I Cat,,; csv 0IsLIit

Canada

\‘ancouer.

SOP

\

I

Regional

I

receipt

[on Should and

Airport.

md Interests

Canada,

Toda>

established

rele owner

Canada.

ensure

n

Pd

National Car’ada

responsible

Transport

Dear

I

Port Regiotul

P( (ireu

I

ranporr on

ancorn

June

\dtmnistrator

ransport

ransport

eli

)

Burrard

objectis

on

Young

Ros

Younu.

ant

into

\lc\ciii, Mr.

ri’”’

I!Ltchcr

S,

and

of

nerhip

a

such

there

er

I

today

including

of

safe.

Director,

“2*)

This

Airports

the

C this

am

flI3

l)istrict

Fletcher,

Canada’s

Canada

Regional

operator

anada

Regional

BC’

in

c

Street

transportation

Canada

Transports

Regional a

are

future.

n

letter

the secure,

possihalit>

Policy

can

as

of

riting

\h/

I

Ei’

the

the

earl>

S

of

Polic>

be

Programs

the

is

o

airports

towards

\

approach

Office

h’ committed

The

Mount

District

‘R

airport

to

focused

ananged

and

U\

I)irccior

Port

did that

]

I

you

phr’nc

P90s,

he

introduction 2R()

d

n

viable

NAP).

s>

an

Hardy

hen

that

of

today

\\

going landlord

(4

stem.

of

Floor

on

miormal

to

addingion

[‘act

the

at

interest

in

Port

they

\Is,

to

remain

the

mo national

hich

the

Airport.

di

principles

to

an

tic forn

d

In

a4

management

Young

\Vaddington

seek

were

(\Iaa

ing

Paci

and

efficient.

i

of

I

to

dicusaon

)94.

ard,

put

under

the

Transport

>ou. airports

regulator.

tic

\our

I

first

As

Stop:

fbrard

can

NAP

Transport

outlined

Region.

the

a

I

introduced.

interests

safe,

tin

he

stakeholder

TI!

n

and

system

or sole

regarding

also

a

ite

ith

Canada’s

cached

a

secure

Although

at

in

in

on

ision

you

respect

responsibiliR

Canada

initiated

the

n

and

the

nership

that

ailing

to

folion

hm

and

strategy

>

in

for

adise

our

role

ien

would

to

email

the

the introduced

n

a

environmental!>

airports

the of

s

intcrcts,

tug

siainiticant

ithin

in

NAP

Port

as

airports

m

remain

airports

ser

management

at

ot

addrc

to

tiaur

Hardy

franspoal

colleague.

n

the

that

e

as

its

Canada

ie’a

‘a

potential

in

as

shift

from

would eeks

.

in if with n make Ve airports. they Yours these low-cost understanding I

Regional Michael

would

irni

look

do

the

(Oscussions.

the

sincerely.

and

not

like

intention

A.

options

forward

Instead,

appropriate Director

arc

represent

Henderson

to

of

underscore

ante

to

your

to

Transport

of

General

ndcd

address

hearinu

further

a

arrangements

organization’s

shift

to

that

sLr\

the

Canada

exploring

from in

Transport

these

c

ownership

as

you

an

to

is

discussions

interests

at

meet,

viable

taking opportumt\

your

Canadas

and

if

cost-effective

this

earliest

with

desirable.

operation

are

opportunity

tor

existing

respect

informal

convenience

1

ransport

of

to

options

these

policy

and the

to

identify

assets

Port

exploratory

anad

with

so

identified

that

Hard

i

respect

in

to alternative,

we

the

gain

Airport:

can through

future

in

to

an

its Minictry

and

Enclosure

Implementation

Implementation Lincoln

Yours

(250)

forward. It

first Planners

informative

I

drawing

District.

developed

regional

recently’

British

Dear

Port

2044

Mount

Chair Mr.

August

am is

Reconciliation

our

nations,

Dave

pleased McNeill,

of

Chair:

356-2512.

McNeil! truly,

Aboriginal

Columbia.

Waddington

Heaney

hope

6.

developed

largely

district

If

as

Rushton

2013

in

you

a

video.

regional

to

partnership

groundbreaking

that

BC Road

Relations

have

provide

and

Director

from

and

you

jointly

This

VON

A

Legislation

local

Regional

any

districts

their

Path

will

you

guide

2R0

questions

with

with

government

find

experiences

Forii’ard

with

tool

has

and

District

Huu-ay-aht

Huu-ay-aht

the

Branch

a

been

that

local

related

media guide

—

COLUMBIA

a

collaboration

will

nationally ofjoining

governments.

resource

to

copy

to First Mailing Victrna

B.x

First

help

be this

)ll5

a

of

Nations

SH

Nations BC shape

Address:

beneficial

resource, guide

Sm

the

this recognized V\V

Prn

and

Alberni-Clayoquot

guide, the

9B1

to and

(ot

and

planning.

support

future

please

resource

Yuulu?il?atb

Yuulu2il2atb

complete

by

the

of

contact

treaty

The

partnerships

on Canadian

\Vebsite:

with

guide

your

first

Regional

David

Reiona1

Government,

Government, an

ww

path

nation,

was

Institute Oistiict

g

between Bird

hc of

ca

at Mt.

rr

of Vaddingtn AVICCMembers

President LarryCross

September 10,2013

AVICCUPDATE- SEPTEMBER,2013

Update on Derelict Vessels Requested on behalf of local government members affected by this issue, Islands Trust has successfully obtained a meeting during UBCM Convention with Minister Steve Thomson on Wednesday, September i8. Earlier in the summer Chair Sheila Malcolmson invited members to forward names of representatives who would like to participate. 27 representatives from 17 local governments willbe represented at the 30 minute meeting.

A Wednesday morning clinic on derelict vessels is being offered in VCCRoom 8115from 7:30-8:15am. Following is the session descripton

Closer to DerelIct Vessel Solutions? Abandoned and derelict vessels, barges and docks have been a significant issue for BC communities for many years. It can be complicated to determine which level of government is responsible for managing many issues of concern. Local governments feel illequipped to respond. This session will summarize local government concerns, describe a draft provincial publication that outlines the regulatory framework for addressing problem vessels and floating structures in different situations, and include an update from Transport Canada about recent federal efforts to examine the issue. The session will conclude with a question and answer period.

Members are encouraged to attend. Executive continues to appreciate the leadership Islands Trust has contributed on this Issue.

Update on the Gas OperatIng Agreement and FortIsBC’s Application Before the BC Utilities Commission (BCUC) A meeting with the Premier and Ministers Coleman and Bennett has also been granted on Tuesday morning to discuss the importance of FortisBC’sApplkation for Reconsideration of Common Rates now before BCUC,the new pro-forma operating agreement template, and the legislative changes required to allow the collection of operating fees for those local governments who may wish to access them. The template operating agreement has now been reviewed by the lawyers and will be presented to the Municipal Working Group on October th17 for final consideration.

BCFerrIes Attached is the letter of request from the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District to support the resolution coming forward as Resolution B12 — Coastal Ferries: Fiscal Fairness & Long Term Strategy, and an executive summary of the Maradadi PacificHolding Ltd. Report entitled British ColumbiaFerry

£ Corporation and Fiscal Fairness for Ferry-Dependent Communities. AVICC members endorsed a resolution on the topic from Powell River Regional District at the 2013 AVICCConvention. Powell River Regional District’s resolution is being brought forward as Resolution C6 with the recommendation that it be referred to the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District’s Resolution B12 — Coastal Ferries: Fiscal Fairness & Long Term Strategy. AVICCExecutive is asking for members’ support of Resolution B12,

AVICC Luncheon During the UBCMnvention Approximately 240 delegates have registered to attend the AVICC Luncheon on Wednesday, September 18. As always, the primary goal of the luncheon is to provide the opportunity to get together to share ideas and enjoy the company of fellow AVICCmembers. WoodWorks BC will be making their annual presentation of the Community Recognition Award and Mayors Teunis Westbroek and Chris Burger will say a few words to encourage delegates to attend the 2014 Convention co-hosted by Qualicum Beach and Parksville,

Executive wishes to acknowledge Councillor Claire Moglove’s nomination for Director at Large on the UBCM Board. Councillor Moglove will address delegates briefly during the luncheon. AVICCis automatically represented on the UBCM Board by the AVICC President; however, AVICC has benefited over the past several years with a second representative elected as Director at Large. Executive would recommend that the membership continue to support this additional representation and put their support behind Councillor Moglove.

AV1CCStaffing pie AVICCcontracts with UBCMfor the provision of a diverse range of services. Iris Hesketh-Boles has been designated by UBCM to provide the majority of those services since May, 2009. UBCM has approved a family leave for Iris from October 1, 2013 - August 31, 2014. Shelley Webber has been hired to replace Iris for the duration of the leave. Shelley brings a broad range of skills and experience including 18 months of experience with UBCM as the program assistant in the Gas Tax Program and one year as a planning assistant with the Mount Waddington Regional District. Shelley can be reached at and by phone at 250 356 5122 Please join us in w&comlng Shelley to the Association.

2 390 - 1050 Homer Street Vancouver, BC V6B 2W9 Phone: 603 683 6266 Fax: 604 683 6244 IcIPAJ INSURANCE ASSOCIATR)N miahcor of British CoIumbt4 (barnes a ,niahc, org

August 20, 2013 ReionaIDIstctofMt.Waddinton Chair Dave Rushton Regional District Mount Waddington of AU623 2013 Box 729 Port McNeill, BC VON2R0

Dear Chair Rushton:

Re: MIABC Dividend Cheque

Enclosed is your dividend cheque for the 2012 fiscal year. The enclosed cheque represents your portion of the dividend based on the size of your Subscriber Account Balance.

