,000) with any increases in units treated as an amendment to the application including associated fees. 3. Taicheng could submit a preliminary application fee, as prescribed in Schedule “A” of the Fees Bylaw (roughly 20% of the total fee) and pay the remainder of the application fee prior to 1st reading of any rezoning or OCP amending bylaws, or if SLRD costs exceed the deposit amount. 4. If the Fees Bylaw is amended, Taicheng could wait to submit their application until the bylaw is amended, to allow for any instalment payments and refund options (possibly in June or July, 2012). Attachments: Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008, (May 2011 consolidation). Conclusion: By amending the Fees Bylaw to provide for instalment payments and refund options for large applications, the SLRD can provide some financial flexibility to the development community while still covering their application processing costs. By amending the Fees Bylaw to reflect these proposed changes, the SLRD will establish a more “open for business” position with respect to the development community, offering a more reasonable and flexible approach, and removing an element of financial risk from the development process. Legal counsel will need to be sought in order to ensure that these options are both legal and feasible. Page 157 of 343 Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Stag... Sthedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101, 2008 Adopted Augu 25, 2008 CONSOLIDAaw COP’ May2011 IMPORTANTNOTICE THIS IS AN UNOFFICIAL CONSOLIDATION OF BYLAW NO. 1101 WHICH HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR CONVENIENCE ONLY. Although the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District is careful to assure the accuracy of all information presented in this consolidation, you should confirm all information before making any decisions based on it, Information can be confirmed through the SLRD Planning Department. Page 158 of 343 Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Stag... CONSOLIDATEDFOR CONVENIENCEONLY Consolidated bylaws are consolidated for convenience only and are merely representative. Each consolidated bylaw consists of the original bylaw text and maps, together with current amendments which have been made to the original version. Copies of all bylaws (original and amendments) may be obtained from the SLRD Planning and Development Department, BY-LAWNO DATEOF ADOPTION 1126—2009 Housekeeping Amendment July 27, 2009 I I Page 159 of 343 Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Stag... SQUAMISH-LILLOOET REGIONAL DISTRICT BY-LAW NO. 1101, 2008 WHEREAS pursuant to Section 931 of the Local Government Act, the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District may by by-law, impose application fees with respect to applications for rezonmgs and official community plan amendments. AND WHEREAS the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District deems it advisable to impose fees for the purpose of recovering an amount not exceeding the average cost of processing, inspection and advertising related to rezoning and official community plan amendment applications within the Electoral Areas of the Regional District. NOW THEREFORE the Regional Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. This by-law may be cited as SLRD Rezoning Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 1101-2008. 2. Application fees shall be paid at the time of application as outlined on the Application Fee Schedule attached hereto as Schedule ‘A”. 3. Bylaw 822, being the SLRD Rezoning Schedule of Fees Bylaw No. 822-2003 is repealed.. READ A FIRST TIME this 25th day of August 2008. READ A SECOND TIME this 25th day of August , 2008. READ A THIRD TIME this 25th day of August , 2008. ADOPTED this 25th day of August , 2008. Russ Oakley Paul R. Edgington Chair Secretary I hereby certify the foregoing to be a frue and correct copy of By-law No.1101, cited as the” SLRD Rezoning Scheduleof Fees Bylaw No. 822-2003, Amendment Bylaw No. 1101-2008” as adopted by the Regional Board August 25. 2008. Paul R. Edgington Secretary Page 160 of 343 Request for Decision - Taicheng Group - Request for Stag... SCHEDULE “A” APPLICATIONFEE SCHEDULE APPLICATION TYPE FEE 1.0 OFFICIAL COMMUNITYPLAN AMENDMENT 1.1 Text or map amendment $1300 plus $1000 public hearing fee. 2.0 REZONING 2.1 Text amendment only $1300 plus $1000 public hearing fee. 2.2 Rezoning requiring OCP amendment Add $500 to rezoning fee 2.3 ‘Housekeeping’ application to amend the M300 plus $1000 public hearing fee or 15 permitted number of residential/rural principal percent of the Schedule A fee for dwelling units, or the amount of commercial, ipplications under sub-sections 3.4, 3.5, industrial or institutional land area, or minor ‘3.6.4.2, or 5.1, whichever is greater zoning map amendment, provided that the application is submitted within two years of adoption of a zoning amendment bylaw relating to the same subject property, the subject land area and overall development concept are not changed and the proposal is consistent with the applicable Official . (Amendment Bylaw No. 1126) Community Plan. 2.4 Preliminary Application — For residential • $1000 minimum to a maximum of 20% rezoning involving 50 lots/permitted of the rezoning fee payable under sub principal dwelling units; or commercial, sections 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 4.2 and 5.1, with industrial or institutional involving 4000m2 a fixed fee amount to be determined by of parcel area, or comprehensive a scope of work and estimate of staff development rezoning involving combined costs prepared by the SLRD and land uses, a preliminary application fee !flY agreed to in writing by the applicants. be paid to allow staff review and participation Staff costs willbe billed at $50 per hour prior to submission of the full application, and consultants will be billed at cost. • This fee willbe deducted from the rezoning application fee ifthe full application is submitted within two years of the date of the preliminary application. (Amendment Bylaw No. 1126) 3 REZONING - RESIDENTIALJRURAL 3 lots/permitted principal dwelling units under $1300 plus $1000 public hearing fee. 3.1 proposed zoning Public hearing fee is refundable if application does not proceed to hearing. >3 and 10 lots/permitted principal dwelling $2000 plus $1000 public hearing fee. 3.2 units under proposed zoning Public hearing fee is refundable if application does not proceed to hearing. >10 lots and <50 lots/permitted principal $400 for each dwelling unitllotpermitted 3.3 dwelling units under proposed zoning: under proposed zoning Page 161 of 343 in in per m 2 area . unit/lot $100 unit;lot fee. fee. 4000 . floor if if hearing. hearing. tourist permitted . plus to to dwelling unit each Page 162 of 343 hearing hearing dwelling . unit/lot additional respective for proposal. each refundable refundable proceed proceed commercial each . is is public the public for the for not not $100 zoning of for fee fee dwelling $100 $200 plus $1000 $100/each $1000 does does fees permitted 1000 100 plus each . plus of plus plus hearing plus hearing area of of proposed elements for m 2 . 100 Public combined residential/commercial/industnal/anstitutional/ application other $3000 $2000 Public accommodation/sleeping parcel application $2000 $230,000 excess under $50,000 excess $500 Request for Stag... - use dwelling units dwelling involving land involving one dwelling principal principal than Institutional zoning: zoning: principal area more area Ipermitted Taicheng Group - zoning: . lots/permitted lots COMPREHENSIVE Industrial, parcel - - proposed proposed parcel 00 of /permitted . involving of l000 1 ERCIALJINDUSTRIALIINSTITUTIONAL m 2 . lots proposed m 2 under under and and egory Rezoning DEVELOPMENT REZONING ca Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Commercial, REZONING COMM Agriculture under 4000 4000 units units IAGRICULTURE >1000 50 >100 6 4 3.5 3.4 3 5.1 5.0 4.3 4.2 4.1 Request for Decision 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 Page 163 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 Contents Independent Auditors' Report 2 Financial Statements Statement of Financial Position 4 Statement of Operating Surplus by Function 5 Statement of Operations 7 Statement of Cash Flows 8 Statement of Change in Net Financial Debt 9 Notes to Financial Statements 10 Schedules 17 Page 164 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... BDO Canada LLP 600 - 925 West Georgia Street Chartered Accountants Vancouver BC V6C 3L2 www.bdo.ca (604) 688-5421 F (604) 688-5132 202 – 1200 Alpha Lake Road Whistler BC V0N 1B1 (604) 932-3799 F (604) 932-3764 202 – 38147 Cleveland Avenue Squamish BC V8B 0A2 (604) 892-9424 F (604) 892-9356 Independent Auditor’s Report To the Chairperson and Directors of the Squamish Lillooet Regional District We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the Squamish Lillooet Regional District, which comprise the Statement of Financial Position and Summary of Operating Surplus by Function as at December 31, 2011, and the Statements of Operations, Cash Flows and Change in Net Financial Debt for the year then ended, and other explanatory information. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards, and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor’s Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement. An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Squamish Lillooet Regional District as at December 31, 2011, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the year ended then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Page 165 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Supplemental Information Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the financial statements taken as a whole. The supplementary information included in Schedules 1 through 3 and Statements of Revenue, Expenses and Surplus for General Government Services - 1000 through Economic Development Pemberton / Area C - 3103 is presented for purposes of additional analysis. Such supplementary information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, in our opinion is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Chartered Accountants Vancouver, British Columbia March 26, 2012 Page 166 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Statement of Financial Position December31 2011 2010 Financial Assets Cash and Term Investments (Note 3) Cash 155,797 53,516 nvestments 8,169,831 7,793,462 Accounts Receivable AR Governments and Agencies 119,646 63,777 AR Other 829,365 400,956 Agreements Agreements due from members (Note 6) 48,711,357 48,911,993 57,985,996 57,223703 Liabilities Accounts Payable AP Trade and Accrued Liabilities 532,150 542,863 AP Payroll 80,520 79,390 Contributions in Trust 295,083 35,125 Provision for Landfill Closure (Note 7) 244,026 269,478 Deferred Contributions 8,938 Long Term Debt Long-Term Debt (Note 6) (Schedule 1) 56,095,344 56,836,701 57,247,123 57,772.495 Net Assets I (Debt) 738,873 (548,792) Non-Financial Assets Tangible Capital Assets (Note 2) 37,275,775 37,296,345 Accumulated Surplus 38,014,647 36,747,554 Approved by: Treasurer A’ /2J44’ Chair The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements 4 Page 167 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Summary of Operating Surplus by Function For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 General Government Services 1000 General Government Services 299,910 320,846 Land Planning & Zoning 1200 Land Planning & Zoning 224,558 153,559 1201 Regional Growth Strategy 59,569 51,646 1202 Civic Addressing 16,600 12,978 Waste Management Planning 1300 Regional Solid Waste Management 353,580 279,396 1300A Utilities & Environmental Services Dept. (586) - Building Inspection 1400 Building Inspection Services 96,092 12,394 Elections 1500 Elections UBCM 5,063 2,873 Treaty Advisory Committee 1600 PLTAC 10,080 10,175 1601 LMTAC (0) (0) General Government Services 1602 Feasibility Studies 11,176 38,882 Fire Protection and Rescue Services 1700 Fire Protection Pemberton 167 28 1703 Lillooet Area Rescue Serv 200 704 1706 Fire Protection Lillooet 0 0 1707 Fire Protection Bralorne 11,702 5,565 1708 Fire Protection Garibaldi 20,107 962 1709 Fire Protection Furry Cr. - (0) 1711 Fire Protection Seton-Shalth (1,102) 2,165 1712 Fire Protection Gun Lake 821 362 1713 Fire Protection Birken 2,348 858 1714 Howe Sound East Fire Services 54,270 60,826 1715 Pemberton Meadows Fire Protection 0 0 1716 The Heights Fire Protection 0 0 Other Protection Services 1760 Nuisance & Disturbances Reg.Control 22,277 22,277 1761 Emergency Planning 49,915 45,284 1763 911 Interior 42,454 98,950 1764 911 South 99,832 164,358 Street Lighting 1800 Gold Bridge Street Lighting 295 (391) 1801 Bralorne Street Lighting 559 (305) 1802 Seton Street Lighting 154 (64) 1803 D'Arcy Street Lighting 474 179 1804 Furry Creek Street Lighting 13,285 7,705 1805 Britannia Beach Street Lighting 580 5,563 Refuse Grounds 1900 Pemberton Refuse Grounds 41,104 32,063 1902 Lillooet Area Refuse Ground 114,487 10,844 1904 DArcy Dev-Birkenhead Refuse (10,277) (8,480) 1905 Anderson Lake Refuse 0 11 1906 Area A Refuse Grounds 28,900 5,443 1907 Area D Refuse Disposal - (35) 1908 Furry Creek Refuse Disposal 19,107 9,454 1909 Britannia Beach Refuse 11,580 3,803 Television Services 2000 Bridge River Television (45) 0 2002 Bralorne Television (13) 0 2004 Pemberton Television & Radio Rebroadcasting (12,161) (7,568) 2005 Whistler Television - (0) Recreation Areas 2100 Pemberton Recreation Commission 29,011 46,801 2102 Birken Recreation Commission 696 (8) 2104 Lillooet Dist R.E.C. Centre 224 146 2105 Squamish Dist Com Swim Pool 252,935 (1) 2106 Pemberton Dist Com Rec Complex (57,306) (51,507) 2106B Pemberton Meadows Centre (19,646) 1,916 2106C Pemberton Youth Centre (5,458) 3,852 2106D Gates Centre (17,343) (47,511) 2107 Gold Bridge Community Complex 66,683 6,354 Museums 2200 Bralorne Museum - 0 2201 Heritage -Haylmore Property (497) (952) 2202 Pemberton & Dist.Museum & Archives (119) 82 Orphan Road Services 2300 Upper Cheakamus Road Imp 7,973 14,338 Dyking Areas 2400 Furry Creek Dyking-Drainage 4,991 5,355 2401 Walkerville Dyking-Drainage 1,218 1,192 2402 Whitecap Dev Bear Creek Dyking Dist 1,524 3,346 Libraries 5 2501 Area A Library 64 32 Page 168 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... 2502 Pemberton Library 107 (461) Water Systems 2700 Devine Water 5,128 12,868 2701 Furry Creek Water 19,552 (604) 2702 Pemberton North Water 28,713 (68,255) 2703 Bralorne Water (4,167) (7,879) 2705 Britannia Beach Water 35,636 29,008 2706 Gold Bridge Water (177) (163,002) 2707 D'Arcy Water 7,165 61,896 Sewer Systems 2800 Bralorne Sewer 15,431 13,280 2801 Furry Creek Sewer (2,461) 16,726 2802 Britannia Beach Sewer (3,317) (7,197) Select Services 2900 Electoral Areas Special Services 212,285 207,110 2901 Electoral Area A Select General Services 24,145 25,489 2902 Electoral Area B Select General Services 2,488 5,960 2903 Electoral Area C Select General Services 19,870 25,849 2904 Electoral Area D Select Gen Services 24,902 4,375 Parks 3000 Electoral Areas Community Parks Service (9,803) 1,734 3001 Britannia Beach Parks and Trails 27,638 9,415 3002 Furry Creek Open Spaces 26,878 16,003 3003 Pemberton Valley Recreational Trails Service 129,026 113,409 3004 Sea to Sky Trails 203,795 36,844 Economic Development 3101 Sea To Sky Economic Development 5,051 5,051 3102 Bridge River Valley Economic Dev. 0 0 3103 Economic Development Pemberton/Area C 7,401 8,012 Transit System 3200 Transit - Area C-Pemberton-Mt Currie - (15,938) 3201 Regional Transit Planning & Infrastructure 120,085 112,636 Total all costc/services 2,747,380 1,769,078 Reserves 5,375,479 5,606,839 Investment in Non-Financial Assets 29,891,788 29,371,637 38,014,647 36,747,554 The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements 6 Page 169 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Statement of Operations Budget * For the year ended December 31 2011 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 5,566,596 5,566,597 5,764,404 Parcel Tax 272,969 272,969 286,030 Members Recovered Debt (Schedule 2) 0 4,999,542 5,037,338 Grants in lieu of taxes 1,054,983 1,095,354 984,401 Rental Income 30,514 26,918 30,515 Planning Fees 11,800 7,138 11,580 Building Permit Fees 131,000 197,251 128,570 Water and Sewer Rates 67,900 71,148 67,899 Overhead Recovery 111,125 111,625 147,502 Interest and Investment Income 104,086 107,371 72,351 Tipping Fees 260,800 370,965 359,092 Administrative Services 594,749 492,696 267,363 Miscellaneous Revenue 146,800 200,241 169,746 Contributions from developers 96,000 96,000 96,000 Sales of Goods and Services 301,050 344,396 307,265 Transit 545,320 582,781 452,148 Contribution from other governments 135,000 134,419 196,581 Unconditional Grants - provincial 180,000 277,880 58,312 Conditional Grants - federal 229,607 227,007 226,027 Conditional Grants - provincial 194,210 351,774 383,460 Conditional Grants - municipal 100,000 100,000 0 Conditional Grants - non-governmental 203,896 272,934 3,007,813 Transfer from Other Services 773,397 711,727 1,162,991 Transfer from Landfill closure liability 30,161 30,652 51,796 Actuarial Revenue 0 291,482 228,834 11,141,963 16,940,867 19,498,017 Expenses General Government Services and Elections 2,306,841 2,280,622 2,060,363 Environmental Development 800,410 499,730 598,252 Environmental Health 1,677,470 971,268 954,296 Building Inspection 288,678 265,800 294,707 Treaty Advisory Council 24,397 15,434 14,860 Fire Protection and Rescue Services 1,875,664 893,360 780,971 Street Lightning, Dyking and Road Maintenance 81,048 31,971 28,520 Recreation, Cultural, Television and Library 3,877,213 2,739,457 2,525,370 Water Systems 1,087,377 406,341 364,015 Sewer Systems 277,305 213,279 217,207 Electoral Special/General Services 467,742 238,408 885,024 Economic Development 22,313 14,862 87,230 Transit System 686,953 572,952 529,398 Feasibility Studies Reserve Fund 12,504 13,427 7,272 Debt Services (Schedule 2) For Members 0 4,999,542 5,037,340 Specific Electoral Areas Interest payments 529,432 463,532 301,980 Amortization 1,097,837 1,053,788 973,476 15,113,184 15,673,773 15,660,281 Annual Surplus/ (Deficit) (3,971,220) 1,267,094 3,837,736 Accumulated Surplus, Beginning Of Year 36,747,554 36,747,554 32,909,818 Accumulated Surplus, End Of Year 32,776,333 38,014,647 36,747,554 * Budget includes budgeted capital expenses The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements 7 Page 170 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Statement of Cash Flows For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Cash provided by (used in) Operating Activities Annual Surplus 1,267,094 3,837,736 Items not involving cash Amortization 1,053,788 973,476 2,320,881 4,811,212 Changes in non-cash operating balances Accounts Receivable (484,277) 279,884 Accounts Payable 250,376 (577,219) Deferred Contributions (8,938) (358,846) Provision for landfill future closure and post-closure costs (25,452) (46,844) Cash generated by operating transactions 2,052,590 4,108,187 Captial Transactions Cash used to acquire tangible capital assets (1,033,217) (2,424,840) Cash applied to capital transactions (1,033,217) (2,424,840) Financing transactions Proceeds from issuance of long-term debt 0 0 Debt Retirement (540,722) (562,052) Cash applied to financing transactions (540,722) (562,052) Increase (decrease) in cash and equivalents during the year 478,651 1,121,294 Cash and equivalents, beginning of year 7,846,978 6,725,683 Cash and equivalents, end of year 8,325,628 7,846,978 8 Page 171 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Statement of Change in Net Financial Debt Budget For the year ended December 31 2011 2011 2010 Annual surplus (3,971,220) 1,267,094 3,837,736 Acquisition of tangible capital assets (3,131,040) (1,033,217) (2,424,840) Amortization of tangible capital assets 1,097,837 1,053,788 973,476 Gain (loss) on sale of tangible capital assets 0 0 0 Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets 0 0 0 Change in net debt for the year (6,004,423) 1,287,665 2,386,372 Net debt, beginning of year (548,792) (548,792) (2,935,163) Net debt, end of year (6,553,215) 738,873 (548,792) 9 Page 172 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 1. Significant Accounting Policies a. Basis of Presentation The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District (the Regional District) is a local government in the Province of British Columbia. The Consolidated Financial Statements of the Regional District, which are the representation of management, are prepared in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards as prescribed by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB) of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. The Consolidated Financial Statements reflect the combined results and activities of the reporting entity which is comprised of the Operating, Capital and Reserve funds and all organizations that are accountable for the administration of their financial affairs and resources to the Regional Board and are controlled or owned by the Regional District. Inter-fund transactions have been eliminated on consolidation. i.Operating Funds: These funds include the General, Water and Sewer operations of the Regional District. They are used to record the operating costs of the services provided by the Regional District. ii.Capital Funds: These funds include the General, Water and Sewer Capital Funds. They are used to record the acquisition and disposal of property and equipment and their related financing. iii.Reserve Funds: Under the Local Government Act, the Regional Board may, by bylaw, establish reserve funds for specified purposes. Money in a reserve fund, and interest earned thereon, must be expended only for the purpose for which the fund was established. If the amount in a reserve fund is greater than required, the Regional Board may, by bylaw, transfer all or part of the balance to another reserve fund within the same service. b. Budget Amounts Budget amounts reflect the statutory annual budget as adopted by the Board on March 28, 2011 and as amended on December 12, 2011. The majority of these amendments were due to unforeseen non-capitalized equipment expenses taking the total operating expenses over budget and the funds for these expenses were taken out of reserves. c. Revenue Recognition Sources of revenue are recorded on the accrual basis and include revenue in the period in which the transactions or events occurred that give rise to the revenues, and expenses in the period the goods and services are acquired and a liability is incurred or transfers are due. Sale of services and user fee revenues are recognized when the service or product is rendered by the Regional District. 10 Page 173 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 Grant revenues are recognized when the funding becomes receivable unless related stipulations create a liability in which case the revenue is recognized as the liability becomes extinguished. Revenue unearned in the current period is recorded as deferred revenue. d. Investments Investments are recorded at cost, except for investments in the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia pooled investments, for which market value approximates cost due to the volume of transactions within the fund. When, in the opinion of management, there is a permanent decline in value, investments are written down to their net realizable value. e. Tangible Capital Assets Tangible capital assets, comprised of capital assets and capital work-in-progress, are recorded at cost less accumulated amortization and are classified according to their functional use. Amortization is recorded on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful life of the asset commencing the year the asset is put in to service. Donated tangible capital assets are reported at fair value at the time of donation. Estimated useful lives as follows: Land Improvements 15 to 20 years Buildings 20 to 50 years Fixtures, Furniture, Equipment & Vehicles 5 to 20 years Technology 5 years Roads 10 to 50 years Bridges and other Transportation Structures 10 to 50 years Water Infrastructure 5 to 100 years Sewer Infrastructure 5 to 100 years Drainage Infrastructure 25 to 40 years f. Use of Estimates The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with Canadian public sector accounting standards requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the period. Significant areas requiring estimates include the determination of accrued payroll liabilities and provisions for contingencies. As such, actual amounts could differ from the estimates. 11 Page 174 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 2. Tangible Capital Assets 2011 2010 Land $2,251,059 $2,251,059 Land Improvements 752,067 279,305 Buildings 12,856,026 13,201,579 Equipment, Furniture & Vehicles 634,069 727,383 Engineering structures: Water 11,701,501 11,579,124 Sewer 9,070,670 9,257,895 Roads/Street lights 10,383 0 Total $37,275,775 $37,296,345 The Regional District has $495,022 of tangible capital assets under construction in 2011 (2010 - $1,346,773). For additional information, see the Consolidated Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets (Schedule 3). 3. Cash and Investments 2011 2010 Restricted cash and investments Statutory Reserves $5,375,499 $5,606,839 Restricted Revenues 244,026 278,416 5,619,525 5,885,255 Unrestricted cash and investments 2,706,103 1,961,723 Total cash and investments $8,325,628 $7,846,978 4. Deposit and Reserve – Municipal Finance Authority The Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia (the Authority) provides capital financing for Regional Districts and their member municipalities. The Authority is required to establish a Debt Reserve Fund. The Authority must then use this fund if at any time there are insufficient funds to meet payments on its obligations. If this occurs the Regional Districts may be called upon to restore the fund. Each Regional District, through its member municipalities who share in the proceeds of a debt issue, is required to pay into the Debt Reserve Fund certain amounts set out in the financing agreements. The interest earned on the Debt Reserve Fund, less administrative expenses, becomes an obligation of the Authority to the Regional Districts. Upon the maturity of a debt issue, the unused portion of the Debt Reserve Fund established for that issue will be discharged. The proceeds from these discharges will be credited to income in the year they are received. As at December 31, the total of the Debt Reserve Fund was comprised of: 12 Page 175 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 2011 2010 Cash deposits* $101,514 $177,854 Demand notes 224,543 359,383 $326,057 $537,237 * Only the cash portion of MFA deposits is included as a financial asset. 