District of Sooke Agenda Monday, May 11, 2020 In-Camera Meeting @ 5:30 PM Regular Council Meeting @ 7:00 PM Electronic meetings in accordance with BC Ministerial Order MO83
Please note: The Open Portion of this meeting may be posted on www.sooke.ca . Written submissions will become part of the public record and are subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Page 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC
THAT this meeting be closed to the public under section 90(1)(a),(c),(g) and/or (i) of the Community Charter as it pertains to identifiable individuals, labour relations, litigation or potential litigation, and legal advice.
3. CALL TO ORDER - OPEN PORTION
4. FIRST NATION RECOGNITION
5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA
THAT the agenda for the May 11, 2020 Regular Meeting of Council, be adopted as circulated.
6. PUBLIC AND STATUTORY HEARINGS
***Public Input to Follow Each Item***
6.1. Development Variance Permit - 2106 Melrick Place 5 - 11 • Public Input • Council Consideration Development Variance Permit - 2106 Melrick Place - Pdf Correspondence from E.Ouellette
THAT Council issue Development Variance Permit PLN01491 for the purposes of a reduced side lot line setback at 2106 Melrick Place.
Agenda for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - May 11, 2020
6.2. Development Permit with Variance - 2365 Church Road 13 - 23 • Public Input • Council Consideration Development Permit with Variance - 2365 Church Road - Pdf Correspondence from M.Anderson Correspondence from L.Batten
THAT Council issue Development Permit with Variance PLN01483 for the purpose of developing a Community Care Facility at 2365 Church Road.
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Regular meetings of Council: 25 - 33 • April 27, 2020 - Regular Regular Council - 27 Apr 2020 - Minutes - Pdf
THAT the minutes of the April 27, 2020 Regular Meeting of Council, be adopted as circulated.
8. REPORT OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
9. PUBLIC QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD
10. REPORTS
10.1. District of Sooke Audited 2019 Financial Statements 35 - 61 District of Sooke Audited 2019 Financial Statements - Pdf
THAT Council accept the Draft Financial Statements of the District of Sooke, year ended December 31, 2019.
10.2. Notice of Motion Response - Food Security 63 - 160 Notice of Motion Response - Food Security - Pdf
THAT Council receive this report for information.
THAT Council direct staff to amend Goal 2 of the 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan to include the following Actions under Objective 2.5 of Appendix A - Action Plan: • Invite the T'Sou-ke Nation to the food security table • Review, adopt and initiate the 2012 Sooke Agricultural Plan • Support the formation of a Food Policy Council and the adoption of a Food Charter • Use the OCP review to update a Food Systems Plan • Initiate a feasibility study for a Food Hub • Participate in a regional food strategy
Page 2 of 178 Agenda for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - May 11, 2020
11. BYLAWS
11.1. Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 748 (600-76), 2020 - 2096 Kennedy Street 161 - 162 Bylaw 748 -2096 Kennedy Street
THAT Council adopt the bylaw cited as Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 748 (600-76), 2020.
11.2. Five Year Financial Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 785 (770-01), 2020 163 - 169 2020-2024 Amended Five Year Financial Plan - Pdf
THAT Council give First, Second, and Third reading to the Bylaw cited as Five- Year Financial Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 785 (770-01), 2020.
THAT Council adopt the bylaw cited as Five -ear Financial Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 785 (770-01), 2020.
11.3. Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020 171 - 176 2020 Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784 - Pdf
THAT Council give First, Second and Third reading to the Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020;
THAT Council adopt the bylaw cited as Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020.
12. NEW BUSINESS
12.1. Notice of Motion - Financial Hardship Property Tax Deferment Program (Mayor Tait) • For consideration at the May 25, 2020, Regular Council meeting
WHEREAS the COVID-19 pandemic has brought extraordinary hardship to some residents;
AND WHEREAS the Province has provided some relief measures to local governments, there remains financial impacted residents who do not qualify for the existing tax deferment program.
THEREFORE IT BE RESOLVED that Council request the Mayor in sending a letter to the Province (Minister of Municipal Affairs, Minister of Finance and Sooke’s MLA) to request reinstatement of the Financial Hardship Property Tax Deferment Program created in 2008.
Page 3 of 178 Agenda for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - May 11, 2020
12.2. Notice of Motion - Sooke Region Chamber of Commerce (Mayor Tait) 177 - 178 • For consideration at the May 25, 2020 Regular Council meeting Email from Sooke Region Chamber of Commerce-May 2020
THAT Council direct staff to prepare a service agreement with the Sooke Region Chamber of Commerce that includes operational funding for 2020 in the amount of $16,000 from Council Contingency;
AND THAT staff be further directed to include the Sooke Region Chamber of Commerce as part of the overall review of existing District of Sooke service agreements and line items.
13. COUNCIL VERBAL REPORTS
14. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 178
Development Variance Permit - 2106 Melrick Place
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council issue Development Variance Permit PLN01491 for the purposes of a reduced side lot line setback at 2106 Melrick Place.
Report Summary: The applicant has applied for a reduction to the Medium Lot Residential (R2) side lot line setback in order to facilitate a subdivision and create a new panhandle shaped lot. The Subject Property Map is attached as Attachment 1, the Site Plan outlining the variance requested as Attachment 2 and Development Variance Permit PLN01491 is attached as Attachment 3.
Report: The applicant has applied for a Development Variance Permit for 2106 Melrick Place in order to reduce the Medium Lot Residential (R2) side lot line setback. If successful with the variance application a subsequent subdivision application will be required to create a new panhandle lot. The access strip for panhandle lots must be 6 meters wide, to accommodate that width the side lot line adjacent to the existing house must be reduced from the required 1.2 meters to 0.85 meters.
Official Community Plan The subject property is in the Community Residential (CR) land use designation. This is the area in Sooke in which low to medium density residential and appropriately scaled commercial development is to occur. The goals of the designation include ensuring the sustainable construction of single family residential dwellings and the reduction of residential sprawl. Infill, or gentle density in existing neighbourhoods is more sustainable as infrastructure is already in place and reduces sprawl. The creation of a new infill lot also meets several of the objectives of the designation including, but not limited to: • Provide the most efficient use of land and existing physical infrastructure in terms of infill/densification; • Preserve and enhance the character of existing neighbourhoods; • Allow a variety of housing options within new and existing residential areas;
Zoning Bylaw The subject property is zoned Medium Lot Residential (R2) which as a minimum lot size of 600m². The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into two lots with areas of 649.69m² and 637.87m²; one of which is a panhandle. When a panhandle lot is created the access strip is required to be 6 meters wide and the area is not included in the lot area calculation. The reasons for this is the purpose of the access strip is solely access
Planning & Development File No. 3220-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0048 PLN01491 Page 5 of 178 and egress for vehicles and the 6 meter width is the minimum required for emergency vehicle's to safely access. Aside from the side lot line variance of 0.35 meters both new lots meet all other requirements of the Medium Lot Residential (R2) zone. Staff internally referred the side lot line variance and there were no concerns with this variance and the application moving forward to the subdivision stage.
Notification and Public Input The notification was sent to affected property owners and tenants within 100 meters of the subject property on April 30, 2020. The District is required to make a reasonable effort to send notifications 10 days prior to consideration of the resolution as per Section 499 of the Local Government Act. Due to COVID-19 distancing, public input can be provided via email, or in writing through regular mail or via the mail slot at the municipal hall prior to 12:00 noon on May 11. Any submissions received will be read aloud at the meeting by the Corporate Officer.
Budget/Financial Impacts: Though not a direct financial impact infill development does have a long term benefit to the District as the residential area is already serviced. Residential sprawl into new areas requires the expansion of the community sewer and road networks which both have long term asset management implications and costs. Additionally, one new residential lot will be created for taxation.
Strategic Relevance: • Manage long-term growth while enhancing community identity, vitality and safety - Continue to address housing affordability and accessibility for all income levels
Attached Documents: 1- PLN01491_Subject_Property_Map 2- Site Plan PLN01491 3- Development Variance Permit PLN01491
Approved by Matthew Pawlow, Director of Planning & Development Approved - 30 Apr 2020 Carolyn Mushata, Corporate Officer Approved - 30 Apr 2020 Norm McInnis, Chief Administrative Officer Approved - 30 Apr 2020
Planning & Development File No. 3220-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0048 PLN01491 Page 6 of 178 5 15SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP File: PLN01491 2 2139 A 1 C J 5 L 21 B B 19 7 21 2132 7 2 0 0 3 CP 2152 3 0 2 W A
I
N 2 F 5 1 I D 11 2142 E ROA 2 3 L DD 1 D U R M
D B E
2138 R L
I 7 R
V 0 2 I 1 C E D 1 3 2 K 2 5 9 1 10 A 39 P 2 L 2 B 3 L B 134 A B C 2 E 13 5B A 21 2108 39 F K A A A 2 21 105 2 35 1 A 6 3 6 9 3 9 0 7 G 6 1 0 2 2 1 4 0 2 7 J 0 9 0 0 6 5 I 7 0 1 H 6 7 6 0 2 1 4
7 7 0 7 0 3 0 1 8 1 1 1 ST 3 7 WE 0 AD 7 2 2 4 RO 0 #43 7 4 NT 2 PCL A 0 RA 1 4 G 8 #1 #42
#2 7 0 3 1 #3 Rem 5 #5 #6 4 #4
7 #12 0 #7 4 1 5 #14 #8 ´ PT 2 #15 0 10 20 30 40 50 Subject Property Metres
Page 7 of 178 Page 8 of 178 of 8 Page
_ ,.,. K zmmq no>m..umzozn . ,., um 23:? 0.3183: xmocmmumzmzmw_u>_,_,:>zc_.m. ,;.?.% »ue.a£.aa3 umouommomcwu_ mzmo._.O mmmm_<_o FMD>F Onun!_1....O F04 an IF)? UIII.V umn....Oz H4 .U_u._..l_n._. umouommo_.O._. N ._.O._.>_.>mm> Dnvun? roH>_.mm E3: 3» _.o~>$m ma? Uammo...» 33. _uoo€1:.. >69 98 _.o_Oo rO._. N >mm>-3_:cm - _u>z:>zo_.m _.o»>$m BN3 3» _n «ZN >mQ DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT PLN01491 DATE: April 27, 2020 TO: Laurel Quinn SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2106 Melrick Place 1. This Development Variance Permit is issued subject to compliance with all of bylaws of the District of Sooke applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. 2. This Development Variance Permit applies to and only to those lands within the District of Sooke described below (legal description), and all buildings, structures, and other development thereon. Parcel Identifier: 000-191-973 Legal Description: LOT G, SECTION 21, SOOKE DISTRICT, PLAN 39897 3. The following sections of Bylaw No. 600, Sooke Zoning Bylaw, 2013 are varied: a. To vary section 202.7 Medium Lot Residential (R2) Minimum Setbacks in accordance with: Schedule A: A-2 Proposed Subdivision with Variance 4. The development shall be carried out to the following time schedule: N/A 5. The land described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and provisions of this Permit, and any plans and specifications attached to this Permit which shall form a part hereof. 6. If the Permittee does not commence the Development Variance permitted by this Permit within N/A of the date of this Permit, the Permit shall lapse. 7. This Permit is NOT a Building Permit. Motion carried by Council the XX day of XXXXXX, 2020. ISSUED this day of ______, 2020. Matthew Pawlow RPP MCIP Director of Planning & Development Page 9 of 178 Page 10 of 178 C5“:-§ To whom wmay concern. As owners of ‘Mehmk PL, we have a few cormerns abuu! the devsbpmen: variance permwt appmnon for nos Melnck D\a(e LOT(3. SECTION 21, SODKE DISTRICT,v|AN39897 PID:000151-573 when we purchased our property at 1 Melnck s-La hme over a year ago It was to gel eszamrshea In a family oriented nerghnourhoou wrch buglots and low housxngaerrsrzyand flu rentals. Now with this variance applncanon and sundwrsran of the adyesent rmr:wrnrrrcrease aerrsrryaha traffu: pmerns. Far rhsxance parkrng an mestreet will mast Irkely rhcrease. It has been named that occupants 1112106Melnck pr. have Incveased road parking smce they purchased me pvuperty and we are worried that n wvllget even wars! with the suzmwisron of me let. Currently they have a small business and have two enclosed cargo trailevs, e mgmetal storage container, a work (rutk. and daily commuxervehicles ln the driveway. this has an effen on the arnounrof par rng spaces available lll their driveway so they usually park a couple olvehicles on meroad plus any visitors. with a panhandle iol the Ianewalywill have ro be clear and that's where all rhese vehicles are currently parked. Also mayhave no Garage so It can oounl ior a parking space. we have come home a lew nmesand have had vehicles pamaiiy blocking our driveway due to parking on the street. The garbage truck has a hard rune rurnlng meeui-iiesae and usually has to back up to Rudd road inhere are any cars parked on mecul»de-sac due to lack oi space. we find nusmange will neganvely e?ecl mesurrounding neignlaourhuud environment and feel. Another concern would be me building mat would be built on said 10! as no information has been provided. u is our understanding the owner of 2106 Melrick n has mumpnerental properties and fear ms might become one of them in the near future. Thank you for consmenngour concerns and let us know « you have any questions. nalso included Teunesha to keep her Informed as nhave had a conversation with her on the variance application. Thanks. Kamna and En: ouellene Page 11 of 178 Page 12 of 178 Development Permit with Variance - 2365 Church Road RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council issue Development Permit with Variance PLN01483 for the purpose of developing a Community Care Facility at 2365 Church Road. Report Summary: The District has received an application for a Development Permit with Variance for the purposes of converting a Single-Family Dwelling to a Community Care Facility (daycare) at 2365 Church Road. The variances are for the parking space configuration and reduction, and to reduce the side lot line setback. Both variances were identified during the rezoning of the property in 2019 and are supported by staff. According to the 2019 Child Care Needs Assessment and Action Plan Sooke is considered a child care desert and needs 51 new child care spaces per year to meet present and future demands. Purpose-built daycare facilities are not common in Sooke, as such, most are conversions of Single-Family Dwellings (residential) to the Community Care Facility use (assembly). This means that the building could require upgrades, the extent of which depend on the number of children, their age and the size of the new facility. There are also provincial licensing requirements above and beyond the BC Building Code and Fire Code requirements that need to be met. This change in use typically triggers the need for a Development Permit as the Building Permit value can easily be in excess of $50,000. Variances can also be common when changing a use as the property wasn't originally designed with the new zone's setbacks and requirements. These changes in use require a Building Permit and a Business Licence to operate within the District of Sooke. Previous Council Action: September 30, 2019 - Council adopted Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 738 to amend the zoning of the property from Large Lot Residential (R1) to Community Facilities (P2). Report: Background Staff have anticipated this Development Permit with Variance since the rezoning application was received in June 2019. The variances were not incorporated into the rezoning process as the number of children was unknown and therefore the number of parking stalls, and the parking configuration was also unknown. The Development Permit with Variance application is for 28 infant/toddler (ages 0-3 and 3-5) child care spaces. Official Community Plan Planning & Development File No. 3220-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0033 PLN01483 Page 13 of 178 The Community Residential (CR) designation is the area within Sooke in which low to medium density residential growth will occur along with some associated and appropriately scaled commercial development. An objective of the CR designation is to encourage the creation of childcare facilities in residential areas such as this one. One of the other objectives of the CR designation is to allow limited small scale commercial development to serve local neighbourhood needs e.g. daycare, corner store and neighbourhood pub. A mixed-use connected neighbourhood allows residents to have easy access to basic amenities and increases sense of place and overall satisfaction. Services such as community care facilities need to be near transit and the neighbourhood infrastructure needs to allow for increased pedestrian connectivity between larger transit nodes. Transit supportive densities in smaller communities such as Sooke can be as low as 30 households per hectare, and can lead to an increased demand for transit services and other amenities in the immediate area. The 2010 Official Community Plan has several Guiding Principles including Sooke's "Thriveability" which includes "supporting community-centered health, such as childcare and social services, youth services and activities (recreational and sports programs) through "public private partnerships" and "promoting, creating and supporting affordable housing for a variety of ages and financial capacities". The other focus of the Guiding Principles is Economic Diversification. Rising real estate costs, an uneven or lack of social and physical infrastructures across Sooke, social vulnerability and affordability challenges all add to the growth pressures the District of Sooke is facing. The subject property is in an ideal neighbourhood for a Community Care Facility as there are no other child care facilities in the immediate vicinity. In addition, there are a significant number of existing and proposed residential units for this part of Sooke, these units will need to be supported by nearby services and amenities. Development Permit Area #2 The following Form and Character guidelines are applicable to the proposed development: • The use, scale, form and character of the project should be compatible and lend continuity to the surrounding neighbourhood. Infill developments shall incorporate and promote connections between sidewalks, parking areas, entranceways, parks and trails. • Safe pedestrian path networks in terms of wider sidewalks and/or trails shall be provided throughout the new development or redevelopment with maximum connectivity to outlying residential areas. • Buildings should include "broken roof lines" and a pedestrian oriented streetscape design contiguous with adjacent development and scaled appropriately for larger commercial operations The development meets these guidelines as the Community Care Facility is a converted Single Family Dwelling which is the predominant housing typology in the area. The subject property is also well located for high levels of connectivity. The file was referred out internally and externally and feedback was positive with no concerns. In the referral response from Parks & Environmental Services the following was noted: "this Planning & Development File No. 3220-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0033 PLN01483 Page 14 of 178 application is well connected to the trail and sidewalk network, has street lighting along its property lines and is within 500m of municipal and school district playgrounds." Zoning Bylaw The subject property is zoned Community Facilities (P2) and the Community Care Facility falls under the Institutional Use definition. The Zoning Bylaw contains screening and landscaping requirements in Section 3.18, institutional uses require landscaping at lease 1.5 meters high in a strip at least 1 meter wide or a solid decorative fence at least 1.5 meters high but no higher than 2.5 meters. Along the development portion of each side of the site which abuts a public highway, continuous landscaping not less than 1.5 meters in width shall be provided and maintained. Staff have not required a landscape plan from the applicant for this application in order for the change of use to be less of a burden and because there isn't much space for additional lands396caping on the site. The owner is encouraged to keep the front and side yard tidy and to enhance the visible yard space with vegetation where appropriate. Variances The applicant is proposing two variances. The first, a reduction to the side lot line requirement from 6 meters to 4.37 meters because this application is a conversion and the Single Family Dwelling was not built to the larger P2 side setback requirement. Planning staff support this variance and see no issue with a reduced setback between the proposed daycare and the adjacent residence. The parking requirement for Community Care Facilities is 1 parking stall per every 5 children. The applicant is proposing to keep one standard and one accessible parking stall in the former driveway location and requesting a variance to reduce the provided parking stalls from 6 to 2. Both Planning and Engineering staff support this reduction as the alternative is parking stalls configured in such a way that vehicles must back out across the sidewalk into Felderhof Road, which has safety implications given the nearby intersection. Given the Community Care Facility use, vehicles will only be utilizing on- street parking in the morning and afternoon. Engineering staff have stated that "Engineering supports the reduction of parking as there is currently plenty of room for on-street parking on the Felderhof frontage of the lot, and due to the pick-up/drop-off nature of the intended use, this is seen as preferable to having cars pulling in and backing out of the proposed parking stalls so close to a corner." In addition, the parking stalls shown on the initial site plan received by the Planning and Development Department didn't conform to Subdivision and Development Standards Bylaw No. 404 which does not allow for a hard-surfaced frontage greater than 6 meters wide. In comparison, and for scale of the variance request, daycares for 8 or more children in View Royal require 3 parking spaces and in Langford 2 off-street spaces are required for pick-up and drop off and one space per an employee. In addition, for residential development the garage is considered a parking stall, for this institutional application the garage has not been counted as a stall, however, staff have embedded provisions into the Development Permit with Variance PLN01483 so the garage can be used for parking as appropriate. Child Care Needs Assessment and Action Plan Planning & Development File No. 3220-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0033 PLN01483 Page 15 of 178 The Child Care Needs Assessment and Action Plan was completed in December 2019. It found that Sooke was considered a child care desert and 51 new child care spaces were required each year to meet the current and future need. The desert label is because in Sooke for every 100 children there are only 21 spaces that are accessible. In comparison, the provincial access rate is 37. The wait periods for finding child care in Sooke are quite high with 37% of parent/guardian survey respondents stating that it took one to six months to find a space. The data showed that the demand for child care space is outpacing the supply, particularly for infant and toddler spaces. This Development Permit with Variance is for the infant and toddler age ranges. Notification and Public Input The notification was sent to affected property owners and tenants within 100 meters of the subject property on April 30, 2020. The District is required to make a reasonable effort to send notifications 10 days prior to consideration of the resolution as per Section 499 of the Local Government Act. Due to COVID-19 distancing, public input can be provided via email, or in writing through regular mail or via the mail slot at the municipal hall prior to 12:00 noon on May 11. Any submissions received will be read aloud at the meeting by the Corporate Officer. Strategic Relevance: • Manage long-term growth while enhancing community identity, vitality and safety - Continue to advocate for improved access to health and childcare • Manage long-term growth while enhancing community identity, vitality and safety - Strengthen local economic development and tourism Attached Documents: 1 -PLN01483_Subject_Property_Map_Ortho 2 -PLN01483 Site Plan PLN01483 Development Permit with Variance Approved by Carolyn Mushata, Corporate Officer Approved - 06 May 2020 Planning & Development File No. 3220-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0033 PLN01483 Page 16 of 178 6 6 5 5 8 SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP 6 8 5 File: PLN01483 5 7 8 AD 9 CP RO 6 LGESEN 5 HE 9 CP 3 B A 3 91 1 23 6 5 2 9 90 6 0 23 5 5 CP 9 2 2 83 16 23 5 B 2 9 4 86 1 6 23 6 5 3 5 9 9 6 6 0 77 8 38 3 6 2 2 AD A O 5 F R HO 6 8 ER 5 9 LD FE 6 9 5 1 5 6 9 5 3 4 9 3 2 6 37 5 5 3 2 9 1 7 2 65 18 68 23 1 4 23 17 23 4 2 82 236 16 9 23 A 235 8 15 8 239 C 4 H 13 56 U 5 14 23 R 235 2400 C H 5 R O 3 13 2406 A D 7 234 2 41 46 2 1 23 12 1 4 4 6 2 39 23 11 1 7 338 7 2 233 2 ´ 10 0 10 20 30 40 50 Subject Property Metres Page 17 of 178 2365 CHURCH ROAD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH 2 VARIANCES CONC. SIDEWALK MC 6597 FELDERHOF ROAD MC 1 PLAN SHED VIP78734 REQUESTED VARIANCES GARAGE 1. PARKING CONFIGURATION FOR 2 SPACES (AS DRAWN) 2. VARIANCE OF 6m SIDE LOT LINE SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE EXISTING STRUCTURE 1 1 PLAN 24758 (699.5m²) 2 (±395m²) EXISTING DWELLING PROPOSED GREENSPACE (TO REMAIN) RAMP PAINTED CENTERLINE DECK PROPOSED SETBACK NMC CONC. SIDEWALK CHURCH ROAD HELGESEN ROAD 2 PLAN FELDERHOF ROAD 24758 2365 NMC 2359 CAFFERY PLACE CHURCH ROAD Page 18of178 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT SUBMISSION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WITH VARIANCE PLN01483 DATE: May 11, 2020 TO: Bahaa Al Mahanna SUBJECT ADDRESS: 2365 Church Road 1. This Development Permit with Variance is issued subject to compliance with all of the bylaws of the District of Sooke applicable thereto, except as specifically varied or supplemented by this Permit. 2. This Development Permit with Variance applies only to those lands within the District of Sooke described below (legal description), and any and all buildings, structures, and other development thereon. (Parcel Identifier: 000-003-832 ) Legal Description: LOT 1 SECTION 26 SOOKE DISTRICT PLAN 24758 3. This Development Permit with Variance (PLN01483) is issued to allow for development of a Community Care Facility in accordance with: a. Schedule A: Site Plan C01 dated April 21, 2020 4. The following sections of Bylaw No. 600, Sooke Zoning Bylaw, 2013 are varied: a. To vary section 4.5 subsection a); b. To vary section 4.6 subsections c), d), e) and m); c. To vary section 4.8 parking requirements. 5. The land described herein shall be developed strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions and provisions of this Permit, and any plans and specifications attached to this Permit, which shall form a part hereof. 6. If the Permittee does not substantially start the development permitted by this Permit within 24 months of the date of this Permit, the Permit shall lapse. 7. This Permit is NOT a Building Permit. Motion carried by Council the XX day of XXXXXX, 2020. Issued this ______day of ______, 2020. ______Matthew Pawlow RPP MCIP Director of Planning & Development Page 19 of 178 Page 20 of 178 rW9a'el3"dE'S°"— _; v <5 <7 «-, @ .e::~~ -: ‘S¢;‘ Cwcmvate5e». :35 We have nemseayouv nuuncanancancemvng ms anphcanan and maxemevouowmgcummenl - waccsnlea musdevelopmem womaadd conswaevably to mevemcle «am Uavemng axon;Felaemn! conlmumg new rnuuanousmgaxthe east armof ms street has aweauycomnnuleu In vemde and heavy Huck lla?w muease with aadmonal nose and an Do?uhun cnuvcnRoan nsenum umyears has axnonenmaan mcmasa um:um: nnamgused as : snarl - ml onto one:Pom Ru We oonsme:manwasoxooosedmange oluse lo a Day Care Cenlle s not accenxabledue to uushouse Dennasnuaueuon a comet .nssmall um5:29 and meIm olnecessaly pamng The amamzyacmeaqacem houses and mawldur area wounsu?er delenorallan nunsavpllcauon Is anmoved‘ Hence we opnose meavusmuon vows Page 21 of 178 Page 22 of 178 ° Linda Batten <— Re: Appllcatron for a development perrmt with vanance at 2365 Church Road, Socks. 1have absolutely no probiem wnh this development permit with variance. Linda Batten ‘ ‘In the middle of every difficultylies opportunity. ~ Albert Einstein Page 23 of 178 Page 24 of 178 MINUTES District of Sooke Regular Council Meeting April 27, 2020 7:00 PM Council Chamber 2225 Otter Point Road Sooke, BC COUNCIL PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Maja Tait Norm McInnis, Chief Administrative Officer Councillor Jeff Bateman Carolyn Mushata, Director of Corporate Services (left at 9:45pm) Councillor Al Beddows Raechel Gray, Acting Director of Finance Councillor Dana Lajeunesse Kenn Mount, Director of Community Safety Councillor Ebony Logins Matthew Pawlow, Director of Planning and Development Councillor Megan McMath (arrived at 7:14pm) Jennifer Royer-Collard, Corporate Services Assistant Councillor Tony St-Pierre 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tait called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2. MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING TO THE PUBLIC 2020-108 MOVED by Councillor Al Beddows, seconded by Councillor Tony St-Pierre: THAT the meeting be closed to the public under section 90(1)(i) of the Community Charter as it pertains to legal advice. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Megan McMath, and Councillor Tony St- Pierre Absent: Councillor Ebony Logins 3. CALL TO ORDER - OPEN PORTION Mayor Tait called the April 27, 2020, Regular Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 4. FIRST NATION RECOGNITION Mayor Tait acknowledged the T'Sou-ke Nations upon whose territory Council meetings take place. 5. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2020-109 MOVED by Councillor Tony St-Pierre, seconded by Councillor Al Beddows: THAT the agenda for the April 27, 2020 Regular Meeting of Council, be adopted as circulated. Page 1 of 9 Page 25 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, and Councillor Tony St-Pierre Absent: Councillor Megan McMath 6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Minutes of the Regular meeting of Council: • April 14, 2020 Regular 2020-110 MOVED by Councillor Ebony Logins, seconded by Councillor Tony St-Pierre: THAT the minutes of the April 14, 2020 Regular Meeting of Council, be adopted as circulated. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, and Councillor Tony St-Pierre Absent: Councillor Megan McMath 7. REPORT OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER The Chief Administrative Officer provided an update on the COVID situation, identifying that the Emergency Operations Center is still operating and will be moving towards recovery support once the provincial reopening plan is announced. The District will continue to adhere to the Health Officer's orders, which may result in a number of staff continuing to work from home due to physical distancing requirements; to work from home policy will be reviewed in conjunction with the orders. Additional measures need to be implemented to ensure residents, and staff, can conduct business safely. Finally, a staff survey will be conducted to assess the service level managed during the pandemic. 8. PUBLIC QUESTION AND COMMENT PERIOD Written questions and comments submitted to [email protected] prior to 12:00 p.m. (noon) on April 27, 2020, were read aloud and recorded for the public record. • Ms. E. Badiuk, Sooke Fine Arts Society, emailed regarding Item No. 9.1. 2020- 2024 Five Year Financial Plan Amendments, highlighting the importance of the District's continued financial support as it aids the society's ability to obtaining provincial and federal funding for the Sooke Fine Arts Show. • Ms. E. Lewers emailed regarding Item No. 9.2. Update-Development Procedures During COVID-19 Pandemic, expressing the importance of public input and Item 11.1. Notice of Motion from Councillor Tony St-Pierre (on behalf of Food Security Working Group), suggesting that the District 2012 Agricultural Plan should be reviewed and noted concerns regarding insurance and water rates for small farms. Page 2 of 9 Page 26 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 9. REPORTS 9.1. 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan Amendments The Director of Finance provided an overview of the written staff report, outlining potential changes to the 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan to reduce the property tax increase and information on property tax rate bylaw options. The tax rate submission date will not change, unless authorized by the provincial or federal government, as the District is still required to remit all third-party taxes regardless of the current situation. Assurances are needed to ensure municipal taxes are paid, so that the District does not have to borrow funds to continue operations. ********************************************************** Councillor McMath joined the meeting at 7:14 p.m. ********************************************************** Council discussion: • Consensus that Canada Day celebrations and fireworks should be eliminated from the budget for 2020. Should a community event be an option in late summer or early fall, Council will evaluate event options and funding at that time. • Assurances that 2021 taxes would remain relatively the same as currently proposed Five-Year Financial plan, residents may still be in recovery mode next year. • New hires will be delayed, not eliminated. • Majority of the reductions will come from capital projects. • The records vault should be removed and revisited next year. • Desired zero percent increase over 2019 if possible. • Concerns with limited information provided from line item and service agreement recipients, desire to have staff provide an update. • Appreciation banquet for Fire department volunteers, delayed until 2021. • The website update should not be eliminated from the budget, it can be done once the Communication position is filled. • Assurance that major issues with building maintenance should remain as priorities. o Confirmation was provided from the Director of Community Safety that municipal hall undergoes regulatory inspections by the Fire Inspector. • Possible future funding opportunities through provincial and federal governments for infrastructure or capital projects. 2020-111 MOVED by Councillor Tony St-Pierre, seconded by Councillor Al Beddows: THAT Council receive this report for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, Councillor Megan McMath, and Councillor Tony St-Pierre Page 3 of 9 Page 27 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 2020-112 MOVED by Councillor Tony St-Pierre, seconded by Councillor Al Beddows: THAT Council direct staff to leave the capital funds for a website in the budget but defer the vault to 2021. WITHDRAWN The Chief Administrative Officer advised due to the nuances of the calculations involved with balancing the budget, he suggested changing the motion to include direction to staff to report back with a zero percent increase, rather than specifics. Councillor St-Pierre and Councillor Beddows were in support of withdrawing motion 2020-112, in response to the Chief Administrative Officer's advice. 2020-113 MOVED by Councillor Jeff Bateman, seconded by Councillor Megan McMath: THAT Council direct staff to bring forward an adjusted 2020 Five-Year Financial Plan, to the May 11, 2020 Regular Council meeting, with a zero percent tax increase over 2019. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, Councillor Megan McMath, and Councillor Tony St-Pierre 9.2. Update - Development Procedures During COVID-19 Pandemic The Director of Planning provided an overview of the written staff report, outlining several options for amendments to planning and development bylaws and policies, to aid in the processing of applications during the COVID-19 pandemic, while meeting transparency and accountability requirements. Council discussion: • Assurances that the public will be provided ample opportunity, with sufficient notice, to provide comment, where applicable. • Desire to minimize legal jargon for public hearing notifications, is possible, to enhance understanding for citizens interested in understanding applications. o The Corporate Officer advised that public hearing notification details are mandated by the Community Charter, however, she would look at was to increase understanding in notifications if possible. • Clarity that should applicants be unsatisfied with results there under a delegated authority is an appeal process available to them. 2020-114 MOVED by Councillor Megan McMath, seconded by Councillor Tony St-Pierre: THAT Council direct staff to bring forward amendments to Development Application Procedures Policy No. 8.4, 2011 to allow for alternative public information gathering compliant with social isolation guidelines, when required in accordance with sections 2.8 and 3.9; and, that section 7.8 be amended to require submissions to an application be received by 4 pm the day before the Council meeting; Page 4 of 9 Page 28 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 THAT Council cease public input for Development Variance Permit applications during a Council meeting and accept submissions as instructed within the notice of meeting date that are to be included in the report to Council; THAT Council direct staff to bring forward amendments to Development Permit Delegation Bylaw No. 705, 2018 to include the revised position title of Director of Planning and Development as the delegated authority; THAT Council direct staff to bring forward Zoning Bylaw Amendment applications on a case-by-case basis in accordance with section 464 of the Local Government Act and to indicate options for obtaining public input with each application; and THAT Council direct staff to further explore delegated authority for Development Permits and minor variance applications, and report back to Council. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, Councillor Megan McMath, and Councillor Tony St-Pierre 10. BYLAWS 10.1. Officers and Delegation of Authority Amendment Bylaw No. 783 (672-1), 2020 - Residential Strata Title Conversion Applications The Director of Planning provided an overview of the written staff report, outlining options to allow for continuity of development processes during the COVID-19 pandemic, through the amendment of the Officers and Delegation of Authority Bylaw. As well seeking direction from Council in updating Policy No. 8.6. Residential Strata Title Conversion Policy, 2010. Council discussion: • Concerns that there is minimal time-savings implementing the proposed changes, as there are very few applications. • The importance of ensuring transparency with the public. • The information contained in applications is beneficial for Council knowledge of community projects. 2020-115 MOVED by Councillor Al Beddows, seconded by Councillor Ebony Logins: THAT Council received the Delegation of Approving Authority for Residential Strata Title Conversion Applications report, for information. CARRIED. In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, and Councillor Megan McMath Opposed: Councillor Tony St-Pierre **************************************************** Carolyn Mushata left the meeting at 9:45 p.m. **************************************************** Page 5 of 9 Page 29 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.1. Notice of Motion from Councillor Tony St-Pierre (on behalf of Food Security Working Group) • From the April 24, 2020, Regular Council meeting Councillor St-Pierre provided the rationale behind the notice of motion highlighting the following: • The current Covid-19 pandemic shows gaps in the food systems and supply chains. • Council's Strategic Plan currently has a place holder for food security with no action items attached. Council discussion: • Concerns around financial feasibility, lack of specific short and long term goals associated with actions, and who will manage projects and planning. • Desire to have a refined plan that identifies measurables, steps to achieve success and final outcomes. • Suggest that the Climate Action Committee develop plans and present to Council, at a later date. 2020-116 MOVED by Councillor Tony St-Pierre, seconded by Councillor Jeff Bateman: Whereas our Food Security is heavily affected by the present pandemic; and Whereas Council's Strategic Plan includes Food Security as an objective. THAT the following recommendations from the CAC's Food Security Working Group be adopted into the Council Strategic Plan and that Food Security be made a District of Sooke priority. 1. Invite the T’Sou-ke Nation to the food security table 2. Review, adopt and initiate the 2012 Sooke Agricultural Plan 3. Support the formation of a Food Policy Council and the adoption of a Food Charter 4. Use OCP Review to update a Food Systems Plan 5. Initiate a feasibility study for a Food Hub 6. Participate in a regional food strategy DEFEATED. In Favour: Councillor Jeff Bateman and Councillor Tony St-Pierre Opposed: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, and Councillor Megan McMath A round table discussion ensued regarding the option for staff to evaluate the suggested food security notice of motion and return with a report on the feasibility of integrating these items as suggested. Page 6 of 9 Page 30 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 2020-117 MOVED by Councillor Tony St-Pierre, seconded by Councillor Al Beddows: THAT the Council direct staff to report back on the feasibility and impacts of the following resolution: • THAT the following recommendations from the CAC's Food Security Working Group be adopted into the Council Strategic Plan and that Food Security be made a District of Sooke priority. 1. Invite the T’Sou-ke Nation to the food security table 2. Review, adopt and initiate the 2012 Sooke Agricultural Plan 3. Support the formation of a Food Policy Council and the adoption of a Food Charter 4. Use OCP Review to update a Food Systems Plan 5. Initiate a feasibility study for a Food Hub 6. Participate in a regional food strategy CARRIED. In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Megan McMath, and Councillor Tony St- Pierre Opposed: Councillor Ebony Logins 11.2. Notice of Motion from Councillor Tony St-Pierre • From the April 14, 2020, Regular Council meeting Councillor St-Pierre provided the rationale behind this notice of motion and highlighted the following: • The program would assist residents who currently have additional time to learn, and are interested in, how to build backyard food gardens. This would assist many in becoming less dependent on the supply chain and grow food for themselves. Council discussion: • Concerns that this application was brought forward with the community grant program, which was cancelled, and providing funding would display unequal contributions as other applicants were not provided the opportunity to change their direction if they were able. • Applauded the Sooke Region Food CHI's project and agreed that it valuable for residents to learn about backyard gardening. • This project is not an immediate solution for the current situation, rather a long- term plan. • The differing opinions of what constitutes food security, buy in from residents, and concerns that this will be provided minimal support at this current time. 2020-118 MOVED by Councillor Tony St-Pierre, seconded by Councillor Jeff Bateman: THAT the District of Sooke contribute $1660 from Council Contingency to support Sooke Region Food CHI's SOOKE REGION BACKYARD GARDENS project. DEFEATED. Page 7 of 9 Page 31 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 In Favour: Councillor Jeff Bateman and Councillor Tony St-Pierre Opposed: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, and Councillor Megan McMath 12. CORRESPONDENCE 12.1. Denwood Holdings - 2076 Otter Point Road A letter requesting an extension of time for the compliance orders given for 2076 Otter Point Road to remediate the property owned by Denwood Holdings Ltd. 2020-119 MOVED by Councillor Tony St-Pierre, seconded by Councillor Megan McMath: THAT Council receive the correspondence from Rory Morahan, regarding the property at 2076 Otter Point Road, for information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, Councillor Megan McMath, and Councillor Tony St-Pierre 13. COUNCIL VERBAL REPORTS Councillor Beddows reported on: • Seaparc isolation shelter responses and reminder that spaces are for those already in the community. Councillor Bateman reported on: • The Vancouver Island Regional Library progress, hopeful groundbreaking in the summer of 2020. Councillor McMath reported on: • Her appreciation to fellow Councillors understanding as she transitions into a new job. • Encouragement to donate blood during these times when donations are lower than ever. Mayor Tait reported on: • Reminder of the Mayor's Address, weekly on Monday's at 1:00 p.m. • The Sooke Chamber of Commerce has launched the Better Buy Sooke campaign, which has been established to support local businesses in the community. • Past Fire Chief, Steve Sorensen, is a recipient of the BC Achievement Community Award recognizing his community dedication. • Recognition of Ed Banner's 100th birthday. Page 8 of 9 Page 32 of 178 Minutes for the Regular Council Meeting of the District of Sooke - April 27, 2020 14. ADJOURNMENT 2020-120 MOVED by Councillor Megan McMath, seconded by Councillor Tony St-Pierre: THAT the April 27, 2020, Regular Council meeting be adjourned at 10:06 p.m. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY In Favour: Mayor Maja Tait, Councillor Jeff Bateman, Councillor Al Beddows, Councillor Dana Lajeunesse, Councillor Ebony Logins, Councillor Megan McMath, and Councillor Tony St-Pierre Certified Correct: Maja Tait Carolyn Mushata Mayor Corporate Officer Page 9 of 9 Page 33 of 178 Page 34 of 178 District of Sooke Audited 2019 Financial Statements RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council accept the Draft Financial Statements of the District of Sooke, year ended December 31, 2019. Report Summary: Due to COVID-19 KPMG will be unable to attend in person and have presented Council with an Audit Report which includes a clean audit opinion and no significant issues. Legal Impacts: Community CharterAnnual financial statements 167 (1)Municipal financial statements for a fiscal year must be (a)prepared by the financial officer, and (b)presented to council for its acceptance. (2)Subject to subsection (3), the financial statements must be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for local governments. (3)The inspector may require or authorize, generally or for a specified municipality, that the financial statements vary from or include additional information to the requirements of subsection (2). (4)By May 15 in each year, a municipality must submit to the inspector its audited financial statements for the preceding year and any other financial information requested by the inspector. (5)In addition to any requirement under subsection (4), the financial officer must compile and supply information on the financial affairs of the municipality requested by the inspector. Strategic Relevance: • Build a reputable organization - Continue to manage District assets responsibly with sound financial principles and practices Attached Documents: Draft Sooke 2019 Financial Statements Approved by Carolyn Mushata, Corporate Officer Approved - 07 May 2020 Norm McInnis, Chief Administrative Officer Approved - 07 May 2020 Financial Services File No. 1680-19 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0062 Page 35 of 178 Financial Statements of DISTRICT OF SOOKE And Independent Auditors' Report thereon Year ended December 31, 2019 May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM Page 36 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Financial Statements Year ended December 31, 2019 Financial Statements Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements 1 Independent Auditors' Report 2 Statement of Financial Position 5 Statement of Operations 6 Statement of Change in Net Debt 7 Statement of Cash Flows 8 Notes to Financial Statements 9 May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM Page 37 of 178 MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The accompanying financial statements of District of Sooke (the "District") are the responsibility of management and have been prepared in compliance with applicable legislation, and in accordance with public sector accounting standards for governments as recommended by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. A summary of the significant accounting policies are described in note 1 to the financial statements. The preparation of financial statements necessarily involves the use of estimates based on management’s judgment, particularly when transactions affecting the current accounting period cannot be finalized with certainty until future periods. The District’s management maintains a system of internal controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded, transactions are properly authorized and recorded in compliance with legislative and regulatory requirements, and reliable financial information is available on a timely basis for preparation of the financial statements. These systems are monitored and evaluated by management. Mayor and Council meet with management and the external auditors to review the financial statements and discuss any significant financial reporting or internal control matters prior to their approval of the financial statements. The financial statements have been audited by KPMG LLP, independent external auditors appointed by the District. The accompanying Independent Auditors’ Report outlines their responsibilities, the scope of their examination and their opinion on the District’s financial statements. Director of Finance May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 1 Page 38 of 178 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To the Mayor and Councillors of the District of Sooke Opinion We have audited the financial statements of the District of Sooke (the “Entity”), which comprise: the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2019 the statement of operations and accumulated surplus for the year then ended the statement of change in net financial assets for the year then ended the statement of cash flows for the year then ended and notes to the financial statements, including a summary of significant accounting policies (Hereinafter referred to as the “financial statements”.) In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Entity as at end of December 31, 2019, and its results of operations, its changes in net financial assets and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Basis for Opinion We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the “Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements” section of our auditors’ report. We are independent of the Entity in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in Canada and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. Responsibilities of Management and Those Charged with Governance for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of the 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. Page 39 of 178 District of Sooke In preparing the financial statements, management is responsible for assessing the Entity’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless management either intends to liquidate the Entity or to cease operations, or has no realistic alternative but to do so. Those charged with governance are responsible for overseeing the Entity’s financial reporting process. Auditors’ Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditors’ report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of the financial statements. As part of an audit in accordance with Canadian generally accepted auditing standards, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We also: Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit 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. Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates and related disclosures made by management. Page 40 of 178 District of Sooke Conclude on the appropriateness of management's use of the going concern basis of accounting and, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether a material uncertainty exists related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the Entity's ability to continue as a going concern. If we conclude that a material uncertainty exists, we are required to draw attention in our auditors’ report to the related disclosures in the financial statements or, if such disclosures are inadequate, to modify our opinion. Our conclusions are based on the audit evidence obtained up to the date of our auditors’ report. However, future events or conditions may cause the Entity to cease to continue as a going concern. Evaluate the overall presentation, structure and content of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation. Communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and significant audit findings, including any significant deficiencies in internal control that we identify during our audit. Chartered Professional Accountants Victoria, Canada May 11, 2020 Page 41 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Statement of Financial Position December 31, 2019, with comparative information for 2018 2019 2018 Financial assets: Cash and cash equivalents (note 2) $ 15,040,566 $ 13,563,470 Property taxes receivable 841,129 935,434 Accounts receivable 199,908 186,731 Other assets (note 10(a)) 141,400 138,179 16,223,003 14,823,814 Financial liabilities: Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 1,732,848 1,654,746 Deposits 1,433,344 1,597,826 Deferred revenue (note 3) 5,132,979 4,536,322 Employee benefit obligations (note 4) 381,885 314,203 Long-term liabilities (note 5) 4,866,311 5,363,593 13,547,367 13,466,690 Net financial assets 2,675,636 1,357,124 Non-financial assets: Tangible capital assets (note 6) 110,226,561 109,835,364 Prepaid expenses 188,131 194,943 110,414,692 110,030,307 Accumulated surplus (note 7) $ 113,090,328 $ 111,387,431 Commitments and contingent liabilities (note 10) Subsequent event (note 12) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. On behalf of the District: Director of Finance May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 5 Page 42 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Statement of Operations Year ended December 31, 2019, with comparative information for 2018 Financial Plan 2019 2018 (note 11) Revenue: Net taxes available for municipal purposes (note 8) $ 8,625,575 $ 8,640,268 $ 7,890,048 Sales and user fees 77,750 77,055 217,099 Government transfers (note 9) 2,582,355 1,719,279 1,301,822 Investment income 150,000 349,968 322,709 Penalties and fines 160,000 161,016 152,200 Licenses and permits 674,543 850,474 727,045 Lease and rental - 6,571 3,543 Donations and contributions - 1,387,010 5,154,973 Developer cost charges 200,000 - 295,519 Sewer operating revenue 2,541,564 2,537,134 2,251,301 Casino revenue sharing 260,000 291,570 285,354 Total revenue 15,271,787 16,020,345 18,601,613 Expenses: General government 3,127,476 3,239,973 2,836,605 Protective services 4,060,842 4,259,234 3,935,237 Development service 4,712,328 4,552,243 4,669,303 Sewer 2,652,288 2,265,998 2,048,641 Total expenses 14,552,934 14,317,448 13,489,786 Annual surplus 718,853 1,702,897 5,111,827 Accumulated surplus, beginning of year 111,387,431 111,387,431 106,275,604 Accumulated surplus, end of year $ 112,106,284 $ 113,090,328 $ 111,387,431 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 6 Page 43 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Statement of Change in Net Debt Year ended December 31, 2019, with comparative information for 2018 Financial Plan 2019 2018 (note 11) Annual surplus $ 718,853 $ 1,702,897 $ 5,111,827 Acquisition of tangible capital assets (5,153,105) (2,080,306) (1,680,373) Developer contributions of tangible capital assets - (1,350,985) (5,153,299) Amortization of tangible capital assets 2,653,501 2,952,484 3,123,019 Loss on disposal of tangible capital assets - 87,610 - (2,499,604) (391,197) (3,710,653) Acquisition of prepaid expenses - 6,812 27,102 Change in net debt (1,780,751) 1,318,512 1,428,276 Net financial assets (debt), beginning of year 1,357,124 1,357,124 (71,152) Net financial assets, end of year $ (423,627) $ 2,675,636 $ 1,357,124 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 7 Page 44 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Statement of Cash Flows Year ended December 31, 2019, with comparative information for 2018 2019 2018 Cash provided by (used in): Operating activities: Annual surplus $ 1,702,897 $ 5,111,827 Items not involving cash: Developer contributions of tangible capital assets (1,350,985) (5,153,299) Amortization of tangible capital assets 2,952,484 3,123,019 Loss on disposal of tangible capital assets 87,610 - Actuarial adjustment on debt (193,372) (173,898) Changes in non-cash operating assets and liabilities: Property taxes receivable 94,305 (51,099) Accounts receivable (13,177) (31,019) Other assets (3,221) (2,843) Accounts payable and accrued liabilities 78,102 53,648 Deposits (164,482) 990,204 Employee benefit obligations 67,682 59,077 Deferred revenue 596,657 848,014 Prepaid expenses 6,812 27,102 3,861,312 4,800,733 Capital activities: Acquisition of tangible capital assets (2,080,306) (1,680,373) Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets 6,000 - (2,074,306) (1,680,373) Financing activities: Debt issued and assumed 369,937 - Debt payments (679,847) (599,469) (309,910) (599,469) Increase in cash and cash equivalents 1,477,096 2,520,891 Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 13,563,470 11,042,579 Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 15,040,566 $ 13,563,470 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 8 Page 45 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements Year ended December 31, 2019 District of Sooke (the "District") is a municipality in the Province of British Columbia and operates under the provisions of the Local Government Act and the Community Charter of British Columbia. The District provides municipal services such as fire, public works, engineering, planning, parks, recreation, community development, and other general government operations. 1. Significant accounting policies: The financial statements of the District are prepared by management in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards for governments as recommended by the Public Sector Accounting Board (“PSAB”) of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. Significant accounting policies adopted by the District are as follows: (a) Reporting entity: The financial statements include a combination of all the assets, liabilities, accumulated surplus, revenues and expenses of all of the District's activities and funds. Inter- departmental balances and organizational transactions have been eliminated. The District does not control any significant external entities and accordingly no entities have been consolidated with the financial statements. (b) Basis of accounting: The District follows the accrual method of accounting for revenues and expenses. Revenues are normally recognized in the year in which they are earned and measurable. Expenses are recognized as they are incurred and measurable as a result of receipt of goods or services and/or the creation of a legal obligation to pay. (c) Government transfers: Government transfers without stipulations restricting their use are recognized in the financial statements as revenue in the period in which the transfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria are met, and reasonable estimates of the amounts can be made. Government transfers with stipulations restricting their use are recognized in the financial statements as revenues in the period in which the eligible expenditures are incurred, providing they are authorized and eligibility criteria are met. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 9 Page 46 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 1. Significant accounting policies (continued): (d) Deferred revenue: Deferred revenue includes grants, contributions and other amounts received from third parties pursuant to legislation, regulation and agreement which may only be used in certain programs, in the completion of specific work, or for the purchase of tangible capital assets. In addition, prepaid property taxes and certain user charges and fees are collected for which the related services have yet to be performed. Revenue is recognized in the period when the related expenses are incurred, services performed, or the tangible capital assets are acquired, thereby extinguishing the related liability. Development cost charges are amounts which are restricted by government legislation or agreement with external parties. When qualifying expenditures are incurred development cost charges are recognized as revenue in amounts which equal the associated expenses. (e) Property tax revenue: Property tax revenue is recognized on the accrual basis using the approved tax rates and the anticipated assessment related to the current year. (f) Investment income: Investment income is reported as revenue in the period earned. When required by the funding government or related legislation, investment income earned on deferred revenue is added to the investment and forms part of the deferred revenue balance. (g) Deposits: Receipts restricted by third parties are deferred and reported as deposits under certain circumstances. Deposits are returned when the third party meets their obligations or the deposits are recognized as revenue when qualifying expenditures are incurred. (h) Cash and cash equivalents: Cash and cash equivalents include investments in the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia (“MFA”) pooled investment funds and are recorded at cost plus earnings reinvested in the funds. (i) Long-term debt: Long-term debt is recorded net of related payments and actuarial earnings. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 10 Page 47 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 1. Significant accounting policies (continued): (j) Employee future benefits: The District and its employees make contributions to the Municipal Pension Plan. These contributions are expensed as incurred. Sick leave and other retirement benefits are also available to the District’s employees. The costs of these benefits are determined based on service and best estimates of retirement ages and expected future salary and wage increases. The obligations under these benefit plans are accrued based on projected benefits as the employees render services necessary to earn the future benefits. (k) Non-financial assets: Non financial assets are not available to discharge existing liabilities and are held for use in the provision of services. They have useful lives extending beyond the current year and are not intended for sale in the ordinary course of operations. (i) Tangible capital assets: Tangible capital assets are recorded at cost which includes amounts that are directly attributable to acquisition, construction, development or betterment of the asset. The cost, less residual value, of the tangible capital assets, excluding land, are amortized on a straight line basis over their estimated useful lives as follows: Asset Useful life - years Land improvements 10 - 50 Buildings 25 - 40 Equipment, furniture and vehicles 4 - 25 Roads and sidewalks 25 - 75 Storm sewer 60 Sanitary sewer 25 - 60 Amortization is charged annually, including in the year of acquisition and disposal. Assets under construction are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use. Tangible capital assets are written down when conditions indicate that they no longer contribute to the District's ability to provide goods and services, or when the value of the future economic benefits associated with the asset are less than the book value of the asset. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 11 Page 48 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 1. Significant accounting policies (continued): (k) Non-financial assets (continued): (ii) Contributions of tangible capital assets: Tangible capital assets received as contributions are recorded at their fair value at the date of receipt and also are recorded as revenue. (iii) Works of art and cultural and historic assets: Works of art and cultural and historic assets are not recorded as assets in these financial statements. (iv) Interest capitalization: The District does not capitalize interest costs associated with the acquisition or construction of a tangible capital asset. (v) Leased tangible capital assets: Leases which transfer substantially all of the benefits and risks incidental to ownership of property are accounted for as leased tangible capital assets. All other leases are accounted for as operating leases and the related payments are charged to expenses as incurred. (l) Contaminated sites: The District records a liability in its financial statements when contamination on non-active property exceeds an accepted environmental standard and the District is directly responsible, or accepts responsibility for, the damage. The liability is measured at the District’s best estimate of the costs directly attributable to remediation of the contamination. No contaminated sites liabilities have been recorded in these financial statements. (m) Use of estimates: The preparation of 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 disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the period. Significant estimates include assumptions used in estimating historical cost and useful lives of tangible capital assets and estimating provisions for accrued liabilities including employee future benefits. Actual results could differ from these estimates. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 12 Page 49 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 2. Cash and cash equivalents: 2019 2018 Bank deposits $ 2,862,474 $ 2,073,033 Municipal Finance Authority Pooled Investment Funds 12,178,092 11,490,437 $ 15,040,566 $ 13,563,470 3. Deferred revenue: 2019 2018 Prepaid property taxes $ 914,579 $ 880,843 Development cost charges 4,175,051 3,616,447 Other deferred revenue 43,349 39,032 Total deferred revenue $ 5,132,979 $ 4,536,322 Included in other deferred revenue are business licenses and building permits. Development Cost Charges 2019 2018 Opening balance of unspent funds $ 3,616,447 $ 2,756,217 Add: Development cost charges received during the year 520,853 1,123,936 Interest earned 37,751 31,813 558,604 1,155,749 4,175,051 3,911,966 Less amount recorded as revenue - 295,519 Closing balance of unspent funds $ 4,175,051 $ 3,616,447 May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 13 Page 50 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 4. Employee benefit obligations: 2019 2018 Accrued vacation $ 103,670 $ 55,573 Other contract obligations 278,215 258,630 $ 381,885 $ 314,203 Employee benefit obligations represent accrued benefits as at December 31, 2019. Accrued vacation is the amount of vacation entitlement carried forward into the next year. Other contract obligations include banked overtime payable to the District’s employees, accumulated sick leave banks and retirement benefits for possible drawdown at future dates. Sick leave entitlements may only be used while employed by the District and are not paid out upon retirement or termination of employment. Municipal Pension Plan The 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 pension plan is a multiemployer contributory pension plan. Basic pension benefits provided are based on a formula. As at December 31, 2018, the Plan has about 205,000 active members and approximately 101,000 retired members. Active members include approximately 40,000 contributors from local government. The most recent valuation for the Municipal Pension Plan as at December 31, 2018, indicated a $2,866 million funding surplus for basic pension benefits on a going concern basis. Employers participating in the plan record their pension expense as the amount of employer contributions made during the fiscal year (defined contribution pension plan accounting). This is because the plan records accrued liabilities and accrued assets for the plan in aggregate, resulting in no consistent and reliable basis for allocating the obligation, assets and cost to individual employers participating in the plan. The District paid $394,661 (2018 - $354,549) for employer contributions to the Plan in fiscal 2019, while employees contributed $332,308 (2018 - $293,102) to the plan in fiscal 2019. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 14 Page 51 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 5. Long-term liabilities: 2019 2018 Tax supported debt bearing interest at 4.52% and matures in 2027 (ladder truck) $ 294,991 $ 329,533 Debt for sewer capital project bearing interest at 4.43% and matures in 2026 3,840,107 4,324,060 MFA Loan (property purchase) bearing annual variable interest and matures in 2021 426,000 710,000 MFA Equipment Loan (Water Tender Truck) bearing annual variable interest and matures in 2024 305,213 - Long-term liabilities $ 4,866,311 $ 5,363,593 (a) Debt: The loan agreements with the Capital Regional District ("CRD") and the MFA provide that if, at any time, the scheduled payments provided for in the agreements are not sufficient to meet the MFA's obligations in respect of such borrowings, the resulting deficiency becomes a liability of the District. The District issues its debentures through the MFA. Debentures are issued on a sinking fund basis, whereby the MFA invests the District's principal payments so that the payments, plus investment income, will equal the original outstanding debt amount at the end of the repayment period. The gross value of debt at December 31, 2019 and 2018 is $9,417,101. (b) The principal payments required on the District's long-term debt during each of the next five years are as follows: 2020 $ 673,998 2021 533,871 2022 393,192 2023 394,237 2024 316,827 Thereafter 2,554,186 $ 4,866,311 (c) Total interest expense on long-term debt for the year ending December 31, 2019 amounted to $164,804 (2018 - $170,966). May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 15 Page 52 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 6. Tangible capital assets: Equipment, Land furniture and Roads and Work in Total Total Land improvements Buildings vehicles sidewalks Storm sewer Sanitary sewer progress 2019 2018 Cost: Balance, beginning of year $38,482,636 7,740,955 4,071,087 5,125,044 54,845,388 13,871,332 27,274,110 49,669 $151,460,221 $144,626,803 Additions 309,675 81,463 120,186 730,683 1,393,814 195,590 415,689 184,191 3,431,291 7,047,998 Disposals - - - (40,696) (310,367) - - - (351,063) (214,580) Balance, end of year 38,792,311 7,822,418 4,191,273 5,815,031 55,928,835 14,066,922 27,689,799 233,860 154,540,449 151,460,221 Accumulated amortization: Balance, beginning of year - 3,067,661 2,590,196 3,304,209 25,126,432 1,713,613 5,822,746 - 41,624,857 38,501,836 Disposals - - - (24,417) (239,036) - - - (263,453) - Amortization - 340,498 150,031 256,743 1,418,440 226,932 559,840 - 2,952,484 3,123,019 Balance, end of year - 3,408,159 2,740,227 3,536,535 26,305,836 1,940,545 6,382,586 - 44,313,888 41,624,857 Net book value, end of year $38,792,311 4,414,259 1,451,046 2,278,496 29,622,999 12,126,377 21,307,213 233,860 $110,226,561 $109,835,364 Page 53 of 178 16 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 6. Tangible capital assets (continued): (a) Work in progress: Work in progress having a value of $233,860 (2018 - $49,669) has not been amortized. Amortization of these assets will commence when the asset is available for service. (b) Contributed tangible capital assets: Contributed tangible capital assets have been recognized at fair market value at the date of contribution. The value of contributed capital assets received during the year is $1,350,985 (2018 - $5,153,299) comprised of land ($309,675), land improvements ($75,000), roads and sidewalks ($625,520), storm sewer ($188,840), sanitary sewer ($145,200) and work in progress ($6,750). (c) Tangible capital assets disclosed at nominal values: Where an estimate of fair value could not be made, the tangible capital asset has been recognized at a nominal value. (d) Works of art and historical treasures: The District manages and controls various works of art and non-operational historical cultural assets including buildings, artifacts, paintings and sculptures located at District sites and public display areas. These assets are not recorded as tangible capital assets and are not amortized. (e) Write-down of tangible capital assets: No write-down of tangible capital assets occurred during the year. