REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN BOARD of DIRECTORS MEETING Wednesday, November 6, 2013 4:00 p.m.
REGULAR AGENDA – AMENDED
A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
1. Board of Directors – November 6, 2013 (Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items) (Opportunity for Introduction of Late Items – In Camera Agenda)
RECOMMENDATION 1 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That the Agenda of the November 6, 2013 regular meeting of the Board of Directors be approved as amended: In Camera Agenda: – Item E.1 – Section 90(1)(c)
B. ADOPTION OF MINUTES
1. Board of Directors – October 16, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 2 Page 1 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That the minutes of the October 16, 2013 meeting of the Board of Directors be adopted as circulated.
C. DELEGATIONS
1. Carbon Offset Aggregation Cooperative Page 8 Mary Anne Arcand, Chair – To provide information regarding Carbon Offset Programs such as Diesel Reduction and Reforestation.
2. Okanagan Basin Water Board Page 9 Anna Warwick Sears, Executive Director – To provide an overview of the Okanagan Water Management Planning Process.
Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 2 - November 6, 2013
3. Okanagan Rail Trail Page 10 Citizens that support the Okanagan Rail Trail – To outline the benefits of turning the railway between Coldstream and Kelowna into a community path and to explain the timeline restrictions.
D. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Building Inspection Service
RECOMMENDATION 3 (Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Excludes Coldstream and Vernon) That as recommended by the Building Inspection Service Review Committee, all jurisdictions participating under the current Building Inspection Service Establishing Bylaw be provided the opportunity, by giving appropriate notice to the Board, to be excluded from the service effective December 31, 2015 with no further mitigation; and
That Administration be directed to bring forward recommendations to implement the exclusion provision as soon as possible; and
That the Board of Directors enacts the appropriate bylaw amendments at the earliest possible date; and further,
That the Board of Directors refers this recommendation of the Building Inspection Service Review Committee to participating jurisdictions for their review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION 4 (Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Excludes Coldstream and Vernon) That as recommended by the Building Inspection Service Review Committee, that Board Policy LU20 – Building Permit Fees Retained by Municipalities be amended to reduce the fee retained by the participants from 20% to 5%.
RECOMMENDATION 5 (Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Excludes Coldstream and Vernon) That as recommended by the Building Inspection Service Review Committee, Regional District of North Okanagan Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 be amended to: 1. Increase Application, Plumbing and other fees by 15%; and 2. Increase Building Permit fees from $11 per $1,000 of construction value to: a. $13 per $1,000 of construction value for construction under $500,000; and b. $12 per $1,000 of construction value for construction between $500,000 to $1,000,000; and for construction over $1,000,000 to remain at $11 per $1,000 of construction value.
RECOMMENDATION 6 Page 15 – Staff report dated September 17, 2013 (Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Excludes Coldstream and Vernon) That as recommended by the Building Inspection Service Review Committee, Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2609, 2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings. Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 3 - November 6, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 7 (Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Excludes Coldstream and Vernon – 2/3 Majority) That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2609, 2013 be Adopted.
RECOMMENDATION 8 Page 33 – Staff report dated October 24, 2013 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012, as amended, be Adopted.
E. NEW BUSINESS
1. Bylaw 2593 – White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Establishment Amendment
RECOMMENDATION 9 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Establishment Amendment Bylaw No. 2593, 2013 be Adopted.
2. Long Form Census
RECOMMENDATION 10 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That as recommended by the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee, a letter be sent to the Federal Government to ask that the Compulsory Long Form Census be reinstated in order to enable government to obtain effective data from their constituents.
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment – Staff report dated October 1, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 11 Page 39 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That as recommended by the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment be considered during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
4. Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement – Staff report dated September 30, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 12 Page 49 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That as recommended by the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee, a Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement be considered during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 4 - November 6, 2013
5. Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept – Staff report dated September 4, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 13 Page 76 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That as recommended by the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee, the report dated September 4, 2013 regarding the exploration of the Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept be considered during the selection of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
6. Genetically Modified Organisms – Staff report dated October 21, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 14 Page 83 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That the report dated October 21, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding Genetically Modified Organisms be received for information.
7. Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Restructuring
RECOMMENDATION 15 (Customized Stakeholder Vote – Includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral Areas “B” and “C”) That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Review Committee, the schedules associated with the Memorandum of Understanding for the Provision of Sub-Regional Parks be amended to reflect the removal of Creekside Park from Schedule 3a the addition of Creekside Park to Schedule 1, the removal of Lakeview Pool from Schedule 2a, the addition of Lakeview Pool to the Facilities Memorandum of Understanding; the removal of Lavington Pool from Schedule 3a, and the addition of Lavington Pool to the Facilities Memorandum of Understanding.
RECOMMENDATION 16 (Customized Stakeholder Vote – Includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral Areas “B” and “C”) That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Review Committee, the 2013 budget figures associated with the Sub-Regional Parks Schedule amendments be transferred as follows: − $45,000 for Creekside Park − $45,000 for Lavington Pool − $35,000 for Lakeview Pool
Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 5 - November 6, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 17 (Customized Stakeholder Vote – Includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral Areas “B” and “C”) That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Review Committee, the City of Vernon be contracted for delivery of Sub-Regional Parks Service in the City of Vernon and the District of Coldstream, which shall include: – Three (3) Year Term – Six (6) Month Notice for Renewal – Super Majority consent of participants required for renewal and that the contract be conditional upon presentation to and approval by the Board of Directors.
RECOMMENDATION 18 (Customized Stakeholder Vote – Includes Coldstream, Vernon, Electoral Areas “B” and “C”) That as recommended by the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Review Committee, $256,148 be maintained for Parks; and $248,741 be maintained for Arts, Youth and Culture in the Remnant 1648 service as outlined in the Regional District of North Okanagan proposal dated October 9, 2013.
FOR DISCUSSION The draft Greater Vernon Sub-Regional Parks and Trails Service Agreement will be circulated prior to the meeting.
FOR DISCUSSION The draft Sub-Regional Parks Contract will be circulated prior to the meeting.
8. Silver Star Mountain Works Agreement – Staff report dated October 28, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 19 Page 178 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That the Silver Star Mountain Works Agreement, Vance Creek Reservoir and Ancillary Works, dated September 10, 2008 - Schedule A – Benefiting Land be amended to include the following lands:
− Ridge Developments Ltd. - Lot 31, Plan KAP81761 located at 9751 Cathedral Drive; and − Ridge Developments Ltd. - Lot 27, Plan KAP85187 located at 9961 Cathedral Drive; and further,
That the Silver Star Mountain Works Agreement, Vance Creek Reservoir and Ancillary Works be amended to reflect an allocation of 751 pillows (estimated) of water storage capacity to Ridge Developments Ltd. prior to issuance of building permits.
Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 6 - November 6, 2013
9. 2014 Meeting Schedule – Staff report dated October 21, 2013
RECOMMENDATION 20 Page 200 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That the 2014 Meeting Schedule for regular meetings of the Board of Directors and its Standing Committees, be approved as follows:
Board of Directors: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Wednesday, March 19 2014 Wednesday, April 2, 2014 Wednesday, April 16, 2014 Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Wednesday, May 21, 2014 Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Wednesday, June 18, 2014 Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Wednesday, July 16, 2014 Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Wednesday, August 20, 2014 Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Wednesday, September 17, 2014 Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Wednesday, October 15, 2014 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Greater Vernon Advisory Committee: Thursday, January 16, 2014 Thursday, February 6, 2014 Thursday, March 6, 2014 Thursday, April 3, 2014 Thursday, May 8, 2014 Thursday, June 5, 2014 Thursday, July 3, 2014 Thursday, August 7, 2014 Thursday, September 4, 2014 Thursday, October 2, 2014 Thursday, November 6, 2014 Thursday, December 4, 2014
Electoral Area Advisory Committee: Thursday, January 16, 2014 Thursday, February 6, 2014 Thursday, March 6, 2014 Thursday, April 3, 2014 Thursday, May 8, 2014 Thursday, June 5, 2014 Thursday, July 3, 2014 Thursday, August 7, 2014 Thursday, September 4, 2014 Thursday, October 2, 2014 Thursday, November 6, 2014 Thursday, December 4, 2014
Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee:
Wednesday, January 15, 2014 Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Wednesday, April 16, 2014 Wednesday, May 21, 2014 Wednesday, June 18, 2014 Wednesday, July 16, 2014 Wednesday, August 20, 2014 Wednesday, September 17, 2014 Wednesday, October 15, 2014 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Wednesday, December 17, 2014 Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 7 - November 6, 2013
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee:
Thursday, January 23, 2014 Thursday, February 20, 2014 Thursday, March 20, 2014 Thursday, April 17, 2014 Thursday, May 15, 2014 Thursday, June 19, 2014 Thursday, July 17, 2014 Thursday, August 21, 2014 Thursday, September 18, 2014 Thursday, October 16, 2014 Thursday, November 20, 2014 Thursday, December 18, 2014
White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee: Monday, January 13, 2014 Tuesday, February 11, 2014 Monday, March 10, 2014 Monday, April 14, 2014 Monday, May 12, 2014 Monday, June 9, 2014 Monday, July 14, 2014 Monday, August 11, 2014 Monday, September 8, 2014 Tuesday, October 14, 2014 Monday, November 10, 2014 Monday, December 8, 2014
10. Okanagan Regional Library Funding Request – Lumby Branch
RECOMMENDATION 21 (Weighted Stakeholder Vote – Includes Lumby, Electoral Areas “D” and “E”) That as recommended by the White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee, the funding request from the Okanagan Regional Library for $900 to purchase window covers for the Lumby branch, located within the White Valley Community Centre, be respectfully denied.
11. Proposed South Okanagan – Similkameen National Park – Letter dated August 26, 2013 – Draft Resolution dated October 10, 2013 – January 2011 Feasibility Assessment – Business Case – Formal Public Support – Addresses for Resolutions
FOR DISCUSSION Page 202
12. In Camera Confidentiality Policy
FOR DISCUSSION
F. BUSINESS ARISING FROM DELEGATIONS
Board of Directors Agenda – Regular - 8 - November 6, 2013
G. REPORTS
1. Standing and Select Committees
RECOMMENDATION 22 Page 236 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That the minutes of the following meetings be received for information: – Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – Regular – October 17, 2013 (unadopted) – Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – Regular – October 16, 2013 (unadopted) – White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee – Regular – October 15, 2013 (unadopted)
2. External Committee Reports
3. Administrator’s Report
4. Chair’s Report
H. IN CAMERA
RECOMMENDATION 23 (Unweighted Corporate Vote – Simple Majority) That, pursuant to Section 92 of the Community Charter, the regular meeting of the Board of Directors convene In Camera to deal with matters deemed closed to the public in accordance with Section 90(1)(c) of the Community Charter.
I. REPORT FROM IN CAMERA
J. ADJOURNMENT BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item B.1
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the BOARD of DIRECTORS of the REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN held in the Boardroom at the Regional District Office on Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Members: Director P. Nicol City of Vernon Chair Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” Vice Chair Director S. Fowler City of Armstrong Director D. Dirk District of Coldstream Director H. Cyr City of Enderby Director K. Acton Village of Lumby Director J. Brown Township of Spallumcheen Director R. Sawatzky City of Vernon Director J. Cunningham City of Vernon Alt. Director C. Lord City of Vernon Director B. Fleming Electoral Area “B” Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area “C” Director E. Foisy Electoral Area “E” Director J. Pearase Electoral Area “F”
Staff: L. Mellott General Manager, EA Admin (Acting Administrator) D. Sewell General Manager, Finance R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building D. McTaggart General Manager, Engineering M. Skobalski Planner A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator K. Pinkoski Parks Planner T. Nelson Community Development Coordinator L. Jantz Clerk (taking minutes)
Also Alt. Director J. Garlick District of Coldstream Present: Councilor G. Kiss District of Coldstream Media and Public
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board of Directors – October 16, 2013
Moved and seconded by Directors Cyr and Fairbairn That the Agenda of the October 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Board of Directors be approved with the following additions: In Camera Agenda: – Item E.5 – Section 90(1)(c) – Item E.6 – Section 90(1)(g) – Item E.7 – Section 90(1)(g) CARRIED
1 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item B.1 Board of Directors Minutes – Regular - 2 - October 16, 2013
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Board of Directors – October 2, 2013
Moved and seconded by Directors Acton and Brown That the minutes of the October 2, 2013 meeting of the Board of Directors be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
Committee of the Whole – October 2, 2013
Moved and seconded by Directors Cunningham and Fleming That the minutes of the October 2, 2013 meeting of the Committee of the Whole be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
Public Hearing [Bylaw 2576] – October 2, 2013
Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Foisy That the minutes of the October 2, 2013 Public Hearing [Bylaw 2576] of the Board of Directors be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
Conservation Officer Service / Ministry of Environment Barbara Leslie, Inspector provided an update on: – Staff Changes – Statistics – Problem Wildlife / Bear Awareness Program – Governing Legislation
NEW BUSINESS
Bylaw 2600 – Subdivision Servicing
Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Pearase That Electoral Area “E” be exempt from the requirements for potable water; and further, That staff be directed to research options for registering notice on title to indicate the exemption. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Pearase That staff be directed to prepare a report to the Board outlining options for alternative power standards in Electoral Areas “D” and “E”. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Pearase That the Regional District of North Okanagan Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 2600, 2013, which proposes to replace Regional District of North Okanagan Subdivision Servicing Bylaw No. 726, 1986 be given Second Reading as amended and be referred to a Public Hearing. CARRIED
2 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item B.1 Board of Directors Minutes – Regular - 3 - October 16, 2013
Bylaw 2608 – Electoral Areas 2014 Property Tax Exemption Bylaw
Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Macnabb That Electoral Areas 2014 Property Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 2608, 2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Macnabb That Electoral Areas 2014 Property Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 2608, 2013 be Adopted. CARRIED
Bylaw 2609 – Building Bylaw Amendment
Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Acton That Board Policy LU20 – Building Permit Fees Retained by Municipalities be amended to reduce the fee retained by the participants from 20% to 5%.
Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Acton That Regional District of North Okanagan Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 be amended to: 1. Increase Application, Plumbing and other fees by 15%; and 2. Increase Building Permit fees from $11 per $1,000 of construction value to: a. $13 per $1,000 of construction value for construction under $500,000; and b. $12 per $1,000 of construction value for construction between $500,000 to $1,000,000; and for construction over $1,000,000 to remain at $11 per $1,000 of construction value.
Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Acton That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2609, 2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings.
Moved and seconded by Directors Acton and Cyr That the matter of amendments to Board Policy LU20 – Building Permit Fees Retained by Municipalities and amendments to Building Bylaw 1747, 2003 be postponed until after the October 24, 2013 Building Inspection Service Review Committee meeting. CARRIED
Zoning in Cosens Bay
Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Macnabb That staff be directed to prepare a report on zoning in Cosens Bay to clarify issues as it relates to the Electoral Areas “B” and “C” Official Community Plan. CARRIED
Regional Parkland Legacy Fund
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cyr That establishment of a Regional Parkland Legacy Fund be referred to Municipal Councils and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for consideration. CARRIED
3 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item B.1 Board of Directors Minutes – Regular - 4 - October 16, 2013
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cyr That staff be directed to explore details regarding establishment of a Regional Parkland Legacy Fund. CARRIED
Ramifications of Stream Remediation
Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Fleming That staff be directed to write a letter to the Premier regarding responsibility to protect waterways including flood mitigation, and the need to heed the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) resolution passed in September 2013 regarding flood management. CARRIED
Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Update
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cyr That the report dated September 12, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding an update on Regional Growth Strategy implementation be referred to member municipalities and the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for their information. CARRIED
Regional Planning (031) Financial Plan: 2014-2015
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cyr That the report dated September 4, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the 2014 / 2015 Regional Planning (031) Financial Plan be supported in principle. CARRIED
Okanagan Wetlands Strategy
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cyr That Margaret Bakelaar, Environmental / Land Use Planning for the Regional District of Central Okanagan be requested to attend a future Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee to present on the Okanagan Wetlands Strategy. CARRIED
Regional Growth Strategy Immigration and Economic Development
Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Sawatzky That the following policies be included in the Regional Growth Strategy during a future Regional Growth Strategy Housekeeping Minor Amendment, pursuant to Section 857.1 of the Local Government Act and the Regional Growth Strategy Minor Amendment Process included within Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011: – Strategy ED-2.X: Support the creation of welcoming communities that facilitate the integration of immigrants and newcomers into the North Okanagan; – Strategy ED-2.X: Recognize the importance of domestic and international immigration and attracting young families to the long term sustainability and resilience of the North Okanagan economy; and – Strategy ED-2.X: Encourage the federal government to work with provincial, regional district and municipal partners, as well as community and business stakeholders, to develop immigration settlement programs with access to predicable long-term funding. CARRIED
4 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item B.1 Board of Directors Minutes – Regular - 5 - October 16, 2013
Greater Vernon Water – Development Fees and Charges
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cunningham That the letter dated June 12, 2013 from the City of Vernon be received for information. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cunningham That staff be directed to consult the City of Vernon and District of Coldstream when reviewing the Greater Vernon Water Rates and Fees Bylaw for development to avoid duplication or absence of fees and charges. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cunningham That all parties to the Water Distribution, Operations, Maintenance and Repair Agreement continue to work together to set the rates fairly and in consultation with one another. CARRIED
Art Gallery and Museum Development and Referendum Process
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Sawatzky That a total of $30,000 be approved in the 2013 Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture (060) budget to retain consultants to confirm construction and operating costs for the proposed new art gallery and museum expansion with monies to come from reserves. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Sawatzky That the City of Vernon be requested to bring forward alternatives for costs and ownership for the lands involved in the Art Gallery and Museum projects. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Sawatzky That staff be directed to secure funds from the Art Gallery and Museum Boards to cover the differential costs associated with holding the referendum for the Art Gallery and Museum in the spring of 2014 versus holding it in conjunction with the fall Municipal elections; and further, That these funds be secured prior to the referendum decision by the Board of Directors. CARRIED
Greater Vernon Water Rates and Fees Bylaw – Leak Adjustment – 9300 Aberdeen Road
Moved and seconded by Directors Macnabb and Cunningham That the request from John Keyton for additional credit to the water utility account at 9300 Aberdeen Road be denied. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Sawatzky That staff be directed to bring back a report on adjustments to water leak rate surcharge within the context of the Greater Vernon Water Rates and Fees Bylaw for 2014. CARRIED
5 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item B.1 Board of Directors Minutes – Regular - 6 - October 16, 2013
Restorative Justice Society
Discussion took place regarding methods of providing funding for the Restorative Justice Program, with one alternative being establishment of agreements between the City of Vernon and those jurisdictions that wish to contribute to the Program.
Sovereign Park Transfer
Moved and seconded by Directors Dirk and Cunningham That the matter of Sovereign Park Transfer be postponed until after the October 22, 2013 Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Review Committee meeting. CARRIED
REPORTS
Standing and Select Committees
Moved and seconded by Directors Cunningham and Fairbairn That the minutes of the following meetings be received for information: − Electoral Area Advisory Committee – Regular – October 3, 2013 (unadopted) − Greater Vernon Advisory Committee – Regular – October 3, 2013 (unadopted) − Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – Regular – September 26, 2013 (unadopted) CARRIED
External Committee Reports
Directors provided updates for the following external committees:
– Okanagan Regional Library (ORL) – Alternate Director Lord – Sterile Insect Release (SIR) – Director Fowler – Municipal Insurance Association (MIA) – Alternate Director Lord
Chair’s Report
– Bruce Aikenhead (pioneering founder of the Canadian space program) was honoured – Styrofoam round-up a success
IN CAMERA
Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Macnabb That, pursuant to Section 92 of the Community Charter, the regular meeting of the Board of Directors convene In Camera to deal with matters deemed closed to the public in accordance with Section 90(1)(c), (e) and (k) of the Community Charter. CARRIED
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors adjourned to meet In Camera at 5:19 p.m.
The regular meeting of the Board of Directors reconvened at 7:15 p.m.
6 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item B.1 Board of Directors Minutes – Regular - 7 - October 16, 2013
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Chair Corporate Officer Patrick Nicol Jeanne Byron
7 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item C.1
8 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item C.2
9 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item C.3 ~JEC!;~UW~l]) OCT 2 4 2013 REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH O~NAGAN TRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN REQUEST TO APPEAR AS A DELEGATION
Type of Meeting: Board of Directors [:! Electoral Area Advisory r! Regional Growth Management u Greater Vernon Advisory C White Valley Parks & Rec Cather
Meeting Date Requested: NDV b Z.DJ~
Name of Person or Group Making Presentation: C. ~\-, ~Vl S ~} ~...., (Please Print) Contact Information:
First Name: _..:..u...r_~.:.______--=L:.::.as:..: tc...:..N.:..:a::..:.m.:..:e"-: __0_ 41/l..:....:..._~----'~-)------l
Street Address: _l-=---~_:;.__ ..:.... ~_t.{----::----!.A...:...v_e.______--j
City: _ V.;_«_VLM___ ~------i Province: __'3C-:;______:_ P..=o.:o:st:.::.a:...:lC:..:o:..:d:.:::e.:....: _ V_t.:....:L--=------=t_L.._~------l Phone: _Z._CV__ · _~ _D_6-r-· -~_l_9_Z______,------l Email: bc--Lewt41 s {2 ,J.-elu$. ne In order that we may process your request, please indicate which department and I or staff member you have been in contact with:
Purpose of Presentation:
C Information only C Request Funding
Will you be providing supporting documentation? Cno
If yes: [J pro\o1de handouts at meeting ~ncluded in agenda (submit one copy no later than 10 days prior to your requested appearance) Technical Requirements: Will you be using a PowerPoint presentation? ~es Cno If yes, you are required to submit your presentation prior to the meeting date to allow sufficient time to transfer the presentation onto the Boardroom computer and to ensure that your software requirement is compatible with the Regional District's software system.
Following receipt of your request, your lnfonnation will be reviewed by the Corporate Officer and you will be notified as to t1ow your request will proceed. Be advised that submi ssion of your request does not constitute approval to appear. If you receive confinnation that your request has been approved or denied, you will be advised as such. If you receiVe approval to appear as a delegation, you will be provided with the date, time and location of the meeting.
INTERNAL USE ONLY 0 Re\o1ewed and Approved to Appear as a Delegation Please note that all Information provided on the request form will be Included in a public meeting agenda and as such considered a matter of public Information.
10 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item C.3
~G '~W~ffi Citizens for an Okanagan Rail Trail 2608 24 Ave OCT 2 2013 Vernon BC V1T 1L3 llEGION/\l 1l'1 TAICT Of NORTH OKANAGAN
October ?4, 2013
Regional District of North Okanagan Directors 9848 Aberdeen Road Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9
Dear Directors,
On October 2, 2013, CN began t he process to abandon the railway between Kelowna and Vernon. While the abandonment of the railway will have negative consequences on our manufacturing sector, we must consider the opportunity that arises from this unfortunate situation. We can do our best to transform this wonderful linear property into a community asset that will provide benefits to the residents and visitors to t he Okanagan now and long into our future, or we can allow this transportation corridor and lakefront access to be sold for private use. Making this topic an urgent one is the possibility that the railway niay become available as early as December 3rd 2013 and the opportunity to protect the corridor lost by March 2014.
We, the Citizens for an Okanagan Rai l Trail, wish to present to the Board of Directors the benefits of protecting this transportation corridor and the timing involved. We will also be asking for your support in considering the railway as a community pathway in the event that operation of the railway does not proceed.
As a result of the short timeline, we request to present to the Board of Directors at the earliest possible opportunity.
Sincerely, ~ Bradley S. Clements Citizens for an Okanagan Rai l Trail 250-306-4192 bclements@tel us. net
Performance Errm·! Main Document Onlv. 'Ill '1 om I "' II II I I • .J I I
11 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item C.3
Okanagan Rail Trail - Oct 25
Okanag n Rail Trail - An Opportunity.
We have a tremendous opportunity that has presented itself here in the Okanagan. On October 2, 2013, CN began the process to abandon the ra il way between Vernon and Ke lowna. While the abandonment of t he ra ilway w ill have negative consequences on our manufacturing sector, we must consider the opportunity t hat arises from this unfortunate situation. We can do our best to transform this wonderful linear property into a community asset that will provide benefits to the residents and visitors to the Okanagan now and long into our future, or we can allow this transportation corridor and last natural lakefront access to be sold for private use.
The decision is ours.
If we wish to consider t his decision, then we must act fast. The rai lway may become availa ble on Dec 3, 2013 and the opportunity lost by March of 2014. We must act quickly.
Why an Okanagan Rail Trail?
There are several benefits to saving this transportation corridor and turning it in.to a community pathway.
A community pathway will provide hea lthy recreation and transportation opportunit ies to people of all ages with a beautiful, safe, and accessible place to cycle, walk, hike, or jog. This will enable the residents of ou r communities to incorporate exercise into daily routines by connecting key locations that are cu rrent ly not easily accessible by riding, wa lking or j ogging. By encouraging physical activity we will see a significant effect on public health and wellness.
In addit ion to providing a sa fe place to enjoy recreational activities, this community pathway will act as an efficient transportation corridor and help create a seamless regional multi-modal transportation system. By co nnecting Ke lowna, Lake Country, Vernon, the airport, UBCO, t he 50 km pathway will co nnect co mmunit ies, places of work and recreation and provide the ability to avoid congested streets and highways, and travel through natural areas on foot or by non-motorized means. Currently t here is no other transportation corri dor that would provide an opportunity like this to connect Okanagan va lley communities with a safe alternative for non-motorized transportation modalit ies. This will become a significant factor in the Okanagan's livability. The Okanagan Rail Trail will also "feed" people into and out of transit stations in a safe and efficient manner improving the adoption of other alternative transportation methods.
By transforrning t he ra ilway into a co mmunity pathway we will ga in the co nservation benefits of preserving green space as well as the addit ional benefit of providing needed links between fragmented habitats. This will provide further opportunities for protecting plant and animal species. The community pathway will also be a useful tool for the preservation of Ka lamalka and Wood Lakes, which both currently have largely undeveloped shorelines along the route. In addition, the pathway can allow us to experience t hese beautiful lakes and the unique ecology t hat surrounds them with little enviro nmental impact.
The economic effects of an Okanagan Rail Trail are also a very important to consider. For several years the economy in the Okanagan has been evolving. Manufacturing has been declining and small business increasing. Tourism continues to be the most important contributor to the local economy.
The Okanagan Rail Trail will have direct impact on tourism. The pathway will have very little incline or decline, making it attractive to a broad range of users and many types of activities. The Kettle Va lley railway is a prime example of the heavy use t hese types of trails receive. In 2004 when $13.5 Million was committed to rebuilding the trestles lost to fire the Provincial and Federal governments indicated that the Myra Canyon portion of the trail provided $5 million in economic benefit each year. (l)
The Okanagan Rai l Trail will also improve the livability of the Okanagan increasing the attractiveness to entrepreneurs and employees seeking an improved quality of life.
12 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item C.3
Okanagan Rail Trail - Oct 25
The Oka nagan Ra il Trail ca n beco me a source of co mmunity identity and pride. These effects can magnified if our communities use the pathway to highlight and provid e access to historic, cultural, recreational, and environmental resources. The increase of incoming tourism traffic due to the t ~ai l will provide the community with positive exposure and help generate greater community identity.
Ka lamalka Lake and its mainly undeveloped shorelines is currently a large part of the Okanagan's identity. Development along these shores wou ld be putting this aspect of our identity at risk. Co nverting the rai lway into a pathway will help protect t he lake and preserve its International identity.
What is the process of abandoning the railway?
The process of abandonment is defined by t he Canada Transportation Act. The process is below:
Aug 23, 2013 Railway line transferred from Kelowna Pacific Railway Ltd. to CN Oct 2, 2013 CN issues Notice of Discontinuance of Railway Line Parties interested in acquring the railway for the purpose of continuing railway operations must make their intentions in writing to CN by Dec. 2, 2013. If a party signals intentions, go to scenario 2. If no parties show intentions, go to scenario!. Scenario 1 Dec 3, 2013 Offer to Government Jan 2, 2014 Deadline for Government of Canada Acceptance Feb 3, 2014 Deadline for British Columbia Government Acceptance Mar 5, 2014 Deadline for Transit Authority Acceptance Apr 4, 2014 Deadline for Municipal Government Acceptance Scenario 2 Dec 3, 2013 The parties interested in operating the railway have 6 months from the expiry of the 60 day notice to reach agreement on the sale. If no agreement is reached the process continues as follows. Jun 3, 2014 Offer to Government July 3, 2014 Deadline for Government of Canada Acceptance Aug 5, 2014 Deadline for British Columbia Government Acceptance Sep 4, 2014 Deadline for Transit Authority Acceptance Oct 4, 2014 Deadline for Municipal Government Acceptance
As you can see by the timeline above, time is off the essence. If there is no intention by any parties to operate the railway, the process of allowing government to purchase begins on December 3 rd . That is just a few weeks away. And then by March of 2014, our opportunity to work with government on securing the rail line is gone and all of the benefits of transforming the railway line into a community path are lost forever. The decision is ours.
How do we ensure that converting the railway line into community path is an option?
Time is of t he essence. It wi ll be j ust a few weeks before the railway will probably be offed to the community through various levels of government. After that time period, the rai lway ri ght of way will be offered for sale to the general public. Once t he railway line is offered for sa le to the public, sections will be quickly purchased ending the option for a community pathway linking our communities and creating public asset to benefit current and future generations of residence and visitors of the Okanagan. We suggest the following:
13 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item C.3
Okanagan Rail Trail - Oct 25
1. We need community support for t he Okanagan Rail Trail. Please go to www.okanaganrailtrail. ca to j oi n our list and show support. Our site will be live shortly. You can also li ke us on Facebook : www.facebook.com/ okanaganrailt rail . 2. Raise funds for a cost benefit analysis of purchasing t he railway line. 3. Work with t he various levels of government and CN on developing and agreement t hat benefits residents, government and CN.
Losing t he railway will have a t remendous negative impact on t he Okanagan's economy. If that does happen, t hen we must make the best of an unfortunate situation. We will have the opportunity to take t his situation and t urn it into a positive for the residence of t he Okanagan, tourists coming to visit and our economy ~oday and into our future. The decision is ours. We can make this happen if we all work together .
Please Note. This document was writt en by t he Citizens wh o support an Okanagan Rail Trail. We do support the businesses that utilized the railway and will support an organization who wishes to take over operations of the railway. Our intent is to ensure that the railway line is considered as a community pathway/ transportation corridor only if t he railway is abandoned.