5. Federal Gas Tax and Public Transit Agreements Gas Tax and Public Transit funding is provided by the Government of Canada and use of the funding is restricted by the terms of a funding agreement between the Regional District and the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Gas Tax funding may be used towards certain public transit, community energy, water, wastewater, solid waste and capacity building projects, as specified in the funding agreements. These amounts are included with reserve funds. Public Transit funding may be used towards the cost of certain public transit projects, as specified in the funding agreements. Federal Gas Tax Agreement Funds 2011 2010 Opening balance of unspent funds $813,183 $579,048 Add: Amount received during the year 225,007 225,027 Interest earned 12,287 9,108 Less: Amount spent on eligible project costs (161,488) 0 Amount spent on administration 0 0 Closing balance of unspent funds $888,989 $813,183 Public Transit Agreement Funds 2011 2010 Opening balance of unspent funds $0 $0 Add: Amount received during the year 0 0 Interest earned 0 0 Less: Amount spent on eligible project costs 0 0 Amount spent on administration 0 0 Closing balance of unspent funds $0 $0 6. Long-Term Debt – Municipal Finance Authority All monies borrowed by the Regional District are upon its credit at large and shall, in the event of any default, constitute an indebtedness of the member municipalities for which they are jointly and severally liable. The agreements due from members are receivable on the same terms as the related agreements payable to the Municipal Finance Authority set out in Schedule 1. 13 Page 176 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 Balance, Balance, Beginning Principal Actuarial end of year Additions Payment Adjustments* of year General Fund MFA issue 51 $152,843 0 152,843 $0 MFA issue 53 46,253 9,375 36,878 0 MFA issue 58 74,693 7,939 66,754 0 MFA issue 99 2,065,478 55,227 9,381 2,000,870 MFA issue 101 4,090,416 106,178 13,258 3,970,981 MFA issue 105 _665,041 _ _34,959 __1,399 _628,684 7,094,724 0 213,678 279,113 6,600,535 Water Fund MFA issue 80 648,238 26,009 10,588 611,641 MFA issue 105 29,737 1,563 63 28,111 MFA issue 105 152,009 _ _7,991 ___320 143,699 829,984 0 35,563 10,970 783,451 Total $7,924,708 0 249,240 291,482 $7,383,986 Debt obligation recoverable from and payable by members $48,711,357 Total MFA Debt (Schedule 1) $56,095,344 The following principle amounts are payable over the next five years: 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 General $196,364 $196,364 $196,364 $196,364 $196,364 Water funds 35,562 35,562 35,562 35,562 35,562 $231,926 $231,926 $231,926 $231,926 $231,926 * Actuarial Adjustments represent interest earned on sinking funds held by the Municipal Finance Authority. Such interest is used to reduce the principal amount of outstanding debt. 14 Page 177 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 7. Future Obligations Landfill Closure / Post Closure Liability The Regional District operates various landfill sites and is responsible for closure and post closure care of these sites. The reported liability of $244,026 (2010 - $269,478) is for 3 landfill sites. The Lillooet Landfill is currently in operations and is scheduled to close in 2092. A report done by Sperling Hansen Associates analyzed the Lillooet Landfill and gave recommendations for post closure costs and post closure liabilities per year. The total estimated expense at 2092 is $18,622,416. The Regional District’s estimated liability for these expenses is recognized as the landfill site’s capacity is used and the reported liability of $57,088 (2010 - $51,888) represents the portion of the estimated total expense recognized as at December 31, 2011. The liability and annual expense is calculated based on the ratio of current usage to the total capacity of the site and the discounted estimated future cash flows associated with closure and post closure activities. The remaining capacity of the site is estimated to be 293,671 m3 and the estimated remaining landfill life is 81 years. The two Pemberton Landfill sites are now closed. Closure activities have commenced and the land is being returned to it’s original state. The reported liability of $186,938 (2010 - $217,590) represents the portion of the estimated total expense recognized as at December 31, 2011. 8. Expenses by Object 2011 2010 Debt charges $5,463,074 $5,339,320 Operating expenses 7,960,128 8,400,635 Salary, wages and benefits 2,250,571 1,920,326 $15,673,773 $15,660,281 9. Commitments and Contingencies a. Pension Plan The Regional District and its employees contribute to the Municipal Pension Plan (the Plan), a jointly trusteed pension plan. The Board of Trustees, representing plan members and employers, is responsible for overseeing the management of the Plan, including investment of the assets and administration of benefits. The Plan is a multi-employer contributory pension plan. Basic pension benefits provided are defined. The Plan has about 173,000 active members and approximately 63,000 retired members. Active members include approximately 35,000 contributors from local government. 15 Page 178 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Notes to the Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2011 Every three years an actuarial valuation is performed to assess the financial position of the Plan and the adequacy of Plan funding. The most recent valuation as at December 31, 2009 indicated an unfunded liability of $1,024 million for basic pension benefits. The next valuation will be as at December 31, 2012, with results available in 2013. Defined contribution plan accounting is applied to the Plan as the Plan exposes the participating entities to actuarial risks associated with the current and former employees of other entities, with the result that there is no consistent and reliable basis for allocating the obligation, Plan assets and cost to individual entities participating in the Plan. The Squamish-Lillooet Regional District paid $129,994 (2010 - $105,142) for employer contributions while employees contributed $116,975 (2010 - $96,090) to the plan in fiscal 2011. b. The Regional District is a member of the Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia. The main purpose is to pool the risks of liability so as to lessen the impact upon any subscriber. Under the Reciprocal Insurance Exchange Agreement, the Regional District is assessed a premium and specific deductible for its claims based on population. The obligation of the Regional District with respect to the Exchange and/or contracts and obligations entered into by the Exchange on behalf of its subscribers in connection with the Exchange are in every case several, not joint and several. The Regional District irrevocably and unconditionally undertakes and agrees to indemnify and save harmless the other subscribers against liability losses and costs which the other subscriber may suffer. Should the Association pay out claims in excess of premiums received, it is possible that the Regional District, along with the other participants, would be required to contribute towards this deficit. 16 Page 179 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Schedule 1 - Long-Term Debt For the year ended December 31 Balance Outstanding Year of Purpose Maturity Rate 2011 2010 439 Squamish Pool - Bylaw 439 2011 6.100 0 46,253 441 Squam/Dist Swim Pool - Bylaw 441 2011 7.421 0 152,843 458 Lillooet - Bylaw 458 2011 6.100 0 32,079 536 Squam/Dist Swim Pool - Bylaw 536 2014 8.950 0 74,693 583 Squamish - Bylaw 583 2015 8.000 120,928 147,649 611 Lillooet - Bylaw 611 2011 7.250 0 18,534 628 Squamish - Bylaw 628 2017 6.900 942,869 1,074,886 629 Squamish - Bylaw 629 2017 6.900 692,387 789,333 671 Squamish - Bylaw 671 2017 5.500 59,432 66,384 704 Squamish - Bylaw 704 2020 5.500 610,654 664,751 726 Whistler - Bylaw 726 2011 5.900 1,301,185 1,399,709 733 Squamish - Bylaw 733 2022 6.060 3,265,988 3,484,930 740 Pemberton - Bylaw 740 2022 6.060 433,243 462,287 772 Lillooet - Bylaw 772 2018 5.490 152,937 170,826 779 Pemberton North Water - Bylaw 779 2023 4.780 611,641 648,238 887 Squamish - Bylaw 887 2024 4.860 2,216,068 2,335,220 938 Lillooet - Bylaw 938 2020 4.550 484,099 528,084 956 Pemberton - Bylaw 956 2025 4.170 1,632,231 1,718,032 963 Pemberton Rec Centre - Bylaw 963 2031 4.430 2,000,870 2,065,478 965 Lillooet - Bylaw 965 2021 4.660 371,248 400,981 1018 Squamish - Bylaw 1018 2026 4.430 2,268,365 2,377,292 1020 Pemberton - Bylaw 1020 2036 4.430 1,949,944 2,014,885 1037 Pemberton Rec Centre - Bylaw 1037 2032 4.520 3,970,981 4,090,416 1044 Squamish - Bylaw 1044 2027 4.820 3,065,944 3,201,022 1068 Squamish - Bylaw 1068 2028 4.650 579,196 602,698 1072 Howe Sound Firetruck - Bylaw 1072 2024 4.900 628,684 665,041 1097 D'Arcy Water - Bylaw 1097 2024 4.900 143,699 152,009 1098 Goldbridge Water - Bylaw 1098 2024 4.900 28,111 29,737 1102 Whistler - Bylaw 1102 2028 5.150 21,203,592 22,259,139 1105 Squamish - Bylaw 1105 2029 4.900 2,701,330 2,802,613 1114 Squamish - Bylaw 1114 2029 4.900 613,528 636,531 1138 Squamish - Bylaw 1138 2031 4.200 2,412,803 0 1841 Whistler - Bylaw 1841 2029 2.230 1,633,385 1,724,128 56,095,344 56,836,701 17 Page 180 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Debt Services Schedule 2 - Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Village of Pemberton 362,571 372,354 Village of Lillooet 183,540 183,538 District of Squamish 1,916,958 1,988,830 Resort Municipality of Whistler 2,536,472 2,492,618 4,999,542 5,037,340 Expenses Municipal Finance Authority Agreements Principal Members 2,131,316 2,110,895 Specific electoral areas 540,722 562,052 2,672,039 2,672,946 Interest 3,040,276 3,228,425 5,712,314 5,901,372 Recovered from specified electoral areas (712,772) (864,032) 4,999,542 5,037,340 18 Page 181 of 343 with Bill Cox... 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Schedule 3 -Schedule of Tangible Capital Assets For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Engineering Structures Roads/ Equipment Land Hghwy/ Land Buildings / Furniture/ Water Sewer Drainage Total Total Improvements bridges/ Vehicles Street lights Opening Balance $ 2,251,059 $ 279,533 $ 15,482,618 $ 1,573,608 $ 13,780,802 $ 11,015,687 -$ $ - $ 44,383,306 $ 41,958,466 Additions - 479,268 50,279 22,588 443,249 26,950 10,882 1,033,217 2,424,840 Disposals ------Write Downs ------Closing Balance, Dec. 31 2,251,059 758,801 15,532,897 1,596,196 14,224,051 11,042,637 0 10,882 45,416,523 44,383,306 Accumulated Amortization: Opening Balance 0 228 2,281,038 846,225 2,201,678 1,757,792 - - 7,086,961 6,113,484 Amortization Expense 0 6,506 395,833 115,902 320,872 214,176 - 499 1,053,788 973,477 Effects of Disposals and write down adjustments ------Closing Balance, Dec. 31 - 6,734 2,676,871 962,127 2,522,550 1,971,968 - 499 8,140,749 7,086,961 Net book value for year ended December 31 2,251,059 752,067 12,856,026 634,069 11,701,501 9,070,670 - 10,383 $ 37,275,775 $ 37,296,345 Page 182 of 343 19 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District General Government Services - 1000 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 597,062 518,464 Grants in lieu of taxes 1,095,354 984,401 Water and Sewer Rates 0 2 Overhead Recovery 111,625 147,502 Interest and Investment Income 64,041 28,186 Administrative Services 55,053 64,133 Miscellaneous Revenue 6,812 8,623 Contributions from developers 96,000 96,000 Unconditional Grants - provincial 277,880 58,312 Conditional Grants - federal 225,007 225,027 Conditional Grants - provincial 0 1,943 Conditional Grants - non-governmental 15,000 998,908 Transfer from Other Services 20,842 19,700 Transfer from Reserve 64,210 21,563 2,628,886 3,172,765 Expenses Regional Expenses 161,035 156,901 Electoral Area Expenses 47,260 47,467 Staff Costs 843,846 712,966 Office Expenses 190,615 179,040 Management Information Systems 102,605 136,004 Operating Expenses 198,604 85,329 Consulting Fees 30,478 63,966 Project Costs 95,782 100,485 Other Expenses 277 3,223 Time allocation from other services 86,958 31,321 Transfer to Reserve 942,652 1,980,311 2,700,112 3,497,014 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (71,226) (324,249) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 287,107 611,359 Surplus, end of year 215,881 287,109 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 299,910 320,846 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (84,029) (33,739) 215,881 287,107 20 Page 183 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Land Planning & Zoning - 1200 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 228,757 267,283 Planning Fees 7,138 11,580 Administrative Services 32,471 42,192 Miscellaneous Revenue 823 917 Conditional Grants - provincial 0 20,000 Transfer from Other Services 295,705 280,748 564,895 622,720 Expenses Salaries 307,628 288,655 Benefits 81,085 78,137 Overtime 133 2,271 Training 5,177 962 Dues/Subscriptions/Memberships 2,222 2,804 Travel 3,072 6,821 Advertising 2,533 2,801 Mapping & Land Data 3,315 1,541 Miscellaneous Office Expense 156 49 Staff Incentives 18 0 Publications/Resources 224 241 Vehicle Expense 4,700 4,500 Overhead from General Government 45,978 48,000 Consulting - Legal 2,550 3,065 Consulting - Legal/Bylaw Enforcement 414 69 Zoning/Public Hearings 55 1,261 Recoverable Costs - Land Use 0 18,425 Recoverable Costs - Sub-division servicing 1,740 0 Non-Recoverable Project Costs 0 32,296 Special Projects 14,345 40,673 Time Allocation from Other Services 18,550 28,604 493,896 561,173 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 70,999 61,547 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 153,559 92,012 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 224,558 153,559 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 224,558 153,559 224,558 153,559 21 Page 184 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regional Growth Strategy - 1201 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 8,055 31,628 Interest and Investment Income 315 293 8,370 31,921 Expenses Consulting - Legal 0 11,000 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 315 293 Time Allocation from Other Services 132 5,057 447 16,351 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 7,923 15,571 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 51,646 36,075 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 59,569 51,646 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 59,569 51,646 59,569 51,646 22 Page 185 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Civic Addressing - 1202 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 9,325 34,000 9,325 34,000 Expenses Mapping & Land Data 356 21,022 Time Allocation from Other Services 5,347 0 5,703 21,022 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 3,622 12,978 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 12,978 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 16,600 12,978 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 16,600 12,978 16,600 12,978 23 Page 186 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Utilities and Waste Management - 1300 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 0 151,410 Interest and Investment Income 437 341 Tipping Fees 145,560 157,322 Administrative Services 0 139,717 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 701 145,997 449,492 Expenses Salaries 0 231,962 Benefits 0 68,774 Overtime 0 416 Training (0) 3,328 Dues/Subscriptions/Memberships 1,668 1,636 Travel 890 1,764 Advertising 0 1,562 Miscellaneous Office Expense 0 18 Staff Incentives 53 0 Vehicle Expense 0 5,700 Hardware 470 0 Overhead from General Government 0 55,000 Consulting - Legal 59 71 Contracted Services 0 400 Miscellaneous Equipment 0 885 Operating Supplies - Other 534 0 Recoverable Costs - Land Use 0 55 Special Projects 11,165 1,000 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 5,000 5,000 Time Allocation from Other Services 51,975 4,852 71,813 382,424 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 74,184 67,068 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 279,396 212,328 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 353,580 279,396 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 353,580 279,396 353,580 279,396 24 Page 187 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Building Inspection Serv. ESA - 1400 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 131,141 121,051 Building Permit Fees 197,251 128,570 Interest and Investment Income 559 509 Administrative Services 21,798 20,993 Miscellaneous Revenue 49 0 350,798 271,123 Expenses Salaries 151,965 144,705 Benefits 47,901 45,866 Overtime 172 197 Training 1,379 2,007 Dues/Subscriptions/Memberships 487 409 Travel 5,147 4,664 Advertising 611 0 Communications 536 230 Miscellaneous Office Expense 1,047 1,358 Publications/Resources 176 90 Vehicle Expense 9,800 9,500 Overhead from General Government 18,885 38,500 Consulting - Legal 1,728 900 Consulting - Legal/Bylaw Enforcement 2,618 21,751 Contracted Services 23,346 24,530 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 1,300 15,000 267,100 309,707 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 83,698 (38,584) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 12,394 50,978 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 96,092 12,394 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 96,092 12,394 96,092 12,394 25 Page 188 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Elections UBCM - 1500 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 22,355 22,288 Interest and Investment Income 160 308 Transfer from Reserve 21,000 0 43,515 22,596 Expenses UBCM Expenses 8,894 10,460 UBCM Dues 2,583 2,414 Elections - Advertisement/Court of Revision 14,021 0 Training 414 0 Consulting - Legal 66 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 10,000 16,000 Time Allocation from Other Services 5,346 0 41,325 28,874 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 2,189 (6,278) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 2,873 9,151 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 5,063 2,873 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 5,063 2,873 5,063 2,873 26 Page 189 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District PLTAC - 1600 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Interest and Investment Income 156 142 156 142 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 380 250 630 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (94) (488) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 10,175 10,663 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 10,080 10,175 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 10,080 10,175 10,080 10,175 27 Page 190 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District LMTAC - 1601 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 15,184 14,610 15,184 14,610 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 14,934 14,360 15,184 14,610 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (0) (0) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (0) (0) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (0) (0) (0) (0) 28 Page 191 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Feasibility Studies Reserve Fund - 1602 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Interest and Investment Income 2,143 1,746 Miscellaneous Revenue 18 0 Transfer from Other Services 0 46,791 Transfer from Reserve 11,392 2,272 13,553 50,808 Expenses License & Permits 18 0 Miscellaneous Studies 11,392 2,272 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 27,832 4,000 Contribution To Other Services 0 5,000 Time Allocation from Other Services 2,017 0 41,259 11,272 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (27,706) 39,537 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 38,882 (655) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 11,176 38,882 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 11,176 38,882 11,176 38,882 29 Page 192 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Pemberton SA - 1700 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 74,726 71,674 74,726 71,674 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Insurance 0 137 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 74,337 71,260 74,587 71,647 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 139 27 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 28 1 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 167 28 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 167 28 167 28 30 Page 193 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Rescue Service - 1702 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 48,850 48,250 48,850 48,250 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 48,600 48,000 48,850 48,250 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 31 Page 194 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Lillooet Area Rescue Serv CLSA - 1703 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 18,996 19,954 18,996 19,954 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 0 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 19,250 19,250 19,500 19,250 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (504) 704 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 704 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 200 704 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 200 704 200 704 32 Page 195 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Squamish Emergency Services - 1704 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 18,000 17,382 18,000 17,382 Expenses Overhead from General Government 200 176 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 17,800 17,206 18,000 17,382 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 33 Page 196 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Search And Rescue - 1705 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 37,150 35,926 37,150 35,926 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 176 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 36,900 35,750 37,150 35,926 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 34 Page 197 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Lillooet LSA - 1706 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 925 990 925 990 Expenses Overhead from General Government 200 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 725 740 925 990 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 0 0 0 35 Page 198 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Bralorne SA - 1707 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 30,448 26,332 30,448 26,332 Expenses Radio Expense 598 598 Insurance 1,070 968 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 22,643 19,930 Time Allocation from Other Services 0 15 24,311 21,510 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 6,137 4,822 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 5,565 743 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 11,702 5,565 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 11,702 5,565 11,702 5,565 36 Page 199 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Garibaldi SA - 1708 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 73,342 70,882 Interest and Investment Income 567 808 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 788 Transfer from Other Services 20,000 0 93,909 72,478 Expenses Advertising 197 0 Depreciation/Amortization 12,235 12,235 Insurance 2,006 2,844 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 45,531 51,114 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 20,900 4,800 Time Allocation from Other Services 5,831 1,516 Debt servicing 0 13,382 86,700 85,892 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 7,209 (13,414) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (35,744) (22,330) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (28,535) (35,744) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 20,107 962 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (48,642) (36,706) (28,535) (35,744) 37 Page 200 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Furry Cr. LSA - 1709 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 0 1,137 0 1,137 Expenses 0 0 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 1,137 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 (1,137) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 (0) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 (0) 0 (0) 38 Page 201 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Seton-Shalth LSA - 1711 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 9,700 7,700 Rental Income 5,934 9,531 Interest and Investment Income 4 2 Transfer from Other Services 6,485 6,157 22,123 23,390 Expenses Depreciation/Amortization 2,866 2,866 Insurance 1,300 1,181 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 23,944 20,210 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 100 5 Time Allocation from Other Services 46 0 28,257 24,263 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (6,134) (872) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (6,433) (5,561) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (12,567) (6,433) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (1,102) 2,165 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (11,465) (8,599) (12,567) (6,433) 39 Page 202 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Gun Lake CLSA - 1712 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 3,500 3,349 Interest and Investment Income 308 19 Transfer from Other Services 0 20,000 3,808 23,368 Expenses Insurance 47 43 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 3,000 3,000 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 302 20,000 Time Allocation from Other Services 0 9 3,349 23,052 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 459 316 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 362 47 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 821 362 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 821 362 821 362 40 Page 203 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Fire Protection Birken LSA - 1713 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 30,675 30,430 Interest and Investment Income 686 103 Transfer from Other Services 18,000 33,178 49,361 63,711 Expenses Depreciation/Amortization 1,126 1,126 Insurance 1,071 969 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 24,801 23,681 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 22,000 38,178 48,998 63,954 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 363 (243) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (2,520) (2,277) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (2,157) (2,520) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 2,348 858 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (4,505) (3,379) (2,157) (2,520) 41 Page 204 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Howe Sound East Fire Services - 1714 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 168,534 225,000 Interest and Investment Income 673 47 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 23,449 Transfer from Other Services 0 288,522 Transfer from Reserve 0 106,000 169,207 643,018 Expenses Training 12,772 11,185 Travel 76 150 Advertising 0 297 Bank Charges & Interest 250 0 Communications 481 450 Office Supplies 247 236 Security 626 475 Vehicle Expense 12,129 8,686 Radio Expense 2,934 0 Hardware 1,193 0 Support Services 466 0 Consulting - Legal 0 5,030 Contracted Services 19,530 17,792 Depreciation/Amortization 46,904 32,290 Insurance 7,601 10,922 License & Permits 0 5,619 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 978 21,758 Operating Supplies - Parts 2,225 11,690 Operating Supplies - Other 10,066 11,824 Rental/Lease of Floor Space 0 8,500 Service / Site Maintenance 1,822 0 Utilities - Hydro 3,226 9,386 Utilities - Telephone 3,368 3,315 Non-Capitalized Equipment 5,901 5,089 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 20,000 22,522 Time Allocation from Other Services 612 12,944 Debt servicing 69,259 69,259 222,667 269,418 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (53,460) 373,600 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 