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 17 Page 54 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 7. Accumulated surplus: Accumulated surplus consists of individual fund surplus and reserves and reserve funds as follows: 2019 2018 Surplus: Equity in tangible capital assets $105,360,250 $104,471,771 Operating Fund 1,913,976 2,088,978 Total surplus 107,274,226 106,560,749 Reserve Funds: Future Sewer Expenditures Reserve 1,301,769 1,087,754 Gas Tax Reserve 1,115,867 584,223 Capital Asset Replacement Reserve 537,854 570,735 Playing Field Reserve 417,118 401,562 Future Policing Costs Reserve 332,893 252,920 Parkland Reserve 293,052 290,025 Seniors/Youth Centre Reserve 257,577 254,916 Future Road Liabilities Reserve 250,526 215,539 Emergency Road Repair / Snow Removal Reserve 183,337 181,443 Casino Revenue Reserve 181,922 263,961 Affordable Housing Reserve 139,261 - Capital Improvement Financing Reserve 135,502 122,226 Land (Non-park) Reserve 100,572 99,533 SPA Revenue Reserve 83,237 72,493 Fire Equipment Reserve 77,498 116,399 Revenue Smoothing Reserve 71,000 71,000 Frontage Improvements Reserve 66,536 30,911 Community Amenities Reserve 58,200 57,599 Property Tax Stabilization Reserve 51,000 51,000 Sewer Expansion Reserve 49,536 - Capital Works Reserve 31,003 25,737 Risk Management Reserve 30,870 30,870 Harbour Park Reserve 20,115 19,198 Carbon Tax Rebate Reserve 13,137 9,918 Knott / Demamiel Watershed Reserve 6,700 6,700 Marine Boardwalk Reserve 5,520 5,520 Street Lighting Reserve 4,000 4,000 Banner Contributions Reserve 500 500 Total reserve funds 5,816,102 4,826,682 $113,090,328 $111,387,431 May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 18 Page 55 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 8. Taxation: As well as taxes for its own purposes, the District is required to collect taxes on behalf of, and transfer these amounts to, the government agencies noted below. Taxes levied over or under the amounts requisitioned are recorded as accounts payable or receivable. 2019 2018 Taxes: Property tax $ 18,690,662 $ 17,200,438 Payments in lieu of taxes 42,976 41,180 1% Utility tax 185,682 180,517 18,919,320 17,422,135 Less taxes levied on behalf of: Provincial government - school taxes 4,946,656 4,654,474 Capital Regional District 3,167,260 2,869,187 Capital Regional Hospital District 701,518 673,827 Municipal Finance Authority 667 593 BC Assessment Authority 134,453 125,720 BC Transit Authority 653,482 590,278 Vancouver Island Regional Library 675,016 618,008 10,279,052 9,532,087 Net taxes available for municipal purposes $ 8,640,268 $ 7,890,048 9. Government transfers: The Government transfers reported on the statement of operations and accumulated surplus are: 2019 2018 Provincial Small Community Protection $ 337,528 $ 347,484 Provincial Traffic Fine Revenue 77,333 77,301 Gas Tax Agreement Funds 1,162,767 560,390 Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure 97,528 313,002 Other 44,123 3,645 $ 1,719,279 $ 1,301,822 May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 19 Page 56 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 10. Commitments and contingent liabilities: In the normal course of business, the District enters into commitments for both capital and operational expenses. These commitments have been budgeted for within the appropriate annual financial plan and have been approved by Council. (a) Municipal Finance Authority debt reserve fund deposits: Under borrowing arrangements with the MFA, the District is required to lodge security by means of demand notes and interest-bearing cash deposits based on the amount of the borrowing. As a condition of these borrowings, a portion of the debenture proceeds is withheld by the MFA as a debt reserve fund. These deposits totaling $141,400 (2018 - $138,179) are included in the District's financial assets as other assets and are held by the MFA as security against the possibility of debt repayment default. If the debt is repaid without default, the deposits are refunded to the District. At December 31, 2019 there were contingent demand notes of $272,296 (2018 - $272,296) which are not included in the financial statements of the District. (b) The CRD debt, under the provision of the Local Government Act, is a direct, joint and several liability of the CRD and each member municipality within the CRD, including the District. (c) The District is a shareholder and member of the Capital Regional Emergency Service Telecommunications ("CREST") Incorporated whose services provide centralized emergency communications, and related public safety information services to municipalities, regional districts, the provincial and federal governments and their agencies, and emergency service organizations throughout the Greater Victoria region and the Gulf Islands. Members' obligations to share in funding ongoing operations and any additional costs relating to capital assets are to be contributed pursuant to a Members' Agreement. (d) As part of the normal course of business, the District has entered into various agreements and contracts for services with periods ranging up to five years. These amounts will be recorded in the accounts in the period that the goods and services are received. (e) The District entered into a long-term contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the provision of police services effective April 1, 2002. Under the terms of this contract, the District is responsible for 70% of policing costs. The 2020 estimated cost of this contract is $2,153,457. . May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 20 Page 57 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 10. Commitments and contingent liabilities (continued): (f) The District is a defendant in various lawsuits. The District records an accrual in respect of legal claims that are likely to be successful and for which a liability amount is reasonably determinable. The remaining claims, should they be successful as a result of litigation, will be recorded when a liability is likely and determinable. The District is covered through an independent insurance program against certain claims. The District is self-insured for general liability claims through membership in the Municipal Insurance Association of British Columbia, a reciprocal insurance exchange. Under this program, member municipalities jointly share claims against any member in excess of their deductible. Should the Association pay out claims in excess of premiums received, it is possible that the District, along with the other participants, would be required to contribute towards the deficit. The District's deductible is $10,000. 11. Financial plan data: The financial plan data presented in these financial statements is based upon the 2019 operating and capital financial plans approved by Council on April 8, 2019 (and amended on November 18, 2019). The following reconciles the approved financial plan to the figures reported in these financial statements. Financial plan amount Revenues: $ 22,050,566 Amendments approved by Council 581,845 Financial plan, as approved by Council 22,632,411 Less: Transfers from other funds 3,549,827 Proceeds from borrowing 1,157,296 Amortization offset 2,653,501 Total revenue 15,271,787 Expenses: Financial plan, as approved by Council 22,050,566 Amendments approved by Council 581,845 Financial plan, as approved by Council 22,632,411 Less: Capital expenditures 5,153,105 Transfer to other reserves 2,073,123 Debt principal payments 853,249 Total expenses 14,552,934 Annual surplus $ 718,853 May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 21 Page 58 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 11. Financial plan data (continued): The annual surplus above represents the planned results of operations prior to budgeted transfers between reserve funds, debt repayments and capital expenditures. 12. Subsequent event: Subsequent to December 31, 2019, the COVID-19 outbreak was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization. This situation presents uncertainity over the District's future cash flows and may have a significant impact on the District's future operations. Potential impacts on the District's business could include future decreases in revenue, future increases in expenses, impairment of receivables, impairment of investments or reduction in investment income and delays in completting capital project work. As the situation is dynamic and the ultimate duration and magnitude of the impact of the economy are not known, an estimate of the financial effect on the District is not practical at this time. 13. Segmented information: The District is a diversified municipal organization that provides a wide range of services to its citizens. For management reporting purposes, the District’s operations and activities are organized and reported by service areas. Municipal services are provided by departments and their activities are reported in these service areas. Service areas that have been separately disclosed in the segmented information, along with the services they provide, are as follows: (a) General Government: General government is comprised of Corporate Services, Finance, Human Resources and Information Technology. This segment also includes any other functions categorized as non- departmental. (b) Protective services: Protective services is comprised of three different functions, including the District’s emergency management, fire, and police services. The emergency management agency prepares the District to be more prepared and able to respond to, recover from, and be aware of, the devastating effects of a disaster or major catastrophic event that will impact the community. The fire department is responsible for providing critical, life-saving services in preventing or minimizing the loss of life and property from fire and natural or man-made emergencies. Policing services are provided to the District under a long term agreement with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 22 Page 59 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 13. Segmented information (continued): (c) Development Services: Development Services includes Engineering, Community Spaces, Building Inspection, Planning and Development and Geographic Information Services. Engineering is responsible for the planning, design and construction of the District’s infrastructure. This department, working closely with the Planning Department, ensures that the District is developed in a fashion consistent with the Official Community Plan while at the same time making sure that good engineering practices are maintained. Community Spaces is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the District’s parks and greenspaces. This includes formal parks such as Ed Macgregor Park and the Marine Boardwalk, local play parks and numerous natural areas such as Whiffin Spit Park. Planning and development is responsible for the District's community planning goals and economic development through the official community plan, and other policy initiatives. Geographic Information Services provides asset management, mapping and property information to District of Sooke staff and to the public. (d) Sewer: The sewer protects the environment and human health from the impacts of liquid wastes generated as a result of human occupation and development in the District. Certain allocation methodologies have been employed in the preparation of the segmented financial information. The General Fund reports on municipal services that are funded primarily by taxation such as property taxes and other tax revenues. The accounting policies used in these segments are consistent with those followed in the preparation of the financial statements as disclosed in note 1. May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 23 Page 60 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Notes to Financial Statements (continued) Year ended December 31, 2019 13. Segmented information (continued): General Protective 2019 Government Services Development Sewer Total Revenue: Taxation $ 8,640,268 $ - $ - $ - $ 8,640,268 User charges 252,387 40,028 802,701 2,537,134 3,632,250 Government transfers 5,022 414,861 1,299,396 - 1,719,279 Investment income 349,968 - - - 349,968 Other 291,570 - 1,387,010 - 1,678,580 Total revenue 9,539,215 454,889 3,489,107 2,537,134 16,020,345 Expenses: Salaries and wages 1,590,032 1,221,510 1,871,061 446,209 5,128,812 Contracted and general services 704,197 2,201,003 573,427 622,159 4,100,786 Supplies and materials 761,177 561,449 348,816 256,859 1,928,301 Interest and bank charges 34,536 18,529 - 154,000 207,065 Amortization 150,031 256,743 1,758,939 786,771 2,952,484 Total expenses 3,239,973 4,259,234 4,552,243 2,265,998 14,317,448 Annual surplus (deficit) $ 6,299,242 $ (3,804,345) $ (1,063,136) $ 271,136 $ 1,702,897 General Protective 2018 Government Services Development Sewer Total Revenue: Taxation $ 7,890,048 $ - $ - $ - $ 7,890,048 User charges 238,085 142,890 718,912 2,251,301 3,351,188 Government transfers 3,645 424,785 873,393 - 1,301,823 Investment income 322,709 - - - 322,709 Other 285,354 - 5,154,973 295,519 5,735,846 Total revenue 8,739,841 567,675 6,747,278 2,546,820 18,601,614 Expenses: Salaries and wages 1,292,706 1,052,119 1,718,943 534,872 4,598,640 Contracted and general services 538,735 2,121,196 375,061 486,731 3,521,723 Supplies and materials 831,392 503,413 515,652 193,037 2,043,494 Interest and bank charges 31,944 16,966 - 154,000 202,910 Amortization 141,828 241,543 2,059,647 680,001 3,123,019 Total expenses 2,836,605 3,935,237 4,669,303 2,048,641 13,489,786 Annual surplus (deficit) $ 5,903,236 $ (3,367,562) $ 2,077,975 $ 498,179 $ 5,111,828 May 6, 2020, 5:07 PM 24 Page 61 of 178 Page 62 of 178 Notice of Motion Response - Food Security RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council receive this report for information. THAT Council direct staff to amend Goal 2 of the 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan to include the following Actions under Objective 2.5 of Appendix A - Action Plan: • Invite the T'Sou-ke Nation to the food security table • Review, adopt and initiate the 2012 Sooke Agricultural Plan • Support the formation of a Food Policy Council and the adoption of a Food Charter • Use the OCP review to update a Food Systems Plan • Initiate a feasibility study for a Food Hub • Participate in a regional food strategy Previous Council Action: April 27, 2020; Council resolved: THAT the Council direct staff to report back on the feasibility and impacts of the following resolution: THAT the following recommendations from the CAC's Food Security Working Group be adopted into the Council Strategic Plan and that Food Security be made a District of Sooke priority. 1. Invite the T’Sou-ke Nation to the food security table 2. Review, adopt and initiate the 2012 Sooke Agricultural Plan 3. Support the formation of a Food Policy Council and the adoption of a Food Charter 4. Use OCP Review to update a Food Systems Plan 5. Initiate a feasibility study for a Food Hub 6. Participate in a regional food strategy Report: This will be a multi faceted initiative, requiring a variety of plans, public engagement, dedicated member(s) of the Operations and Planning departments, support from the Climate Action Committee and communication with external agencies within the community. Due to the extent of the items listed as actions, priorities should be established through Appendix A - Action Plan (attached) of the Council Strategic Plan. This will ensure that staff are dedicating time to projects that are a priority of Council. CAO File No. 0540-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0059 Page 63 of 178 The next Service Level Review and evaluation of Council Strategic Plan goals is planned for June 2020 (contingent on COVID-19 limitations). This would be the best opportunity for Council to evaluate the importance of these items, alongside goals that are currently prioritized. This will ensure that Councils goals are evaluated as a whole, and that staff work plans can be adjusted to accommodated any changes. As this information was provided by the Food Security Sub-Committee, of the Climate Action Committee, it is suggested that the items directed back to the committee to be further refined, reporting back with clear definitions, priorities, objectives, measurables, indicators of success, timelines, costing and any additional information which would aid in establishing a plan to accomplish these goals. Each of the items presented were evaluated individually and a brief summary provided below: 1. Invite the T'Sou-ke Nation to the food security table Staff believe that Food CHI manages food security in the community, it is the suggestion that the District assist in connecting the T'Sou-ke Nation with Food CHI. If not, further details are required on the definition of 'food security table' to further develop this initiative. For information, the T'Sou-ke Nation has as representative on the Climate Action Committee, which brings them to the 'table'. 2. Review, adopt and initiate the 2012 Sooke Agricultural Plan This plan was adopted by the District of Sooke on September 10, 2012. Further direction is required from Council, should the desire be to review the plan and identify key areas on which staff should focus. 3. Support the formation of a Food Policy Council and the adoption of a Food Charter Further details need to be provided by the Climate Action Committee prior to staff being able to provide further comment. 4. Use OCP Review to update A Food Systems Plan It is anticipated that there will continue to be an agriculture and food security section in the OCP. The Agricultural Plan 2012 will be referenced in updating policy in the OCP. A ‘food systems plan’ is a specific type of plan, and perhaps doesn’t necessarily fit with the high level OCP review work being contemplated (as an add- on). If the plan were completed already, it would feed into OCP background literature review. 5. Initiate a feasibility study for a Food Hub The Lot A Report suggests that a 'Community Hub' be included in the Lot A plans, which could be a potential location for the inclusion of a 'Food Hub'. However, further information will be required to develop the definition, goals and desired outcomes of a Food Hub. CAO File No. 0540-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0059 Page 64 of 178 6. Participate in a regional food strategy The CRD Food Strategy was adopted in 2016, based on our geographical location the District of Sooke is able to utilize the information contained in the report. If Council wishes for staff to implement practices outlined in this strategy, direction is required. • CRD Strategy - Report Additional Details: Community Food Security Strategy As an aside, Council approved an application for a UBCM Poverty Reduction Planning & Action Program grant in February 2020, the report is attached for information. The focus was approved to be a ‘Food Security Strategy’ that provides actionable items at the local level to reduce poverty, promote community inclusion and become a more food secure community. This work will be completed by the Community Health Network, under our current Service Agreement with them, and partnering with local food security experts including FoodCHI and the Foodbank, amongst others. The grant is still under review and Planning staff received an update that approvals will require at least another month (Due to Covid 19 and re-prioritization of current workloads). If successful with the application the District will receive a $25K grant. Administration sees our role as one of support and facilitation with much of the implementation work done by community members. Having an agency as the Lead is the preferred option. The recommendation from staff is to include the six (6) priorities listed in the April 27, 2020 resolution, to the Appendix A - Action Plan for further consideration at the upcoming Service Level Review and Council Strategic Plan review sessions. This will allow for a more fulsome discussion with staff and Council on priority setting, feasibility, planning, cost estimates and assurances that they meet municipal goals. Budget/Financial Impacts: Adding the six actions to the Council Strategic Plan and keeping Objective 2.5 as "Later" in the Plan does not have any financial impacts. If it is the desire of Council to move Objective 2.5 up to "Now" objectives would either need to be reprioritized or additional funding and/or resources would need to be provided. Strategic Relevance: • Demonstrate leadership in climate action - Promote food security at individual and community levels Attached Documents: Notice of Motion Recommendation-Food Security Appendix A-Action Plan-DRAFT for May 11, 2020 RC Agricultural Plan-DOS Sep-10-2012-RC-Minutes Excerpt February 2020 Report - Poverty Reduction Planning - Grant Application - Pdf CAO File No. 0540-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0059 Page 65 of 178 final MEDIA RELEASE & FULL INTERVIEWS Approved by Matthew Pawlow, Director of Planning & Development Approved - 05 May 2020 Raechel Gray, Director of Financial Services Approved - 05 May 2020 Carolyn Mushata, Corporate Officer Pending Norm McInnis, Chief Administrative Officer None CAO File No. 0540-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0059 Page 66 of 178 ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ ! "ÿ#$ÿ %&ÿ'('()(0)('ÿ 1ÿ1& 2ÿ3ÿ4ÿÿÿ ÿ ! "ÿ#$ÿ 56 7ÿ&ÿÿ 89@AB99CÿE@FGHIPQÿRBSÿTUFUB9UHÿVBWSÿGXÿ@YTÿ`@@HÿSCSaUbÿGXÿaUTbSÿ@`ÿBccUSSÿBXHÿSYWW9CÿcRBGXSdÿe@cB99Cÿ@YTÿ VT@fUTSgÿ`BTbUTSÿbBThUaSÿBXHÿXUfÿVBTHUXUTSÿBTUÿf@ThGXVÿa@VUaRUTÿa@ÿSYWW@TaÿUBcRÿ@aRUTÿBXHÿaRUÿiGSaTGcaÿ RBSÿBXÿGbW@TaBXaÿWBTaÿa@ÿW9BCdÿpY9XUTBA9UÿbUbAUTSÿ@`ÿ@YTÿc@bbYXGaCÿGXc9YHUÿcRG9HTUXgÿaR@SUÿf@ThGXVÿGXÿ SUca@TSÿX@aÿc@XSGHUTUHÿUSSUXaGB9gÿSUXG@TSÿBXHÿaR@SUÿfGaRÿ9@fÿGXc@bUSdÿqRUÿc@SaÿBXHÿBFBG9BAG9GaCÿ@`ÿV@@Hÿ `@@HÿfG99ÿc@XaGXYUÿa@ÿAUÿBXÿGSSYUÿ`@TÿaR@SUÿTUc@FUTGXVÿ`T@bÿaRUÿ`GXBXcGB9ÿGbWBcaSÿ@`ÿaRUÿWBXHUbGcdÿ rYWW@TaGXVÿ@YTÿc@bbYXGaCÿfGaRÿaRUÿWTUSUXaÿcTGSGSÿBXHÿ`YaYTUÿcTGSUSÿaRT@YVRÿGbWT@FUHÿ`@@HÿSUcYTGaCÿGSÿBÿ WTG@TGaCÿBXHÿSR@Y9HÿAUÿTUc@VXGsUHÿBSÿSYcRdÿ tuvÿxyvÿ ÿxvvÿÿv Cÿ@ThGXVÿ8T@YWÿRBSÿHUFU9@WUHÿBÿSUTGUSÿ@`ÿSGÿ TUc@bbUXHUHÿaÿÿÿx yÿv ÿdyÿ@AeUcaGFUfÿgT@b@aUÿ`@@HÿSUcYTGaCÿBaÿGXHGFGHYB9ÿBXHÿ c@bbYXGaCÿ9UFU9SdÿqRUSUÿTUc@bbUXHBaG@XSÿBTUfÿ ÿ Pdÿÿÿÿÿÿijklmnÿmpnÿqrstu)!ÿv& ÿÿ4ÿ3ÿ2 ÿ&w ÿÿ xyzÿx|}~ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿyzÿx|}~ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ dÿÿÿÿÿÿ17 ¡ÿ&$ÿ&ÿ &ÿ4ÿ'(¢'ÿ!ÿ" & ÿ£ &ÿÿ ¤ÿ¥¦§¥ÿÿ¨ ÿ© ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿªÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ«ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ RaaWSf¬¬S@@hUdcB¬fWIc@XaUXa¬YW9@BHS¬W9BXS¬VTGcY9aYTB9®g9BXdWH`ÿ ÿ ¯dÿÿÿÿÿÿ$$ÿ4ÿ3& ÿ3ÿ&ÿÿ£ ÿ ÿ&ÿ4ÿ&$ ÿ3ÿ&ÿÿ4&ÿÿ °ÿ©ÿ±ÿ²°©±³ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ¤ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ±ÿ±ÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ¨ÿ°ÿ©ÿ±ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ´ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ¤ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ¤ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ°ÿ©ÿ±ÿÿÿª ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ RaaWSf¬¬fffdFBXc@YFUT`@@HW@9GcCc@YXcG9dcB¬`@@HIW@9GcCITUS@YTcUS¬fRBaIGSI`@@HIW@9GcC¬ÿ ¨ÿ°ÿ± ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ RaaWSf¬¬FBXc@YFUTdcB¬`G9US¬c@F¬pBX®µ@@H®ERBTaUTdWH`ÿ ÿ ÿ ¶Page·¸¹ÿ» 67¼½ ÿof¾¿ ÿ178»¼¼ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ!"#ÿ $%&ÿÿ ()0ÿ123ÿ405607ÿ89904@ÿA)0ÿB8CCDE6AFÿA)0ÿ8GG84ADE6AFÿA8ÿ40H9964CÿA)0ÿ6CG84AHEB0ÿ89ÿ988Iÿ@0BD46AFÿHEIÿA8ÿ 6EB84G84HA0ÿHÿ988Iÿ@F@A0C@ÿGPHEÿ6EA8ÿA)6@ÿ56@68E6EQÿI8BDC0EARÿSÿ988Iÿ@F@A0C@ÿGPHEÿB8E@6I04@ÿ@8D4B0@ÿ89ÿ 988Iÿ8A)04ÿA)HEÿ9H4C6EQÿ@DB)ÿH@ÿ96@)6EQTÿ)DEA6EQTÿ76PIB4H9A6EQÿHEIÿHUDHBDPAD40Rÿ ÿ WÿÿÿÿÿÿX%ÿÿY`$"ÿ"ÿYaÿÿ ÿb`ÿÿcÿ a#&ÿ Sÿ988Iÿ)Ddÿ6@ÿHÿdD@6E0@@ÿ84ÿ84QHE6eHA68EÿA)HAÿHBA650PFÿCHEHQ0@ÿA)0ÿHQQ40QHA68ETÿI6@A46dDA68ETÿHEIf84ÿ CH4g0A6EQÿ89ÿ@8D4B0h6I0EA6960Iÿ988IÿG48IDBA@ÿG46CH46PFÿ948CÿP8BHPÿHEIÿ40Q68EHPÿG48IDB04@ÿ6Eÿ84I04ÿA8ÿ @HA6@9Fÿ7)8P0@HP0Tÿ40AH6PTÿHEIÿ6E@A6ADA68EHPÿI0CHEIRÿi88IÿpDdÿHBA656A60@ÿ0q6@Aÿ8EÿHÿB8EA6EDDCÿ948Cÿ@8B6HPÿ @0456B0@ÿA8ÿ0B8E8C6Bÿ@0456B0@Rÿ()6@ÿB8EA6EDDCÿ409P0BA@ÿA)0ÿ4HEQ0ÿ89ÿHBA84@ÿ6EÿA)0ÿ988Iÿ@F@A0CTÿ948Cÿ 9H4C04@ÿA8ÿB8E@DC04@Rÿÿrsstuvvwwwxyyxvx sr ÿ ()0ÿ2ÿ6E6@A4Fÿ89ÿSQ46BDPAD40ÿ6@ÿHBA650PFÿ@DGG84A6EQÿA)0ÿI050P8GC0EAÿ89ÿ988Iÿ)Dd@ÿHEIÿ40UD640@ÿHÿ 90H@6d6P6AFÿ@ADIFÿA8ÿHBB0@@ÿ9DEI6EQRÿ()040ÿ6@ÿGH@@68Eÿ76A)6EÿA)0ÿB8CCDE6AFÿ89ÿ88g0ÿA8ÿG48A0BAÿ88I@6I0ÿ iH4CÿHEIÿCH6EAH6Eÿ6AÿH@ÿHÿB8CCDE6AFÿH@@0AÿHEIÿ6Aÿ@)8DPIÿd0ÿB8E@6I040IÿH@ÿdeÿghijklmnligmÿopleqÿ ÿ rÿÿÿÿÿÿ asÿ%ÿÿat%$ÿYÿat"&ÿÿ 84g6EQÿujnvÿnviÿmwmeÿxÿhwioyonÿgozÿ{|}deÿ8EÿHÿd6840Q68EHPÿHGG48HB)ÿA8ÿCHg6EQÿ8D4ÿ988Iÿ @F@A0C@ÿC840ÿ40@6P60EAÿ6@ÿB46A6BHPqÿ~enÿxÿdeÿxgiyeÿgiÿonÿjoÿnvÿjenijknÿlozgijeÿHEIÿHÿ988Iÿ @)0Iÿ6@ÿEHAD4HPPFÿHAÿHÿ40Q68EHPÿ@BHP0Rÿ2iSÿHEIÿA)0ÿ2ÿi88IPHEIÿ(4D@AÿH40ÿ0qHCGP0@ÿ89ÿ40Q68EHPÿ 6E6A6HA650@ÿA)HAÿA)0ÿ6@A46BAÿB8DPIÿd0ÿHÿGH4AE04Rÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ Page ÿ 68 ÿof ÿ178 District of Sooke 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan Schedule: APPENDIX A - ACTION PLAN Now Next COUNCIL STRATEGIC PLAN Later Goal #1: Build a reputable organization Note: Council has determined the top two objectives for each of the three Goals, categorizing the remaining Goals as Next or Later. # OBJECTIVE / ACTION LEAD PARTNERS INDICATORS YEAR(S) & FUNDING OF SUCCESS 1.1 Complete an organizational development and review process 1.1.1 Conduct an organizational review CAO complete with a focus on achieving Council priorities 1.1.2 Re-examine Council and COW CAO/Corporate 2019 meeting structure Services 1.1.3 Prepare for CUPE collective CAO/Human 2019 agreement bargaining Resources 1.2 Support Council and staff with the necessary tools to provide excellent governance and customer service 1.2.1 Hire a new Chief Administrative Council Position filled Complete Officer (CAO) 1.2.2 Hire a Chief Municipal Engineer Human Resources Position filled 2020 1.2.3 Improve efficiency and staffing CAO Hire of Chief Complete capacity of the Building Permit Building Official department complete 1.2.4 Creation of new Council Procedure Corporate Services Bylaw adopted Complete Bylaw 1.2.5 Create/Update DoS Policy Corporate Services Policy adopted Complete Framework 1.2.6 Update and modernize Business CAO & Bylaw Bylaw adopted; 2019/2020 Licence Bylaw and Policies policy(s) adopted 1.2.7 Creation of bylaws for cannabis Planning Bylaws adopted Zoning BL production and retail Complete; 1.2.8 More consistent, even-handed All departments application of bylaws and policies 1.2.9 Improve records management Corporate Services program/plan 1.3 Strongly advocate together with First Nations, other local governments, and organizations, to the provincial and federal governments 1.3.1 Ensure Council and staff are Ongoing supported to attend working groups (FCM, UBCM, etc) 1.3.2 Encourage Council and staff Ongoing participation in professional organizations 1.3.3 More effective collaboration, Council, DoS support and joint ventures with local service and community groups LAST Updated December 2019 1 Page 69 of 178 District of Sooke 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan # OBJECTIVE / ACTION LEAD PARTNERS INDICATORS YEAR(S) & FUNDING OF SUCCESS 1.4 Improve communication and engagement with the public and community partners 1.4.1 Work with T'Sou-ke Nation to Council, CAO 2019 identify and plan mutually beneficial initiatives 1.4.2 Build capacity for facilitation Council, CAO development within the community groups 1.4.3 Develop an internal and external CAO, Corporate communication strategy Services & IT 1.4.4 Establish a Communications staff Human Resources Role filled position 1.4.5 Undertake high-level staff and DoS, Council Third Party Council communications training Facilitator 1.4.6 Improve website and other Communications communication tools Officer & IT 1.5 Continue to manage District assets responsibly with sound financial principles and practices 1.5.1 Execute Five-Year Road Engineering Annually Improvement Program 1.5.2 Expand sidewalk network starting Engineering with West Coast Road (Otter Point to Whiffin Spit) 1.5.3 Improvements to wastewater Wastewater treatment system (new centrifuge, Treatment Plant ongoing system improvements, manhole inspections, safety grating, upgraded pump stations) 1.5.4 Focus on short and long-term Asset GIS, Development Management planning and Services prioritization 1.5.5 Continued expansion of District's GIS, Development Geographic Information System Services (GIS), including public web maps and an inventory of natural capital assets 1.5.6 Begin annual Five-Year Financial Financial Services Implemented Annually Plan process in the fall each year starting Fall 2019 1.6 Support programs that enhance Council and staff’s health and wellbeing Human Resources LAST Updated December 2019 2 Page 70 of 178 District of Sooke 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan Goal #2: Demonstrate leadership in climate action # OBJECTIVE / ACTION LEAD PARTNERS INDICATORS YEAR(S) & FUNDING OF SUCCESS 2.1 Prioritize community and corporate strategies to address the climate emergency 2.1.1 Develop Climate Change DoS (SEP) CRD, UBCM Partnership with 2020-2022 Adaptation and Mitigation Grant CRD supported Strategies Programs with REMP and Vegetation Management strategies. 2.1.2 Develop and continue to DoS DoS Capital Investment 2021 implement a set of green corporate of pump test pit at practices Station 1 to recycle test water 2.1.3 Reinstate Climate Change Action DoS (Council) Sooke Update Terms of 2019 Committee Emergency Reference (TOR) Program for SEP Executive (SEP)Grants Committee. Implement a citizen “call to action” Dos for the climate emergency 2.2 Improve community emergency and disaster preparedness 2.2.1 Promote Volunteer Fire DoS Admin Policy AD- 2019 Department acquisition and 002 Complete retention through the paid on-call system 2.2.2 Continue and expand the SEP ESS Compile 2020-2021 neighbourhood POD system Neighbourhood Emergency Preparedness Program (NEPP) Boundary file for SEP showing growth in high risk. - Update SEP Emergency Plan with Community Risk Reduction analysis. 2.2.3 Require use of FireSmart principles Development 2019 in development applications Services, Building & Fire Department LAST Updated December 2019 3 Page 71 of 178 District of Sooke 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan # OBJECTIVE / ACTION LEAD PARTNERS & INDICATORS YEAR(S) FUNDING OF SUCCESS 2.3 Build additional trail infrastructure, connectivity, and amenities 2.3.1 Develop a Parks & Trails Master Parks & Adopted by 2019 Plan Environmental Council Services 2.3.2 Develop a Transportation Master Engineering Adopted by 2019 Plan and revisit core bypass Council routes 2.3.3 Completion of Little River bridge Parks & Ribbon cutting in 2020 and trail connections Environmental 2020 Services; Engineering 2.3.4 Ongoing Parks & Recreation Parks & capital construction (staircases, Environmental bathrooms, water access transit Services; stops) Engineering 2.3.5 Identify location(s) and Parks & Park(s) opened establishment of dog park(s) Environmental Services 2.3.6 Continue to advocate for expanded public transit 2.4 View municipal decision-making through a ‘green’ lens 2.4.1 Community energy - Expand Development CCAC Solar City to rest of Sooke Services, Building 2.4.2 Advocate for sustainable fishing Council DFO and marine harvesting 2.4.3 Explore options for Building & CCAC implementation of the BC Development Energy Step Code Services 2.5 Promote food security at individual and community levels 2.5.1 Invite the T’Sou-ke Nation to the food security table 2.5.2 Review, adopt and initiate the 2012 Agricultural Plan 2.5.3 Support the formation of a Food Policy Council and the adoption of a Food Charter 2.5.4 Use the OCP review to update a Food Systems Plan 2.5.5 Initiate a feasibility study for a Food Hub 2.5.6 Participate in a regional food strategy 2.6 Identify and plan for green infrastructure opportunities 2.6.1 Reinvigorate the Liquid Waste n/a COW discussion 2019 Management Plans and Council priorities set 2.6.2 Develop a Solid Waste Adopted by TBD Management Strategy Council LAST Updated December 2019 4 Page 72 of 178 District of Sooke 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan LAST Updated December 2019 5 Page 73 of 178 District of Sooke 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan Goal #3: Manage long-term growth while enhancing community identity, vitality, and safety # OBJECTIVE / ACTION LEAD PARTNERS INDICATORS YEAR(S) & FUNDING OF SUCCESS 3.1 Begin development of a community hub in the town centre 3.1.1 Facilitate phase development of Lot Breaking ground on 2020 A through planning, partnerships, library and advocacy 3.2 Develop a regulatory framework to promote more sustainable land use patterns and development practices 3.2.1 Develop a new Official Community DoS (Planning) n/a Adopted OCP w/ 2021 Plan strong public support 3.2.2 Update and develop related District DoS (Planning, Updated and Ongoing bylaws and policies to be consistent Dev’t Services) adopted bylaws and with the Council Strategic Plan and policies Official Community Plan 3.3 Continue to advocate for improved access to health and child care 3.3.1 Support the completion of the Island Health DoS, other Completion of primary health centre expansion community building expansion partners 3.3.2 Support work on the development Island Health of a regional health centre 3.3.3 Work with partners to improve Prov Gov’t Improved access to health care in Sooke Island Health ambulance response times; expansion of Ayre Manor 3.3.4 Childcare Needs Assessment study Development CitySpaces, as prelude to expansion of childcare Services Province spaces 3.4 Strengthen local economic development and tourism 3.4.1 Expand staff capacity for local economic development 3.4.2 Develop a Local Economic Development Strategy 3.4.3 Secure Municipal and Regional Sooke Region Development Tax (aka Hotel Tax) Tourism Assoc. funds to launch full-scale destination marketing for the Sooke region LAST Updated December 2019 6 Page 74 of 178 District of Sooke 2019-2022 Council Strategic Plan # OBJECTIVE / ACTION LEAD PARTNERS INDICATORS YEAR(S) & FUNDING OF SUCCESS 3.5 Undertake public space improvements and beautification projects 3.5.1 Enact and advocate for the recommendations of the SPA committee 3.5.2 Create signage in the community to Parks & T’Sou-ke recognize First Nation territories, Environmental Nation language, and place names Services 3.5.3 Improve community gateway on Engineering Rotary, Lions, Highway 14 Museum 3.5.4 Create more accessible water Development fountains Services departments 3.6 Continue to address housing affordability and accessibility for all income levels 3.6.1 Complete Housing Needs Development Assessment Services 3.6.2 Advocate for and facilitate housing Council pilot projects for a range of incomes 3.6.3 Re-establish the Housing committee Council LAST Updated December 2019 7 Page 75 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS AN AGRICULTURAL PLAN FOR SOOKE DECEMBER 2012 Page 76 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Agricultural Plan was funded by the District of Sooke and prepared by District of Sooke staff. Assistance and oversight at the April 2012 Open House and the May 2012 Workshop was provided by: Mayor Wendal Milne Gerard Le Blanc, Municipal Planner Tara Johnson, Planner Tracy Olsen, Planner Kel Kelly, Insight Facilitation Edward Milne Community School Food Program Special Thanks to Elida Peers for providing information on the history of Sooke, Ellen Lewers for her display at the Open House, Erika Rolston of Food CHI for her note taking and ability to get the word out, the Sooke Fall Fair Society for use of its display board, Rob Kline, District Agriculturalist for his technical assistance and Shaundehl Runka, Agricultural Land Commission for statistical information. Finally, we would like to thank the members of the community who contributed to the preparation of this plan by writing to us, completing the on‐line survey and attending functions. December 2012 ~ 2 ~ Page 77 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF PURPOSE INTRODUCTION SECTION ONE: THE LANDSCAPE OF SOOKE 1.1 Geography 1.2 Soils 1.3 History 1.4 Agricultural Land Base 1.5 Farms 1.6 The People 1.7 Climate Change SECTION TWO: THE CONTEXT FOR AGRICULTURE IN SOOKE 2.1 International 2.2 National 2.3 Provincial 2.4 Representation 2.5 BC Marketing Boards and Commissions 2.6 Right to Farm 2.7 Local Government Legislation 2.8 Taxation 2.9 Meat Inspection 2.10 Regional Government 2.11 CRD Water 2.12 District of Sooke Official Community Plan 2.13 Sooke Zoning Bylaw 2.14 Sign Regulation Bylaw 2.15 Composting 2.16 Burning 2.17 Pesticide Use 2.18 Sale of Agricultural Products 2.19 Wholesale/Retail Market 2.20 Direct to Consumer Sales 2.21 Farmers Market 2.22 Marketing and Advertising 2.23 Community Education 2.24 Keeping of Poultry December 2012 ~ 3 ~ Page 78 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke SECTION THREE: A VISION FOR SOOKE 3.1 Community Food Action Plan 3.2 The Sustainability Plan 3.3 The Farm Forum 3.4 Common Strategies 3.5 On‐line Survey 3.6 Open House 3.7 Correspondence 3.8 Facilitated Workshop 3.9 Summary of the Public Consultation Process SECTION FOUR: THE SOLUTIONS 4.1 A Review of Existing Policies and Comparison with Results of Public Consultation 4.2 Additional Policies for Consideration 4.2.1 Signage 4.2.2 Abattoir 4.2.3 Sale of Produce on Agricultural Lands 4.2.4 Changes to ALC Act 4.2.5 Deer Management 4.2.6 Insurance Rates 4.2.7 Veterinary Services 4.2.8 Long Term Leases 4.2.9 Marketing 4.2.10 Agri‐Tourism 4.2.11 Planning for Community Based Agriculture SECTION FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND FOLLOW‐UP 5.1 List of Action Items 5.2 Conclusions APPENDICES Appendix A: Agricultural Policies in the District of Sooke OCP Appendix B: Results of the Large Group Discussion at the Facilitated Workshop Appendix C: Results of the Small Group Discussions at the Facilitated Workshop Appendix D: Tabulation of the Responses to On‐Line Survey December 2012 ~ 4 ~ Page 79 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke REFERENCES LIST OF TABLES Table One: Population of Sooke and Neighbouring Communities, 2011 Table Two: Land Excluded from the ALR since Incorporation Table Three: Number of Farms by Type and Area ‐ 2001 and 2006 Table Four: Number of Farm Operators by Gender and Age ‐ 2001 Table Five: Number of Farm Operators by Gender and Age – 2006 Table Six: Impact of Climate Change on Southern Region Table Seven: Strategy No. 8 from A Sustainable Development Strategy for the District of Sooke Table Eight: Indicators of Success from the Farm Forum Table Nine: Key Strategic Topics Compiled from the Farm Forum, the Sustainability Plan and Community Food Action Plan Table Ten: Status of Recommendations from the Food Strategy for the Region, 2008 LIST OF FIGURES Figure One: Priorities Assigned to OCP Action Items at Facilitated Workshop Figure Two: Public Consultation Process Figure Three: Priority Assigned to OCP Action Items at Facilitated Workshop LIST OF MAPS Map One: Location of Early Farms in Sooke Map Two: Canada Land Inventory Map of Sooke Map Three: Map showing the ALR in Sooke Map Four: Farmland in Sooke Based on Assessment and Land Use December 2012 ~ 5 ~ Page 80 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke STATEMENT OF PURPOSE The purpose of this Agricultural Plan is to: Acknowledge the important role that food production plays in the community; Foster the development of community based agriculture through allotment gardens, backyard gardens, and innovative approaches; Encourage environmentally friendly and sustainable farming ; and Document the location of lands with agricultural potential regardless of whether or not they are in the ALR. INTRODUCTION Agriculture in Canada is going through significant changes. Global competition for markets and increased costs of land, labour and energy affect the viability of local farms. International trade agreements, diversification, niche markets and improved transportation are advantages that local farmers can capitalize on. In the face of these challenges and opportunities, the residents of Sooke are becoming increasingly interested in being able to purchase locally grown food or to grow their own and knowing more about where and how their food is produced. In support of the Sooke farming community and local food security, there are a number of policies in the District of Sooke’s 2010 Official Community Plan, including a recommendation to prepare an Agricultural Plan. This plan, “Community Roots: An Agricultural Plan for Sooke” was started in late 2011 and finished in the summer of 2012. An early and open public consultation process offered a number of opportunities for members of the community to contribute to the plan by correspondence, speaking directly to staff, attending an Open House or participating in a workshop. The feedback from the public consultation process was integral to the development of this Agricultural Plan. The first two chapters of this Plan contain the technical background necessary to inform the public consultation process and policy development. Chapter Three explains the public consultation process with the detailed notes on the workshop in the Appendices. Then in Chapter Four, current policies pertaining to agriculture are reviewed and commented on in the context of the public consultation process and background research. The conclusions and action items are summarized in Chapter Five. December 2012 ~ 6 ~ Page 81 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke SECTION ONE: THE LANDSCAPE OF SOOKE The District of Sooke is a thirty‐five minute drive west of the City of Victoria. With an area of 56.7 square kilometers, it is bounded to the west and south by the Juan de Fuca Electoral District and by Sooke Harbour on its southern side. Metchosin is adjacent to the eastern boundary. The T’sou‐ke First Nation is located on the eastern banks of the Sooke River within the municipal boundaries. In 2011, the population of Sooke and the neighbouring communities was: Table One: Population of Sooke and Neighbouring Communities, 2011 Sooke 11,435 T’sou‐ke Nation 219 Juan de Fuca Electoral Area 4,351 Metchosin 4,803 Total: 20,808 Based on the 2011 census, Sooke’s population of 11,435 comprises 3.1 % of the CRD’s population. The rate of growth in Sooke from 2006 to 2011 was 17.9 % compared to 4.4 % for the Capital Region overall. 