For more information, or to show your support of t his idea, pl ease visit our website www.okanaganrailtrail.ca (soon t o be co mpleted) or email us at [email protected]. You may also view call 250-306-4192.
Notes and Information Sources ( 1) http://www. kettlevalleyrailway .ca/ j d2004. htm ( 2) CN's Notice of Discontinuance of a Rai lway Line, Oct. 2, 2013. (3) CN Network Str ategies Departm ent, Montreal Quebec. (4) National Trails Coalition- Canadian Trails Study, Terrance J . Norm an, December 2010, ( 5) http:/ /www. railstotrails.org/ ourWork/ traiiBasics/ benefits.html (6) BEAT: The Path to Health, Fall 2008
14 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3760.08
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rob Smailes, General Manager, Planning and Building DATE: September 17, 2013 SUBJECT: Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Inspection Revenue
RECOMMENDATION 1:
That Board Policy LU20 – Building Permit Fees Retained by Municipalities be amended to reduce the fee retained by the participants from 20% to 5%; and further,
RECOMMENDATION 2:
That Regional District of North Okanagan Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 be amended to: 1. Increase Application, Plumbing and other fees by 15%; and 2. Increase Building Permit fees from $11 per $1,000 of construction value to: a. $13 per $1,000 of construction value for construction under $500,000; and b. $12 per $1,000 of construction value for construction between $500,000 to $1,000,000; and for construction over $1,000,000 to remain at $11 per $1,000 of construction value; and further,
That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2609, 2013 be given First, Second and Third Readings; and further,
That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2609, 2013 be adopted.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
The recommendations contained within the Building Department Review Project 2011 (BDRP) report were discussed at the April 18, 2012 meeting of the Committee of the Whole. Most of the recommendations, which speak to further investigation and analysis of cost efficiency measures, were endorsed except those dealing with taxation. The Board of Directors adopted those recommendations at their May 2, 2012 meeting. While it was contemplated that the Building Department Service Review Committee would address matters relating to governance, finance and policy, due to the length of time of the review and changing economics affecting the Building Department, it is timely these matters come forward to the Board now. This report provides recommendations to reduce the amount of Building Permit revenue retained by the partners in the Service and increase building permit revenue generally.
DISCUSSION:
The value of construction in 2013 in the areas covered by RDNO Building Inspection is well below budget estimate. The downturn in construction is significant. The value of building permit fees is the lowest received in 24 years. While the number of housing units are the same as last year overall, the
15 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 2 value of construction has only generated about 80% of anticipated revenue. With reserves rapidly depleting and the reduction in staff from 5 full time employees in September 2012 down to 3 full time inspectors. Additional actions will be required before 2014 to address the revenue shortfall, if service levels are to remain at acceptable levels. Senior staff attempted to implement a reduced work week for Building Inspection but were unable due to employment laws.
The following graph represents the Building Permit Application Revenue versus Expenses per year from 1999 to 2013 (projected).
Building Permit Application Revenue V. Expenses 1999 to 2013 (projected) 800,000 700,000 600,000
500,000 Expenses, $522,000 400,000
300,000 Application Revenue, 200,000 $270,281 100,000
Graph 1 – Building Permit Application Revenue versus Expenses from 1999 to 2013 (projected).
ANALYSIS:
Reduction of Permit fee retained by the participants While it has been suggested that the matter of building permit fees retained by Municipalities and Electoral Areas could be discussed among the participants during the Service Review process, given the urgency of declining revenues and reserves of the Building Department, staff have brought this item forward for discussion in advance. Board Policy LU020 dated October 1993 (based on Board Resolution No. 783/93) outlines that 20% of the permit fees are to be retained by the Municipalities, but no rationale is provided to support that amount. It is known that previous to 1993 the amount retained was 10% and in 1993 there was a “healthy accumulated surplus” referred to in minutes of Board and Committee meetings.
Staff have researched this matter including reports from the 2001/2002 review, historical correspondence, Board Policy and even newspaper articles from 1968 to 19701 that were discovered in the RDNO vaults. It appears that the retention of fees by the Municipalities has never had any analytical justification to establish the amount retained but was more a product of discussions between the parties about the costs of providing the Building Inspection Service and the use of these revenues to subsidize general taxation. During times of high construction activity, the department has
1 The RDNO Building Inspection Service was established during this time.
16 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 3 been viewed as a “profit centre”. Given the drastic fluctuations that can occur in development activity in the Okanagan valley, such a high retention rate erodes the ability to fund this important service.
It is recognized that administering Building Inspection does require some efforts on the part of the municipal partners as their staff do undertake some service support locally. The most common support is that municipal staff issues the permit to the builder/owner after the inspector has undertaken his review and prepared the permit. This requires municipal staff to issue the permit, accept payment of the fee and remit 80% of the fee to the RDNO.
Staff are aware that community development in general results in local government staff involvement including Public Works, Finance and Administration and that the workload is correlated to activity levels, but the actual amount attributable to counter service, plan checking, issuance of building permits and building inspections is relatively minor. It is recognized that challenges of compliance and enforcement of the building and local bylaws can require more significant effort depending on the degree of non-compliance and the level of cooperation of those involved. Nevertheless, a decrease in the amount of fees retained by the jurisdictions will assist with the current revenue shortfall and staff will once again bring back the recommended changes to the Notice on Title fees as incentive for compliance.
In the Electoral Areas, 20% of the building permit revenue generated by construction is also retained by 021 (Electoral Area (EA) Administration), although there are no costs attributed to EA Administration from the Building Inspection Service. This revenue is used solely to reduce the amount of requisition required to fund Electoral Area Administration and began in 2003. Similar to all participants, if this amount is reduced from 20% to 5%, the reduction of revenue from the Building Inspection Service to EA Administration will have to be offset through an increase in requisition and/or a reduction in expenses.
In two Building Service Review Committee sub-group meetings earlier this year (Directors from the Village of Lumby and Electoral Areas “D” and “E” and the City of Armstrong, Township of Spallumcheen and Electoral Areas “B” and “C”) reducing or eliminating the fees retained by the participants was put forward as a recommendation to address revenue challenges faced by the Department; however, the Service Review Committee has not met since these meetings took place to discuss the topic further.
During the review of this matter, staff contacted other Regional Districts regarding the retention of building permit fees by a municipality. The retention of fees appears to only coincide where Building Inspection is provided on contract, not as a Regional District Service as it is in the RDNO.
RECOMMENDATION 1: In light of the above rationale and rapidly declining revenue staff are recommending that the fee retention of participants be reduced to 5% to improve the revenue flow to the Building Service. In order to amend the percentage of fees retained by the partners, the Board must to amend Board Policy LU20 attached to this report. Staff also suggest this be revisited periodically as part of the governance of this Service moving forward.
Alternatives: Alternatives to the recommended action include: leaving the percentage of fees retained as is; eliminating the retention of fees; or setting some other percentage (i.e. 10%) to be retained by the participant jurisdictions. As well in the medium term, the service partners should agree to revisit this amount periodically.
17 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 4
Increase Building Permit fees The current fee structure for building permits includes an application fee and then, upon issuance of the permit, fees are assessed based on the value of construction and the number of plumbing fixtures. The majority of permits, and thus revenue, are derived from buildings that are assessed at $11 per $1,000 of construction value (see section 3(b) below).
The general fee structure was last revisited nine years ago in April 2004 when fees increased from $10.50 per $1,000 to $11 per $1,000 or about a 5% increase. Although there were updates in 2010 for large agricultural buildings (see section 4 below) and in 2012 to introduce a refundable surcharge, the fees have not changed since 2004.
An excerpt from Appendix 1, Fees and Schedules, from the Building Bylaw is outlined below:
1. Building Permit Application Fees – Non-Refundable $ (a) Construction Value $1,000 or less ...... 47.50 (b) Construction Value over $1,000 up to $250,000 ...... 94.50 (c) Construction Value $250,000 and more ...... 142.00
2. Fees for an Authorization to Construct (a) Rural Accessory Building ...... 94.50 (b) Single Family Dwelling ...... 94.50
3. Building Permit Fees (Note: A surcharge on fees may apply in remote areas) (a) For the first $1,000 of Construction Value ...... 52.50 (b) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $1,000 ..... 11.00 (c) For the first five Plumbing Fixtures ...... 52.50 (d) For each Plumbing Fixture over the first five ...... 11.00 (e) For installing a Manufactured Home (mobile home) ...... 230.00
4. Building Permit Fees for Agricultural Buildings over 600 square metres (Note: A surcharge on fees may apply in remote areas) (a) For the first $1,000 of Construction Value ...... 52.50 (b) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $1,000 and $250,000 ...... 11.00 (c) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $250, 000 .. 8.25
The Building Department Review Project 2011 (BDRP) identified that lower value buildings are subsidized by higher value buildings and determined that a “breakeven” point is approximately $268,000 (Appendix 5 of the BDRP report). While there were many assumptions made on costs, the findings from the analysis of the permit revenue recommended that a declining rate schedule be implemented to reduce the reliance on higher value buildings and more accurately reflect the effort required. Within Appendix 1, Section 4 of the Building Bylaw (above) a declining rate schedule already exists for agricultural buildings that applies if an agricultural building is over $250,000 in value.
18 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 5
In 2011 and 2012, two years of relatively low permit values, 89% of processed permits were for buildings less than $250,000 in value; however these permits only accounted for approximately 50% of permit revenues. This is similar to the figures from 2006 and 2007 which was the height of the most recent construction boom where 85% of buildings were less than $250,000. The majority of the buildings that are inspected are therefore below the assumed “breakeven” threshold of $268,000. The average annual permit revenue from buildings more than $250,000 in value over the last 5 years is $306,170.31; although this figure is on a significant downward trend.
Table 1: Revenue for Permits more than $250,000 and Representation of Total Revenue Year Revenue for Permits >$250,000 % of >250,000/Total Revenue 2008 $501,312.40 59.97% 2009 $447,596.27 60.02% 2010 $499,016.09 65.84% 2011 $242,309.38 50.38% 2012 $223,330.30 51.62%
Given that the current trends are for lower value construction and that there is already a declining rate schedule for agricultural buildings, it is recommended that Appendix 1 (Fees and charges) of the Building Bylaw be amended to increase the fees for construction values under $500,000 from $11/$1,000 to $13/$1,000, increase the fees for buildings between $500,000 and $1,000,000 from $11/$1,000 to $12/$1,000 and leave buildings over that amount unchanged. This is generally consistent with the intent of Recommendation No. 5 of the BDRP which proposes a high declining rate schedule for 2014.
In addition to the rate changes recommended for the cost per $1,000 construction value, staff are also recommending that the rates outlined in section 1, 2 and 3 of Appendix 1 pertaining to application and plumbing fixture fees be increased by 15% (rounded to the nearest dollar for convenience). The last time the fees changed for applications or plumbing fixtures was in 2004. This would see the general application fee go from $94.50 to $109.00. The fee for plumbing fixtures would increase from the current $52.50 ($10.50 per fixture) to $60.00 (approximately $12 per fixture) for the first 5 fixtures and an increase of $1 per additional fixture from $11 to $12. Staff are also recommending that the rates outlined in section 5, 6 and 7 of Appendix 1 for sign permit fees, demolition / moving permit fees and other fees and charges be increased by 15% in line with the previously noted increases. Permit fees for agricultural buildings (section 4 of Appendix 1) are not proposed to be increased at this time.
To provide a comparison, staff have prepared the following table showing different scenarios. It indicates the projected increase in revenue if changes are made to the hold back, cost per $1,000 construction value and/or other fees. Scenario 1 indicates the projected increase to the total revenue retained by the RDNO with a reduction in the hold back to 10% and an increase to the cost per $1,000 to $13/$1,000 is $62,847.50. Scenario 2 indicates a reduction in the hold back to 5% and an increase to the cost per $1,000 to $13/$1,000 has a total projected total increase in revenue of $76,597.50. Scenario 3 projects a total increase in revenue of $81,597.50 with a reduction in the hold back to 5%, an increase to the cost per $1,000 to $13/$1,000 and a 15% increase in other fees such as the application fee and plumbing fee. Scenario 4 projects total increase in revenue of $73,125.59 with a reduction in the hold back to 5%, a declining rate permit fee schedule with an increase to the cost per $1,000 to $13/$1,000 for construction under $500,000 and $12/$1,000 for construction over $500,000 and 15% increase in other fees.
19 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 6
Scenario 5 indicates the projected increase to the total revenues with a reduction in the hold back to 5%, a declining rate permit fee schedule with an increase to the cost per $1,000 to $13/$1,000 for construction values under $500,000 and $12/$1,000 for construction values between $500,000 and $1,000,000 and construction over $1,000,000 to remain the same and 15% increase in other fees is a total increase in revenue of $69,148.11. Using Scenario 5, the projected revenue from an increase in the application fee and cost for plumbing fixtures by 15% is approximately $5,000 (estimate using 2012 values).
The values used to create Table 2 are based closely on the current projected revenue for 2013 Table 2 is based on a total revenue of $275,000 and subtracting the 20% hold back ($55,000) and the application fee of $23,625 leaving the gross permit revenue from issued building permits as $196,375.
Table 2 – Projected Revenue Based on Fee Increases and Reducing Fee Hold Back Total Change to Change to Scenario Change to Cost$/1,000 Revenue hold back other fees Increase Reduce hold No change in Scenario 1 Increase Cost to $13/ $1,000 $62,847.50 back to 10% other fees Reduce hold No change in Scenario 2 Increase Cost to $13/ $1,000 $76,597.50 back to 5% other fees Reduce hold 15% increase Scenario 3 Increase Cost to $13/ $1,000 $81,597.50 back to 5% in other fees Increase Cost under $500,000 to Reduce hold 15% increase Scenario 4 $13/$1,000 and over $500,000 to $73,125.59 back to 5% in other fees $12/$1,000 Increase Cost under $500,000 to Reduce hold $13/$1,000, between $500,000 and 15% increase Scenario 5 $69,148.11 back to 5% $1,000,000 to $12/$1,000 and over in other fees $1,000,000 remains the same
Staff note that if activity levels increase the total revenue would also go up (i.e. if revenues rebounded back to 2011 levels which represents a total revenue of $360,000 and 386 building permits, the projected increase in revenue would be $88,328.59 above that retained in 2011).
While fees for Authorizations to Construct and removal of Notice on Title are only proposed to only increase by 15%, a separate report has been prepared by the General Manager, Planning and Building which outlines Policy alternatives regarding Authorizations to Construct and Coordinating Registered Professional Authorizations that will include significant changes. This Policy discussion will include reconsidering fees moving towards cost recovery for authorizations and removal of Notice on Titles. Separate discussion is warranted due to the complexities of these matters.
When considering a fee change, it should be compared to other areas doing similar work. Staff have undertaken analysis of the relative fee amount for several jurisdictions presented in the following graph based on 2013 data:
20 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 7
Building Permit Fee
$7,000.00
$6,000.00
$5,000.00
$4,000.00
$3,000.00
$2,000.00
$1,000.00
$0.00
Graph 2 – Construction Value Comparison dated September 20132.
The Building Permit fees charged by the RDNO are currently in the mid range ($3,935.50) between the highest ($6,432.48-Okanagan Similkameen Regional District) and lowest ($1,615.00-City of Williams Lake) when compared to other nearby jurisdictions.
By comparison, the Okanagan Similkameen RD building permit fees are considerably higher (approximately 35%); however, their budget relies on approximately 33% from taxation. The Thompson Nicola RD building fees collected are lower (about 70% of the RDNO rate) but nearly 50% of the budget is funded through taxation. Columbia Shuswap Regional District building permit fee rates are also lower than the RDNO. However, 50-60% of their budget is funded through taxation depending on activity levels.
With respect to the levels of taxation in other areas, it has been difficult to ascertain the relative proportions of budgets that are funded by taxation versus permits in Municipalities, while RD budgets tend to have more transparency in this regard. The increases proposed would result in RDNO building permit fees still being lower than those in nearby communities including the City of Vernon and Lake Country, for the same building.
2 Source: Thompson Nicola Regional District Survey of South Central Interior Local Governments see Appendix 1 attached to this report. Fees are based in on 2 storey SFD, no basement, 2400 sq. ft. each floor, Finished on both floors, Attached single storey double garage, 576 sq ft, Open deck, 300 sq. ft. 1 main bathroom + 1 ensuite, 9 fixtures total ∗RS Means construction value **Please be advised that the following calculation is a general guideline. In a disagreement situation, we use Marshal and Swift evaluation software (which is referenced in our building bylaw) by going on line & pay $12 for each calculation. ***RDOS basic building permit fees = $6,080.00 which looks to be about $1,000 less than last year . We also have a reduction in fees for Reg Professionals and an additional 5% for Homes with a registered HPO builder. If this house had a HPO builder, geotech and a structural engineer it would allow an additional 20% off = $4,864.00 total BP fee. This is to encourage the use of professionals. This example assumes the maximum fee reduction using all professionals. Contemplating a $1,000 refundable deposit.
21 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 8
The following graph outlines some areas which rely on a Tax Requisition in order to maintain a Building Inspection Service and achieve a balanced budget. The graph is based on 2012 values:
% of Building Budget from Taxation, 2012 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Graph 3 – Comparison of Building Inspection Service Budgets from Taxation, 20123.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
Staff recommend a declining rate permit fee schedule which increases the cost per $1,000 to $13/$1,000 for construction values under $500,000 and $12/$1,000 for construction values between $500,000 and $1,000,000 and construction over $1,000,000 to remain the same and 15% increase in other fees (Scenario 5 of Table 2). This scenario projects a total increase in revenue of $69,148.11. The recommended changes achieve a reduced reliance on high value projects while still increasing revenue for the department.
Alternatives to recommended fee increase: There are several alternatives to increasing the fees in the manner proposed, although detailed analysis has not been undertaken for the following options. Have the increased rates ($13/$1,000) apply to all permits, regardless of value. A flat increase to the fee schedule rather than a declining rate schedule for higher value buildings would generate more revenue as seen in Scenario 3 of Table 2; however, this does not address the matters of subsidization of lesser value permit by the higher ones but does increase revenue. Also of note that the higher the increase, the higher the possibility of non-compliance, keeping in mind that current Building Permit fees are about 1.1% of construction value and this would increase fees to 1.3% of construction value. The other alternatives are to increase taxes to covers shortfall in revenue or reduce Service levels further possibly including reducing the number of inspections or staff reductions and increasing
3 See Appendix 2 attached to this report.
22 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to – September 17, 2013 Page 9
service times. Staff note that the Regional District attempted to decrease staffing levels to four days per week; however, under the law, a reduction in staff hours requires voluntary acceptance from all staff members involved. The Regional District was not able to obtain voluntary acceptance.
Construction Value Construction value is the estimated average cost to build a building and is the basis for the Permit fees charged to recover costs for the service. The value of construction is determined with assistance from the industry and is revisited over time to ensure it reflects actual costs. It has not been revisited on a regular basis in the recent past (last time was 2005). In 2012, staff developed an Operational Procedure to outline the current construction valuations for various types of buildings based on current fair market rates. In August 2013, Staff contacted contractors to share their experiences with recent construction cost trends and are comparing construction values with other nearby jurisdictions. The update of construction values in the RDNO is not a Bylaw or Board Policy matter but one of an operational nature (however, it is noted some jurisdictions do include these values within a Bylaw).
Staff are informing the Board of the intent to increase the value of construction for the RDNO to bring it in line with the actual costs reflected by industry professionals and in nearby areas. The Thompson Nicola Regional District undertake this analysis occasionally with the most recent being September 2013. The results show that of all the nearby jurisdictions, the costs to build the same house in the RDNO are considerably less than other areas with the exception of District of West Kelowna and City of Salmon Arm. This is likely more a reflection of the way in which value is calculated than it is the actual costs of construction. For example, according to the results of the analysis, it costs approximately 35% more to build the same type of house4 in the City of Vernon and the District of Lake Country than it does in the RDNO. As the supplies and labour are generally from the same market, it is unlikely there are dramatic differences in the actual costs.
The graph below depicts the average construction value by area based on information compiled and analysed by the Thompson Nicola Regional District.
Construction Value $800,000.00 $700,000.00 $600,000.00 $500,000.00 $400,000.00 $300,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00
Graph 4 – South Central Interior Construction Value Comparison dated September 20135
4 See Appendix 1 attached to this report.. 5 Source: Thompson Nicola Regional District Survey of South Central Interior Local Governments see Appendix 1 attached to this report. Fees are based in on 2 storey SFD, no basement, 2400 sq. ft. each floor, Finished on both floors, Attached single storey double garage, 576 sq ft, Open deck, 300 sq. ft. 1 main bathroom + 1 ensuite, 9 fixtures total
23 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to Board of Directors - September 17, 2013 Page 10
The valuation was revisited and adjusted regularly up until 2005 and often saw increases of $15 to $20 per square foot, per year. The last time this exercise was undertaken was in 2005 and is considered out of date. Of note, a private firm does provide a service at a reasonable price that can assist with establishing construction values. Marshall Swift provides monthly updates of calculations of up to date construction values for the area. Several jurisdictions across North America utilize the Marshall Swift Index to ensure their values, and thus permit fees are reflective of the actual construction value in the region . The costs for this service is less than $500 per year. This can be made up by determining the correct value for only a few permits if the RDNO's values are dramatically low.
It is expected that the actual costs of building is at least 10-25% higher than it was in 2005, but further analysis is required. The Chief Building Inspector is undertaking an analysis of construction values of various building types by discussing the matter with Industry Representatives (local general contractors) and comparing values of nearby areas. The increase in construction valuation will also result in additional revenues above those outlined in Table 2 and staff will inform the Board on that expected revenue increase once the Chief Building Inspector has completed his analysis.
SUMMARY:
This current economic downtown is so significant that no single action on the part of the policy makers will solve the problem in the short term. Staff have prepared this report to propose methods to increase revenue for the Building Department due to declining construction values. Following considerable analysis, staff have recommended following: 1. That Board Policy LU20 - Building Permit Fees Retained by Municipalities be amended to reduce the fee retained by the participants from 20% to 5%; 2. That Regional District of North Okanagan Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 be amended to: 1. Increase Application, Plumbing and other fees by 15%; and 2. Increase Building Permit fees from $11 per $1,000 of construction value to: a. $13 per $1,000 of construction value for construction under $500,000; and b. $12 per $1,000 of construction value for construction between $500,000 and $1 ,000,000; and for construction over $1,000,000 to remain at $11 per $1,000 of construction value. In addition, the Chief Building Inspector is revising the rates per square foot utilized for determining construction value in the region at an operational level.
The proposed changes which are outlined in this report should generate an additional $69,148.11 for the 2014 Budget year and keep the requisition amount from increasing while maintaining Service Submitted by: Approved For Inclusion:
Rob Smailes, MCIP, RPP General Manager, Planning and Building
•RS Means construction value ..Plea se be advised that the following ca lculation is a general guideline. In a disagreement situation, we use Marshal and Swift evaluation software (which is referenced in our building bylaw) by going on line & pay $12 for each calculation . •••RDOS basic building permit fees = $6,080.00 which looks to be about $1,000 less than last yea r . We also have a reduction in fees for Reg Professionals and an additional 5% for Homes with a registered HPO builder. If this house had a HPO builder, geotech and a structural engineer it would allow an additional 20% off = $4 ,864.00 total BP fee . This is to encourage the use of professionals. This example assumes the maximum fee reduction using all professionals. Contemplating a $1,000 refundable deposit.
24 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
BYLAW No. 2609
A bylaw to amend the fees and charges pertaining to the issuance of Building Permits in the Regional District.
WHEREAS the Regional District of North Okanagan by "Building Inspection Extended Service Establishment Bylaw No. 842, 1989" established the service of building inspection within Electoral Areas ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, and ‘F’ and the municipalities of the Corporation of the City of Armstrong, Corporation of the District of Coldstream, Corporation of the City of Enderby, Corporation of the Village of Lumby and Corporation of the Township of Spallumcheen as participating areas;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 363 [Imposition of fees and charges] of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C., 1996, Chapter 323, as amended, and Regulations passed pursuant thereto, the Regional Board is authorized to impose a fee or charge payable in respect of all or part of a service of the regional district;
AND WHEREAS the Regional District has by Bylaw 1747, being the “Regional District of North Okanagan Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003” regulates building inspection services in the Regional District;
AND WHEREAS the Regional District is desirous to amend the current fees and charges in Bylaw No. 1747;
NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Regional District of North Okanagan, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows:
A. CITATION
This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2609, 2013.”
B. AMENDMENTS
1. That Bylaw No. 1747, being the “Regional District of North Okanagan Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003” be hereby amended by deleting Appendix “1” attached to Bylaw No. 1747, and replacing it with Schedule “A” as attached hereto and forming part of this bylaw.
Read a First, Second and THIRD Time this 16th day of October, 2013
ADOPTED this 16th day of October, 2013
Chair Corporate Officer
25 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a SCHEDULE "A" attached to and forming part of Bylaw No. 2609, 2013
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FEES AND CHARGES
1. Building Permit Application Fees – Non-Refundable $ (a) Construction Value $1,000 or less ...... 55.00 (b) Construction Value over $1,000 up to $250,000 ...... 109.00 (c) Construction Value $250,000 and more ...... 163.00
2. Fees for an Authorization to Construct (a) Rural Accessory Building ...... 109.00 (b) Single Family Dwelling...... 109.00 (c) With Co-Ordinating Registered Professional ...... Refer to Section 1209(4)
3. Building Permit Fees (Note: A surcharge on fees may apply in remote areas) (a) For the first $1,000 of Construction Value ...... 60.00 (b) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $1,000 and less than $500,000 ...... 13.00 (c) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $500,000 and less than $1,000,000 ...... 12.00 (d) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $1,000, 000 ...... 11.00 (e) For the first five Plumbing Fixtures ...... 60.00 (f) For each Plumbing Fixture over the first five ...... 12.00 (g) For installing a Manufactured Home (mobile home) ...... 230.00
5. Building Permit Fees for Agricultural Buildings over 600 square metres (Note: A surcharge on fees may apply in remote areas) (a) For the first $1,000 of Construction Value ...... 52.50 (b) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $1,000 and $250,000 ...... 11.00 (c) For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part thereof over $250,000 ...... 8.25
6. Sign Permit Fees (a) Application for a Sign Permit (non-refundable) ...... 60.00 (b) Permit for a Sign: - For the first $100 of Construction Value ...... 60.00 - For each $1,000 of Construction Value or part there of over $100...... 13.00
Appendix “1” 26 of 245 Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a SCHEDULE "A" attached to and forming part of Bylaw No. 2609, 2013
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT FEES AND CHARGES
7. Demolition / Moving Permit Fees (a) Application for a Demolition / Moving Permit (non-refundable) ...... 55.00 (b) Demolition / Moving Permit ...... 241.50 (c) Demolition / Moving Deposit ...... 2,100.00 8. Other Fees and Charges (a) Special Inspection or Re-Inspection ...... 109.00 (b) Provisional Occupancy Permit with Re-Inspection ...... 109.00 (c) Inspection outside the Regional District ...... 217.35 (Plus reimbursement consistent with Regional District ‘Travel Allowance’ policy) (d) Administrative Charge to report on a ‘Notice on Title’ ...... 181.00 (e) New products, systems or methods Evaluation Fee ...... 2,415.00 (f) Administrative Charge for refund of Building Permit Fees ...... 230.00
9. Building Permit Surcharge Fee (Refundable) In addition to other fees and charges payable in accordance with this Appendix at the time of permit issuance, a surcharge fee will apply for all building permits as follows: (a) Where construction value is less than $10,000 ...... 100.00 (b) Where construction value is between $10,000 and $50,000 ...... 150.00 (c) Where construction value is between $50,001 and $100,000 ...... 300.00 (d) Where construction value is in excess of $100,000 ...... 500.00
When all works associated with a building permit are completed and a final inspection has been approved within twenty-four (24) months of the date of permit issuance, the Regional District of North Okanagan will refund the Building Permit Surcharge Fee as follows:
(a) Where construction value is less than $10,000 ...... 100.00 (b) Where construction value is between $10,000 and $50,000 ...... 150.00 (c) Where construction value is between $50,001 and $100,000 ...... 300.00 (d) Where construction value is in excess of $100,000 ...... 500.00
Where the works associated with a permit are not completed within twenty-four (24) months of the date of permit issuance, there will be no refund of the Building Permit Surcharge Fee. Any re-inspection fees or fines assessed against the owner/permit holder during the period of construction will also be deducted from the Building Permit Surcharge Fee. In addition, if Notice on Title is required, there will be no refund of the surcharge fee.
Note: Additional local charges may also apply as determined by the Local Jurisdiction.
Appendix “1” 27 of 245 Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to Board of Directors – September 17, 2013 Page 11
Appendix 1: South Central Interior Construction Value Comparison dated September 2013 compiled by Thompson Nicola RD.
Building Other Total Total Permit Plumbing Charges Charges Charges Jurisdiction Value Fee (Sort Fee Deposits/ (Excluding (Including Column) Surcharges Deposits) Deposits) Okanagan- Similkimeen RD6 $536,040.00 $6,432.48 $90.00 $6,522.48 $6,522.48 City of Penticton*** $524,085.00 $6,080.00 $130.00 $130.00 $6,210.00 $6,340.00 City of Revelstoke $702,540.00 $5,699.00 $86.00 $5,785.00 $5,785.00 District of Lake Country7 $443,280.00 $5,319.36 $90.00 $500.00 $5,409.36 $5,909.36 City of Vernon $478,897.17 $4,830.00 $90.00 $4,920.00 $4,920.00 Westbank First Nation8 $365,000.00 $4,468.00 $90.00 $4,558.00 $4,558.00 Town of Osoyoos9 $422,277.00 $4,280.00 $117.00 $750.00 $4,397.00 $5,147.00 Central Okanagan RD $356,400.00 $4,276.80 $90.00 $200.00 $4,366.80 $4,566.80 North Okanagan RD $353,172.00 $3,935.50 $96.50 $500.00 $4,032.00 $4,532.00 City of Kelowna $496,000.00 $3,658.50 $130.00 $3,788.50 $3,788.50 District of West Kelowna $299,568.00 $3,415.08 $90.00 $1,500.00 $3,505.08 $5,005.08 City of Kamloops10 $479,500.00 $3,020.00 $224.00 $1,000.00 $3,244.00 $4,244.00 Columbia Shuswap RD $424,656.00 $2,734.80 $100.80 $2,835.60 $2,835.60 Thompson- Nicola RD $513,780.00 $2,714.00 $98.00 $200.00 $2,812.00 $3,012.00 Cariboo RD11 $423,060.00 $2,556.00 $136.00 $2,000.00 $2,692.00 $4,692.00 City of Salmon Arm $291,000.00 $2,300.00 $100.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00 City of Williams Lake $313,000.00 $1,615.00 $85.00 $1,700.00
*RS Means construction value **Please be advised that the following calculation is a general guideline . In a disagreement situation, we use Marshal and Swift evaluation software (which is referenced in our building bylaw) by going on-line & pay $12 for each calculation. ***Our basic building permit fees = $6080.00 which looks to be about $1,000 less than last year . We also have a reduction in fees for Reg Professionals and an additional 5% for Homes with a registered HPO builder. If this house had a HPO builder, geotech and a structural engineer it would allow an additional 20% off = $4864.00 total BP fee. This is to encourage the use of professionals. This example assumes the maximum fee reduction using all professionals. Contemplating a $1000 refundable deposit.