331,203 (42,397) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 277,743 331,203 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 54,270 60,826 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 223,473 270,377 277,743 331,203 42 Page 205 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Meadows Fire Protection - 1715 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 19,647 22,724 19,647 22,724 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 19,397 22,474 19,647 22,724 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 0 0 0 43 Page 206 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Heights Fire Protection - 1716 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 43,414 42,601 43,414 42,601 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 43,164 42,351 43,414 42,601 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 0 0 0 44 Page 207 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Nuisance & Disturbances Reg.Control - 1760 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 0 5,000 0 5,000 Expenses 0 0 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 5,000 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 22,277 17,277 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 22,277 22,277 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 22,277 22,277 22,277 22,277 45 Page 208 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Emergency Planning - 1761 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 122,618 106,569 Interest and Investment Income 1,510 91 Miscellaneous Revenue 5,410 112,010 Conditional Grants - provincial 217,292 2,670 Transfer from Other Services 40,000 96,000 386,830 317,340 Expenses Salaries 74,523 46,286 Benefits 16,437 4,619 Overtime 0 505 Training 824 1,500 Dues/Subscriptions/Memberships 125 125 Travel 2,951 2,417 Advertising 512 0 Meeting Costs 412 0 Communications 748 0 Office Supplies 72 418 Miscellaneous Office Expense 0 192 Publications/Resources 360 28 Software 712 117 Overhead from General Government 10,570 0 Consulting - Legal 707 889 Consulting - Other 0 14,774 Operating Supplies - Other 513 1,261 Special Projects 215,965 121,154 Non-Capitalized Equipment 8,725 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 40,000 96,000 Time Allocation from Other Services 8,042 5,990 382,199 296,276 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 4,631 21,064 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 45,284 24,220 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 49,915 45,284 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 49,915 45,284 49,915 45,284 46 Page 209 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District 911 North - 1763 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 19,450 35,781 Interest and Investment Income 1,140 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 17,645 18,928 38,235 54,709 Expenses Travel 480 0 Advertising 391 0 Communications 623 5,108 Software 0 163 Contracted Services 10,836 16,219 Depreciation/Amortization 9,322 9,118 Insurance 319 0 Utilities - Hydro 75 62 Utilities - Telephone 4,264 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 75,087 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 2,655 1,811 104,052 32,481 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (65,817) 22,228 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 182,066 159,838 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 116,249 182,066 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 42,454 98,950 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 73,795 83,117 116,249 182,066 47 Page 210 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District 911 South - 1764 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 0 12,466 Interest and Investment Income 76 0 Administrative Services 3,707 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 8,995 0 12,778 12,466 Expenses Travel 33 47 Communications 6,835 0 Mapping & Land Data 1,068 0 Radio Expense 167 0 Consulting - Other 0 8,771 Contracted Services 20,446 0 Depreciation/Amortization 849 0 Miscellaneous Equipment 458 0 Utilities - Telephone 3,808 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 5,000 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 18,039 18,320 56,704 27,138 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (43,926) (14,672) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 193,862 208,534 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 149,936 193,862 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 99,832 164,358 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 50,103 29,504 149,936 193,862 48 Page 211 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Gold Bridge Street Lighting SA - 1800 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 2,512 1,676 Interest and Investment Income 19 14 2,531 1,690 Expenses Overhead from General Government 100 100 Utilities - Hydro 1,476 1,561 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 270 760 Time Allocation from Other Services 0 7 1,846 2,428 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 685 (738) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (391) 347 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 295 (391) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 295 (391) 295 (391) 49 Page 212 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Bralorne Street Lighting SA - 1801 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 4,272 3,465 Interest and Investment Income 110 114 4,382 3,579 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Utilities - Hydro 2,952 3,122 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 274 576 Time Allocation from Other Services 42 36 3,519 3,985 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 863 (406) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (305) 101 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 559 (305) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 559 (305) 559 (305) 50 Page 213 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Seton Street Lighting LSA - 1802 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 2,000 1,634 Interest and Investment Income 7 8 2,007 1,642 Expenses Overhead from General Government 100 100 Utilities - Hydro 1,640 1,735 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 50 0 1,790 1,835 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 217 (193) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (64) 129 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 154 (64) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 154 (64) 154 (64) 51 Page 214 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District D'Arcy Street Lighting LSA - 1803 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 1,950 1,950 Interest and Investment Income 61 56 2,011 2,006 Expenses Utilities - Hydro 1,640 1,735 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 75 1,315 Time Allocation from Other Services 0 31 1,715 3,080 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 296 (1,074) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 179 1,253 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 474 179 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 474 179 474 179 52 Page 215 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Furry Creek - Street Lighting - 1804 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 12,086 12,000 Interest and Investment Income 1,092 1,002 13,178 13,002 Expenses Contracted Services 331 2,826 Utilities - Hydro 4,683 4,579 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 2,000 7,927 Time Allocation from Other Services 585 201 7,598 15,532 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 5,580 (2,531) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 7,705 10,236 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 13,285 7,705 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 13,285 7,705 13,285 7,705 53 Page 216 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Britannia Street Lighting - 1805 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 8,750 7,000 Interest and Investment Income 234 225 Transfer from Reserve 3,047 0 12,031 7,225 Expenses Contracted Services 5,430 2,748 Depreciation/Amortization 499 0 Contingency 0 3,459 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 8,115 Time Allocation from Other Services 702 552 6,631 14,875 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 5,401 (7,650) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 5,563 13,213 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 10,964 5,563 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 580 5,563 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 10,383 0 10,964 5,563 54 Page 217 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Refuse Grounds LSA - 1900 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 164,484 158,894 Interest and Investment Income 1,114 1,045 Tipping Fees 37,938 44,738 Transfer from Landfill closure liability 30,652 51,796 234,188 256,474 Expenses Advertising 928 435 Consulting - Legal 920 0 Contracted Services 182,504 190,034 Operating Supplies - Other 404 1,319 Special Projects 30,161 51,796 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 450 68,935 Time Allocation from Other Services 9,780 3,717 225,147 316,236 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 9,042 (59,763) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 32,063 91,825 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 41,104 32,063 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 41,104 32,063 41,104 32,063 55 Page 218 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Lillooet Area Refuse Ground LSA - 1902 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 63,884 46,600 Interest and Investment Income 3,581 4,100 Tipping Fees 173,481 140,791 Miscellaneous Revenue 10,894 3,124 Transfer from Other Services 0 11,864 Transfer from Reserve 12,300 180,000 264,140 386,480 Expenses Travel 77 100 Advertising 477 153 Consulting - Legal 861 1,196 Consulting - Engineering 6,228 5,083 Consulting - Other 0 175 Contracted Services 86,592 108,675 Depreciation/Amortization 24,686 10,761 Insurance 1,045 611 License & Permits 0 700 Operating Supplies - Other 928 3,834 Service / Site Maintenance 12,417 0 Tipping Fee Surcharge 7,605 8,714 Utilities - Hydro 2,706 919 Non-Capitalized Equipment 0 2,092 Transfer to Landfill Closure 5,200 4,952 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 21,426 Time Allocation from Other Services 24,060 9,903 Debt servicing 0 32,392 172,884 211,687 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 91,257 174,792 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 302,697 127,904 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 393,953 302,697 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 114,487 10,844 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 279,466 291,852 393,953 302,697 56 Page 219 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District DArcy Dev-Birkenhead Refuse LSA - 1904 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 6,625 6,625 Parcel Tax 25,000 25,000 Interest and Investment Income 3 3 Tipping Fees 2,100 2,100 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 37 Transfer from Other Services 3,811 3,754 37,539 37,519 Expenses Contracted Services 36,345 39,908 Depreciation/Amortization 421 421 Insurance 35 33 Operating Supplies - Other 0 1,807 Utilities - Hydro 95 108 Utilities - Telephone 927 934 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 15 Time Allocation from Other Services 1,935 1,064 39,757 44,289 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (2,218) (6,770) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (9,741) (2,971) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (11,959) (9,741) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (10,277) (8,480) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (1,682) (1,262) (11,959) (9,741) 57 Page 220 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Anderson Lake Refuse LSA - 1905 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 2,800 2,788 Tipping Fees 1,100 1,066 3,900 3,854 Expenses Overhead from General Government 100 100 Contribution To Other Services 3,811 3,754 3,911 3,854 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (11) 0 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 11 11 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 11 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 11 0 11 58 Page 221 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Area A Refuse Grounds LSA - 1906 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 20,988 20,677 Parcel Tax 33,245 32,755 Interest and Investment Income 1,026 958 Tipping Fees 10,787 13,075 66,046 67,465 Expenses Travel 16 64 Advertising 40 361 Contracted Services 31,140 49,161 Depreciation/Amortization 0 4,104 Insurance 89 82 License & Permits 100 100 Operating Supplies - Other 19 233 Service / Site Maintenance 7,148 0 Utilities - Hydro 0 240 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 710 8,324 Contribution To Other Services 0 11,864 Time Allocation from Other Services 3,327 5,017 42,589 79,551 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 23,457 (12,087) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (15,078) (2,991) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 8,380 (15,078) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 28,900 5,443 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (20,520) (20,520) 8,380 (15,078) 59 Page 222 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Furry Creek Refuse Disp LSA - 1908 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 43,000 40,459 Interest and Investment Income 328 290 Transfer from Other Services 0 10,000 Transfer from Reserve 10,000 0 53,328 50,749 Expenses Travel 82 54 Consulting - Legal 81 1,265 Contracted Services 28,052 32,678 Service / Site Maintenance 1,781 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 2,000 27,576 Time Allocation from Other Services 11,679 4,283 43,674 65,855 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 9,653 (15,106) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 9,454 24,560 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 19,107 9,454 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 19,107 9,454 19,107 9,454 60 Page 223 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Britannia Refuse - 1909 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 38,848 40,000 Interest and Investment Income 83 64 38,931 40,064 Expenses Contracted Services 29,787 27,119 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 1,000 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 366 934 31,154 28,053 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 7,777 12,010 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 3,803 (8,208) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 11,580 3,803 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 11,580 3,803 11,580 3,803 61 Page 224 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Bridge River Television LSA - 2000 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 7,060 7,742 7,060 7,742 Expenses Overhead from General Government 100 100 Insurance 705 652 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 6,300 7,100 7,105 7,852 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (45) (110) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 111 Surplus (Deficit), end of year (45) 0 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (45) 0 (45) 0 62 Page 225 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Bralorne Television LSA - 2002 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 5,642 3,479 5,642 3,479 Expenses Overhead from General Government 100 100 Insurance 314 289 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 5,242 3,129 5,656 3,518 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (14) (39) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 39 Surplus (Deficit), end of year (13) 0 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (13) 0 (13) 0 63 Page 226 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Lillooet/Camelsfoot TV DA - 2003 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 34,328 37,250 34,328 37,250 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 34,078 37,000 34,328 37,250 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 64 Page 227 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Television DA - 2004 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 18,302 18,673 Interest and Investment Income 221 280 Transfer from Reserve 5,000 0 23,523 18,953 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Consulting - Legal 52 0 Insurance 603 558 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 11,476 13,796 Service / Site Maintenance 14,259 1,775 Utilities - Hydro 1,070 1,070 Non-Capitalized Equipment 407 0 28,116 17,448 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (4,593) 1,505 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (7,568) (9,073) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (12,161) (7,568) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (12,161) (7,568) (12,161) (7,568) 65 Page 228 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Recreation Com. DA - 2100 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 0 36,000 0 36,000 Expenses Advertising 173 0 Overhead from General Government 250 0 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 17,289 28,763 Time Allocation from Other Services 79 0 17,790 28,763 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (17,790) 7,237 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 46,801 39,564 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 29,011 46,801 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 29,011 46,801 29,011 46,801 66 Page 229 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Birken Recreation Com. DA - 2102 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 4,255 3,500 Interest and Investment Income 3 3 4,258 3,503 Expenses Overhead from General Government 100 100 Insurance 454 420 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 3,000 3,000 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 8 3,554 3,528 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 704 (25) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (8) 18 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 696 (8) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 696 (8) 696 (8) 67 Page 230 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Lillooet Dist R.E.C. Centre CLSA - 2104 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 1,963 2,000 Transfer from Other Services 11,024 10,466 12,987 12,466 Expenses Overhead from General Government 100 100 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 12,809 12,220 12,909 12,320 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 78 146 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 146 (0) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 224 146 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 224 146 224 146 68 Page 231 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Squamish Dist Com Swim Pool LSA - 2105 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 1,175,566 1,109,961 Interest and Investment Income 357 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 147,094 0 1,323,017 1,109,961 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Depreciation/Amortization 72,877 72,877 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 895,481 820,077 Capital Grant 56,500 89,800 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 23,500 0 Debt servicing 94,349 199,835 1,142,958 1,182,839 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 180,059 (72,878) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (218,633) (145,755) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (38,574) (218,633) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 252,935 (1) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (291,510) (218,632) (38,574) (218,633) 69 Page 232 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton /Area C Recreation LSA - 2106* Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 925,993 911,000 Administrative Services 6,945 327 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,848 1,207 Sales of Goods and Services 344,396 307,265 Conditional Grants - federal 2,000 1,000 Conditional Grants - municipal 100,000 0 Conditional Grants - non-governmental 8,934 1,858,404 Transfer from Other Services 30,000 30,000 Transfer from Reserve 152,611 0 1,572,727 3,109,205 Expenses Staff Costs 431,080 326,811 Office Expenses 29,810 29,896 Management Information Systems 33 0 Operating Expenses 541,719 560,462 Consulting Fees 3,066 1,602 Utilities 134,635 107,466 Electoral Area Debt Costs 463,163 463,163 Time allocation from other services 17,631 5,402 1,621,137 1,494,801 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (48,410) 1,614,404 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 2,849,942 1,235,538 Surplus, end of year 2,801,532 2,849,942 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (99,753) (93,250) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 2,901,286 2,943,192 2,801,532 2,849,942 70 Page 233 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Gold Bridge Community Complex - 2107 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Rental Income 20,984 20,984 Interest and Investment Income 930 1,926 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 155 Transfer from Reserve 75,000 0 96,914 23,065 Expenses Advertising 248 61 Contracted Services 0 869 Depreciation/Amortization 6,738 6,140 Insurance 1,559 1,443 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 261 13 Operating Supplies - Other (0) 119 Service / Site Maintenance 3,624 4,689 Utilities - Hydro 2,881 2,616 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 1,770 16,396 Time Allocation from Other Services 2,331 680 19,413 33,026 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 77,501 (9,962) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (12,066) (2,105) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 65,435 (12,066) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 66,683 6,354 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (1,248) (18,421) 65,435 (12,066) 71 Page 234 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Bralorne Museum CLSA - 2200 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 11,840 11,840 11,840 11,840 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 11,590 11,590 11,840 11,840 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (0) 0 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year (0) 0 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 0 0 0 72 Page 235 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Heritage -Haylmore Property - 2201 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 661 600 Interest and Investment Income 17 36 Transfer from Reserve 2,571 0 3,249 636 Expenses Travel 330 224 Overhead from General Government 100 100 Contracted Services 1,223 0 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 0 100 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 650 617 Time Allocation from Other Services 491 631 2,795 1,672 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 455 (1,036) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (952) 84 Surplus (Deficit), end of year (497) (952) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (497) (952) (497) (952) 73 Page 236 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton & Dist.Museum & Archives - 2202 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 76,056 70,140 Interest and Investment Income 98 83 Transfer from Reserve 15,790 0 91,944 70,223 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 66,105 64,990 Capital Grant 15,790 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 10,000 5,000 92,145 70,240 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (201) (17) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 82 99 Surplus (Deficit), end of year (119) 82 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (119) 82 (119) 82 74 Page 237 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Upper Cheakamus Road Imp SA - 2300 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 2,126 2,000 2,126 2,000 Expenses Travel 107 0 Advertising 377 0 Overhead from General Government 100 100 Consulting - Legal 0 1,179 Contracted Services 3,909 982 Operating Supplies - Other 438 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 3,561 929 8,491 3,190 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (6,365) (1,190) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 14,338 15,528 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 7,973 14,338 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 7,973 14,338 7,973 14,338 75 Page 238 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Furry Creek Dyking-Drainage LSA - 2400 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 5,000 5,000 Interest and Investment Income 2,310 2,093 7,310 7,093 Expenses Contracted Services 0 997 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 6,000 6,222 Time Allocation from Other Services 1,673 655 7,673 7,874 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (364) (781) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 5,355 6,135 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 4,991 5,355 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 4,991 5,355 4,991 5,355 76 Page 239 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Walkerville Dyking-Drainage - 2401 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 1,058 1,200 Interest and Investment Income 401 359 1,459 1,559 Expenses Contracted Services 541 417 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 1,379 Time Allocation from Other Services 891 64 1,433 1,860 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 26 (302) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 1,192 1,494 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 1,218 1,192 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 1,218 1,192 1,218 1,192 77 Page 240 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Whitecap Dev Bear Creek Dyking Dist LSA - 2402 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 2,350 3,094 Interest and Investment Income 270 198 2,620 3,292 Expenses Travel 52 14 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 4,000 4,821 Time Allocation from Other Services 391 140 4,443 4,975 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (1,823) (1,684) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 3,346 5,030 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 1,524 3,346 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 1,524 3,346 1,524 3,346 78 Page 241 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Lillooet-Area B Library CLSA - 2500 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 174,250 174,250 174,250 174,250 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 174,000 174,000 174,250 174,250 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 79 Page 242 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Area A Library - 2501 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 19,532 18,218 19,532 18,218 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 19,250 18,000 19,500 18,250 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 32 (32) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 32 64 