1.1 Geography Located at the tip of Vancouver Island on the Strait of Juan de Fuca, Sooke is the southern most community in British Columbia. Sooke benefits from a cool Mediterranean climate attributable to the moderating effect of the ocean and its southerly location. It has ample rainfall with a mean annual rainfall between 800 to 1700 mm. The months of November, December and January tend to have the most rain. On average, Sooke has 200 frost free days a year with a mean annual temperature of 100c.* The southern portion of Vancouver Island is separated to some extent from the rest of the Island by mountainous terrain. Areas suitable for agriculture tend to be found close to the coastline in Metchosin, the Happy Valley, Sooke and on the relatively level land of the Saanich Peninsula. Development and terrain limits the amount of land available for agriculture in the City of Victoria, parts of Saanich, Colwood, View Royal and the Highlands. The topography in Sooke is diverse. Adjacent to the coastline, the waterfront consists of both low and high bank. Rising from the coast are gently sloped areas ringed by mountainous terrain. The Sooke River is the most significant watercourse in the community but many creeks and streams run throughout Sooke. * Source: Environment Canada, Victoria Marine, Lat. 48o 1.2 Soils There are large pockets of rich soils suitable for agriculture within the municipality, many with south facing aspects. There are also rocky and steep areas in the community unsuitable for agriculture. December 2012 ~ 7 ~ Page 82 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke The hills encircling Sooke and including Broome Hill are comprised of stony, rocky soils with areas of gravelly, sandy loam and are not suitable for agriculture. The Saseenos area has predominantly well‐ drained acid soils (Saanichton) along with pockets of a fine sandy loam (Puntledge) that is moderately well drained. The level lands of Fred Milne Park and Edward Milne Community School and extending north along the Sooke River are comprised of black loamy sand (Langford) that is well drained mixed with clay loam that is poorly drained (Cowichan). This soil composition is the same type that is found on the western side of the Sooke River Bridge. Further west, on both sides of Sooke and West Coast Roads including all of Whiffin Spit, the soils are a mix of well‐drained black loamy sand (Langford) and dark grey gleysols (Tolmie) which are poorly drained. This is the same type of soil found across the entrance to Sooke Harbour in much of East Sooke. In the vicinity of Sooke Municipal Hall, on either side of Otter Point Road, there is a polygon of clay based, dark grey gleysol (Cowichan) soil. Much of the rest of the soils along Otter Point Road are brown podzols (Shawigan) which are well‐drained. North of Helgensen Road, east of Otter Point Road, including the Pascoe Road area, there is a block of fine sandy loams (Chemanius) associated with the alluvial areas of DeMamiel Creek. A pocket of fertile soil, a sandy loam (Cassidy), is found on the alluvial plains of Sunriver Nature Trail Park. Source: Soil Map of Vancouver Island – Victoria‐Saanich, Experimental Farm Service, 1958. 1.3 History Agriculture, although not the predominant industry in the Sooke, has been part of the local economy and food supply for many years. The First Nations people carried out subsistence farming, or self‐ sufficiency farming in Sooke, by harvesting berries, camas bulbs and other edible roots along with shellfish harvesting. After contact with Europeans, First Nations people began growing potatoes and cattle feed. In 1849, Captain Walter Grant sailed from Scotland via Panama to claim 100 acres of land that he had purchased from the Hudson’s Bay Company. He selected a site in Sooke between today’s Maple Avenue and Gatewood Road*, and started Sooke’s first farm. Captain Grant brought 35 acres into cultivation and built a house he called Achaineach. Adjacent to Captain Grant’s property, in 1851, John and Ann Muir acquired what is now the Woodside farm at 7117 West Coast Road. When Captain Grand returned to Europe in 1853, the Muirs purchased his land to add to their holdings. Grant Road is named in honour of Captain Grant. December 2012 ~ 8 ~ Page 83 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke In the 1920’s, the Glinz family bought the Woodside farm and operated a guest house specializing in chicken dinners. Later, they began making cheese under the Sooke Brick Cheese name. In 1947, Phil Wilford purchased Woodside and began shipping milk and cream to Victoria. By the 1980’s beef, cattle, hogs and chickens were raised on the farm. Still in operation today, Woodside farm is the oldest continuously run farm in BC (1). Between 1865 and 1870, Michael Muir, a son of the Muirs, built large house at 1890 Maple Road which still stands today and is known as the Burnside B&B. The John Muirs called the farm Springside and provided Sooke and the Victoria area with chickens and milk. The William Muir House at 6816 West Coast Road was farmed by the Vanreights for daffodils, tulips, cauliflower, potatoes and strawberries for the Victoria market. Nearby, the Locke House at 6830 West Coast Road was the site of another early Sooke Farm. Dairy cattle were raised there until the late 1940’s. During the 1950’s, the property was owned by the Vantreights who grew bulbs. Started in 1906, the farm at 2197 Otter Point Road later became the Broome Hill Golf Club. When it was purchased in 1959 for development as a golf course, there were 96 sheep on the farm. A three room house had been built on the farm in 1915. This house was later expanded and converted into the club house that is still there today. The residence at 1998 Caldwell Road was constructed around 1914. Rhode Island Red chickens were raised on the property. By the 1940’s, the farm was shipping dried flowers to outside markets. Soheim, at 6698 Helgesen Road, was built in 1912 as part of a farm established around 1910. When it was bought in 1949, it was an active dairy farm and continued to be operated commercially providing milk to Island Farms Co‐op. Sheep were also kept on the farm. The Helgesen‐Lunson Barn was used to pen calves. On the east side of the Sooke River, Fred Milne Park and Edward Milne Community School are on the former site of the Milne Farm. Arriving in 1885, the Milnes raised dairy beef, cattle and sheep. They also grew most of their feed. On the west side of the Sooke River, William Phillips arrived in 1968 and established a farm with a large orchard. The property at 2182 Church Road was purchased by the Wadams family in 1941 and farmed until recently. The dairy industry was discontinued in the Sooke Area in the late 1970’s with the advent of more stringent government regulations. Sources: Life on the Land in Sooke’s Midlife from the memoirs of Maywell Wickheim, 2011. The Sooke Story – The History and the Heartbeat – Sooke Region Museum – 1999. 101 Historical Buildings of the Sooke Region, Sooke Region Historical Society and Sooke Region Historical Book Committee, 1985. December 2012 ~ 9 ~ Page 84 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke MAP ONE: Location of Early Farms in Sooke December 2012 ~ 10 ~ Page 85 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 1.4 Agricultural Land Base As a result of urban sprawl and the lost of valuable farmland in BC and particularly in the Lower Mainland, the Province introduced the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) Act and the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) to stop the erosion of the agricultural land base. Implemented in the early 1970’s, provincial legislation removed much of the authority from local governments for making land use decisions regarding agricultural lands. The ALC now makes the decisions on land use and subdivision for ALR lands with local governments only able to make recommendations or to refuse to forward exclusion requests. The intent of the provincial legislation is to provide long‐term protection of land suitable for agriculture and encourage its use for farming. The inclusion of land in the ALR is largely determined by its capability for agricultural use in accordance with methodologies established by the Canada Land Inventory. Agricultural capability can be influenced by a number of factors including soils, climate, topography and drainage. Class 1 lands have the best capability with no restrictions to agricultural use. Class 2 and 3 lands also have good capabilities for agriculture. Class 7 is the lowest classification and is given to land with no potential for agricultural use. There are currently 17,060 hectares of land in the ALR within the CRD. When the ALR was established in 1974, the CRD had 19,595 hectares of land in the ALR. Between 1974 to 2009, 289 hectares have been included and 2824 hectares removed in this region. Table Two: Land Excluded from the ALR Since the Incorporation of the District of Sooke. Year Address Area Excluded 2000 2100 Otter Point Road 6.8 ha 2000 2273 Church Rd –Churchill Meadows 7.9 ha 2000 2209 Townsend Road 6.8 ha 2000 2197 Otter Point Road 13.1 ha 2001 1999 Maple Avenue .83 ha 2002 Phillips Road (Sun River Estates) 116 ha 2002 1995 Caldwell Road 2.02 ha 2002 6849 Grant Road 2.02 ha 2002 1975/7 Caldwell Road 2.1 ha 2003 1722 Whiffin Spit Road 4.2 ha 2003 2044 Gatewood Road .83 ha 2003 1673 Whiffin Spit Road 2.2 ha 2004 1692 Whiffin Spit Road 3.6 ha 2005 3031 Phillips Road(Riversedge) 28.2 ha 2005 6829 Grant Road West 2 ha 2005 1856 Connie Road .778 ha 2006 1686 Whiffin Spit Road 3.4 ha 2006 6510/7059 Grant Road West 1.05 ha 2007 1998 Caldwell Road 0.4 ha December 2012 ~ 11 ~ Page 86 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke With 531.3 hectares in the ALR, Sooke has roughly 3.1 % of the region’s ALR lands. Sooke’s total land base is 5,800 hectares, so approximately 9.1% of Sooke is in the ALR. When the ALR was first introduced, Sooke was not yet incorporated so there are no records of how much ALR land was within the future municipal boundaries. Furthermore, until recently, the ALC only maintained its statistics on a region by region basis. By adding the amount of land excluded from the ALR since Sooke incorporated in 1999 (see Table Two) from the current amount of 533.8 hectares, less the 26.1 hectares of ALR included when Sooke expanded its boundaries to include part of East Sooke, staff estimate that there were approximately 712.4 hectares of land in the ALR at the time of incorporation. Areas with good capability for agriculture include the area south of Grant Road on the west side of Sooke. Much of the land on both sides of the Sooke River are also Class 2 and 3 improvable to Class 2. Significant portions of these lands are within the ALR. December 2012 ~ 12 ~ Page 87 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Sooke is fortunate enough to have some areas with excellent capabilities for Agriculture. Most the lands adjacent to Highway #14 in Saseenos as far west as Parkland Road are Class 2. Lying to the south of Pascoe Road and east of Otter Point Road, there is a pocket of Class 2 improvable to Class 1. Broome Hills is a significant area with very limited capability for agriculture. Much of the land on either side of Otter Point Road is rated as Class 5 except for the rich soils in the vicinity of Pascoe Road mentioned above. Parcel size does not necessarily affect agricultural capability but it can affect types of agricultural uses in terms of economic viability. In Saseenos, there was significant fragmentation of the waterfront land to the south of the highway with many of the subdivisions occurring in the 1920’s and further parcelization in the 1950’s. Probably due to the small parcel size in the area, many of the properties are not within the ALR. December 2012 ~ 13 ~ Page 88 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Map Two: Canada Land Inventory Map of Sooke (Source: December 2012 ~ 14 ~ Page 89 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Map Three: Agricultural Land Reserve December 2012 ~ 15 ~ Page 90 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 1.5 Farms It was only after Sooke was incorporated in 1999, that Statistics Canada began keeping data based on the municipality’s boundary. Prior to that time, this data was amalgamated with other unincorporated areas throughout the CRD including the Juan de Fuca Electoral District and Salt Spring Island. Due to the large geographical area involved and the number of farms from which data was collected which are not in Sooke, it makes any meaningful comparison of agriculture in Sooke which utilizes data from earlier than 1999 impossible. Although covering only a relatively short period of time, this report relies on data from the 2001 and 2006 census as it is specific to the municipal boundaries of the District of Sooke. (Note: the 2012 data will be included once it becomes available.) The relatively small number of farm operators in Sooke leads to some gaps in the data base when relying on census data from Statistics Canada. Any data that could possibly identify which specific farm the data is associated with is suppressed. For example, if there is only one berry farm in Sooke, then the number of hectares in production would be for that variable would be suppressed. From 2001 to 2006, there was a 42% decrease in the number of farms in Sooke as the number dropped from 36 farms to 21. During the same time period, there was only a slight decrease, 4.2%, in the area of land in production. This pattern could be indicative of smaller farms going out of production while larger farms remained or there was a consolidation of holdings. December 2012 ~ 16 ~ Page 91 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Table Three: Number of Reporting Farms by Type and Area – District of Sooke – 2001 and 2006 2001 2006 Number of Farms Number Number of Farms Number Reporting of Acres Reporting of Acres Total Number of Farms 36 885 21 847 Land in Crops 14 360 8 63 Alfalfa and Alfalfa 1 X ‐‐ Mixture All other tame hay and 6 302 4 55 fodder crops Vegetables (does not 3 44.2 2 X include potatoes) Fruits, Nuts & Berries 2 X 4 7 Area Under Glass, Plastic 3 4900 1 X or Other Protection Number of Farms Number of Number of Farms Number of Reporting Animals Reporting Animals Hens and Chickens 19 47,252 10 42,457 Cattle 11 97 7 76 Sheep 8 96 6 75 Pigs 4 18 2 X Forest Products 1 X 2 X Certified Organic ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Number of Farms Dollars ($) Number of Farms Dollars ($) Reporting Reporting Gross Farm Receipts 36 $1,209,887 21 $1,002, 193 X – suppressed data Source 2006 and 2001, Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada. October 2011 December 2012 ~ 17 ~ Page 92 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke The type of crops also changed over the five years. There was the loss of one large greenhouse operation and an increase in both the number of farms and the area in production for fruits, nuts and berries. The 17.8% decrease in farm receipts was off‐set by an increase in prices for agricultural products. 1.6 The People An essential element of farming is the people. In Sooke, as is the trend throughout much of Canada, along with the decrease in the number of farms, is a similar decrease in the number of farm operators. Between 2001 and 2006, there was a 20% drop in the number of farm operators. The average age of the farmers rose from 52 to 57.4 years. See Tables Three and Four below. The reasons for the decrease in the number of farm operators can be attributed to the high cost of entering farming (land, equipment), the lack of interest by younger people in becoming farmers as farm work is perceived as low paying and hard and the difficulty in obtaining financing to start a farm. The increase in the average age of farm operators also indicates that young people are not entering the industry. TABLE FOUR: Farm Operators By Age and Size of Operation – District of Sooke ‐2001 2001 Male Female Total Under 35 35 to 54 55 and Average Over Age Number of Farm Operators of Farms 10 10 15 5 10 10 53.7 with One Operator Number of Farm Operators of Farms 20 15 40 0 20 10 51.1 with Two or more Operators Total Number of 30 25 55 5 30 20 52.0 Operators Source 2001 Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada, Operator Database (100% universe), October 2011. Although there may slightly fewer operators according to Statistics Canada, Sooke does have a vibrant and active farming community comprised of people from Sooke as well as the surrounding unincorporated areas. This farming community has a keen interest in local food security, organic farming and small lot agriculture. December 2012 ~ 18 ~ Page 93 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke TABLE FIVE: FARM OPERATORS BY AGE AND SIZE OF OPERATION – DISTRICT OF SOOKE ‐ 2006 2006 Male Female Total Under 35 35 to 54 55 and Average Over Age Number of Farm Operators of Farms 10 0 5 0 5 0 51 with One Operator Number of Farm Operators of Farms 15 10 25 0 5 20 59.5 with Two or more Operators Total Number of 20 20 40 5 15 20 57.4 operators Source 2006 Census of Agriculture, Statistics Canada, Operator Database (100% universe), October 2011. Representative of the long agricultural history of the region, the Sooke Fall Fair, started in 1913, will hold its 97th exhibition in 2012. The event takes place at the Sooke Community Hall with displays of produce, poultry, kitchen crafts and artwork. Incorporated in 2007 as a non‐profit society, the Sooke Region Food CHI Society is comprised of residents from Sooke and the surrounding area. The society is very active in the development and implementation of a Food Strategy for the Sooke region. It strongly supports local and affordable options for healthy food. Since 2010, the Society has organized a tour of local farms and “Seedy Saturday”. During the summer, the “Sooke Country Market”, a farmers market, takes place in Sooke from May to October on Saturdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. There are four community gardens in Sooke: (1) The Sunriver Allotment Garden includes a Heritage Fruit Tree and Demonstration Orchard; (2) The Community Association of Social Agencies (CASA) Community Garden was planted in 2005; (3) The Edward Milne Community School Garden; and (4) The Ladybug Garden and Greenhouse, an organic community garden growing fruits, vegetables and medicines run by the T’souke First Nation. Local farmers are obtaining additional help through the Stewards of Irreplaceable Land (SOIL). A non‐ profit organization which links Canadian farmers willing to take on and train apprentices with people interested in working on an organic farm using sustainable practices. Established in 1989, its aim is to create apprenticeships to transfer knowledge to both the farmer and the apprentice. December 2012 ~ 19 ~ Page 94 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke There are several regional organizations which actively support Sooke’s agricultural community. The Island Organic Producers Association has a mandate to maintain standards for organic farming on Vancouver Island and the Gulf Islands. It assesses compliance of organic producers and awards certified organic status. Dedicated to strengthening unity among Island Producers, the Island Farmers Alliance focuses on larger industry issues. FoodRoots is a not‐for‐profit co‐op which distributes local certified organic and naturally grown produce and foods process in this region. FoodRoots gathers local produce from farmers to make it available to the general public at regularly scheduled markets. Akin to the 100 Mile Diet, the Vancouver Island Diet is concerned with food security and through its website people interested in purchasing island grown food products with local producers: http://www.vancouverislanddiet.com/index.html The Community Food Action Initiatives (CFAI) is a provincial program administered in this region by the Vancouver Island Health Authority (VIHA) which funds projects intended to foster local food security. CR‐FAIR stands for the Capital Region Food and Agriculture Initiatives Roundtable. Funded by the CFAI and the Community Social Planning Council, its mission is to increase knowledge of and bring positive change to the food and agricultural system in the CRD. It is a coalition of organizations and individuals who want to strengthen regional food security and the local food system. A Capital Region Food Charter was developed in 2008 by CR‐Fair and the CRD Roundtable on the Environment. It publishes an electronic newsletter, Making Food Matter, and an annual Capital Region Food Resource Directory. The CRD Roundtable on the Environment is a community based group that provides advice to the CRD on matters such as non‐essential pesticide use, healthy communities and climate change. It has a sub‐ committee on Food and Agriculture and was involved in the development of the Capital Region Food Charter described above. The Southern Vancouver Island Direct Farm Marketing Association is a non‐profit association of growers and producers on southern Vancouver Island who sell their produces directly to consumers. No farms in Sooke were members at the time that this section was being researched. The Peninsula Agricultural Commission was originally formed to represent the farming interests of Saanich, Central Saanich and North Saanich. However, in recent years, other local governments have become involved with the PAC including Metchosin and the Juan de Fuca Electoral District. The objectives of the PAC are to: December 2012 ~ 20 ~ Page 95 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Increase public awareness, education and support for a sustainable farm community Foster stewardship of farmland which embraces environmental and other community values Increase economic returns to farmers Secure an adequate supply of water to farms at a competitive cost Maintain and enhance the sustainability of agriculture on the Saanich Peninsula There are a number of challenges for agriculture in southern Vancouver Island. Dairy quotas, no egg grading, and a lack of abattoirs which are discussed in Section Two. 1.7 Climate Change As concern regarding climate change increases, more study is being done on the potential impact of climate change on a regional basis. In the case of southern Vancouver Island, a temperature increase of 2 to 3 degrees celcuis is anticipated along with an increase precipitation of between 5 to 10% from November to May and a 10 to 20% decrease from June to October. Table Five on page 16 outlines the impacts that climate change may have on agriculture in the region. December 2012 ~ 21 ~ Page 96 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke TABLE SIX: From Impacts to Adaption: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007 Current and future climate limitations to crop production (Zebarth et al., 1997). South coastal region Current climate: Future temperature: Mild, wet climate. Projected to increase 2–3°C Mean annual temperature: 10°C. Future precipitation: Mean annual precipitation: 800–1700 mm, 70% of Projected to increase from November to May (5–10%) which falls between October and March Projected decrease June to October (10–20%) Frost free period: 175–240 days Type of Current Effects of future temperature Effects of future Climate limitations agriculture agriculture change precipitation change Horticulture Small fruit: Perennials: summer Warmer summer: increased Increased winter raspberry, moisture deficits, productivity; Warmer winter: longer precipitation could limit strawberry, require some growing season; increased viability annual crop production in blueberry irrigation of bell pepper, melon, overwintering water‐logged soils cabbage family crops and double Field vegetables: Raspberries: winter cropping; Increased winter Decreased summer corn, potato, damage from Arctic precipitation could limit annual crop precipitation could mean cabbage family outflow production in water‐logged soils; that more irrigation is crops, salad Decreased summer precipitation required crops Field vegetables: low could mean that more irrigation is temperatures, wet soil required; Reduction in diseases due Reduction in diseases due conditions in spring to drier conditions could favour to drier conditions could berry production favour berry production Forage Grass: pasture, Grasses: winter Warmer spring: earlier harvest of Increased spring crops hay, silage damage from Arctic forages precipitation could limit outflow; Forage crops: harvest and quality of Corn: silage summer moisture New, heat tolerant forage species forages Dry, hotter summer deficit, require required could mean that irrigation irrigation on will be required in Fraser Vancouver Island River valley Greenhouse Vegetables: Warmer winter: lower heating costs, cucumber, increase in tropical species; Hotter tomato, bell summer: higher cooling costs pepper Ornamentals Other Increased pest pressure: winter Flooding, soil drainage, soil effects survival of pests and diseases, more compaction, increased life cycles leaching agricultural chemicals December 2012 ~ 22 ~ Page 97 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke SECTION TWO: THE CONTEXT FOR AGRICULTURE IN SOOKE 2.1 International International factors can affect agriculture in Canada including the community of Sooke. Improved transportation gives Canadian farmers greater access to markets through out the world. Conversely, farmers face greater competition in the global market place‐wide. Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement affect the ability of Canadian farmers to compete internationally. Food safety concerns and the risk of global transmission of disease impact local farms reliant on export markets. 2.2 National The federal Department of Agriculture and Agri‐Food Canada leads and coordinates rural‐federal policies and programs. Its responsibilities extend from the farmer to the consumer and cover all phases of producing, processing and marketing of agriculture and agri‐food products. Its portfolio organizations include the Canadian Dairy Commission, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the Canadian Grain Commission, Farm Credit Canada and the Farm Products Council of Canada. Agriculture and Agri‐food Canada’s vision statement for agriculture in Canada is: “A profitable and innovative agriculture, agri‐food and agri‐based products industry that seizes opportunities in responding to market demands and contributes to the health and well‐being of Canadians.” and leading to the development of the “Growing Forward” program. Through the Growing Forward program, partnerships are developed between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Growing Forward Framework Agreements are negotiated with each province and territory based on a 60:40 sharing arrangement. Growing Forward 2 is the successor program and will be launched in April 2013. Pursuant to the Growing Forward program, a bilateral agreement was signed between the Canadian and BC governments in 2009 making $553 million available over the next five years and offering BC farmers access to over 55 programs and services. More information on these programs can be viewed at: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC‐AAC/display‐afficher.do?id=1204229697539&lang=eng Federal inspectors play an important role locally in implementing best practices for the safety of food supply through means such as monitoring food handling and labeling practices. Local inspectors with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are based in Saanich and are responsible for the Sooke area. 2.3 Provincial Management and regulation of agriculture is shared by the provincial and federal governments. As noted above, the federal government provides considerable financial support through its partnership program, Growing Forward. At the provincial level, it is the Ministry of Agriculture which supports the growth of the agriculture, food and bio‐product sectors. It assists these sectors in achieving sustainability through the delivery of a number of programs, guidance, support and partnerships. December 2012 ~ 23 ~ Page 98 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke The Province supports agriculture through the BC Agricultural Plan which has 23 strategies addressing five main themes: Producing local food in a changing world Meeting environmental and climate challenges Building innovative and profitable family farm businesses Building First Nations agricultural capacity Bridging the urban/agricultural divide The programs supported by the BC Agricultural Plan provide funding for a wide range of projects including community based food action initiatives including community gardens, 4‐H, school gardens, agricultural fairs and the review and revision of local regulatory structures. Several current initiatives in Sooke are funded through the BC Agricultural Plan. Of interest may be the Small Lot Agricultural program which serves small scale producer with lots less than 10 acres and the Islands Agri‐Food Initiative that targets market development and promotion of the agri‐food industry. (There is a 50:50 funding requirement for this program.) Building on the 2008‐2011 BC Agricultural Plan, in March of 2012, the Province released, “BC Agrifoods: A Strategy for Growth.”, a five year strategic plan that includes a review of regulatory and taxation levels and expanding international markets for beef, berries, seafood and wine. The Province will promote local food production expand domestic markets through the establishment of Foods BC which is centralized source for up‐to‐date information on fresh, local foods. In BC, there are 32 statutes related to the Ministry of Agriculture as well as 73 regulations. A complete list of these regulations is available at: www.leg.bc.ca/procs/allacts/agric.htm 2.4 Representation At the provincial level, the BC Agriculture Council represents agricultural producers. Its mission is to continually improve the social, economic and environmental sustainability of BC Agriculture. Twenty‐six commodity specific associations and farm organizations are members of the Council including the BC Dairy Association, the Certified Organic Associations of BC, and the BC Chicken Growers Association. Through its subsidiary, BC Agricultural Research & Development Corporation (ARDCorp), the Council offers several programs including Environmental Farm Plan. 2.5 BC Marketing Boards and Commissions In BC, the Natural Products Marketing Act allows for the creation of marketing boards to control and regulate the production, packing and marketing of certain commodities. By controlling the supply through a system of quotas to match the demand for these perishable commodities, consumers are assured of a stable supply while ensuring the producers of a minimum farm gate price. At present, there are eight marketing boards in the Province: December 2012 ~ 24 ~ Page 99 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Supply Managed: BC Broiler Hatching Egg Commission BC Chicken Marketing Board BC Egg Marketing Board BC Milk Marketing Board BC Turkey Marketing Board Regulated Industries: BC Cranberry Marketing Commission BC Hog Marketing Commission BC Vegetable Marketing Commission Supply managed marketing boards can permit or prohibit the production of their commodities within BC. Regulated industries may be granted authority to establish quotas and prices and to license producers. The ability of farmers to enter these particular markets is subject to being able to obtain a quota or permission is obtained for small scale poultry production. No quota is required for less than 99 laying hens, 200 broilers and 50 turkeys if they are for personal consumption. 2.6 Right to Farm Strengthening Farming is an initiative of the BC Ministry of Agriculture that is jointly implemented with the Agricultural Land Commission. The program has two components: Farm Practices Protection and Planning for Agriculture. The Farm Protection (Right to Farm) Act was introduced in 1995 to better coordinate the relationship between farming and non‐farming neighbours and to protect farms from nuisance suits arising from normal farm practices. The legislation exempts farm practices from certain local government bylaws. 