6 Changes from 2012: 20% increase 7 Changes from 2012: 31% decrease, non-refundable deposit credited to BP fee 8 Changes from 2012: New entry 9 Changes from 2012: New entry 10 Changes from 2012: Plumbing includes separate water, sewer and water meter fees 11 Changes from 2012: Plus approx. $600 for water meter and bachflow prevention
28 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Proposed Methods of Increasing Building Department Revenue Report to Board of Directors – September 17, 2013 Page 12
Appendix 2: Taxation for Inspection Services as a Percentage of 2012 Inspections Budget
Regional Districts % Bukley Nechako RD 82% Fraser Valley RD 80% Central Kootenay RD 47% Thompson Nicola RD 45% Nanaimo RD 36% Okanagan Similkameen RD 33% Squamish Lillooet RD 33% East Kootenay RD 26% Cariboo RD 25% North Okanagan RD 22.40% Sunshine Coast RD 7%
29 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
POLICY NO. [LU022]
BUILDING PERMIT FEES RETAINED BY MUNICIPALITIES Approval Date: October 25, 1993 Amendment Date(s): October 16, 2013
POLICY
Member municipalities are permitted by the Regional Board to withhold and retain 5% of building permit fees in recognition of municipal staff involvement in delivery of the Building Inspection Service.
30 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
Planning and Building Operational Procedures Procedure No. PB008
Construction Value
Approval Date: May 4, 2011
Amendment Date(s): November 6, 2012
PURPOSE
To inform Staff, Property Owners and Building Contractors in regards to how the construction values are determined as defined in the Building Bylaw within the Regional District of North Okanagan.
POLICY
Construction values are based on the current fair market rates of labour and the averaged cost of materials. Construction value is not based on discounted costs of owner/builder labour nor reduced cost of used materials.
In order to strive for consistent construction values, the Building Department will take the greater of the construction value that is indicated on the application form or the construction value as prescribed by the value per square footage as described below.
Valuation Schedule: Single and Two Family Dwelling One Storey No Basement $105.00/sq ft One Storey on a Crawlspace $110.00/sq ft One Storey on an Unfinished Basement $120.00/sq ft Two Storey No Basement $140.00/sq ft Two Storey on a Crawlspace $145.00/sq ft Two Storey on an Unfinished Basement $155.00/sq ft Addition – Additional Storey $65.00/sq ft Basement Finishing $30.00/sq ft
Carports – Detached or Attached $18.00/sq ft
Garage – Detached or Attached $22.00/sq ft
Sundecks $15.00/sq ft
Barns $15.00/sq ft
Barns without sides (pole barns) $8.00/sq ft
Foundation Only (i.e. below Manufactured Homes) $25.00/sq ft
31 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1a Construction Value - 2 - PB008
Values can be adjusted as deemed necessary based on the fluctuation of actual construction values in the region, determined by a Professional Appraisal.
These requirements are in addition to the standard building permit application submission requirements.
BACKGROUND
The Building Department is striving to ensure that the construction values used to determine the building fee amount remains consistent and that each project’s construction value contains the estimated cost of all material and all labour, including donated labour.
In an effort to provide consistency the Regional District of North Okanagan Planning and Building Department is implementing this Operational Procedure.
32 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1b
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3760.08
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rob Smailes, General Manager, Planning and Building DATE: October 24, 2013 SUBJECT: Notice on Title Fees and Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012, be adopted, as amended.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
As a result of the Building Department Review Project report, recommendations endorsed by the Board of Directors at the April 18, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting included: That the Notice on Title process as outlined in an updated Board Policy, follow guidelines and timelines and that the fee be increased to fairly reflect the cost of the process to the RDNO. That a timeline and criteria be developed for utilizing Notices on Title and that this timeline be adhered to by all service participants. That the Notice on Title fee be increased to reflect the full cost of the Notice on Title process.
At the Regular Meeting of July 18, 2012, staff provided a report dated June 25, 2012 and accompanying Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012 to increase the fee for a Notice on Title to $850.00. At that meeting the Board gave Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012 First, Second and Third Readings and referred the Bylaw to the Municipal Chief Administrative Officers for discussion and action.
Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012 was brought forward to the Building Inspection Service Review Committee at their meeting of October 24, 2013. At this meeting, the Committee passed the following resolution:
“That staff be directed to provide a recommendation to the Board of Directors for an increase to the Notice on Title fine for all participant jurisdictions and that the Board of Directors be encouraged to implement the recommended fee.”
Staff have amended Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012 as requested by the Building Inspection Review Committee to apply to the Electoral Areas and the four participating municipal jurisdictions. Bylaw 2554 and the staff report from the Rob Smailes, General Manager, Planning and Building dated June 25, 2012 regarding Notice on Title Fees and Policy are attached to this report for reference.
33 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1b Notice on Title Fees and Policy Report to Board of Directors- October 24, 2013 Page 2
SUMMARY:
Staff have brought forward Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012 to increase the fee for a Notice on Title to $850.00. As recommended by the Building Inspection Service Review Committee, Bylaw 2554 has been amended to include all participant jurisdictions.
Submitted by: Approved For Inclusion:
Rob Smailes, MCIP, RPP General Manager, Planning and Building
34 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1b
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
BYLAW No. 2554
A bylaw of the Regional District of North Okanagan to amend Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 ______
WHEREAS on December 20, 1989, the Regional District adopted Building Inspection Extended Service Establishment Bylaw No. 842, 1989;
AND WHEREAS on March 25, 2003, the Regional District adopted Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 which regulates the Building Inspection Service;
AND WHEREAS the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan wishes to amend its Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 to increase the fee for removal of Notice on Title to reflect the costs of such action;
NOW THEREFORE the Board of the Regional District of North Okanagan in open meeting assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
TITLE
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012.”
AMENDMENTS
2. 8.d of Appendix ‘1’ – Fees and Charges attached to and forming part of Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003 is hereby amended as follows:
Administrative Charge to report on remove a ‘Notice on Title’ ...... 157.50 850.00
Read a First, Second and Third time this 18th day of July, 2012
ADOPTED this day of , 2013
Chair Corporate Officer
35 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1b
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3760.08
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Rob Smailes, General Manager, Planning and Building DATE: June 25, 2012 SUBJECT: Notice on Title Fees and Policy
RECOMMENDATION:
That revised Board Policy LU031 Notice on Title Procedures, dated June 25, 2012, be adopted; and further,
That Board Policy LU052 Notice on Title Timeline, dated June 25, 2012, be adopted; and further,
That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012, which proposes to increase the cost of removing a Notice on Title in the Electoral Areas be given First, Second and Third Readings; and further,
That Building Amendment Bylaw No. 2554, 2012, be Adopted; and further,
That the report, updated policies and Bylaw regarding Notice on Title Fees and Policy referred to the Municipal Chief Administrative Officers for discussion and action.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
As a result of the Building Department Review Project report, recommendations endorsed by the Board of Directors at the April 18, 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting included:
That the Notice on Title process as outlined in an updated Board Policy, follow guidelines and timelines and that the fee be increased to fairly reflect the cost of the process to the RDNO. That a timeline and criteria be developed for utilizing Notices on Title and that this timeline be adhered to by all service participants. That the Notice on Title fee be increased to reflect the full cost of the Notice on Title process.
Notices are placed on the title of subject properties in accordance with Section 57 of the Community Charter, when the owner/permit holder has violated the requirements of the Building Bylaw. The notice itself is not punitive, it acts as a notification tool to inform persons acquiring interests in land that it may be in breach of a local government regulations.
Currently, the report recommending that a notice be placed on the title of the subject property is presented to the Board of Directors well after the violation or incident has been brought to the attention of Building staff. In a number of instances there have been years of interaction with the
36 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1b Notice on Title Fees and Policy Report to Board of Directors – June 25, 2012 Page 2 owners encouraging compliance prior to bringing a recommendation to the Board. This results in obvious additional staff time that has a cost, but not matching revenue.
After notice is placed on title, the matter can be pursued with further legal action to remedy the breach. This is the case when there are health and safety concerns. If there are not serious health and safety concerns, often no further action is pursued after the Notice on Title is registered, mostly due to limited resources and the high cost of legal action. In these cases the notice remains on title until the owner desires to seek compliance to have the notice removed. This usually occurs when the owner is going to sell or requires re-financing as an effort to “cleanup” the title. When this occurs staff spend time assisting the owner to achieve compliance and a building permit is usually required. Once compliance is achieved, the Chief Building Inspector notifies the Land Title Office that notice may be removed and the owner is required to pay a fee.
The current fee is $157.50 for an Administrative Charge to remove a Notice on Title (Appendix 1 of Building Bylaw No. 1747, 2003). Other jurisdictions have higher fees associated with the removal of a Notice on Title as shown on the table below. The actual cost to the RDNO of this process is many times this amount. By improving the timeliness of the Notice on Title process and assessing a fee that more accurately reflects the cost of the process, compliance with the Building Bylaw should be easier to achieve1.
Staff investigated fees for removal of Notice on Title in other jurisdictions. The results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: Jurisdiction Fee Kootenay Boundary Regional Administrative Charge to $200 District remove Notice on Title Cancellation of Note Against Regional District of Bulkley- Land Title, Pursuant to Section $200 Nechako 58 of the Community Charter Thompson Nicola Regional Fee for the removal of a land $200 District title notice Columbia Shuswap Regional For the discharge of a Notice on $216 District Title The fee for a deficiency $250 inspection permit and Regional District of Okanagan- subsequent removal of a Notice Similkameen on Title The fee for a deficiency re- $100 inspection Application to discharge a Cariboo Regional District $350 Notice of Bylaw Contravention Discharge of Notice of Bylaw Regional District of Nanaimo $500 Contravention Title Registration To remove a Notice on Title, Comox Valley Regional District $500 section 57 Community Charter Regional District of Central Administrative fee to remove $750 Kootenay “Notice on Title”
1 Building Department Review Project Report dated April 27, 2011
37 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item D.1b Notice on Title Fees and Policy Report to Board of Directors- June 25, 2012 Page 3
In addition to increasing the fees, staff are also recommending the Board update its policy on Notice on Title. The updated policy's intent is to ensure that where Occupancy Permits cannot be issued due to an unfinished construction or a deficiency not of a substantial nature, Building Permit files are closed within a reasonable time frame and property interests are protected by a timely procedure of filing bylaw contravention notifications.
The policy is attached and clearly outlines some timelines and a fair and transparent approach to addressing construction that does not follow the Building or other RDNO regulatory bylaws.
ANALYSIS:
A review of previous Notice on Titles files has been conducted in regards to the estimated amount of staff time spent on enforcement files. While the range is great due to some files extending over periods of years, the Chief Building Inspector estimates of 8-10 hours should cover most cases, especially once a timeline for processing Notice on Titles becomes standard practice. The 8-10 hours of staff time should cover most costs, including Building Inspection time needed to investigate, contact the owner, generate initial written correspondence and the staff report, make subsequent verbal contact, present report to the Board of Directors and follow up with administrative tasks associated with the processing of a Notice on Title. Staff suggest that an increase to $850.00 is the average cost for the administrative work that a Notice on Title file entails. It should be noted that Building staff have not kept detailed timesheets previous to July 2012, that delineate the time spent more accurately. The suggested amount is based on the Chief Building Inspector's investigation and audit of a selection of files. This number could be refined in the future after a further audit based on now in place time tracking.
SUMMARY:
Staff have prepared an amendment to the Building Bylaw to increase the fee for a Notice on Title to $850.00 as well as an amendment to the current Policy for Notice on Titles as per the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole on April 18, 2012, which resulted from the Building Department Review Project completed in 2011.
Submitted by: Approved For Inclusion:
Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building
38 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3045.12.03.02
TO: Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 1, 2013 SUBJECT: Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RECOMMENDATION:
That it be recommended to the Board of Directors the Regional Housing Needs Assessment be considered during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
DISCUSSION
A regional housing needs assessment would provide a thorough understanding of housing needs and gaps in the region and provide a sound basis to make informed decisions for setting housing priorities, developing housing policies and identifying appropriate housing-related solutions within the diverse context of North Okanagan communities..
The Board of Directors passed the following resolution on January 2, 2013 which established the 2013 Regional Growth Strategy project priorities:
That the following Regional Growth Strategy implementation projects be included within the 2013 Regional Growth Strategy Action Plan and 2013/2014 Regional Planning (031) Financial Plan: 1. Regional Agricultural Area Plan, with a focus on economic development and long-term industry resilience; 2. In-kind support for regional economic development initiatives; 3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment, in partnership with the City of Vernon; and 4. Regional Parks Legacy Fund Feasibility Study, to be undertaken by Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture.
The Board of Directors selected a Regional Housing Needs Assessment, to be undertaken in partnership with the City of Vernon, as a priority Regional Growth Strategy implementation project for 2013, contingent on available grant funding. An application was made to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Age-Friendly Communities Grant program on November 30, 2012 for this project and the grant application was not successful. The Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee considered undertaking the Regional Housing Needs Assessment on February 21, 2013 and passed the following resolution:
“That the report dated January 4, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the Regional Housing Needs Assessment be received for information.”
The City of Vernon Housing Needs Assessment has been completed and was presented to City of Vernon Council on September 23, 2013. Attached to this report is the City of Vernon Housing Needs Assessment Terms of Reference and the letter received from CitySpaces as reference regarding the
39 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 2 estimated cost of undertaking a Regional Housing Needs Assessment, although both the terms of reference and budget will need to be re-examined.
EXISTING POLICY:
The Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 was adopted on September 21, 2011 and one of the policy areas that were addressed within this document was housing. The following policies are included within the Bylaw that supports the development of a regional housing needs assessment:
GOAL H‐1: Support and encourage a variety of housing options to meet the diverse housing needs of all residents in the region.
H‐1.1: identify the core housing needs in each community to better understand and collectively address regional housing characteristics and encourage the creation and retention of a variety of housing options for all residents, acknowledging that no one community can solve the region’s housing challenges. The supply and demand along the full housing spectrum shall be understood in order to work towards a Regional Housing Strategy.
ED‐2.6: acknowledge the importance of a diversity of housing opportunities and affordable housing options in supporting economic development goals.
FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS:
The City of Vernon is proceeding with a local housing needs assessment and there is a possibility to expand the scope of the project to include the entire North Okanagan. Based upon the information received from CitySpaces, the potential budget for this project would be approximately $30,000. The current Regional Planning (031) financial plan has not included this project, although the Board of Directors could consider including this project within the 2014 Financial Plan.
The Regional District could approach the Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia for grant funding of up to 50% of the total project cost.
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS:
The management and project oversight of the development of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment may be accommodated with current staff resources and the draft 2014 Regional Growth Strategy work program. The project is included as a component of the Regional Growth Strategy 2014 Action Plan, contingent of available financial resources, and the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator would act as lead staff member.
An alternate approach is the use of Regional District planning staff resources (i.e. RGS Coordinator) to undertake the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, although this approach would need to be considered in conjunction with other RGS priorities and the 2014 RGS Work Program.
SUMMARY:
The development of a Regional Housing Needs Assessment is consistent with Regional Growth Strategy policies and the 2013 action plan priorities of the Board of Directors and will identify housing needs and gaps throughout the region. The outcomes of the Assessment will provide a sound basis for establishing housing priorities, developing housing policies and identifying appropriate housing- related solutions that reflect local contexts.
40 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 3
The current Regional Planning (031) financial plan has not included this project and additional funding would be necessary to proceed in 2013. Proceeding with the Assessment would require addition to the Regional Planning budget of approximately $30,000, based upon the information received from CitySpaces.
The Board of Directors could consider undertaking the project with Regional District staff resources, although this option would need to be examined in relation to staff capacity, RGS implementation priorities and the 2014 Work Program.
It is recommended that the Board of Directors consider the Regional Housing Needs Assessment project during the identifications of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
Submitted by:
Anthony Kittel, Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator Approved For Inclusion:
Endorsed by:
Trafford Hall, Administrator
Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building
41 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
Regional Housing Needs Assessment Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee - October 1, 2013 Page 3
The current Regional Planning (031) financial plan has not included this project and additional funding would be necessary to proceed in 2013. Proceeding with the Assessment would require addition to the Regional Planning budget of approximately $30,000, based upon the information received from CitySpaces.
The Board of Directors could consider undertaking the project with Regional District staff resources, although this option would need to be examined in relation to staff capacity, RGS implementation priorities and the 2014 Work Program.
It is recommended that the Board of Directors consider the Regional Housing Needs Assessment project during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
Submitted by:
A Approved For Inclusion:
Endorsed by:
Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building
42 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
RFP#COM-12-107 -Housing Needs Assessment .
PART 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.0 Overview The City of Vernon is comprised of a number of housing markets, both urban and rural, including neigbourhoods, development districts and the City Centre. Housing needs and demands vary across the City of Vernon, depending on the character of the neigbourhood, the type of housing available and socioeconomic and demographic drivers. Housing needs and demands across the City of Vernon have been very different in the past and are expected to continue to evolve in the future. The purpose of the assessment is to undertake a comprehensive and robust Housing Need, Demand and Strategic Market Assessment across the housing continuum, including affordable and special needs housing gaps. The specific objectives of the Assessment are to obtain a range of information in order to provide an objective evidence base to: • Ascertain the nature and level of current housing demand and need in the city, at both the development district and neighbourhood level; • Obtain an understanding of the likely characteristics of future housing markets; • Estimate the future number of households requiring market and affordable housing based upon housing typology, location, unmet needs and potential market demand; • Project where housing demand may be within the City, based upon select drivers and projected consumer preference; • Inform policies aimed at providing the right mix of housing in the future – both market and affordable (i.e. subsidized), including the size of the affordable and special needs housing market; • Understand the housing requirements of particular groups; and • Inform policy and housing development.
2.0 The Purpose of the Assessment This Assessment will explore current and future housing need, demand, supply and affordability and provide insight into the key drivers behind the housing market within the city of Vernon. The Assessment is anticipated to be inclusive, assessing the needs of all residents (both current and future) across all tenures, housing types and locations, and consider the housing needs for specified groups. Specifically, the City wants the Assessment to: • Provide an overview of the City of Vernon housing market, including drivers, mechanisms and constraints. • Provide credible and robust evidence to determine the current and future housing needs and demands at the development district and neighbourhood levels, thereby giving a complete picture for the city as a whole. • Provide credible and robust evidence to inform and support housing and land use policies and recommendations that may be considered for inclusion within the Official Community Plan.
Page 12 of 18
43 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
RFP#COM-12-107 -Housing Needs Assessment • Consider future demographic, employment and socioeconomic trends and identify unmet housing demand for specific groups, housing types, tenures and locations. • Obtain the views of stakeholders to better understand the characteristics of housing need and demand. • Determine the nature and influence of the local housing market(s) on housing typology, location, tenure, demand, commuting and employment. • Assess the nature of the relationships between the Vernon and Kelowna housing markets. • Identify unmet needs and gaps within the current and anticipated future housing market and provide recommendations to address those gaps and unmet market demand. • Inform housing development investment decisions by both the private and not-for- profit sectors. • Provide the foundations of housing supply and demand information to be used, added to, refined, updated and reviewed in years to come. • Assist a wide range of stakeholders to benchmark, monitor, share data, identify partnership opportunities and communicate good practice, innovations and efficiencies with others.
Figure 1: Factors influencing housing supply, demand and affordability (Adapted from Productivity Commission, First home ownership: inquiry report, Productivity Commission, Melbourne, 2004, p. 5, viewed April 2, 2012)
Affordability
Finance costs (interest rates, closing costs) Price
Quantity
Type/Quality
Demand Supply
Demographics (current, Existing Dwellings New Dwellings projected): number, type of households
Construction costs (labour/materials) Economic profile of households (income, employment, etc) Taxes and Incentives (e.g. Infrastructure costs (water, sewer, GST/PST, First Home Investor demand (return on roads, green space, amenities) incentives, etc.) alternative investments)
Land availability (geography, Consumer preferences (size, designation, zoning) quality, location, type)
Land development processes (DCC, Rental prices and availability fees, regulation, incentives)
Page 13 of 18
44 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
RFP#COM-12-107 -Housing Needs Assessment The long term objective of this study will be to systematically examine the influence of housing supply and demand factors on achieving a well functioning housing market, one that responds quickly to changes in demand and enables households to have access to employment, amenity and educational opportunities and other services as needs change.
3.0 Scope of the Assessment The Assessment will explore current and future housing supply, demand and identified housing gaps over a 20 year period (2011-2031) at the development district and neighbourhood scales, thereby giving a complete picture for the city as a whole.
In order to find a precise and valid analysis, the Assessment will provide a review of the current housing situation and the functioning of the residential market within the city of Vernon.
Considering the results of a general review of housing trends of the area, the scope of the work for the Assessment is outlined below:
• Review demographic trends and the Vernon community profile • Review housing development trends • Assess and identify housing supply • Assess and identify various types of Housing Demand at the development district and neighbourhood scales, including single family, duplexes, town/row house and multifamily units for a 20 year period, from 2012-2032. • Assess and identify affordable housing supply and demand for the next 20 years. • Recommend housing policies and strategies for future development to address the identified anticipated unmet housing needs (gaps) for both market and non-market housing. • Project the current and anticipated direct and indirect employment needs of the residential housing sector, based upon the Assessment findings.
The Assessment will provide robust evidence to inform policies aimed at providing the right mix of housing across the entire housing market. This should draw together the bulk of evidence available to help the City of Vernon, the development community, BC Housing and the non- profit sector to appraise strategic housing options and assist in informing residential development investments.
Key conclusions should be made at municipal, development district and neighbourhood levels. In a city that is as diverse as Vernon, where urban markets operate in close proximity to suburban and rural markets, conclusions are likely to have very different implications at the development district and neighbourhood level.
4.0 Reference Materials The City of Vernon will provide relevant background documents to the successful consulting firm. The list of documents include:
• North Okanagan and Vernon Demographic Summaries • Vernon Community Profile
Page 14 of 18
45 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
RFP#COM-12-107 -Housing Needs Assessment • Housing Development Trends, CMHC • Affordable Housing Land Inventory, prepared by North Okanagan Social Planning Council • City of Vernon Residential Land Inventory and Capacity Assessment, 2007 • Seniors Housing Inventory, 2006 • City of Vernon OCP 2008 • North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy, 2011 • City of Vernon Developers’ Package, North Okanagan Affordable Housing Forum, 2012 • Residential Land Inventory, 2012
Page 15 of 18
46 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
3 May, 2013 n
Anthony Kittel, MCIP, RPP, LEED-AP Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator Regional District of North Okanagan 9848 Aberdeen Road Goldstream, BC V1 B 2K9
Re: Potential Housing Needs Study Cost Estimate
Dear Mr Kittel: CitySpaces Thank you for your email of April 29th regarding RDNO's discussion regarding a potential Consulting Ltd. Housing Needs Study. From our subsequent telephone conversation, I understand that 5th Floor the focus is on understanding current housing needs, along with an identification of gaps 844 Courtney St. in the housing spectrum in the urban and rural areas of the region, specifically City of Victoria 8C V8W 1(4 Armstrong, District of Goldstream, City of Enderby, Village of Lumby, Township of 250.383.0304 Tel Spallumcheen and the five Electoral Areas. Further, I understand that consultation with 866.383.0304 Toll-free 250.383.7273 Fax stakeholders in these communities is an important component of any study, as there are l'fflW.cityspaces.ca varying circumstances, and therefore, needs, across the region. Victoria You have asked for a rough cost estimate for discussion purposes with the Board of
Directors. Typically, a housing needs study involves three components, which I have Vancouver identified and estimated time and associated budget. (Some of this work occurs concurrently). Calgary
1. Familiarization and Consultation. This involves travel to the communities to g<;~in a clear understanding of the current housing situation, meeting with stakeholders, and ideally, holding small group discussions (e.g., seniors, young mothers, young adults). • Follow-up telephone interviews and emails to ensure all stakeholders have an opportunity to provide input. • Review of existing documents, including OCPs and RGS. Deliverable: Consultation Report Time Frame: 4-5 weeks Budget based on RDNO communities: $11 ,500 _+travel expenses (2 people)
2. Market and Non-Market Baseline. This Involves assembling, analyzing and graphically depicting various indicators that relate to the housing market, both supply n and demand related. Indicators include a wide range of demographic, housing, and income data that, collectively, when analyzed, lead to "housing implications". Information will be assembled either individually by local government, or in groups (e.g., Enderby and EA "F", Armstrong and Spallumcheen). Note: There will be limitations in data availability for rural areas. I'T1 Deliverable: Consultation Report Time Frame: 6 weeks, potential 8 if additional data required from Statistics Canada Budget based on RDNO communities: $7,500 +data purchase
3. Gaps and Issues Report. This draws on the information from the previous two reports, providing observations and commentary either individually by local government, or in
47 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.3
the groups used in the Market and Non-Market Report. This includes a presentation to RDNO Board. Deliverable: Gaps and Issues Report (draft and final) Time Frame: Two weeks, plus review and editing time, following draft report Budget based on RDNO communities: $5,500
Travel and other expenses are estimated at $4,000. Project management and administration time are included. The total budget is estimated at $28.500, plus applicable taxes.
Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are any questions arising. I trust the estimate will be helpful to you in the upcoming Board of Directors meeting.
Sincerely,
J,~da AI!~
Linda Allen, FCIP, RPP CitySpaces Consulting Ltd.
48 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3045.12.03.05
TO: Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee FROM: Planning Department DATE: September 30, 2013 SUBJECT: Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
That it be recommended to the Board of Directors a Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement be considered during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
DISCUSSION:
The Board of Directors could consider the engaging the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) and member municipalities regarding the development of a Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement as a priority 2014/2015 RGS implementation project to coordinate land use and transportation decision-making along Highway 97 and 6.Some of the benefits of negotiating a Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement may be; Coordinating local land use decision-making and transportation plans with highway expansion and upgrade strategies; Agreeing on highway investment priorities and access points; Defining active transportation routes along Highways 97 and 6; and/or, Developing a regional implication framework for achieving North Okanagan priorities that were identified during the Okanagan Valley Transportation Plan workshops in 2011.
MoTI was a participant in North Okanagan RGS policy discussions, including the development of draft strategies and potential actions. During the 2011/2012 Okanagan Valley Transportation Plan process, the Regional District and member municipalities identified several priorities, including the need for provincial, regional district and municipal coordination on transportation planning, especially as it applies to community-highway interfaces (i.e. Highway 97 and 6), highway improvement and implementation of the top priorities that were identified during the Okanagan Valley Transportation Plan process.
The initial step would be to determine the interest of member municipalities and MoTI in proceeding with the development of a Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement.
What is an Implementation Agreement?
An Implementation Agreement, as specified within the Local Government Act, is a commitment by local and provincial jurisdictions to implement specified content of an RGS. For example, an agreement may relate to the construction and funding of new or upgraded highways, sewers,
49 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4 Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 2 hospitals or regional parks or coordinated land use and transportation decisions between various levels of government.
As an example of a transportation implementation agreement, the “Vancouver Island Highway Agreement” between the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI), member municipalities and the Regional District of Nanaimo has been attached to this report. The Vancouver Island Highway Agreement, signed in 1998, restricted commercial development along the Vancouver Island Highway and limited points of access to address safety concerns and facilitated collaboration on land use decisions along the highway corridor. The agreement was considered a success and was renewed in 2003 for an additional 5 years. This example is discussed in more detail in this report.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
The Board of Directors considers regional implementation priorities and projects on an annual basis. The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) was adopted on September 21, 2011 and 18 regional implementation projects and initiatives have been selected over the first 2 years. These 18 supported regional actions are summarized in Appendix “A”.
The RGS has identified the development of a “Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement” as an implication action, as stated in Policy TI-2.1 and Action TI-1.2. The Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee, on March 8, 2012, selected “support accessible, efficient and multi-modal regional transportation” as the fourth priority strategic RGS direction for implementation.
The Regional Growth Strategy process involved the participation of MoTI representatives on both the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee and Transportation and Infrastructure Working Group during the development of strategic policy direction and policy recommendations. Many of these policies and suggested actions are represented within the RGS Bylaw No. 2500, 2011, including the following relevant policies.
Goal TI‐2: Support Integrated Regional Transportation Planning
TI‐2.1: develop an Integrated Regional Transportation Plan and Implementation Agreement between all levels of government using a multimodal approach that creates attractive, integrated and effective transportation choices to provide a broad range of mobility options. TI‐2.13: the province is encouraged to collaborate with municipalities, the Regional District of North Okanagan, and other relevant agencies and associations, in the planning of major interregional transportation facilities, such as interregional transit and provincial highways, and the role that they are intended to play to support the Regional Growth Strategy and the economic development of the North Okanagan. TI‐2.14: The provincial and federal governments are encouraged to collaborate with the Regional District and member municipalities on initiatives that will provide diverse transportation options.
Action TI‐1.1: Develop a Integrated Regional Transportation Plan and associated Implementation Agreements.
Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee (RGMAC) Directors and Alternates participated in a RGMAC Prioritization Workshop held on March 8, 2012. The workshop was designed to provide direction when developing the 5 Year Action Plan, including identifying subjects for Implementation Agreements between various levels of government. The overall five priority strategic directions were: 1. Encourage a strong regional economy
50 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4 Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 3
2. Promote sustainable water management 3. Support agriculture and a sustainable food system 4. Support accessible, efficient, multi-modal regional transportation 5. Protect our natural systems and landscapes
MoTI undertook the development of a medium term (5-15 year) Okanagan Valley Transportation Plan that established a vision that will guide the provincial planning process that has assisted in establishing a series of key transportation priorities. MoTI held the first North Okanagan session of the Okanagan Valley Transportation Symposium on July 19, 2011, with similar events being held in the South Okanagan (July 20, 2011) and Central Okanagan (July 22, 2011). The outcomes of those workshops were used during the second workshop, held at the Penticton Trade and Convention Centre on September 16, 2011, which focused on achieving general agreement of elected officials throughout the Okanagan Valley on the establishment of a transportation vision statement and key transportation priorities that will guide the MoTI transportation planning process. Former Board of Directors Chair Halvorson and the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator attended Workshop #2, as well as representatives from member municipalities. The ranking provided by the participants resulted in the following top five strategic priorities for transportation in the Okanagan Valley: 1. Intersection safety and congestion; Passing opportunities & alignment improvements; 2. Intra & inter city transit; active transportation; 3. Coordinated regional approach to multi-modal & sustainable transportation planning; 4. Protect rail rights of ways; Goods movement; and 5. Network improvements.