The Board declared a $1.1 million dividend at its July meeting, bringing the total dividends distributed over the last five years to $4.1 million. The MIABC first began returning money to its members in 2002 by subsidizing reinsurance costs. By 2006 $7.3 million was returning to members in this way. This was replaced by dividends following the 2005 fiscal year, which have totaled $10.4 million. Three years ago the Risk Management Grant debuted, which has resulted in a further $1.7 million being paid out to members. All told to MIABC members have received $18.4 million back from their liability insurer. This represents a return of 13% of the total costs paid by members over the last ten years. During that period the MIABC has grown by 10%, yet its costs have dropped by 3.5%.

The MIABC is continuing to create more value for its members. Our newly expanded Risk Management Department is providing an impressive array of services. A Casual Legal Advice Program debuted this year. Beyond that, the MIABC is working on a host of new products and services to address our members emerging risk financing challenges.

Yours truly.

Thomas W. Barnes tu Chief Executive Officer & General counsel

6 (

MU\TCTP \L 1\SIR\NCE \SSOCT VfTO\ ot British Columbia

Subscriber Account Statement

Subscriber: R.D. of Mount Waddington Member since: 198801.24 Certificate: 0075 Balance: $182, 130 Risk Balance Management Claims Operational Closing Year Forward Dividends Grants Results Results Balance 2013 $182,130 $-2765 $1,480 2012 Sl71,808 $-3,075 $3,276 $96 $16,576 $182,130

2011 $170,442 S-3,106 SO $3,191 $1,281 $171,808 2010 $150,024 S-1,227 S2,765 $3,129 $21,280 S170,442

2009 $126,457 SO $0 $839 $22726 $150,024

2008 $133,374 5-2,184 SO $9,732 $-14,465 $126,457 2007 $118,309 $-7,961 $0 $11,244 $11,781 $133,374

Definitions

Claims Results: The change in pool results (pool assessments minus pool costs) in your pools in all years. Operational Results: Investment income plus/minus administration budget surplus.

390 1050 homer Street, Vancouver. BC, 2W9. V6B 683-6266 /

a

their

Landslides

started

more

We area

channel

No

\Iiniti the

W\

assessments.

‘We

McCullv fish

road the

with

Cove. There

“In

More

Forests,

More

Forests.

September

Sj Massive

ras

att

one

Knight

the

inlet

to

farm

are

physical

could

the

will

about

THom

than

than

says

has

well

determine

20

was like

-

going

and

Lands

Ministry

of Lands

said

the

be

pens

years

been

are

Inlet

hear

a

a

the

there

I

above

hurt,

knight

closed

dozen

dozen

LR()

lots

main

11.

surroundings

that

a

to

completely

cause.”

and

and

a landslide

an

natural Lodge.

with

2013

were

of

liv

but

full

significant

of

any

their

The

food

unbelievable

slides

Natural

Natural

slides

until

InILt

navigational

has

over

Forests,

Wyatt

Ministry

extent

more

logging

said

Courier—Islander

first

process

“We

source

engaged

further

the

\\

occurred

occurred

clogged

and

McCullv.

Resource

Resource

says

hulier

than

priority

of

landslide

woke

Lands

area

of

activity

damage

for

the

of

notice.”

hits

rumbling

there

hazards.

a

a

Forests

again

geomorphology, the

working

dozen

up

regional with all all

weather,

and

is

Operations Operations

“It

the

at at

north

grizzly

to

is

and

and

Knight’s

Natural

Tuesday

residue.

once,

once,

concern

has

make

I

slides

next

Log

and

have

may

to

or

Geomoiphologist

of

and

been

bears

salvages

learn we

and and

reLrLating

morning

Campbell

sure

all

not

be

Resource

what We

with

how

didn’t

reported

all all

at

related

particularly

seen

more everyone

in

have

once,

in

in

risks

the

a the

will

Inlet

and

geo-scientist

know

the

the

anything

River

in

about

debris

Operations

lost

area.

to

over

all

these

steep

be

the

same same

recent

is

to

what

infrastructure,

in

out

up

cove

the

in safe

the

assist

could

the

might

area, area,

baLk

like

steep

in

there

cause.

it

seismic

weekend

and

same

where

Knight’s

to

(FLNRO).

was,

this,”

minist

affect

at at

counti

pose.

measure

gathering

ground

they

Knight’s

Knight’s

place.

thunder

we

activity

said

bridges

the

that

are

Inlet

are

engineering

that

areas

“There

the

salmon

Mike

in

this

up

was

Inlet. Inlet.

or

near

the

in

receives

full

and

material

what,”

was

people

the

McCully,

just

early

Matsiu

is

extent

in

roads,

Photograph

Photograph

area.”

a

related

the

littered

staff

massive

said

lots

stages

should

that

Glendale

of

Creek

and

in

Engineering

of

Dean

to

the

is

with

inestigating

the

of

precipitation

logging

amount

viable.

alw

damage

by:

by:

and

making

Wyatt,

forest

debris.”

Spawning

Ministry

Ministry

Glendale

I

he

hut

of

hake

Specialist

service

and

owner

aw

debris

this

thL

such learn

in.

seen

of

of

of

of in r September 12, 2013

ICET grant to rebuild /ookout will strengthen tourism sector

COURTENAY A piece of history in Woss is being rejuvenated thanks to nearly $40,000 in matching funds from the Island Coastal Economic Trust.

The Woss Fire Lookout, built in the 1940s, offers spectacular views of mountains and valleys in the Nimpkish region.

The Woss Residents Association, with financial and logistical support from Western Forest Products and Recreation Sites and Trails B.C. will use the ICET funding to rebuild the lookout. Access trails, interpretive signage, and other amenities are also part of the project.

Northern Vancouver Island is quickly gaining a reputation as a destination for hikers,”9 said WRA chair Dave Rushton. “Restoring this lookout gives peop’e yet another reason to visit Woss, and to experience first-hand the rugged natural beauty of this part of the province.” in the years before computerized lightning detectors, B.C. forest fires were often spotted by workers stationed in lookouts built atop mountains. Of the 350 lookouts, 20 or so are still active and in service, iUand Coastal Economic Trust chair Mayor Phil Kent said that the restored lookout is more than just a viewpoint for hikers.

“There is a niche tourism market of visitors with a passion for fire lookouts and other forestry-related experiences,” Kent explained. “Woss has a deep history with forestry, and by helping to fund the restoration of the lookout, we’re boosting the region’s tourism draw, and that’s good for the economy.” The fire lookout project complements other forestry-related tourism initiatives planned for the new Heritage Park.

Western Forest Products, a significant employer in the region, is contributing to the restoration efforts too.

“Forestry is a part of the history and culture of northern Vancouver Island, and this project will help visitors and residents enjoy the natural beauty of our sustainabiy-rranaged coastal forest operations,” said Randy Boas, Operations Manager at Western Forest Products Englewood Forest Operation. About the Island Coastal Economic Trust

The Island Coastal Economic Trust is a $50 million endowment established in

9 006 by the Government of British Columbia to help diversify the economies of ertrai a xi nortnern vancouver Island and tne Sunshine Coast.

ICET is guidea by a Board of Directors and two Regional Advisory Committees wh ch nclude more than 50 locally elected officials and MLAsand five appointees. Th s exceptional team of leaders collaborates to set regional pr orit es and build vital multi-regional networks,

Thc,cgh a community-centred decision-making process, ICET has approved over $47 million for 96 economic infrastructure projects on the Island and Sunshine Coast since implementing its grant program in 2007. ICET investments have leveraged over $260 million in incremental funding into the region.

A full overview of ICET can be found at -30-

For further information:

Mayor Phil Kent, ICET Chair C ty of Duncan Tel. 250-709-0186

ne Robert, CEO Is and Coastal Economic Trust Tel. 250-871-7797 Extension 227

Bei Webber Woss Residents Association Tounsm & Trail Coordinator Phone 250-281-2471

‘U __

Training Doctors on Vancouver Island

September 12, 2013

Keeping things local, two recent graduates of the Island Medical Program who are Vancouver Island born and raised are now undertaking their residencies in Comox at the Strathcona Family Practice.

“I grew up in Black Creek and my family still lives there so it’s great to be back,” says Tyler Falk. “I am also excited to work in family practice which gives me the opportunity to be more of a generalist and work in a variety of areas. I definitely hope to live and practise medicine in the Comox Valley.”

The UBC Faculty of Medicine has spent the past decade transforming medical education in BC by increasing the number of doctors in training, and placing these trainees in communities where doctors are needed most. Three new postgraduate residency programs on Vancouver Island, including the new Strathcona Family Practice site in Comox, as well as the residencies in Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine (located at Island Health facilities) are the latest examples of how this vision is being fulfilled.

These new programs follow a number of other postgraduate medical residency programs established on Vancouver Island in just over a decade.*

Glenn Keyes is also a medical resident at the Strathcona Family Practice site. Growing up in Victoria, the Island Medical Program was a good fit and he liked the idea of staying on the Island for his residency and working in a smaller community. “I liked the way this program was designed, it allows me to get hands-on with patients across a number of different disciplines,” says Keyes. “The community has been so supportive as well - they have really opened their arms to us.”

Both Falk and Keyes noted that a family practice in a smaller community gives them the opportunity to get to know their patients better and to follow them through their care needs. “Every day is different,” says Keyes. “In one day last week I saw a patient in psychiatric care, assisted in surgery, helped deliver a baby and worked with the paediatrician; you might not get this breadth of experience in a busy urban centre.”

Excellent care for everyone, everywhere, every time. 4hL B I Nil “N\ isbndhcalth Ii At present there are over 100 postgraduate medical residents training on the island, more than double the number in 2004 when the UBC Faculty of Medicine began expansion of medical education in BC.