2.7 Local Government Legislation The Local Government Act (LGA) is the legislative authority for all local governments in BC with the exception of the City of Vancouver which has its own Charter. The Act sets out the broad powers of governance for municipalities such Sooke and for regional districts like the Capital Regional District. Sections of the LGA allow local governments to regulate certain aspects of farming through official community plans, zoning, soil deposition and removal, weed and pest control, water, drainage and nuisance regulations. Section 917 of the LGA allows local governments, subject to ministerial approval, to develop bylaws regarding the conduct of farm operations, types of buildings and machinery and the siting of stored materials and waste facilities and prohibiting specified farm operations. A complementary piece of legislation, and equally important, is the Community Charter. Enacted in 2004, certain provisions formerly in the LGA were transposed to the Charter. Most importantly, the Charter spells out the interrelationship between the province and municipalities and provides the December 2012 ~ 25 ~ Page 100 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke framework for powers, duties and functions of a Council. During the development of the Agricultural Plan, there are likely to be a number of suggestions that will be outside of the local government’s authority. 2.8 Taxation In BC, properties used for agricultural production are given relief from certain property taxes if they are classed as a farm by BC Assessment Authority. Land in the ALR with no present use can qualify as farm if part of the parcel is farmed. If the property is not in the ALR, unused land can qualify for farm class if the land is not zoned or held for business, commercial or industrial purposes, it meets a highest and best use test; at least 50% of the land outside the ALR is in production or contributes to production; or at least 25% of the land outside the ALR is in production, and the farm meets a higher income requirement. As of January 2012, the minimum annual income for agricultural production required for farm class was calculated as follows: a) $10,000 on land less than 8,000 m² (2 ac); b) $2,500 on land between 8,000 m² (2 ac) and 4 ha (10 ac); c) on land larger than 4 ha (10 ac), $2,500 plus five per cent of the actual value of any farm land in excess of 4 ha; d) $10,000, in order to qualify unused land where the area in production makes up at least 25% of the land. In 2009, the Farm Assessment Review Panel (FARP) released its report reviewing the farm status assessment policy. Some of the recommendations of the Review Panel include being able to use income tax return information for reporting, avoiding split classifications and allow retired farmers to maintain their farm status. The Province implemented two of the FARP recommendations for the 2010 tax assessment year by clarifying the rules for the split classification of ALR and non‐ALR farm properties. In the fall of 2011, the Province announced that two more of the recommendations of the FARP were being implemented and were intended to encourage more intensive agricultural operations by increasing the tax exemption limit on farm outbuildings and provide tax relief for retiring farm families who wish to remain on their land in the ALR. Two other FARP recommendations, reduction of administrative paperwork and more flexibility in meeting the requirements to maintain farm status, are also being acted upon. All four changes are expected to be in place for the 2013 tax year. 2.9 Meat Inspection In 2007, the BC Meat Inspection Regulation came into effect requiring by 2010 that all meat for human consumption come from licensed slaughter facilities and meeting much more stringent and costly December 2012 ~ 26 ~ Page 101 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke requirements for handling meat and waste. As a result, there are fewer facilities available where meat can be slaughtered and none on southern Vancouver Island. Amendments in 2010 to the regulation introduced a graduated licensing system that includes two new licenses (Class D and Class E) designed to support local livestock and meat production in B.C.'s more remote and rural communities, however, only Class E licenses are possible in the CRD. The Class E license allows on‐farm slaughter of a small number of animals annually (1‐10 animal units) for direct sale to consumers. Sales are restricted to the regional district in which the meat was produced, and operators are only permitted to slaughter their own animals. 2.10 Regional Government Along with the federal and provincial governments, local government can play an important role in supporting agriculture. There are two local government authorities for Sooke: the District of Sooke and the Capital Regional District (CRD). The CRD does not have any direct responsibility for agriculture but can affect agriculture in the course of carrying out its legislated duties one of which is control over regional land use matters which the CRD regulates through its Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). There are eight strategic initiatives in the RGS with the “Agriculture and Food Security” initiative with several being applicable to agriculture. Lands in the ALR through out the CRD are in the Renewable Resource Lands Policy Area. To prevent urban sprawl into the rural areas, the RGS also establishes a December 2012 ~ 27 ~ Page 102 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Regional and Urban Containment and Servicing Policy Area (RUCSPA). Services like water and sewer can not be extended to lands outside of the RUCSPA except for health reasons. Adoption of an Official Community Plan (OCP) or changes to a community’s OCP must be consistent with the CRD regional growth strategy bylaw. An OCP must contain a Regional Context Statement (RCS) that identifies how the plan is consistent with and supports the goals of the regional growth strategy. A subsequent change by a municipality to its RCS requires the approval of the CRD board or, failing that, a resolution of the dispute as set out in the Local Government Act. In other words, the District of Sooke is bound to comply with the RGS through its RCS. Sooke’s RCS deals with Agriculture and Food Security: The land use mix, locations, and densification in the OCP support the integrity of Sooke as a primarily rural community but also as a regional centre as noted in the RGS. To this end, over 66% of the District of Sooke is designated as agriculture (i.e. ALR), rural residential, and park and therefore it is not supported under the policies of this OCP to have density increases beyond which currently exists in these areas. Future population and development growth must occur only within the confines of the CGA, primarily the Town Centre and Comprehensive Development Areas. The geography of the District and geotechnical aspects of development in the community make many areas difficult to build on and costly to extend services therefore aiding in the protection of rural areas from development and keeping the urban areas compact. These rural lands also significantly buffer the Capital Green Lands and Renewable Resource Lands from adjacent residential development as the minimum lot size noted in the OCP for these lands is 4ha. Sooke’s RCS for agriculture is not specific other than the setting of a minimum lot size. However, there are many policies specific to agriculture in its OCP. The CRD is currently reviewing the RGS in light of new legislation and provincial direction. The document is being transitioned into a Regional Sustainability Strategy (RSS) to reflect a greater commitment to sustainability. The eight strategies of the RGS will become five strategic initiatives. For Agriculture, a Foods System Sub‐strategy will be prepared building on a policy options paper that established the direction for the region’s involvement in food systems serving the region: http://sustainability.crd.bc.ca/media/1236/food_security_policy_brief_small.pdf Once the RSS is adopted, Sooke will have two years to amend its RCS and make it consistent with the RSS. 2.11 CRD Water The CRD operates the water supply system for the Greater Victoria Area. The CRD Integrated Water Services is the bulk water supplier to the Greater Victoria Drinking Water System and the retail water supplier in the West Shore communities and Sooke. December 2012 ~ 28 ~ Page 103 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Sooke’s water supply is administered by the Juan de Fuca Water Commission. The other participating members of the Commission are Colwood, Langford, View Royal and Metchosin. Each local government in the participating area must appoint members of its council to the Commission based on the number of Council members it has on the CRD Board. Municipal water must be used for greenhouse production and horticultural processing. Surface water and collection processes like rainwater barrels can be used for other irrigation purposes but are not always sufficient. In which case, municipal water may need to be relied upon affecting the cost of production. Costs for water are comprised of a regional bulk rate and a water commission delivery rate. Currently, the CRD bylaw for 2012 establishes a bulk rate of $0.5699 per cubic metre* of water for residential uses and a rate of $0.2105 for agriculture. (*One cubic meter equals 1000 litres of water.) In 2011, the CRD assigned a definition to “Community Allotment Garden” and established a specific bulk water rate for community allotment gardens which is the same rate charged for agriculture. The reduced rate paid by agricultural users and community allotment gardens is considered to be subsidized. (As a comparison, the bulk rate for the Greater Vancouver Water District is $0.4955. In Delta, a rate of $0.61/m3 is paid by farmers for the first 8000 m3 and then $0.98/m3 after that.) After buying the bulk water at the rate set by the CRD, the Juan de Fuca Water Commission then establishes its retail rates based on the combined total of the CRD bulk rate and the Juan de Fuca Water Commission’s distribution costs. The 2011 distribution rate was $0.9859/m3 and is the same for both Residential and Agricultural Uses. The water rate charged is based on the type of water meter. In some instances, separate water meters are installed. An Agricultural Only connection provides water an agricultural operation and not to a residential dwelling unit. All water consumption provided through an Agricultural Only connection is charged the Agricultural bulk water rate. Residential Connections are charged the residential rate. Provision is also made for smaller farms through an Agricultural/Residential Water Connection. The owner of a property classed as Farm by BC Assessment Authority and who has provided proof of the assessment, is charged the Residential rate for the first 455 cubic metres of water. Any water in excess of the 455 cubic metres is charged at the Agricultural rate. Development Cost Charges for water are the fees collected at the time of development to pay for the capital costs associated with the development. These types of fees do not apply to agricultural land uses but would be charged for newly created commercial uses. December 2012 ~ 29 ~ Page 104 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke In 2005, the CRD in conjunction with the Peninsula Agricultural Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (at that time), carried out a study to better understand how water is being used by agriculture throughout the CRD. The CRD Agricultural Water Use and Conservation Study indicated that 35% of the respondent farms used only CRD water. 31% used wells, creeks and/or dugouts and 19% used a combination of CRD water and wells, creeks and dugouts. At 92%, irrigation was the largest consumer of water amongst the respondent farms. Crop washing at 1%, water for livestock at 2% and 4% for domestic consumption accounted for most of the remaining consumption. One of the strategic objectives of the Peninsula Agricultural Commission is to secure an adequate supply of water to farms at a competitive cost. The PAC has been lobbying the CRD for a number of years to change the rate structure for agricultural users in Saanich and the Saanich Peninsula. 2.12 Bylaw No. 400, Sooke Official Community Plan, 2010 (OCP) An OCP establishes the policy framework used by local governments to guide its decisions on land use. A local government can not enact a bylaw that is inconsistent with its OCP. The Local Government Act (section 875) defines an OCP as: “a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management.” An OCP may contain policies related to social needs, social well‐being and social development. It may also contain policies respecting the maintenance and enhancement of farming on land in a farming area or in an area designated for agricultural use. If the policies are related to a matter which is not within the jurisdiction of the local government, the OCP may only state the broad objectives unless the minister responsible authorizes the policy. It is important to keep these legislative authorities and limitations in mind when preparing an Agricultural Plan. It can not be expected that all of the recommendations of an Agricultural Plan will be included in an OCP. Some of the recommendations should be added to other local government plans and bylaws such as a Strategic Plan, a servicing bylaw or a zoning bylaw. There will also be some recommendations beyond the legislative authority of local government. With this type of recommendation, it is important that the appropriate government or agency is identified. Before Sooke was incorporated in 1999, the 1988 OCP for the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area and the 1999 Sooke Local Area Plan were in effect. The agricultural policies in these two plans were identical. For the most part, the policies from these two plans were incorporated into the first OCP prepared by the District of Sooke in 2001. The 2001 OCP remained in effect until 2010 when the current OCP for Sooke was adopted. December 2012 ~ 30 ~ Page 105 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke The 2010 OCP has policies related to agriculture in two sections. Section 4.5 Agriculture and Food Security has 18 policies related to agriculture and 14 action items Section 5.7 Land Use Designations ‐ Agriculture has five policies, one of which reinforces support for the policies in section 4.5.3 plus two action items for a total of 23 policies and 16 actions items. These policies and action items can be found in Appendix “A”. The ALC reviews OCPs to ensure its goals of protecting farmland and supporting agriculture are respected. If the District amends its OCP as a result of the Agricultural Plan, the ALC will first need to review the proposed changes. Municipalities are allowed to create development permit areas for the protection of farming which can include requirements for screening, landscaping, fencing and siting of buildings to provide buffering or separation of development of development from farming on adjacent lands. All of the lands designated as Agricultural in the Sooke OCP are in the ALR. There are however, appropriately eleven properties bounded by Maple, Grant and West Coast Roads which are designated as Agricultural but are overlaid with an additional “General Classification” for Technical Industrial. This December 2012 ~ 31 ~ Page 106 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke additional layer is used by the District to express its future intention for these lands should they be removed from the ALR. 2.13 Bylaw No. 500, Sooke Zoning Bylaw, 2011 The Sooke Zoning Bylaw regulates use of land and the location, use, size and shape of buildings throughout the community. The bylaw is very supportive of local food sufficiency. Section 3.3 (g) of the Zoning Bylaw allows for gardening and the growing of food in any zone. Poultry (both male and female) and livestock can be kept on any property that is 2000 m2 or larger. Female poultry can be kept on smaller sized parcels with some restrictions. In terms of commercial agriculture, “Agriculture” land use is defined by two types: Agriculture and Intensive Agriculture. “Agriculture” means the use of land for growing rearing and producing and harvesting of agricultural products or raising livestock. It includes horticulture but specifically excludes intensive agricultural uses and any manufacturing, storage and processing that is not specifically mentioned. “Intensive Agriculture” use includes mushroom growing, feedlots, poultry farms, piggeries and breeding and boarding kennels. The bylaw has five rural zones, of which four allow Agriculture as a principal use: Watershed, Forest and Agriculture (RU1), Rural (R2), Small Scale Agricultural (RU3) and Rural Residential (RU4). The fifth rural zone, Gateway Residential (RU5) is intended for residential lands and only Horticulture use is permitted. Both agricultural and intensive agricultural land uses are permitted in RU1 zone as well as the R2 and R3 zones. However, in all three of these zones, the setback requirements for intensive agriculture and aquaculture buildings is increased from 10 metres (32.8 ft) for farm buildings to 30 metres (98.4 ft). Intensive agricultural uses are only permitted on lots that are 2 hectares (4.9 acres) or larger. Lot coverage is 30% but increased to 75% for greenhouses in the RU1, RU2, RU3 and RU4 zones. Agriculture is also allowed in the Public Recreation (P1) zone. Intended to prevent further fragmentation of agricultural lands, the RU1 zone has a minimum lot size of 10 ha (24.7 acres) for the purposes of subdivision. RU2 and RU3 both have a minimum lot size of 4 ha (9.9 acres). Being a seaside community, Sooke has a number of aquaculture businesses. Aquaculture is defined as the growing and cultivation of aquatic plants and invertebrates for commercial purposes but excludes the harvesting. “Land‐Based Aquaculture” is the cultivation of fin fish on land. Aquaculture Processing Operations means all handling of the harvest of an aquaculture use but excludes manufacture of fish feed and the disposal or storage of fish offal. Aquaculture is permitted in the RU1, RU2 and RU3 zones. Processing is not permitted in these zones though, only the Aquatic Industrial (M4) and Marine Aquaculture Processing (W7) zones allow aquaculture processing operations. The M4 zone is the only zone that allows land‐based aquaculture. December 2012 ~ 32 ~ Page 107 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke ALR lands in Sooke are primarily zoned either RU1 or RU3. Two ALR properties located in the Town Centre are zoned R1. Properties such as Journey Middle School and the Demamiel Golf Course are zoned Community Facilities (P2) and P1 respectively. Portions of Sunriver Estates in the ALR are zoned CD2‐B which allow agriculture and farm buildings. As permitted by the ALC, the District’s Zoning Bylaw also allows home based‐businesses and secondary suites on lands in the ALR. Subject to the provisions of the ALC Act, one additional dwelling for farm employees is allowed on land zoned RU1 and RU3. Farmers markets are defined as Country Markets by the zoning bylaw and are allowed in the P2, General Commercial (C2), Town Centre Commercial 1 – North and Town Centre Commercial 2 – South zones. Sales on agriculturally zoned properties are limited to products produced on that farm. 2.14 Bylaw No. 480, Sooke Sign Regulation, 2011 In 2011, the District adopted a new sign regulation bylaw. Although the bylaw applies to the whole District, its focus is the commercial businesses in the Town Centre. There is nothing specific regarding farm sales or agricultural operations in the bylaw. 2.15 Composting Pursuant to section 25 of the Environmental Management Act, the CRD has the authority to regulate the recycling of organic waste and composting facilities. Agricultural waste is regulated by the province through the Agricultural Waste Control Regulation. Composting by home growers would be subject to Sooke’s Unsightly and Objectionable Situations Bylaw. 2.16 Burning In 2012, a Burning Regulation Review Committee was established by Council. Based on the Committee’s recommendations, changes were made to existing bylaws to allow open air burning on larger sized properties within the Sewer Specified Area (SSA) and all properties outside of the SSA. 2.17 Pesticide Use The CRD has drafted a model bylaw for controlling pesticide use which has been adopted by four communities in this region. Sooke does not have a pesticide bylaw. It is important to note that the “Right to Farm” legislation would supersede any local bylaws for agricultural lands. The CRD model bylaw specifically exempts lands in the ALR and the non‐residential areas of lands assessed as farmland. 2.18 Sale of Agricultural Products The Town Centre of Sooke is the commercial focal point for the sub‐region. There are two grocery stores, bakeries, delicatessens and a wide range of restaurants in close proximity attracting local December 2012 ~ 33 ~ Page 108 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke shoppers, travelers and tourists. Many of the events where farmers can market their products like the Fall Fair and the Sooke Rotary Auction are held in the Town Centre. 2.19 Wholesale/Retail Market Some of the farmers in Sooke sell their produce and eggs directly to the local grocery store as well as to restaurants through out the CRD. 2.20 Direct to Consumer Sales Also called farm gate sales, one farm in Sooke markets directly to consumers by offering seasonal produce, chicken and eggs, berries and jams for sale. Several of the farms just outside of Sooke also sell directly to the public as well as offering food box programs. Consumers purchase “boxes” of food on a regular basis which are packed with produce that is in season. 2.21 Farmers Market From mid‐May to September, the Sooke Country Market is held every Saturday from 10 a.m. to 12 noon in Sooke. This farmers’ market is currently held on an undeveloped and privately owned property adjacent to Otter Point Road. Many of the vendors at the Market bring fresh produce from farms outside Sooke. There are limitations to the expansion of the Sooke Country Market. If there is interest in increasing the size of the market, issues like parking, access to potable water, covered areas, pedestrian access, washroom facilities should be taken into consideration. Alternative sites might offer some of these amenities. December 2012 ~ 34 ~ Page 109 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 2.22 Marketing and Advertising Sooke Region Food and Farm Guide produced by Sooke Food CHI in 2011 is a brochure which provides a comprehensive listing of the farms in Sooke and the surrounding area. 2.23 Community Education Programs on gardening and horticulture are given by several local agencies such as the Sooke Garden Club, the Sooke Children’s Garden Club, the Cooperative Association of Service Agencies and through Edward Milne Community School. Sooke Food CHI has published a book entitled “So You Want to Farm In Sooke” for those interested in starting to farm at any scale. There is also the Sooke Regional New Farmer Mentorship Program and the Farmer 2 Farmer forums. 2.24 Keeping of Poultry With increased interest in growing food for personal and local consumption, more people want to raise egg‐laying chickens on residential properties. In Sooke, the Animal Regulation and Impounding Bylaw regulate the keeping and control of domestic animals. The Zoning Bylaw supplements the Animal Regulation by providing the specifics on the keeping of poultry. At the present time, livestock and male poultry can not be kept on lots smaller than 2000 m2 in area. If the property is less than 600 m2, then no poultry or livestock can be kept. For properties from 600 m2 up to 2000 m2, up to six female poultry may be kept. For the most current information on these bylaws, the District should be consulted. December 2012 ~ 35 ~ Page 110 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke SECTION THREE: THE VISION FOR SOOKE A significant amount of preparatory work has been already been done in laying the groundwork for this Agricultural Plan. In recent years, there have been three major initiatives undertaken by local government and community based organizations related to developing a vision for agriculture in Sooke: The Community Food Action Plan; The Sustainability Plan; and The Farm Forum. Based on these three major initiatives, Table Nine summarizing the emergent strategic topics was prepared and was integral to the public consultation process. 3.1 Community Food Action Plan The Community Food Action Plan was developed from 2008 to 2009 and identified seven key themes: Community Education and Awareness Food Accessibility Regulations and Policy Local Production Sooke Country Market Revitalization Local History, Culture, First Nations and Cuisine Diversification and Sustainability Associated with each of the themes were a number of recommendations and possible next steps, one of which was the development of an agricultural plan. December 2012 ~ 36 ~ Page 111 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 3.2 The Sustainability Plan In 2008, the District of Sooke hired HB Lanarc to prepare “A Sustainable Development Strategy for the District of Sooke”. Strategy #8 in the strategy dealt with promoting a healthy, sustainable, local food system. A number of key tasks were identified and have been acted upon. These tasks are itemized in Table Six. TABLE SEVEN: Strategy No. 8 from A Sustainable Development Strategy for the District of Sooke KEY TASKS CATALYST PROJECTS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS Strong rural‐urban links Ensure local farmer markets are a permitted use Bylaws in many areas of Sooke Urban Agriculture Promote and provide spaces for urban Bylaws, Incentives, Amenity agriculture. Support home gardening; Communal Contributions, Sustainability gardens in multi‐family developments; offer Checklist incentives for edible landscaping and other forms of urban agriculture in new developments Local Processing Promote and provide spaces for local food Bylaws, Incentives, processing; encourage development of new Partnerships value‐added food industries Agricultural Land Protection Develop strategy for protecting viable farm land Partnership with ALC Ensure affordable access to new and existing farmers Supportive Policy Ensure policies and bylaws do not limit ability of Policies, Bylaws food producers Wild Food Access Restore, preserve and obtain access to wild food Bylaws; Parks and Trails harvesting areas, eg.mushroom collecting, Master Plan shellfish harvesting Educational Campaign Develop an Educational campaign on benefits of Partnerships sustainable local food system Branding Sooke’s Assets Promote community as destination for food, arts Partnerships and crafts Bylaws Buy Local Campaign Develop Buy Local Campaign Partnerships Local Skills Establish apprenticeship program Partnerships December 2012 ~ 37 ~ Page 112 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 3.3 The Farm Forum Also in 2008, there was a comprehensive look at agriculture in Sooke. The Juan de Fuca Economic Commission and the District of Sooke along with the Sooke Region Food CHI hosted the Farm Forum. Public input was solicited to initiate development of an agricultural plan. Approximately 123 people attended the forum. Agricultural strengths and weaknesses were discussed. Ten indicators of success were identified. The recommended next steps were to create an overall vision statement for agriculture and develop an Agricultural Plan along with an Agricultural Assessment to engage the public and help them better understand the present agricultural conditions. Since the Farm Forum in 2008, a number of the next steps which were identified have either been completed or initiated TABLE EIGHT: Indicators of Success from the 2008 Farm Forum SUCCESS INDICATOR CRITERIA Cooperative Efforts Multi‐agency, farmer cooperatives, sharing information & inter‐agency partnerships Skilled People Apprenticeships, skill development opportunities Community Support Education, awareness, acceptance and conflict resolution mechanisms Farm to Market Competitive pricing, enabling regulations & efficient local processing Viable Livelihood Small Farm Viability, debt relief, favourable tax rate Sustainability Plan Practical Agricultural Plan & policies, protect land and water Supportive Regulations Supportive incentives, appropriate rules and sensitive government Available Land Access to capital, lease options, protect what exists, small lots & green houses Product Diversity New opportunities, local consumer guide, new methods &public awareness Consumer Access Farmer’s market, buy local, public awareness 3.4 Common Strategies In reviewing the results from the three initiatives described above, a commonality of themes and strategies was noticed. Table Nine was compiled by listing the results from the Farm Forum in regular font and then adding in italics, the items from the Sustainability Plan and the underlined items from the Community Food Action Plan are underlined which were not mentioned at the Farm Forum. December 2012 ~ 38 ~ Page 113 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke TABLE NINE: Key Strategic Topics from the Farm Forum, Sustainability Plan and Community Food Action Plan INPUTS Environmental Capacity Seasonal crops, indigenous species & climate change impact; diversification and sustainability Farm Land Availability Lack of, protecting it and leasing options; Develop strategy for protecting viable farm land; Ensure affordable access to new and existing farmers Wild Food Access Restore, preserve and obtain access to wild food harvesting areas Water Supply Watershed protection, licensing process & conservation TRANSFORMATION Knowledge Transfer Data bank, sense of history & research; First Nations culture and cuisine Innovative Practices Use of grey water, energy conservation & building code Farm Sustainability Succession Planning, start‐up costs & farm trust Skilled Farmers Apprenticeships, training and mentoring OUTPUTS Community Awareness 100 Mile Diet, K to 12 opportunities & elder/youth connection; Buy Local campaign; Educational campaign on benefits of sustainable local food system Marketing Efforts Farmers Co‐op, communication vehicles; Branding Agro Tourism Sufficient scale, target markets; Destination for Food, arts & Crafts Consumer Access Farmers market and farm gate sales; Sooke Country Market Revitalization Food Accessibility GENERAL Community Effort Communication, Annual Forum Land Use Zoning Compatibility, land protection & relevant regulations; Supportive Policy Ensure policies and bylaws do not limit ability of food producers Informed Decision Makers Awareness, consultation and communication Supportive Tax Structure Affordability, incentives for farming and start‐up assistance December 2012 ~ 39 ~ Page 114 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Draft Agricultural Plan July 2012 On‐Line Survey Open House Facilitated Public Feedback March‐ April Community Hall Workshop on 1st Draft. May 2012 May – June 2012 April 2012 2012 Results from Farm Forum, Food Action Plan and Sustainability Plan FIGURE ONE: Public Consultation Process Using the Preparation of the Agricultural Plan 3.5 On‐Line Survey During the months of March and April 2012, an on‐line survey was posted on the District’s website and members of the public were invited to participate. Respondents did not necessarily have to be property owners or residents in Sooke. Over 80% of the respondents said they grow their own food but most of the land being farmed is not in the Agricultural Land Reserve. All of the respondents that grew food give some of the food away to family and friends. Approximately half of those who responded sell food at the Sooke Country Market with slightly less than that selling commercially. Only 37% of the growers sold at the farm gate. Over half said that the amount of food that they sell does not pay for the expenses of growing it. Only 43% are able to grow enough food to last the year. Over 90% of the survey respondents purchase food locally and feel that growing food in Sooke is important to the residents. Vegetables are the most often purchased item followed by fruit, eggs and berries. Other products purchased by the respondents include honey and baked goods. Most food is purchased either at the Sooke Country Market, pre‐arranged sales with the farmer or at the farm gate. Support for local farmers was given as the key incentive for buying locally followed by December 2012 ~ 40 ~ Page 115 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke the benefits to the environment and freshness. All respondents said that they would buy more food locally if they could and many wanted to see more local products in the Sooke grocery stores. Strong interest was expressed in improving home gardens and knowing what can successfully be grown in Sooke. Many wanted information on how to how to access local producers. Other topics of interest include water costs and the use of grey water systems. Respondents want to see more information on Health Canada regulations and how to “deer” proof gardens. Appendix “D” lists the survey questions along with the tabulated results. 3.6 Open House On April 18th, 2012, an Open House was held at the Sooke Community Hall. Members of the public were invited to view displays, talk with District staff and submit comment sheets. During the Open House, an overview of agriculture in Sooke was given by the Municipal Planner. The presentation evolved into a group discussion of the importance of agriculture to the community and the barriers being encountered by local farmers and other food growers. Table Nine, a summary of the key points from earlier visioning exercises, was displayed in large format at the Open House. Attendees were asked to select their top priorities from the items listed on Table Nine. Based on their responses, the four top priorities for more in‐depth discussion were identified: Farm Land Availability – Lack of it, protecting it and leasing options; Affordability of it. Farm Sustainability – Succession planning, start‐up costs, farm trust. Consumer Access – Farmers Market and farm Gate sales; Sooke Country Market Revitalization Supportive Policy – Ensure policies and bylaws do not limit availability of food producers Additional priorities identified by the attendees included the cost of water, the need for a cooperative or mobile abattoir and specific suggestions for changes to the current OCP. December 2012 ~ 41 ~ Page 116 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Amongst the ideas and suggestions made at the Open House were for the District of Sooke to take a leadership role in agriculture for the region, to relocate the farmers market to the Community Hall parking lot, support for Food CHI and to include John Phillips Memorial Park in the ALR. The attendees asked if the District of Sooke could advocate for lower water rates for food gardeners, partner with adjacent local governments in order to lobby senior government for changes, and to foster the agricultural use of farmable lands, agri‐tourism, local food security and incubator farms. In terms of the OCP, changes to the “no‐net loss” policy were recommended such as was adding a policy to support exclusions in exchange for a contribution towards agriculture. The attendees asked that this Agricultural Plan consider the broader context to ensure it is coordinated with other plans and fits into regional efforts. At the Open House, comments were made that Sooke has a very high rate of ALR exclusions in Sooke: (40%) relative to the provincial rate (17%). (Staff research indicates that since the inception of the ALR in 1974, the amount of the land in the ALR in the Province has only decreased by 2%. The amount of land excluded has been off‐set by inclusions of large areas of land. In that same time period, the amount of ALR land in the CRD has decreased by 17%. Source: ALC Annual Report 2009/10 and 2010/11, June 30, 2011. Table Two lists the amount of land excluded from the ALR since Sooke was incorporated. Staff estimate that there has been a reduction of approximately 28% of the amount of land in the ALR since Sooke was incorporated with most of the exclusions occurring around the time of incorporation.) 