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 64 32 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 64 32 64 32 80 Page 243 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Library LSA - 2502 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 272,000 259,500 Interest and Investment Income 261 246 272,261 259,746 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 241,443 229,250 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 600 Contribution To Other Services 30,000 30,000 271,693 260,100 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 568 (354) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (461) (107) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 107 (461) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 107 (461) 107 (461) 81 Page 244 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Whistler Library - 2503 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 3,250 3,250 Transfer from Other Services 1,200 0 4,450 3,250 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 4,200 3,000 4,450 3,250 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 82 Page 245 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Area A Cemetery Function - 2600 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 800 800 800 800 Expenses Miscellaneous Operating Cost 800 800 800 800 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 83 Page 246 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Area C-Vill Pemberton Cemetery Function - 2601 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 500 500 500 500 Expenses Miscellaneous Operating Cost 500 500 500 500 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 0 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: 0 0 84 Page 247 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Devine Water SA - 2700 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 10,570 11,000 Water and Sewer Rates 3,488 3,494 Interest and Investment Income 543 405 14,602 14,899 Expenses Contracted Services 5,219 6,078 Depreciation/Amortization 4,706 4,706 Insurance 129 125 License & Permits 150 150 Operating Supplies - Other 234 74 Service / Site Maintenance 1,861 751 Utilities - Hydro 1,357 1,289 Special Projects 5,024 0 Non-Capitalized Equipment 0 2,035 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 3,900 3,782 Time Allocation from Other Services 4,467 1,987 27,048 20,976 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (12,446) (6,077) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (1,252) 4,825 Surplus (Deficit), end of year (13,698) (1,252) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 5,128 12,868 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (18,826) (14,119) (13,698) (1,252) 85 Page 248 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Furry Creek Water LSA - 2701 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 91,416 90,619 Interest and Investment Income 1,692 1,553 Miscellaneous Revenue 318 0 93,426 92,172 Expenses Travel 49 20 Office Supplies 0 6 Security 488 480 Consulting - Legal 0 53 Consulting - Engineering 782 979 Contracted Services 27,017 36,518 Depreciation/Amortization 48,395 48,395 Insurance 4,644 4,644 License & Permits 150 150 Operating Supplies - Other 99 997 Service / Site Maintenance 7,618 1,378 Utilities - Hydro 13,950 19,128 Non-Capitalized Equipment 2,417 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 3,000 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 13,056 4,994 121,665 117,741 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (28,239) (25,569) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (145,787) (120,218) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (174,026) (145,787) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 19,552 (604) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (193,578) (145,184) (174,026) (145,787) 86 Page 249 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton North Water LSA - 2702 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 106,871 105,728 Water and Sewer Rates 35,066 35,792 Interest and Investment Income 1,336 1,676 Miscellaneous Revenue 168 0 Transfer from Reserve 324,140 0 467,581 143,196 Expenses Travel 15 0 Bank Charges & Interest 225 0 Communications 85 0 Consulting - Legal 578 0 Contracted Services 0 14,581 Depreciation/Amortization 36,035 33,248 License & Permits 150 150 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 73,237 85,771 Operating Supplies - Parts 0 163 Operating Supplies - Other 0 74 Service / Site Maintenance 6,712 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 23,821 7,059 Debt servicing 67,074 67,074 207,933 208,118 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 259,648 (64,922) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (151,592) (86,670) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 108,056 (151,592) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 28,713 (68,255) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 79,343 (83,337) 108,056 (151,592) 87 Page 250 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Bralorne Water LSA - 2703 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 22,297 20,826 Water and Sewer Rates 6,976 4,559 Interest and Investment Income 926 873 Transfer from Reserve 17,990 0 48,188 26,258 Expenses Travel 21 28 Advertising 0 61 Contracted Services 4,172 14,265 Depreciation/Amortization 495 1,874 Insurance 2,374 2,520 License & Permits 150 150 Operating Supplies - Parts 0 1,564 Operating Supplies - Other 57 74 Rental/Lease of Floor Space 500 0 Service / Site Maintenance 8,173 153 Utilities - Hydro 4,482 3,503 Utilities - Telephone 863 1,016 Non-Capitalized Equipment 6,682 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 4,901 Time Allocation from Other Services 5,695 2,966 33,664 33,074 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 14,525 (6,816) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (13,502) (6,686) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 1,023 (13,502) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (4,167) (7,879) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 5,190 (5,623) 1,023 (13,502) 88 Page 251 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Britannia Water - 2705 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 114,491 122,419 Water and Sewer Rates 23,890 24,052 Interest and Investment Income 243 0 Miscellaneous Revenue 168 0 138,792 146,471 Expenses Travel 120 5 Security 794 780 Consulting - Legal 0 1,003 Consulting - Engineering 1,481 2,822 Contracted Services 47,114 53,338 Depreciation/Amortization 186,973 186,794 Insurance 5,100 5,100 License & Permits 354 150 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 37 0 Operating Supplies - Chemicals 5,681 10,172 Operating Supplies - Other 79 (41) Service / Site Maintenance 12,217 1,127 Utilities - Hydro 25,578 22,902 Utilities - Telephone 1,840 1,983 Non-Capitalized Equipment 1,112 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 717 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 16,323 7,883 305,520 294,017 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (166,728) (147,547) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (531,373) (383,826) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (698,101) (531,373) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 35,636 29,008 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (733,737) (560,381) (698,101) (531,373) 89 Page 252 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Gold Bridge Water - 2706 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 17,500 17,500 Interest and Investment Income 1,124 437 Contribution from other governments 134,419 196,581 Conditional Grants - provincial 108,500 207,638 Transfer from Other Services 13,827 147,266 Transfer from Reserve 128,327 0 403,698 569,421 Expenses Travel 157 39 Advertising 678 0 Contracted Services 4,116 7,335 Depreciation/Amortization 23,039 0 Insurance 1,851 517 License & Permits 150 627 Operating Supplies - Chemicals 344 2,235 Operating Supplies - Other 79 510 Service / Site Maintenance 8,923 831 Utilities - Hydro 4,827 1,981 Utilities - Telephone 206 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 13,827 147,266 Time Allocation from Other Services 21,978 8,698 Debt servicing 3,097 3,097 83,271 173,135 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 320,427 396,286 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 787,437 391,150 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 1,107,864 787,437 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (177) (163,002) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 1,108,041 950,439 1,107,864 787,437 90 Page 253 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District D'Arcy Water - 2707 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 17,092 31,000 Interest and Investment Income 895 487 Miscellaneous Revenue 0 (193) Conditional Grants - provincial 25,981 151,208 Transfer from Reserve 1,272 0 45,241 182,502 Expenses Travel 23 28 Bank Charges & Interest 50 0 Consulting - Legal 0 101 Contracted Services 12,437 8,422 Depreciation/Amortization 24,853 14,945 License & Permits 211 211 Operating Supplies - Other 0 74 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 26,674 1,000 Time Allocation from Other Services 5,777 9,254 Debt servicing 15,831 15,831 85,856 49,865 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (40,616) 132,637 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 246,932 114,295 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 206,317 246,932 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 7,165 61,896 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 199,151 185,036 206,317 246,932 91 Page 254 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Bralorne Sewer LSA - 2800 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Parcel Tax 16,896 18,000 Water and Sewer Rates 1,729 0 Interest and Investment Income 897 703 19,521 18,703 Expenses Travel 4 9 Advertising 0 61 Contracted Services 1,831 0 Insurance 177 0 License & Permits 469 264 Service / Site Maintenance 341 1,663 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 10,000 10,956 Time Allocation from Other Services 4,547 1,193 17,369 14,146 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 2,152 4,556 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (5,900) (10,457) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (3,748) (5,900) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 15,431 13,280 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (19,180) (19,180) (3,748) (5,900) 92 Page 255 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Furry Creek Sewer LSA - 2801 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 110,892 125,006 Interest and Investment Income 1,948 1,623 112,840 126,629 Expenses Travel 53 66 Security 1,555 780 Hardware 432 0 Consulting - Legal 0 53 Contracted Services 58,549 70,345 Depreciation/Amortization 70,199 68,458 Insurance 3,778 3,778 License & Permits 1,171 1,375 Operating Supplies - Parts 2,757 0 Service / Site Maintenance 6,647 756 Utilities - Hydro 15,490 15,059 Utilities - Telephone 1,920 2,099 Recoverable Costs - Sub-division servicing 0 5,789 Non-Capitalized Equipment 4,059 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 15,000 25,600 Time Allocation from Other Services 9,468 3,521 191,079 197,679 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (78,239) (71,050) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (188,647) (117,597) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (266,885) (188,647) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (2,461) 16,726 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (264,424) (205,373) (266,885) (188,647) 93 Page 256 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Britannia Sewer - 2802 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 120,517 115,043 Interest and Investment Income 495 449 121,012 115,492 Expenses Travel 41 90 Security 488 480 Consulting - Legal 0 283 Consulting - Engineering 0 88 Contracted Services 55,487 73,557 Depreciation/Amortization 159,213 158,770 Insurance 5,720 5,721 License & Permits 1,008 1,406 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 37 0 Operating Supplies - Parts 839 0 Operating Supplies - Chemicals 1,505 1,188 Operating Supplies - Other 1,179 706 Service / Site Maintenance 3,639 382 Utilities - Hydro 17,703 18,271 Utilities - Telephone 2,268 1,911 Non-Capitalized Equipment 2,204 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 1,300 826 Time Allocation from Other Services 7,912 6,313 260,543 269,992 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (139,530) (154,500) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (483,507) (329,007) Surplus (Deficit), end of year (623,037) (483,507) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (3,317) (7,197) Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets (619,719) (476,310) (623,037) (483,507) 94 Page 257 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Areas Special Services - 2900 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Interest and Investment Income 3,533 3,270 Transfer from Other Services 59,142 56,150 62,675 59,420 Expenses Electoral Areas/Select Services 39,992 47,978 Contribution To Other Services 17,509 16,623 57,501 64,601 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 5,175 (5,181) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 207,110 212,292 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 212,285 207,110 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 212,285 207,110 212,285 207,110 95 Page 258 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area A Select Gen Services - 2901 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Interest and Investment Income 1,827 3,676 Transfer from Other Services 46,820 119,452 48,647 123,128 Expenses Electoral Areas/Select Services 36,164 261,042 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 75,000 Contribution To Other Services 13,827 0 49,991 336,042 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (1,344) (212,914) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 25,489 238,403 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 24,145 25,489 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 24,145 25,489 24,145 25,489 96 Page 259 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area B Select Gen Services - 2902 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Interest and Investment Income 368 1,960 Transfer from Other Services 46,820 44,452 47,188 46,412 Expenses Electoral Areas/Select Services 50,200 167,135 Contribution To Other Services 460 0 50,660 167,135 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (3,472) (120,722) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 5,960 126,683 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 2,488 5,960 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 2,488 5,960 2,488 5,960 97 Page 260 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area C Select General Services - 2903 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Interest and Investment Income 632 781 Transfer from Other Services 46,820 44,452 47,452 45,233 Expenses Electoral Areas/Select Services 53,431 62,760 53,431 62,760 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (5,979) (17,527) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 25,849 43,376 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 19,870 25,849 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 19,870 25,849 19,870 25,849 98 Page 261 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area D Select Gen Services - 2904 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Interest and Investment Income 532 1,246 Transfer from Other Services 46,820 44,452 47,352 45,698 Expenses Electoral Areas/Select Services 21,250 79,487 Contribution To Other Services 5,575 250,000 26,825 329,487 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 20,527 (283,789) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 4,375 288,164 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 24,902 4,375 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 24,902 4,375 24,902 4,375 99 Page 262 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Areas Community Parks Service - 3000 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 950 1,000 Interest and Investment Income 4,196 3,160 Transfer from Other Services 0 45,921 5,146 50,081 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 16,434 54,065 16,684 54,315 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (11,538) (4,234) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 1,734 5,968 Surplus (Deficit), end of year (9,803) 1,734 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available (9,803) 1,734 (9,803) 1,734 100 Page 263 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Britannia Parks and Trails - 3001 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 39,245 35,800 Interest and Investment Income 61 5 Transfer from Other Services 4,375 0 43,681 35,805 Expenses Travel 0 110 Mapping & Land Data 0 10,281 Contracted Services 19,097 19,031 Service / Site Maintenance 661 696 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 4,475 15 Time Allocation from Other Services 1,224 1,968 25,458 32,102 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 18,223 3,703 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 9,415 5,711 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 27,638 9,415 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 27,638 9,415 27,638 9,415 101 Page 264 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Furry Creek Open Spaces - 3002 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 38,249 32,964 Interest and Investment Income 443 50 Transfer from Other Services 0 27,500 38,692 60,514 Expenses Travel 0 42 Consulting - Legal 24 781 Service / Site Maintenance 26,690 21,490 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 50 27,550 Time Allocation from Other Services 1,052 4,440 27,817 54,303 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 10,875 6,210 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 16,003 9,792 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 26,878 16,003 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 26,878 16,003 26,878 16,003 102 Page 265 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Area C/Pemberton Parks & Trails - 3003 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 50,000 50,000 Interest and Investment Income 260 240 50,260 50,240 Expenses Meeting Costs 79 0 Mapping & Land Data 40 0 Consulting - Engineering 5,495 0 Contracted Services 5,088 0 Depreciation/Amortization 74 0 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 0 131 Special Projects 11,784 10,000 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) (9,395) 0 Time Allocation from Other Services 14,899 3,984 28,063 14,114 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 22,197 36,125 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 113,409 77,284 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 135,606 113,409 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 129,026 113,409 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 6,581 0 135,606 113,409 103 Page 266 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Sea to Sky Trails - 3004 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 150,000 116,778 Interest and Investment Income 59 4,061 Conditional Grants - non-governmental 249,000 150,500 Transfer from Reserve 153,803 125,722 552,862 397,061 Expenses Training 266 676 Dues/Subscriptions/Memberships 82 109 Travel 181 288 Advertising 0 2,346 Meeting Costs 727 0 Mapping & Land Data 0 259 Miscellaneous Office Expense 0 22 Publications/Resources 45 0 Software 173 0 Website 724 1,485 Consulting - Legal 1,591 2,082 Consulting - Management 49,295 36,001 Consulting - Other 0 31,562 Depreciation/Amortization 1,179 0 Insurance 32 0 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 203 213 Miscellaneous Equipment 65 0 Operating Supplies - Other 54 0 Service / Site Maintenance 5,852 0 Special Projects 16,182 0 Non-Capitalized Equipment 154 9,276 Time Allocation from Other Services 50,670 29,169 127,476 113,490 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 425,386 283,571 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 273,645 (9,926) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 699,031 273,645 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 203,795 36,844 Surplus Deficit -Invested in tangible capital assets 495,236 236,802 699,031 273,645 104 Page 267 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Sea To Sky Economic Development - 3101 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Transfer from Other Services 0 5,000 0 5,000 Expenses 0 0 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 5,000 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 5,051 51 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 5,051 5,051 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 5,051 5,051 5,051 5,051 105 Page 268 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Bridge River Valley Economic Dev. - 3102 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 14,250 14,000 14,250 14,000 Expenses Overhead from General Government 250 250 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 14,000 24,566 14,250 24,816 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 0 (10,816) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 0 10,816 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 0 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 0 0 0 106 Page 269 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Economic Development Pemberton / Area C - 3103 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 0 60,000 0 60,000 Expenses Advertising 0 214 Meeting Costs 0 253 Website 612 6,056 Contracted Services 0 26,418 Miscellaneous Operating Cost 0 27,976 Time Allocation from Other Services 0 1,498 612 62,414 Surplus (Deficit) for the year (612) (2,414) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 8,012 10,426 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 7,401 8,012 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 7,401 8,012 7,401 8,012 107 Page 270 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Transit - Area C-Pemberton-Mt Currie - 3200 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Whistler Transit Contribution - Farebox (GFI) 46,004 37,230 BC Bus Pass Programme 837 12,301 BCT Subsidy - Greyhound Service 5,020 5,523 BCT Municipal Admin Charge Allowance 8,581 6,155 Student/Concession Passes 1,685 1,610 Adult Monthly Passes 19,301 47,747 Greyhound Ticket Sales (SLRD) 14,943 11,750 Greyhound Depot Sales 31,608 41,683 Commuter Wave Adult Tickets 16,043 7,263 Comm Student/Sr Wave tickets 1,020 945 Local Transit Farebox 54,167 34,869 Local Transit Adult 6,051 3,680 Local Transit Student/Senior 1,856 822 Partner Contributions 145,909 64,609 BCT Contributions 229,757 175,960 582,781 452,148 Expenses Travel 33 - Miscellaneous Operating Cost 280 1,179 BC Transit Operating Contract 491,029 385,954 Greyhound Ticket Purchases 16,427 7,701 Greyhound Depot Purchases 38,868 49,193 Capital Grant - 57,208 Time Allocation from Other Services 20,207 23,298 566,843 524,533 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 15,938 (72,385) Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year (15,938) (56,446) Surplus (Deficit), end of year 0 (15,938) Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 0 (15,938) 0 (15,938) 108 Page 271 of 343 2011 Financial Statements & Auditor Report with Bill Cox... Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regional Transit Planning & Infrastructure - 3201 Revenue, Expenses and Surplus For the year ended December 31 2011 2010 Revenue Requisition 13,500 56,350 Interest and Investment Income 58 0 13,558 56,350 Expenses Travel 132 0 Transfer to Reserve (Provision) 0 3,934 Time Allocation from Other Services 5,977 4,866 6,109 8,800 Surplus (Deficit) for the year 7,449 47,550 Surplus (Deficit), beginning of year 112,636 65,085 Surplus (Deficit), end of year 120,085 112,636 Represented by: Surplus Deficit -Available 120,085 112,636 120,085 112,636 109 Page 272 of 343 SQUAMISH-LILLOOET REGIONAL DISTRICT DIRECTOR REMUNERATION - 6 (2) (a) 2011 Directors Remuneration Report 2011 TOTAL SALARY/ FEES PAID EMP.CODE DIRECTOR NAME DIRECTORS EXPENSES AD&D Policy TOTAL PAID 30150 ANCHOR, TED Director, District of Lillooet 177.79 88.90 79.20 345.89 30029 ANDERSON, KEVIN Alternate, District of Lillooet 816.00 834.99 79.20 1730.19 30098 BONTRON, DENNIS Director, District of Lillooet 5,639.47 3,993.74 79.20 9712.41 30145 DEMARE, DEBRA Electoral Area A Director 390.23 432.32 79.20 901.75 30115 DEYAGHER, DENNIS Alternate, Electoral Area B 111.33 155.67 79.20 346.2 30149 FREITAG, MOE Electoral Area D Director 252.23 126.12 79.20 457.55 30097 GARDNER, GREG Alternate, District of Squamish 3,726.47 2,489.35 79.20 6295.02 30005 GIMSE, SUSAN Chair, Electoral Area C Director 23,250.63 30,949.51 79.20 54279.34 30099 HEINTZMAN, PATRICIA Vice Chair, Director, District of Squamish 4,399.35 2,199.67 79.20 6678.22 30137 KIRKHAM, ROBERT Director, District of Squamish 511.79 350.91 79.20 941.9 30096 LALLI, PAUL Director, District of Squamish 7,932.64 5,592.95 79.20 13604.79 30015 MACRI, MICKEY Electoral Area B Director 13,636.17 15,832.58 79.20 29547.95 30034 MELAMED, KEN Director, Resort Mun. of Whistler 8,075.36 4,550.31 79.20 12704.87 30103 MILNER, TED Alternate Resort Mun. of Whistler 202.67 141.33 79.20 423.2 30018 OAKLEY, RUSSELL Electoral Area A Director 11,415.27 14,572.73 79.20 26067.2 30147 RAISER, BRYAN Alternate, District of Squamish 118.00 59.00 79.20 256.2 30035 STURDY, JORDAN Director, Village of Pemberton 9,047.93 5,812.05 79.20 14939.18 30151 TAYLOR, KEVIN Alternate, District of Lillooet 118.00 71.00 79.20 268.2 30022 TURNER, JOHN D Electoral Area D Director 14,023.35 13,042.79 79.20 27145.34 30148 WILHELM-MORDEN, NANCY Director, Resort Mun. of Whistler 177.79 88.90 79.20 345.89 104,022.47 101,384.82 1,584.00 206,991.29 Page 273 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Amendments to th... From: FCM Communiqué [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April-24-12 9:22 AM To: Lynda Flynn Subject: FCM Board Alert: Amendments to the Fisheries Act/Avis au Conseil de la FCM: Modifications à la Loi sur les pêches La version française se trouve à la suite du texte anglais. Dear Board Members, Today, the federal Minister of Fisheries proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. Some of these amendments respond directly to municipal concerns that FCM has been advancing to the Department of Fisheries and Ocean (DFO) for over a decade. In particular, changes announced today should reduce the time federal, provincial and municipal governments spend processing paperwork for small, low-risk public works projects, so they can dedicate more of their resources to protecting fisheries from major threats. Over the last decade, FCM has consistently called for common sense reforms in Ottawa that deliver better value for taxpayers at the same time as protecting the environment. Today, it appears as if the federal government was listening. We will be working with the government to develop the regulations and policies that will implement these legislative changes. This consultation process will ensure municipal interests are reflected in how these changes affect everyday municipal operations, and that the balance between environment protection and efficient, streamlined government is maintained. Please see the statement released by President Vrbanovic in response to the announcement, as well as key messages and a short briefing note providing our analysis of the Minister’s proposal. Our analysis was based on a briefing by DFO officials prior to the announcement; we will be reviewing the changes in detail and will provide additional analysis if necessary. If you have any questions about the Fisheries Act or our response, please contact Shannon Joseph, Policy Advisor. Sincerely, Brock Carlton Chief Executive Officer Page 274 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Amendments to th... Statement by FCM president on proposed changes to Fisheries Act (24/04/2012) Statement by FCM president on proposed changes to Fisheries Act OTTAWA - The following statement was released today by FCM president Berry Vrbanovic following the federal government's announcement on proposed changes to the Fisheries Act: "The Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes today's commitment by the Government of Canada to reform the Fisheries Act. The changes announced today will allow governments to spend less time processing paperwork for small, low-risk public works projects and dedicate more resources to protecting fisheries from major threats and enforcing the rules when people break them. By reducing the time municipal employees are forced to spend filling out forms and waiting for federal approvals, the changes will make it faster and less expensive for local governments to perform routine public services, from clearing ditches to repairing storm water systems. These reforms will make it easier for governments to set clear, sensible priorities for protecting fish habitats. Currently the Fisheries Act applies the same protections to rivers and streams as municipal drains and farmers' irrigation canals. That doesn't make sense. The federal government has pledged to give the Fisheries Act more teeth by introducing enforcement provisions where none have existed before and giving regulators new legal tools to keep invasive species from entering Canada and harming our environment. Municipal leaders have consistently called for common sense reforms in Ottawa that deliver better results for Canadians. We look forward to working with the federal government to turn the broad reforms announced today into a strong, sensible action plan that strengthens our communities and protects our fisheries and environment." Page 275 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Amendments to th... Key messages: We welcome today’s commitment by the Government of Canada to reform the Fisheries Act. The changes announced today will allow governments to spend less time processing paperwork for small, low-risk public works projects and dedicate more resources to protecting fisheries from major threats and enforcing the rules when people break them. By reducing the time municipal employees are forced to spend filling out forms and waiting for federal approvals, the changes will make it faster and less expensive for local governments to perform routine public services, from clearing ditches to repairing storm water systems. These reforms will make it easier for governments to set clear, sensible priorities for protecting fish habitats. Currently the Fisheries Act applies the same protections to rivers and streams as municipal drains and farmers’ irrigation canals. That doesn’t make sense. The federal government has pledged to give the Fisheries Act more teeth by introducing enforcement provisions where none have existed before and giving regulators new legal tools to keep invasive species from entering Canada and harming our environment. Municipal leaders have consistently called for common sense reforms in Ottawa that deliver better results for Canadians. We look forward to working with the federal government to turn the broad reforms announced today into a strong, sensible action plan that strengthens our communities and protects our fisheries and environment. Page 276 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Amendments to th... Briefing Note AMENDMENTS TO THE FISHERIES ACT April 24, 2012 Issue On April 24, the government proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. Some of the proposed changes respond directly to requests FCM has made of the government for almost a decade. Many of our members will welcome the changes. Some members, however, will have legitimate questions and concerns about the possible impact of the changes on environmental protection. This briefing note provides background on the history of this issue at FCM, an overview of the impacts of the amendments on municipal operations, and some potential questions and answers to help respond to concerns raised by the media or the public. Background The federal Fisheries Act has been a corner stone of fisheries protection legislation for over a century, protecting Canada’s aquatic biodiversity. It has not been meaningfully amended since 1977, and many sections of the Act date to 1868. It is currently designed to provide blanket protection to all fish habitat. This orientation to habitat protection has, in many cases, created administrative barriers to municipal and local projects that would have no significant, real-world impact on fish populations. Municipal drainage systems and irrigation canals in farmers’ fields were subject to the same oversight and approval processes as major projects affecting environmentally sensitive lakes and rivers. This was not a sensible or effective approach. Tensions between municipalities and DFO over the enforcement of the Act’s habitat protection provisions have been escalating over the past several years. This culminated in the unreasonable and unfair arrest of a municipal official by DFO over the actions of a housing developer, which led FCM to press for changes to both the Act and its enforcement. Municipalities wanted a risk-based approach to habitat protection, whereby projects affecting marginal habitats (such as irrigation ditches) or projects with minor or time limited habitat impacts were not blocked in the name of unlikely and insignificant environmental outcomes. Municipalities also sought to be treated as partners in the Act’s review and enforcement and to be recognized as an order of government and a regulator, and not just a stakeholder or project proponent. Overview of April 24 proposed amendments: On April 24, 2012 the federal government proposed amendments that will be important to local governments as property owners and regulators: 1. Reorientation of the Act to protect commercial, recreational and aboriginal fisheries and their supporting systems: a. Protection of habitat and feeding fish that support a fishery b. Definition of minor works and minor waters that are automatically excluded from the Act c. Creating provisions that would allow regulators to address the issue of invasive species – which is currently unaddressed 2. Enhancing environmental protection tools: a. Providing the government with the authority to enforce conditions of permits under the Fisheries Act – currently no enforcement provisions exist. Page 1 of 2 Page 277 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities - Amendments to th... b. Providing the Minister of Environment with the authority to target certain waters for special protection even if the water or work might otherwise be excluded from the Act. c. Creating provisions for recognition of habitat off-sets. 3. Avoiding duplication and reducing administrative costs and burdens: a. Self-exclusion of smaller projects – reducing the number of applications for permits from 8,000 to 1,000. b. “Meet or beat” option to recognize the equivalency of provincial and territorial regulations in areas of shared jurisdiction under the Act. c. Allowing locally developed standards and tools to be referenced in the Act to address particular needs. Municipal benefits of proposed amendments: 1. Clearer definition of what activities and what areas will require a permit under the Fisheries Act and the possibility of self-exclusion from application of the Act. 2. Reduced administrative since few projects will require a federal permit and associated application process. 3. Reduced infrastructure cost since fewer minor projects will require significant adjustment and additional cost to comply with the Fisheries Act. 4. Neutral to positive environmental benefits since the focus on protecting fisheries, rather than any water occupied by fish regardless of environmental or public interest, will make resources available for better evaluation of projects which may in fact affect fisheriess, and enforcement of permit conditions. 5. Increased emphasis on working with other regulations, including municipalities, as partners and opportunities to reference locally developed best policies and practices in the revised Act. Key Questions and Answers: 1. Why are changes to the Fisheries Act important to municipalities? As land owners, local governments are subject to the Fisheries Act and must currently seek federal authorization for any project that might impact the habitat of any fish. The restoration of a culvert, the draining of a field for an annual traditional festival or the maintenance of storm water treatment wetland are examples of projects that could trigger the Fisheries Act at great cost to municipalities. 2. How will the proposed changes to the Fisheries Act benefit local governments? Instead of providing blanket protection to any habitat in which a fish might live, including a drainage ditch, the Act will focus on the potential of any proposed work to impact the long-term viability of a fishery over the long or short term. The changes make it clear which municipal projects would trigger the act and which won’t. It also reduces the number of projects that are likely to trigger the act. 3. Will the environment still be adequately protected? Right now significant resources are dedicated to evaluating projects that will have no significant impact on fish or their habitat – these resources will be freed for projects that require scrutiny. Furthermore, the current act has no enforcement provisions, so proponents that receive the go- ahead for their project subject to conditions are under no obligation to comply with those conditions – this will change under the new provisions. Finally, for the first time the issue of invasive species, which have significant environmental and ecosystem impact, will be addressed in Canadian law – this will provide regulators with the tools to protect indigenous Canadian aquatic species from these pests. Page 2 of 2 Page 278 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... From: FCM Communiqué [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: April-27-12 6:40 AM To: Lynda Flynn Subject: FCM Alert: Minister Fast to protect municipal interests Dear Members, This morning, the federal Minister for International Trade Ed Fast publicly affirmed the Government of Canada’s commitment to respect FCM’s seven fair trade principles. Specifically, Minister Fast remarked: “I welcome municipal input, and I’ve offered my commitment to ensure that FCM’s principles are respected in any agreement.” Delivering his remarks to the Economic Club of Canada in Ottawa, the Minister presented the potential benefits of the Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to Canadian business, cities and communities. In support of Minister Fast’s statement, federal cabinet ministers have been dispatched across the country today to deliver similar messages. FCM President Vrbanovic issued a media statement following the minister’s announcement. We will continue to monitor the status of the negotiations between Canada and the E.U. in order to ensure that municipal rights are protected. For more information, please visit FCM’s website or contact Adam Thompson, FCM’s Policy Advisor at 613-907-6247. Sincerely, Tim Kehoe Deputy Chief Executive Officer Page 279 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... Municipal principles for free and fair international trade: 1. Reasonable procurement thresholds: Inappropriately low or broad procurement thresholds may force municipalities to tender projects when tendering is neither practical nor financially justified. 2. Streamlined administration: Ensuring that municipal procurement policies are free- trade compliant will likely create new costs and may require specialized expertise. The administrative design of these rules must be as streamlined as possible and developed in close cooperation with municipal procurement practitioners. 3. Progressive enforcement: Enforcing provisions of any deal should be progressive, starting with verbal or public warnings before moving to financial penalties, and should recognize and not penalize inadvertent non-compliance, particularly in cases where municipalities do not have the expertise to appropriate apply the rules. 4. Canadian content for strategic industries or sensitive projects: A trade deal must recognize strategic and public interest considerations before barring all preferential treatment based on country of origin. There may be industries of strategic significance to a particular region, such as transit, or projects where considerations of quality, public benefit, environmental protection or business ethics means that a local government may wish to implement minimum Canadian-content levels. This should be allowed, within reason. 5. Dispute resolution: A dispute-resolution process, like the one in NAFTA, may require a careful review of the municipal role in that process so they can appropriately defend their policies and by-laws as an order of government. 6. Consultation and communications: Consultation and communications during negotiations are required to ensure any resulting agreement responds to municipal concerns. 7. Reciprocity: Canada´s negotiating position must support reciprocity in Canadian and foreign municipal procurement practices. Page 280 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... W0412012 Deeper Caneda-EUTrade WI Bring lobe Growthand Long-TermProeperdyto Had-workingCanadians Fornid Affeneaiaaesa fl itt Ie1 !n’err’S.onT’aeeCanac$a CorrwcerbnaicnCanaoa dIWUd Home >Media Roorn>News Releases >2012 Deeper Canada-EU Trade Will Bring Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity to Hard-working Canadians An ambitious Canada-EU trade agreement willbenefit workers, businesses and families in every region of Canada, Minister Fast says AprIl 27, 2012 — The Honourable Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia- Pacific Gateway, today told the Econorrdc Club of Canada that an antitious Canada-EU trade agreement willbe the cornerstone of the Harper government’s antitious pro-trade plan, and that benefits willbe generated for hard-working Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Minister Fast’s keynote address to the Econordc Club of Canada is the official launch of 18 events being held today in every province. Harper government ninisters, parliamentary secretaries and merrbers of parliament are meeting with workers, business and conninity leaders and stakeholders to highlight the range of benefits an antitious Canada-EU trade agreement willbring to all regions of Canada across many sectors of the Canadian economy. ‘A trade agreement with Europe is by far the most antitious trade initiative in our nation’s history, with the potential to be broader in scope and deeper in antition than the historic North American Free Trade Agreement,” said MInister Fast. ‘Whether you are a flshemen, farmer, menufacturer or high-tech worker, the benefits of an antltious agreement to you, your fardly and your connnlty willbe real and significant.” The EUis the world’s largest integrated economy, with more than 500 nlllion consumers and a GDP of over $17 trillion. Ajoint Canada-EU study found that an arrtitlous trade agreement with the European Union willbenefit Canadian workers and businesses significantly, by boosting bilateral trade by 20 percent and Increasing Canada’s economy by $12 billionannually. That transiates to an increase of $1,000 to the average Canadian fanily’s Income, or 80,000 new jobs across the country. In order to ensure Canadians have the facts about the benefits that would be generated by a Canada-EU conprehensive econordc and trade agreement (CETA),the Harper government also launched today a CETA-focused website as a continuation of what have been the most transparent and coliaborative trade negotiations Canada has ever conducted. ‘Unfortunately, anti-trade activists continue to spread falsehoods about trade,” said Minister Fast. ‘These are the same faisehoods spread about the NAFTAnegotiations a generation ago by the same groups. They were proven wrong then, and they are just as wrong now. We mist fight their fear mongering with facts, and their faisehoods with reality.” Minister Fast concluded his speech by stating clearly that the Harper government remeins squarely focused on what metters to Canadians: jobs, growth and long-term prosperity. Deepening Canada’s trading relationships with lucrative merkets Nicethe EUare key to these efforts. ‘Where others think Canada should turn inward and cower In fear of the global economy, our government rejects this view because we know that the best way to create jobs and prosperity is to errbrace the global economy, and put our goods, services, expertise and Canadians thenselves to work around the world,” said Minister Fast. ‘The foundation of the most antitious free trade plan in Canada’s history willbe solidified with an arrtitious agreement with the EU.” In less than six years, the Harper government has concluded free trade agreements with Colontia, Peru, Jordan, Panarre, the European Free Trade Association states of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein and, nust recently Honduras. It is also In negotiation with rmny others, Inciuding India and Japan. Mw.intemaUonaLgo.cehnedoonmierc&oommMswa.commwiquea12O12m4WaLn..I.ngevv... Il Page 281 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... 0/04/2012 Deeper Canada-EU Trade Will Bring Jobs. Growth and Long-Term Prosperity to Hard-working Canadians deAreentCETANJeotiations.For more information on the benefits of an ambitious Canada-EU trade agreement, please visit - 30 - A backgrounder follows. For further information, media representatives may contact: Rudy Husny Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Ed Fast Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway 613-992-7332 Trade Media Relations Office Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 613-996-2000 Follow us on Twitter: ©Canada Trade Backgrounder — Canada and the European Union: Toward a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement Cross-country events that highlight benefits of deeper Canada-EU trade On Friday, April 27, 2012, Harper government ministers, parliamentary secretaries and members of parliament are meeting with workers, business and community leaders and stakeholders to highlight the range of benefits an ambitious Canada-EU trade agreement will bring to all regions of Canada across many sectors of the Canadian economy. Below is a complete list of the events: 1. The Honourable Peter Penashue, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and regional rñnister for Newfoundland and Labrador, will be in St. John’s to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the manufacturing sector. 2. The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of National Revenue, will be in New Annan, Prince Edward Island, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the agricultural sector. 3. The Honourable Gerald Keddy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, will be in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the shipping industry. 4. The Honourable Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, will be in Cap-Pelé, New Brunswick, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the fish and seafood sector. 5. The Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), will be in Edmundston, New Brunswick, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the wood and wood products sector. 6. Senator Pierre Claude Nolin will be in Montréal, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on shipping and other export-related industries. 7. The Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), will be in the city of Québec to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the wood and wood products sector and Canada’s world-class pork industry. 8. The Honourable Tony Clement, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal iww.internationalgc.ca/media_commerce/comm/news-communiques/201 2/04127aaspx?Iang=eng&vi. 2/ Page 282 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... 010412012 Deeper Canada-EU Trade Will Bring Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity to Hard-working Canadians Economic Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, will be in Huntsville, Ontario, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the automotive vehicles and parts sector. 9. The Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, will be in Toronto, Ontario, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the services sector, including financial services. 10. The Honourable Peter Van Loan, Leader of the Govemment in the House of Commons, will be in Kitchener, Ontario, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the research and development services sector. 11. The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Labour, will be in London, Ontario, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the advanced manufacturing sector. 12. The Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, will be in Winnipeg, Manitoba, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the livestock processing industry. 13. The Honourable Lynne Yelich, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), will be in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the research and development and high-technology sectors. 14. Randy Hoback, Member of Parliament for Prince Albert, will be in Regina, Saskatchewan, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the grain, pulse and oilseed industry. 15. The Honourable Ted Menzies, Minister of State (Finance), will be in Calgary, Alberta, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the energy services sector. 16. The Honourable Rob Merrifield, Chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, will be in Spruce Grove, Alberta, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on Canada’s world- class beef industry. 17. The Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, will be in Vancouver, ritish Columbia, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the fish and seafood and renewable energy sectors. Negotiations Canada and the European Union are currently negotiating a historic economic partnership to the benefit of hard-working Canadians and Europeans alike. This effort began at the Canada-EU Summit in Prague on May 6, 2009, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso and then European Union president Mirek Topolánek announced the launch of negotiations for a comprehensive economic partnership agreement. The Government of Canada, in consultation with Canadian stakeholders and the provinces and territories, developed ambitious objectives for the negotiations. Canada and the EU agreed to negotiate a second-generation agreement in a wide range of areas, covering trade in goods (including agriculture, fish and industrial products), non-tariff barriers (including regulatory standards), investment, government procurement, services, rules of origin, intellectual property and many others. Canada and the European Union have completed nine productive rounds of negotiations toward a comprehensive economic and trade agreement (CETA). Both Canada and the EU are committed to an ambitious outcome to the negotiations and are down to focused sessions where solutions to the remaining issues are being actively explored. With more than 500 million consumers and a GDP of over $17 trillion, the EU is the world’s largest importer and exporter of goods and services. Economic relations between the EU and Canada are long-standing. As a single market, the EU is Canada’s second most important partner for trade and investment (behind only the United States). Notwithstanding current tariff barriers, two-way trade in goods and services exceeded $116 billion in 2011, an increase of more than 11 percent over the iww.internationaLgcca/media_commerce/comm/news-communiques/201 2/04/27aaspx?langeng&vi. 3/ Page 283 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... 0/04/2012 Deeper Canada-EU Trade Will Bring Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity to Hard-working Canadians previous year. The investment relationship is also strong. At the end of 2011, the stock of Canadian direct investment in the European Union totalled more than $172 billion, while the stock of EU direct investment in Canada totalled more than $160 billion. In October 2008, the European Union and Canada released a joint study, “sjngtheostsnd The study shows that a stronger economic partnership could boost Canadian GDP by $12 billion annually, and two-way trade with Europe could increase by 20 percent. The negotiations with the European Union are the most transparent and collaborative trade negotiations Canada has ever conducted. Canadian provinces and territories are closely involved in these negotiations, and their representatives have attended negotiating sessions in areas that fall in whole or in part under their jurisdiction. Moreover, the Government of Canada is closely consulting the provinces and territories on all issues during the negotiations. Federal, provincial and territorial governments have all recognized the benefits an ambitious agreement would bring to every region of Canada, stating in a joint rnJçué that “there is no more important Canadian trade negotiating priority today than the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.” From the beginning, municipalities have been consulted regularly, and continue to be involved with Canada’s negotiating team. The private sector in both the EU and Canada has shown strong support for an ambitious CETA, including in ongoing consultations undertaken on both sides of the Atlantic. The business community believes that, in addition to the significant benefits to be achieved, advancing a closer economic partnership would send a powerful pro-growth signal to investors and businesses within the EU and Canada as well as internationally. An ambitious agreement is expected to benefit many sectors of the Canadian economy, including aerospace, chemicals, plastics, aluminum, wood products, fish and seafood, manufacturing, automotive vehicles and parts, agricultural products, transportation, financial services, renewable energy, information and communication technologies, engineering, computer services and many others. In less than six years, the Harper government has concluded free trade agreements with Colombia, Peru, Jordan, Panama, the European Free Trade Association states of Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein and, most recently Honduras. It is also in negotiation with many others, including India and Japan. Date Modified: 2012-04-27 ,ww.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/news-communiques/201 2/04/27aaspx?lang=eng&vi.. 4) Page 284 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... 