“These postgraduate training programs not only offer an opportunity for graduates of the Island Medical Program to continue their medical training on Vancouver Island, they also attract recent graduates from other programs,” says Dr. Oscar Casiro, Regional Associate Dean, Vancouver Island, UBC Faculty of Medicine. “I am confident that many of these Island-trained physicians will settle in our region to provide much needed primary and specialist care.” -30-

* Postgraduate medical residency programs established on Vancouver Island include the Nanaimo Family Practice postgraduate training site, the Vancouver Island Psychiatry postgraduate training site, the International Medical Graduate Family Practice site, the Aboriginal Family Practice site and the Royal College first- year specialist training program. The long-established Victoria Family Practice site has been training medical residents as family doctors for a number of years.

Cutline for photo: Glenn Keyes, medical resident with patient

Media Contact:

Sarah Plank I Media Relations Manager office 250-727-4275 email [email protected]

islandealth

12 General Kevin Sincerely. proud your Seven On Regional August behalf continued Black of Hills Manager 18, for District of 2013 Golf& years the Located support. Board P0. of to Country Mount come. One Box of We Directors. Kiorneer 1710, Waddington Club strive throughout Port

Secie to Esabi,she

7% Soh club make Hardy, members of Seven € Hgh’.ay the B.C. — I

e€z€ year 92 Hills and VON I 19 all would a

ill D9 place 2PO of the like Phone,’ the public

g&€s to community say Fax: who thank 250) enjoy P3I can you AUL 949-9818 the be for flst1ctof

212013 Ml, WaddiQton governments change of UBCM expenditure understands are Photo ntiodticton designed Credit: and pressures Picture most that to BC importantly make money As a • • • The challenges: • • • The The government British realistic,

sense EXECUTIVE result is local which respect Levels the will British British governments, the Infrastructure It tight revenue. Business Residential Per remained is purpose not to the property economy force heavily capita government taxpayers Columbia’s to at of Columbians; Columbia only to 5 counteract provincial all taxes practical property key economic reasonably costs reliant property levels to tax nor upgrades, will directions have local finance. are of system distributes system cost on taxes finance support of and, among the been this change taxes the governments stable government billions agenda will sluggishness up required system property reduced, of in are report system and the do make (as and costs local

the SUMMARY the over not lowest a to growth. % following by the lowest fairly; finance levels tax, provide as the also of the of for and of a cost but GDP) is in which next share

the federal faces } where the local in to there reforming also unacceptable has a Canada; property for 1 country mechanism agenda of neither O1 set some much a the to Stronq and overall 5 decade; is years. other weaknesses no out provincial and, serious and grows tax strength: for Hscui shortage local for with with These have a with many ur of IA fLf

•

• •

*

maintaining

Improve

Resiliency

u.

A

Retain Rstore

t)efln

K•ne!

Renew

government

Define

includes

Includes

Achieve

Renew

od

Meve

f

for

funds

the

Regional

the

and

provincial

rafflc

the

public

greater

a

a

major

1/3

broader

new

local

and

resiliency

gas

mprove

for

funding

books

Fines

control

funded

infrastructure

tax

parkiand

Trusts

flexibility

share

building

government

array

agreement

as

(no

flexibility

from

a

of

and

ofTransLink

3

longer

local

of

of

property

way

development

in

related

achieve

each

the

desiqn

on

AGENDA

revenue

infrastructure

component

of

with

a

commitment

of

existing

its

grant);

provincial

tax

ourposes.

the

with

a

of

the

strongest

new

at

source

development federaL

so

federal

an

a

injection

minimum

funding

that

local

appropriate

government

agreement

to

so

provincial

DCC

government;

small

as

features.

government

to

for

of

cost

of

community

raised

remove

funding;

local

65

with

and

commtment

charges

and

FORCHANGE

per government

for

sufficient

Canada

This

payments

local

cent;

and

parkland

grants;

inciudnq

finance

includes

governments,

and

funding

to

from

projects;

acqust:on

hotel

British

great

system

nrOvflciai

the

model

tax

Columbia

and following:

1ar:

can

that

by

b that

3.

Responsiveness

Infrastructure Advance

have

on

•

Improve

on

provincial-local Improve

8

its

There

economic

Bank local

of

The

diminishing

increase

This

community economic

Introduction

exchange

interested

Explore

enforcement;

response Negotiate

new management consultation

Amend

Establish

strongest

local

overall

goal

the

is

under

infrastructure

are

governments

designed

a

value

governments resiliency

regional

Liquid

the

local

of

two

economic

growth. a

paramedical

growth

for

an

regions,

features.

this

which

UBCM/Provincial

building.

economic

size

Development

and

appropriate

parts improved

to

considerations

Waste,

government

proposal mandates

to

of

transportation

taxpayers

delivery

of

for

local

The

ensure

the

to on

requirements

growth.

the

This

investment

the

Solid

the

pie,

services;

second

economy

government

achieve

protocol

existing

is

includes

share

proposal.

funding

that

basis

of

local

straightforward.

Waste

and

Management

shared

and

by

and

is

local

agenda

and

of

government

authority

a

while

local

with

in

in

before

value

and

provincial tightening

the

ensuring

local

increased

mechanisms

environmental

governments

The

Community

mandates;

would the

following:

government

the

Drinking

at

government

first

the

the

benefits

for

to agreements

provincial

Committee

receive

Rather

requirements

sign-off

responsibility

is

should

same

both

money.

that

an

Water

for

the

Infrastructure

receive

a

and

time

finance

these

than

grow

regulatory

Building

of

government

work

guaranteed

driven

of

management

Protection

outside

at

a

economic

that

gaining

trying

financial

systems.

the

a

with

become

for

system

the

share

plan

elected

growth

regional

of

to

the

Bank.

and

economy

a

to

share

Metro

legislation

of

to

gain

infrastructure

commitment

greater

requirements

by

provincial

grow binding

British

govern

Community

official

maintaining

a

transportation

in

of

through

Vancouver,

share

the

improved

share shared

Strong

Columbia’s

and

the

to

level

and

economy.

government

of

include

provision

to

of

subject

and

an

Development to

Fiscal

to

the

an substantial and

with

provincial

ever

imposed

oversee

in

benefits

financial

building to

Futures

of

to

first 16 4 Fairness Work to expand local government revenue tools to make the distribution of local government costs both fairer and more responsive to economic growth.

A key issue to be addressed is the weakness of the property tax in both responding to economic growth and in fairlydistributing responsibility for the cost of local government services. This could be done in a number of ways including both improving the property tax and/or sharing other taxes that balance some of the weaknesses in the property tax, Principles to govern UBCMengagement in the development of either new revenue options and/or a fairer property tax would be: a. Improved responsiveness to economic growth; b. A more progressive distribution of local taxes across income ranges; c. A better fit between who benefits and who pays for local services; d. Stability and predictability; e. Fiscalrelations that are consistent with local governments role as an autonomous ordr of government; and f. Practical administrative arrangements. • Afairer more responsive property tax could be developed through such things as: reducing the provincial share of property tax; broadening the property tax base to include public institutions and crown corporation property; including hydro transmission lines in the rural area tax base; and exploring means to empower local governments to provide low income property tax credits, Tax sharing is where a portion of an existing tax could be dedicated for local government use. this could take the form of either topping up an existing tax or occupying tax space vacated by the provincial government.

introduction 0

the

Pw

it

nended

cystern

those

•

•

rhe Building

.

Infrastructure

provincial

uroposed

o

o

o

o

Components

Government

Create

local

Excellence

five

Plan

in

between

Excellence economies,

highlighting

developing

practices developing

discussions

defining

BC.

key

governments

the

a

that

government

If

directions

made

and

endorsed

local Local

and

initial

meaningful

Leadership

guides;

could

Award

within

such

with

innovative

resource

Initial

Community

and

governments

priorities

Government

to

represent

include

by

key

as

building

on

winners.

build

local

the

group

an

Academy.

business

materials

business

Priorities

and

UBCM

government

agenda

on

such

would

Development

a

on

purchasing;

those

and

multi-year

collaborative

things

excellence,

membership,

groups

taxation

to

be

the

for

Partnership

already

support

to

economic

provincial

as:

process

achieve

on

blueprint

and

indicators

Bank.

including

mechanisms

business

provided

local

it

for

greater

growth

can

government.

finance

to

developing

and

form

taxation

strengthen

through

through

resiliency,

and

to benchmarks

the

and

achieve

an

options;

basis

organizations

tax

highlighting

best

agreement

the

decision

address

of

practice

greater

local

and

the

dialogue

government

entering

cost

making,

on

UBCM

service

advisory

such

the

Strong

drivers,

as

Community

introduction

efficiencies

that

into

such

the

services

Fisâl

and

finance

will

two

Local

as

engage

best

utur

be

way

for

and of The tJBCMExecutive established the UBCMSelect Committee on Local Government Finance in 2012. This report was timed to allow the UBCMExecutive to consider a Policy Paper for the 2013 UBCMConvention. The following excerpt from the Committee’s Terms of Reference provides the essence of the task the Committee was given:

Authority to impose property taxes and user fees stem from an era where local governments delivered a narrow lange of services,such as water, sewer and local roads. With a ciqnificantbroadening of the types of servicesthat local governments deliver there isa need to consider whether these traditional revenue sources align wellwith the broader suite of services,or whether there are better ways to finance some or all of these services.

the Select C,binmittee willexplore the fit between this broader range of servicesand existingrevenue tools available to local governments in the context of whether the revenue tools are sufficient and whether they support tax’policy objectives such as ensuring that those that benefit from a servicepay for it. In addition, the Select committee willcon cider whether additional taxing authority or a change in inter-governmental transfers might better meet these objectives.

See Appendix 1 for the full Terms of Reference for the Committee. Members of the Committee are:

Mayor Greg Moore, City of Port Coquitlam, and Chair, Metro Vancouver Regional District (co-chair); Chair Al Richmond, Cariboo Regional District (co-chair); • Mayor Frank Leonard, District of Saanich;

• Mayor Taylor Bachrach, Tovvnof Smithers; • Carol Mason. Chief Administrative Omcer, Metro Vancouver Regional District; and • Paul Macklem, Deputy City Manager, City of Kelowna.