Appendix “B” provides a summary of the priorities for each North Okanagan highway segment. These two MoTI workshops, the policies within the RGS, official community plans and transportation plans and policies can be used to form the basis of a negotiated regional transportation implementation agreement.
VANCOUVER ISLAND HIGHWAY AGREEMENT (EXAMPLE):
Implementation agreements are an important tool associated with a RGS. The “Vancouver Island Highway Agreement” provides one example of an implementation agreement being used to address challenges of the interdependent land use and transportation decision-making and has helped provincial and local governments work effectively together. This agreement was executed in 1998 between: The Ministry of Municipal Affairs; The City of Nanaimo; MoTI; The City of Parksville; and The Regional District of Nanaimo; The Town of Qualicum Beach.
The purpose of the Agreement was to define the specific commitments of each party to achieving and maintaining the shared vision, goals and objectives for the Regional District of Nanaimo portion of the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor. The agreement sets out joint strategies regarding access and land use management along the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor. The shared vision for the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor is:
“In accordance with, and as required by, all laws, by-laws, orders and regulations, the Regional District of Nanaimo portion of the Vancouver Island Highway will over the long term effectively deliver the efficient and safe movement of people and goods along a highway corridor having limited access, that presents a welcoming and attractive gateway to corridor travelers and is maintained predominantly in a natural, green, "park-like" state”
51 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4 Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 4
The agreement provided a commitment that all parties work together to ensure that access to the new Vancouver Island Highway is restricted. Additionally, all parties committed to use the statutory tools available to work towards a long term protection of the corridor in relation to adjacent land uses and visual character.
LEGAL/STATUTORY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:
Implementation may include developing and adopting implementation agreements that may be necessary to implement certain policies/actions in the RGS. Implementation agreements between a regional district and other bodies can be created where cooperation is required to implement the strategy (Local Government Act, s. 868).
According to the RGS Explanatory Guide, implementation agreements “…are an important tool designed to promote coordinated local/provincial actions... These agreements are the primary means for the regional district and the provincial government to commit to actions on implementation of the RGS - for example, infrastructure investments, programs and policies.”
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS:
A project of this complexity and duration would require staff resources beyond what is currently available, based upon other Regional District strategic priorities and the current capacity of the Planning Department. The Board of Directors are recommended to define Regional District staffing resource requirements prior to the establishment of the 2014 Regional Growth Work Program, contingent on Board of Director support provided for this concept.
SUMMARY:
The development of a Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement is supported by Regional Growth Strategy Policy TI-2.1 and the outcomes of the workshops that were undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure as input into the Okanagan Valley Transportation Plan.
It is recommended that the Board of Directors consider the development of a “Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement” as a potential project during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priority initiatives. The Implementation Agreement, based upon discussions with member municipalities and the Ministry, may have the following benefits: Coordinating local land use decision-making and transportation plans with highway expansion and upgrade strategies; Agreeing on highway investment priorities and access points; Defining active transportation routes along Highways 97 and 6; and/or, Developing a regional implication framework for achieving North Okanagan priorities that were identified during the Okanagan Valley Transportation Plan workshops in 2011.
One of the first actions, if this project is supported, is to engage with the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure and member municipalities regarding interest in proceeding with Implementation Agreement development.
52 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4 Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee- September 30, 2013 Page 5
Submitted by:
Approved For Inclusion:
Endorsed by:
Rob Smailes, MCIP, RPP General Manager, Planning and Building
53 of 245 Appendix ‘A’: Status of Key Regional Growth Strategy Implementation Actions (September 2011 – September 2013)
Corresponding Initiation Policy Area Key Action Status Decision/Outcome Who Policies Date Monitoring and Performance Board resolution, Develop a monitoring and evaluation program Ongoing (90% Real Estate Regional District, EcoPlan 1 Implementation LGA s.869(1)(a) using annual indicators and a 5 year RGS Review June 2012 Complete) Foundation grant International, University of BC evaluation framework ($76,400)
Discuss with member municipalities, Electoral Board of Directors resolution (April 18, Regional Growth Management Economic Area Directors and potential economic January 2012). RGMAC and partners reviewed 2 ED‐1.1, ED‐1.2 Advisory Committee, RDNO Development development partners a regional approach to 2012 options, lack of agreement on how to staff economic development proceed regionally (status quo) Board of Directors Regional Growth Management Undertake annual review and prioritization of January 3 Implementation ‐ Ongoing resolution (Jan. 2, Advisory Committee, RDNO Regional Growth Strategy implementation actions 2013 2013) staff Board of Directors Regional Growth Management Agriculture and AG‐2, AG‐3, AG‐ Support the establishment of a North Okanagan January Complete ‐
54 3 resolution (March Advisory Committee, RDNO Food Systems 4 Agricultural Advisory Committee 2012 February 2013 21, 2012) staff of
245 Explore opportunities for the establishment of a ENV‐2.8, ENV‐ Board of Directors Regional Growth Management Environment and North Okanagan regional parklands legacy fund January 4 2.9, ENV‐2.10, Ongoing resolution (Jan. 2, Advisory Committee, RDNO Natural Lands or other regionally significant parkland 2013 BOARD ofDIRECTORS-REGULARAGENDA ENV‐ENV‐2.11 2013) staff acquisition funding opportunities Plans/Strategies/Actions
Transportation Development and Update of North Okanagan Complete ‐ Regionally Significant 5 TI‐2 April 2007 RDNO Staff, City of Vernon staff and Infrastructure Transportation Model September 2012 Project (2008)
Development of the BC Transit Future Plan ‐ Board of Directors
Transportation UC‐1.2, TI‐2.7, RDNO Engineering Staff, City of 6, 2013-ItemE.4 November 6 North Okanagan which will provide guidance on 2012 Ongoing resolution (Sept. 19, and Infrastructure TI‐2.8 Vernon staff, BC Transit public transportation provision for 25 years. 2012) Agriculture and Undertake a metered agricultural water usage Board of Directors Greater Vernon Water Food Systems/ AG‐1.1, AG‐ pilot project to encourage the efficient use of Complete ‐ 7 April 2012 resolution (Jan. 2, Utility/Okanagan Basin Water Water 1.2,WS‐2.4 agricultural water resources during crop November 2012 2013) Board Stewardship production. Board of Directors Agriculture and Support the establishment of Patchwork Farms Complete ‐ April Okanagan College, Kindale, 8 AG‐3, AG‐4 June 2012 resolution (April 18, Food Systems community farming pilot project 2013 RDNO Staff 2012)
Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 7
Corresponding Initiation Policy Area Key Action Status Decision Who Policies Date Plans/Strategies/Actions Board of Directors Agricultural and Support the creation of a Regional Agricultural Complete ‐ Food Action Society of North 9 AG‐3, AG‐4 June 2012 resolution (June Food Systems Producer Database January 2013 Okanagan, RDNO staff 20, 2013) Support the expansion and updating of the North Board of Directors Agriculture and AG‐1, AG‐2, AG‐3, Ongoing to late Ministry of Agriculture, RDNO 10 Okanagan Agricultural Land Inventory (A June 2013 resolution (Jan. 2, Food Systems AG‐4 2014 staff component of the Agricultural Area Plan process) 2013) Board of Directors Regional Agricultural Advisory Agriculture and AG‐1, AG‐2, AG‐3, Develop a Regional Agricultural Area Plan for the January Ongoing to 11 resolution (Jan. 2, Committee, RDNO staff, Food Systems AG‐4, ED‐2 North Okanagan 2013 December 2015 2013) consultant Board of Directors Agriculture and September Ongoing until RDNO Planning staff, 12 AG‐3, AG‐4, ED‐2 Support a food system conversation workshop resolution (Aug. Food Systems 2013 January 2014 consultant 21, 2013) Board of Directors Agriculture and AG‐1, AG‐2, AG‐3, RDNO staff support for the Regional Agricultural February Regional Agricultural Advisory 12 Ongoing resolution (Jan. 2, Food Systems AG‐4, ED‐2 Advisory Committee 2013 Committee, RDNO staff 2013) 55
of ENV‐2.1, ENV‐2.2, Complete sensitive ecosystem mapping and the Board of Directors Okanagan Conservation Environment and September Complete ‐
245 13 ENV‐2.3, ENV‐2.4, identification of significant natural habitats and resolution (August Collaborative Partnership, Natural Lands 2011 January 2013 ENV‐2.14 ecosystems. 3, 2011) RDNO Planning staff BOARD ofDIRECTORS-REGULARAGENDA Board of Directors Okanagan Conservation Environment and ENV‐2.12, ENV‐ Support the development of an interregional September Ongoing (90% 14 resolution (June Collaborative Partnership, Natural Lands 2.13 Okanagan Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2011 complete) 20, 2013) RDNO Planning staff RDNO planning staff supporting for regional Board of Directors City of Vernon, Chambers of Economic economic development initiatives (for example: September 15 ED‐1, ED‐2 Ongoing resolution (Jan. 2, Commerce, RDNO planning Development employment lands, economic development 2011 2013) Staff workshops, Vision North Okanagan meetings, etc)
Support the development of the North Okanagan Board of Directors 6, 2013-ItemE.4 November Economic ED‐1.4, ED‐2.2, Ongoing to City of Vernon, RDNO Planning 16 Employment Lands Inventory, including on‐line July 2012 resolution (April Development ED‐2.3 October 2013 staff search tools 18, 2012) Support the development of a regional housing Deferred, Board of Directors October City of Vernon, RDNO Planning 17 Housing H‐1.1 needs assessment, in partnership with the City of reconsider in resolution (Jan. 2, 2012 Staff, consultant Vernon 2014. 2013) Ongoing ‐ Support an integrated approach to Official Board of Directors Member Municipalities, February program 18 Implementation LGA s.866 Community Plan Regional Context Statement resolution (June Electoral Area Directors, RDNO 2013 completion at development 20, 2012) and municipal planning staff end of 2015
Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 8
Corresponding Initiation Policy Area Key Action Status Decision Who Policies Date Plans/Strategies/Actions Not Board supported in principle on June Transportation initiated ‐ Support the 2013 Okanagan Valley Household Travel 20, 2012. City of Kelowna/City of 19 and TI‐2 funding City of Vernon, City of Kelowna Survey Vernon funding request denied by Infrastructure request Board of Directors on June 5, 2013. denied
56 of 245
BOARD ofDIRECTORS-REGULARAGENDA
6, 2013-ItemE.4 November
Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 9
Appendix “B”: Identified Highway Segment Strategic Priorities (Okanagan Valley Transportation Planning Process)
KEYNEEDS • HIGHWAY97: SWANLAKE TO MONTE CREEK
lEGEND
RuralCommunities 57 of 245 BOARD ofDIRECTORS-REGULARAGENDA
0 1 2 4 6
Ki!omfltffl& November 6, 2013-ItemE.4 November
RESTATEDSTRATEGIC PRIORITIES
H - Hiah~taJinl:erfi!l:e lhrougb communities
Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 10
..--... KEY NEEDS • HIGHWAY 97 A: SWAN LAKETO SICAMOUS I- ..,r... '\ ..,... -- .. -,{/m \-- ~___ , ,•.
~I " . LEGEND I ' .. Q Intersections ______,<60~ - '
Transit
Network
Rail
1 58 -r ( tB~E of ~CO U~BIA ~·ll':">\,\ ( .,J/ KE
245 ; / Jl )' I I
)' ---· BOARD ofDIRECTORS-REGULARAGENDA ,)· J II I .. .Jt.1..l,& I / "~ : N I\4NAuAN W. E S.f 6 9 November 6, 2013-ItemE.4 November i. 1- - -- '""\"".. RESTATEDSTRATEGIC PRIORITIES . . I,p. ·-· A - Intersectionsafety & congestion I B - Intra & inter-city transit ~ ,,'" E - Networkimprovements ~- G - Protect rail rights-of-way ,.J ,.. J - GoodsMovement ....r ' \
Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 30, 2013 Page 11
KEY NEEDS• HIGHWAY97: VERNONand HIGHWAY 6 LEGEND T E 1 1ALl\1MCHEE ..,\1E R Intersections i 5 .AR 0 PARK Pedestrians ~... ;...... ) e Cycling
- Transit w• • • Goods/HeavyVeh icles s 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 e Land UseDensification Kilometres
59 i ~...... of : 245 BOARD ofDIRECTORS-REGULARAGENDA November 6, 2013-ItemE.4 November
RESTATED STRATEGIC PRIORITIES ... A - Intersectionsafety & congestion ~·,a••anusn•a.•ai i B - Intra & inter-city transit ( - Activetransportation ..... '5 ~...... ! ; i ; c : 0 - Coordinatedregional land u seplanning ,..... ; :..~ I - Improvements for alternative modes J - GoodsMovemen t
BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
.November 12, 1998
VANCOUVER ISLAND HIGHWAY AGREEMENT
AN IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, THE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NANAIMO, THE CITY OF NANAIMO The CITY OF PARKSVILLE and the TOWN OF QUALICUM BEACH REGARDING ACCESS AND LAND USE MANAGEMENT ALONG THE VANCOUVER ISLAND HIGHWAY CORRIDOR
1.0 Preamble
The Legislature, through Part 25 (Regional Growth Strategies}, Section 842 (2) of the Municipal Act, has set out certain goals which include:
• "avoiding urban sprawl and ensuring that development takes place where adequate facilities exist or can be provided in a timely, economic and efficient manner"; • "settlement patterns that minimize the use of automobiles and encourage walking, bicycling, and the efficient use of public transit"; and • "the efficient movement of goods and people while making effective use of transportation and utility corridors".
Section 868 (2) of the Municipal Act authorizes local governments and the Province to enter into agreements respecting the coordination of activities relating to the implementation of a regional growth strategy.
More specifically, in relation to Vancouver Island, the Province has constructed the Vancouver Island Highway (herein defined) to serve as a route for the high speed regional movement of people and goods, both now and in the future. It has been constructed and will be maintained by the Province, and constitutes an irreplaceable public asset, essential to the social and economic well-being of the Island. Throught the development of this Highway, the Province also made a major investment in the aesthetic quality of the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor (herein defined) and the tourism economy of Vancouver Island. The Province wishes to manage and maintain the Highway to preserve its efficiency and safety for present and future generations.
60 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
The Regional District of Nanaimo has adopted a regional growth strategy under the Growth Strategies Statutes Amendment Act (Growth Management Plan for the Regional District of Nanaimo, Bylaw No. 985), as adopted on January 14, 1997, the Goals of which include:
• strong urban containment; • nodal community structure; • improved mobility; • efficient services and resource use; ;and • cooperation among jurisdictions.
In addition, the City of Nanaimo, the City of Parksville and the Town of Qualicum Beach have identified requirements for transportation mobility and servicing efficiency within municipal official community plans. (Portions of the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor lie within the boundaries of the City of Nanaimo and the City of Parksville). The need for effective management of development along the Vancouver Island Highway and the access roads from the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor to communities is also noted in these plans. Local governments in this Regional District place importance on protecting the rural and "natural" appearance of lands along the Highway Corridor and access roads to communities, and ensuring that urban development in the vicinity of the Highway is visually attractive and compatible with the surrounding area.
Recognizing the affinities in provincial, regional and community goals in planning for the future of the Region, and the need for coordination between the Province, the Regional District, the City of Nanaimo, the City of Parksville and the Town of Qualicum Beach in the implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, the Province and the Regional District have entered into a "Master Implementation Agreement Regarding the Growth Management Plan for the Regional District of Nanaimo".
The Master Implementation Agreement identifies specific areas where coordinated provincial, regional and municipal government attention is required, including the development of a "Vancouver Island Highway Agreement" for the Regional District of Nanaimo" (hereafter referred to as the Agreement).
This Agreement relates only to the goals, objectives and policies of the Regional Growth Management Plan that are relevant to the Vancouver island Highway. Other implementation agreements may be developed in future with respect to other elements of the Plan.
61 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
2.0 Subject Area of the Agreement and Definitions
In this Agreement:
(i) The Vancouver Island Highway, subsequently referred to as "the Highway", means Highway 1 from the southern boundary of the Regional District of Nanaimo to the Cedar Road North intersection, and Highway 19 from the Duke Point Ferry Terminal to the (north) western boundary of the Regional District of Nanaimo, as set out on the plan attached as Appendix A to this Agreement, and
(ii) The Vancouver Island Highway Corridor, subsequently referred to as "the Highway Corridor", means:
• a corridor 1600 metres wide (800 metres on either side of the Highway centre line) along the section of the Highway from the southern boundary of the Regional District of Nanaimo to the Duke Point access intersection; • a corridor 1000 metres wide (500 metres on either side of the Highway centre line) along the section of the Highway from the Duke Point ferry terminal to the Superior Road intersection; • a corridor 1600 metres wide (800 metres on either side of the Highway centre line) along the section of the Highway from the Superior Road intersection to the Craig's Crossing intersection; • a corridor 1000 metres wide along the Vancouver Island Highway from the Craig's Crossing intersection to the (north)western boundary of the RON; • a corridor 1000 metres wide along the Qualicum Beach/Highway 4 access road from the Rupert Road intersection to the Highway 4A intersection (500 metres on either side of the centre line of the road); and • circular areas extending an 800 metres radius from the centre point of the following intersections along the Highway:
1. McMillan Road (Hwy. 19) 2. Maughn Road (Hwy. 19) 3. Junction Duke Pt. Access Road (Hwy. 1 and 19) 4. Cedar Road North (Hwy. 19) 5. Fifth Street (Hwy. 19) 6. Jingle Pot Road South (Hwy. 19) 7. Northfield Road (Hwy. 19) 8. Mostar Road (Hwy. 19) 9. Aulds Road (Hwy. 19) 10. Junction 19 and Highway 19Anorth 11 . Ware Road (Hwy. 19) 12. Superior Road (Hwy. 19) 13. Craig's Crossing interchange (Hwy. 19 and 19A) 14. Junction 4A (Parksville Access Road) (Hwy. 19 and 4A) southward extension
62 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
15. Junction 4 (Qualicum Beach Access Road) (Hwy. 19 and 4) 16. Horne Lake Road (Hwy. 19)
• The "Parkway section" of the Vancouver Island Highway means the newly constructed section between the Duke Point access intersection and the Superior Road intersection as set out on the plan attached as Appendix A; and
• The "Old Highway sections" of the Vancouver Island Highway means the Highway 1 section between the southern boundary of the Regional District of Nanaimo and the Duke Point access intersection, and the Highway 19 section between the Superior Road intersection and the Craig's Crossing intersection, all as set out on Appendix A.
3.0 Purpose of the Agreement
3.1 Purpose
The Province and the local governments in the Regional District each have tools that Can be used to achieve the shared goals and vision for the new Highway Corridor. This Agreement addresses a coordinated approach to the application of these tools.
To this end, the purpose of this Agreement is to define the specific commitments of each party to the achievement and maintenance of the shared vision, goals and objectives for the Regional District of Nanaimo portion of the Highway Corridor. Within the terms of this Agreement, the parties will make reasonable efforts to:
• consult and cooperate with each other in regard to land use, traffic mobility and safety and visual character management along the Van-couver island Highway Corridor; and
• acknowledge the shares vision, goals, and objectives of the Province, the Regional District and the member municipalities for the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor, and the tools each party has to manage land use, traffic mobility, safety, access management and visual character along the Highway Corridor.
3.2 Principles
The parties are committed to the following principles of interpretation:
• recognition that the different jurisdictions all have responsibilities that can contribute to the management of land use, traffic access and visual character along the portion of the Vancouver Island Highway Corridor within the Regional District of Nanaimo.
63 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
• mutual respect for the different and distinct statutory powers and authority relating to land use, traffic access and visual character management of the different jurisdictions, and acknowledgement that this Agreement does not amend, modify, limit, extend or add to statutory powers and authority;
• appreciation of the need for a coordinated response and joint action on areas of mutual concern relating to land use, traffic access and visual character along the portion of the Highway Corridor that is in the Regional District of Nanaimo;
• cooperation in the development and distribution of information under this Agreement and;
• subject to any and all applicable enactments, willingness to consider new mechanisms to manage land use, traffic access, and visual character along the portion of the Highway Corridor that is in the Regional District of Nanaimo, if existing mechanisms are not effective in addressing the agreed upon areas of mutual concern.
The parties recognize that this Agreement is not intended to in any way fetter the discretion of the Minister of Transportation and Highways under any and all enactments, including without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Highway Act, the Ministry of Transportation and Highway Act, the Land Title Act or the Condominium Act; and that, similarly, nothing in the Agreement is intended to in any way fetter the discretion of an Approving Officer appointed under the Land Title Act, or the statutory discretion of local government councils and regional boards or public officers in exercising their statutory power.
3.3 Vision
The parties share a common vision for the Highway Corridor, as follows:
In accordance with, and as required by, all laws, bylaws, orders and regulations, the Regional District of Nanaimo portion of the Vancouver Island Highway will over the long term effectively deliver the efficient and safe movement of people and goods along a highway corridor having limited access, that presents a welcoming and attractive gateway to corridor travellers and is maintained predominately in a natural, green, "parklike" state.
3.4 Financial Considerations
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the expenditure of money by any party to achieve any of the objectives set out in this Agreement or to fulfil any of
64 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
the commitments set out in this Agreement is subject to funds being available. In addition, with respect to the Province, this means that: a) there being sufficient monies available in an appropriation, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, to enable the Province, in any fiscal year or part thereof to make such expenditures; b) any necessary funds related to the allocation of funds by the British Columbia Transportation and Financing Authority are referenced in the BCTFA Capital Plan and c) Treasury Board, as defined in the Financial Administration Act, not having controlled or limited, under the Financial Administration Act, expenditure under any appropriation.
With respect to local government, this means that: a) there are sufficient monies in a budget as defined in the Municipal Act, in any year or part thereof to meet such expenditures; and b) the local government, as defined in the Municipal Act, not having controlled or limited any expenditure in a budget.
4.0 Goals, Objectives and Action Commitments
This Agreement addresses the following matters:
• efficiency and safety of the Highway; • land use and growth management in the Highway Corridor; • the visual character of the Highway Corridor; and • the concerns of residents who are adversely affected by Highway noise.
Shared goals, objectives and related implementation actions that each party will endeavour to undertake have been identified for each of these areas of concern.
Goal4.1
To maintain the Highway Corridor for the long term, efficient and safe movement of people and goods. This means that, within the context of the function of the Highway, direct access service to abutting lands is subordinate to the safety of Through traffic.
The parties hereby agree that each of the objectives and each of the implementation actions and commitments to be undertaken by each party under this Goal are subject to, and will be undertaken in accordance with, all applicable laws, regulations, bylaws, orders and standards.
65 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
Objective 4.1.1
Maximize the mobility and safety of travellers within the Vancouver Island Highway.
In support of this objective, the Province will consider:
1. minimizing the number of signal locations along the Highway.
2. assessing the potential access, prior to reaching any decision on the disposition of lands no longer required for the use of the Highway.
3. not reducing the posted speed limits on the Highway within the Regional District of Nanaimo.
4. maintaining the primary function of expressway/freeway of the Highway by limiting direct access. Access to adjacent lands should be via existing signalized intersections.
5. where possible, minimizing and consolidating public and private access to the Old Highway sections.
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will encourage:
1. the servicing of development adjacent to and near the Highway Corridor via the local road system.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo and the City of Parksville will encourage:
2. the servicing of development adjacent to and near the Parkway section via the local road system.
Goal4.2
To manage land use and growth in the Highway Corridor to avoid the negative impacts of urban encroachment, consistent with the Vancouver Island Highway's function as an inter-regional transportation facility.
The parties hereby agree that each of the objectives and each of the implementation actions and commitments to be undertaken by each party under this Goal are subject to and will be undertaken in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, bylaws, orders and standards.
66 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
Objective 4.2.1
Identify land required for possible future interchanges for the Parkway section of the Vancouver Island Highway.
In support of this objective, the Province will:
3. Consider this Implementation Agreement, when acting as a referral agency regarding subdivision applications and local government zoning bylaws.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo will:
4. Identify lands within 250 metres of the Vancouver Island Highway intersection centre lines of Fifth Street, Jingle Pot Road, Northfield Road, Mostar Road and Aulds Road requied for future interchange construction.
5. Consider this Implementation Agreement when considering approval of zoning bylaws and referrals for subdivision applications which would be consistent with the footprints for future interchanges and their identified right of way needs.
Objective 4.2.2
Direct commercial, industrial and residential development in or in the vicinity of the Highway Corridor towards development nodes recognized in the Regional Growth Management Plan and Official Community Plans.
In support of this objective, the Province will :
6. Consider this objective when acting as a referral agency regarding subdivision applications and local government zoning bylaws.
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will:
7. Consider maintaining Official Community Plan and regulatory bylaws for the Highway Corridor which reflect the objective.
8. Consider this objective when acting as a referral agency regarding subdivision applications.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo will:
9. Consider maintaining Official Community Plan and regu latory bylaws for the Highway Corridor which reflect this objective.
67 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
10. Consider this objective when acting as a referral agency regarding subdivision applications.
In support of this objective, the City of Parksville and the Town of Qualicum Beach will:
11 . Consider maintaining Official Community Plan and regulatory bylaws for the Highway Corridor which reflect this objective.
12. Subject to all applicable laws consider this objective when acting as a referral agency regarding subdivision applications.
Objective 4.2.3
Develop road network plans and associated capital plans that provide for a functional hierarchy of highways and roads in the Regional District of Nanaimo and the member municipalities, so as to create safe and efficient flow of traffic on the Vancouver Island Highway and provide alternate facilities for local traffic.
In support of this objective, the Province will:
13. Develop road network plans (including approved signal locations) for the rural areas of the Regional District of Nanaimo that take into consideration the Regional Growth Management Plan and Official Community Plans.
14. Assist member municipalities of the Regional District of Nanaimo with the development of road network plans (including approved signal locations) for each municipality that take into consideration the Regional Growth Management Plan and Official Community Plans.
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will:
15. Respond to requests from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways for input or comment on proposed road network plans and, once a network plan is completed, consider incorporating the road network plan within the appropriate official community plans.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo, the City of Parksville and the Town of Qualicum Beach will:
16. Develop and implement road network plans in co-operation with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways.
68 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
Objective 4.2.4
Wherever possible, protect the function of the Vancouver Island Highway by minimizing and consolidating access points.
In support of this objective, the Province will:
17. Review relevant land use development proposals with respect to the sufficiency of access, including the desirability of minimizing and consolidating public and private access points along the Highway.
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will:
18. Review relevant land use development proposals with respect to the sufficiency of access, including the desirability of minimizing and consolidating public and private access points along the Highway, and access alternatives.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo and the City of Parksville will:
19. Review relevant land use development proposals with respect to the sufficiency of access, including the desirability of minimizing and consolidating public and private access points along the Highway, and access alternatives.
Objective 4.2.5
Provide for cyclist travel in the Highway Corridor and for essential pedestrian crossing of the Highway.
In support of this objective, the Province will :
20. Having regard for the interests of highway safety, consider allowing cyclists to travel on the Highway shoulder and local government proposals for separate cycle paths within the right of way.
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will:
21. In developing a trail network, consider highway safety and trail locations for cyclists and pedestrians.
22. Design and develop routes that support convenient pedestrian and cycle travel yet minimize the need for crossing the Highway.
69 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo and the City of Parksville will:
23. In developing a trail network, consider highway safety for cyclists and pedestrians.
24. Design and develop pedestrian and cycle routes that support convenient pedestrian and cycle travel yet minimize the need for crossing the Highway.
Goal4.3
To maintain the natural rural attractiveness and visual appeal of the Highway Corridor so as to maximize positive experiences for travellers and residents of the Regional District of Nanaimo.
The parties hereby agree that each of the objectives and each of the implementation actions and commitments to be undertaken by each party under this Goal are subject to, and will be undertaken in accordance with , all applicable laws, regulations, bylaws, orders and standards.
Objective 4.3.1
Preserve the "natural" visual character of the rural portions of the Highway Corridor as recognized by the Regional District of Nanaimo Regional Growth Management Plan and local governments' Official Community Plans.
Objective 4.3.2
Where significant development in or adjacent to the Highway Corridor is expected and visibility into developments is considered to likely, achieve high quality urban design and architecture and achieve minimal Highway noise impact on affected residents.
Objective 4.3.3
Manage land use and the visual character of lands in the Highway Corridor so as to discourage development that would be distractive to the travelling public.
70 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
Objective 4.3.4
Screen and buffer existing and future commercial and industrial development with appropriate landscaping within and beside the right of way.
In support of objectives 4.3.1, 4.3.2. 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, the Province will:
25. On a request from the Regional District of Nanaimo that is supported by a draft bylaw, consider recommending the provision of authority to the Regional District to regulate the cutting of trees along the Highway Corridor.
26. Where possible, discourage frontage roads and encourage alternate access other than access to the Highway.
In support of objectives 4.3.1 , 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, the Regional District of Nanaimo will :
27. Consider the designation of lands within 250 metres of the centre line of the Highway and 500 metres of intersection centre lines as Development Permit Areas with associated Development Permit Area Guidelines that reflect these four objectives.
28. Employ Development Permit Guidelines for landscape management adjacent to the Highway right of way.
29. Once provided with the power from the Province, consider adoption of a bylaw to regulate the cutting of trees within the Highway Corridor.
In support of objectives 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, the City of Nanaimo will:
30. Consider the designation of lands within 250 metres of the centre line of the Vancouver Island Highway and 50 metres of intersection centre lines as Development Permit Areas with associated Development Permit Area Guidelines that reflect these four objectives.
31 . Employ Development Permit Guidelines for landscape management adjacent to the Highway right of way.
32. Consider maintaining a bylaw to regulate the cutting of trees within the Highway Corridor.
In support of objectives 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.3.3 and 4.3.4, the City of Parksville will:
33. Evaluate development applications in the context of these objectives.
71 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
Objective 4.3.5
Maximize opportunities to create parks and greenways along the Highway Corridor.
In support of this objective, the Province will :
34. Prior to the disposition of lands that are no longer required for use in connection with the Vancouver Island Highway, notify the local government having jurisdiction for the area, and consider, the greenway and park values and market development potential of the lands; such consideration to be in the sole discretion of the Province.