3.7 Correspondence During the public consultation phase of this plan, some residents wrote directly to the District. One contributor suggested preparing two Agricultural Plans: one for commercial agriculture and one for local food security. Questions were raised about the lack of solutions in the OCP for protection of land being farmed outside of the ALR. The increasing demand for locally raised foods and food security was noted. The need for more information on the impact of climate change, geography and soils was mentioned. Recognizing the social component of the Farmers’ market was also mentioned as being important. Suggestions for District consideration included allowing sandwich board signs for all growers, reducing thief from road side stands by allowing little stores on farms selling directly to the public and in addition to the sale of food grown on the property, allowing farmers to also sell food grown off‐site. Directed at the provincial government, were recommendations for stronger penalties and better education regarding the feeding of wildlife. It was noted that the Province needs to reconsider its fencing requirements for small scale poultry producers who are trying to gain farm status for taxation purposes. It was recommended that the Capital Regional District cull deer to stem the destruction of local crops and then have the venison processed. December 2012 ~ 42 ~ Page 117 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Restrictions placed on the disposal of food waste were criticized. Restaurants and stores were once able to give their food waste to farmers for feeding to livestock. This practice is no longer permitted during to the potential spread of zoonotic diseases. As the CRD is planning to eliminate food waste from the Hartland Landfill, the writer felt that if farmers could be permitted once again to feed food waste to their animals it would assist grocery stores and restaurants in handling their waste and avoid increased costs. Information on the regulatory framework governing the use of gray water on produce was requested. (In response to this question, municipal water must be used for greenhouse production and horticultural processing. Surface water and collection processes like rainwater barrels can be used for other irrigation. Federal and provincial authorities should be directly contacted for the specific regulations.) It was noted that the sale of fish was once a common occurrence in the Sooke Harbor. The discontinuance of this practice is thought to be attributable to changes in the federal licensing requirements. The historical role that local forested areas have for foraging for mushrooms, berries and healing herbs was pointed out. All levels of government were called upon to respect this practice and provide for its continuance. 3.8 Facilitated Workshop Attendees at the Open House were encouraged to sign up for a facilitated workshop specific to agricultural policy review and development. They were also asked to invite other interested people. An open invitation was also posted on the District’s website. Twenty‐two people participated in the evening workshop. A light dinner was provided by the Culinary Arts Program at Edward Milne Community School. Mayor Wendal Milne welcomed the participants then the workshop facilitator, Kel Kelly of Insight Facilitation, outlined the evening’s agenda and led a group review of the existing District policies. After a short break, the group assigned priorities to the Action Items in the OCP pertaining to agriculture. Next, the workshop participants broke into small groups to discuss each of the four priorities identified at the Open House. The evening closed with a short de‐briefing. A record of the large group discussion can be found in Appendix B while the results of the small group discussions are contained in Appendix C. The priority assigned to policies in the Action Items in the current OCP can be found on Figure Two. December 2012 ~ 43 ~ Page 118 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke FIGURE TWO: Priority Assigned to Official Community Plan Action Items at Workshop ACTION ITEMS BY PRIORITY Create Sooke/ALC Agricultural Land Reserve Committee 3 Create a recurring $10,000 food security fund to fund community gardens 4 & food security initiatives Discuss farm land classification with BC Assessment Authority 2 Create and implement a food action plan as identified by Food CHI 3 Create an inventory of “at risk” farms in Sooke ‐ Consider the acquisition of farmland for community farm activities and 5 agri-tourism pilot projects Designate land for a farmers’ market with consideration for potable water 4 and sewer and electricity Explore possibilities for exclusion/inclusion of land in ALR while 7 maintaining a net zero loss of land Change Zoning Bylaw to require minimum on-site or off-site areas for 1 food growing or community gardens in new multi-family development Inventory small existing parks that could be used for community gardens 7 or included in ALR Create educational material and policy support for yard and garden waste 6 recycling program Encourage the feasibility for heat recovery, especially for green houses ‐ Open a “bear smart” Sooke composting facility - Provide public educational material on composting, water, soil quality Develop an Agricultural Plan Underway Allow agriculture on single family residential lots & ensure the Zoning Done Bylaw allows for home gardening on single family residential lots December 2012 ~ 44 ~ Page 119 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 3.9 Summary of Public Consultation Process The key themes emerged as a result of consultation with the public: There are a wide range of issues impacting agriculture including increasing costs, climate change. Many levels of government and agencies are involved with agriculture. There are too many regulations affecting agriculture and they are too complex. There is a need to raise the profile of agriculture in the community, both with the public and the business community. There is a need for better education amongst farmers as well as for members of the public. Council can play an important role as an advocate for agriculture. It was recognized that Sooke acts as the market center for the sub‐region. The farmers’ market plays an important social and economic role which could be expanded. The importance of the agricultural land base, the need to protect it, innovative ways of increasing the access to agricultural land and ways to better utilize lands in the Agricultural Land Reserve were all significant topics. The cost of farming is increasing. Some of significant costs are land, water, taxes and compliance with regulations. It is important to produce good quality food and have an efficient method of getting it to market. Concerns regarding the ability to grow organic food, avoidance of pesticides and herbicides and genetically modified food were all raised. There are a number of issues unique to livestock such as the lack of a local abattoir, the cost of veterinary services and medicine and the declining number of veterinarians whose practice includes livestock. The results of the public consultation process demonstrated a consistency with the results of other reports and studies in the local perception of the challenges facing agriculture in Sooke and the future of agriculture in Sooke. The concerns raised and discussed during the public consultation process were similar to those raised at the 2008 Farm Forum and during the preparation of the current OCP. December 2012 ~ 45 ~ Page 120 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke SECTION FOUR: SOLUTIONS FOR SOOKE In the District of Sooke’s OCP, the vision for agriculture in Sooke is described as: Sooke envisions a vibrant sustainable food culture rooted in viable local production, historical and T’Sou‐ke Nation’s knowledge and environmental stewardship. The policies of the OCP are intended to nurture the development of the vision. This chapter compares the solutions and issues identified by the public and staff during the preparation of the Agricultural Plan with the existing policies and action items of the OCP. Solutions and issues not addressed by current policy are discussed in section 4.2 along with recommendations for changes to District policy or reference to the appropriate venue for dealing with the matter. 4.1 A Review of Existing Policies and Comparison with the Results of Public Consultation Policies 4.5.3 (a) and 4.5.3 (b) These two policies which state that all uses of land within the ALR must be in accordance with the ALC Act and support the objectives of the ALC are both required to be included in the OCP by provincial legislation. It was noted during the public consultation process that changes to the ALC Act may be needed to encourage agricultural use of the ALR land as much of it is not being farmed. Policy 4.5.3 (c) This policy supports the ongoing communication with the ALC on the OCP’s proposed ALR land exclusions and inclusions. This policy was noted as a priority by the participants at the facilitated workshop. At the time when Sooke was incorporated, there was considerable dialogue between the Commission and the District in order to ensure sufficient and appropriate lands for the development of a community with a town centre. In recent years, there have been very few exclusion applications and none for inclusion other than the relocation of the school site in the Sun River development. If, as a result of this Agricultural Plan, some exclusions and inclusions of agricultural lands are recommended, then Council should renew its dialogue with the Commission. Policy 4.5.3 (d) and Action Item 4.5.4 (g) One of the goals of the recently zoning bylaw review was to bring the District’s Zoning Bylaw into compliance with the OCP. In recognition of policy statement 4.5.3 (d) and completing action item 4.5.4 (g), section 3.3 of Zoning Bylaw No. 500 clearly states that gardening and the growing of food is permitted in all zones. Backyard produce gardens and home gardening on single family residential lots are openly supported by the District’s bylaws. It was strongly suggested by members of the public that the District’s zoning needs to more flexible to accommodate innovative approaches to the non‐traditional uses and tenure of agricultural lands on the December 2012 ~ 46 ~ Page 121 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke basis that it may be a way to reduce the costs associated with acquiring farmland. The concept of increasing the number of dwelling units in a small portion of a much larger agricultural property was one of the key suggestions. Several families can afford to buy a large property while one or two families can not. Another concept was subdividing large agricultural properties into smaller sized parcels between two to four hectares to reduce the land cost. Covenants could be registered at the time of subdivision requiring the properties be used for agricultural purposes. Generic changes to the current Zoning Bylaw will not facilitate or generate innovative approaches for improving access to farmland. Instead, site specific zones will need to be drafted in response to comprehensive development proposals. Asking for a rezoning application for each development instead of changing the zoning bylaw in anticipation of proposals, does not indicate a lack of support for innovative approaches, only that detailed and site specific information is needed to assess unique proposals. Policy 4.5.3 (e) and (f) These policies statements support the re‐establishment of the local shellfish industry by preventing contamination of the Sooke Harbour and Basin and improving the flushing of these water bodies. No members of the aquaculture industry participated in the public consultation process and there are no recommended changes to these two policies. Policy 4.5.3 (g) and Action Item 4.5.4 (h) The importance of the Sooke Country Market and the need for a better, and possibly permanent, location was a significant topic of discussion throughout the public consultation process. The Country Market brings people into the Town Centre, including tourists, and reinforces Sooke position as the economic hub for the surrounding area. Other businesses in the Town Centre can derive benefits from the influx in shoppers. The potential exists for this market to expand and its further development should be encouraged. There are several very successful Farmers Markets in other small communities like Duncan and Ganges. Amenities such as access to potable water, washrooms and parking are needed. A District staff member could be assigned to work with the stakeholders on preparing a report detailing the role that District can play in supporting the market and suitable sites. Policy 4.5.3 (h) Participants at the facilitated workshop noted the importance of this policy supporting the expansion of local food organizations including Sooke Food CHI. Volunteers involved with these organizations through their donations of time and knowledge can greatly increase the value of any monetary contributions. This type of organization can also tackle some of important aspects of local food security that are outside of the scope and expertise of local governments, for example, educational materials and workshops, advice on marketing, and networking. December 2012 ~ 47 ~ Page 122 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Policies 4.5.3 (i), 4.5.3 (k), 5.7.3 (b) and 5.7.3 (e) These policy statements encourage “organic intensive agricultural” and other sustainable farming activities on arable lands both in and not within the ALR as well as organic gardening and agriculture. There are no details on how to achieve this objective but in the broader context, all of the action items and policies in section 4.5 and 5.7 of the OCP do support this objective. Policies 4.5.3 (j) and 5.7.3 (d) When the District receives rezoning applications adjacent to ALR lands, staff reports have asked for sufficient buffers and based the recommendations on provincial publications such as the “Guide to Edge Planning”. The need for buffers was noted during the public consultation process Policy 4.5.3 (l) and Action 4.5.4 (e) This policy and companion action item call upon the District to create, support and implement, where possible, the recommendations contained within the Final Report for Food CHI: A Food Strategy for the Region (2008). This policy was identified as an important priority by the public. The Food CHI Final Report contains a table of recommendations and next steps. Action items were not assigned to any specific group but some of the recommendations are clearly intended for the District and are listed in Table Ten below. Good progress has been made on all of the action items. Table Ten: Status of Recommendations from the Food Strategy for the Region, 2008 ACTION ITEM FROM THE FOOD STRATEGY FOR THE REGION 2008 STATUS Support the development of an Agricultural Area Plan Underway Work closely with District of Sooke’s Planning Department to ensure No land removed from the ALR no more land is removed from the ALR since 2006 Work closely to ensure Sooke’s 3 at risk farms are not developed District not able to require farms but set‐up for production. to be in production. Lobby Sooke district to adopt food security as a key priority for their Several policies have been OCP included in the 2010 OCP Partner with JdF Area EDC and District of Sooke to hold a regional Held in October 2008 with funds agricultural forum from Community Grant Support development of an Allotment Gardens Program within the Sun River Allotment Garden District of Sooke approved by District in 2010 Policy 4.5.3 (m) The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the District collaborate with farmers’/growers’ associations when creating or amending bylaws affecting farmers. It can be accomplished by referring any bylaws December 2012 ~ 48 ~ Page 123 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke affecting farmers to the Agricultural Land Commission, any adjacent farmers and other local farming organizations. Policy 4.5.3 (n) Providing support for and encouragement of educational workshops on food production awareness and preservation techniques has been demonstrated in the past by the District’s involvement in the 2008 Farm Forum. Policy 4.5.3 (o) While supportive of agriculture, this policy is intended to encourage local farming, and investigate economic incentives and diversified use of ALR lands does not offer any specific details on what should be done. Some of the suggestions made during the public participation process and in other OCP policy statements do offer more guidance though. Policy 4.5.3 (p) The OCP asks that organic pesticide use for farming, agriculture, animal husbandry and landscaping use within the District of Sooke be encouraged through the use of integrated pest management. In 2006, the District did not endorse adoption of the CRD Model Pesticide Use Control Bylaw and to date; it has not been adopted by the District. A recommendation was made by members of the public that this policy be amended to include a ban on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Policy 4.5.3 (q) “Collaborate with the Provincial Government with regard to reducing and eliminating “red tape” and restrictions on growing local food, raising and slaughtering animals for consumption and the sale of local food products, including animal or meat products. The District of Sooke will not condone current sale of meats or food products that are contrary to the Public Heath Act and the Food Safety Act.” is a broad‐ brush policy statement in the OCP drawing attention to the complexity of government regulations facing people involved in the production of food for human consumption. Section Two of this report which outlines the numerous agencies and programs regulating food production illustrates this point. The concern about “red tape” was reiterated by members of the farming community during the preparation of this plan. Remedies were suggested for some specific issues but no strategy was identified for the District to act upon. Policy 4.5.3 (r), Action Items 4.5.4 (l) and 5.7.4 (a) This policy and two action items all recommend the use of small park areas as community gardens and possible inclusion of these lands into the ALR. During the public consultation process, it was suggested that John Phillips Memorial Park could be included into the ALR. (Based on the CLI soils mapping, it is likely the land does have some capability for farming but does have wet, low‐lying areas. The park was once in the ALR before being excluded in 2001. The park is a very popular dog run and trail corridor.) To‐date, space has been available at the existing allotment gardens. As these allotment gardens reach capacity, staff will present Council with possible options for community gardens on lands owned by December 2012 ~ 49 ~ Page 124 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Sooke including parkland. Fred Milne Park and the land to the west on the other side of the Park are in the ALR. There is other parkland not in the ALR which has been farmed in the past or is suitable for farming. Policy 5.7.3 a This policy simply calls for the implementation of other policies in the OCP pertaining to agriculture by stating: “Implement the Agriculture and Food Security section of the OCP on Agriculture designated properties”. MAP FOUR: Overlay of Properties Assessed as Farmland with Those Lands in the ALR. December 2012 ~ 50 ~ Page 125 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Policy 5.7.3 c Water costs were identified by the farming community as a significant constraint for agriculture. This policy calls on Council to consider a District controlled water distribution system. Having a District controlled domestic water supply is not realistic. However, there are alternative sources of water for agricultural purposes such as underground cisterns, rain water barrels and for non‐edible foods, grey water systems that can be utilized by gardens and farmers to off‐set the cost of irrigation. The District can assist by ensuring its bylaws and regulations don’t discourage the use alternative water sources for agricultural purposes. Water licensing for the purposes of irrigation is the responsibility of the Province. Action Item 4.5.4 (a) This action item in the OCP asks for the Agricultural Plan to provide a detailed review of opportunities and constraints in regard to agricultural lands including lands not in the ALR. To address this requirement, Section Two of this Plan includes detailed information on water rates, taxation, marketing boards, government legislation, and the impact of climate change. Information on the various agencies that support and provide funding for agriculture is also provided. An analysis of lands that could be included into the ALR was done by overlaying the ALR boundaries with those properties that are assessed as farmland for taxation purposes. See Map Four. It would be up to the owners of those properties to make application for inclusion. (Please see Action Item 4.5.4 c below for a discussion of excluding lands from the ALR in exchange for including land.) Action Item 4.5.4 (b) The OCP recommends creating an Agricultural Advisory Committee to aid in the implementation of the Sooke Agricultural Plan. There are the costs of staff time to be considered any time a new committee is created. Council will need to consider the benefits of creating an agricultural advisory committee in terms of these costs compared to other possible approaches for implementing the Agricultural Plan. Suggestions were made during the public consultation process to increase the profile of the agricultural sector by either by creating an Agricultural Advisory Committee, having a representative from agriculture on the Economic Development Commission, assigning an Agricultural Portfolio to one of the council members or having a representative on the Chamber of Commerce. If Council decides to create an Agricultural Advisory Committee, it will be important to have experienced farmers represented along with “landless” farmers, people who grow food on their residential lots and someone from the Country Market organization. Action Item 4.5.4 (c) Action Item 4.5.4 (c) in the OCP states: Negotiate and explore all possibilities with the Agricultural Land Commission for the exclusion of land from the ALR which is vital to the strategic development of Sooke (e.g. Technical Industrial overlay designated area; properties located east of Maple Avenue in the block bounded by December 2012 ~ 51 ~ Page 126 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Grant, Gateway and West Coast Roads; Sunriver school site location change), which hold negligible farming potential, and possibilities exist to mitigate agricultural losses; and likewise, include land within the ALR, which has farming potential, maintaining a net zero loss of land form the ALR. In June 2012, the District was advised that the ALC had refused an application to exclude 16.56 hectares of agricultural land from the ALR: 16.56 hectares which lie within the larger block of land bounded by Grant, Gateway and West Coast Roads as referenced in action item 4.5.4 (c) and delineated on Schedule A of the OCP by a Technical Industrial Overlay. This particular application was supported by Council on the basis that 11.4 hectares of arable land would be included into the ALR in exchange for the area being removed. Although the land proposed for inclusion was in the Juan de Fuca Electoral Area, just outside of Sooke, Council felt that the proposed exclusion/inclusion was consistent with the intent of Action Item 4.5.4 (c) in the OCP that supports exclusions providing there is no “net‐loss” of agricultural land. In its May 14th decision on this exclusion application, the ALC clearly stated that it was not prepared to include properties on the basis that it would off‐set exclusion of land. The Commission also emphasized that the “Technical Industrial Centre” designation in the OCP is inconsistent with the Commission’s advice to District and it does not support the non‐farm development of these properties. Previous applications to exclude these same properties from the ALR had also been refused by the Commission. The Commission also refused an application made in 2011 to exclude other lands along Grant Road in the large block of lands with the Technical Industrial Overlay. The intent of the Technical Industrial Overlay is to identify an area for the future development of a technology park. However, all applications made by private land owners for exclusion of ALR lands with the Technical Industrial Overlay area have been refused by the Commission. To resolve this situation, there are two options. The Technical Industrial Overlay can be removed from the OCP along with the corresponding references in Action Item 4.5.4 (c). Alternatively, the District can make its own exclusion application to the ALC to have this block of land excluded from the ALR based on a demonstrated need for community development, employment and growth. An application of this nature will require meeting with the ALC and providing strong supporting arguments and rationale. Action Item 4.5.4 (d) The methodology used by BC Assessment Authority to assess farmland for taxation purposes continues to be an issue for farmers and growers through out the Province. This action item in the OCP asks Council to enter in to discussions with the BC Assessment Authority regarding the assessment of farmland. Many local governments have noted this same concern and the Province has been responding. As noted in section 2.8, four more of the Farm Assessment Review Panel recommendations will be in place for the 2013 Assessment Roll. The District should continue to be sensitive to concerns about property taxation and participate in efforts to improve how farmland is assessed. Consideration December 2012 ~ 52 ~ Page 127 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke may be given to sending a letter to Province applauding the changes made so far and asking for the continued and timely implementation of the Review Panel’s recommendations. Action 4.5.4 (f) During the public consultation process, there was no interest expressed in inventorying “at‐risk” farms. There was interest though in the second part of this action item which is the acquisition of farmland for community farm activities and agri‐tourism pilot projects. At the present time, the District is not planning to acquire additional lands for this purpose as it already owns lands suitable for agriculture, some of which are in the ALR. Not all of the existing community gardens are fully subscribed so development of existing District properties for communal gardens is not an immediate concern. In terms of agri‐tourism projects, the District can not give an unfair competitive advantage to a business but non‐profit groups may wish to approach the District with site specific proposals of this nature. Action Item 4.5.4 (i) There has been no action to date in creating a recurring $10,000 food security reserve fund for community gardens and other high priority food security initiatives. Establishing a reserve fund was raised during the public consultation process and given a moderately high priority. (See Figure Two.) At present, municipal funding for this type of initiative is being accessed through a different route. For the 2012 fiscal year, Council made contributions totaling $9,600 from its Community Grant Fund to the following groups: Sooke Food CHI $ 3,500 Fall Fair Society $ 600 Sooke Slow Food Cycle and Transition Town $ 4,500 Ladybug Garden and Greenhouse $ 1,000 Council may want to indicate whether it prefers to establish a specific reserve fund or to continue with the current approach of annual requests to the Community Grant Program to allow for more flexibility in budgeting. Action Item 4.5.4 (j) This action item recommends having a policy within the Sooke Zoning Bylaw which requires an area for food growing space or community gardens in multi‐family housing developments, including condominiums. This concept was considered to be a very high priority during the public consultation process. To some extent, the Zoning Bylaw does address this recommendation by requiring that a certain percentage of outdoor area on each multi‐family site be set aside for as an amenity area for the residents. It is up to the discretion of the developer at first, then later the residents of the complex to decide what type of “social, aesthetic, recreational or leisure” uses occur in the amenity area. However, the Zoning Bylaw does require that this amenity area be at least 6 metres in width and have a slope less than 10%. This criterion for an amenity area makes it suitable for growing food in either raised beds or the soil if it is arable. December 2012 ~ 53 ~ Page 128 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Action Items 4.5.4 (k) and 5.7.4 (b) These action items deal with producing educational material on composting, water use and soil quality and policy support on yard waste recycling. The District has been posting links to the CRD’s website which contains information on these topics. Action Item 4.5.4 (m) There was no discussion during the public process of heat recovery or for greenhouses and it was not been identified as an immediate priority. Action Item 4.5.4 (n) Although there was no discussion during the public consultation process of opening a composting facility, in the past, it has been a strategic priority of Council. Until recently, Woodside Farm was being considered as a possible site for a composting facility but now a report is being prepared on the range of options for composting in Sooke. 4.2 Other Solutions Suggested: During the public consultation process, several key themes emerged regarding ways in which the District could support agriculture by: Advocating with the CRD for a reduction in water rates for growing food or other ways to reduce the cost of municipal water to farmers or small scale market gardens. Supporting farmers in their dealings with federal and provincial government agencies. Encouraging and supporting farming models that strengthen the connections between growers and the market place. Encouraging new and innovative farming models such as cooperatives, incubator farms, allotment gardens and community based farming. Based on the review in the previous section, it appears that existing District policies, with some improvements, do satisfactorily respond to these key themes. There were however, some gaps between the District’s policies and bylaws and the suggestions and recommendations made by the public. 4.2.1 Signage Changes to the Sign Regulation Bylaw for farms were asked for, in particular, for sandwich board signs. While the current Sign Regulation Bylaw does not mention agriculture, it does fit within the definition of a commercial use for the purposes of the bylaw. Amend the bylaw to state this point would make it clear that farms outside of the Town Centre would be able to have a sandwich board sign to be placed at December 2012 ~ 54 ~ Page 129 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke the closest intersection with Highway #14 if there is no existing highway signage. In the Town Centre, business premises can have one sandwich board sign within 3 metres of the business frontage. 4.2.2 Abattoir The lack of a local abattoir is a challenge for all farmers in the CRD raising livestock and poultry. As discussed in section 2.9, changes to BC Meat Inspection Regulation have lead to the closure of most, if not all, local facilities. As the District does not regulate this matter, lobbying the provincial government for changes and supporting any regional initiatives to address this problem are the best advice that can be offered. 4.2.3 Sale of Produce on Agricultural Lands Questions were raised about only being able to sell produce from the farm on which it is grown. The definition of “Agricultural Use” in the District’s Zoning Bylaw does not allow produce to be sold other than from the property where it is grown; however, this is not necessarily the case on lands in the ALR. The ALC Act Regulations supersede local zoning bylaws and permit as an outright farm use, the sales of off‐site produce providing at least 50% of the retail sales area is limited to the sale of farm products produced on the farm on which the retail sales are taking place and the total area, both indoors and outdoors, used for the retail sales of all products does not exceed 300 m2. While the sale of off‐site produce is restricted by the District’s Zoning Bylaw on lands outside of the ALR, as they are currently written, provincial regulations govern the origin of produce for sale on lands in the ALR. Concerns were also expressed about theft of produce from road side stands. The recommended solution was to allow small enclosed buildings instead. Providing the type of sales comply with the Zoning Bylaw and the ALC Act, an enclosed accessory building would be permitted although a variance may be required if the building was to be sited in close proximity to property line. 4.2.4 Changes to the ALC Act Changes to the ALC Act were recommended at the facilitated workshop to increase the affordability of agricultural land. One idea was to allow larger parcels to be subdivided into smaller parcel sizes subject to the registration of covenants restricting the use of land to agricultural. Another idea was to increase in the number of dwelling units permitted on a lot to allow cooperative living and “eco‐villages” on larger acreages in the ALR. Along with making the land more affordable, these suggested changes were designed to encourage full utilization of the ALR lands for agricultural purposes. Provincial legislation would need to be amended in order for the District to be able to changes to its OCP or Zoning Bylaw to facilitate these suggestions. For specific development proposals, applications can be pursuant to the ALC Act for subdivision or non‐farm use in the ALR. If the application was approved, then the District could consider a rezoning application for the same proposal. December 2012 ~ 55 ~ Page 130 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 4.2.5 Deer Management There has been a noticeable increase in the number of deer in this region and they can significant damage crops. Deer protection measures such as fencing can be expensive and are often ineffective. The CRD has taken the lead on addressing the problem by establishing an eleven member Deer Advisory Group of which two members must be from the West Shore sub‐area and three members must be commercial farmers. The consultative process is under way and public input is being invited at the present time. While most farmers will be staunch supporters of culling deer, there are other members of the public who wish to protect the deer. Respondents to the District’s on‐line survey asked for more information on deer‐proofing their gardens and crops. A link to the CRD Deer Management webpage could be provided on the District’s website. 4.2.6 Insurance Rates High insurance rates appear to be affecting farmers in a variety of ways. It is recommended that local farmers connect with provincial farming organizations to discuss the matter and lobby the insurance industry for changes. 4.2.7 Veterinary Services The workshop attendees discussed the cost of medicine and veterinary services as well as the declining number of veterinarians who work with livestock and came up with a number of creative and potential solutions. For example, the group purchase of rarely used but expensive medicines and the training and certification of a local farmer to perform basic veterinary services for other local farmers like administrating some medicines. While the District has no role to play in this matter, local farmers are encouraged to continue this dialogue to flesh out and implement viable solutions. 4.2.8 Long Term Leases Presently, the Province defines any land lease agreement longer than three years in duration as de facto subdivisions so the leases must comply with local zoning bylaws. Furthermore, if the land is in the ALR, permission from the ALC is required first. Without long term tenure, tenant farmers are discouraged from investing in and improving leased lands. The workshop attendees felt that this inability to obtain longer term leases coupled with the large minimum lot size requirements in agricultural zones is causing arable farm land to sit idle or be used for forage crops. To encourage greater investment in developing the agricultural land base, the District could offer assistance by lobbying the province to increase the length of tenure for leases of farmland without the lease areas having to comply with subdivision regulations December 2012 ~ 56 ~ Page 131 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 4.2.9 Marketing A number of recommendations and suggestions were made during the public process regarding marketing. Topics such as branding, advertising and accessing new markets were all mentioned. Marketing of a product is instrumental to its economic success. By improving contacts with the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Committee and other local marketing organizations, local farmers can become more aware and involved with local marketing initiatives. Farmers can also investigate provincial programs that support marketing such as the Islands Agri‐Food Initiative described in section 2.3 of this report. 4.2.10 Agri‐Tourism Tourism is part of the local economy. While, there are several agri‐tourism operations in the CRD, there are none in Sooke. Changes in 2002 to the ALC Act Regulations designated agri‐tourism as a permitted use on ALR lands providing the land is assessed as farmland and the uses are temporary and seasonal. On‐site agricultural products must be promoted. These regulations supersede local bylaws. December 2012 ~ 57 ~ Page 132 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Often considered as agri‐tourism, bed & breakfast operations are treated differently the ALC Act Regulations in that they are subject to local government bylaws and a limit of 4 bedrooms or less has been applied. The District’s Zoning Bylaw is supportive of the ALC Act Regulations by permitting bed and breakfast operations in all of its agricultural zones. 