1ayor Peter Fassbender of the City of Langley participated on the Committee until January 2013, at which t me he took a leave of absence from the Committee as a result of his candidacy in the provincial election.

The Committee wishes to acknowledge the contribution of our consultant, Mr. Dale Wall. Mr.Wall’s ‘pertise was invaluable to us as we worked through the process and it greatly informed our thinking as e’1 ped our final product.

ntroducton 11 12 ntrduction Strong Fisca’ Futures

WHATWE DID

Given the breadth of its task, the Committee developed a work plan based on the following elements:

Evaluate the existing system The Committee critically evaluated the strengths and challenges inherent in the existing system of local government finance in BC;in essence, what was working, what was not.

Compare with other jurisdictions

Other local government finance systems, and in particular, revenue tools within these systems, were compared against those available in BC.

Consider all available revenue options against evaluation criteria we developed The Committee considered a full range of revenue options and evaluated any that showed potential in a BCcontext against criteria it considered particularly relevant,

Talkwith local governments across the province The Committee took to the road in Apriland May to ask local government leaders what they saw as the key financial issues facing their communities.

Develop a framework to identify key directions

Pulling together the analysis of potential revenue tools, the understanding of the current systems in BCand other jurisdictions, and the results of discussions with local government leaders allowed the Committee to develop a framework under which key directions could be identified.

Finally, the Committee established a template for moving forward, through development of five key directions for change.

Aependix 2 provides the Committee’s Work Plan. Executive Summary

In January 2013, a Steering Committee was formed comprising representatives of local government, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the Province, to examine the issues surrounding the introduction of a uniform, province-wide Call Answer Levy to support and improve 9-1-1 services in British Columbia. This background paper was commissioned by the UBCM in support of the Steering Committees work. The paper examines how 9-1-1 services currently are delivered in the province, reviews call answer levy legislation and the operation of 9-1-1 services in other jurisdictions, and sets out a framework of the options and issues facing the introduction of a call answer levy in British Columbia.

9-1-1 services are an integral part of the province’s emergency communications system. They are a front-end gating mechanism which connects the public to the correct emergency service dispatch agency. There are 12 Public Safety Answering Points which operate under local government authority and provide 9-1-1 services to most of the province.

The operation of 9-1-1 services, indeed, of all aspects of the emergency dispatch and communications system, is time-impacted and often life-critical. The system itself is inter dependent and may be viewed as a continuum commencing from when a member of the public places a call to 9-1-1, where the call is assessed by the 9-1-1 operator and transferred to the relevant emergency dispatch agency, to the dispatch of emergency services and the operation of those services at the incident itself. A failure or delay at any point in this continuum will potentially affect how the entire system operates. Such failures or delays may increase the risk to life of both the public and emergency responders, or result in increased damage to property. Consequently, the entire system, from 9-1-1 services through to dispatch and the emergency radio system, needs to be resilient. It must operate to recognized standards, be adequately housed and staffed with properly trained personnel, and supported by carefully considered programs and processes for quality assurance/quality improvement, centre back-up and business continuity.

Research was conducted on the operation of the existing 9-1-1 system in British Columbia, and on the operation of similar systems in other jurisdictions, with a focus on Canadian provinces where provincial Call Answer Levies have been introduced. The B.C. research included two surveys: one for local governments which were responsible for providing 9-1-1 services; and the other to the 12 Public Safety Answering Points which actually operate the service. In addition, follow up telephone interviews and email exchanges were conducted with local government. RCMP and 1PSAP personnel, all of whom willinglyand generously assisted in providing data, information and insight.

9-1-1 Services in British Columbia

The existing 9-1-1 system has developed organically since its inception in the 1980s. Responsibility for the service lies with local government. Typically, this responsibility is met at

1 A list of acronyms used is set out in Appendix A. Capitalized terms and acronyms used in the Executive Summary are defined in the body of the paper when they are first used.

3 the regional district level, though a number of municipalities either contract for, or directly provide the service as well. As technology has developed and improved, a number of local governments have banded together to coordinate the delivery of the service through a single centre. With current technologies, 9-i-i services can be provided safely and effectively from distant locations.

9-1-1 services are available in most areas of the province, but there are still some unserviced areas and some coverage gaps. Two regional districts — the Northern Rockies Regional

Municipality and Central Coast Regional District — and one provincially governed region (the Stikine Region), lack any 9-1-1 service. Additionally, there is no 9-1-1 service in Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District outside of the City of Prince Rupert and District of Port Edward. Seven other regional districts reported coverage gaps, either in some electoral areas or on some First Nations reserves. As part of the move to a uniform, province-wide Call Answer Levy, it will be necessary to address the 9-1-1 service coverage gaps, which may involve some financial assistance for the unserved areas. More detailed investigation of coverage gaps also will be required, to assess the cost of service expansion and confirm the areas which still lack service.

The existing 9-1-1 system manages between 1.5 and 1.6 million calls annually. The cost of operating the existing system is in the range of $12-13 million per year. Allof the PSAPs have sought to address business continuity issues: every PSAP has back up and alternate power supplies for critical systems; 11 of 12 have designated fail-over centres and most of the PSAPs have back-up sites for their operations. Only half of the PSAPs, however, were able to confirm that their infrastructure was built to current post-disaster standards.

The 9-1-1 system faces various challenges. In addition to the coverage gaps noted above, the system is also struggling to deal with “Abandoned Calls”. These calls, which almost exclusively come from mobile phones, place significant strain on PSAP, dispatcher and police resources. In some jurisdictions, nearly a quarter of the calls for service for police involve follow-up on abandoned 9-1-1 calls. A formal study of the issue needs to be undertaken and a province-wide policy adopted on how such calls are treated, from PSAP through to police response. The issue also highlights the need for an effective, province-wide educational program aimed at the public, to reduce the number of “pocket dials” received by PSAPs.

The most significant development for 9-1-1 and dispatch services is the imminent advent of

Next Generation 9-1-1. NG91 1 will involve moving PSAPs and Secondary Safety Answering Points to internet-protocol based systems. It will allow emergency communication centres to accept a broader range of connections and data sources — including text, video and pictures.

Moving to NG91 1 will involve a substantive transformation of the existing systems used by emergency communication centres in the province, and willentail technological, operational, economic and institutional change. The system and equipment architecture for NG91 1 are still being developed, debated and reviewed. However, transitioning to the new systems will be a costly undertaking, in terms of capital investment as well as staffing and training issues. A

“precursor” to NG91 1 is already on the horizon as the CRTC has mandated that carriers must

4 enable text connections to 9-1-1 services for the deaf, hard of hearing and speech impaired, by 2014.

The review showed that larger PSAPs tended to be more cost-efficient when measured on a “per-call” or per capita basis. Larger centres enjoy economies of scale which are significant. Cost efficient cperation of the emergency communications system is important, to ensure that limited budgets are well invested. This reality, however, should not be viewed as a criticism of the existing system. given that it developed organically over the past 30 or so years. Indeed. local governments have worked hard to combine the delivery of the services in most areas of the province, as the technology enabling them to do so has become available. British Columbia compares well to most Canadian jurisdictions: given its geographic size and population, it already has a reasonably efficient PSAP footprint. On a per capita basis, Québec has nearly 60% more PSAPs, while Afberta has more than twice the number of that in British Columbia. The numbers are even more significant when compared to the Maritime Provinces and Ontario. Improved efficiencies should still be encouraged, however, as it ensures that monies can2 be invested in improving the operation and resilience of the system, and enhancing service to the public.

9-1-1 Services and Call Answer Levies in Other Jurisdictions

A significant part of this review involved research into the operation of 9-1-1 systems and Call Answer Levy regimes in other Canadian provinces. Six other Canadian provinces have established, or are introducing, a province-wide CAL: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Québec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, In five of those provinces, the CAL applies to all devices which can connect to 9-1-1 services; only Alberta has introduced a CAL which is limited to wireless devices. Each Canadian jurisdiction which has introduced a CAL has also either established procedures, guidelines and operational requirements for PSAPs, or has created a process for establishing them. Four of the six provinces also have introduced liability exemptions covering the operation of PSAPs.

The Maritime Provinces and Saskatchewan fundamentally approach 9-1-1 services as a provincial responsibility (even though service delivery everywhere but Prince Edward Island generally remains with local governments). In Québec and Alberta, 9-1-1 service delivery remains the responsibility of local governments — though Québec has taken the step of requiring that local governments make the service available (either directly or by contract) in most areas of the province.

In the Québec system. the provincial government set detailed requirements for PSAPs. ranging from location and infrastructure, to operational requirements. procedures and quality assurance processes. The allocation of funding from the CAL. however, rests with an agency which is operated by local government. That same agency is responsible for reviewing PSAP operations. In essence, though the province established the requirements, it gave control and

2 The number of PSAPs in Ontario is not reported. An email from Inspector Paulo DaSilva of the York Regional Police, who responded to an information request placed to the Ontario 9-1-1 Advisory Board, indicated that there are “over 100” PSAPs in Ontario. Emailfrom Insp. P. DaSilva, 8 July 2013.

5 oversight of the system to local government, which remains responsible for actual service delivery. An interesting feature of the Québec system. moreover, is that it strictly limits the amount of the funding available for “administration”: a maximum of 3% of the CAL funds can be spent by the responsible agency for its administrative overheads.

Other provinces (notably Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia) have established committees comprising various stakeholders, including representatives of local government and PSAPs. and emergency services personnel, to develop and implement consistent policies, procedures and standards for their 9-1-1 services. In Alberta, which is in the process of introducing a new CAL and attendant standardized requirements for PSAPs, the principal responsibility lies with the Alberta Emergency Management Agency. The AEMA is seeking to coordinate policy development with local governments and PSAPs.