0/04/2012 Reminder Ministers Fast and Baird to Launch Cross-Country Events that Highlight Benefits of Deeper ForegnAffawaand Affaresetranqareet nternabonaI Tacte Gmada CGrnnwce inernattonai Canada dfl a Home > Media Room > Media Advisories > 2012 Reminder - Ministers Fast and Baird to Launch Cross- Country Events that Highlight Benefits of Deeper Canada-EU Trade April 26, 2012 - In a keynote address to the Economic Club of Canada on April 27, 2012, the Honourable Ed Fast, Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, will highlight the benefits an ambitious Canada-EU trade agreement will bring to workers and businesses in every region of the country. He will be joined by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. Event: Speech (open to media) and photo opportunity Date: Friday, April 27, 2012 Time: 7:45 a.m. ET Location: National Arts Centre, 53 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario That same day, at events in every province, Harper government ministers and members of Parliament will meet with workers, business leaders and stakeholders to highlight the many benefits an ambitious Canada-EU trade agreement will bring to all regions of Canada across many sectors of the Canadian economy. Below is a complete list of events taking place on Friday, April 27: 1. (9:30 a.m. NT) The Honourable Peter Penashue, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and regional minister for Newfoundland and Labrador, will be in St. John’s to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the manufacturing sector. 2. (9:30 a.m. AT) The Honourable Gail Shea, Minister of National Revenue, will be in New Annan, Prince Edward Island, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the agricultural sector. 3. (11 a.m. AT) The Honourable Gerald Keddy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade, for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and for the Atlantic Gateway, will be in Halifax to highlight the benefits to workers and farrlies who rely on the shipping industry. 4. (11 a.m. AT) The Honourable Keith Ashfield, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Gateway, will be in Cap- Pelé, New Brunswick, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the fish and seafood sector. 5. (1 p.m. AT) The Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Minister of State (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency) (La Francophonie), will be in Edmundston, New Brunswick, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the wood and wood products sector. 6. (10 a.m. ET) Senator Pierre Claude Nolin will be in Montréal to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on shipping and other export-related industries. 7. (11 a.m. ET) The Honourable Christian Paradis, Minister of Industry and Minister of State (Agriculture), will be in the city of Québec to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the wood and wood products sector and Canada’s world-class pork industry. 8. (3 p.m. ET) The Honourable Tony Clement, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Federal Econorrc Development Initiative for Northern Ontario, will be in Huntsville, Ontario, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the automotive vehicles and parts sector. 9. (10:30 a.m. ET) The Honourable Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources, will be in Toronto to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the services sector, including financial iww.international.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/advisories-avis/201 2/04/26aaspx?lang=eng&view=... 1/ Page 285 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... 0/04/2012 Reminder - Ministers Fast and Baird to Launch Cross-Country Events that Highlight Benefits of Deeper services. 10. (9:30 a.m. ET) The Honourable Peter Van Loan, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, will be in Kitchener, Ontario, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the research and development services sector. 11. (1 p.m. ET) The Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Labour, will be in London, Ontario, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the advanced manufacturing sector. 12. (10 a.m. CT) The Honourable Vic Toews, Minister of Public Safety, will be in Winnipeg to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the livestock processing industry. 13. (9 a.m. CT) The Honourable Lynne Yelich, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification), will be in Saskatoon to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the research and development and high- technology sectors. 14. (9 a.m. CT) Randy Hoback, Member of Parliament for Prince Albert, will be in Regina to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the grain, pulse and oilseed industry. 15. (9:30 a.m. MT) The Honourable Ted Menzies, Minister of State (Finance), will be in Calgary to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the energy services sector. 16. (9 a.m. MT) The Honourable Rob Merrifield, Chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, will be in Spruce Grove, Alberta, to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on Canada’s world- class beef industry. 17. (10 a.m. PT) The Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, will be in Vancouver to highlight the benefits to workers and families who rely on the fish and seafood and renewable energy sectors. For more information, please contact: Rudy Husny Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Ed Fast Minister of International Trade and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway 613-992-7332 Trade Media Relations Office Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada 613-996-2000 Follow us on Twitter: ©Canada Trade Date Modified: 2012-04-27 iwwintemational.gc.ca/media_commerce/comm/advisories-avis/201 2/04/26a.aspx?lang=eng&view=.. 2/ Page 286 of 343 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Alert - Potential ... Statement by FCM president Berry Vrbanovic following today’s commitment by Minister Fast to protect municipal interests in CETA(27/04/2012) OTTAWA - The following statement was released today by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) president Berry Vrbanovic following the International Trade Minister Ed Fast's commitment to protect municipal interest in the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA): "The Federation of Canadian Municipalities applauds today's commitment by International Trade Minister Ed Fast to protect municipal interests in a CETA deal and in future trade agreements. FCM has been strongly advocating for concrete assurance that cities and communities will be protected in any trade agreement. Today, by promising to ensure FCM's 7 principles on international trade are respected, Minister Fast was unequivocal. Minister Fast has made a great effort to reach out and work with municipalities. Continued long-term collaboration among all three orders of government will be essential to keep Canada's trade agenda moving forward. Municipalities will be right in the middle of the transformation of our economy in the 21st century: building new transit systems, redesigning our water and wastewater plants, retrofitting everything from libraries to hockey rinks to be more energy efficient. We need to see these investments as part of a broader economic strategy - so we can cultivate and export our expertise. Just as local and federal governments worked together to rebuild Canada's economy after the global economic crisis, we must work together to attract jobs and investment, and create opportunities around the world." Page 287 of 343 City of New Westminster to LMLGA President - Rental Hous... Page 288 of 343 City of New Westminster to LMLGA President - Rental Hous... Page 289 of 343 Gas Tax Agreement - Regionally Significant Project Funds... Page 290 of 343 District of Squamish to Premier Christy Clark - Expert P... District of Squamish jj”’ 37955 Second Avenue, S A.P.4I S PO Box 310 SquamishBC VSBOA3 OUTDOOR RICRrAI ION cAI’ITAL OF cANADA Tel, 6048155030 Toll Free 1877-892-5217 Fax: 604-8155O32 wwwsquamish.ca OFFICEOFTHEMAYOR May 2, 2012 Honourable Christy Clark Premier of British Columbia P0 Box 9041 Station Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9E2 Dear Premier Clark: Expert Panel Review of Business Taxation and Municipal Revenue Sources Review At the May 1, 2012 Regular Meeting of Council of the District of Squamish, the following resolution passed: THAT a letter be sent to the BC Premier, with copies to the Minister responsible for Finance, Community, Sport and Cultural Development the local MLA,the UBCMand the UBCMmember municipalities, which requests: THAT the expert panel appointed to review the municipal property taxation of business be amended to include local government representation through UBCMor specific individual local governments and; THATstaff Municipal Revenue Sources Review at the ministry be a collaborative process involving local government representatives through Government Officers Finance Association of BC (GFOABC), Local Government Management Association (LGMA)or specific municipalities. We would like to thank you for your consideration of this request. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss this request, please contact me at 604.81 5.5003. Respectfully submitted, Ro”bKirkham, Mayor cc: Honourable KevinFalcon, Ministerof Finance Honourable Ida Chong, Ministerof Community,Sport and Cultural Development MLA.Joan Mcintyre,West Vancouver — Sea to Sky Squamish LillooetRegional DistrictBoard Members Page 291 of 343 L q BC Ombudsperson's Report ____- 3. 2. 1. PEMBERTON P0 Chief Squamish-Lillooet Ms. in BC’s Complaints c. a. b. e. d. Complaints Requests c. b. a. Box Lynda budsperson Investigation Pre-empted Pre-empted Not Assistance • • • • Not Refused • • • • • Independent Statute • • objection • • objection • • • • Administrative Available Complaint Complaint Complaint No Insufficient Can Frivolous More Available No Can Insufficient Complaint Complaint Frivolous/vexatious/trivial More 219 -- a a benefit benefit Flynn matter matter consider consider than for than Voice barred (discretion) Files BC or or Investigated with / remedy Information remedy and/or by by vexatious! For to to withdrawn one settled abandoned withdrawn one review abandoned review VON personal personal of Regional of ceased Fairness Closed complainant existing existing complainant without without (FIPPA, Squamish-Lillooet No Officer administration administration year year 2LO referral Investigation between between (discretion) interest trivial interest from further District further Police statutory statutory - January to March 31, 2012 or or or Assistance matter matter January event event person General person Act, investigation investigation www.bcombudsperson.ca Toll-Free: - right right Fax: No etc.) and Inquiries: an.d Regional aggrieved aggrieved (250) findings 1 1-800-567-3247 complaint complaint of of to 387-0198 (250) appeal, appeal, March 387-5855 District 31, 2012 Page 292 of 343 Victoria P0 947 Box Fort BC 9039 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Street 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V8W Stn 9A5 Prov 0 0 Govt BC Ombudsperson's Report Ombudsperson Kim Province 4. d. Ombudsperson e. b. a. c. S. Investigation Investigation Investigation Investigation • • • • Investigation • • • • Carter Remedied Recommendations Remedied Not Not Remedied Remedied Recommendations of time time British remedied remedied in in in in Columbia Initiated completed completed completed ceased completed whole part whole part made made (discretion) Investigations - - - - - January to March 31, 2012 - Findings - Findings Findings Findings remedy remedy - No to to - - — Substantiated Substantiated be Not be Not findings implemented implemented substantiated substantiated over over Page 293 of 343 23/04/20 0 0 () 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I Page 12 0 2 BRITTSH C0LuMBrA TheBestPlanecmEarth Our File: 3411916 March 30, 2012 SEQUOIA ENERGYINC 460 1121 Centre St NW Calgary, AB T2E 7K6 Dear Ian Witherspoon: Enclosed is an originallyexecuted copy of Licence Number 345858 covering Allthat unsurveyed Crown land in the vicinityof Jamie Creek, LillooetDistrict,containing 10.61 hectares more or less. The Licence is issued in your name for a term of 5 years commencing February 1, 2012 for quarry purposes. Page 294 of 343 Please ensure that this document is kept in a safe location, as it must be presented to this officefor assignment, should the interest be transferred or sold. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the details listed below. Susan Engemoen PortfolioAdministrator Attachment Pc: B.C. Assessment Authority, Kamloops Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Forest District,Cascades ● ● ● ● Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... Resource & Natural Lands of Forests, Ministry Minist,yofForests, Landsand MailingAddress: Phone: (250)828-4303 NaturalResource Operations 441 ColumbiaStreet Fax: (250)828-4442 Kamloops,BC V2C 2T3 Email: susanenoemoenioov.bc.ca Pagel9of______ QUARRYING MP LICENCE - / \ E 1 ‘4 A A e e \I Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... / ● ● ● ● // - / / / / / •\ \... L _i 0 0- a) \ ‘A i•,.. • •• V • cooo 2 _DD C\J c6 z m ± cc Page 295 of 343 SCHEDULE DESCRIPTION LEGAL 898004 Disposition No.: 3411916 No.: File Licence \.. •••\• BRrnSH CoLuMBIA The BestPlaceon Earrh OurFile: 3411918 March 30, 2012 SEQUOIA ENERGY INC 460 1121 Centre St NW Calgary, AB T2E 7K6 Dear Ian Witherspoon: Enclosed is an originally executed copy of Licence Number 345860 covering Allthat unsurveyed Crown land in the vicinityof Jamie Creek, Lillooet District, containing 16.04 hectares, more or less. The Licence is issued in your name for a term of 5 years commencing February 1, 2012 for existing and new road construction purposes. Page 296 of 343 Please ensure that this document is kept in a safe location, as it must be presented to this office for assignment, should the interest be transferred or sold. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the details listed below. Susan E gemoen Portfolio Administrator Attachment PC: B.C. Assessment Authority, Kamloops Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Forest District, Cascades ● ● ● ● Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... Resource & Natural Lands of Forests, Ministry Ministryof Forests, Lands and MailingAddress: Phone: (250)828-4303 Natural Resource Operations 441 ColumbiaStreet Fax: (250)828-4442 Kamloops,BC V2C 2T3 Email: susan.enpemoenpov.bcca Licence File No.: 3411918 Disposition No.: 898196 LEGAL DESCR1P HON SCHEDULE Page 297 of 343 It) + D )i) 0 ID ,. 011 C) (D acc. G).ID 0 cr z 4 F .t t c w — Lt_JWF—Zw t,I C (11.. WI .. -M 7 0 ● ● ● ● Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... Resource Natural & Lands of Forests, Ministry It, 1e0 0 & / ‘I — C C 0 0 I ROADWAY LICENCE - MP Pagel7of______BRITISH CoLuMBIA TheBestPiae on Earth Our File: 3411010 March 30, 2012 SEQUOIA ENERGY INC 460 1121 Centre St NW Calgary, AB T2E 7K6 Dear Ian Witherspoon: Enclosed is an originallyexecuted copy of Licence Number 345861 covering Allthat unsurveyed Crown land in the vicinityof Jamie Creek, LillooetDistrict, containing 0.72 hectares more or less. The Licence is issued in your name for a term of 5 years commencing February 1, 2012 for powerhouse, switchyard and tailrace purposes. Page 298 of 343 Please ensure that this document is kept in a safe location, as it must be presented to this office for assignment, should the interest be transferred or sold. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the details listed below. PortfolioAdministrator Attachment pc: B.C. Assessment Authority, Kamloops Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Forest District, Cascades ● ● ● ● Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... Resource & Natural Lands of Forests, Ministry Ministiyof Forests, Lands and MailingAddress: Phone: (250) 828-4303 Natural Resource Operations 441 ColumbiaStreet Fax: (250) 828-4442 Kamloops, BC V2C 2T3 Email: susan.enpemoen(gov.bcca Licence File No.: 3411010 Disposition No.: 888182 LEGAL DESCRIPTiON SCHEDULE Page 299 of 343 0 _.øo ..Qfl zc’J !J1 // ● ● ● ● Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... Resource Natural & Lands of Forests, Ministry [J G) 0 E -) IC UTILITY LiCENCE Pagel9of (9 BRITISH CoLuMBIA The BestPlacecmEarth Our File: 3411915 March 30, 2012 SEQUOIA ENERGY INC 460 1121 Centre St NW Calgary, AB T2E 7K6 Dear Ian Witherspoon: Enclosed is an originallyexecuted copy of Licence Number 345857 covering Allthat unsurveyed Crown land in the vicinityof Jamie Creek, Lillooet District,containing 9.18 hectares, more or less. The Licence is issued in your name for a term of 5 years commencing February 1, 2012 for staging and spoil area purposes. Page 300 of 343 Please ensure that this document is kept in a safe location, as it must be presented to this office for assignment, should the interest be transferred or sold. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at the details listed below. cjtrulY Susan Enge en PortfolioAdministrator Attachment Pc: B.C. Assessment Authority, Kamloops Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Forest District, Cascades ● ● ● ● Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... Resource & Natural Lands of Forests, Ministry Ministiyof Forests, Landsand MailingAddress: Phone: (250)828-4303 NaturalResource Operations 441 ColumbiaStreet Fax: (250)828-4442 Kamloops,BC V2C 2T3 Email: susanenaemoenpov.bc.ca Licence File No.: 3411915 Disposition No.: $98124 LEGAL DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE :ri ore or less Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations... ● ● ● ● Ir lCD U) CD ((101(F) (1201 CD t) CD tZ •Q t U) II CC CD — - C CD C - 01 •‘1 CD CD CD :r 1’ CD CD CD CD CD CD CD Page 301 of 343 CD CD STANDARD LICENCE Page 17 of______Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Board D... L () \V E R LowerMainland TAC MA I N LAND Telephone(604)451-6175 Kingsway 4th Floor, 4330 Fax (604)436-6860 Burnaby,B. T R E A T V ADVISORY E-mail: lmtac.lmtac(metrovancouver.org V5H4G8 Website wwwlmtae.bc.ca COMM ITTEE April 3, 2012 Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of AboriginalRelationsand Reconciliation P0 BOX 9051 STNPROVGOVT Victoria, BC, V8W 9B1 Dear Minister Polak, Re: LMTAC Board Decisions — Meeting of April 2’ 2012. On behalf of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee(LMTAC), I write to brief you regarding the LMTACBoard meetingheld on April 2’, 2012.At that meeting two key decisions were reached. First, regarding the need for local governments within the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) and the Squamish—LillooetRegional District (SLRD)to continueto have a forum under the auspices of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Province of British Columbia and the Union of B Municipalities (UBCM) to facilitate local government input regarding treaty negotiationsand aboriginal affairs, the LMTACBoard unanimouslypassed the followingresolution: “THAT the LMTACsend a letter of endorsementto UBCM and The Province of BC requesting that it consider the establishment of a Sunshine Coast — Howe Sound TreatyAdvisoryCommitteeto recognizethe respective local governments regardingtreaty negotiationsand aboriginalaffairs.” Second,regardingthe future of LMTAC,the LMTACBoardpassed the followingresolution: “THAT the role of LMTAC be concluded, THAT the operational activities and policy initiatives formerly undertaken by LMTAC be consolidated into, and accommodated within, the mandate of the new Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee, THAT Local Government representation at the KFN and TWN treaty tables be facilitated by the new Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding between the UBCM and Province of British Columbia, AND THAT these decisionsbe communicatedto MARR,UBCMand GVRD(Metro Vancouver).” page two Page 302 of 343 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Board D... Honourable Mary Polak, April 3, 2012. Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Page two, continued Regarding the disposition of LMTAC records and files, the LMTAC Board passed the following resolution: “THAT all LMTAC records and files, including confidential treaty table files, personnel records, and financial accounts, be transferred to GVRD Metro Vancouver for either retention or disposal according to Metro Vancouver’s records management policies.” Further, regarding the disposition of financial assets held by LMTAC and administered by Metro Vancouver,the LMTAC Board passed the following resolution: “THAT, following completion of the 2011 audit of LMTAC’s fmancial records, the financial assets of LMTAC be returned to the three funding parthers — namely, GVRD, SCRD and SLRD — on the same pro rata basis used to requisition the funds, AND THAT the UBCM be requested to transfer the 2011/2012 UBCM Operational Funding Grant for TACs to Metro Vancouver to facilitate Local Government representation at the KFN and TWN treaty tables.” We trust that your Ministry concurs with the decisions taken by the LMTAC Board regarding consolidation of LMTAC’s operational activities and policy initiatives into the new Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Affairs Committee, and request that your Ministry give serious consideration to the LMTAC Board recommendation regarding establishment of a Sunshine Coast — Howe Sound Treaty Advisoiy committee. If you have any questions, please contact me via Agnes Rosicki, Metro Vancouver Policy Analyst, at (604) 451-6175. Sincerely, Mayor Ralph Drew, Chair Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee cc Steve Munro, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation Director Heath Slee, President, Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) Councillor Murry Krause, Chair, First Nations Relations Committee, UBCM Marie Crawford, Associate Executive Director, IJBCM Mayor Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Mayor Ernie Daykin, Chair, Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee Delia Laglagaron, Acting CAO, Metro Vancouver LMTAC Members Page 303 of 343 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Board D... L U \\ F R Lower Mainland TAC 4th Floor, 4330 Kingsway Telephone(604) 451-6175 Burnaby, B.C. T R F \ I V Fox (604) 436-6860 [email protected] V5H4G8 \ DVI SORY E-mail: Websire: www.lmtac.bc.ca (O\1\IITTEE April 3, 2012 Mayor Greg Moore, Chair Union of BC Municipalities Suite 60 10551SheflbridgeWay Richmond, BC, V6X 2W9 Dear Mayor Moore, Re: LMTAC Board Decisions — Meeting of April 2’, 2012. On behalf of the Lower Mainland Treaty AdvisoryCommittee(LMTAC), I write to brief you regarding the LMTACBoard meetingheld on April 2w’,2012. At that meeting two key decisions were reached. First, regarding the need for local governments within the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) and the Squamish—LillooetRegionalDistrict (SLRD)to continueto have a forum under the auspices of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Province of British Columbia and the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) to facilitate local government input regarding treaty negotiationsand aboriginalaffairs, the LMTACBoard unanimouslypassed the followingresolution: “THAT the LMTAC send a letter of endorsementto UBCM and The Province of BC requesting that it consider the establishment of a Sunshine Coast — Howe Sound TreatyAdvisoryCommitteeto recognize the respective local governments regarding treaty negotiationsand aboriginalaffairs.” Second, regardingthe future of LMTAC,the LMTACBoardpassed the followingresolution: “THAT the role of LMTAC be concluded, THAT the operational activities and policy initiatives formerly undertaken by LMTAC be consolidated into, and accommodated within, the mandate of the new Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee, THAT Local Government representation at the KFN and T\VN treaty tables be facilitated by the new Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding between the UBCM and Province of British Columbia, AND THAT these decisions be communicatedto MARR,UBCMand GVRD(Metro Vancouver).” .page two Page 304 of 343 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Board D... Mayor Greg Moore, Chair Aprii , Metro Vancouver Page two, continued Regarding the disposition of LMTAC records and files, the LMTAC Board passed the following resolution: “THAT all LMTAC records and files, including confidential treaty table files, personnel records, and financial accounts, be transferred to GVRD Metro Vancouver for either retention or disposal according to Metro Vancouver records management policies.” Further, regarding the disposition of financial assets held by LMTAC and administered by Metro Vancouver,the LMTAC Board passed the following resolution: “THAT, following completion of the 2011 audit of LMTAC’s financial records, the financial assets of LMTAC be returned to the three funding partners — namely, GVRD, SCRD and SLRD — on the same pro rata basis used to requisition the funds, AND THAT the UBCM be requested to transfer the 2011/2012 UBCM Operational Funding Grant for TACs to Metro Vancouver to facilitate Local Government representation at the KFN and TWN treaty tables.” We trust that Metro Vancouverconcurs with the decisions taken by the LMTAC Board regarding consolidation of LMTAC’s operational activities and policy initiatives into the new Metro VancouverAboriginal Affairs Committee. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Mayor Ralph Drew, Chair Lower Mainland Tre4ty Advisory Committee cc Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Steve Munro, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation Director Heath Slee, President, Union of BC Municipalities Councillor Murry Krause, Chair, First Nations Relations Committee, UBCM Marie Crawford, Associate Executive Director, UBCM Mayor Ernie Daykin, Chair, Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee Delia Laglagaron, Acting CAO, Metro Vancouver LMTAC Members Page 305 of 343 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Board D... L (.) \\ E R LowerMainland TAC NI AI N L A N I) 4th Floor 4330 Kingsway Telephone(604)451-6175 Burnaby,B.C. I R E A T V Fax (604)436-6860 E-mail: lmtac. rovancouver.org V5H4G8 ADVISOR V lmtac@met Website:www.lmtac.bc.ca CO MNiITT E E April 3, 2012 Director Heath Slee, President Union of BC Municipalities Suite 60 10551ShelibridgeWay Richmond,BC, V6X 2W9 Dear Director Slee, Re: LMTAC Board Decisions — Meeting of April 2. 