4.2.11 Planning for Community Based Agriculture An important distinction was made evident during the preparation of this plan. Along with traditional farms, there are a growing number of non‐traditional approaches to growing food, sometimes, referred to as “urban agriculture” or “community based agriculture”. In urbanized area, people are increasingly growing food in their backyards, on their balconies and in allotment gardens. They are growing food for personal consumption, to give to family and friends as well as selling it locally. The on‐line survey conducted by the District indicated that 100% of the respondents give food to family and friends. There are a number of barriers to agriculture in urbanized areas. There is no provision for agricultural water rates for these smaller sized parcels as they are not classed as farmland for property taxation purposes. The parcel size sizes are often too small to be able to have gross sales of $10,000 in order to be assessed as farmland and receive the corresponding tax relief. The proximity of neighbours can lead to nuisance complaints about smells, noise and unsightliness. Land costs are expensive so there is no way to consolidate adjacent properties to increase the area in production. Specifically mentioning gardening and the growing of food in the Zoning Bylaw as a permitted use anywhere in Sooke indicates strong support by the District for community based agriculture and provides the flexibility needed for the development of less traditional approaches needed to farm in urban areas. December 2012 ~ 58 ~ Page 133 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke SECTION FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS Based on the public consultation process and further research by staff, a list of action items has been developed and sorted by suggested timing for implementation. 5.1 Action Items From Agricultural Plan SHORT TERM (Less than six months) 5.1.1 Decide which of the two options presented in this report for addressing ALC’s comments regarding the Technical Industrial Overlay shown over ALR lands on Schedule ” A” of the OCP and the references in Action Item 4.5.4 (c) to the area bounded by Gatewood, Grant and West Coast Road to pursue. 5.1.2 Examine ways in which the District can support the Sooke Country Market and capitalize on the social and economic benefits associated with the Market by assigning a staff member to consult with the Sooke Country Market Association and vendors and prepare a report on specific ways that the District can support the Market. Given the tourism and economic benefits of farmers’ markets, staff should also consult with the Chamber of Commerce, the District of Sooke Economic Development Commission and Sooke Food‐CHI when preparing this report. 5.1.3 Provide a link on the District’s website to the CRD’s webpage containing information on Deer Management. MEDIUM TERM (Six months to Two Years) 5.1.4 For future budget years, evaluate ways in which the District can provide funding or in‐kind support to community gardens and education programs for yard waste. 5.1.5 Investigate the merits of establishing of a $10,000 reserve fund for local food security initiatives as compared to the current approach of funding these types of programs through the Community Grants fund. 5.1.6 Change the Sign Regulation Bylaw to clarify how the bylaw applies to agricultural operations and ensuring sandwich board signs are permitted for farm gate sales. 5.1.7 Develop a strategy on how to increase the profile of agriculture and food security with Council and its Committees. 5.1.8 Consider adopting the CRD’s model Pesticide Control Bylaw. December 2012 ~ 59 ~ Page 134 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 5.1.9 Discuss the creation of an Agricultural Advisory Commission and including consideration of other options for representation and dialogue such as membership on the Peninsula Agricultural Commission. ON‐GOING AND LONGER TERM 5.1.10 Continue investigating opportunities for local composting. 5.1.11 Lobby senior government for legislative changes to further reduce water costs for agricultural purposes, increasing the length of land leases and improvements to the process for assessing farmland for taxation purposes. 5.1.12 Lobby the Juan de Fuca Water Commission and the CRD for reductions in water costs for agricultural purposes including for produce grown on residential lots and in community gardens. 5.1.13 Take action on and be receptive to innovative approaches to increasing utilization of farmland for agricultural use. 5.2 Conclusions A strong foundation for local food security and agriculture has been laid by the policies in the OCP, changes to the zoning bylaw and the dedication and efforts of community members and organizations. One of the most important roles that the District can play in building on these assets is to be receptive to proposals coming forward to advance agriculture in Sooke. The public’s understanding of the farming community and an appreciation of the importance of it to Sooke and local food security can be enhanced by raising the profile of agriculture through representation on committees, education, marketing, holding events and advertising successes. It is important that the District demonstrate leadership and commitment through community‐based actions and support of agricultural production. December 2012 ~ 60 ~ Page 135 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke APPENDIX A: Agricultural Policies from the District of Sooke OCP, 2010 Section 4.5 Agriculture and Food Security 4.5.3 POLICIES a. Support all uses of land within the ALR that are in accordance with the Agricultural Land Commission Act, BC Regulation 171/2002 and Orders of the Agricultural Land Commission.; b. Support the objectives of the Agricultural Land Commission and encourage the preservation of lands which have for farming capability and suitability; c. Support ongoing communication with the Agricultural Land Commission as to the OCP’s proposed ALR land exclusions and inclusions; d. Support the provision of allotment gardens and backyard produce gardens; Eliminate contamination of the Sooke Harbour and Basin in order to re‐establish the local shellfish industry; f. Encourage the re‐establishment of a flushing channel through Goodridge Peninsula to aid in the flushing of Coopers Cove; g. Support and expand the farmers’ market in Sooke; h. Support the expansion of local food organizations including the Sooke Food CHI organization and a community focused agricultural forum; i. Encourage “organic intensive agricultural” and other sustainable farming activities on arable lands both in and not within the ALR; j. Ensure sufficient buffers, including roads and right‐of‐ways, between agricultural lands and adjacent, non‐agricultural properties; use of ‘best practices’ guides from the ALC should be considered during the planning or development processes, e.g. Ministry of Agriculture and Land's Guide to Edge Planning and Ministry of Agriculture and Land's Guide to Using and Developing Trails in Farm and Ranching Areas; k. Support organic gardening and agriculture; l. Support and implement, where possible, recommendations contained within Vancouver Island Health Authority’s Community Food Action Initiative by Food Community Health Initiative (CHI): A Food Strategy for the Sooke Region; m. Collaborate with farmers’/growers’ associations when creating or amending bylaws affecting farmers; n. Support and encourage educational workshops that provide food production awareness and preservation techniques; o. Encourage local farming, and investigate economic incentives and diversified use of ALR lands, while maintaining and protecting the intent of ALR lands; p. Encourage organic pesticide use for farming, agriculture, animal husbandry and landscaping use within the District of Sooke by 2011 through the use of integrated pest management; q. Collaborate with the Provincial Government with regard to reducing and eliminating “red tape” and restrictions on growing local food, raising and slaughtering animals for consumption and the sale of local food products, including animal or meat products. The District of Sooke will not condone current sale of meats or food products that are contrary to the Public Heath Act and the Food Safety Act; and r. Where feasible, support transition of pocket parks to community gardens. December 2012 ~ 61 ~ Page 136 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke 4.5.4 ACTION ITEMS a. Develop a Sooke Agricultural Plan that would provide a detailed review of opportunities and constraints in regards to agriculturally designated lands, farmed but non‐designated lands, and which will provide an analysis of all other lands in the District of Sooke for either inclusion or exclusion into/from the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR); b. Create a Sooke/ALC Agricultural Land Reserve Advisory Committee to aid in the development and implementation of the Sooke Agricultural Plan; c. Negotiate and explore all possibilities with the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) for the exclusion of land from the ALR which is vital to the strategic development of Sooke (e.g. Technical Industrial overlay designated area; properties located east of Maple Avenue in the block bounded by Grant, Gatewood and West Coast Roads; Sunriver school site location change), which hold negligible farming potential, and possibilities exist to mitigate agricultural losses; and likewise, include land within the ALR, which has farming potential, maintaining a net zero loss of land from the ALR; d. Enter into negotiations/discussion with British Columbia Assessment Authority regarding amending the classification system of farm lands and associated taxation; e. Create and implement a food action plan as identified through the Food CHI: A Food Strategy for the Region Final Report (July 2008); f. Create an inventory of at‐risk farms in Sooke and consider the acquisition of farmland for community farm activities and agri‐tourism pilot projects; g. Allow use of ancillary/accessory agriculture on single family residential lots and ensure the Zoning Bylaw and Sooke/private covenants, allow for home gardening on single family residential lots; h. Designate land for the location of a farmers’ market, either temporary, seasonal or permanent, for a street farm market with consideration given to the provision of potable water and sewer facilities if there is preparation of food on site; i. Create a recurring $10,000 food security reserve fund to help fund and create community gardens and other food security initiatives; j. Consider policy within the Sooke Zoning Bylaw to implement an appropriate minimum on‐site or off‐ site requirement for food growing space or community garden based on proposed gross floor area for condominium development and multi‐family projects; k. Create educational material and policy support for implementing yard and garden waste recycling program for appropriate land uses and provide educational material for the public regarding composting, water use, soil quality, etc.; l. Inventory existing small park areas to verify and target pocket parks as areas in neighbourhoods that could be used for community gardens and incorporated into the ALR if necessary; m. Encourage the feasibility for heat recovery, specifically for greenhouses; and n. Open a Sooke composting facility making it “bear smart” in its design and function. December 2012 ~ 62 ~ Page 137 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Section 5.7 Land Use Designations – Agriculture 5.7.3 POLICIES a. Associate and implement the “Agriculture and Food Security” section of this document on Agriculture designated properties; b. Encourage “organic intensive agricultural” and other sustainable farming activities on arable lands both in and not within the ALR; c. Consider District controlled water distribution for purposes of food security; d. Ensure sufficient buffers, including roads and right‐of‐ways, between agricultural lands and adjacent, non‐agricultural properties; use of ‘best practices’ guides from the ALC should be considered during the planning or development processes, e.g. Ministry of Agriculture and Land's Guide to Edge Planning and Ministry of Agriculture and Land's Guide to Using and Developing Trails in Farm and Ranching Areas; and e. Support organic gardening and agriculture. 5.7.4 ACTION ITEMS a. Inventory existing small park areas to review and target pocket parks as areas in neighbourhoods that could be used for community gardens and discuss with the ALC about incorporating such parks into the ALR is possible; and b. Provide educational material for the public regarding composting, water use, soil quality, etc. December 2012 ~ 63 ~ Page 138 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke APPENDIX B: Notes from Large Group Discussion at Facilitated Workshop Are there any big omissions in the current OCP? Lands in ALR are large and not sustainable because of size (fuel, labor). Approach ALC to approve smaller lots for farming, allow more homes like an eco‐village on the ALR Lands. Why is most ALR land is not being farmed? If it is not serving a purpose, then why have ALR status. Don’t see word “commercial” in front of Agriculture. What is the difference between growing personal and commercial? Should there be a policy distinction between growing food for personal and for commercial? Ban GMO crops. Create a policy supporting non GMO. Look at how we support Agriculture. We should not support pesticides etc. We should have a strong policy that says Sooke does not support chemicals. Richmond BC’s has a policy not supporting pesticide. Pesticides do not benefit the neighbors who may be organic. Buffers are important. Development in Sooke should provide a % of land to Agriculture. As population increases, agricultural land should also increase. Have education on agriculture and ALR. Promote agriculture in Sooke to generate more support. Encourage neighboring communities to enter into a memorandum of understanding. Food CHI works with everybody because then it could save time instead of going to CRD planners and Sooke planners. Need more of a food culture in Sooke. Agricultural land and food security should have more weight and strengthening the commitment when making hard decisions. District would have a voice to move up in provincial and federal government when communicating with other levels of government. Many things that affect farmers such as insurance, slaughter laws, and water which all deter farming. The District needs to help sway other organizations to change or help investigate ways to get better or adequate insurance, cheaper water costs in order to make farming more attainable and easier. Speak to higher levels of government to help reduce costs to farming. Sooke should lobby BC government to update archaic laws. Need more than one farmers market. Lots of polices say “support” but would like to see land dedicated to a farmers market and an actual plan December 2012 ~ 64 ~ Page 139 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Need more support for co operative farming. Need a Councilor to be dedicated to agriculture or to be assigned an agricultural portfolio. Developmental pressures are in Sooke. There needs to be a vehicle to have dialogue between developers and foodies. Scales of farms are so different and policies should recognize this and that all farms have different needs. Sooke should lobby government to support exemption on size of farms/animals. Need to be pro‐active. It feels like agricultural plans is a back lash action and we are behind of development. Agriculture should always be a standing item on Councils agenda and be a good practice. Need a policy on how farmers can make money. Priority of OCP Policies. Which Policies Should Council Focus On? An agricultural person needs to be involved in creating policies and should be sitting at the table (ex: Land Use Committee) Policy 4.5.3(a) Need to lobby at higher levels. Sustainability – land in ALR not being used. ALR rules do not seem to be working and these rules should be changed because times have changed. The District of Sooke should lobby the ALC. Policy 4.5.3(l) Have a policy first before going to the ALC Policy 4.5.3(o) 5 people agreed this policy is a priority. It should include different models. Policy 4.5.3(q) 5 people agreed this policy is a priority Policy 4.5.3(b) 3 people agreed this policy is a priority Policy 4.5.3(p) Strengthen and include non GMO in this policy Policy 4.5.3(c) Priority Policy 4.5.3(h) 3 people agreed this policy is a priority. Get a big bang for buck when working with Food CHI. Avoid red tape. Put an Agricultural Advisory Committee together after Ag plan is endorsed. Policy 4.5.3(g) 4 people agreed this policy is important Policy 4.5.3(m) Ag Advisory Committee. Could be strengthened. Food CHI’s study help do this. December 2012 ~ 65 ~ Page 140 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke APPENDIX C: Notes from Small Focus Groups at Facilitated Workshop SUSTAINABILITY Creative zoning to support farmers No longer so many traditional family farms, we need to adapt to changing dynamics How to pass on value of farm land and the farm business? How do farmers get their dollars out? Since less family based farms, we need groups /networks to support farmers One model is to chop up 100 acre parcels into 5 and 10 acre parcels with a covenant registered on them so the land can only be used for food production (Dangerous) What about farm coops and farm trusts? Sponsor a workshop on succession planning Inform wider community of the value of farming Supportive farm community but the community as a whole is not supportive of agriculture (Disagree – the community doesn’t know enough about farming. Education of the public is what is needed.) Larger parcels which will work for larger groups, for example, Eco‐village. Large parcels are too expensive for one family. Incubator farms. Is there anyway that you could have private allotment gardens. (You can use my front yard to grow things.) Long term leases (issues) Cooperative farming Farms on municipal land like the one on Haliburton in Saanich although having people live on the farm is ideal. (Use John Phillips Park for a farm and the farmers’ market.0 Alternative models Sustain interest in young people Farming college – teaching people to farm How can farmers make a go of it? (Never) Chamber of Commerce interface Laws not keeping up with what is happening in farming community If you retire, tax emption should continue Cost of food is real cost avoid subsidies Local food processing availability is essential to farm economic sustainability Need local abattoirs/local food inspector allowing easier access Get ride of unnecessary and cumbersome regulations Change tax structure around farming Agri‐farming is shutting out small farms – small farmers should pay less taxes Lobby the Province for refundable tax credit for farmers Have veterinarian experience available to farmers either through the training of farmers, sharing costs of expensive medicines or have veterantiary technician that can do more (administer shots, etc.) There are problems with no large animal vets locally. There are insurance issues for vets who treat large animals. December 2012 ~ 66 ~ Page 141 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke Farmers need to make a living. There should be a stipend for farmers who grow certain foods. No increase in taxes though as a result of supporting farmers. Change tax laws to accommodate changes. Encourage pollination through banning of herbicides and pesticides. Can wells be used to off‐set water costs? Cisterns. In order to sustain farms, we need to make it easier for farmers to sells their products. If farmers can make a living at farming then, the children may be more wiling to stay in the industry. Need to mentor/pass on knowledge. Sharing access to commercial kitchen to allow for canning, etc. for sale December 2012 ~ 67 ~ Page 142 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke FARM LAND AVAILABLITY Make possible for groups of people on ALR land to live and farm (Coop is an example.) Special use permit through ALR has to be perpetuating. Section 219 covenant not permitting any use but agriculture. What about cluster housing with an agriculture component? The remainder could be put in the ALR Concept of Farmland Trust Concern – Is ALR land Open Space? In terms of agriculture, allow more flexibility in terms of ALR land use. Live at farm Don’t think of farm/ALR Land as real estate. Managed “Commons”. Learn how to act cooperatively to maintain agricultural land, food security, livability Don’t be afraid of the market. Acquire Ag land as a common property resource, e.g. water is a common property resource Have farms as teaching, working farms. Incubator farms. Demonstration Farms Farm School internships. Adjust the tax base for farmland in production. Make lot line adjustments to consolidate farmland easier. A lot of farmland is available and can be used. Remove some of the barriers to using it. The land is already there and the OCP allows it to be used. Encourage people to use it. Change the culture to education people to go to a food‐growing culture from a consumptive culture. District to use John Phillips Park as market and working farm. Have a farmer lease it as a working farm. Linking land and farmers. Land owner to farmer or farmer to farmer network. Encouraging linking useable lands for farming. Teach school students how to grow food; encourage school gardens in all schools. For example, Which School District has the best garden? Contests. Re‐skilling workshops on how to grow food, prepare it, preserve it. Reduce cost of farming land by lowering water rates. Allow land owner to have tax credit incentive to permit other to farm their land or a portion. Grow food in parks. Winter gardens in schools. December 2012 ~ 68 ~ Page 143 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke SUPPORTIVE POLICY Lobby all to reduce ALR lot sizes. Below current minimum lot sizes. (Assumed 40 acres) Allow more than two houses on ALR Land Stipulate $ of production that must come off the land to discourage horse hobby farms. Create dual water rate – one for agriculture. Review existing policies to create favour to agriculture. Give Agricultural rates to farm‐assessed properties. Create tax incentives that encourage water collection. Make Sooke District a cosmetic herbicide and pesticide free zone. Make violations expensive. Just pesticide, not herbicide, free. Need for definitions of herbicides and pesticides. Establish a formula that links development of housing to an area of agricultural production. Lobby Province and UBCM to make an exemption for small farms for animal slaughter. Buyer beware as before. Create bylaws that encourage individuals to have choice in the products they consume. Sooke declare itself GMO free. Land use committee of the District of Sooke must include agricultural representation. Create a Sooke region agriculture committee to advice on creation of all bylaws. Allow large land holders outside of ALR, who farm, to make additional income in other creative ways, not currently allowed (parity with ALR) Have a District of Sooke specific reduction of taxation on “credible” farms (BC Assessment criteria) Policy developer not just providing land for allotment gardens, but be compelled to develop the garden at their expense to defined standards. Create a bylaw that compels leaving topsoil on land that is developed. Recognize importance of farming and need for farming on non‐ALR lands in District documents and policies. Create policies that encourage “Group” farming. Develop policy that supports long‐term leases on agricultural land, ALR & non‐ALR. District of Sooke should actively lobby for this. Need to review zoning bylaws to confirm they are strong and clear enough to support small scale agriculture. (RU3 zone). People who “farm” only horses should not be given farm tax exemption. Sooke should promote policies that give Sooke more autonomy. In density bonusing situations, the remaining land should be placed in the ALR December 2012 ~ 69 ~ Page 144 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke CONSUMER ACCESS FARMERS MARKET Find a more permanent location Current location in parking lot by thrift store not adequate Limitations to growth of market in current location Could have multiple locations at different times of day Location of market in the downtown core is vital marriage between Ag & business Market must have: washroom w/ running water, parking for vehicles and bikes, electricity, room for growth, storage on site, functioning VIHA approved kitchen Market must be accessible to everyone, needs to be highly visible It would be nice to have covered areas to work towards an all season farmers market Market study on how many people use the market Beneficial to sustain market throughout the year (crafts, food etc) “St. Lawrence Market” in Toronto is an all year market Branding for farmers market. Example: paint sunflowers on the road Allow a community table at the market Possible locations – Woodside Farm, John Phillips Park (accessible), old Casa Maria property, Community Hall (Agriculture Lane), future downtown of Sooke Have grocery stores carry more local food. Farmers need to talk to them. Western Foods is interested in selling local. What are grocery store regulations around selling local? There should be flexibility to carry seasonal food. What volume of food does a grocery store require? Grocery stores could promote local food through campaigns such as 1 week of local food in store. Insurance needs to not be a barrier! PROMOTIONS Create an interactive visual farm website. Could be a directory to buying local food/animals Agriculture history in Sooke. Map out the history. Visual promotions. Tool to excite people about farming and to let people know what was farmed on their land. Collaboration with the District, the CRD, community groups and electoral groups in promoting agriculture Buy local campaign – advertise in local paper Promote Sooke as food secure. “Food Secure” may not be the right word for Sooke. Rethink. Branding. Make growing food a priority Beneficial for the District to promote Sooke as non GMO and chemical free. Goats and sheep can replace chemical use. Food Trails – Branding/Promotion. Have same logo as the farmers market logo (ex: sunflower) District should coordinate/interface with Chamber of Commerce website Promote agri‐tourism Have an Information Centre, a welcome to Sooke basket that tells you about where to buy local beef, local food. December 2012 ~ 70 ~ Page 145 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke APPENDIX D: Tabulation of Results from On‐line Survey 1. Do you farm land in Sooke? This includes backyard gardens Yes 81.3% No 18.8% 2. Is the land you farm in the ALR? Yes 13.6% No 86.4%19 3. If you answered ‘Yes’ to Question 1, do you: Grow only food for your own use in and out‐of‐season 92.3% Grow food to give to friends & family 100.0% Grow food to sell commercially 44.4% Sell at the Sooke Farmer’s Market 55.6% 4. Are products you grow/sell available at the farm gate? Yes 36.8% No 63.2% 5. If you grow food for your own use is it enough to use/put‐up to last the year? Yes 42.9% No 57.1% 6. Is the amount of food you sell enough to pay for the expense of growing it? Yes 45.0% No 55.0% 7. Do you believe growing food in the District is important to residents of Sooke? Yes 95.7% No 4.3% 8. Do you buy food from farms or producers located in Sooke? Yes 91.3% No 8.7% 9. Where do you buy local food in Sooke? At the farm gate 70.6% Through a Community Supported Agriculture program 22.2% At the Sooke Farmer’s Market 90.5% By pre‐arranged sale with the farmer 72.2% 10. What kind of food do you buy? Fruit 61.9% Berries 52.4% Vegetables 100.0% Eggs 66.7% Milk 19.0% Jam, preserves, etc. 42.9% 11. Why do you buy food locally? Freshness 81.8% Organically grown 77.3% Know the farmer 72.7% Better for the environment 86.4% Nostalgia 13.6% Support for local farmer/business 95.5% 12. If you were given the opportunity to buy more food locally would you? Yes 100.0% No .0%0 13. Would you like to see more local products available in Sooke grocery stores? Yes 95.7% No 4.3% 14. Would you like to learn more about: (check as many boxes as you want): Growing your own food at home 50.0% Allotment/community gardens 31.3% What you can grow in Sooke 62.5% Buying from local producers 62.5% Creating a food garden at home 31.3% Improving your home food garden 68.8% December 2012 ~ 71 ~ Page 146 of 178 COMMUNITY ROOTS – An Agricultural Plan for Sooke REFERENCES: National Atlas of Canada, 5th Edition, Geographical Services Directorate, Energy, Mines and Resources Canada, 1981. Life on the Land in Sooke’s Midlife from the memoirs of Maywell Wickheim, 2011. The Sooke Story – The History and the Heartbeat – Sooke Region Museum – 1999. 101 Historical Buildings of the Sooke Region, Sooke Region Historical Society and Sooke Region Historical Book Committee, 1985. A Sustainable Development Strategy for the District of Sooke. HB Lanarc for the District of Sooke. July 2006 Food Chi: A food Strategy for the Sooke Region. Final Report. Prepared for Vancouver Island Health Authority’s Community Food Action Initiative by Shooke Food CHI. July 2008. Sooke Region Food CHI Farmer2Farmer Network Final Report, April 30, 2012. December 2012 ~ 72 ~ Page 147 of 178 September 10, 2012 Regular Council Meeting Re: 2012 Sooke Agricultural Plan RA-1 District of Sooke Agricultural Plan MOVED and seconded to adopt the District of Sooke Agricultural Plan and provide staff comments on Section Five: Conclusions and Next Steps; AND FURTHER direct staff to initiate a discussion of Conclusion 5.1.1 of the Agricultural Plan with staff from the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) to resolve conflicts between the Official Community Plan (OCP) and ALR requirements CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY Page 148 of 178 Poverty Reduction Planning - Grant Application RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council support a grant application to UBCM's Poverty Reduction Planning & Action Program for up to $25,000 to create a Food Security Strategy that provides actionable items at the local level to reduce poverty, promote community inclusion, and become a more food secure community; and THAT Council direct staff to provide overall grant management. Report Summary: The purpose of this project is to provide a local poverty reduction framework in the context of food security, and gives an opportunity for community service providers and people with lived-experience to engage with the District on local poverty issues and solutions. Previous Council Action: In 2019, the District prepared strategic documents related to childcare needs, local economic analysis and housing needs in the community, and is currently preparing master plans related to Parks, Trails and Transportation. A particular lens on poverty reduction and food security has not yet been undertaken by the District, which will provide additional strategic information in the context of the Official Community Plan Review beginning this year. Report: The Poverty Reduction Planning and Action program was established to support local governments in reducing poverty at the local level and to support the Province's poverty reduction strategy. Under this program, the District is eligible for up to $25,000, which will cover 100% of the project costs. The project will create a poverty reduction strategy with a focus on food security, and the hope is that it will involve key service providers in the community and find solutions to address local issues.(Phase 1 Funding) If the District is successful in obtaining grant funding and producing a Poverty Reduction Strategy on Food Security, the District will then be eligible to apply for Phase 2 funding (up to $50,000). Phase 2 funding will support a project or program identified in the strategy that helps reduce poverty in the community. The intention is to engage with local organizations and service providers, as well as community members who are experiencing or have experienced poverty. The work will be completed in partnership with the Sooke Region Communities Health Network Planning & Development File No. 1855-20 - February 24, 2020 - RPT -2020-0028 Page 149 of 178 (SRCHN) who has an existing service agreement with the District of Sooke, as well as established connections to many different organizations locally. SRCHN also has established working relationships with numerous provincial agencies including Island Health and the School District, that will be integral to a successful process and final product. In order to make application for the grant, a Council Resolution indicating support for the project and willingness to provide overall grant management, must be included in the grant application, which is due February 28, 2020. Budget/Financial Impacts: The proposed project will be entirely covered by the grant, and no matching funds are required. The District will be eligible for future funding up to $50,000 under Phase 2 of this stream once Phase 1 of the project is complete. Strategic Relevance: • Demonstrate leadership in climate action - Promote food security at individual and community levels Approved by Raechel Gray, Depute Director of Financial Services Approved - 20 Feb 2020 Carolyn Mushata, Corporate Officer Approved - 20 Feb 2020 Norm McInnis, Chief Administrative Officer Approved - 20 Feb 2020 Planning & Development File No. 1855-20 - February 24, 2020 - RPT -2020-0028 Page 150 of 178 Growing Together CRD campaign: can you please let your residents know? PRESS RELEASE APRIL 24, 2020 Growing Together -Safely Apart The Good Food Network launches Capital Region-wide “Growing Together” Initiative to get residents growing their own food EMAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: growingfood-together.com FACEBOOK: @growing.together.apart INSTAGRAM: @growing.together.apart #growingtogetherfromadistance COVID-19 may have us separated, but the Growing Together initiative says we can still support one another to grow our own food Capital Region, BC – Today, a group of food related organizations in the CRD launched their initiative called Growing Together. Their goal? to encourage and support residents throughout the Capital Region to grow their own food— in converted lawns, raised beds, pots, patios or windowsills. “We know lots of people are trying growing food for the very first time, and we know that they may also be out of work, and facing challenges. We want to help them be successful”, says Linda Geggie, “What is more hopeful than growing a garden in these times?” Geggie is Executive Director of the non-profit CRFAIR, that serves as the backbone of the regional food network. CRFAIR is working “as quarterback” to coordinate all participating organizations behind the initiative. Says Geggie: “Growing Together is a campaign that is working to provide knowledge, mentors, connections, tools and support. It is designed to get folks outside, get their hands in the dirt, and there are lots of positive benefits for health and well being in doing that”. The landing page for the Growing Together initiative is their website growingfood-together.com, which will be ‘Grand Central Station” to access educational videos and resources, mentorship, links to sourcing seeds, plants and everything you might need to garden and grow food. There are also special supports in place for folks who might need an extra hand through community projects that provide everything from Page 151 of 178 plant starts to whole garden kits. This site also provides links to volunteer, mentor, or donate to support the program. The list of participating local food organisations is long and growing, including well-known agencies such as the Compost Education Center, the Food Eco District, Growing Chefs, the Public Health Association of BC, and Lifecycles Project Society. For years now, these groups and many others have been collaborating as the Good Food Network to ensure that their efforts to build a robust place based food system are coordinated and efficient. When the COVID-19 pandemic developed, the Good Food Network realized it had a significant role to play. Says Geggie, “Why not mobilize this network? The Growing Together initiative is a way to get everyone pulling together in a united effort”. Growing Chefs is one participating organization. For eight years, they have run hands-on programs in elementary schools, teaching kids about cooking and gardening in the classroom. Typically Growing Chefs would be in classrooms right now. Instead, they are working to bring their lessons online. “We will be sharing all of our video content as part of the Growing Together initiative” says Christine Van Poelgeest, Program Assistant for the Growing Chefs Victoria program. “So far this marks our fourth week of releasing our content online. I’m so proud of our team’s willingness and energy to jump into action”. Participating organisations like Growing Chefs, LifeCycles and the Youth Food Network will all be supporting youth to get their hands dirty through this initiative. The secret to a good garden is good soil, and the Compost Education Center is part of the Growing Together team to ensure gardeners are building good compost and soil. “Right now, people are paying attention. They’re curious, they’re asking “how do you compost?” says Cara Gibson, Executive Director of the Victoria Compost Education Center. “Where else can you get something from nothing? With composting, you start with kitchen scraps, put them all together, do a bit of turning, and in a few weeks or months you have rich, organic, life giving compost”, says Gibson. As with Growing Chefs, the Compost Education Centre’s typical adult workshops and school programming have moved online. Each of these initiatives also hope to offer some educational videos and resources to the Growing Together clearinghouse. So far, the positive response has been overwhelming, with a few notable exceptions. Says Gibson: “There’s a lot of discussion right now about beginning gardeners growing their own food. And it’s interesting to see some discouraging comments that are surfacing in response to this movement. Comments like ‘Well, the deer are going to eat all your food”. Says Gibson: “I think it’s important to get in front of that kind of messaging, to counter some of this pessimism. We need to empower everyone across our whole community to grow food. Gardeners are the first to know that stuff happens (like deer), but Page 152 of 178 we keep at it, go forward, and supports are in place. I don’t want to sound alarm bells, but if people who work in the fields get ill, then they can’t work. And if there are people who aren’t working at their usual jobs right now, how can we mobilize them to grow their own food?”