In four of the six Canadian jurisdictions, the permitted use of CAL funds is broader than a narrowly conceived view of 9-1-1 services. Nova Scotia, among other things, funds its poison control centre using CAL monies. New Brunswick recently broadened its definition of allowable expenditures to include the “coordination of emergency services” in the province, while Saskatchewan uses about half of the CAL funding to subsidize the connection of local government and provincial agencies (including fire departments and municipal workers) to the province’s emergency radio network. Québec utilizes a set allocation formula for distributing CAL funds to (or at the direction of) local governments. It does not actually limit or prescribe how those funds must be spent, though in practice, 96% of the funds are distributed directly to PSAPs.

Two other jurisdictions also were examined: Manitoba and the State of Kentucky. Manitoba has not introduced a provincial CAL. However, it has adopted a centralized approach to the establishment of standards governing PSAP operations and established a wide-ranging liability exemption for PSAP operations. The State of Kentucky, conversely, epitomizes the decentralized approach. With an area only one-third that of British Columbia and a smaller population, Kentucky supports 109 certified PSAPs, and more than 80 uncertified PSAPs, which are not tracked by any state agency. PSAP operation is a local government responsibility and is principally funded through a combination of landline CALs and property taxes. The state also has established a wireless CAL, which it uses to subsidize certified PSAPs and to regulate how those PSAPs manage wireless 9-1-1 calls. It is probably not surprising that the system suffers from significant efficiency issues and many local governments are struggling with funding problems.

Issues and Options for a Province-wide CAL in British Columbia

As a starting point it should be noted that this background paper assumes that a CAL will be imposed on all devices which connect to 9-1-1 services (including Iandline, wireless and Voice over IP). The CAL will be set at a uniform level and will be province-wide. The principal function of the CAL willbe to fund 9-1-1 services, though the introduction of the new system should not result in any local government losing any amount of existing revenue which it currently raises from a landline (or, in the case of Prince Rupert, landline and wireless) CAL. In

6

24 other words, the CAL should provide at least the same existing level of funding to such jurisdictions.

Establishment of a CAL and related structures and processes. will involve senior legislation and related regulations. The legislation and regulations will need to address a range of issues, which are set out in greater detail in the body of the paper (including the scope of the CAL, liability issues, collection issues, processes etc.). In general, however, the three principal, interrelated issues which need to be addressed are: the allowable scope of expenditure of funds raised from the CAL; the method or process by which those funds will be managed and allocated; and the extent to which (and process by which> common standards and requirements for PSAP operations will be developed and implemented.

The paper does not seek to prejudge the appropriate scope for the application of CAL funds. That is a policy issue for local governments and the province, though a range of matters are identified which could be included as “in scope’, on both a narrow conception of 9-1-1 services and a broader approach to the use of the funds. Simply put, however, the broader the scope of the CAL — the more elements of the emergency communications system that will be funded, in whole or in part, by this levy — the more complex the allocation process and the more complex the oversight and managementof the system will become.

Certain issues or principles did emerge from discussion both with stakeholders during the research process, and through the review of an initial draft of the paper with the Steering Committee:

1. The CAL funding should only be applied to specific, agreed purposes, which should be clearly defined in the senior legislation; 2. The principle use of the funding will be “9-1-1 services”; 3. Control over the allocation of CAL funding should remain with local governments; 4. The allocation process will likely involve both a metrics-driven formula and some form of grants process; 5. The allocation process will need to take into account existing funding and cost structures of local governments; 6. Any administration costs related to the oversight of the system (i.e., to manage the allocation process and any similar functions) should be strictly limited; and 7. Any standards or procedures which are established should be created through a consensus process involving relevant stakeholders — the costs of developing, implementing and meeting those standards must be factored into the CAL funding formula.

Finally, the legislation willalso need to address the quantum of the administration fee which telecommunication companies will be permitted to charge for collecting and remitting the CAL. As a matter of principle, this fee should be set at a rate that is no more than the actual cost of collection. With a uniform levy across all devices, and a single point of remittance for CAL funds. the administration fee should be nominal, and certainly far less than the $0.07 currently charged for the collection of landline CALs.

7 1. Introduction and Background

In January 2013, a steering committee (the “Steering Committee”) was established comprising representatives of local government, the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (“UBCM”)and the province. The goal of the steering committee was to examine issues related to the introduction of a uniform call answer levy to support and improve the operation of 9-1-1 services in British Columbia. In early May 2013, Dave Mitchell &Associates Ltd. commenced work to develop a background paper to help inform the review process being undertaken by the Steering Committee.

The work to be undertaken included a review of the existing 9-1-1 services in the province, a consideration of how such services are delivered in other jurisdictions, a review of how other Canadian jurisdictions with provincial call answer levies have implemented and manage those levies, and a review of the issues, challenges and options in relation to the introduction of a call answer levy (“CAL”)in British Columbia.

The Steering Committee established a series of strategic objectives and principles in relation to the establishment of a practical and sustainable CAL 3model. From the province’s perspective, three criteria need to be met:

• the CAL needs to be province-wide and harmonized with other jurisdictions (if possible); • the establishment of a CAL must offer improvements to public safety (e.g. enhanced capabilities, additional training, enhanced capacity to meet future demands, etc.); and, • the CAL needs to feature a consensus funding formula based on industry and local government leadership.

From the local government perspective, a province-wide CAL must:

• provide new revenue to assist in the development of local 911 services; • ensure that all users of the local 9-1-1 service help pay for the 4service, both wireless and landlines; and • respect the delivery of 9-1-1 services by local government.

To gather the necessary background information, two separate surveys were created. One survey was for the 12 Public Safety Answering Points (“PSAP5”) which operate under local government authority and are responsible for handling the vast majority of 9-1-1 services in the province. This survey focused on issues ranging from the number of calls handled, the number of agencies to which calls were downstreamed and staffing, to infrastructure, training and standards. The second survey was designed for those local governments which were

UBCM/ProvincialGovernment Committee on Provincial911 CallAnswer Levy:Terms of Reference (undated - 2013). Various comments from localgovernment representatives have emphasized that this criterion refers to net new revenue, after taking intoaccount existing local governments costs and revenue sources. Comment fromT. Whiting,Senior Manager. Protective Services, CRD. 8 July 2013.

8 responsible for delivering 9-1-1 services in their jurisdictions. These surveys therefore went principally to regional district governments, which typically have responsibility for this service. Where municipal governments were known to be directly involved in providing the service, the questionnaire was also provided to those governments.

In addition, extensive research was conducted on how 9-1-1 services are delivered in other Canadian provinces, with a particular emphasis on those jurisdictions which have established a CAL. The manner in which other provinces are operating their 9-1-1 systems. and managing the corresponding CAL funds, provides a guide as to the issues that need consideration in British Columbia and some conceptual approaches that may be applicable here.

Assistance was also obtained from various individuals in local government and the PSAPs, who willinglyshared information and their expertise. Particular thanks are owing to Inspector Rick Greenwood (RCMP E-Division Operational Communication Centres), BillFiggitt (ROMP — SE District Deputy Leader), Mike Webb and Doug Watson (E-Comm), Cary Berger (Central Okanagan Regional District), Donna Munt (Regional District of Fraser-Fort George), Deb Middleton (Bulkley-Nechako Regional District), Per Kristensen (City of Nanaimo), Travis Whiting (Capital Regional District), Debra Oakman and Marie Lapp (Comox Valley Regional District) and Mike Gilbert (Northern Rockies Regional Municipality).

2. Definition of 9-1-1 Services, Public Safety Context and Standards

The potential introduction of a province-wide CAL to support and improve 9-1-1 services will necessarily involve a consideration of the funding, operation, applicable standards, oversight and control of those services. As such, it is critical to bear in mind the public safety context applicable to 9-1-1 services as those decisions are made. This section seeks first to define what constitutes “9-1-1 services,” then to place those services in the public safety context and to develop some principles which should inform the decision making process.

a. Definition of 9-1-1 Services

9-1-1 services are part of the continuum of emergency communications which start with a member of the public seeking assistance, and ends when that event has been responded to and dealt with by the relevant emergency service. While each element may be distinctly identified and its processes defined, it needs to be understood that they are fully interconnected and interdependent. The failure of the system at any one point will negatively impact the operation of the system as a whole. The general structure of the system in shown in Figure 1, below, along with the potentially applicable standards for each element of 9-1-1 call handling and emergency service dispatch 5process:

Note that BCAmbulance Service Dispatch also applies standards to call answer and dispatch. The former is essentially the NENAstandard of answering 90% of the calls within10 seconds or less. The dispatch standard is essentially the same as NFPA 1221 (2010), though BCASbreaks its measurement intotwo separate components. Fundamentally, however, an EMS unit must be dispatched within60 seconds. 90% of the time. Emailfrom G. Kirk,Director,Dispatch Operations, BCAS, 10 July 2013.