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will:
35. As part of the Regional District's regional park system planning, consider the creation of parks and greenways that support the Highway natural landscape objectives.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo and the City of Parksville will:
36. As part of any municipal park system planning, consider the creation of parks and greenways that support the Highway natural landscape objectives.
Objective 4.3.6
Provide appropriate landscaping and screening on the right of. way and protect and enhance short and long range views.
In support of this objective, the Province will:
37. Consider local government landscaping and sound attenuation proposals for higher standards within the highway right of way. (Such proposals are to recognize that costs for achieving and maintaining the standards beyond those of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways should be borne by local government.)
38. If required, participate jointly with the Regional District of Nanaimo in discussions with owners of private property that is within the Forest Land Reserve and is adjacent to the Highway and provincial agencies to determine if there are potential voluntary actions that the property owners might undertake that would facilitate meeting this objective.
72 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will:
39. If required, participate jointly with the Province in discussions with owners of private property that is within the Forest Land Reserve and is adjacent to the Highway and provincial agencies to determine if there are potential voluntary actions that the property owners might undertaken that would facilitate meeting this objective.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo and the City of Parksville will:
40. Consider providing appropriate landscaping where required to maintain aesthetic visual character.
Objective 4.3.7
Prohibit signs not approved by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways in the Highway Corridor that might impact on the safety of the travelling public or detract from the quality of the travel experience.
In support of this objective, the Province will:
41. Consider this objective in implementing its policies regarding maintaining and enforcing the sign control provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act within the Highway right of way.
In support of this objective, the Regional District of Nanaimo will:
42. Consider this objective in implementing its policies regarding maintaining and enforcing its sign control bylaw adopted pursuant to section 908 of the Municipal Act that discourage signs located and designed for the attention of Highway Corridor traffic.
In support of this objective, the City of Nanaimo and the City of Parksville will:
43. Consider this objective in implementing its policies regarding maintaining and enforcing its sign control bylaw adopted pursuant to section 908 of the Municipal Act that discourage signs located and designed for the attention of Highway Corridor traffic.
73 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
5.0 Monitoring, Review and Amendment of this Agreement
5.1 The parties will cooperate to establish a Highway Liaison Committee as a subcommittee to the Regional District of Nanaimo Inter-Governmental Advisory Committee. The Sub-Committee's membership will include, but not be limited to, staff representatives of the Regional District, the City of Nanaimo, the City of Parksville, the Town of Qualicum Beach, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority.
5.2 The Highway Liaison Committee will meet on a periodic basis to: monitor the effectiveness of the Agreement in addressing the goals and objectives; consider any proposed amendments to the Agreement necessary to ensure effective implementation; review available funding by all parties regarding meeting objectives and specific iss ues that may arise related to Section 3.4 of this Agreement, and identify, analyse and make recommendations on additional areas of concern which might arise for the attention of provincial and local elected officials.
5.3 The Highway Liaison Committee will also meet with, advise, consult and seek input from the Regional District Board or member municipal councils as necessary regarding the monitoring, review and amendment of this Agreement.
5.4 This Agreement will be reviewed every five years, in conjunction with the review of the Regional District of Nanaimo Growth Management Plan.
5.5 This Agreement may be amended at any time with the consent of all the parties, and any party may withdraw from the Agreement, provided that 120 days notice is given and the rationale for the withdrawal is discussed with the other parties.
74 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.4
5.6 Nothing in this Agreement will prevent the Province, the Regional District of Nanaimo, the City of Nanaimo, the City of Parksville or the Town of Qualicum Beach from dealing with any other signatory to this Agreement with respect to any matter discussed in this Agreement.
Honourable Jenny Kwan Honourable Harry Lali Minister of Municipal Affairs Minister of Transportation and Highways
George Holme, Chair Mayor Gary Korpan Regional District of Nanaimo City of Nanaimo
Mayor Julia MacDonald Mayor Bill Luchtmeijer City of Parksville Town of Qualicum Beach
75 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.5
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3045.12.03.06
TO: Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee FROM: Anthony Kittel, Regional Growth Strategy DATE: September 4, 2013 SUBJECT: Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept
RECOMMENDATION:
That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the report dated September 4, 2013 regarding the exploration of the Regional Economic Development Action Plan concept be considered during the selection of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
DISCUSSION:
The Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 includes policies that emphasis a coordinated and collaborative approach to regional economic development that would result in a sustainable, resilient and diverse regional economy. The Board of Directors on April 16, 2012 identified regional economic development as the top RGS priority to be addressed within the first five years of RGS implementation.
Member municipalities have indicated that the current economic development service delivery model is the most appropriate option and the Board of Directors has directed staff to provide support for select partnership economic development initiatives.
A traditional regional economic development strategy requires an associated implementation mechanism (i.e. service) and therefore would not be an appropriate planning model for RGS implementation.
The RGS contains economic development policies that reflect the need for a coordinated approach to regional economic development that is premised on working closely with its member municipalities, senior government, the business community and other local organizations that also have economic development as part of their mandate.
If the region is to move forward with a stronger and more united approach to regional economic development, new approaches will need to be explored for forming partnerships with member municipalities, stakeholders, as well as senior levels of government and the business community. When considering alternative approaches, special consideration was given to the UBMC Report on Economic Development (available upon request), which identifies key factors that contribute to successful regional economic development. These criteria are represented in Table 1:
76 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.5 Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 4, 2013 Page 2
Table 1: Economic Development Delivery Model Criteria
A potential alternate approach to achieve the economic development goals of the RGS is for the Regional District, in partnership with interested stakeholders, to facilitate the development of a regional economic development action plan with involvement by local and regional government, Chambers of Commerce, business associations, senior levels of government and businesses throughout the region.
The goal of a Regional Economic Development Action Plan (REDAP) would be to identify a series of actions that are collaboratively developed that can guide partnership initiatives and provide a coordinated approach to economic development without a regional function. In this way, all participants have a role to play based upon mandate and interest. This approach provides a flexible framework that disperses plan implementation across all partners, based upon capacity, interest and mandate.
A REDAP would emphasize shared implementation responsibility through collaboration and partnership by a broad group of community, business and government stakeholders. This plan would be designed to focus economic development opportunities through participant-identified actions undertaken by interested partners. The Regional District would not be the lead organization within any action but may choose to participate in an action if there is a defined regional benefit and the action is in the best interests of all member communities.
REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN CONCEPT:
The RGS economic development policies were developed by the Economic Development Working Group, consisting of Chambers of Commerce, interested business leaders and local and regional government staff. All of the participants emphasized the value of collaborative and coordinated regional economic development.
A Regional Economic Development Action Plan (REDAP) would emphasize shared responsibility, collaboration and partnership by a broad group of community, business and government stakeholders and would be designed to focus economic development opportunities through participant identified actions. Specifically a REDAC may focus on: Capitalizing on the infrastructure investments in North Okanagan communities; Enabling business success; Building on economic links that result from diversity of participants; Facilitating partnership opportunities to undertake actions; and, Capitalizing on North Okanagan assets.
77 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.5 Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 4, 2013 Page 3
A REDAP would be strategic, seeking to capitalize on the unique opportunities available in the North Okanagan, outlining specific, opportunities and challenges that have been identified to assist the Regional District, member municipalities, Chambers of Commerce, economic development organizations and business in identifying partnership actions.
A REDAP would reflect the perspective that regional economic development initiatives should be based on the following principles: The ability for various levels of government, businesses and organizations to contribute to an economically prosperous region is substantially enhanced by a collaborative, partnership- based approach to regional economic development; Economic development models that bring government, business and community leaders together to work on common issues and to pursue mutual goals should be supported; and Development of an action plan that distributes implementation responsibility across government, businesses and organizations will provide the region with a competitive advantage by achieving regional economic development coordination without the establishment of a regional service..
To support the RGS’s vision of a “strong, sustainable, and diverse economy that reflects our values and the identities of our communities”, the Regional District recognizes that regional coordination on economic development is foundational to the principles of the RGS. Although the Regional District does not have a mandate to undertake regional economic development, the Regional District has supported regional economic development partnership initiatives.
A REDAP would represent the Regional District, member municipalities, senior levels of government, Chambers of Commerce, businesses and community efforts to identify a series of key actions that will advance the North Okanagan economy. The Regional District recognizes that it would need to act within a support role in a larger economic initiative that includes citizens, business, economic development organizations and other levels of government.
APPROACH:
The approach that may be taken to develop a REDAP may be guided by the following principles:
1. Outlines the steps to follow. Economic development does not just happen. It requires all stakeholders within a region to identify a number of intermediate steps to reach final RGS goals. 2. Promotes efficient use of scarce resources. All organizations and governments within the North Okanagan have limited budgets and staff capacity. These limited resources must be allocated to maximum benefit through the identification of supportable partnership initiatives that provide the greatest benefit to the participants and contribute to a more robust and prosperous economy. The plan will provide rationale for regional and community economic development resource allocation. 3. Improves coordination and collaboration. Many governments, groups, and stakeholders are involved in economic development initiatives and it is important that they not overlap or conflict. The plan will serve as a mechanism for coordinating regional economic development initiatives across all stakeholders. 4. Builds consensus. The stakeholders must agree on the major economic development issues to be addressed in the short- to mid-term, as well as the corresponding partnership actions. This will lead to support in implementing the plan.
78 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.5 Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 4, 2013 Page 4
5. Increases public awareness. Without public support, economic development is more difficult to achieve. It is important that the public know how economic development occurs and how it affects a community or region. 6. Strengthens the region’s competitive position. A region with an economic development strategy will not only be inherently more likely to succeed, it will appear more attractive to potential business or industry than communities without a plan. 7. Encourages forward-thinking. A plan will encourage community and business leaders to think about the future and to not overlook opportunities for economic development as they arise.
The process to develop a REDAP may consist of five phases: 1. Issue identification and trend analysis; 2. Vision formulation and identification of strategic goals and objectives; 3. Economic development round-tables to discuss issues, opportunities, partnerships and actions; 4. Preparation of the Regional Economic Development Action Plan and directions; and 5. Final review of the Regional Economic Development Action Plan, followed by implementation, monitoring and progress reporting.
This five-phase work program would be jointly undertaken by Regional District of North Okanagan and interested partners. Potential partners may be North Okanagan municipalities, Chambers of Commerce, Vision North Okanagan and Community Futures North Okanagan.
The result may be a REDAP that is both visionary and practical, comprehensive but distributes implementation responsibility across many partners. A plan more effectively positions the North Okanagan to respond to emerging opportunities as it relates to business investment and growth, as well as demonstrate all stakeholders’ commitment to working toward a prosperous, diverse and resilient North Okanagan economy.
LEGAL/STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
The Regional District of North Okanagan does not have a mandate to undertake regional economic development or have a service devoted to undertake this project. The Regional District may assist in facilitating the development of this plan through Regional Planning (031), with the acknowledgment that the Regional District does not have a mechanism to guide implementation. This project would be designed to facilitate implementation through stakeholder partnership, with the Regional District acting within a minor support role on initiatives that are within the mandate of the Regional District.
EXISTING POLICY:
Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No. 2500, 2011 includes regional economic development policies that are intended to provide guidance in sustaining and supporting economic diversity, maintaining and attracting a dynamic mix of businesses, establishing baseline data to monitor trends over time and encouraging the development of a regional economic plan. As one of the three core principles of sustainability, having a strong economy is essential to supporting the other principles of environmental and social well-being. The supporting RGS policies that support this approach to coordinating regional economic development include:
79 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.5 Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 4, 2013 Page 5
Goal ED‐1: Promote a Regional Approach to Economic Development
Strategy ED‐1.1: support a regional approach to economic development, based upon a voluntary model, which encourages a positive and sustainable business enabling environment.
Strategy ED‐1.2: collaborate and cooperate on economic development, tourism and business attraction initiatives, policies, plans and marketing.
Strategy ED‐1.4: the federal government and the province financially contribute to, and have a key role in, economic development initiatives that retains and attracts investment and employment to the region.
Strategy ED‐1.5: adjacent regional districts are invited to collaborate with the Regional District of North Okanagan on shared or common economic development matters.
Goal ED‐2: Encourage a Sustainable, Resilient and Diverse Regional Economy
Strategy ED‐2.1: explore initiatives that support continued economic diversification, including value added, community based business development, green jobs and sustainable industries.
Strategy ED‐2.3: investigate opportunities to support the expansion of regional employment that are consistent with the Regional Growth Strategy.
Economic Development was considered the top priority by the Board of Directors, as an outcome of the March 8, 2012 Prioritization Workshop, when considering actions and initiatives as part of Regional Growth Strategy implementation.
The Board of Directors, on October 19, 2011, adopted RDNO Regional Economic Development Commission Service Establishment Repeal Bylaw No. 2512, 2011, which repealed Bylaw No. 767, 1987 (and all amending bylaws), eliminating the economic development regional service, effective December 31, 2012. As a result, the Regional District does not have a mandate or budget to undertake regional economic development outside of a land use or regional planning role. The creation of a REDAP would need to be a partnership project, with an organization or government with an economic development mandate acting as project lead.
FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS:
It is anticipated that this project may be very expensive (greater than $50,000) to undertake, based upon approach and level of stakeholder consultation and participation. The 2013 Regional Planning (031) Financial Plan does not have the financial resources to undertake such a project and the Regional District does not have an Economic Development Service to act as a lead for this project. It is recommended that partnership opportunities be explored with local and senior levels of governments, as well as organizations which have an economic development mandate. If partnership arrangements were established, including financial contributions, then the Board of Directors may consider providing financial support for the initiative.
In addition to partner financial contributions, the following grants may apply to the development of a REDAP:
80 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.5 Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee – September 4, 2013 Page 6
Southern Interior Development Initiative Trust Grants
The SIDIT grant program provides regionally strategic investments in economic development projects that will have long-lasting and measurable regional benefits for the Southern Interior. SIDIT’s funding programs are specifically targeted toward investments in self sustaining projects. Performance measures include job creation, retention and enhancement, increased revenues, sustainability, leverage and economic diversification. This grant program encourages partnership initiatives and funds up to 50% of a project, to maximum grant of $50,000.
Western Diversification Program
Multi-year federal-provincial funding commitments to strengthen economic activity and improve quality of life in western Canadian communities. Through the agreements, Western Economic Diversification Canada (WD) and each western province provide a matching contribution, enabling significant investments to fund projects that support federal and provincial priorities. The Western Diversification Program (WDP) is the main program through which Western Economic Diversification Canada makes strategic investments in initiatives that enhance and strengthen the economy of Western Canada. Increasingly, the WDP is used to collaborate with others and is designed to respond to economic priorities. Funding is directed to initiatives that support WDP's three strategic outcomes: A competitive and expanded business sector in Western Canada and a strengthened western Canadian innovation system; Economically viable communities in Western Canada with a high quality of life; and Policies and programs that support the development of Western Canada. Specific priorities in some regions include tourism revitalization, development and promotion of environmental technologies, and ground-breaking health technology research and development.
PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS:
A project of this complexity would require staff resources beyond what is currently available within the draft 2014 Regional Growth Strategy Work Plan. The Board of Directors are recommended to direct staff to explore partnership opportunities, refine the approach and define Regional District staffing resource requirement prior to the establishment of the 2014 Regional Growth Work Program, contingent on support provided to the concept.
SUMMARY:
The RGS has policies which support regional coordination of regional economic development. The Board of Directors has indicated that collaborating on regional economic development is considered the top priority for RGS implementation for 2013. Currently, there isn’t a mechanism to coordinate regional economic development initiatives and programs within the North Okanagan and the City of Vernon is the only member municipality with an Economic Development function.
Local and regional government, Chambers of Commerce, business associations and organizations have been working together on economic development initiatives in an ad hoc manner. Economic development initiative partnerships are often project, situation, context or relationship specific and contingent on available funding.
A REDAP would serve as a framework of ideas and a broad-based program for action to promote the long-term economic sustainability of the North Okanagan. It would present comprehensive overview of the regional economy illustrating significant trends in employment, wages, income and industry.
81 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.5 Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept Report to Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee- September 4, 2013 Page 7
The plan would examine the region's existing and emerging industries, its economic assets and the internal and external forces affecting its economy.
A REDAP would be designed to guide the economic growth of the North Okanagan through a participatory planning process that addresses the economic problems and potential of the Region through the identification of partnership actions. Responsibility for implementation would be distributed across local and regional participants, as well as senior levels of government. Each government and organization would define its own role within the promotion of economic development and enter into partnerships on the basis of shared interest and action priority.
The plan would need to reflect local and regional economic development needs and priorities and a regional approach to coordinated action to achieving sustainable economic development. Ultimately, the goal of the REDAP planning process would be to help, foster the growth of a competitive regional economy and contribute to the Region's long-term sustainability and prosperity.
The REDAP concept is unique and would not be associated with a primary implementation organization or government agency. Instead, implementation would be distributed across all participants within the process, based upon the actions that are identified and the partnerships that are developed. A coordinating organization or mechanism would need to be identified prior to undertaking this process.
The Board of Director is recommended to consider exploration of the concept of a Regional Economic Development Action Plan as a 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priority.
Submitted by:
ategy Coordinator Approved For Inclusion:
Endorsed by:
Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building
82 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3045.12.03.10
TO: Board of Directors FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 21, 2013 SUBJECT: Genetically Modified Organisms
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report dated October 21, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding Genetically Modified Organisms be received for information.
DISCUSSION:
In response to a delegation from the community organization, Bee SAFE, at the Regular meeting of January 16, 2013, the Board of Directors passed the following resolution: That issues regarding the impact of genetically modified organisms on the Regional District of North Okanagan be forwarded to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for consideration.
The Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC) has been exploring the issue of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) since March 21, 2013 and throughout the discussions, consensus on this issue has not been achieved.
The Committee was presented with several options for discussion within the most recent staff report dated October 1, 2013 (attached). When polled during discussion of this report at the Regular Meeting of October 17, 2013, the majority of Committee members were in favour of Option 1: That the Regional District continues to support consumer choice through advocacy at the Provincial and Federal levels who have jurisdiction and regulatory responsibility; The Board of Directors could consider sponsoring a food system and agriculture speaker series at the University of British Columbia Okanagan or Okanagan College as a Regional Agricultural Area Plan outreach event that may assist consumer choice and food education. There were a few members that supported Option 2.b, which was a statement that discouraged the use of GMO plants and animals. As a consensus could not be achieved, the Committee requested that the discussion represented within the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting minutes, be presented to the Board of Directors for information.
For information, the following staff reports, presentations and RAAC meeting minutes have been attached to this report: October 1, 2013 staff report; February 7, 2013 staff report; March 21, 2013 RAAC meeting minutes; April 18, 2013 RAAC meeting minutes;
83 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms Report to Board of Directors- October 21, 2013 Page 2
• May 16, 2013 RAAC meeting minutes; • August 22, 2013 RAAC meeting minutes; • September 11, 2013 RAAC meeting minutes; • October 18, 2013 RAAC meeting minutes; • April 18, 2013 Huguette Allen, BeeSAFE Presentation; and, • September 11, 2013 Janice Tranberg, Vice President of Western Operations, Croplife Presentation.
SUMMARY:
The Committee has considered the impact of genetically modified organisms, as directed by the Board of Directors on January 16, 2013 and has not reached consensus on this issue. The Committee has requested that the discussion represented within the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee meeting minutes, be presented to the Board of Directors for information.
Submitted by:
rategy Coordinator Approved For Inclusion:
Endorsed by:
Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building
84 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3045.12.03.4
TO: Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee FROM: Planning Department DATE: October 1, 2013 SUBJECT: Genetically Modified Organisms: Options
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee consider the options included within this report when providing comments to the Board of Directors on the subject of Genetically Modified Organisms.
DISCUSSION:
The Board of Directors has requested that the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC) consider this matter of Genetically Modified Organisms for consideration. The RAAC has been discussing this subject since March 21, 2013. As captured in the March 21, 2013, April 18, 2013, May 16, 2013 and September 11, 2013 RAAC meeting minutes, the Committee discussion includes some of the following points; these comments do not reflect the collective decision of the RAAC or the RDNO: Local and regional government do not have regulatory authority over normal farm practices or agricultural product regulation; Authority to designate RDNO a GMO free zone - it would be a symbolic gesture as the Regional District has no authority in this regard; Need to separate philosophical and scientific, if it isn't enforceable then it's not a ban so the word ban should not be used; No one can prove that harm is done or not done, first GMO crops went on the market in the 1970's, there are no GMO syndromes, no one has proven it one way or another; RDNO has no particular expertise or funding, it's not RDNO’s place now to decide; Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is the regulator authority and does not prevent labels from stating; GMO free - it would just have to be proven to be GMO free; Our job should be to educate our residents on what a GMO is; Worries from looking at the science, industry does product testing, universities and federal government do research; Labeling is great, should be the GMO products that should be labeled; Potential impact on organic farms is an issue (cross-contamination of organic cops with GMO pollen); Production has increased in the past 20 years from the use of new seeds, trees, etc. (ex. used to be 20 bins per acre, now 100 bins per acre); Ultimately it's up to the consumer whether they buy GMO or GMO-free products; GMOs may be very beneficial or harmful, it is not one sided or the other;
85 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 2
Need sources of information on GMOs and agricultural production; Need for accommodating both sides, pro GMO and anti GMO; and, Need to define the term sustainability in regards to agriculture.
On May 16, 2013, RAAC Community-at-Large member Wendy Aasen offered to bring forward a draft resolution for consideration, which has been included as Appendix “A”. This report provides several options for RAAC consideration when providing comments to the Board of Directors on this subject. Although not mandated within the Committee Terms of Reference, comment provided to the Board of Directors on referred matters should strive toward consensus of the membership. In the absence of consensus, the differing perspective of the membership will be respected and reported within the meeting minutes.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
Genetically modified (GM) crops remain a source of heated debate in Canada and around the world. Much of the disagreement stems from divergent views about the benefits and risks of GM crops, including environmental and human health concerns. In Canada, federal government officials and agencies have long stressed the safety of GM products and the economic and social benefits associated with their development and commercialization. Opponents of GM crops, on the other hand, have cautioned about the potential for adverse health and environmental impacts and raised concerns about undue industry influence on Federal government policy relating to GM products.
BeeSAFE, a community organization, requested that the Regional District of North Okanagan consider becoming a GMO-Free area on January 16, 2013. Approximately 150 community members have written to the Regional District in support of a ban on GMO1 crops and expressed the following concerns: o Food system contamination o Economic advantage to the North Okanagan (organic and GMO free market) o Corporate control over the food system o Human health concerns o Unknown environmental, ecological and human health effects o Small scale and organic farming concerns (cross-pollination between GMO and organic crops) o Ethical concerns related to the use of biotechnology
The Kamloops Okanagan Dairymen’s Association have provided a letter that supports the use of GMO products based upon their experience of reduced reliance on chemical treatments, the increased nutrient value of feed crops and that 90% of feed corn seed sold is genetically modified for glyphosate resistance2.
The Board of Directors passed the following motions on January 16, 2013: “That issues regarding the impact of genetically modified organisms on the Regional District of North Okanagan be forwarded to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for consideration.”
“That staff be directed to forward a letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requesting mandatory labeling of genetically products.”
1 1 According to the Federal government regulatory system, a GMO is an organism that was produced through modification techniques that include traditional breeding, hybridization and genetic engineering. 2 Glyphosate (also called Roundup) is a popular systemic herbicide that is non-selective with a broad spectrum, meaning it will kill any plants it comes in contact with. There are plants, though, that glyphosate either does not affect or that are damaged but not killed. Glyphosate resistance in plants happens because plants may have been intentionally genetically altered or have naturally evolved resistance.
86 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 3
A letter was sent on February 4, 2013 to Minister Ritz, who is responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, requesting the implementation of mandatory labelling of all genetically modified foods.
The Regional District received a response from the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency on February 27, 2013 that provided an overview of GM foods regulation and certification procedure.
Janice Tranberg, Vice-President, Western Division of CropLife, was invited to provide the Committee information on the development and use of biotechnology within agriculture from the perspective of companies that develop GE crop strains. The following questions, as excerpts from the September 11, 2013 RAAC minutes, were asked by Committee members to Ms. Tranberg: Labeling? – more complicated than it seems; would increase costs; how are products tracked; what should be labeled; why labels if the regulators say they are safe; What GMOs are in Canada currently? – Canola, Soybeans, Sugar Beet, Corn, and some imports such as papaya and squash; Are there issues with cross contamination/open pollination? – These issues are taken into consideration and a stewardship plan can to help minimize. Co-existence can occur if there is cooperation. Unintentional limits could allow coexistence; Monsanto vs. Schmeiser Case – How has this changed the industry? – Courts found that that Schmeiser was at fault as he did not follow the agreement. The technology is purchased; a seed cannot be patented, only the technology; Some studies say they are not safe? – Very few studies say they are not safe, regulatory agencies review this information; Have some areas banned GMOs? – Some within the EU that want to not allow their growth and allow imports only; Are cross species modifications done that would not happen without biotechnology? – Yes, this can happen. Researchers look at how these modifications change the plant, regarding toxins, allergens etc.; How long has this been done? - We have been eating them for 20 years; studying them for 25; Contracts for GMO products, v. regular products? – Seed purchased every year, farmer chooses biotech for their specific needs, there is a technology use agreement; How can anyone be certain that they are safe, when we have been certain about other things before in science? – There is a responsibility to provide safe products; David Suzuki comments? – Regulatory agencies believe they are safe. Science doesn’t allow 100%; These products have benefits that help people and there is not a negative safety track record; Is testing long enough? – Need to have faith in regulatory agencies. Experts with tools and experience to make tests they need to make. We have been eating the for 20 years and we have not seen negative effects; Are scientists muzzled? – Does not believe that; Consumers, may not agree, no one asked the consumer. Not being heard at other levels. – There is choice, organic is an option. Base opinion on science, not opinion.
THE GMO CONTROVERSITY:
Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered foods (GE foods) have become subjects of considerable public debate. This is a very complex subject that does not have scientific consensus on GE food benefits, concerns and issues. There are strong opinions on benefits and concerns regarding GMO and GE crops and products.
87 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 4
The controversies are the result of differing views concerning the products of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology, which allows scientists to move genes across species’ boundaries, to create traits in plants, animals, and microorganisms that could never be accomplished using traditional crossbreeding techniques (novel traits). This technology has been enthusiastically embraced by some while being vehemently opposed by others.
Proponents see GE as a critical technology to meet future food supply needs while opponents question the safety of the technology and point out associated side effects such as unwanted contamination of non-GEO seed stock by cross-pollination with GEO3 crops and that rapid development of the technology lacks adequate regulatory oversight.
GEOs may have increased agricultural production and reduced reliance on synthetic pesticides, but critics question their environmental, social and economic impacts especially since many studies are proprietary and conducted by companies that also own patents on the GEO products under investigation. Tables 1 and 2 provide an overview of some of the stated benefits and expressed concerns of GEO products and crops.
Table 1: Some Expressed Concerns Regarding GEO Human health risks: Ecological Risks: Economic Risks: Allergy/Toxicity Unnatural selection (‘Playing Costs of health and Changes in nutritional God’) ecological damage composition GEO Gene Flow to non- Food system controlled by Cumulative effects by eating targeted species multinationals many new GeO foods Food System Contamination No requirement for Unknown long-term health Creation of ‘Super-weeds’ labeling (consumer choice) effects Effects on ecological Loss of markets (GEO balances trade barriers) Lack of control over spread Contamination of non- of GEO crops, plants and GEO crops (patent animals infringement & economic Loss of biodiversity loss) Greater pesticide use Loss of rights to keep seeds
Table 2: Some Stated Benefits of GEO Human health Benefits: Ecological Benefits: Economic Benefits: Nutritionally improved foods Reduced need for Welfare of Human health More food security agricultural chemicals and Ecological benefits. (increased yield) Soil conservation/ improved Benefits of trade, to sellers Plant-produced vaccines soil quality and consumers More efficient Expand food production production(less land needed Reduce the need for for food) expensive inputs Reduce agricultural impact (chemicals, fertilizers) on environment Improve yields Protect biodiversity
3 GEO refers to the products of recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology
88 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 5
In the debate over GEOs, it is difficult to determine where scientific evidence ends and where speculation begins. As an example, the European Union (EU) membership has differing opinions on the cultivation of GE plants and animals (See Appendix “B”) that include general moratorium, banning specific GE varieties only and allowing GE cultivation. In 2012, Europe produced approximately 100,000 hectares of GE crops, almost all of it consisting of Bt corn. The EU permits two approved products for cultivation, MON810 corn and the Amflora potato. However, 39 products are approved for import to the EU.4
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the body that is responsible for providing risk assessment and approving GE crops and animals for cultivation. Nine European Union countries have banned the cultivation of MON810 maize, one of two GE crops approved by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the only one currently grown commercially. Spain and Portugal are the major GE commercial cultivation regions in the EU. Britain officially supports GM crops and has trials of GE crops potatoes planted. France, Italy, Switzerland, Hungary, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Latvia and Albania have all declared many regions to be GMO-free. Austria, Greece and Poland have been declared GMO-free areas at a national level.
The scientific community is divided because of the paucity and the proprietary nature of the scientific information. Proponents concur GEOs are safe and perhaps, the only way to feed the growing population; opponents believe the current regulatory framework is inadequate and argue about the lack of transparency on the issue and need for more research.
It is recognized by the World Health Organization in 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization in 2013 and 2008 Global Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development that not all GE plants are the same and like many challenges facing society, the specific benefits and risks depend on careful consideration on a case by case basis.
A record 17.3 million farmers grew crops derived from biotechnology in 2012, with over 90% being small resource farmers in ‘developing’ countries.5 The majority of these crops were herbicide and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets, and alfalfa. At the same time, Australia, New Zealand, China, India, Russia, Chile, Saudi Arabia, South Korea and the European Union require GEO foods to be labeled and citizens of many other countries, including the United States and Canada, are requesting mandatory labelling of GEO products.
GMO Regulation in Canada:
In Canada, the regulation of genetically modified crops and food products is primarily done at the federal level. Figure 1 provides an overview of the GMO regulatory authority at the federal, provincial and local government levels. According to the Federal government regulatory system, a GMO is an organism that was produced through modification techniques that include traditional breeding, hybridization and genetic engineering.
4 Paradoxical EU agricultural policies on genetically engineered crops Gemma Masip, Maite Sabalza, Eduard Pérez-Massot, Raviraj Banakar, David Cebrian, Richard M. Twyman, Teresa Capell, Ramon Albajes, Paul Christou Trends in Plant Science - 1 June 2013 (Vol. 18, Issue 6, pp. 312-324) 5 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (2012) ISAAA Brief 44-2012: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2012.