2012. On behalf of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee(LMTAC), I write to brief you nd regarding the LMTACBoard meetingheld on April 2 2012. At that meeting two key decisions were reached. First, regarding the need for local governments within the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) and the Squamish—LillooetRegionalDistrict (SLRD)to continueto have a forum under the auspices of the Memorandum of Uizderstanding(MOU) between the Province of British Columbia and the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) to facilitate local government input regarding treaty negotiations and aboriginalaffairs, the LMTAC Board unanimouslypassed the followingresolution: “THAT the LMTAC send a letter of endorsementto UBCM and The Province of BC requesting that it consider the establishment of a Sunshine Coast — Howe Sound TreatyAdvisory Committeeto recognize the respective local governments regardingtreaty negotiationsand aboriginalaffairs.” Second,regardingthe future of LMTAC,the LMTACBoard passed the followingresolution: “THAT the role of LMTAC be concluded, THAT the operational activities and policy initiatives formerly undertaken by LMTAC be consolidated into, and accommodated within, the mandate of the new Metro VancouverAboriginal Relations Committee, THAT Local Government representation at the KFN and TWN treaty tables be facilitated by the new Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee in keeping with the Memorandum of Understanding between the UBCM and Province of British Columbia, AND THAT these decisions be communicatedto MARR,UBCM and GVRD(Metro Vancouver).” .page two Page 306 of 343 Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee (LMTAC) Board D... rd Director Heath Slee, President April 3 2012. Union of BC Municipalities Page two, continued Regarding the disposition of LMTAC records and files, the LMTAC Board passed the following resolution: “THAT all LMTAC records and files, including confidential treaty table files, personnel records, and financial accounts, be transferred to GVRD Metro Vancouver for either retention or disposal according to Metro Vancouver records management policies.” Further, regarding the disposition of financial assets held by LMTAC and administered by Metro Vancouver, the LMTAC Board passed the following resolution: “THAT, following completion of the 2011 audit of LMTAC’s financial records, the financial assets of LMTAC be returned to the three funding partners — namely, GVRD, SCRD and SLRD — on the same pro rata basis used to requisition the funds, AND THAT the UBCM be requested to transfer the 2011/2012 UBCM Operational Funding Grant for TACs to Metro Vancouver to facilitate Local Government representation at the KFN and TWN treaty tables.” We trust that UBCM concurs with the decisions taken by the LMTAC Board regarding consolidation of LMTAC‘s operational activities and policy initiatives into the new Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Affairs Committee, and request that UBCM give serious consideration to the LMTAC Board recommendation regarding establishment of a Sunshine Coast - Howe Sound Treaty Advisoiy Committee. If you have any questions, please contact me via Agnes Rosicki, Metro Vancouver Policy Analyst, at (604) 451-6175. Sincerely, Mayor Ralph Drew, Chair Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee cc Honourable Mary Polak, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Steve Munro, Deputy Minister, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations & Reconciliation Councillor Murry Krause, Chair, First Nations Relations Committee, UBCM Marie Crawford, Associate Executive Director, UBCM Mayor Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver Mayor Ernie Daykin, Chair, Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee Delia Laglagaron, Acting CAO, Metro Vancouver LMTAC Members Page 307 of 343 Aboriginal Ministry and Mary Polak, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconci... Reconciliation becomes whether participate government As Province Local governments active Ref. (SOT). supported, of 4th As consolidate negotiations Burnaby Chafr Committee The Lower Lower Thank Myor Dear APR local of Floor, expressed identified Relations Ministry 29674 2 Mayor governments treaty 1 you MIàinInd Mainland Ralph governments 2012 a part BC and 433OKigsway treaty informally, in for over its sector Drew: tables process. are in the a of of V5H in Drew your operational negotiation your the the Aboriginal advisory the responsible Union Treaty Treaty at lE18 in within provincial MOU, letter past letter, the to the Office Minister As the of organize Advisory Advisory table. several lower such, committee of of continuation an activities British the within the Relations the April for SOI structure team Memorandum the mainland. collectively months. themselves the Columbia Committee are Committee 3, Province and within CoLuMBIA 2012, (TAC) and area generally BRITISH of that puts During Reconciliation local defined website: e-mail: Victoria P0 Mailing regarding the or local acknowledges Municipalities determining for forward Box of (LMTAC) another Metro government ABR.Minister@gov represented www.gov.bcca/arr Address: 9051 BC representation Understanding this governments by V8W Stn recent the Vancouver transition a Prov structure, 9E2 First Board MARR) shared how Govt the (UBCM) by resolutions representation Nation’s bc.ca they actions one develop in meeting period, (MOU) interests is Aboriginal the respects as will individual specifies tripartite they Statement of MARR arising be for between on the of prefer. organized at this the April Telephone: Facsimile: Page 308 of 343 the Relations LMTAC the who that treaty from discretion has purpose, local of the two 2, local Intent 250 250 2012. .12 the to to 9S3_4856 953-4844 Mary Polak, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconci... Ref. 29674 - 2 - Regardless of how the Sunshine Coast Regional District aridthe Squamish Lillooet Regional District choose to structurethemselves outside the Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee and as a result of the formal dissolution of LMTAC, it is the Province’s expectation that all local governments within a negotiations area will work togetherto determinetheirjoint representativeat a treatytable. In additionto this broad local governmentrepresentationon the provincialteam, the Province’s negotiators have and will continue to consult directly with local governments who may be impacted by specific treaty negotiations. The issue of representation raises the subject of MOU renewal and the best mechanisms to address the interests of local government in treaty as we approach the th20 anniversary of the British Columbia Treaty Process, and in reconciliation negotiations outside the treaty process. While the Province recognizes that the MOU works well in principle, I am aware that there are some challenges in practice, including a lack of clarity with regard to implementation across government,non-treaty negotiations and regional considerations. I look forward to discussing these matters in more detail when I meet with the UBCM First Nations Relations Committee later this spring. Again, thank you for writing. Sincerely, Original.. Signed By Mary Polak Minister pe: Steve Munro Deputy Minister Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Director Heath Slee President Union of BC Municipalities .13 Page 309 of 343 Mary Polak, Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconci... Ref. 29674 - 3 - Councillor Murry Krause Chair, First Nations Relations Committee Union of BC Municipalities Marie Crawford Associate Executive Director Union of BC Municipalities Mayor Greg Moore Chair Metro Vancouver Mayor Ernie Daykin Chair Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations Committee Delia Laglagaron Interim Chief Administrative Officer and Commissioner Metro Vancouver - Director Susan Gimse Chair Squamish — Lillooet Regional District Director Garry Nohr Chair Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 310 of 343 Pemberton Valley Trails Association - Thank You Susie Gimse. Chair and Board of Directors S.L.R.D. Box 219. Pemberton. B.C. Re Trails B.C. AGM May 3, 2012 Box 221. Pemberton To Susie and the SI RD Board I am very pleased to report that the Trails B.C. AGM held last week here in Pemberton was a great success. As you know, the Sea to Sky Trail was highlighted this year, and the presentations from the Squamish and Whistler speakers were very informative and indeed inspiring! The Sea to Sky Trail before and after pictures Gordon presented impressed us with the challenges and interesting history and have inspired us to explore for ourselves.... Lions Bay made a most interesting presentation too as did representatives from the Spirit Trail in West and North Vancouver... in fact, many of us feel we should get them up here to do their presentation for us as an inspiration to get the Friendship Trail off the ground again! Everyone was most appreciative of the friendly reception Pemberton gave them and I must thank you again for the support you and the S.L.R.D. have shown in hosting this event. The delegates came from Vancouver Island to Cranbrook and all were most impressed with what our area has to offer. Many are talking about returning for the Slow Food Cycle event or just to explore Pemberton further. We were very sorry to hear that you would be unable to attend. Susie but glad you had a chance to speak with Leon Lebrun, Vice President of Trails B.C. and Director for the Southwest Region in the afternoon. Many rode their bikes on the Challenging Sea to Sky south of Whistler to Squamish on the Friday and we enjoyed hiking the trail from One Mile Lake and out to the Falls returning on the trail above the RR Tracks and around the Lake on the Sunday m glad Peter Duhault was able to join us and spend some time talking with Leon along the way. The phrase “Trailsthi Connect Communities” was heard many times throughout the day! This was the 20 Anniversary for Trails B.C. and I heard one of the Directors say that this was the best AGM she has attended so far! We are looking forward to the completion of the TCT by 2017.. ..Canada’s th150 Anniversary! I had hoped to bring some of the leftover sweets to one of your meetings. but the “gang” downstairs at the Recreation Openhouse heard there were treats to be had unfortunately! Thank you again for your great support. Jan Naylor, member of the Pemberton Valley Trails Association p.s. did you see the article on Pemberton in the tall issue of British Columbia Magazine?? its ir the Library! Cc Lynda Flynn, Chief Administrative Officer Page 311 of 343 BC Hydro Smart Meters in D'Arcy - Letter from Anna Peszy... From: anna p [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May 6, 2012 2:59 PM To: info; Susie Gimse Subject: Fw: Smart Meter Installation FYI - we don’t want smart meters installed in D'arcy. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: anna p Via electronic mail to: [email protected] and [email protected] BC Hydro Smart Meter Specialist Department Date:_Sunday, May 6th, 2012 6911 Southpoint Drive, Burnaby, B.C. V3N 4X8 Attention: Mr. Charles Reid, Mr. Gary Murphy, Ms. Cindy Verschoor, BC Hydro, Corix Utilities and /or assignees thereof: Dear Messrs. Reid, Murphy, Ms. Verschoor, BC Hydro Smart Meter Team, and Corix Utilities: Re: B.C. Hydro Account # ************ Address: PO Box 1706 (9661) Devine Road, D’Arcy B.C V0N 1L0 I have written to B.C. Hydro to give clear notice that I am refusing the installation of a Wireless “Smart Meter” on my property. I made it clear in my communication that I am refusing to have my privacy rights violated. I also made it clear that my decision to refuse a Wireless Smart Meter is also to protect my health and the health of my family. I have heard that BC Hydro has decided that all non-consent letters have expired, and that BC Hydro’s commitments to honour our decision to not allow the installation of this wireless transmitter no longer apply. For the record, my statement stands and will not change: I refuse to allow a Wireless Smart Meter to be installed on my home, as is my right under my rights and freedoms. My refusal does not have an expiration date. Any attempt to remove my analog meter and replace it with a Wireless Smart Meter will be considered an act of Trespass and will be treated accordingly. A No Trespass warning is prominently displayed on my meter to avoid any confusion. Yours truly, Name: Anna Peszynska Address: 9661 Devine Rd. D’arcy BC. V0N 1L0 (PO Box 1706) Cc: Liberal BC Leader Christy Clark, Minister of Energy Rich Coleman, NDP Energy Critic John Horgan, BC Chief Medical Officer Perry Kendall, NDP Deputy Health Critic Sue Hammell, Green Party Federal Leader Elizabeth May, Minister of Health, Mike de Jong, NDP Health Critic Mike Farnworth, NDP BC Leader Adrian Dix, Green Party BC Leader Jane Sterk [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Copy also to your local Mayor and Council Page 312 of 343 City of Vernon to BC Hydro - Optional Refusal of Smart M... Page 313 of 343 Sparc BC - Access Awareness Day - June 2, 2012 May 8, 2012 Dear Mayor and Council: Access Awareness Day — June 2, 2012 June 2,2012 marks our 15th annual Access Awareness Day. Access Awareness Day provides each of us with an opportunity to look at our communities and to think about how we can strive to make our communities a little more accessible and inclusive for everyone. The theme for our 2012 Access Awareness Day is “Celebrate Accessibility, Celebrate Inclusion”. Our goal is to draw attention to the fact that each of us has a role to play in promoting accessibility in our community. We have created a “leadership” spot on our website to recognize those municipalities and organizations that are interested in joining us to celebrate Access Awareness Day. Here are some ways to celebrate Access Awareness Day: Highlight success stories: Has your community put policies or actions in place that have made it more accessible? Do you have a story to share that may help to inspire others? Recognize someone in your community: Is there someone in your community that deserves recognition for going above and beyond in their efforts to build increased awareness and understanding about the needs of people with disabilities? Hold an event or pass a proclamation: Celebrate Access Awareness Day by organizing an event to promote accessibility and inclusion in your community or by issuing a proclamation in support of Access Awareness day. Consider partnering with accessibility groups to raise awareness and to profile innovative and inclusive local initiatives. We have enclosed a copy of our “Celebrate accessibility in our communities” measuring tape and accessibility poster which profiles measures that can allow for increased participation in all aspects of community life — social, recreational, cultural and economic. This material can be made available in local community centres, public libraries, or other public spaces as part of Access Awareness Day education and outreach. SPARCBChas again partnered with UBCMto enlist the support of all municipalities across British Columbia in recognizing Access Awareness Day. We hope you will join us in making Access Awareness Day - June 2, 2012 the best Access Awareness Day ever! Page 314 of 343 Sparc BC - Access Awareness Day - June 2, 2012 Please feel free to contact Joan Coughlin, Program Coordinator, at 604-718-7734 or by email at to request additional Access Awareness Day material, or to let us know how we can work together to promote accessibility and inclusion in your community. Let us know how you celebrated this year’s Access Awareness Day. Thank you for your support, and we look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Lorraine Copas Executive Director, SPARCBC Enclosure: Celebrate Accessibility in our communities measuring tape Accessibility poster Page 315 of 343 Sparc BC - Access Awareness Day - June 2, 2012 Page 316 of 343 acUtE aware SLRD EPC Departing Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation EOC From: Lillian Saultier [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2012 12:48 PM To: Ryan Wainwright; Kanya, Greg SG:EX ([email protected]); [email protected]; Andrews, Mike JAG:EX; [email protected] Cc: Lynda Flynn; Mickey Macri Subject: RE: SLRD EPC Departing Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation EOC Thank you very much Ryan. The Ts’kw’aylaxw First Nation administration staff very much appreciated your assistance. Your professionalism and administrative assistance was an invaluable asset during the wildfire. The staff extend an reciprocal offer of assistance for the 6 SLRD units that are at the lake. From: Ryan Wainwright [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: May-14-12 3:40 PM To: Kanya, Greg SG:EX ([email protected]); [email protected]; Andrews, Mike JAG:EX; [email protected] Cc: Lynda Flynn; Mickey Macri; Lillian Saultier Subject: SLRD EPC Departing Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation EOC Hi folks – I think any useful help I can provide to the Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation EOC at this stage of the event has reached an end. The EOC has organized, and IRs #3, #3a, and #4 are prepared to evacuate on 2 hrs NTM. TNRD ESS is ready to receive evacuees if required, a community information session with WMB is occurring today at 1630 hrs, and lines of communication between the Band and the WMB IC are excellent. The EOC is effectively addressing all concerns that arise. I will be departing the Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation EOC shortly, and will happily return at the request of the Band should conditions worsen, and my assistance is desired. It has been a true learning experience. I thank the Ts'kw'aylaxw First Nation for the opportunity to participate in their community, their EOC, and their response activities. Regards - Ryan Ryan Wainwright Emergency Program Manager [email protected] P: 604-567-5663 F: 604-894-6526 C: 604-698-6442 1-800-298-7753 www.slrd.bc.ca This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf, your receipt of this message is in error. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading any such information. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient is strictly prohibited. Thank you. Page 317 of 343 Annexation Impact Study Funding Request - Reply from Tho... ThompsonNicola Regional District 300 465 VictoriaStreet Kamloops,British Columbia Department: CanadaV2C2A9 Tel. (250) 377-8673 May 10, 2012 Fax. (250) 372-5048 TollFree in BC:1-877-377-8673 Email:admin@tnrdbcca Website: wwwtnrd,bc.ca Board of Directors North Okanagan Regional District 9848 Aberdeen Road Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9 To the North Okanagan Regional District Board of Directors: Re: Annexation Impact Study Upon receiving the letter dated March 12, 2012 re: Annexation Impact Study — Funding Request from the North Okanagan Regional District, the Thompson-Nicola Regional District’s Board of Directors reviewed the letter and corresponding impact study. The Thompson-Nicola Regional District Board of Directors passed a resolution recommending that “a letter be written to the North Okanagan Regional Districtwith a copy sent to all regional districts and the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development, that the Annexation Impact Study be referred to the Ministry of Community, Sport, and Cultural Development requesting that the Ministryfund the study and suggest that NORD refer the matter to UBCMfor further consideration.” The Board discussion centered around the fact that this study is of importance to all regional districts in British Columbia and accordingly should be funded at the Provincial level by the Ministryof Community, Sport and Cultural Development. Thank you for considering the TNRD Board of Director’s resolution, and we look forward to continuing our positive working relationship with your regional district. Yours truly Chair Randy Murray Thompson-Nicola Regional District cc: Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District MUNICIpALmEs: Ashcroft, Barriere, Cache Creek, Chase, Clearwater, Clinton, Kam[oops, Logan Lake, Sun Peaks, Lytton, Merritt ELECTORALAREAS:“A”“B” “E” “L”“N” “N”“0” “P” Page 318 of 343 Annexation Impact Study Funding Request - Reply from Tho... Bulkley-Nechako Regional District Capital Regional District Cariboo Regional District Central Coast Regional District Central Kootenay Regional District Central Okanagan Regional District Columbia-Shuswap Regional District Comox Valley Regional District East Kootenay Regional District Fraser Valley Regional District Fraser-Fort George Regional District Islands Trust Metro Vancouver Regional District Kitimat — Stikine Regiona District Kootenay Boundary Regional District Mount Waddington Regional District Nanaimo Regional District Okanagan Similkameen Regional District Peace River Regional District Powell River Regional District Skeena — Queen Charlotte Regional District /Squamish — Lillooet Regional District Strathcona Regional District Sunshine Coast Regional District Page 319 of 343 Annexation Impact Study Funding Request c 7 5quaml5k—LIlIooet Members: cc. cc. Yours Chair, that We Susan available Within would Director, Village The by The R applicability, Area Electoral Vi 9848 Chair, Coldstream, Dear Mr. Further Re: April THAT (“RDNO”) Electoral Impact E B SLRD Electoral Urban G Patrick we look Committee SLRD 2K9 Directors Annexation Mr. Aberdeen .truly, 10, SLRD be Regional Gimse the of 0 may to District staff SLRD Board forward Study for Nicol: of Area 2012 // Pemberton, Systems N your past Areas Area Nicol undertook substantive consumption properly asking BC A rather Board prepare \ of Committee C L for of Electoral year, letter Road \ District Directors is Directors to province-wide. that Squamish. Impact D which concerned than of located with for receiving consider the of a and Directors S an were of Lillooet letter T benefit clarification being March ‘ Area respect Committee the SLRD annexation on North we Study on within Resort A the RDNO the A April to enclose C that the further of to 12, the Okanagan Electoral has subject School SLRD significant Funding to Municipality all funding 10, the 2012, Governance is Chair of also Electoral study information a seeking 2012 Districts study website. the copy Areas of commissioned the request. of Request a Provincial Terms and not of the will of boundary matter A, Areas. Whistler. financial No. it long the B, Regional and be for about [email protected] F: Ph. Pemberton Box 48 C, of following 604-894-6526 limited was your ago and - and 604-894-6371, importance Boundaries, 219. Reply from Tho... Reference Village contributions expansion the an D, No. considered with perusal. District 1350 to extensive, proposed BC 74 of motion respect the Aster VON Pemberton, www.slrd.bc.ca and for of 800-298-7753 RDNO both application Street, 2L0 was North from by the application two study to Page 320 of 343 of our passed: areas interested Annexation in District Okanagan which part Electoral terms in by order study of that of are the its of Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... SLRD Regular Board Meeting Minutes April 23, 2012;a10:30 AM SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton BC In Attendance: Board: S. Gimse, Chair (Area C); D. Demare (Area A); M. Macri (Area B); J. Turner (Alternate - Area D); J. Crompton (Alternate - Whistler); J. Sturdy (Pemberton); M. Lampman (Alternate - Lillooet); R. Kirkham (Squamish); P. Heintzman (Squamish) Staff: L. Flynn, CAO; P. DeJong, Director of Administrative Services (Recording Secretary); K. Needham, Director of Planning and Development; K. Salin, Planner; B. Moen, Building Inspector Others: 1 member of the Press and 1 member of the Public. 1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 10:34 AM 2 Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as circulated. 3 Committee Reports and Recommendations 3.1 Electoral Area Directors Committee Recommendations of April 10, 2012 Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 3.1.1. Request for Decision - Whitecap Resorts Ltd (McGillivray Pass Lodge) It was moved and seconded: 1. THAT a Notice on Title be registered against District Lot 8446 Lillooet District, pursuant to the Community Charter, Section 57, as the required inspection has not been satisfactorily completed. 2. AND THAT further information regarding this Notice on Title may be inspected at the offices of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, located at 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC, between the hours of 8:00 am and 4:30 pm, Monday through Friday, except Statutory Holidays. CARRIED B. Moen left the meeting at 10:36 AM. Page 321 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 2 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 3.1.2. Information Report - Gas Tax Funding It was moved and seconded: THAT staff develop two grant applications under the General Strategies Priorities System Fund for a Pemberton North water system and for the Bralorne sewer system. CARRIED 3.1.3. Funding for the District of Squamish Skateboard Park It was moved and seconded: THAT the Regional District provide a letter of support for the application to the Whistler Blackcomb Foundation for funding for lighting at the District of Squamish Skateboard Park. CARRIED 3.1.4. Update Report - Highline Road, Skutnik v. Her Majesty the Queen et al It was moved and seconded: THAT the Board continue to monitor the legal proceedings as a bystander and seek reinstatement of road maintenance funding from the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure. It was moved and seconded that the motion be amended as follows: THAT the Board continue to monitor the legal proceedings as an interested observer and actively seek reinstatement of road maintenance funding from the Ministry of Transportation & Infrastructure. AMENDMENT CARRIED MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED 3.2 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Recommendations of April 10, 2012 Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 3.2.1. Public Access to the Lillooet River It was moved and seconded: THAT staff look into whether there is in fact designated public access to the Lillooet River at the end of Erickson Road, Clover Road, Green Road, Wilson Road and Hurley River Road to determine whether public access exists, the status of the public access and what options may exist to improve them. CARRIED Page 322 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 3 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 4 Bylaws Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 4.1 Bylaw No. 1242-2012 - Pemberton/Electoral Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Establishment and Delegation of Authority Amendment Bylaw No.1242-2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT Pemberton/Electoral Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Establishment and Delegation of Authority Amendment Bylaw No.1242-2012 be read a first, second and third time; CARRIED It was moved and seconded: AND THAT Pemberton/Electoral Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Establishment and Delegation of Authority Amendment Bylaw No.1242-2012 be adopted. CARRIED R. Wainwright joined the meeting at 10:45 AM. 5 Staff Reports & CAO Update Unweighted Vote (except as noted) 5.1 Request for Decision: Letter to Pacific Wildfire Fuel Management Working Group – Inclusion of FireSmart activities as “in-kind” contributions on UBCM Fuel Management Applications It was moved and seconded: THAT the Board send a letter to the Pacific Wildfire Fuel Management Working Group requesting that community FireSmart activities be accepted as “in-kind” contributions, and be applied against the local government share in future Union of British Columbia Municipalities Fuel Management Applications. Also, that the Board direct the SLRD Emergency Program Manager to share the letter and rationale with emergency management counterparts at the 26 other regional districts in the province in the hopes of eliciting broader support from that group. CARRIED R. Wainwright left the meeting at 10:51 AM. 5.2 Request for Direction - Zoning Bylaw Amendment to Allow Beekeeping It was moved and seconded: THAT staff not move forward with any zoning amendments regarding beekeeping or pesticide use. CARRIED Page 323 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 4 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 5.3 CAO Verbal Update It was moved and seconded: THAT the CAO verbal update be received. CARRIED 5.4 National Pitch-In Week - April 23 - 30, 2012 - 20 Minute Makeover Challenge It was moved and seconded: THAT the 20 Minute Makeover Challenge be deferred until after lunch. CARRIED 6 Correspondence Requesting Action 6.1 Proclamation - National Public Works Week. May 20 - 26, 2012 It was moved and seconded: WHEREAS public works infrastructure, facilities and services are vital to the health, safety and well-being of the residents of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District; AND WHEREAS such facilities and services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals, engineers and administrators who are responsible for building, operating and maintaining the public works systems that serve our citizens; AND WHEREAS the Public Works Association instituted Public Works Week as a public education campaign “to inform communities and their leaders on the importance of our nation‟s public infrastructure and public works services; AND WHEREAS it is in the public interest of citizens and civic leaders to gain knowledge of the public works needs and programs of their respective communities; AND WHEREAS Public Works Week also recognizes the contributions of public works professionals. NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District does hereby proclaim the week of May 20-26, 2012 as „Public Works Week‟ in the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District. CARRIED Page 324 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 5 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 6.2 Proclamation Request - Day of the Honey Bee - May 29, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT May 29, 2012 be proclaimed the third annual "Day of the Honey Bee" CARRIED 6.3 Invitation to Healthy Families BC Communities Strategy Session - May 9, 2012 in Whistler It was moved and seconded: THAT the Invitation to Healthy Families BC Communities Strategy Session - May 9, 2012 in Whistler be received. CARRIED 6.4 Heart & Stroke Foundation - Smoke-Free Outdoor Public Places Bylaw It was moved and seconded: THAT the Heart & Stroke Foundation - Smoke-Free Outdoor Public Places Bylaw be received. CARRIED 6.5 Coastal Community Network Business Plan 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Coastal Community Network Business Plan 2012 be received. CARRIED 6.6 Metro Vancouver - Notification of a Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy It was moved and seconded: THAT the Metro Vancouver - Notification of a Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy be received. CARRIED 6.7 Metro Vancouver - Acceptance of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw 1160, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Metro Vancouver - Acceptance of Greater Vancouver Regional District Regional Growth Strategy Amendment Bylaw 1160, 2012 be received. CARRIED Page 325 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 6 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 6.8 City of Kamloops - Cities for Healthy Children Conference - May 10 to 11, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the City of Kamloops - Cities for Healthy Children Conference - May 10 to 11, 2012 be received. CARRIED 7 Correspondence for Information It was moved and seconded: THAT Correspondence for Information items 7.1 to 7.10 be received. 