9 quality 3C the The 3CTranit 3C

BC

wr’,’ces Shared ben BC

BC • • • • • • • • • • Tancitas Transit Transit province scope fit

Transit Total Contracts Owns the collaboration and Provided health Serves Provides public purcf Pr’’cies Pr,iaes r’c’siS Total tronsportaton all r’od’i s connects T c Victoria of minibuses rovides f hared ting. capital operating a

Services ases through a the BC operating authorities more leader fleet

Transit services a an Transit’s 49.6 with tran

Scope f-are rf serv;ces asset Regional ooportunity expenditures a than of people, of with million wide to cost it 18 r’nork ppiies BC 1,030 Shared expenditures cafe, fl sjstems and organizations the BCtranslt to programs private 1 wes Transit 58 ‘node! .5 range effective, SeMcas over

Model people effective communities, Transit Crancial conventional million passenger focal and o such to ss’rree 130 in J allows management of in

assets, 1 Governments government ‘ower of the as Commission management 2012,13 Pout’ people 58 commu and as sustainable in “,, Br maneensent of and prov 2012/13 Local earn;nq, us trips t’sh & March and uch rests effkient Rat,,, to and and 14 in nce. nities olumv achieve of in n’est a non B.C. tnrough doubledeck businesses companies, 2012/13 partners, $47.5 31, of and f’iel public The customer cceratans. serv’ces across $266.4 profit 2013: ‘a. n and

Advantage operat’onal mgional shared and million transit Efficiencies bulk transit. ‘Je’y agencies including B.C. vehic’s; million across that fxused 5 buses en in a and gained transit financial through sers’ccs. V. and of service, reviewed unmatched BC In The

BC across BC ontributions • • eff 2012, provincial Transit T0 To and of systems rupport Plan, passenger Srtish funding ciencies

Transit

Transit the the

I enter provide the the and shar BC acquire, authority’s by compares country. Columbia Transit’s economic and, regional into in efficiency though an relationship support d ‘rom transportation for the ,“,‘-‘• services independent commercial construct

Legislated

Independent the rest local ‘particularly economies rr’ operations, growth very Transit assets for maintenance development of ef model governments public service Canada” with favourably or

‘ and 4ct strategies, revenue systems panel. cause deliver local of requires transit governance, resources. in provided” scale, . terms These and

Mandate government to of The to ealue and opportunities transit be in in olfictal while peer operation us

Review report of British B.C. constructed advantages rail for to: and ridership, transit communications ieiivering comparatively service systems money community confirmed that Columbia partners of systems “the in those areas. rositioning supply that keep public respect affordable level was is plans, the low, of PerformanceAdvantage PurchasingAdvantage-

3CTrans t arr es more passengrs, using i ‘ss service hours, it a Discount&BulkProcurement owcr st than comparable transit systems across Can id 3. Our arf rmanc e s benchm 3rked against transit statistics of similar 3CTransit achieves economies of scale in fuel and capital ie popubt n jroups collected by the Candan t’rbanTrinsit purch asing that r”sult in an overall financial benetit to all of our s ocration CUIA the rr asures comf are overafl service transit systems and our funding partners. For example BCTransit ff’ctiveness and efficiency and ire the st]tistics most universally ayes approximately 20 per cent on fuel osts througn bulk used by the North American transit indutry to track performance. purchases and 8 per cern on aehicie ourchases due to volume

nost management of fuel is fundamental to achieving financial efficiencies in transit operations as fuel accounts for Passengers 11 6930 (35 ‘a higher) 2935 (15’ahgl’er) approximately per cent of the total expenditures. As the shared pa_ - 3eruce model allows fuel to be purchased centrally BCTransit is Passengers able to enter into targeted fixed price supply agreements on a ‘Hour portion of fuel consumption to contain cost volatility and mitigate H———- Operating Cost fuel price risk. ServceHour_- $10025 9”a lower) 59139 ,4°a lower) Operating Cost / Passenger $330 (12 a/owed $327(22 slower)

Even though labour rates are similar across the CUTA comparators, the BCTransit Advantage drives economies through bulk procurement, fleet and fixed asset management, and administrative efficiencies.

Customer&PartnerSatisfaction

ContractedService

BCTransit’s approach to contracting transit operations enables systems to take advantage of a wide range of transit operating axpertise, including those provided by world-class transit iaanagement companies. Leveraging the experience of private transit operating companies contributes to BCTransit’s facourable Vhen asked to rate their transit “xperience, BCTransit customers performance. onsistently rate their overall satisfaction level above average’. BCTransit saCsfactron levels ar survjed annu aNyby a ontncti rasearch company.

crC 3C Jr aysB(Trnsitp3rtncrc ech earto aaeasure H- r ‘a of 3CTrar t. The H-al bo’ em rent opPrating ompary or ‘ys hoe strcg re ults nd nprov nts ar oi r year Tub marks a fa iour ible tmnd and r ‘flects mn 3CT s c anmitmer t to ‘la[ oraton an I culti ation of srrong art 5‘crhp i e I, a ‘ding I t ar Sur “y cmd ‘d the Report of thn icr t a a tom amI p s’tive results r F Fr r t. r J o icr r I don dos m ann ati n a ad a I EnvronmentaI5ustamnabIfty

Today,the provision of transit service is central to enabling more sustainable communities: optimizing land use and facil[tating p oples mobility by walking, cycling and transit, 4Nof these 3ctions teduce traffic, smog ard GHGemissions by reducing the use of single occupancy vehicles.

71 13 7i 2 Sut ‘mob ie Transrt ,vzkir’q Bicycle

FleetInnovation

The benefits of transit to our regional economies is demonstrated The centralized shared services model of fleet acquisition fosters by increased personal connections to employment, school, innovation. We are proud of our history and our leadership role shopping, healthcare and recreation; by reduced pressure in testing and implementing new lower-carbon vehicles and on traffic congestion and transportation infrastructure; by technologies. cleaner, more efficient energy use; and through the stable local • 1992 First low-floor buses in North America employment opportunities offered in the transit industry. 2000 Firstlow-floor double-decker buses in North Ameilca • 2005 - First production hybrid buses in Canada Come Jun v -s a gr enbn q n scic cc 2010- Largestdemonstration hydrogen fuel-cellfleet globally • 201 1 - First hybrid double-deck bus in North America ln support of the opportunities and benefits of the natural gas Bicycleiwaiking industries abundant in BritishColumbia, BCTransit will begin operating CNGbuses in revenue service by spring 2014 in the

Electrictrolley bus Regional District of Nanaimo, Torrmresper year BCTransit is also the first company in North America to test and SkyTrain purchase medium-duty Vicinitybuses which offer substantial electric light railcar 01 idvances in fuel efficiency and long term cost savings in comparison to conventional buses, New hybnd ciesci electric bus j rresper

Nw i ccci bus -

1 ronir pci I :IL

DrvrIraerig j ‘w’rrc5 • j cal-i from remaining Funding

Fundinq Dir Th cdcernsng, Governance rhrnugh 11.) rorincal

f;acrur’ture.

‘mbia

cc

cctors

corporation

per

property

locallyDctcd

c.

for

the

Ippoir

contr

flo

nt 28.3

transit

Chah,

nreszments

of lot

taxation

per

total

butions

b t Crt,

governed d

reports

emces

cent

by

funding; reprc

b

accounted

th?

for

:ias

and

ct

sentati

to

is the

Pro

generated

r

the [tiel generated

Local

quires

most

r c

$nister

sea,

tax.

snvernncmber

cc

for

gorernment

a

recent

The

for

23.8 Fuel so 45

through

ordng

from

r

so Fleet Maintenance 1O.5c of 3oard Tax

board

percent

y

Tracrporton

ar

three &

to

of Facilities

customer

accour

m contributions

8oard

tb

Directors,

and

r

main

3

rs

the

of

ted

tis

courLes,

fares,

and

for Li’ the

your parents add in opportunities return Huckleberry well North Huckleberry environment School

programs to looking Huckleberry Huckleberry We The programming programs Preschool our

operative, Huckleberry needs To: McNeill September Huckleberry

the

5

North

to

also

spacious Regional

services

years

cared

business

centre

Island

for

your of

into

to

and

and

hold

the

throughout

Island.

a in

for old. attract

for,

parent

the

employment

minimum 5th

community

the House House

House; for House the

Huckleberry House

and House

community facility that District

the

/ ages

on

that

The

loved

2013

company first

work,

communities

Mount

As the

acknowledged

contract

potential

fosters

run

meets three

Strong

Children’s believes

Children’s

Child

Child

we

which

Early

located

and

of

North

their

donation

preschool

purchasing

are

Mount

Waddington

members

and

offers the supported

by Care

Care

the learning House

Learning

Start

for

offers

employees

lives.

program

Island

flgckb1te1US.net Huckleberry

P0

that

North

at

use four,

needs

the

Centre

Centre of

Centre

Centre

Waddington the

to / Program

Box

Child in

Woss in this

so

sponsorship of

Strong

to

homes

would

and

prospective

Island the Daycare Centre

former

the

our

many

while

of

offered

use

is 1028,

Region

would

is

is

has

Care

social

and all to

North

late

a

currently

a

name,

our

is wonderful

Start

Community know

and

the

children.

registered

been on they

programs,

Cheslakees House

available

Port

Centre

80’s, for

Port

like

for

through

centre

interaction

Vancouver

Island

region.

becoming

of

Program,

employees.

pamphlets, 3-5

which

are

offering

Alice.

to 12

$2500.00

and

(250) McNeill

negotiating

Children’s provides year

offer

working. years.

Gazette

as opportunity

through

facility

is

in

Parents

a

Services,

companies

Our

School.

a

a 956-3975 non-profit

2001,

olds

quality part which

all means

skills

Island. community

BC

The

staff

a

registration

All

of

that

are:

and

year,

Huckleberry and

of

our

VN with

need

was that

the

donations,

centre

is a

Centre

is

our to

Child

Having

for before can

the

non-profit

a

a

Centre

were

highly

companies

Huckleberry

taken

encourage School

stay wonderful charitable

2R0

parent

to

community.

us

Port accommodate

asset

was

Care

know

giving as

packages,

with

a

and

skilled

on in

large

House

McNeill well originally

sponsorships District

/child

Services

for

sf

Port S charitable

and

that

after

children

society,

back providing

people

Infant

companies

as

centre

House

and

McNeill,

expanded

provides

program

their

for

and 85

school

Town

to

to

qualified

started

up

&Toddler

to

your

to who

the

this

would

such

the business

children

society.

to

make

would

employment

consider

Log

care,

and

community

an

84

that for

Town company.

donation

attend

to

as

as

so

excellent

children

provide to

as

children

meet Cheslakees

a

peer

program. be are

will

that

cards

provide

ca

satellite

of

the

our

posted

Port

be

the

In

to

in and

up (‘

%fl

(. would be a tax deduction. Alldonations would be placed directly into our fund raising account and used to purchase supplies and equipment for the children who attend the centre.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to the possibly of working together to make the North Island a place where families want to work and raise their children, If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me at or 25O-9563975.