89 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 6
Figure 1: Regulation of GMO in Canada
Federal Government:
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has primary responsibility for regulation of GM crops. CFIA is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Seeds Act, and for the assessment and regulation of all plants and crops, including products derived from biotechnology. CFIA is also responsible for evaluating new fertilizers, livestock feeds and veterinary biologics, including those products developed using biotechnology, pursuant to the Fertilizers Act, the Feeds Act and the Health of Animals Act. The Federal Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food maintains responsibility for the overall direction of CFIA.
Other federal departments carry out functions related to GM products. Health Canada is responsible under the Food and Drugs Act (FDA) and associated regulations for conducting safety assessments for all new foods and drugs, including products developed using biotechnology. Environment Canada has responsibility under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) for regulating products for uses not addressed under other federal laws.
The regulatory regime under the Seeds Act and Seeds Regulations is product–based, rather than process–based, meaning that trait novelty in a plant triggers regulatory review, regardless of the process by which the trait was created (through conventional breeding, recombinant DNA technology or another processes). Part V of the Seeds Regulations includes a definition of a “novel trait”:6
6 “novel trait”, in respect of seed, means a characteristic of the seed that (a) has been intentionally selected, created or introduced into a distinct, stable population of cultivated seed of the same species through a specific genetic change, and (b) based on valid scientific rationale, is not substantially equivalent, in terms of its specific use and safety both for the environment and for human health, to any characteristic of a distinct, stable population of cultivated seed of the same species in Canada, having regard to weediness potential, gene flow, plant pest potential, impact on non-target organisms and impact on biodiversity. (Part V of the Seed Regulations)
90 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 7
In assessing a plant with a novel trait, the regulations require consideration of all relevant matters, including the potential impact on and risk to the environment, the potential impact on and risk to human health. The environmental and human health risks associated with release (ranging from minimal to unacceptable risk) must be assessed, which requires evaluation of scientific data and specialized knowledge. The regulations give authority to reject, approve and impose conditions on the release of seeds.
Criticism over CFIA’s scientific assessment procedure is heightened by a lack of transparency about the evaluation and approval process, as neither the scientific community nor the public can review pertinent details of the information considered during regulatory assessment.
British Columbia:
The Province has jurisdiction over local health, environmental and agricultural issues, subject to Federal regulations. With the matter being in senior government jurisdiction, there are significant barriers to the implementation of local government regulations relating to GMO seeds and products. The Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act legislation in BC permits farmers to undertake normal agricultural practices that can not be regulated or prohibited by local government, including using approved genetically engineered seeds, plants or animals.
BC Local and Regional Government Response to the GMO Controversy:
GMO Resolutions and Actions at the Local Government Level
As of October 1, 2013, 62 local and regional governments in British Columbia have passed resolutions that symbolically are opposed to GMO and GE crops in their jurisdictions, which include some common elements: Public consultation or public petition prior to passing a resolution on discouraging the use of GMO; If supported, opposing the use of GMO seeds or specific products in the local jurisdiction; and, Writing a letter to various senior levels of government requesting mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.
Appendix “C” provides examples of local and regional government GE resolutions. It should be noted that GMO crops are federally regulated and therefore municipalities and regional districts are unable to enforce any a GMO resolution except on local or regional public lands. Local GMO resolutions are recognized as symbolic and are designed to begin petitioning senior levels of government for GMO restrictions and/or food labelling.
It must be noted that discussions on this topic and resolutions passed by local government have, in some cases, been very divisive and have had the effect of polarizing the public on the issue, as well as the farm community along commodity lines, large and small-scale agriculture, organic and conventional, new farmers and old.7 Potential agricultural production and economic impacts of local, regional GMO bans may be experienced by agricultural industries that rely on feeds that are derived from GE crops (poultry, beef, hog and dairy)8 and/or the grains sector, as represented by the BC
7 As an example, debates that resulted from presentations at council meetings at the City of Richmond, City of Courtenay, Town of Comox, 8 “Municipalities pass resolution for GE-free British Columbia”, Manitoba Cooperator
91 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 8
Grain Producers Association9. The Peace River region has approximately 90,000 acres of canola planted and the estimated financial cost of a ban to those farmers has been estimated at $20,000,000.10
The RDNO Board of Directors has taken the following actions regarding concerns expressed by the community regarding GMO products, foods and organisms:
• Letter sent on February 4, 2013 to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requesting GMO food labeling; • Requested advice on GMO crops from the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for the Board of Directors consideration; • Union of British Columbia of Municipalities resolution in 2012 requesting leadership from provincial and federal governments regarding GMO crops; and, • Forwarding the request from BeeSAFE to the Ministry of Agricultural regarding the development of a GMO Transition Guide.
UBCM Resolution (September 19, 2013):
A resolution was passed at the 2013 Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) Convention on September 19, 2013 by approximately 60% of the attending delegates which states:
“That UBCM ask the British Columbia government to legislate the prohibition of importing, exporting and growing plants and seeds containing genetically engineered DNA, and raising GE animals within BC, and to declare, through legislation, that BC is a GE Free area in respect to all plant and animal species."
The resolution was brought forward in January 2013 by Metchosin Councilor, Moralea Milne. Metchosin is a member of the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC), which passed a Council resolution in 2012 that “recommends that no GMO plants (vegetables, fruit, herbs, etc.) be grown in the District”
The UBCM Resolutions Committee advises that the UBCM membership has not previously considered a resolution asking that the Province legislate the prohibition of importing, exporting and growing genetically engineered plants, seeds, and animals on Vancouver Island or in associated coastal communities. However, the membership did endorse a similar resolution, which asked for a legislative ban on the importing, exporting and growing of fruit and plant material containing genetically engineered material in BC (UBCM Resolution 2012- B126).
The UBCM resolution is a request to the Province to consider legislating GE agricultural products and has not authority to declare British Columbia a GE-Free area.
In a statement to the Comox Valley Echo on September 2411, Agriculture Minister Pat Pimm stated that the Province is working to promote food security and would communicate the UBCM resolution to the Federal Government. Minister Pimm also stated that "there has been a lot of good debate and discussion about the topic with many different opinions expressed both at UBCM and elsewhere. The different opinions expressed in the debate at UBCM really emphasized that B.C.'s mayors and
9 “Grain Growers of Canada. “ anti-GM campaign in Richmond, BC”. BC Grain Producers Association Fall 2012 Newsletter, accessed on October 1, 2013 at: http://bcgrain.com/pdf/2012/Fall%202012%20Newsletter.pdf 10 PRRD Briefs, Northwest News, September 12, 2013. 11 Comox Valley Echo, “Anti-GMO Activists Cheer UBCM Resolution ,Ag Minister promises to pass concerns on to Feds”, September 24, 2013.
92 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 9 councils hold many different views on GMO foods. I will certainly share the results of the vote and summary of the debate with the Federal Minister, as it is the federal government's jurisdiction to approve or deny foods for production in Canada."
B.C. Agriculture Council (BCAC) Chair Rhonda Driediger, in response to the UBCM resolution12, said the organization has members on both sides of the GM question, but all agree rules must be based on science and safety, which are the respective domains of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada. BCAC executive director Reg Ens said the economics of the proposal would have to be explored even if B.C. had jurisdiction over the matter.
The provincial government is required to provide a written response to UBCM on each of the resolutions that pass. The official response from the Ministry of Agriculture is expected in the near future.
ANALYSIS:
Biotechnology is a growing, relatively new industry that is likely to develop more products in the future. Unfortunately, there remains little consensus on the relative benefits and risks of GE products and their contribution to sustainable agriculture and food production. A key challenge for the Regional District is to determine what, if any action, is to be taken given the complexity of the factors to consider the lack of scientific consensus and the lack of jurisdiction on the issue.
Staff at the RDNO do not have the expertise internally to conduct an investigation into the risks and benefits of GE crops, foods or products. It has been very difficult to identify a local expert that could put forward unbiased opinions in this subject area. The Board of Directors has requested that the RAAC consider this issue and the Committee has members that represent divergent opinions on the matter.
The RAAC, throughout their discussions, recognizes that the subject of GMOs is a complex and controversial issue with unknown consequences and risks. The RAAC understands the concerns of citizens and the diverse opinions on this subject. It has been acknowledged during the discussion that that RAAC membership, the Regional District and its partners value the contributions of the diversity of agriculture in the region.
The Province has jurisdiction over local health, environmental and agricultural issues, subject to federal regulations. With the matter being in senior government (federal and provincial) jurisdiction, there are significant barriers to the implementation of local government resolutions or regulations relating to GMO seeds and products.
Within the Canadian regulatory framework that addresses novel foods13, the term “genetic modification (GM)” refers to organisms where the genetic material has been changed through any method, including traditional methods like selective breeding. “Genetic engineering (GE)” is used when a gene has been taken from one organism and put into another. To ensure that the terminology of the options for consideration are constant with the federal regulation framework, the term “genetically engineered (GE)” has been used.
12 “BC Towns Target GE Products”, The Western Producer, September 26, 2013. Accessed on October 1, 2013 at: http://www.producer.com/2013/09/b-c-towns-target-gm-products/ 13 In Canada, GMOs for food purposes are classified as novel foods, a category of foods including products never used before as food or foods that have been produced in a new way, such as genetic engineering (GE); or foods altered by traditional methods such as selective breeding
93 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 10
When the RAAC is considering the options that have been presented, it must be acknowledged that regional and municipal governments do not have jurisdiction over prohibiting normal farm practices or directing agriculturalists on which crops to produce. The B.C. Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, protects the rights of farmers to conduct their business within the parameters of “normal farm practice.” The definition under the Act includes the use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices.
Three options have been identified for the RAAC to consider when providing comment to the Board of Directors.
OPTION 1: (Recommended): Support Consumer Choice/Advocate for Strengthened Senior Government Management
The first option for consideration is that the Regional District continues to support consumer choice through advocacy at the Provincial and Federal levels who have jurisdiction and regulatory responsibility.
In particular, the Board of Directors could continue to advocate for mandatory labelling of foods that contain GE ingredients and/or senior government support for approaches that assist consumer choice. Although there are third-party GMO-free labeling initiatives, such as the GMO Free Project, the lack of mandatory labelling or other public education mechanisms means that it remains quite difficult for consumers to make personal food choices and markets are less able to respond to consumer preferences.
Because GE products are regulated through a complex institutional and regulatory framework, it is difficult to access information and understand local implications. In addition to mandatory labelling or other consumer education mechanisms, it is also recommended that the Regional District advocate for more transparent novel food assessment and approval procedures that better address community concerns and strengthened Federal and Provincial programs for communicating information to the public.
Although a similar resolution was brought forward by the Board of Directors on January 16, 2013 and a letter was sent to the Federal government requesting the implementation of mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods, the Board of Directors could direct staff to send letters on behalf of the Board of Directors to the Prime Minister, Premier and leaders of the Federal and Provincial opposition, and copied to relevant Ministers in the Federal and Provincial governments, local Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly requesting strengthened management of genetically modified plants, including the introduction of mandatory labelling requirements, more transparent assessment procedures and enhanced communication with the public.
The Board of Directors has supported a number of initiatives that support local agriculture and food system education, including Patchwork Farms at Okanagan College, the Greater Vernon community garden network, the Food Action Society of North Okanagan local agricultural producer data base and the development of the North Okanagan Food System Plan (2008).
The Regional Agricultural Area Plan process, scheduled to begin in January 2014, provides the Board of Directors opportunities to support regional agriculture and food systems education. As a Plan outreach event that may assist consumer choice and food education, the Board of Directors could sponsor a food system and agriculture speaker series at the University of British Columbia Okanagan or Okanagan College.
94 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 11
This option is recommended as it supports individual choice and informed market responses and seeks to strengthen senior government accountability at levels which have jurisdiction over farm practices and novel food regulation. This option also supports the development of the Regional Agricultural Area Plan and provides education opportunities for citizens to learn about regional food production and out food system. This option is consistent with input received by the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee and previous actions taken by the Board of Directors.
OPTION 2: A Resolution that takes a position on GEOs a. Support the Coexistance of GE and non-GE Agriculture as Valuable Components of the North Okanagan Food System
The Board of Directors could provide a resolution of support of the coexistance of GE and non-GE agricultural practices as valuable components of the North Okanagan food system. As of 2011, there were 1,167 agricultural operations that contributed to the economy of the North Okanagan and are vital to provide consumers with local food options. The diversity of agriculture includes many sectors and, as of 2011, 72 certified organic farms.14
The adoption of such a resolution is an expression of the Board of Directors’ “support for a robust and diverse agricultural section”15, although an interpretation that what constitutes “a healthy, accessible and resilient food system”16 would be required. b. Support the Regional District of North Okanagan as a GE-Free Area
The Board of Directors may consider a resolution that declares the North Okanagan a GE-Free Area as a symbolic gesture, recognizing that any resolution would not be enforceable given limitations in municipal and regional jurisdiction and the limited ability to identify crops, plants and trees as genetically engineered.
The RAAC recognizes that the Regional District does not have the authority to restrict farmers from growing GE crops authorized under Federal jurisdiction. This will enable local governments that adopt a GE-Free area resolution to only use non-GMO products on their lands, including parks and recreational facilities.
The general principles of a draft resolution that have been brought forward by RAAC Community-at- Large member Wendy Aasen for consideration are: 1. Adopt the Precautionary Principle17 as a guiding principle in general and specifically in regards to the issue of GMOs; 2. Develop a resolution based on voluntary compliance; 3. Abstain or discontinue the planting or growing of any GMOs on publicly controlled lands (i.e. O’Keefe Ranch); 4. Advocate for better policies at the provincial and federal levels; and, 5. Encourage jurisdictions in the area to consider the concerns of their constituents in adopting GMO policies and/or actions.
14 Census of Agriculture, 2011 15 North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy, Goal AG-3 16 North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy, Goal AG-4 17 Prevent harm as the best method of environmental protection and, when knowledge is limited, apply a precautionary approach. Item 6 of the Earth Charter states “a. Take action to avoid the possibility of serious or irreversible environmental harm even when scientific knowledge is incomplete or inconclusive. b. Place the burden of proof on those who argue that a proposed activity will not cause significant harm, and make the responsible parties liable for environmental harm. “
95 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 12
Adopting a resolution may increase awareness of the issue and potentially increase the probability of strengthened action by the provincial and/or federal government should other municipalities and regional districts take similar action. A key concern is that by adopting a resolution, the Regional District will be setting an unrealistic expectation that the Regional District is taking action that is not enforceable except on public lands owned by the Regional District.
It also means that the Regional District will be taking a position on an issue rather than advocating the federal government to empower local residents to make their own choices on the issue. This action may result in the use of limited Regional District resources to reduce confusion about the resolution’s impact and implementation opportunities.
A second key consideration is that the Regional District would take a position on a federally approved agricultural practice that is undertaken voluntarily by members of our agricultural community. The use of GE crops has been preferred by many agricultural industries in British Columbia and the consequences of such a resolution to their operations is currently unknown. The agricultural sector represents 5% of the regional workforce and posted $126,000,000 in farm receipts for 2011. The dairy, cattle, hog, poultry and grain industries in the North Okanagan may use GE crops in their operations. The adoption of a RDNO GE-Free resolution may have negative consequences for their operations and the viability North Okanagan agricultural sector.
OPTION 3: Take No Action at This Time
In this option, the Regional District would not take any specific action regarding citizen concerns about GE crops or products, including crops, trees and plants, beyond the actions that have been taken to date. The Regional District does not have any authority or jurisdictions over normal farm practices and any resolution would be symbolic. The September 19, 2013 UBCM resolution regarding this subject will result in a response from the Province, which regulates farm practices in British Columbia.
The response from the Province may, or may not, provide insight into the possible legislative changes that may enhance the abilities for local governments this matter.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
The financial implications of Option 1 may be accommodated within Regional Planning (031), although further exploration to the RDNO will be required if an agricultural speaker series is supported.
The financial impact of Option 2a can be accommodated within current Regional District budgets.
The financial impact of Option 2b is unknown and would need to be assessed by individual functional areas, based upon the resolution adopted by the Board of Directors.
The financial impact of Option 4 can be accommodated within current Regional District budgets.
SUMMARY:
There is a growing use of genetically engineered plants in the production of feed and food crops and for other purposes. There is controversy over the relative benefits and risks and there is a lack of scientific consensus on the issue to provide guidance. The Regional District does not have the internal expertise to evaluate the benefits and concerns that have been identified by residents, the agricultural sector and the scientific community.
96 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Options Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee- October 1, 2013 Page 13 internal expertise to evaluate the benefits and concerns that have been identified by residents, the agricultural sector and the scientific community. Significant barriers exist in the implementation of GE regulation at the local or regional government level as a result of the matter being within senior (i.e., federal and provincial) government jurisdiction. This report provides three options for consideration by RAAC when providing comments to the Board of Directors on this issue. 18
Submitted by:
Approved For Inclusion:
Endorsed by:
Rob Smailes, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building
18 Consensus by RAAC members on comments or resolutions is the desired outcome, although support of the majority (50% + 1) of voting RAAC members is required for any motion to pass.
97 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 14
Appendix “A”: Example of a GE-Free Resolution (Option 2.b)19
Based upon that understanding, the RAAC may consider the following recommendation when providing advice on a course of action to the Board of Directors:
It is recommended the Board of Directors use the precautionary principle when considering the matter of GEOs.
It is recommended to the Board of Directors that all farmers in all jurisdictions in the RDNOare encouraged to voluntarily refrain from planting any and all GEO crops or trees.
It is recommended that the Board of Directors prohibit the planting of GE crops and trees on lands owned by the Regional District and initiate a transition plan towards organic or conventional crops on any public lands owned by the Regional District which is currently growing GEOs.
It is recommended to the Board of Directors that all farmers currently growing GE crops are encouraged to: a) voluntarily refrain from adding any new or additional GE crops on land not presently used for growing GE crops; and, b) voluntarily begin a transition plan towards organic or conventional crops on land presently used for GE crops.
It is recommended that the Board of Directors encourage all jurisdictions presiding in the RDNO to address the concerns of citizens in regards to GEO and consider taking further steps to address the issue which may include, but not be limited, to: 1. Advocating for provincial farm policy in relation to GEOs; 2. Advocating for changes in federal policy via the local Member of Parliament and all other avenues available to them; 3. Amending OCPs to provide a local policy framework; and, 4. Addressing the issue in Regional Agriculture Area Planning.
It is also recommended to the Board of Directors that this resolution be revisit when pertinent new information becomes available.
19 Provided by Wendy Aasen, Community‐at Large Member, Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee
98 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 15
Appendix “B”: GE Crop Cultivation “Bans” in Europe20
Austria: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810, MON 863 and T25 Notified in June 1999, initially under Article 16 of Directive 90/220/EEC, and subsequently maintained in February 2004 under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; France: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810. Notified in February 2008, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003 Germany: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810 In April 2009 the agriculture Minister, Ms. Aigner, announced a ban on cultivation and sale of MON 810 Greece: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810. Application lodged in April 2005 under Article 18 of Directive 2002/53/EC, and subsequently in January 2006 extended/maintained the measure under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; Hungary: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810. Notified in September 2006, under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; Hungary: Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora Notified in June 2010 Italy: General ban on the cultivation of all genetically engineered (GE) crops. Notified by ministerial circular in March 2006. This ban will stay in place until the Italian regions have regulated the “coexistence” between GE, conventional and organic crops. Luxembourg : Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810. Notified in March 2009, under Directive 2001/18/EC Luxembourg: Ban on cultivation and commercial use of potato Amflora Notified in June 2010 Poland: Ban on cultivation of Monsanto’s maize MON 810. Application lodged in March 2005 under Article 16 of Directive 2002/53/EC ( The EU’s Seeds Directive). The ban under the Seeds Directive affects 16 out of 31 MON 810 varieties. However, in May 2006 the Polish government complemented the ban with a general prohibition –based on national law- to sell any GE seeds in Poland. Romania: Ban on cultivation of MON 810 maize Announced on 27 March 2008. The Romanian government has indicated that it intends to install the ban on the same legal grounds as France: under Article 23 of Directive 2001/18/EC; and under EU Regulation 1829/2003. Switzerland: Moratorium on cultivation of GM crops and animals In 2005, the Swiss voted by referendum a 5-year moratorium against the commercial cultivation of GM crops and animals. The Swiss government decided to extend this moratorium till 2013.
20 GMO-Free Europe, GE Cultivation in the European Union. Website access on October 1, 2013. http://gmo.zs-intern.de/?id=1870. This list and map only represent national positions on GE cultivation and not local or provincial government positions. NOTE: This information may not reflect the current state of GE-cultivation prohibitions in Europe due to the rapidly evolving nature of the subject.
99 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 16
Map of European Union GE Cultivation Bans and Moratoriums
100 of 245
BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 17
Appendix “C”: GMO Resolutions from Other British Columbia Communities
City of Richmond:
At the June 28, 2010 City of Richmond Council meeting, representatives from the Richmond Food Security Society and GE Free BC presented Council with a 1,000 name petition requesting the City ban GMO seeds and products within the municipality. The Society requested that the City adopt a resolution opposing GMO seeds and products.
A City staff report dated April 26, 2012 stated that any council adopted resolution establishing a ‘GMO-Free Zone’ would be extremely difficult to enforce, given the limitations in municipal jurisdiction and the limited ability to identify crops, plants and trees as genetically engineered. It was recognized by staff that a resolution of this type would be a symbolic gesture and unenforceable. As well, City of Richmond staff had presented the following considerations Council adopted the resolution: o The resolution would require local government resources to be used to provide information on the resolution’s impact, rational and jurisdictional responsibilities on the subject; o The resolution may increase awareness of the issue and potentially senior government action should other municipalities (and regional districts) take similar action; o The resolution may set unrealistic expectations that a local government is taking an action that is enforceable; o The resolution would translate into a local jurisdiction taking a position on the issue, instead of local citizens and the agricultural community making individual choices. As a result, there may be confusion by both opponents and supporters of GMO seeds and foods regarding what the resolution means; and, o There is the possibility that, in taking local action on issues under federal and provincial regulatory jurisdiction, there may be a ‘downloading’ of responsibility for GMOs onto the local jurisdiction in the future.
City of Richmond Council decided to proceed with the resolution suggested by GE Free BC and Richmond Food Security Society that opposes the use of GMO seeds and products within municipal boundaries. The resolution passed on May 22, 2012 was:
“That the City of Richmond hereby opposes the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees in the City of Richmond, with the exception of the 3 existing dairy farm GMO corn crops found prior to this Resolution, and that from this Resolution forward, no further GM crops, trees, or plants should be grown in the City of Richmond. This also includes GM fruit trees, all GM plants and shrubbery, GM vegetables, GM commodity crops and any and all field tests for medical and experimental GM crops; That Option 1: Support Consumer Choice/Advocate for Strengthened Senior Government Management as described in the report titled “City of Richmond: Response to Genetically Engineered Free BC Resolution”, dated April 26, 2012, from the Interim Director, Sustainability and District Energy be endorsed;
That letters be sent on behalf of Council to the Prime Minister, Premier and leaders of the Federal and Provincial opposition, and copied to relevant Ministers in the Federal and Provincial governments, Richmond MPs and MLAs, Metro Vancouver, UBCM, the LMLGA, and the FCM, advising of these resolutions and requesting strengthened management of genetically modified plants, including the introduction of mandatory labelling requirements, more transparent assessment procedures and enhanced communication with the public; and;
101 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 18
That the City of Richmond agrees to revisit this resolution as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution.”
It has been acknowledged by City Council that municipalities do not have enforcement powers or jurisdiction regarding the regulation of GMO products but, instead, consider the resolution a ‘statement of intent of Council’s consideration of the matter’21 (Mayor Malcolm Brodie, May 23, 2012)
Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities:
The Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities (AVICC) is an organization formed for the purpose of representing 51 municipalities, regional districts and other local governments of Vancouver Island, Sunshine Coast, Powell River and the Central Coast. The AVICC is one of five area associations of local governments that operate under the Union of BC Municipalities.
At the April 14, 2013 Annual General Meeting of the Association of Vancouver Island Coastal Communities (AVICC), Resolution 10 was passed declaring Vancouver Island a GMO-Free Zone. There is some controversy on Vancouver Island regarding this resolution. Below is the full text of AVICC Resolution 10, April 14, 2013:
“Whereas some Genetically Engineered (GE) crops, through pollination, can disperse their pollen and genes indiscriminately and potentially contaminate non-GE crops, resulting in lawsuits, loss of organic certification, and marketability and;
Whereas there is particular concern with the transfer of DNA between species and the potential unintended consequences, especially with animal species and;
Whereas Vancouver Island and associated Coastal Communities are isolated from other agricultural areas in British Columbia, which can provide practical approaches to avoiding contamination by GE organisms and these locations suggest that there is an opportunity for local farmers to provide organic production, to help maintain long-term sustainability, to foster a living seed bank, and to be a refuge from genetically engineered contamination;
Therefore be it resolved that AVICC ask the British Columbia government to promote a prohibition on importing, exporting and growing of genetically engineered (GE) plants and seeds, and on raising of GE animals or other genetically engineered organisms, on Vancouver Island and associated Coastal Communities and in the marine waters nearby; and take action to implement, in the area encompassed by AVICC, a GE Free area with respect to all plant and animal species.”
District of Saanich:
The District of Saanich Healthy Saanich Advisory Committee spent a great deal of time, energy and effort responding to this issue GMO crops. After review, the Committee decided to refer the issue to the Peninsula Agricultural Commission (PAC), which is composed of agricultural experts and those involved in the agricultural industry.
21 Mathew Hoekstram ‘Richmond puts genetically modified crops to pasture’ Richmond Review, May 23, 2012. http://www.richmondreview.com/news/153291695.html
102 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 19
PAC made recommendations which are precautionary since the implications of genetically modified seed crops within the District are unknown. The District of Council, on November 19, 2013, passed the following resolution:
“That Council not support the use of genetically modified seed crops within the District of Saanich, and that Council write to the federal Minister of Agriculture, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and local MPs in support of mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.”
City of Nelson:
City of Nelson Council passed the following resolution on November 3, 2008 in response to a request by GE Free Kootenays:
“That the City of Nelson oppose the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees in the municipality; and that the City of Nelson will not purchase genetically engineered plants and trees for its own use; and that the City of Nelson agrees to revisit the resolution as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution; and the City of Nelson shall forward copies of this resolution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Interior Health, B.C. Ministry of Health, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, B.C. Provincial Health Officer, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, CropLife Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, local MLA and MP offices and any interested and related groups.”
City of Rossland:
In response to a delegation from the Kootenay Food Strategy Society requesting a resolution that stated that that genetically engineered plants and trees are not welcome within the City. This resolution was identical to the resolution passed by the City of Nelson the year before. Council passed the following resolution on May 11, 2009:
“That the City of Rossland oppose the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees, by using transgenic engineering, in the municipality; and that the City of Rossland will not purchase genetically engineered plants and trees for its own use; and that the City of Rossland agrees to revisit the resolution as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution; and the City of Rossland shall forward copies of this resolution to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Interior Health, B.C. Ministry of Health, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, B.C. Provincial Health Officer, the Prime Minister of Canada, The Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Health Canada, CropLife Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, local MLA and MP offices and any interested and related groups.”
Village of Telka:
The Village of Telkwa Council passed the following motion on March 11, 2013 after a presentation by GE Free BC, an non-profit society that is promoting a ban on organisms that are created using biotechnology:
Whereas the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) in agricultural activities is inconsistent with the Village of Telkwa’s Official Community Plan and Integrated Community Sustainability Plan;
And whereas the nature of cross pollination is not limited by municipal boundaries;
103 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 20
Be it resolved that the use of GMO’s for agricultural purposes is unwelcome in the Village of Telkwa;
And be it further resolved that the Village of Telkwa encourages its neighbouring municipalities and the Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako to adopt similar positions.”
District of Metchosin:
The District Metchosin Council adopted the following resolution on November 26, 2016:
“Whereas genetic modification of agricultural crops has to date focused on large-scale commercial crops such as field corn, soybeans, canola and cotton. None of these crops has been grown in Metchosin. Recently, however, genetic modification of sweet corn and fruit, particularly apples, pears, cherries and peaches, and the marketing of these crops beginning in 2013 means that GM plants may be directly or indirectly introduced to Metchosin and;
Whereas organic production is important to the agricultural economy of Metchosin. The sale of organic produce to individuals as well as to restaurants, farm markets and food retailers underpins individual farm economics and contributes significantly to Metchosin branding. Market demand for organic – and locally grown -- produce simply keeps on expanding and;
Whereas the diversity of produce and the broad range of varieties grown provide and preserve genetic material of which seed is sold around the world. The preservation of this genetic pool is freely acknowledged by the largest seed companies which also contribute to seed banks and;
Whereas Metchosin's isolation from other agricultural areas in southern Vancouver Island along with the prevailing wind direction together provide Metchosin farmers with practical approaches to avoiding contamination by genetically modified organisms (GMO) and;
Whereas these conditions suggest that there is an opportunity for Metchosin farmers, with continuing organic production, to maintain long term sustainability, to foster a living seed bank, and to be a refuge from genetic contamination and;
Therefore be it resolved that the District of Metchosin recommends that no GMO plants (vegetables, fruit, herbs, etc.) be grown in the District.”
Salt Spring Island:
Salt Spring Island’s Local Trust Committee passed a resolution in 2004 “discourag[ing] the production of genetically engineered crops” in the Local Trust Area and promoting public education and advocating against the production of GM crops.
City of North Vancouver
City of North Vancouver Council, on June 10, 2013, passed the following resolution:
THAT the planting and growing of genetically modified crops, trees, and plants be banned in the City of North Vancouver;
AND THAT the City call upon the Federal and Provincial governments to implement a regime of mandatory labeling of all genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) for sale in BC and Canada;
104 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Genetically Modified Organisms: Update Report to Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee – October 1, 2013 Page 21
AND THAT the City call upon the Federal and Provincial governments to impose a moratorium on bringing further GMO’s to market for sale until a regime of independent and transparent scientific assessment and GMO management is introduced;
AND THAT staff be directed to investigate the opportunities to ban the sale of GMO crops, meat, fish, poultry and seeds in the City of North Vancouver;
AND THAT this resolution be circulated to the Premier, Prime Minister, all North Shore MLA’s and MP’s, FCM, and UBCM municipalities.