7.1 Investment Agriculture Foundation 2011 Annual Report 7.2 Fraser Basin Council Thompson Regional District - Minutes of March 13, 2012 Meeting 7.3 Metro Vancouver's Aboriginal Relations Committee - Local Government Representatives for Katzie & Tsleil-Waututh Treaty Negotiation Table 7.4 Liquor Control Licensing Branch - Liquor Primary (LP) Licensing of Movie Theatres 7.5 Province of B.C. Introduces New Limitation Act 7.6 Response from the Union of B.C. Municipalities re: Dissolution of the Lower Mainland Treaty Advisory Committee 7.7 Federation of Canadian Municipalities 75th Annual Conference and Trade Show - Elections 7.8 Fraser Basin Council‟s Thompson Regional Committee Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012. 7.9 Letters to the Provincial Government re: Business Taxation & Local Government Revenue Sources Review 7.10 Emergency Management Program BC - Joint Emergency Preparedness Program (JEPP) Funding CARRIED It was moved and seconded: THAT Correspondence for Information items 7.11 to 7.13 be received; AND THAT staff look into details as to how the sites identified in Items 7.11, 7.12 and 7.13 will be accessed, what area will be required for the sites, the size of any towers to be erected on the sites and any other impacts that may result from these sites. 7.11 Rupert Peace Power Corp - Wind Monitoring Tower Site Tenures in Dash Creek, Page 326 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 7 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. Lone Valley, Quartz Mountain, Big Sheep Mountain, Noel Creek and Lone Goat Creek 7.12 Flash Power Ltd.- Water Power Investigative License 7.13 Rupert Peace Power Corp - Water Power Investigative License - Hurley River CARRIED 8 Confirmation and Receipt of Minutes 8.1 Committee of the Whole Draft Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes of April 16, 2012 be approved as circulated. CARRIED 8.2 Regular Board Meeting Draft Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Regular Board Meeting Minutes of March 26, 2012 be approved as circulated. CARRIED 8.3 Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Electoral Area Directors Committee Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 be received for information. CARRIED 8.4 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 be received for information. CARRIED The meeting recessed at 11:23 AM. The meeting re-convened at 11:27 AM. 9 Business Arising from the Minutes None. Page 327 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 8 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 10 Decision on Late Business It was moved and seconded: THAT the late items be considered at this meeting. CARRIED 11 Late Business 11.1 Whitecap Resorts Ltd. - McGillivray Pass Lodge Notice on Title DL 8446 LLD It was moved and seconded: THAT the Whitecap Resorts Ltd. - McGillivray Pass Lodge Notice on Title letter be received. CARRIED 11.2 Lower Mainland Local Government Association - Request for Door Prizes for the 2012 Annual General Meeting It was moved and seconded: THAT $100 from General Government funds be used to purchase and donate a door prize for the Lower Mainland Local Government Association 2012 Annual General Meeting. CARRIED 12 Director's Reports 12.1 Treaty Advisory Committee Director Sturdy reported on his attendance at the last Metro Vancouver Aboriginal Relations meeting. It was moved and seconded: THAT staff prepare an application for Community to Community (C2C) Forum funds from the Union of BC Municipalities to host a forum exploring directions on regional district and First Nations treaty and non-treaty relations, to which the Sunshine Coast, Fraser Valley, Thompson Nicola and Metro Regional Districts would be invited. AND THAT Chair Gimse, Directors Sturdy, Kirkham and Lampman (Alternate Director – District of Lillooet) be appointed to a Sub-Committee to work with staff to develop the application. CARRIED 13 Board Closed Meeting It was moved and seconded: THAT the Board close the meeting to the public under the authority of Section 90(1)(a)(c)(e) of the Community Charter. Page 328 of 343 Regular Board Meeting Draft Minutes of April 23, 2012 For... Page 9 of 9 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Regular Board Meeting held on Monday, April 23, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. CARRIED The meeting was closed to the public at 11:50 AM. The meeting re-opened to the public at 1:32 PM. 5.4 National Pitch-In Week - April 23 - 30, 2012 - 20 Minute Makeover Challenge The Board participated in the 20 Minute Makeover Challenge by picking up garbage in the open spaces around the Regional District office. 14 Adjournment It was moved and seconded: THAT the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 2:00 PM. S. Gimse, Chair P. DeJong, Secretary Page 329 of 343 Committee of the Whole Draft Meeting Minutes of April 30... Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes April 30, 2012;a10:30 AM SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton BC In Attendance: Committee: S. Gimse, Chair (Area C); D. Demare (Area A); M. Macri (Area B); J. Turner (Alternate - Area D); N. Wilhelm-Morden (Whistler); J. Sturdy (Pemberton); M. Lampman (Alternate - Lillooet); P. Heintzman (Squamish); D. Race (Alternate - Squamish) Staff: L. Flynn, CAO; P. DeJong, Director of Administration (Recording Secretary); K. Needham, Director of Planning & Development; K. Salin, Planner Others: B. Mueller, Growth Strategies Manager (Province of BC); K. Damashie, Sustainability Planner (RMOW); J. Crompton (Alternate - Whistler); A. Antonelli, Planner (District of Squamish); D. Sailland, CAO (Village of Pemberton); C. Lamont, Manager of Development Services (Village of Pemberton), G. Loyer, CAO (District of Lillooet) 1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 10:34 AM. 2 Approval of Agenda The following items were added to the agenda: 5.1 Child Find BC - Proclamation for National Missing Children's Month & Missing Children's Day 5.2 2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver’s Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations It was moved and seconded: THAT the agenda be approved as amended. CARRIED N. Wilhelm-Morden and J. Crompton entered the meeting at 10:45 AM. 3 New Business 3.1. Regional Growth Strategy Context Statements Brent Mueller, Growth Strategies Manager - Province of BC gave a presentation. K. Needham, Director of Planning & Development, gave a presentation. Page 330 of 343 Committee of the Whole Draft Meeting Minutes of April 30... Page 2 of 3 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Committee of the Whole meeting, held on Monday, April 30, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. Presentations as to Regional Growth Strategy Context statements by: 1. A. Antonelli – District of Squamish 2. G. Loyer – District of Squamish 3. C. Lamont & D Sailland – Village of Pemberton The meeting recessed at 12:00 PM. D. Race left the meeting at 12:00 PM. The meeting re-convened at 12:40 PM. 3.2. Further Discussion of "Descriptions of Success" Leading to the Development of Related Actions. Discussion. N. Wilhelm-Morden left the meeting at 1:15 PM and Alternate Director Crompton took her place. 4 Decision on Late Business (requires 2/3 vote) It was moved and seconded: THAT the late items be considered at this meeting. CARRIED M. Macri left the meeting at 2:15 PM. 5 Late Business 5.1. Child Find BC - Proclamation for National Missing Children's Month & Missing Children's Day It was moved and seconded: THAT it be recommended to the Regional Board: WHEREAS Child Find British Columbia, a provincial member of Child Find Canada is a non-profit, registered charitable organization, incorporated in 1984; AND WHEREAS The Mandate of Child Find British Columbia is to educate children and adults about abduction prevention, to promote awareness of the problem of missing children, and to assist in the location of missing children; AND WHEREAS Child Find has recognized Green as the colour of Hope, which symbolizes a light in the darkness for all missing children; AND WHEREAS Child Find’s annual Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign will be held in the month of May and that May 25th be National Missing Children’s Day; AND THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: I, Susan Gimse, Chair of the Board of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District, do Page 331 of 343 Committee of the Whole Draft Meeting Minutes of April 30... Page 3 of 3 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Committee of the Whole meeting, held on Monday, April 30, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. hereby proclaim May as Child Find’s Green Ribbon of Hope month and May 25th as National Missing Children’s day. We urge our citizens to wear a green ribbon as a symbol of Hope for the recovery of all missing children; and to remain vigilant in our common desire to protect and nurture the youth of our Province. CARRIED 5.2. 2012 Appointments to Metro Vancouver’s Municipal Technical Advisory Committee (MTAC) on Aboriginal Relations It was moved and seconded: THAT it be recommended to the Regional Board: THAT Squamish-Lillooet Regional District CAO, Lynda Flynn be appointed to the Metro Vancouver Municipal Technical Advisory Committee on Aboriginal Relations. CARRIED 6 Adjournment It was moved and seconded: THAT the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 2:45 PM. S. Gimse, Chair P. DeJong, Secretary Page 332 of 343 Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes... Electoral Area Directors Committee Meeting Minutes May 14, 2012;a10:30 AM SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton BC In Attendance: Committee: D. DeMare, Chair (Area A); M. Macri (Area B); S. Gimse (Area C); M. Freitag (Area D) Staff: L. Flynn, CAO; P. DeJong, Director of Administrative Services (Recording Secretary); K. Needham (Director of Planning & Development) Others: Delegation - B. Pekonen, D. McGee 1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 10:43 A.M. 2 Approval of Agenda The following items were added to the agenda: 9.1 Gas Tax Funding - RSP Projects 9.2 Sponsorship of the 2012 Squamish Chamber of Commerce Golf Tournament 9.3 Anderson Lake Boat Launch - Request for Legal Public Access to Anderson Lake 9.4 Fountain Valley Wildfire Action Committee 9.5 Proposed Lillooet Community Bursary 9.6 Britannia Beach Community Association 9.7 Garibaldi Fire Hall Plans It was moved and seconded: THAT the agenda be approved as amended. CARRIED 3 New Business 3.1. April 2012 Monthly Building Report It was moved and seconded: THAT the April 2012 Building Report be received. CARRIED Page 333 of 343 Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes... Page 2 of 6 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area Directors Committee meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 3.2. Select Funds Report It was moved and seconded: THAT the Select Funds Report be received. CARRIED 3.3. Information Report - House Numbering Signs It was moved and seconded: THAT the Information Report - House Numbering Signs be received. CARRIED 3.4. Information Report - McGillivray Creek Information It was moved and seconded: THAT the Information Report - McGillivray Creek be deferred until after the presentation by the Delegation. CARRIED 3.5. Request for Decision - Exempt the Gun Lake Fire Protection Society Storage Building from ‘Post-Disaster Building’ Designation It was moved and seconded: THAT it be recommended to the Regional Board: THAT the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Board exempt the proposed Gun Lake Fire Protection Society storage building for a fire truck and related fire- fighting equipment from ‘post-disaster building’ designation. CARRIED 3.6. Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Plan - Area C It was moved and seconded: THAT it be recommended to the Regional Board: THAT the Pemberton Valley Agricultural Area Plan - Area C (AAP) be adopted as Board policy. CARRIED 3.7. CAO Verbal Update It was moved and seconded: THAT the CAO Verbal Update be received. CARRIED Page 334 of 343 Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes... Page 3 of 6 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area Directors Committee meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. It was moved and seconded: THAT Item 11 - Delegation - Bill Pekonen & Don McGee re: McGillivray Trail and Tribal Parks be moved ahead on the agenda. CARRIED 11 Delegations 11.1. Bill Pekonen & Don McGee re: McGillivray Trail and Tribal Parks Presentation and discussion. The meeting recessed at 12:00 Noon The meeting re-convened at 12:27 P.M. 3.4. Information Report - McGillivray Creek Information It was moved and seconded: THAT the Electoral Area Directors Committee receive the information related to McGillivray Creek and Tribal Parks as background to the presentation by Mr. Bill Pekonen and Mr. Don McGee CARRIED 4 Correspondence Requesting Action 4.1. Pemberton & District Chamber of Commerce - Grant Request for Pemberton Visitor's Centre It was moved and seconded: THAT $2,500 from Area C Select Funds be granted to the Pemberton Visitor's Centre, with approval of the grant being subject to the results of a meeting between the Area C Director and the Chamber President. CARRIED 4.2. Lillooet Secondary School - Dry Grad Celebration It was moved and seconded: THAT $400 of Area A Select Funds be granted to the Lillooet Secondary School - Dry Grad Celebration, subject to recognition of the Area A contribution. CARRIED 4.3. Lil'wat May Day Rodeo It was moved and seconded: THAT $1,000 from Area C Select Funds be granted to the Lil'wat May Day Rodeo, subject to recognition of the Area C contribution. CARRIED Page 335 of 343 Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes... Page 4 of 6 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area Directors Committee meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 4.4. Bridge River Valley Economic Development Society (BRVEDS) - Request for Funding for the Dissolution of Bralorne-Bridge River Valley Community Association (BBRVCA) It was moved and seconded: THAT $5,000 from Area A Select Funds be granted to the Bridge River Valley Economic Development Society (BRVEDS) to cover the costs associated with the dissolution of the Bralorne-Bridge River Valley Community Association (BBRVCA) and transfer of assets from the BBRVCA to the BRVEDS. CARRIED 5 Correspondence for Information 5.1. 4th Annual Longboard Event, Britannia Beach It was moved and seconded: THAT the letter regarding the 4th Annual Longboard Event at Britannia Beach be received. CARRIED 6 Confirmation and Receipt of Minutes 6.1. Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Electoral Area Directors Committee Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 be approved as distributed. CARRIED 7 Business Arising from the Minutes 8 Decision on Late Business It was moved and seconded: THAT the late items be considered at this meeting. CARRIED 9 Late Business 9.1. Gas Tax Funding - RSP Projects It was moved and seconded: THAT the Gas Tax Funding - RSP Projects report be received. CARRIED Page 336 of 343 Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes... Page 5 of 6 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area Directors Committee meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 9.2. Sponsorship of the 2012 Squamish Chamber of Commerce Golf Tournament It was moved and seconded: THAT $1,000 from Area D Select Funds be granted to sponsor the 2012 Squamish Chamber of Commerce Golf Tournament, with recognition of the Area D contribution. CARRIED 9.3. Anderson Lake Boat Launch - Request for Legal Public Access to Anderson Lake It was moved and seconded: THAT staff research the applicable regulations and outline the options for maintenance and management of the dock at Anderson Lake on an economically sustainable basis, as well as any liability considerations. CARRIED 9.4. Fountain Valley Wildfire Action Committee It was moved and seconded: THAT $500 from Area B Select Funds be granted to the Fountain Valley Wildfire Action Committee, with recognition of the Area B contribution. CARRIED 9.5. Lillooet Community Bursary It was moved and seconded: THAT $2,000 from Area B Select Funds be granted to the Lillooet Community Bursary, with terms of the Bursary to be determined by the Area B Director and the administrators of the Lillooet Community Bursary. CARRIED Director Macri left the meeting at 1:37 PM 9.6. Britannia Beach Community Association It was moved and seconded: THAT $3,000 of Area D Select Funds be granted to the Britannia Beach Community Association for the 'Clean Up Day' event in June, 2012 and for strategic planning. CARRIED 9.7. Garibaldi Firehall Update It was moved and seconded: THAT the preliminary Garibaldi Fire Hall plans be received for information. CARRIED Page 337 of 343 Electoral Area Directors Committee Draft Meeting Minutes... Page 6 of 6 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Electoral Area Directors Committee meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 10 Electoral Area Directors Closed Meeting Resolution to Close the Meeting to the Public. It was moved and seconded: THAT the Committee close the meeting to the public under the authority of Section 90(1)(j) and (e) of the Community Charter. CARRIED The meeting was closed to the public at 1:45 PM The meeting was re-opened to the public at 2:07 PM 11 Adjournment It was moved and seconded: THAT the meeting be adjourned CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 2:07 PM. D. DeMare, Chair Peter DeJong, Secretary Page 338 of 343 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Me... Pemberton Valley Utilities and Services Committee Meeting Minutes May 14, 2012;a5:00 PM SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton BC In Attendance: Committee: J. Sturdy, Chair (Pemberton); S. Gimse (Area C); T. Craddock (Alternate Director - Pemberton); M. Blundell (Alternate Director - Area C) Staff: L. Flynn, CAO; P. DeJong, Director of Administrative Services (Recording Secretary); P. Duhault, Recreation Services Manager; S. Lafrance, Director of Finance Others: J. Linklater (Councillor, Pemberton) 1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:08 PM. 2 Approval of Agenda The following items were added to the agenda: 3.6 Lease & Recreation Services 3.7 Solid Waste Transfer Station 3.8 Mt. Currie Trail 3.12 Winds of Change 6.2 Letter from the Village of Pemberton re: Pemberton/Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Tradeshow Debrief Report 6.3 Letter from Pemberton & District Chamber of Commerce declining the Venture Pemberton Website It was moved and seconded: THAT the agenda be approved as amended. CARRIED 3 New Business & Staff Reports 3.1 Introduction of Recreation Program Specialist Daniel Cindric It was moved and seconded: THAT item 3.1 Introduction of Recreation Program Specialist Daniel Cindric be deferred until 7:00 PM. CARRIED Page 339 of 343 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Me... Page 2 of 5 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Valley Utilities and Services meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. It was moved and seconded: THAT items 3.3 and 3.6 be considered out of sequence. CARRIED 3.3 Recreation Service Facilities – Monthly Operating Budgets It was moved and seconded: THAT the Recreation Service Facilities – Monthly Operating Budgets be received. CARRIED S. Lafrance left the meeting at 5:23 PM. It was moved and seconded: THAT the meeting be Closed to the public as per Section 90(1)(j) of the Community Charter. CARRIED The meeting was closed to the public at 5:25 PM. The meeting was re-opened to the public at 5:41 PM. 3.2 Gates Lake Update It was moved and seconded: THAT the Gates Lake Update be received. CARRIED 3.4 Facilitated Workshop - Options for the Future of Recreation Services in Pemberton and Area C It was moved and seconded: THAT staff review the Pemberton/Area C Recreation Services Bylaws to advise on their legislative evolution and current status. CARRIED J. Linklater left the meeting at 6:15 PM. 3.6 Lease & Recreation Services Discussion 3.5 Request for Decision - Pemberton Valley Agricultural Plan - Area C It was moved and seconded: THAT the Pemberton Valley Agricultural Plan - Area C (AAP) be received. CARRIED Page 340 of 343 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Me... Page 3 of 5 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Valley Utilities and Services meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 3.7 Solid Waste Transfer Station Discussion 3.8 Mt. Currie Trail Discussion The meeting recessed at 6:51 PM. The meeting re-convened at 7:09 PM. 3.9 Youth Centre Initiatives Presentation – Geoff Pross, Youth Centre Program Leader/Supervisor Presentation and discussion. 3.1 Introduction of Recreation Program Specialist Daniel Cindric 3.10 Recreation Services Manager Verbal Update It was moved and seconded: THAT staff provide information regarding capital and operating costs and timelines regarding potential Meadows Fields upgrades for the next PVUS meeting. CARRIED It was moved and seconded: THAT it be recommended to the Regional Board: THAT staff apply for a grant from Fraser Basin Council to install two charging stations for electric cars in the Pemberton & District Cottonwood Community Centre parkade. CARRIED 3.11 Pemberton/Area C Recreation Advisory Committee - Discussion Discussion 3.12 Winds of Change Discussion 4 Committee Reports and Recommendations 4.1 Pemberton/Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Recommendations of April 24, 2012 None Page 341 of 343 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Me... Page 4 of 5 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Valley Utilities and Services meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 5 Correspondence Requesting Action None 6 Correspondence for Information 6.1 School District 48 - Use of Meadows Facility Sports Fields It was moved and seconded: THAT correspondence from School District 48 regarding Use of Meadows Facility Sports Fields be received for information. CARRIED 6.2 Letter from the Village of Pemberton re: Pemberton/Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Tradeshow Debrief Report It was moved and seconded: THAT the letter from the Village of Pemberton re: the Pemberton/Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Tradeshow Debrief Report be received for information. CARRIED 6.3 Letter from Pemberton & District Chamber of Commerce declining the Venture Pemberton Website It was moved and seconded: THAT the letter from the Pemberton & District Chamber of Commerce declining the Venture Pemberton Website be received and referred to the next PVUS meeting. CARRIED 7 Minutes 7.1 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Meeting Minutes of April 10, 2012 be approved as distributed. CARRIED 7.2 Pemberton/Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Draft Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2012 It was moved and seconded: THAT the Pemberton/Area C Recreation Advisory Committee Draft Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2012 be received for information. CARRIED Page 342 of 343 Pemberton Valley Utilities & Services Committee Draft Me... Page 5 of 5 of the minutes of the Squamish-Lillooet Regional District Pemberton Valley Utilities and Services meeting, held on Monday, May 14, 2012 in the SLRD Boardroom 1350 Aster Street, Pemberton, BC. 8 Business Arising from the Minutes None. 9 Decision on Late Business No Late Business 10 Adjournment It was moved and seconded: THAT the meeting be adjourned. CARRIED The meeting adjourned at 8:53 PM. J. Sturdy, Chair P. DeJong, Secretary Page 343 of 343