4-> or Tracy Jacksonjrogram Co-ord inator

Huckleberry House Children’s Centre

program of Huckleberry House Children’s Centre Is a North Island CommunltySOrVICS5Society 2R0 P.O. Box 1028, Port McNeill.B.C. VON ncsbcei.fl.i (250) 956-3134 Gloria Thank TO: Quick SUBJECT: Respectfully I DATE: FROM: /1 recommend z • • • • 1-- stats Le you strong 7 270 72 Gal potential for entries from o o o o o OK/HELP 9 submitted, Gloria Greg Regional continued including September, preference 36 29 5 1 1 the Alert outside Port Fletcher, in Port Port Le volunteers weekend: the signs Fall Gal, Alice Bay McNeill Hardy Emergency participation raffle of Fair for Emergency 2013 distributed Administrator the single 2013 for Regional Alert Management page in Coordinator

Memorandum Bay, the District information Regional Port McNeill in the Fall handouts Fall and Fairs. Fair Port rather booth. Hardy than booklets z#t’

Director

Heidi

Administrator

Greg

Respectfully

Summary

No

Nations No

Electoral

compatible

Unit

North While

residential,

private

uses

The

uses

RDMW

John

1797, Proposal:

Tenure

Location: Applicant’s

Electoral

Provincial

Natural

Date:

RDMW

objections.

Objection

development

Fletcher

4.

Soltau

on

should

Keltner

the

on

September

Island land

—

Private

Reserve

Resource

Type:

Crown

Regional

Zoning

Electoral

Little

water

Area:

Area

Port

with

and

recreational Agency:

submitted,

will

Name:

be

has

to

Mist

Straits

License

moorage

lands

Harvey,

the

have

this

consistent

based

Recommendation:

A

in

Director:

submitted

is

Bylaw

5,

Operations

Area

Port

Island,

proposed

Plan,

consistent

John

2013

application

Ministry

access

and

Coastal of

areas

A

Harvey,

DL1797,

and

is

Occupation

waters.

Keitner

No.

Bylaw

Port

considered

with

an

by

associated

of

uses.

affected

21:

with

Harvey.

application

public

Forest,

so

subject

adjacent

Land

folio

674:

the

the

REGIONAL

7851373

acceptable

roads

by

Tlowitsis

following

Use

Lands

The

to

accessory

this

upland

INTERAGENCY

adherence for

use

Plan: or

application

and

tenure

waterways.

First

of

sections

areas.

and

DISTRICT

the

buildings

Nation

over

appropriate.

with

facility

The

are of

Area:

Tenure

Applicant’s

Agency

Electoral

an

and

policies

Regional

should

upland

not will

and

existing

REFERRAL

c)

OF

1.92

currently

be

Be

Duration:

structures

File

be

noted

Area

MOUNT

for

areas

compatible

Plan,

hectares

dock

contacted.

Location:

No:

pleasure

Director:

above.

subject

Bylaw

are FCBC

structure

10-30

are

REPORT

WADDINGTON

zoned

with

use

Port

allowable

674:

Noted

10100-3011

to

years

Heidi

connecting

only

zoning

adjacent

McNeill,

‘7.2

as

that

Soltau

by

Rural

a)

RDMW

uses.

regulations

the

there

All

land

BC

Zone

owners to

development

Thus

is

his

uses

File

a

(A-i)

property

Tlowitsis

No:

the

the

of

or

DL1797.

resource

zoning

for

proposed

2013018

on

on

which

First

ii

DL is

8.

7.

6. 4.

5.

3.

2.

1.

Employers

7.

6.

5.

4.

3.

2.

Objective

1.

Program

Connection

Program

3.

2.

VIHA

1.

West

Helicopters

Watching

V-Echo

MacKay

North

Black Visions

Restorations Centre

Vancouver

Regional

districts variety

remote

Provide evaluation

Provide

application electives

Provide

student

Sustain, the

leading

Allow

experiences

employers

Provide

EstabJish

Substantially

Did

Partially

work Name

-

Coast

Bear

Objectives

Island

Port

for

Objectives

not

Learning

of

communities

Whale

to

a an

quality

in work

a

improve

Library

for

experience employer/school

model

co-creation

work

practical

Resort

meaningful

British

meet

Island

adaptive

in

met

of

Project

Kayak

for

graduation

providing

experience

standards

experience

and

the

met

students

are

objective

for

and

Columbia’s

model

objective

consistency

rated

use

template

the

Transportation

Tourist

Health Tourist

Accommodation

Auto

Service

Public activity

—

of

embed

field

Summary

work

by

credits

objective

“curriculum”

and

activities

as

Sector

for

school

activities

partnership

studies

follows:

on-going

SD

rural

place

re-engaging

for

through

85

a

and

wide

of

for

Med Small

Small

Med Small

Small

Small

Med

Outcomes

Size

Rating’

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

40

6

participants

participants

Secondary

has

Field A

developed

Not

registered 2013/14

New

Comments

formal

also

formalized

study

field

been

evaluation school

study

including

school

in

th,s

course

each

Comments

adopted

year

year

course

in

designed

semester

several

the

program

with

by

developed

district

the

18

1

for

students

will

other

Nation

2013/14

be for

Students 16. 15. 14. 13. 12, 11. 9.

10. • • • • •

• Brookfield Kiewit Counsellors CIN Discovery WFP Dental Windsor Port Neucel McNeil opportunities to for The

with North field A to 40. opportunities Students as eligible The engage mentorship the participating participated All Machining McNeill formal businesses, sign development matching of liaison The current employers the study Hospital

Plywood Island the

up Energy for them field community evaluation were in employers program position additional school

as Secondary the funds and trip students. to in for safety an recruited were the use office. component several opportunities hands-on add-on

Construction Energy Health Manufacture Forest Health Pulp

Retail to year. was in framework work sponsorships at gear very were cover credits. 2013/14

large. is The very for also

Several committed to activity. and much very involvement an trips each the at effective registered The transportation This annual this were is positive hands basic employers are field still to The position initiative time.

cover to

best Med Small Small Large Small posted Large Large Med being course budget in trip new

on continue an was about promoting with characterized and will part field interest developed offered is on limited work. of of not the be the so of student bulletin study

$30,000, the Vancouver experience Looking Hired participation continued the fully students program the in Students summer

due Connection cost. hiring course and documented 2 program as boards participants. to participants for most “workplace will WCB and and future through Office jobs during completing student includes varied, of be and will made with

and program to which implemented called permanent students current sign some and the Union The interested for local 120 ranging a experiences”

considerable is should up this current summer to

school and of hours used business regulations. for year discuss the were component

between is employees participation for be as

in actively of students year. is jobs encouraged work consider part looking workplace promotion as as effort well of

6 looking will and who from the at as to at in be aD MOUNT WADDINGTON TRANSIT REVENUE

Average Monthly Revenue 2011 2012 2013 $5,362.77 $6,054.17 $6,302.61

Monthly Revenue Year to Year 2011 - 2013 $8,000.00

$7,135.44 $7,414.67 $7,411.42 $7,000.00 6,7 .4 $6,605 89 $6 644.98 457.98 6, . $6 $6,421.63 $5,972.36 $6 305.75 $6,000.00 ‘ $6,144 84 $5,972.68 $5,958.03 $5,900.36 $5,949.56 $5,787.92 $5,756.37 $5,711 , $5,431 64 $5,599.69 $5,553 64 5,074 81 )‘. 01., . ,21 04 $5,201 06 $5,000.00 . , $4,961.30 $4,959 92 ois.ii $1,852 56 $4,864.50

$4,000.00

$3,000.00

$2,000.00

$1,000.00

$0.00

N C-)

2011 2O12 2013

17/09/2013 L:\Transit\Reports\Revenue-Ridership Trends.x!s Prepared by: [P MOUNT WADDINGTON TRANSIT REVENUE

2013 Revenue Source Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Farebox $2,881.17 $4,397.69 $3,391.61 $4,308.17 $3,527.75 $3,492.53 $3,857.86 $3,662.06 $29,478.84 Ticket Sales $833.75 $708.75 $858.75 $861.25 $460.00 $702.50 $512.50 $712.50 $5,650.00 Pass Sales $1,305.00 $1,230.00 $890.00 $1,380.00 $1,470.00 $920.00 $585.00 $630.00 $8,410.00 BC Bus Passes $768.00 $799.00 $832.00 $862.00 $848.00 $883.00 $945.00 $945.00 $6,882.00 Total $5,787.92 $7,135.44 $5,972.36 $7,411.42 $6,305.75 $5,958.03 $5,900.36 $5,949.56 $000 $000 $000 $0.00 $50,420.84 estimate

2012 * Advertising Revenue reported quarterly when actual payment received * Revenue Source Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Farebox $3,726.89 $3,961.53 $3,870.17 $3,718.68 $3,731.64 $3,616.69 $3,610.64 $3,849.64 $2,716.50 $3,283.98 $3,531.84 $2,968.21 $42,186.41 Ticket Sales $920.00 $855.00 $882.50 $875.00 $1,265.00 $665.00 $695.00 $937.50 $989.00 $1,160.00 $1,191.00 $783.75 $11,214.75 Pass Sales $1,750.00 $1,015.00 $1,100.00 $990.00 $1,295.00 $870.00 $805.00 $915.00 $705.00 $1,720.00 $945.00 $975.00 $13,085.00 BC Bus Passes $209.00 $209.00 $1,562.00 $389.00 $456.00 $448.00 $443.00 $439.00 $458.00 $481.00 $477.00 $477.00 $6,048.00 * Advertising $0.00 $115.84 — $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 — $0.00 $115.84 Total $6,605.89 $5,756.37 $7,414.67 $5,972.68 $6,747.64 $5,599.69 $5,553.64 $6,141.14 $4,864.50 $6,644.98 $6,144.84 $5,203.96 $72,650.00 credit rec’d