The City of North Vancouver symbolically banned genetically modified crops, trees and plants from the municipality, although agricultural production in the City is limited to urban community gardens and residential production. The City’s resolution, which was passed unanimously, includes a pledge to examine a broader restriction on the sale of GM crops, meats, fish, poultry and seeds within municipality’s boundaries.. The resolution also requests that senior levels of government implement a regime of mandatory labelling of all food that contains genetically modified organisms (GMO).
105 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT
File No.: 3045.12.03.10
Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee TO: Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee FROM: Planning Department DATE: February 7, 2013 SUBJECT: Bee SAFE Presentation
RECOMMENDATION:
That the report dated February 7, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the January 16, 2013 Bee SAFE presentation to the Board of Directors and the request that the Regional District consider implementing steps to become agricultural genetically modified organism free be received for information.
DISCUSSION:
Huguette Allen, as representative of Bee SAFE, presented on genetically modified (GMO), which includes Genetically Engineered (GE), crops at the January 16, 2013 Board of Directors meeting and has requested that the Board of Directors consider implementing steps to become Genetically Engineered Free. Approximately 120 residents were in attendance. The Board of Directors passed the following motions on January 16, 2013:
“That issues regarding the impact of genetically modified organisms on the Regional District of North Okanagan be forwarded to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee for consideration.”
“That staff be directed to forward a letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requesting mandatory labeling of genetically products.”
A letter was sent on February 4, 2013 to Minister Ritz, who is responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, requesting the implementation of mandatory labelling of all genetically modified foods. The letter has been attached to this report.
Bee SAFE currently has 320 subscribers to its newsletter and approximately 130 active members. Approximately 150 community members have written to the Regional District in support of a ban on GMO crops, as of February 7, 2013.
These community members are from all Regional District communities (City of Armstrong, District of Coldstream, City of Enderby, Village of Lumby, Township of Spallumcheen, City of Vernon and Electoral Areas “B”, “C”, “D”, “E” and “F”). In addition, some e-mails are from residents of City of Salmon Arm and a RDNO landowner in Germany.
The majority of community members that wrote in are concerned citizens, although several emails were received from community organizations (i.e. Shuswap Seed Savers, Society for the Protection of Kalamalka Lake, Food Action Society of North Okanagan, Certified Organic Associations of BC, Okanagan Greens Society), small scale farmers and small business owners.
106 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 2
The GMO concerns that these community members have brought forward include: o Food system contamination o Economic advantage to the North Okanagan (organic and GMO free market) o Corporate control over the food system o Human health concerns o Unknown environmental, ecological and human health effects o Small scale and organic farming concerns (cross-pollination between GMO and organic crops) o Ethical concerns related to the use of biotechnology
The Kamloops Okanagan Dairymen’s Association have provided a letter that supports the use of GMO products based upon their experience of reduced reliance on chemical treatments, the increased nutrient value of feed crops and that 90% of feed corn seed sold is genetically modified for glyphosate resistance1.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY:
About Genetically Engineered (GE) or Modified (GMO) Plants, Trees and Crops:
Genetically engineered (GE) is defined as the direct manipulation of an organism’s DNA2 using recombinant DNA technology. In more general terms, genetic engineering refers to the alternation of genetic material by ‘cutting out’ genes from one organism and passing them on to another. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) refers to changing the DNA without using techniques that move DNA from one species to another. It is common for these terms to be used interchangeably.
GE and GMO plants (including trees and crops) are most often created to increase resistance to herbicides, pests or diseases. GE and GMO plants are also being produced to support other purposes, including increased nutritional value.
GE and GMO foods were first put on the market in the mid-1990s. The four main GE crops are soybean, corn, canola and cotton. In 2012, 10% of the world’s croplands were planted with GE and GMO crops. The United States grows 68 percent of the world's supply of genetically modified foods (which are mostly soybeans and corn), followed by Argentina with 23 percent, Canada with 7 percent, and China with about 1 percent. Other countries that grow GE and GMO foods include Australia, Bulgaria, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain and Uruguay.
GMO and GE Controversy – Benefits and Concerns:
There is much controversy about the relative benefits and risks of GMO and GE plants. Cited benefits of GMO and GE plants include human health, ecological and economic benefits such as: increased nutrients, yields and stress tolerance; improved resistance to disease, pests and herbicides;
1 Glyphosate (also called Roundup) is a popular systemic herbicide that is non-selective with a broad spectrum, meaning it will kill any plants it comes in contact with. There are plants, though, that glyphosate either does not affect or that are damaged but not killed. Glyphosate resistance in plants happens because plants may have been intentionally genetically altered or have naturally evolved resistance.
2 Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) contains the biological instructions that make each species unique and is the basis of biological function. To carry out these instructions, DNA sequences must be converted into messages that can be used to produce proteins, which are the complex molecules that do most of the work in an organism. DNA, along with the instructions it contains, is passed from adult organisms to their offspring during reproduction.
107 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 3
new products and growing techniques; enhanced taste and quality; conservation of soil, water and energy; better natural waste management;
more efficient processing; increased food security for growing populations; Increase economic gains and improved ability to produce affordable food; and, Lower ecological impacts from reduced use of pesticides and lower land requirements.
Expressed concerns include human health, ecological and economical risks such as: Long-term threats to food production and reduced self-reliance and self-sufficiency; Potential human health impacts (allergens, nutrition, toxins, antibiotic resistance and immune-suppression); Unknown effects on other organisms (creation of super-bugs and super-weeds); Domination of world food production by a few large companies; Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species; Animal stress and illness; GE labeling is not mandatory in Canada (consumer choice); Economic impacts to GE free farmers from contamination of non-GE crops; Economic impacts to GE farmers from reduction in access to non-GE seed stocks; Ecological impacts including adverse effects on biodiversity from contamination of wild plans and increased use of chemical products; and, Ethical concerns related to the modification of animals and plants using biotechnology.
Global Review Findings:
The 2008 Global Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)3, which was a comprehensive global review of agricultural knowledge, science and technology that draw on the work of hundreds of experts from all regions of the world who have participated in the preparation of agricultural studies and the peer review process.
3 IAASTD (2009) Agriculture at a Crossroads: The Global Report, Island Press, released January 31, 2009 http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agriculture%20at%20a%20Crossroads_Global%20Report%2 0(English).pdf
The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) was an international effort initiated by the World Bank that evaluated the relevance, quality and effectiveness of agricultural knowledge, science, and technology (AKST) and the effectiveness of public and private sector policies and institutional arrangements.
The project developed out of a consultative process involving 900 participants and 110 countries. The IAASTD was launched as an intergovernmental process, under the co-sponsorship of the Food and Agriculture Organization, Global Environment Facility, United Nations Development Program, United Nations Environment Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Bank and the World Health Organization.
The IAASTD was a three-year collaborative effort (2005–2007) that assessed AKST with respect to meeting development and sustainability goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
The IAASTD results and conclusions of the project were reviewed and ratified during the Intergovernmental Plenary Meeting held 7–12 April 2008, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
108 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 4
This assessment of the available peer-reviewed literature on the subject of GE and GMO crops and products found that “there is a limited number of properly designed and independently peer-reviewed studies on human health” and “the (environmental) impacts of transgenic plants, animals and microorganisms are currently less understood (than agro-chemicals)”. The Report indicated that “there is little consensus among the findings from the assessments of economic and environmental impacts of GMOs”. The Report summarized their findings in the following statement:
“Crops derived from GE technologies have faced a myriad of challenges stemming from technical, political, environmental, intellectual-property, biosafety, and trade-related controversies, none of which are likely to disappear in the near future. Advocates cite potential yield increases, sustainability through reductions in pesticide applications, use in no-till agriculture, wider crop adaptability, and improved nutrition. Critics cite environmental risks and the widening social, technological and economic disparities as significant drawbacks.
Concerns include gene flow beyond the crop, reduction in crop diversity, increases in herbicide use, herbicide resistance (increased weediness), loss of farmer’s sovereignty over seed, ethical concerns on origin of transgenes, lack of access to Intellectual Property Rights held by the private sector, and loss of markets owing to moratoriums on GMOs, among others.”
The Report concluded that “for transgenic approaches to continue to make significant contributions in the long term a substantial increase in public confidence in safety assessments will be needed; conflicts over the free use of genetic resources must be resolved; and the complex legal environment in which transgenes are central elements of contention will need further consideration.”
The World Health Organization4 has indicated that ongoing risk assessments are needed and that “GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods.”
On their website, Environment Canada5 advises that “as the cultivation of GMO crops intensifies and expands, ecological risks are emerging, such as superweeds, pest resistance, and adverse effects on non-target organisms.”
The Regional District does not have the expertise internally to conduct an investigation into the risks and benefits of GMO’s. As demonstrated in the most comprehensive examinations of the issue, little scientific consensus on benefits and risks of GE foods currently exist, although opinions on the matter are strong.
LEGAL/STATUTORY AUTHORITY:
GE Product Regulation in Other Countries:
In, 2003 the European Union (EU) Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety began to require labelling on GE foods, as well as making strict rules on the traceability of these engineered crops. They also required biotech companies to present more extensive risk assessments. The EU requires food with any GE content to be labelled. For GE products that are not authorized in the EU, the threshold is ‘‘zero’’ and the products will not be admitted.
The EU has approved over thirty GE products for sale, many of which are soy and corn used in animal feed and cotton used in textiles. Several EU countries currently ban GE cultivation completely,
4 World Health Organization, 20 Questions on Genetically Modified Foods (accessed Feb. 7, 2013). http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ 5 http://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/default.asp?lang=En&n=E8A9C49D-1 109 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 5 including Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, and Luxembourg. Spain is currently the largest producer of GE products in Europe. Nations and regions can petition the European Commission to be labelled officially as GMO-free but the requirements for this designation are stringent.
GE crops are subjected to extensive, case-by-case, science-based food and environmental safety evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). On the basis of the EFSA opinion, the European Commission (EC) drafts a proposal for granting or refusing the GE product authorization, which is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health or the Council of Agricultural Ministers. If this Standing Committee accepts the proposal, the GE product can be sold or used. The process of GE product approval takes a minimum of 2 years.
The regulatory situation in the United States is much different than that of the European Union. The primary governing bodies regarding GE products are the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The USDA considers GE crops as substantially equivalent to conventional crops and uses the designation of Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) to bring the products to market.
The FDA does not require specific labelling for GE products. Producers may choose to voluntarily label their products as GE but are not required to do so by any US federal regulation unless specific health claims are made. Products intended for export to countries with labelling regulations are labelled as GE.
Most countries have a regulatory approach to GE foods that is between the EU and US approaches, including mandatory labelling of GE foods (e.g. Australia, New Zealand, Japan), regulation and approval of new GE crops (many countries), 5-year moratoriums on GE foods (e.g. Benin, Albania) or GE product bans (e.g. Saudi Arabia, Thailand)
GE Regulation in Canada:
In Canada, the regulation of genetically modified crops and food products is primarily done at the federal level. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) shares responsibility with Health Canada for regulating products derived from biotechnology. Health Canada6 is responsible for assessing the human health safety of products derived through biotechnology including foods, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices and pest control products. CFIA is responsible for assessing the safety of plants, animal feeds and animal feed ingredients, fertilizers and veterinary biologics. Genetically engineered food products were first approved by Health Canada in 1994.
Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency share responsibility for GE food labeling policies under the Food and Drugs Act. Health Canada is responsible for establishing GE and GMO food labeling policies with respect to health and safety matters, while the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for the development of non-health and safety labeling regulations. GE crops are considered by Health Canada to be equivalent to conventional crops and existing regulations do not require labeling of products with ingredients originating from GE crops, though there is a framework in place with specific guidelines for voluntary labeling of foods that are (and are not) products of genetic engineering. Only products being exported to countries requiring GE-origin labels are mandated to be labeled as containing GMOs by the Canadian government.
The process developed by Health Canada to approve GE products in Canada takes approximately 7- 10 years, including development and safety testing, before a product reaches consumer shelves. The
6 Health Canada. (2005). The Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods. Retrieved from http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod_e.html
110 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 6
CFIA is responsible for examining Plants with Novel Traits (PNTs), with the Biosafety Office responsible for environmental safety assessments. The Feeds Section deals with livestock feed safety and efficacy assessments. Detailed safety information must be provided on prospective GE products, including comparison data with conventional counterparts, assessment for new toxins, allergenic testing, potential for unintended side effects and key nutrients and toxins.
Health Canada can request additional information from the GMO company at any point if the provided information does not meet standards or the reviewers have additional questions. Once the data has been approved, a summary report on the findings is submitted to the Health Canada’s Food Directorate who has the final approval authority. If the Directorate approves, a letter of ‘No Objection’ is provided to the GMO company and is published on the Health Canada website where it can be reviewed by any member of the public. At this point, the GE product can be sold and used.
The Province has jurisdiction over local health, environmental and agricultural issues, subject to federal regulations. With the matter being in senior (federal and provincial) jurisdiction, there are significant barriers to the implementation of local government regulations relating to GMO seeds and products. Farmers have Right to Farm legislation in BC. Municipal and regional governments cannot enforce restrictions that limit farmers from farming under normal farm practices.
GMO Crop Bans in British Columbia
The following municipalities and regional districts have passed resolutions that symbolically ban GMO crops in their jurisdictions:
o District of Saanich (2012) o Village of Kaslo (2009) o City of Richmond (2012) o Saltspring Island (2004) o City of Rossland (2009) o Gabriola Island (2012) o City of Nelson (2008) o Denman Island (2012) o RD of Powell River (2004) o Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District o Village of New Denver (2009) (2012)
The resolutions that these local governments have passed include some common elements, including: o Public consultation or public petition prior to passing a resolution on a GMO ban; o If supported, opposing the use of GMO seeds or specific products in the local jurisdiction; o Writing a letter to various senior levels of government requesting mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods.
It should be noted that GMO crops are federally regulated and therefore municipalities and regional districts are unable to enforce any GMO ban except on local or regional public lands. Local GMO bans are recognized as symbolic and are designed to begin petitioning senior levels of government for GMO restrictions and/or food labelling.
City of Richmond Example: Council Resolution
At the June 28, 2010 City of Richmond Council meeting, representatives from the Richmond Food Security Society and GE Free BC presented Council with a 1,000 name petition requesting the City ban GMO seeds and products within the municipality. The Society requested that the City adopt a resolution opposing GMO seeds and products.
A City staff report dated April 26, 2012 stated that any council adopted resolution establishing a ‘GMO-Free Zone’ would be extremely difficult to enforce, given the limitations in municipal jurisdiction and the limited ability to identify crops, plants and trees as genetically engineered. It was recognized 111 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 7 by staff that a resolution of this type would be a symbolic gesture and unenforceable. As well, City of Richmond staff had presented the following considerations Council adopted the resolution: o The resolution would require local government resources to be used to provide information on the resolution’s impact, rational and jurisdictional responsibilities on the subject; o The resolution may increase awareness of the issue and potentially senior government action should other municipalities (and regional districts) take similar action; o The resolution may set unrealistic expectations that a local government is taking an action that is enforceable; o The resolution would translate into a local jurisdiction taking a position on the issue, instead of local citizens and the agricultural community making individual choices. As a result, there may be confusion by both opponents and supporters of GMO seeds and foods regarding what the resolution means; and, o There is the possibility that, in taking local action on issues under federal and provincial regulatory jurisdiction, there may be a ‘downloading’ of responsibility for GMOs onto the local jurisdiction in the future.
City of Richmond Council decided to proceed with the resolution suggested by GE Free BC and Richmond Food Security Society that opposes the use of GMO seeds and products within municipal boundaries. The resolution passed on May 22, 2012 was:
That the City of Richmond hereby opposes the cultivation of genetically engineered plants and trees in the City of Richmond, with the exception of the 3 existing dairy farm GMO corn crops found prior to this Resolution, and that from this Resolution forward, no further GM crops, trees, or plants should be grown in the City of Richmond. This also includes GM fruit trees, all GM plants and shrubbery, GM vegetables, GM commodity crops and any and all field tests for medical and experimental GM crops; That Option 1: Support Consumer Choice/Advocate for Strengthened Senior Government Management as described in the report titled “City of Richmond: Response to Genetically Engineered Free BC Resolution”, dated April 26, 2012, from the Interim Director, Sustainability and District Energy be endorsed;
That letters be sent on behalf of Council to the Prime Minister, Premier and leaders of the Federal and Provincial opposition, and copied to relevant Ministers in the Federal and Provincial governments, Richmond MPs and MLAs, Metro Vancouver, UBCM, the LMLGA, and the FCM, advising of these resolutions and requesting strengthened management of genetically modified plants, including the introduction of mandatory labelling requirements, more transparent assessment procedures and enhanced communication with the public; and;
That the City of Richmond agrees to revisit this resolution as pertinent new information becomes available that affects this resolution.”
It has been acknowledged by City Council that municipalities do not have enforcement powers or jurisdiction regarding the regulation of GMO products but, instead, consider the resolution a ‘statement of intent of Council’s consideration of the matter’7 (Mayor Malcolm Brodie, May 23, 2012).
7 Mathew Hoekstram ‘Richmond puts genetically modified crops to pasture’ Richmond Review, May 23, 2012. http://www.richmondreview.com/news/153291695.html
112 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 8
EXISTING POLICY:
The Regional Growth Strategy is supportive of the promotion of environmentally sustainable agricultural practices, within the authority of local government. GE foods are outside of the authority of local and regional governments to regulate and therefore outside of the scope of the majority of regional agricultural policies.
The Regional Growth Strategy does include several agricultural policies that request action by other governments and agencies that also `have authority over GMO regulation, including:
Strategy AG‐4.5: the province is encouraged, through ongoing dialogue, collaboration and cooperation with relevant stakeholders and local governments, to develop supportive policies that will enhance local, sustainable agriculture within the North Okanagan.
Strategy AG‐4.6: the province is encouraged to collaborate with the local agricultural sector and other stakeholders on initiatives that raise public agricultural awareness.
Strategy AG‐4.7: the province is encouraged to collaborate with local government and agricultural stakeholders in exploring solutions to regional agricultural issues, such as local agricultural waste disposal, effective and sustainable agricultural invasive species management and initiatives that would provide opportunities for young farmers.
These three Regional Growth Strategy policies support dialogue with the Province and federal government, as the jurisdictions with authority, regarding community concerns regarding the use of GMO products. One action that the Board of Directors may consider that supports Regional Growth Strategy policy is the inclusion of the GMO discussion within the Regional Agricultural Area Plan, which will involve senior government participation.
FINANCIAL AND STAFF CONSIDERATIONS:
The Regional District of North Okanagan currently does not have an Agriculture Service that would be able to undertake implementation of specific agricultural initiatives and resolutions.
Regional Growth, under Regional Planning, is responsible for the development and implementation of the Regional Growth Strategy, such as a Regional Agricultural Area Plan, and has very limited staff and financial resources to undertake specific initiatives outside of Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities.
The Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee financial plan currently allocates RAAC meeting costs only. Any additional proposed RAAC initiatives, projects or plans would require review for budget and service delivery implications.
ANALYSIS:
Biotechnology is a growing, relatively new industry that is likely to develop more products and concerns in the future. Unfortunately, there remains little consensus on the relative benefits and risks of GE products, and their contribution to sustainable agriculture and food production. It is recognized by the World Health Organization and 2008 Global Report of the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development that not all GE plants are the same and like many challenges facing society, the specific benefits and risks depend on careful
113 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC – February 7, 2013 Page 9 consideration on a case by case basis. A key challenge for local and regional government is to determine what, if any action, to take given the complexity of factors to consider.
Mandatory Labelling of GMO Foods
The Board of Directors has requested that the federal government implement mandatory labelling of foods that contain GE ingredients. Currently, the lack of mandatory labelling results in difficulty for consumers to make personal food choices and, as a result, companies and farmers are less able to respond to consumer preferences. Because GE products are regulated through a complex federal and global institutional framework, it is difficult to access information and understand local implications.
In addition to requesting mandatory labelling, the Board of Directors may consider advocating for more transparent federal assessment and approval procedures that better address community concerns and strengthened programs for communicating information with the public.
OPTION 1: Regional Ban on GMO Foods
The Board of Directors may consider a resolution as a symbolic gesture, recognizing that any resolution would not be enforceable given limitations in municipal and regional jurisdiction and the limited ability to identify crops, plants and trees as genetically engineered.
Adopting a resolution may increase awareness of the issue and potentially increase the probability of strengthened action by the provincial and/or federal government should other municipalities and regional districts take similar action. A key concern is that by adopting a resolution, the Regional District will be setting an unrealistic expectation that the Regional District is taking action that is not enforceable. It also means that the Regional District will be taking a position on an issue rather than advocating the federal government to empower local residents to make their own choices on the issue. This action may result in the use of limited Regional District resources to reduce confusion about the resolution’s impact and implementation opportunities.
Adopting a resolution banning GMO crops in the North Okanagan is likely to increase community awareness of the issue and potentially increase the probability of strengthened action by the provincial or federal government should other BC municipalities take similar action. However, adopting a resolution (even symbolically) is likely to generate confusion and concern for both advocates and opponents of GE products.
The adoption of a resolution banning GMO crops is not recommended as it is likely to set unrealistic expectations of regional government authority to act and polarize community interests. Passing such a resolution will also mean that limited regional government resources may be used to reduce confusion about the resolution and managing implementation expectations of the community regarding the enforceability of resolution, rather than supporting local sustainable agriculture initiatives.
OPTION 2: A Resolution that is Consistent with Regional Agricultural Policy
Alternatively, the Board of Directors could adopt a resolution that is consistent with regional policy, such as the support for the advancement of sustainable agriculture. In this manner, the Regional District would not establish a false expectation that it was enforcing a restriction on GMO crops that is outside of its legislative and jurisdictional ability.
114 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Bee SAFE Presentation Report to RGMAC and RAAC- February 7, 2013 Page 10
OPTION 3: Regional Agricultural Plan
The Board of Directors may also consider addressing GE crops through the Regional Agricultural Plan, which will involve participation by federal and provincial government representatives and the regional farming community. If GE crop concerns are considered one of the issues to be explored within this Plan, then an opportunity may exist to discuss this issue with the farming community, consumers and provincial and federal government agencies that have jurisdiction over GE crops and foods. The Regional District would collaborate with senior levels of government on this issue but would acknowledge that local and regional governments do not have the authority to enforce a regional GMO ban.
With the information currently available, it would still be up to each Board Member to form an opinion, with the understanding that regional districts do not have the authority to impact or restrict farming practices as they pertain to GMO foods. Agriculture is a federal responsibility. Health Canada, under the Food and Drugs Act, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified foods and therefore GMO regulation is under federal jurisdiction.
SUMMARY:
There is a growing use of genetically modified plants in the production of feed and food crops and for other purposes. There is major controversy over the relative benefits and risks and there is a lack of scientific consensus on the issue to provide guidance. The Regional District does not have the internal experience to evaluate the benefits and concerns that have been identified by residents, the agricultural sector and the scientific community.
Significant barriers exist in the implementation of GE regulation at the local or regional government level as a result of the matter being within senior (i.e., federal and provincial) government jurisdiction. This report provides several options for consideration by the Board of Directors on this issue.
Submitted by:
Approved For Inclusion:
Endorsed by:
Tf fford Hall, A / Rob Smai/es, MCIP General Manager, Planning and Building
115 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
MEMBER MUNICIPALITIES: ELECTORAL AREAS: CITY OF ARMSTRONG VILLAGE OF LUMBY ·a·-SWAN LAKE "E" - CHERRYVILLE DISTRICT OF COLD STREAM TOWNSHIP OF SPALLUMCHEEN ·c·-B.X. DISTRICT "F" - ENDERBY (RURAL) CITY OF ENDERBY CITY OF VERNON "D" -LUMBY (RURAL)
OFFICE OF: BOARD CHAIR OUR FILE No.: 3045.12.03.10
February 4, 2013
Honourable Gerry Ritz Minister responsible for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency 1341 Baseline Road Ottawa, Ontario K1A OC5
Dear Minister Ritz:
Re: Mandatory Labelling of Genetically Modified products
On January 16, 2013, the Board of Directors received a compelling presentation and delegation from approximately 120 constituents regarding the impact of Genetically Modified Organisms.
The following motion was passed:
"That staff be directed to forward a letter to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requesting mandatory labelling of genetically modified products."
Upon review of the guidelines established by Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), it is noted that mandatory labelling is required only if there is a health or safety concern, i.e., from allergens or a significant nutrient or compositional change (these decisions will be made by Health Canada), in order to inform consumers of the allergen or change.
There is significant and increasing concern regarding the potential impact of Genetically Modified products. Implementing mandatory labelling of ALL genetically modified products would enable consumers to make informed decisions based upon their own health and safety concerns.
We respectfully request that CFIA review this guideline and implement mandatory labelling of ALL genetically modified products.
Yours lJ ~ui
Patrick Nicol Board Chair cc: Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee
Regional District of North Okanagan Phone: 250-550-3700 9848 Aberdeen Road Fax: 250-550-3701 Goldstream, BC V1 B 2K9 Web: www.rdno.ca E-mail: [email protected]
116 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
Members: Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area "C" Chair Bruce Naka Member at Large Vice Chair Director S. Fowler City of Armstrong Director P. Nicol City of Vernon Director B. Fleming Electoral Area "B" Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area "D" Councillor Maria Besso District of Goldstream Mike Randell Agricultural Producer Dennis Lapierre Agricultural Producer lan Eggen Agricultural Producer Mohammad Asif Agricultural Producer Peter Stockdale Agricultural Producer Ralph van Dalfsen Agricultural Producer Darrell Flatla Agricultural Producer Tony Van den Tillaart Agricultural Commodity Wendy Aasen Member at Large
Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator A. Bevan Executive Assistant (taking minutes)
Others: Alt. Director S. Verlaan Electoral Area "F" Ken MeAra Ministry of Agriculture Member of the Public
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:03p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting - March 21, 2013
Moved and seconded by Councillor Besso and Director Fleming That the agenda of the March 21 , 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be approved as presented. CARRIED
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting - February 21, 2013
Moved and seconded by Dennis Lapierre and Director Fleming That the minutes of the February 21, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
117 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - Regular -2- March 21, 201 3
NEW BUSINESS
February 27, 2013 Agricultural Advisory Committee Workshop Update
The Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator gave a brief overview of Martin Collins' (Agricultural Land Commission) presentation at the Agricultural Advisory Committee Workshop held February 27, 2013.
Chair Macnabb and other members gave a brief overview of their attendance at the workshop.
Discussion ensued regarding: • the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) reducing the frequency of site visits to the applications awaiting a decision • the possibility of a staff person or a Commissioner from the ALC attending a future Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee (RAAC) meeting
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Brainstorming Roundtable Results
Discussion ensued regarding further exploring the roundtable results at a future meeting.
Moved and seconded by Director Nicol and Councillor Besso That it be recommended to the Board of Directors, the report dated February 22, 2013 regarding Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Brainstorming Roundtable Results be considered during development of the Regional Agricultural Area Plan Terms of Reference. CARRIED
Regional Agricultural Area Plan
The Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator advised that the next intake for funding for Agricultural Area Plans from the Investment Agriculture Foundation is April 16, 2013, which, if successful would fund 50% up to a maximum of $45,000.
Discussion ensued regarding: • whitepapers on wastewater practices and agriculture • the 100+ recommendations contained within the Food System Plan
The draft Terms of Reference for the Regional Agricultural Plan will be referred to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee and member municipal councils for their review and comment.
Director Fowler left the meeting at 6:54 p.m. Director Fairbairn arrived at 6:59 p.m.
Backyard Chicken Regulations
Discussion ensued regarding: • the best management practices developed for the keeping of backyard chickens • possibility of a requirement to obtain a permit for backyard chickens • possibility of a register so the RDNO knows where the backyard chickens are located in advance of a possible slaughter operation for an avian influenza or similar outbreak • other methods of getting information to the public, ex. YouTube video • enforcement issues - the Bylaw Enforcement Officer will be enforcing bylaw upon a complaint basis • the guide indicating it is specific to the electoral areas on ly and not the municipalities
118 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes- Regular - 3 - March 21, 2013
Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Mike Randell That the report dated March 7, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding public education for the keeping of backyard chickens be received for information. CARRIED
British Columbia 'Buy Local' Grant Program
The Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator gave a brief overview of the British Columbia 'Buy Local' Grant Program: • Marketing and signage • Up to $100,000 matching funds
Agricultural Land Commission Application LEITRIM CONTRACTING LTD. [File No. 13-0013-D-ALR]
• Non-Farm Use application for a long range gun shooting range on Trinity Valley Road
Comments: • standard fencing to Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) regulations • that the land still be available for cattle leasing • wildlife concerns • the shooting area will be an enclosed structure, possible future "clubhouse" • access needs to be addressed as it is currently accessed from a Forest Service Road • standards that the Vernon Fish & Game Club shooting range has • could the range be moved to the non-ALR portion of the property?
Agricultural Land Commission Application WELLS, Donald & Amy c/o SHORTT, Jason [File No. 13-0046-F-ALR]
• Subdivision in lieu of a homesite severance at 51 Monks Road
Comments: • plan seems to make sense, large piece and then a homesite severance cannot be approved in the future • increases the size of the agricultural parcel which would be beneficial to agriculture
Agricultural Land Commission Application CAMPBELL, Dean & Laura [File No. 13-0063-D-ALR]
• Partial exclusion of ALR land at 670 Creighton Valley Road • There was a previous boundary review in this area (2000-2001) where some lands were removed from the ALR, this piece was not
Comments: • believe land could still support agriculture, there are 2 bridges on this property that cross the creek, potential to build on non-ALR portion instead of the ALR portion under a non farm use application rather than an exclusion application • use the creek as the dividing line and not the road • place the second residence as close as possible to the main residence so it's minimal in disrupting the land
119 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes- Regular -4- March 21 , 201 3
Agricultural Land Commission Application HATFIELD, Ann and RICHARDS, Keith [File No. 13-0068-F-ALR]
• Subdivision at 1866 Enderby Mabel Lake Road
Comments: • concerns regarding destroying the potential for agricultural use through parcelization • piece outside the ALR is not able to be subdivided • rationale for subdivision was not provided by the applicant • property is not being used to its full potential for agricultural purposes, based on its location adjacent to Shuswap River
Genetically Modified Organisms I Bee SAFE Presentation
Discussion ensued regarding: • GMOs • labeling GMO products • some members are not in favour of GMOs, there is not a choice • the use of the word "ban", support sustainable agriculture • providing the consumer the choice • sources of information on GMOs • GMO poll/vote in Cherryville- wasn't a true poll, more like a pledge to not use GMO, did not use the word ban • need for accommodating both sides, pro GMO and anti GMO • defining the term sustainability in regards to agriculture
Moved and seconded by Councillor Besso and Director Nicol That the report dated February 7, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the January 16, 2013 Bee SAFE presentation to the Board of Directors and the request that the Regional District consider implementing steps to become agricultural genetically modified organism free be received for information; and further,
That the topic of GMO be brought forward to the next RAAC meeting. CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:02p.m.