. Horticultural therapist Jen Rashleigh agrees. She has helped many brand new gardeners grow food gardens, and her message is simple: “there is a simple truth that we often overlook: nature wants to grow! If you think about annual vegetables, they have just one short growing season for their entire life cycle: their seed needs to sprout, push through soil, grow a stem and leaves, form flowers, set fruit, and finally ripen their seed. And they have to do all of that in one short growing season. Imagine that!” “So, if you plant seeds a bit early? Don’t despair...just start again. If chickens come and rip up all your beautiful new pea starts (which they did in my garden), you know what? You plant them again”. Some folks think that we should just leave growing to the farmers, but Robin Tunnicliffe of Saanich Organics disagrees: “People that try to grow food are our best customers, because they get a sense of the real value of food and also become our biggest advocates.” Geggie says they have been getting some great suggestions for slogans, like Stay Calm and Grow Food, or Garden Together, six feet apart! To learn more about the initiative check out growingfood-together.com. A huge thank you to the Victoria Foundation, the Jawl Foundation, and the Times Colonist Christmas Fund for the generous support through the Rapid Relief Fund. PRESS CONTACT: Em Bellinger, CRFAIR Communications and Engagement Coordinator PHONE: 778-678-8450 EMAIL: [email protected] Page 153 of 178 BACKGROUNDER INFO FULL INTERVIEWS BELOW Full list of partner organizations will be available next week. Communications Primer Welcome to this short primer on the Growing Together campaign, launching this Friday, April 24th. This sheet explains our shared strategy, the key messages of the Growing Together campaign, and the key ways that we will reach the public. WHAT is the Growing Together Initiative? Growing Together aims to support residents across the region to grow their own food. A number of food -focussed organizations and individuals are working together towards one shared, enthusiastic goal: to motivate and enable people across the CRD to plant, harvest and distribute as much fresh food as possible over the next six months. We can do this! Growing our own food has a huge positive impact in so many different ways. By increasing the capacity and success of people growing their own food, we build long term resiliency, greater food literacy, and greater local food security. Growing Food Together promotes community connectedness, mental health, physical exercise and well being. Growing Together is something we can do on our own, with our families, in pots or in backyards….and it is positive, productive and creates a sense of abundance. What’s not to love about it? WHO are We? And WHY this Campaign? The Good Food Network is a network of organizations from across the Victoria capital region (Coast Salish territories) working to create a robust local food system. As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds, we are coming together to discuss how best to support our communities. How could we best support people to provide food for themselves and their families, and also promote health, connectedness, wellbeing? This was the spark behind Growing Together. Page 154 of 178 What does the Growing Together Initiative offer? The collaborating partner organisations offer a lot of food-growing expertise and support in many different neighbourhoods and sectors within the Capital Region. This is how we have organised: growingfood-together.com Our website is Growing Together’s central hub/ ‘Landing Page’ to find out what resources* and support are available to the home food grower. This is where the interested home food grower can find: ● EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES: whether you are growing on a former lawn, in pots, or on a balcony. We are here to help you grow beautiful, tasty, abundant food! ● MENTORSHIP: we are working to create efficient ways to match up mentors with those looking for assistance ● Information on WHERE TO ACCESS RESOURCES: seeds, amendments, plant starts, garden kits, etc ● Additional supports and programs for VULNERABLE POPULATIONS ● LINKS TO PARTNERING ORGANISATIONS, their websites and facebook pages ● An INSTAGRAM to share peoples gardens, their success’ and challenges! ● WAYS TO GET INVOLVED: Volunteer, mentor, donate! ~these areas of involvement are still being developed~ *resources are still being developed and added so keep checking back Our key messages? Let’s Grow Together (at a safe distance). You can do this! Your family can do this! We’ve got your back! COVID-19 may have us separated, but we can still support one another to grow our own food! In a time of uncertainty, it is empowering, grounding & uplifting to grow food to feed ourselves and those we live with. Page 155 of 178 FULL INTERVIEWS Linda Geggie Executive Director of CR-FAIR (Capital Region Food and Agricultural Initiatives Roundtable) Wednesday April 23, 2020 Why did we start the Growing Together initiative? People are really thinking about food and food security, about what they can do. And they are at home right now, and have the opportunity to learn something new, to dig in the dirt. And we know that there is such a positive benefit that comes with watching seeing seeds grow, with connecting with the land. We have a huge network of organizations and knowledge: people who are gardeners and farmers who want to help people be successful. Why not mobilize this network? The Growing Together campaign is a way to mobilize everyone in a united effort. We know lots of people are trying gardening for the very first time, growing food, and we know that they may be out of work as well and facing challenges. We want them to help them be successful. Growing Together is a campaign that is working to provide knowledge, mentors, connections, tools and support. What is CR-FAIR? We promote healthy and sustainable food systems, health and well-being. We have been around working on food systems in the Capital Region for about two decades and have worked to develop a network of over 200 organizations called the Good Food Network. What is our role with the Growing Together campaign? We are the quarterback! We are helping to coordinate all the organisations in the Good Food Network that are behind this initiative. Robin Tunnicliffe Farmer, Sea Bluff Farm, Metchosin “People that try to grow food or our best customers because they get a sense of the real value of food and also become our biggest advocates.” Page 156 of 178 Christine Van Poelgeest Program Assistant for the Growing Chefs Victoria program Wednesday April 24, 2020 What does Growing Chefs do? Our primary goal is to get children engaged with the local food system in a healthy way, and to gain valuable food literacy skills. This is a time where there is so much attention on this topic. We offer hands-on programs in elementary schools, teaching kids about cooking and gardening in the classroom. The programs run three months at a time, with the same committed group of volunteers so that they build an ongoing relationship. Our volunteers consist of chefs, farmers, gardeners, and good food lovers. We teach kids the concept of Seed to Plate to Compost. We show them how to start the seed, how to grow it into food, and we teach the skills required to cook it into something that they eat. It’s really beautiful to see these skills come together. Kids grow, harvest and cook throughout the program and take home new skills to share with their parents, and they are so immensely proud of what they do. What is our role with the Growing Together campaign? Typically we would be in classrooms right now. Instead, we are working hard to bring our lessons online. We will be sharing all of our video content as part of the Growing Together initiative, and we are listed as one of the key collaborators on the growing together website. We will be sharing family friendly cooking and gardening videos. So far this marks our fourth week of releasing our content online. I’m so proud of our team’s willingness and energy to jump into action. Another area that Growing Chefs! is helping with the Growing Together campaign is in the area of mentorship and volunteer connections. That work is unfolding right now, and we are having our preliminary meeting today. This working group will coordinate mentorship opportunities for new gardeners and help redirect volunteers in the community to supporting food security and accessibility. We’re going to help new gardeners be connected with experienced gardeners through a mentorship program, we are working to get this idea off the ground with an incredible group of individuals. So we are going to be reaching out to related organizations, tapping into people who are really knowledgeable about gardening and food production. Page 157 of 178 Cara Gibson Executive Director of the Compost Education Centre Wednesday April 23, 2020 What does The Compost Education Centre do? The goal of our organization is that we are focussed on empowering people to ecological and sustainable gardening. We aim to reconnect people back to the soil beneath their feet. Because it all starts with the soil. When I started my job here, my whole family said...”Compost Education Centre??” It’s sort of taboo in our society to talk about things like decomposition. It’s an interesting hurdle that as an organization we work to overcome. And right now, people are paying attention. They’re curious, they’re asking “how do you compost?” It’s a wonderful opportunity. Normally we often just get an “eew” reaction…thinking about maggots for example! But if you think about it, compost is amazing. Where else can you get something from nothing? With composting, you start with kitchen straps, put them all together, do a bit of turning, and in a few weeks or months you have rich, organic, life giving compost. We also ask people: what things can you bring home from the grocery store and continue to sprout? There’s a whole movement happening right now called Victory Sills. People in apartments want to be connected, they want to be part of the growing too. And even though they can’t grow leeks in the garden, they’re still feeling empowered and connected by growing leeks on the windowsills. It’s so simple: you bring home a leek, cut up the white part to use it in your cooking, and then put the green remainder in water on your window cell. And it’ll start to sprout the very next day. I’m not into pandemic baking, I can’t really relate. But I am into pandemic avocado starting! My family is from Tucson Arizona, which is just a short ways north of the border with Mexico. Avocados and Tex-Mex food are pretty much staples in our house. So what if the supply chain for avocado stops? Where does my brain go?... Save the avocado pits!!! What is our role with the Growing Together campaign? The Compost Education Centre is involved in the Growing Together program by providing educational resources and oversight and creating educational videos. Our team is involved in the “Educational Programming” Working Group for Growing Together. Our typical adult workshops are going online, our school programming is also going online. Page 158 of 178 There’s a lot of discussion right now about beginning gardeners growing their own food. And it’s interesting to see some of the discouraging comments that are surfacing in response to this movement. Comments like “Well, the deer are going to eat all your food”. I think it’s important to get in front of that kind of messaging, to counter some of this negativity. What do we need to say to people to make sure that they don’t just feel that this is just a “Make Work” project? We need to empower everyone across our whole community to grow food. I don’t want to sound alarm bells, but if people who work in the fields get ill, then they can’t work. And if there are people who aren’t working right at their usual jobs right now, how can we mobilize and educate them to grow their own food? We are in a crazy reset point as a society. What are we going to do with this reset point? Jen Rashleigh Horticultural Therapist Circular Food and Farm Society I’ve encouraged many many people to start growing their gardens from scratch. They may be brand new newcomers to Canada, struggling to put down roots, learn a new language, and help their kids adapt. I also work with people who are in wheelchairs, who perhaps don’t have the use of their hands and need a volunteer to help them. Choosing to grow your own foods, to grow your own herbs, to grow your own flowers… It’s an invitation to participate in natural life cycles. And everyone can do it, because there is a simple truth that we often overlook: Nature wants to Grow! If you think about an annual vegetable, they have just one short growing season to complete their entire life cycle: their seed needs to sprout, push out of the soil, grow and create a strong stem, grow leaves to capture the sun’s energy, make flowers, be pollinated, set fruit, and finally ripen their seed. They have to do all of that in one short growing season. Imagine that! So what I’m trying to tell you is this: nature is strongly motivated to grow. If you plant seeds a bit early? Don’t despair...just start again. If chickens come and rip up all your beautiful new pea starts (which they did in my garden), you know what? You plant them again. The other wonderful, encouraging thing about gardening is that everyone knows a little bit. Some of us know a whole lot. And we love to share our knowledge, we love to show tricks, tell stories and offer advice. So yes...you can turn your 2 litre pop bottles into a growing cloche. You can indeed start seeds in egg cartons. And yes, you can grow new leeks on your windowsill! You get to be part of the wonder of life growing! Page 159 of 178 One more thing to know about nature, is that her rules are pretty clear. It’s just a matter of paying attention. If a squash plant, for example, needs full sun, that means that it needs to have the sun on its leaves for most of the day. It’s a matter of watching, and finding the right spot to guarantee its success. If the plant needs rich loose soil, it just means that you need to spend some extra time putting organic matter in the soil, and loosening it up. Each plant has a different personality, and it is a matter taking the time to get to know the needs of each plant. And the Growing Together team can help you with all that! That’s what we are here to do. Page 160 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE ZONING AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 748 A bylaw to amend Bylaw No. 600, Sooke Zoning Bylaw, 2013 for the purpose of amending the zoning on the property located at 2096 Kennedy Street from Large Lot Residential (R1) to Medium Density Multi Family 2 (RM2). The Council of the District of Sooke, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw is cited as Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 748 (600-76), 2020. 2. The parcel of land legally described as LOT A SECTION 14 SOOKE DISTRICT PLAN 27113, as shown boldly outlined and hatched on Schedule A, which is affixed to and forms part of this bylaw, is hereby rezoned from Large Lot Residential (R1) to Medium Density Multi Family 2 (RM2). 3. Bylaw No. 600, Sooke Zoning Bylaw, 2013, as amended, and Schedule A attached thereto, are also amended accordingly. READ a FIRST and SECOND time the 13th day of January, 2020. PUBLIC HEARING held the 10th day of February, 2020. READ a THIRD time the 10th day of February, 2020. APPROVED by Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure the 27th day of February, 2020. ADOPTED the __day of ____, 2020. ______Maja Tait Carolyn Mushata Mayor Corporate Officer Note: Covenant No. CA8140949 registered in LTO on April 20, 2020 Page 161 of 178 District of Sooke Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 748 (600-76) Page 2 of 2 SCHEDULE A Page 162 of 178 2020-2024 Amended Five Year Financial Plan RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council give First, Second, and Third reading to the Bylaw cited as Five Year Financial Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 785 (770-01), 2020. THAT Council adopt the bylaw cited as Five Year Financial Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 785 (770-01), 2020. Report Summary: After adopting the 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan Council requested that staff amend the plan to reduce the proposed 2020 budget increase of 4.01% down to 0%. The attached Amended 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan achieves a 0% increase for 2020. Previous Council Action: March 9, 2020 Regular Council Meeting - Council adopted the Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw. This provides the District the ability to borrow, from a financial institution, up to $6,279,806. March 31, 2020 Special Council Meeting - Council adopted the 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan. At that meeting Council requested that staff bring back a report for Council to consider potential amendments to the adopted 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan once further information and guidance was provided by the Province on supports being provided to residents, businesses and Local Governments to help deal with the effects of the Covid-19 crisis. April 14, 2020 Regular Council meeting - Council directed staff to report back on the funding requirements of the Line Items and Service Agreements included in the 2020 Budget. April 27, 2020 Regular Council Meeting- Council directed staff to bring back adjustments to the previously adopted 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan that will result in a 0% property tax increase over 2019. Report: The recently adopted 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan resulted in a 4.01% property tax increase. At the April 27, 2020 Regular Council meeting Council directed staff to bring back an amended 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan that would eliminate the Financial Services File No. 1710-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0061 Page 163 of 178 4.01% increase. The following adjustments were made to the 2020 Budget in order to achieve a 2020 property tax increase of 0%: - Community Grants $65K budget reduced to $0 - Council Travel $30K budget reduced to $15K - Canada Day $30K budget reduced to $0 - Canada Day Fireworks $3K budget reduced to $0 - Official Community Plan $50K of the $125K budget moved to 2021 - Property Maintenance $200K budget reduced to $175K - Leg. Services Summer Student $9K budget reduced to $0 - Community Safety overall budget reduced $28K through a reduction in multiple expenses - Planning, Finance, Corporate Services, GIS, Parks and Building Safety reduced their Professional Development budgets by a total of $15K - New positions hiring delayed for the Communication Co-Ordinator and Environmental Technologist until Sept/20 resulted in $65K budget reduction - Increased Investment Income budget $50K and reduced Building Permit Revenue budget $50K - Capital Project adjustments - Parks Asset Repairs reduced $50K, Vault $59K moved to 2021, Kaltasin Access to Water $35K moved to 2021; these changes enabled a $31K reduction in capital projects funded by property tax down to $89K. There are $5.1M in capital projects included in the 2020 budget. All of these adjustments resulted in a decrease in the 2020 Budget funded by Property Taxes of $336K. To reduce the effect these reductions have on the 2021 Budget, adjustments were made to the following 2021 Capital Projects that were to be funded with Property Taxes: - Website Refresh $2K removed - Transit Stops and Street Lights reduced $10K - DeMamiel Creek Bridge Crossing reduced $21K, (more funded with Reserves) - Computer Equipment reduced $5K 2021 Investment Income budget increased $50K, and 2021 new hires were deferred by 2 months. As a result of these reductions the property tax increase for 2021 is 4.75%, up 1.86% from the 2.89% in the current budget. Due to COVID-19 it is anticipated that additional financial supports may be provided by the Federal and/or Provincial Governments to Local Governments. If any financial supports are announced in 2020 staff will review and if appropriate provide an amended 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan to Council. Legal Impacts: Financial Services File No. 1710-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0061 Page 164 of 178 The Community Charter requires municipalities to adopt the Financial Plan Bylaw and Tax Rate Bylaw on or before May 14, 2020. The Financial Plan Bylaw must be adopted before the adoption of the Tax Rate Bylaw. Once adopted the Financial Plan Bylaw can be amended by Bylaw at any time. Under Ministerial Order M139, Council may adopt a bylaw on the same day that a bylaw has been given third reading. Strategic Relevance: • Build a reputable organization - Continue to manage District assets responsibly with sound financial principles and practices • Build a reputable organization - Support programs that enhance Council and staff’s health and wellbeing • Demonstrate leadership in climate action - Build additional trail infrastructure, connectivity, and amenities • Undertake public space improvements and beautification projects Attached Documents: 785 (770-01)-2020Five Year Financial Plan Amendment BL Approved by Carolyn Mushata, Corporate Officer Approved - 07 May 2020 Norm McInnis, Chief Administrative Officer Approved - 07 May 2020 Financial Services File No. 1710-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0061 Page 165 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE FIVE YEAR FINANCIAL PLAN AMENDMENT BYLAW NO. 785 A bylaw to amend the Five-Year Financial Plan for the years 2020-2024. The Council of the District of Sooke, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw is cited as Five-Year Financial Plan Amendment Bylaw No.785 (770-01), 2020. 2. Bylaw No. 770, Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw, 2020, is hereby amended by the deleting Schedules A and B and replacing them with new Schedules A and B which are attached to and form part of this bylaw. READ a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time the day of ADOPTED the day of Maja Tait Carolyn Mushata Mayor Corporate Officer Page 166 of 178 District of Sooke Bylaw No. 785 Five-Year Financial Plan Amendment (770-01) Page 2 of 4 SCHEDULE A Funding Sources 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Property Taxes 8,640,320 9,301,095 10,142,187 10,855,416 11,279,216 Parcel Taxes 2,270,481 2,327,243 2,385,424 2,445,060 3,006,686 Fees and Charges 1,823,535 1,840,866 1,843,209 1,845,564 1,938,930 Other Sources 6,845,166 6,431,695 9,295,617 6,497,490 4,679,898 Transfer from Own Funds 3,762,366 2,126,747 1,593,227 1,233,784 599,703 23,341,869 22,027,646 25,259,665 22,877,313 21,504,433 Expenditures Debt - Principal and Interest 1,071,894 1,061,156 1,000,255 1,089,189 1,089,189 Capital Expenditures 6,060,415 4,152,900 6,332,041 3,785,483 1,652,550 Transfer to Own Funds 1,687,865 1,736,538 2,173,279 1,974,193 2,026,142 Other Municipal Purposes 14,521,694 15,077,052 15,754,089 16,028,448 16,736,552 23,341,869 22,027,646 25,259,665 22,877,313 21,504,433 Page 167 of 178 District of Sooke Bylaw No. 785 Five-Year Financial Plan Amendment (770-01) Page 3 of 4 SCHEDULE B 2020 Financial Plan Statement The District of Sooke adopted Policy No. 5.5, Revenue, Tax and Budget Policy, 2008 on October 6, 2008. The policy guides the District of Sooke property tax, fees and charges, capital asset management and budget stabilization goals and objectives. Distribution of Revenues In accordance with section 165(3.1) of the Community Charter the proportion of total revenue derived from each revenue source is as follows: Proportion of funding by source Funding Source 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 % % % % % Property Taxes 37.02% 42.22% 40.15% 47.45% 52.45% Parcel Taxes 9.73% 10.57% 9.44% 10.69% 13.98% Fees and Charges 7.81% 8.36% 7.30% 8.07% 9.02% Other Sources 29.33% 29.20% 36.80% 28.40% 21.76% Transfer from Own Funds 16.12% 9.65% 6.31% 5.39% 2.79% Distribution of Property Tax Revenues The distribution of property taxes among property classes is as follows: % Property Property Class Tax Residential (1) 84.55% Utilities (2) 0.07% Light Industry (5) 0.97% Business and Other (6) 14.09% Managed Forest (7) 0.12% Non-profit-Recreation (8) 0.18% Farm (9) 0.02% Total 100.00% Page 168 of 178 District of Sooke Bylaw No. 785 Five-Year Financial Plan Amendment (770-01) Page 4 of 4 SCHEDULE B (cont’d) Permissive Tax Exemptions District of Sooke Permissive Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 684, 2017, as amended, provides a 3-year permissive tax exemption to qualifying non-profit entities for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020. District of Sooke Bylaw No. 348, Revitalization Tax Exemption Bylaw, 2008, as amended, provides a revitalization tax exemption to encourage the revitalization of the District of Sooke through the development of commercial hotel, motel or lodge facilities. No revitalization tax exemptions have been granted to date. Page 169 of 178 Page 170 of 178 2020 Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784 RECOMMENDATION: THAT Council give First, Second and Third reading to the Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020; THAT Council adopt the bylaw cited as Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020. Report Summary: The purpose of this report is to implement the 2020 tax rates for the District of Sooke. Previous Council Action: May 11, 2020 - Council amended the recently adopted 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan. Legal Impacts: As per section 197 of the Community Charter, each year, after the adoption of the Five Year Financial Plan bylaw, and before May 15, Council must impose a property value taxes for the year by establishing tax rates for: a) the municipal revenue proposed to be raised in the year from property value taxes, as provided in the five-year financial plan; and b) the amounts to be collected for the year by means of rates established by the municipality to meet its obligations in relation to another local government or other public body. Implementation of the proposed "Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020" (Appendix A) allows for the establishment of the municipal property tax rate as required to fund year 2020 of the District's Five Year Financial Plan 2020-2024. Under Ministerial Order M139, Council may adopt a bylaw on the same day that a bylaw has been given third reading Budget/Financial Impacts: The annual property tax rate bylaw must be approved on or before May 14 of each year. The proposed property taxes in the attached bylaw reflects the funds required by the 2020-2024 Five Year Financial Plan Bylaw No. 785 (770-01), 2020. Strategic Relevance: • Build a reputable organization - Continue to manage District assets responsibly with sound financial principles and practices Financial Services File No. 1820-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0063 Page 171 of 178 • Build a reputable organization - Support Council and staff with the necessary tools to provide excellent governance and customer service • Build a reputable organization - Support programs that enhance Council and staff’s health and wellbeing • Demonstrate leadership in climate action - Build additional trail infrastructure, connectivity, and amenities • Demonstrate leadership in climate action - Improve community emergency and disaster preparedness • Undertake public space improvements and beautification projects Attached Documents: 784 -Tax Rate Bylaw 2020 Approved by Carolyn Mushata, Corporate Officer Approved - 07 May 2020 Norm McInnis, Chief Administrative Officer Approved - 07 May 2020 Financial Services File No. 1820-20 - May 11, 2020 - RPT -2020-0063 Page 172 of 178 DISTRICT OF SOOKE Property Tax Rate Bylaw BYLAW NO. 784 A bylaw to impose property tax rates and property taxes for the year 2020. The Council of the District of Sooke, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw is cited as Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020. 2. Taxes are imposed for the year 2020 by imposing the following rates upon all taxable land and improvements based on the assessed value, to provide the sums required for each of the following purposes: a. the rates shown in Row A of Schedule A to this bylaw, for all general and debt purposes of the District of Sooke; b. the rates shown in Row B of Schedule A to this bylaw, to provide monies which are sufficient for the District of Sooke share of the expenses of the Vancouver Island Regional Library and for the District of Sooke share of the debts incurred for Vancouver Island Regional Library purposes according to the requisition submitted by the Vancouver Island Regional Library; c. the rates shown in Row C of Schedule A to this bylaw, to provide monies which are sufficient for the District of Sooke share of the expenses of the Capital Regional District and for the District of Sooke share of the debts incurred for Capital Regional District purposes according to the requisition submitted by the Capital Regional District Board; d. the rates shown in Row D of Schedule A to this bylaw, to provide monies which are sufficient for the District of Sooke share of the expenses of the Capital Regional Hospital District and for the District of Sooke share of debts incurred for hospital purposes according to the requisition submitted by the Capital Regional Hospital District Board; Page 173 of 178 District of Sooke Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020 e. the rate of $0.66399 per $1,000 taxable value to recover the costs of $47,451 as set out in Schedule B to this bylaw, by a local service property value tax imposed on both land and improvements within the Silver Spray Fire Protection Local Service Area under Bylaw No. 239, Silver Spray Fire Protection Local Area Service Bylaw, 2006. 3. If any section, paragraph or phrase in this bylaw is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be severed, and the remainder of this bylaw shall continue in full force and effect. READ a FIRST, SECOND and THIRD time the ____ day of ______, 2020. ADOPTED the _____ day of ______, 2020. Maja Tait Carolyn Mushata Mayor Corporate Officer Page 174 of 178 District of Sooke Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020 Schedule A (Dollars per $1,000 of taxable assessment) Recreation Light Business/ Managed Residential Utilities / Non- Farm Industry Forest Other Profit Tax Authority Class 1 Class 2 Class 5 Class 6 Class 7 Class 8 Class 9 A Municipal - General 2.39661 18.11419 14.36888 6.76635 8.39892 2.39661 2.39661 Vancouver Island Regional B 0.19231 1.45355 1.15301 0.54296 0.67396 0.19231 0.19231 Library - General C Regional District - General 0.92608 6.99955 5.55231 2.61460 3.24545 0.92608 0.92608 Regional Hospital District - D 0.19584 0.68544 0.66586 0.47981 0.58752 0.19584 0.19584 Hospital Page 175 of 178 District of Sooke Property Tax Rate Bylaw No. 784, 2020 Schedule B 2020 Property Assessments Silver Spray Fire Protection Local Service Area Total Assessed Value Fire Suppression Agreement 2020 Cost = $47,451 $71,463,551 Tax Rate per $1,000 Assessment = 0.66399 Page 176 of 178 From: President Sooke Region Chamber Dear Mayor Tait, As you know, the Sooke Region Chamber of Commerce serves the regional business community at large, both members and non-members. We provide tangible services, like the annual Business Excellence Awards, mixers, training seminars and various socials. We are also the hosts for election debates. Less tangible is the policy work and lobbying undertaken through both the BC Chamber and the Canadian Chamber; the Sooke chamber ensures that local issues are represented at the bigger tables. The Chamber has about 130 members. Proportionate to its business population and relative to other Chambers, our numbers are more than respectable (Westshore, for instance, has more than five times our business population and less than double our membership). As it has done universally, COVID-19 has kicked our feet out from under us. Our membership billing in March was for $5,000, of which we received payment for about 20%. We accept and understand that Chamber membership ranks low on the list of many competing priorities for our members and our board has determined that no members will lose membership as a result of COVID-19. We have modified membership to allow for deferral, instalments, and sliding scale. To stretch out our remaining funds, staff is on a temporary unpaid leave. Recognizing that local business survival is key to economic recovery post-COVID-19, the Chamber launched Better Buy Sooke, a website hosting multiple standalone online stores with giftcard capability. Its intent is to generate immediate cashflow to all local businesses owners, whether Chamber members or not, even while they may be closed. The effort behind this creation was gigantic and entirely volunteered and donated. It was launched in a week, and within two weeks saw over 60 local businesses sign on. It has already generated over $4,000 sales, even though the promotional phase to consumers has not yet officially launched. A recent Times Colonist article estimated that it would cost a business anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 to set up an online store; BetterBuySooke.ca has just established over 60 of these, at no cost to Sooke's business owners. That's a value of anywhere from $60,000 to $300,000 infused into our business community, directly a result of your Chamber. In addition, the Chamber's website is a one-stop information hub for all of the latest business-relevant information and support programs relating to COVID-19. We stay connected to programs made available through the network of Chambers and all levels of government and share updated information to a Zoom Room weekly meeting. Repeatedly we have heard that no one else has stepped up as much as has this Chamber. We did that entirely through volunteer donated effort. The responsiveness and problem-solving demonstrated by the Sooke Chamber during COVID-19 has been second to none. Our leadership team, our board, and our members have collectively organized to the benefit of our whole community. COVID-19 has added many challenges, and Chamber accepted the call. Even before COVID-19, 2020 began a new era of Chamber responsiveness. The Chamber spearheaded a working group of business leaders to minimize duplication of effort, set targets, maximize collaborations, and serve the business community in the most effective way. We have renewed relationships with SRTA and the Sooke Lions and continue to seek ways to partner with other Sooke organizations. Page 177 of 178 But with membership dwindling, our demise may be imminent. We understand why the District's grant program was cancelled, and with that our funding request denied, but without an income this 75+ year old Chamber will be forced to close its doors. Losing the Chamber's skills, services and websites will be a detriment to the Sooke Region. We respectfully ask that the Council consider a one-time District contribution of $16,000 to allow the Chamber to survive this crisis while continuing to serve Sooke's business community. We also request that the District reconsider restoring the historic service agreement, with newly negotiated terms agreeable to both parties. Our Chamber is an essential service in Sooke, both for our value to the community and for our connection to the bigger Chamber fabric that spreads across this province, country and world. Our response to COVID-19 has been unparalleled, and our connection to the larger Chamber network is invaluable. We want to continue this work to help rebuild Sooke's business community in our new post-COVID world. We turn to you for help. Sincerely yours, Karen C. Mason, CFP, CLU, CHS President, Sooke Region Chamber of Commerce Page 178 of 178