2011 Advertising Revenue reported quarterly when actual payment received * Revenue Source Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Farebox $3,429.15 $3,143.79 $4,030.75 $3,273.81 $3,189.39 $3,544.30 $3,766.67 $3,515.56 $4,138.48 $2,958.98 $4,051.13 $3,379.92 $42,421.93 Ticket Sales $538.75 $1,336.25 $725.00 $515.00 $966.25 $560.00 $391.25 $530.00 $902.50 $742.50 $1,133.50 $541.25 $8,882.25 Pass Sales $885.00 $710.00 $825.00 $1,155.00 $1,145.00 $700.00 $645.00 $650.00 $1,260.00 $1,270.00 $1,080.00 $970.00 $11,295.00 BC Bus Passes $131.00 $131.00 $131.00 $131.00 $131.00 $157.00 $157.00 $157.00 $157.00 $157.00 $157.00 $157.00 $1,754.00 Advertising * $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $4,983.90 $5,321.04 $5,711.75 $5,074.81 $5,431.64 $4,961.30 $4,959.92 $4,852.56 $6,457.98 $5,128.48 $6,421.63 $5,048.17 $64,353.18

17/09/2013 L:\Transit\Reports\RevenumRidershp Trends,xls Prepared by: LP MOUNT WADDINGTON TRANSIT - RIDERSHIP TRENDS

Avenge Passengers per Month: I 2011 I 2012 I 2013 I 2260 2549 2490

Monthly Rldershlp Year to Year - 2011 - 2013

3500

3000 924 Q82 2701 2609 2686 578 2378 2500 Sn z4at 2457 42O 246Z 2418 2159 232 2339 fl77 2232 2175 2054 2320 2154 2111 2000 2036 2064

1500

1000

500

0 4 4 4 I ‘S I — I 6’ C, 2011 2012 2013

1710912013 U Transit Reports Revenue-Ridership Trends.xts Prepared by LP MOUNT WADDINGTON TRANSIT - RIDERSHIP TRENDS

2013 January February March April May June July August September October November December Route Total RouteltoPortMcNeill 571 512 560 596 574 582 558 527 4480 Route 1 Saturdays 18 13 14 8 7 18 17 19 114 Route2toPortHardy 628 519 535 650 556 612 494 479 4473 Route 2 Saturdays 6 6 10 15 20 20 24 9 110 Route 4-Ft Rupert 287 290 320 432 358 330 304 313 2634 Route 5-Coal Harbour 691 726 697 883 808 646 631 513 5595 Route 6-Woss/Mount Cain 93 75 64 232 Route 11-PH Local 205 168 150 197 168 128 125 129 1270 Route 12-PM Local 106 109 141 143 142 119 122 116 998 HandyDART-PH 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 9 HandyDART-PM 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 7 2012 MonthlyTotal 2609 2418 2491 2924 2635 2457 2277 2111 0 0 0 0 19922

2012 January February March April May June July August September October November December Route Total Route 1 to Port McNeill 569 589 655 590 619 707 528 573 545 681 597 525 7178 Route 1 Saturdays 18 8 15 20 8 16 14 24 21 18 19 9 190 Route 2 to Port Hardy 537 550 572 594 620 640 464 493 559 647 614 543 6833 Route 2 Saturdays 10 12 17 17 5 17 15 14 14 19 26 14 180 Route 4-Ft Rupert 425 348 359 378 440 393 367 395 342 362 347 295 4451 Route 5-Coal Harbour 662 732 790 711 858 697 735 626 510 589 729 653 8292 Route 6-Woss/Mount Cain 81 32 89 77 279 Route 11-PH Local 101 117 162 181 198 158 172 191 153 200 243 176 2052 Route 12-PM Local 78 89 115 81 72 66 88 102 82 104 104 80 1061 HandyDART-PH 6 3 6 2 6 7 3 2 6 10 6 6 63 HandyDART-PM 0 1 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 10 2012 Monthly Total 2487 2481 2782 2578 2827 2701 2387 2420 2232 2E30 2686 2378 30589

2011 January February March April May June July August September October November December Route Total RouteltoPortMcNeill 460 525 605 579 638 530 483 544 554 542 573 474 6507 Route 1 Saturdays 7 15 3 20 20 29 17 23 22 28 19 14 217 Route 2 to Port Hardy 403 442 539 S13 553 496 456 504 551 525 630 448 6060 Route2Saturdays 1 7 6 21 11 15 13 17 17 21 11 19 159 Route4-FtRupert 380 329 410 324 412 331 313 362 456 449 414 343 4523 Route 5-Coal Harbour 452 431 526 405 420 490 540 600 591 549 709 653 6366 Route 6-Woss/Mount Cain 53 47 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 191 Route 11-PH Local 199 123 192 148 130 125 105 112 118 114 87 75 1528 Route 12-PM Local 107 133 167 146 116 120 101 125 142 105 103 103 1468 HandyDART-PH 2 2 6 3 17 14 7 15 8 5 4 5 88 HandyDART-PM 0 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 3 1 2 0 14 2011 Monthly Total 2064 2054 2504. 2159 2320 2154 2036 2302 2462 2339 2552 2175 27121 * Incomplete approx 28 pax 17/09/2013 L:\Transit\Reports\Revenue-Ridership Trendsxls Prepared by: LP (N?

MONTHLY PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR MATERIALS MANAGED IN THE LANDFILL

AUG 2013 THIS MONTHS MATERIAL CUMULATIVE TOTAL SINCE JANUARY 2013

AMOUNT UNIT RATE PER TONNE AMOUNT UNIT

COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS 9009 TONNES $40.00 85761 TONNES

LANDFILLED MATERIALS EXCEEDING 6500 TONNES PER YEAR 000 TONNES $2500 0.00

CREOSOTE TIMBERS 0.00 TONNES $22.00 0.00

NON-FERROUS METAL 0.00 TONNES $44.00 8.15 TONNES FERROUS METAL EXPORTED (TO BE INVOICED SEPARATELY) 2391 TONNES $25.00 11094 TONNES

TONNAGE RATE SUBTOTAL

BILLABLE TONNAGES 9009 $4000 $3,6O36O

NON-FERROUS METAL 000 $44.00 $- TOTAL I $3,6O36O PREPARED BY: Jackie Kirnbauer

DATE 7-MILE LANDFILL MONTHLY TONNAGE SUMMARY FOR AUG 2013 MONTH 8 PROJECTIONS NOT SEASONALLY ADJUSTED Monthly Cummulative 2013 UP TO PRORATED BUDGET ANNUAL VARIANCE % WASTE % DIVERSION ANNUAL PROJECTION STREAM FROM LANDFILL MATERIALS MANAGED IN THE LANDFILL AREA - AUG 31 2013 PROJECTION TONNES Cardboard 90.90 418.26

LANDFILL 621.33 4795.34 7193 6500 10.7% 44% 68% Glossy 000 000

WOODWASTE FOR CHIPPING 71.95 580.86 581 500 16.2% 5% 8% Mixed 0.00 0.00

COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS 9(109 85T61 1286 1100 1(19% 8% 12% Newsprint 0.00 0.00

TOTAL 78337 6234 9060 8100 11.9% 57% 89% Oil 0.00 077

MATERIALS DIVERTED FROM THE LANDFILL - TONNES Batteries 000 5.98

OUTBOUNDMETAL 000 12709 191 150 27,1% 1% 2% Tires 0.00 1786

SALVAGED MATERIALS 0.00 0.00 0 0 #DIV/OI 0% 0% Paint 0.00 2.92

PAPER/WAX CARDBOARD COMPOSTABLE 12.17 173,60 260 250 4.2% 2% 2%

RECYCLED MATERIALS 9(190 49453 742 700 00% 5% 7% Plastic Type I 0.00 0.00

TOTAL DIVERTED 103.07 795 1193 1100 8.4% 7% 11% Plastic Type 2 CIr 0 00 0,00

OTHER MATERIALS: ADDITIONAL TO LANDFILL - TONNES Plastic Type 2 Col 000 000 2013 UP TO ANNUAL BUDGET VARIANCE 0 WASTE AUG 31 2013 PROJECTION PROJECTION STREAM PRO-RATED FROM ACTUALS IMPORTED WOOD WASTE FOR COMPOSTING: Plastic Type 3-7 000 0.00

NON-CEDAR 0.00 0.00 0 0 #DIV/0! 0% 0% Electronics 0.00 48.74

CEDAR 0.00 0.00 0 0 NA 0% 0% Appliances 0.00 0.00

ASPHALT SHINGLES 8.52 72.04 108 75 44.1% 1% 1%

SOIL FOR REMEDIATION 0.00 3857.94 583 0 #DIV/0 35% Product Care 0.00 0.00

‘ SOIL FOR DIRECT DEPOSIT (100 00 1 0 #DIV/0! 0% ‘ Paper to Pit 12.17 173.60

TOTAL IMPORTED FILLIWOOD 8.52 3930 692 75 822,7% 36% WaxlSoiled Cardboard 0.00 0 00

TOTAL WASTE STREAM 894.96 10959.01 10945,18 9275.00 18.0%

TOTALS 1 169.64 19.38 4.05 140.35 23.05 11.69 0.00 14.43 24.16 7.25 41.82 TOTAL OF LOADS THAT BYPASSED THE ON-SITE BIN (COLLATED FROM CONTROLLED WASTE PAGE) 165.51

SELF HAUL TOTAL 207.33