Certified Correct:
Chair
120 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
Members: Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area "C" Chair Bruce Naka Member at Large Vice Chair DirectorS. Fowler City of Armstrong Councillor Maria Besso District of Goldstream Director B. Fleming Electoral Area "B" Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area "D" Mike Randell Agricultural Producer Dennis Lapierre Agricultural Producer lan Eggen Agricultural Producer Tom Boeve Agricultural Producer Peter Stockdale Agricultural Producer Ralph van Dalfsen Agricultural Producer Wendy Aasen Member at Large Doug Gordon Young Farmer
Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator A. Bevan Executive Assistant (taking minutes)
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:07 p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting - May 16, 2013
Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Fairbairn That the agenda of the May 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be approved with the following additions:
• C.2 - Email dated May 10, 2013 from Dennis Lapierre regarding bee mortalities in BC • C.4 - Letter dated May 15, 2013 from Kamloops Okanagan Dairymen's Association regarding GMOs CARRIED
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting - April 18, 2013
Clarification regarding the delegation at the March meeting, 60 communities are considering becoming GMO free and 28 have voted to be GMO free.
Moved and seconded by Tom Boeve and lan Eggen That the minutes of the April 18, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be adopted as circulated.
121 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - Regular - 2 - May 16, 2013
CARRIED Doug Gordon entered the meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
Combined Heat and Power Generation at Greenhouses in the ALR
Moved and seconded by Maria Besso and Wendy Aasen That the letter dated April 10, 2013 from the Ministry of Agriculture regarding combined heat and power generation at greenhouses in the ALR be received for information; and further,
That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that staff be directed to prepare a report regarding the April 2013 Discussion Paper on Combined Heat and Power Generation at Greenhouses in the ALR, to bring back to the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee. CARRIED
Peter Stockdale entered the meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding Ministry of Agriculture staff no longer attending Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee meetings.
Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Fowler That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a request be sent to the Ministry of Agriculture to consider replacing the Ministry representative on the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee at the earliest possible date. CARRIED
Day of the Honey Bee
The Chair advised that the Regional District passed a resolution on May 13, 1998 to cease the practice of making proclamations.
Discussion ensued regarding honey bees, lifespan of, mortality rates, effects of neonicotinoids (type of insecticide) on bees.
Moved and seconded by Dennis Lapierre and lan Eggen That the following correspondence be received for information: Letter dated March 7, 2013 from the founder of "Day of the Honey Bee" regarding Day of the Honey Bee Email dated May 10, 2013 from Dennis Lapierre regarding bee mortalities in BC; and further,
That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a letter of support be sent to Colin Mayes, Member of Parliament and Gerry Ritz, Federal Minister of Agriculture regarding the establishment of a recognized "National Day of the Honey Bee". CARRIED
Agricultural Land Commission Application DUKHIA, Kanwaljeet [File No. 12-0283-B-ALR]
• Application for a second residence for farm help (two family dwelling) at 6255 Rimer Road
122 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes- Regular - 3 - May 16, 2013
Discussion regarding the three options of the Board regarding second residence applications: • Authorize the application to be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission • Not authorize the application to be sent to the Agricultural Land Commission • Authorize building inspector to issue a building permit for the proposed second residence
Comments: • Is there a need for a new septic system with a two family dwelling? • If Board does not approve, it will need to be decommissioned • For the amount of land, is there justification for the amount of farm help the applicant is asking for/saying is required? • Farm help for orchards is typically seasonal • This is a way to keep younger generations on the farm as the applicant is hoping to have his sons family live on the property • Is it possible to consolidate the lots that are side by side to ensure more dwellings are not placed on the other properties? • Staff should conduct a site visit and come back to the Committee with the additional information • Suggestion of placing a no build covenant on vacant parcel
Discussion regarding work force housing and the size limitations.
Genetically Modified Organisms
Discussion ensued regarding: • Labelling of GM or non-GM crops • Authority to designate RDNO a GMO free zone - it would be a symbolic gesture as the Regional District has no authority in this regard • Personal choice to consume GM or non-GM crops/foods· - organics are expensive so then it's not really a personal choice • 7% chance grains can cross - potential for economic ramifications with GM crops in the neighbourhood • How can the Committee make a recommendation to the Board, what can the Committee do? • Organic sector is threatened by GMO technology • Need to hear the other side (pro) of the GMO discussion, obligation to hear both sides • Focus on what we can do • More accurate information regarding the anti-GMO side of the argument • Regarding the "poll" in Electoral Area "D": 500 people of 4500 have voiced concerns, should be addressed, delegation regarding GMOs at April meeting admitted that 2-5% of organic crops may contain GM crops • Wendy Aasen is willing to work in a sub working group to come up with some wording that the Committee could recommend to the Board as a symbolic gesture • Ken Clancy, P. Ag. as a possible delegation • In RGS & Ag Plan, make an effort, Maria read a statement aloud- • Should not be an emotional decision • At this point it is a philosophical decision
Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Councillor Besso That the letter dated May 15, 2013 from Kamloops Okanagan Dairymen's Association regarding GMOs be received for information.
123 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes- Regular -4- May 16, 2013
CARRIED ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
Certified Correct:
124 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
Members: Bruce Naka Member at Large Vice Chair DirectorS. Fowler City of Armstrong Councillor M. Besso District of Goldstream Alt. Director C. Fraser Township of Spallumcheen Alt. DirectorS. Ghattas Electoral Area "B" Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area "D" Mike Randell Agricultural Producer Dennis Lapierre Agricultural Producer Joel Allen Agricultural Producer lan Eggen Agricultural Producer Tom Boeve Agricultural Producer Peter Stockdale Agricultural Producer Ralph van Dalfsen Agricultural Producer Wendy Aasen Member at Large Doug Gordon Young Farmer
Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator J. deGroot Executive Assistant (Temp.) (taking minutes)
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:10p.m.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting -August 22, 2013
Moved and seconded by Councillor Besso and Ralph van Dalfsen That the agenda of the August 22, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be approved with the following additions: • Item C.10 - Meeting date for September; and • Item C.11 - Meat Regulations CARRIED
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting - May 16, 2013
Moved and seconded by Alt. Director Fraser and Councillor Besso That the minutes of the May 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
125 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - Regular -2- August22,2013
NEW BUSINESS
Medical Marihuana and the Agricultural Land Reserve
The General Manager, Planning and Building provided a verbal update in regards to changes in Federal legislation regarding medical marihuana.
Discussion ensued regarding the following: • requirements of the new regulations; • Building Permitting requirements; • where these operations will be permitted under zoning; and, • what other jurisdictions are doing.
Moved and seconded by Alt. Director Fraser and lan Eggan That it be recommend to the Board of Directors Building Permits be required for all medical marihuana facilities even in areas where Authorization to Construct is permitted. CARRIED Opposed: Director Fairbairn and Doug Gordon
Moved and seconded by Alt. Director Fraser and Director Fairbairn That the report dated July 25, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding Medical Marihuana and the Agricultural Land Reserve be received for information. CARRIED
Agricultural Land Commission Application LAROCQUE, D. & G. [File No. 13-0249-D-ALR] • Application for inclusion into the Agricultural Land Reserve at 83 McQuinna Road.
Discussion ensured regarding: • the reasons for the application; • the amount of water required for this kind of use; • production of other pharmaceuticals on ALR lands; • construction of buildings on ALR lands.
Comments: The Committee raised the following concerns: • The effects on properties downstream if the application proposes to use creek water; • Is there a means to ensure the land is converted back to agricultural use once the facility is no longer operating or the licence is revoked (ie//security)?
Agricultural Land Commission Application SCHALIN, J. c/o W. E. MADDOX [File No. 13-0274-F-ALR] • Application for a subdivision within the ALR at 2843 Enderby Mabel Lake Road
Discussion regarding • The requirements for home site severance applications.
Comments: • No concerns were noted regarding the proposed homesite severance.
126 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes- Regular - 3 - August22, 2013
Moved and Seconded by Mike Randell and Tom Boeve That the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee support the homesite severance application of J. Schalin c/o W.E Maddox and that it be recommended to the Board of Directors the application be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission. CARRIED
Regional Agricultural Area Plan Terms of Reference
Moved and seconded by Director Fairbairn and Councillor Besso That the report dated July 24, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the Regional Agricultural Area Plan Terms of Reference be received for information. CARRIED
Regional Agricultural Area Plan Referral Comments from the Township of Spallumcheen
Discussion ensued regarding the following: • making the wording of the plan attainable and logical; • consulting with many different kinds of agricultural producers; • the benefits of a land inventory to farms; and, • the opportunities on the Regional level to create and meet attainable goals.
Moved and seconded by Councillor Besso and Mike Randell That the letter dated July 18, 2013 from the Township of Spallumcheen regarding the Regional Agricultural Area Plan be received for information. CARRIED
Buy Local BC Initiative
Moved and Seconded by Councillor Besso and Alt. Director Ghattas That Shayne Wright be invited to future meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee to present on the Buy Local Initiative. CARRIED Opposed: Alt. Director Fraser, Ralph van Dalfson and Tom Boeve
Silver Hills Ranch Biodiversity Tour and Social
Moved and seconded by Director Fairbairn and Doug Gordon That the letter received on July 30, 2013 from Silver Hills Ranch regarding the sixth annual Silver Hills Ranch Biodiversity Tour and Social be received for information. CARRIED
Letters Received regarding Genetically Modified Organisms
Moved and seconded by Director Fowler and Wendy Aasen That the letter dated June 13, 2013 from the Okanagan Specialty Fruits regarding Genetically Modified Organisms be received for information. CARRIED
Moved and seconded by Directors Fowler and Wendy Aasen That the letter dated July 15, 2013 from the Council of Canadians regarding Genetically Modified Organisms be received for information. CARRIED
127 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes- Regular - 4 - August22, 2013
Bylaw 2603 - Electoral Areas "D" and "E" Official Community Plan Amendment [Genetically Modified Organisms]
Discussion ensued regarding the following: • difference between genetically modified, genetically engineered and transgendered crops; • definitions that are clear and say what we want; • including a reference to food supply; • labels for modified and engineered foods; • the objectives of an OCP; • changing the recommendation to a positive objectives rather than negative; • improvements and amendments to accommodate everyone's interests; • could we change this to encourage farmers to label what is not a GMO; • is this a precedence for the other electoral areas?; • how does this effect other growers; • loop holes in being genetically modified or not; • the public's feelings on niche markets; and, • contamination risks.
Move and seconded by Director Fairbairn and lan Eggan That it be recommended to the Board of Directors Electoral Areas "D" and "E" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2603 be amended to not include Policy 4.2.21 DEFERRED
Move and seconded by Councillor Besso and lan Eggan That it be recommended to the Board of Directors Electoral Areas "D" and "E" Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2603 be amended to amend Policy 4.2.20 to a positive statement. CARRIED
September Meeting
Due to a conflict with the UBCM Convention, the September meeting date will be changed. The meeting date was changed to September 11 , 2013 at 6:00 p.m. to accommodate a presenter from Croplife and the conflict with UBCM.
Meat Regulations
Director Fairbairn spoke in regards to Meat Regulation and the upcoming UBCM Convention. Discussion on this topic will be scheduled for the next meeting.
Kelowna Railway
Moved and seconded by Councillor Besso and Alt. Director Ghattas That it be recommended to the Board of Directors a letter be sent to CN Railway to encourage them to take over the sections of rail affected by the Kelowna Pacific Railway bankruptcy, and keep them operational, as they form part of an important transportation corridor for agriculture and many other industries. CARRIED
128 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes- Regular - 5 - August22, 2013 ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Certified Correct:
129 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in the Board Room at the Regional District Office on Thursday, September 11, 2013
Members: Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area “C” Chair Bruce Naka Member at Large Vice Chair Director S. Fowler City of Armstrong Councillor P. McClean District of Coldstream Councillor M. Besso District of Coldstream Alt. Director C. Fraser Township of Spallumcheen Director P. Nicol City of Vernon Director B. Fleming Electoral Area “B” Mike Randell Agricultural Producer Dennis Lapierre Agricultural Producer Joel Allen Agricultural Producer Ralph van Dalfsen Agricultural Producer Tony Van den Tillaart Agricultural Producer Peter Stockdale Agricultural Producer Wendy Aasen Member at Large Doug Gordon Young Farmer Greg Tagert Ministry of Agriculture Representative
Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator Trafford Hall Administrator J. deGroot Executive Assistant (Temp.) (taking minutes)
Also Present: Media and Public
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
The Chair welcomed the Public and outlined the following: Meeting conduct; and Terms of Reference of the Committee.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting – September 11, 2013
Moved and seconded by Alt. Director Fraser and Mike Randell That the agenda of the September 11, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be approved with the following addition: Item D.2 – Meat Regulations – Class E Licenses CARRIED
130 of 245
BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 2 - September 11, 2013
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting – August 22, 2013
One amendment was noted for the August 22, 2013 Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee minutes: Regarding Bylaw 2603 – Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan Amendment [Genetically Modified Organisms] bullet one should read as follows: o difference between genetically modified, genetically engineered and transgenic crops;
Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Bruce Naka That the minutes of the August 22, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be adopted as amended. CARRIED
DELEGATIONS
Janice Tranberg, Vice-President, Western Division of CropLife
Ms. Tranberg presented the viewpoint of CropLife on plant biotechnology which included the following: Companies CropLife represents; Economics of agriculture in Canada; Challenges facing agriculture and food sources today such as small land bases, water availability and climate change; How plant science helps farmers and are tools for farmers; Common biotech products and where they are commonly grown; How products are regulated by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada and what the regulators look for and at; CFIA and Health Canada say biotech products are safe; Process to bring a new plant product to market; and Regulation in other countries and global studies on biotech products.
Questions and discussion ensued regarding the following: Labeling? – more complicated than it seems; would increase costs; how are products tracked; what should be labeled; why labels if the regulators say they are safe; What GMOs are in Canada currently? – Canola, Soybeans, Sugar Beet, Corn, and some imports such as papaya and squash; Are there issues with cross contamination/open pollination? – These issues are taken into consideration and a stewardship plan can to help minimize. Co-existence can occur if there is cooperation. Unintentional limits could allow coexistence; Monsanto vs. Schmeiser Case – How has this changed the industry? – Courts found that that Schmeiser was at fault as he did not follow the agreement. The technology is purchased; a seed cannot be patented, only the technology; Some studies say they are not safe? – Very few studies say they are not safe, regulatory agencies review this information; Have some areas banned GMOs? – Some within the EU that want to not allow their growth and allow imports only; Are cross species modifications done that would not happen without biotechnology? – Yes, this can happen. Researchers look at how these modifications change the plant, regarding toxins, allergens etc.; 131 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 3 - September 11, 2013
How long has this been done? - We have been eating them for 20 years; studying them for 25 years; Contracts for GMO products, v. regular products? – Seed purchased every year, farmer chooses biotech for their specific needs, there is a technology use agreement; How can anyone be certain that they are safe, when we have been certain about other things before in science? – There is a responsibility to provide safe products; David Suzuki comments? – Regulatory agencies believe they are safe. Science doesn’t allow 100%; These products have benefits that help people and there is not a negative safety track record; Is testing long enough? – Need to have faith in regulatory agencies. Experts with tools and experience to make tests they need to make. We have been eating the for 20 years and we have not seen negative effects; Are scientists muzzled? – Does not believe that; Consumers, may not agree, no one asked the consumer. Not being heard at other levels. – There is choice, organic is an option. Base opinion on science, not opinion.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bylaw 2603 – Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan Amendment [Genetically Modified Organisms]
Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Doug Gordon That the matter of Electoral Areas “D” and “E” Official Community Plan Amendment Bylaw No. 2603 be referred to the Electoral Area Advisory Committee for review and comment. CARRIED
Meat Regulations
Alt. Director Fraser informed the Committee that the selection for the first round of Class E Licences will take place Friday, September 13. There will be 5 Licences permitted; 3 for red meat and 2 for poultry. The Interior Health contact for information is Chris Russell. As many people as possible should apply.
Discussion ensured including the following: The history of Meat Regulations and the work the Board has done to get Licences reinstated; and The need for more Licences.
Genetically Modified Organisms
Discussion ensured including the following:
Labeling: Labeling could be difficult with so many trucks, storage units, and processing machinery because they are so hard to separate, contamination can occur; This could be expensive; Labeling in general is difficult ie//product of Canada; Should be voluntary; This is a Federal issue; There are some labeling now; there is a market for this; some have chosen to participate; 132 of 245
BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 4 - September 11, 2013
Can we get information costs to provide labeling and how do other countries do this? ie// organics; VQA; Australia; Biotech companies do not want to label, but it can be done; Needs to be simplified so it is usable and cost effective so people can make a choice; and Coexistence is difficult; Set a threshold for a little bit of acceptance;
Field Trip Possible tour or field trip of local farms; organic and GMO/non GMO;
Moving Forward Move forward on the issue and consider the political process; and Wendy Aasen will provide a recommendation for the next meeting agenda; then the committee can discuss and move something forward;
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m.
Certified Correct:
Chair Corporate Officer
133 of 245
BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN
MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in the Board Room at the Regional District Office on Thursday, October 17, 2013
Members: Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area “C” Chair Bruce Naka Member at Large Vice Chair Councillor M. Besso District of Coldstream Director P. Nicol City of Vernon Director B. Fleming Electoral Area “B” Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” Director E. Foisy Electoral Area “E” Tom Boeve Agricultural Producer Ian Eggen Agricultural Producer Dennis Lapierre Agricultural Producer Mike Randell Agricultural Producer Peter Stockdale Agricultural Producer Ralph van Dalfsen Agricultural Producer Tony Van den Tillaart Agricultural Producer Wendy Aasen Member at Large Doug Gordon Young Farmer
Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator J. deGroot Executive Assistant (Temp.) (taking minutes)
Also Present: Public
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m.
The Chair welcomed Director Foisy to the Committee.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting – October 17, 2013
Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Wendy Aasen That the agenda of the October 17, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be approved with the following addition: Item C.6 – Restricted Farm Losses CARRIED
134 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 2 - October 17, 2013
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting – September 11, 2013
Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Bruce Naka That the minutes of the September 11, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be adopted as circulated. CARRIED
NEW BUSINESS
Agricultural Land Commission Application SMITH, R. & L. [File No. 13-0326-D-ALR]
Discussion ensued regarding the following: Reasons for the application; Soil capabilities for the non-ALR portion of the subject property; Issues/difficulties with farming in the Creighton Valley Road area; Issues/difficulties to farm a smaller parcel; and Irrigation, size and topography of the subject property;
Comments: No benefit for agriculture and no reasons given to help support the subdivision; Breaking up a large field limits ability to farm (hay) a property; Proposal would not be positive for agriculture; and Subdivision would make farming difficult and diminish the farming potential of the subject property.
Regulating Combined Heat and Power Generation at Greenhouses in the ALR
Discussion ensued regarding the following: Mechanics of Heat and Power Generation in greenhouses; Cogeneration with fossil fuels to create heat helps with plant growth when the CO2 recycled; Electricity production is not an agricultural use but could this lead to commercial electricity generation on ALR Lands? Economics play a huge role in the matter; and Natural gas is much more efficient than wood waste; economics require a customer for wood waste to be economical.
Moved and seconded by Mike Randell and Bruce Naka That the report dated October 1, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the Ministry of Agriculture discussion paper addressing the regulation of cogeneration within greenhouses be received for information. CARRIED
135 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 3 - October 17, 2013
Potential Dates for Agricultural Tour
Discussion ensued regarding the following:
Tour clusters within areas was suggested; Tom Boeve would be willing to host a tour within the Spallumcheen cluster; however, December would work better; Joel Allen’s greenhouse, Coldstream Ranch and an organic apple orchard were suggested as a Coldstream cluster; Options for tours such as dairies, feed mills, orchards, processing facilities, slaughter facilities and wineries were suggested; Coral Beach Farms who have cherry farms in Lake Country, Coldstream and the Westside has been arranged for a tour on Saturday, November 2 at their Lake Country location; Staff will look into coordinating transportation for the tour; and Staff will look into other farms/wineries to tour in the area to fill an approximately 6 hour day tour.
Update on Committee Membership
Discussion ensued regarding the following: There are gaps in the representation on the Committee such as orchardists, wine makers/distillers, cheese makers and poultry. Members should advise their agricultural producer contacts that the Committee is looking for new membership in these areas.
Restricted Farm Losses
Dennis Lapierre provided information regarding recent court rulings on restricted farm losses for small scale farmers.
Discussion ensued regarding the following: Importance of the issue for small scale farmers and the economic impacts of this matter; and Legislative hurdles to agriculture.
The Committee decided to bring this matter forward to the next meeting.
Genetically Modified Organisms: Options
Discussion ensued regarding the following: Options presented in the staff report; Mandate for the Committee regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Role of the Regional District regarding GMOs; Reaching consensus to send something to the Board, if consensus cannot be reached there is the option to just provide comments without a recommendation to the Board ie// send discussion notes/items that have been considered; Financial impacts on the Region have not been considered; The Agricultural Area Plan has not been completed; Legalities with the Right to Farm Act have not been considered. Can we limit introduction of new GMOs to the region (i.e. alfalfa); There is some urgency to the matter; Labelling; Consumers make the decisions; No consensus but more support Option 1, some support Option 2.b; 136 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6
Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 4 - October 17, 2013
Most support sending all information to the Board. Staff will write a report to the Board outlining the direction of the Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Certified Correct:
Chair Corporate Officer
137 of 245
Bee SAFE Huguette Allen, Jane Emlyn, Carla Vierke.
138 Bee SAFE is a movement of SENS of 245 “Sustainable Environment Network Society” BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA Building a food economy based on Sustainability. November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
1
Sustainable Agriculture means: 139 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
Producing without depleting 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November so that future generations can continue to produce healthy food. 2
Sustainable Agriculture enhances Community Increases quality of food, health of environment and people, quality of life, attracts tourists, protects property value. 140 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
Methow Valley, Wa. 3
OK Eco Village – Dr. Gwyllin Goddard says: “I fully endorse a ban on GMOs for Area D, and I have the backing of at least 200 other people on our email list …”
141 OK Eco Village brings families to Rural Lumby who are fleeing of
245 the sickness, pollution and stench from the Fraser Valley. BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA “...people from all over Canada are desperate to find a place like Lumby where they can raise their families and live their lives with emphasis 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November on autonomy and health.”
4
GMO are Invasive GMO's have been designed with dominant genes and
142 cross-pollinate with wild and of 245 cultivated plants of same family. BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA Canola is a brassica and contaminates kale, cabbage, broccoli, wild mustard... November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
“Genetically Modified Crop on the Loose and Evolving in U.S. Midwest.” (August 2010) (Now Mexico has banned all GM Corn due to contamination) 5
GMO Crops in our Communities
● 4 Major crops now grown in Canada, 3 in RDNO, major one is Roundup Ready corn. 143 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA ● GMO apple, alfalfa, wheat, trees, fish PharmaCrops and Industrial GM Crops using vegetables and fruits, are next to be 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November approved in Canada.
6
Scientists are warning us
● Union of Concerned Scientists: The potential contamination of food crops with the 144 of hundreds, if not thousands, of drugs or industrial 245 compounds promised by this industry (GM BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA Pharmacrops) poses new and serious risks to the safety of the food system . We believe that our November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November approach, which combines a ban on outdoor production in food crops ...
http://www. wellcorps. com/files/UCSPharmaAndIndustrialCrops. pdf 7
1.9.2000 - Open Letter from 828 World Scientists to All Governments Summary “We, the undersigned scientists, call for the immediate suspension of all environmental releases of GM crops and products, both commercially and in open field trials, for at least 5 years; for patents on living processes, organisms, seeds, cell lines and genes to be revoked and banned; and for a comprehensive public enquiry into the future of 145 agriculture and food security for all. of 245 Patents on life-forms and living processes should be banned …” BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
Dr. David Bellamy, Biologist and Broadcaster, London, UK Prof. Liebe Cavalieri, Mathematical Ecologist, Univ. Minnesota, USA Dr. Thomas S. Cox, Geneticist, US Dept. of Agriculture (retired), India Dr. Tewolde Egziabher, Spokesperson for African Region, Ethiopia 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November Dr. David Ehrenfeld, Biologist/Ecologist, Rutgers University, USA Dr. Vladimir Zajac, Oncovirologist, Genetisist, Cancer Reseach Inst, Czech Republic Dr. Brian Hursey, ex FAO Senior Officer for Vector Borne Diseases, UK Prof. Ruth Hubbard, Geneticist, Harvard University, USA Prof. Jonathan King, Molecular Biologist, MIT, Cambridge, USA Prof. Gilles-Eric Seralini, Laboratoire de Biochimie & Moleculaire, Univ. Caen, France Dr. David Suzuki, Geneticist, David Suzuki Foundation, Univ. British Columbia, Canada Dr. Vandana Shiva, Theoretical Physicist and Ecologist, India 8
Monopoly of GM seeds and chemicals ● Increases costs of seeds – 230% in 10 years 146 ● of Increases quantity of pesticides used by 245 404 million pounds in first 10 years BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
● Creates Super Weeds that call for more toxic pesticides 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November *Pesticides refers to insecticides (Bt) and herbicides (Roundup) 9
Super Weeds
GM canola passed its glyphosate- tolerance (Roundup) genes to wild mustard and others, turning them 147
of into superweeds.
245 The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti Oct. 2011: Superweeds BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
As plants evolve to withstand Roundup, even more toxic 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November chemicals and crops such as 2,4-d Resistant crops are
approved. 10
GM Crops threaten FOOD security, sovereignty, and diversity
It's already difficult to obtain non GM corn, soy and canola 75% of food supply from 12 crops that include corn and soy, most of it now patented! 148 of 245
GM crops effectively destroy hundreds of varieties that BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA have been developed over hundreds of years “Monocultures and uniformity increase the risk of crop
failure, as diverse seeds adapted to diverse to eco- 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November systems are replaced by the rushed introduction of uniform and often untested seeds into the market . ”
11
GM Crops not sustainable: ENVIRONMENTALLY
GM crops kill beneficial insects and significantly reduce biodiversity.
Scientists Reveal Glyphosate (active ingredient in 149
of Roundup) Poisons Crops and Soil 245
(http://www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosatePoisonsCrops.php) BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA A pathogen new to science now infesting GM crops causing diseases in soil, plants and animals.(Dr. Don
Huber). 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
“I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high-risk status,” Huber wrote. “In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.” 12
GM Crops not sustainable : HEALTH "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible .
150 Assuring its safety is the F . D . A . 's job" - Philip Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine, October 25, 1998 . of Seed companies prevented independent research for 10 years and 245 Canada accepted GMO based on short term (90 days) test results BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA provided by corporations.
Now that research is allowed, multi generational peer-reviewed 2- year studies are showing causation between Roundup with cancers, autoimmune disorders, sterility and birth defects . http://www.. examiner com/article/mounting-evidence-that-gmo-crops-can-cause-infertility-and-birth-defects ) and (http://www . globalresearch. ca/study-shows-monsanto-roundup-herbicide-link-to-birth-defects) 13
6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
GM Crops not sustainable: HEALTH Leaked Analysis from microbiology company is alarming – FDA mandates that level of glyphosate in drinking water not exceed 0.7 ppm and adds that organ damage in some animals has been linked to glyphosate exposure exceeding 0.1 ppm. - GM 151 corn contains 13 ppm. (Glyphosate is Roundup's active of
245 ingredient). BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
Dr. Don Huber, expert in plant pathology & soil microbiology
“glyphosate immobilizes critical micronutrients, rendering them unavailable to the 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November plant. As a result, the nutritional efficiency of genetically engineered (GE) plants is profoundly compromised. Micronutrients such as iron, manganese and zinc can be reduced by as much as 80-90 percent in GE plants.”
14
GM Crops not sustainable SOCIALLY
Patented seeds contamination brings legal threat – pinning farmer against farmer & destroying the fabric of rural 152
of communities. 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
Farmers can be sued for having their crops 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November contaminated, or forced to buy GM seeds and consequently use chemicals and pesticides to grow
their crops . 15
GM Crops not sustainable Economically A report by Canada’s National Farmers Union LOSING OUR GRIP:“ Corporate Farmland Buy-up, Rising Farm Debt, and
153 Agribusiness Financing of Inputs Threaten of 245
Family Farms and Food Sovereignty” BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
“Corporations are financing an increasing share of farmers’ seed,
chemical, and fertilizer purchases.... As farmers owe more and more 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November and own less and less, and as farmers are forced more into the arms of corporations and investors, farmers lose control of Canada’s farms and foodland ... Canadians lose their grip on their food system . ”
16
Other Economic Impacts of GM Contamination has already severely impacted non GMO farmers through loss of export 154 of markets, lower yields due to superweeds, and 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA loss of organic or non GMO certification.
Canada's annual $300 Million canola export November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November to EU disappeared due to GM contamination and trade of Cdn honey almost disappeared.
17
Local Food increases Local Economy Using Stats Can food expenditure estimates, keeping 25% of food dollars local would bring:
Yearly Gains
155 Lumby & area $4,714,286.00 of 245
Vernon $34,285,714.00 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
Enderby $2,571,429.00
Armstrong/Spall $4,127,143.00 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
RDNO Total $70,285,714.00
Every dollar spent locally goes around 3 times. 18
What can Farmers who grow GM crops do? 1. Understand that change is needed
2. Learn how to work with nature instead of against it 156 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
Doug Weatherbee, the Soil Doctor November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
• Profit over the long term working for • Stewardship of our nation's land, people's air and water interests against • Quality of life for farmers, ranchers corporate and their communities control of our food system. 19
The Future of Agriculture in RDNO Sustainable agriculture means restricting GM crops – at least prevent any new GM crop from being planted.
The first step is to advise all seed companies, real estate 157
of companies and government organizations that the 245 communities have a moratorium on GM crops. BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA
The next steps are to provide information and help for
farmers to transition to sustainable farming practices. 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November
20
Plant biotechnology
Fact versus Fiction? 158
September 2013 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November Arysta LifeScience I:I• BASF EJ:7 Bayer Crop Science r~ lCANTERRA Cir'Jii/J ~ a The Chemical Compal)y ~ SEEDS :I'
(II CHEM/NOVA CANADA Chemtura ProductionCrop~ ~• • Dow AgroSciences ~Ac RoSoLuTJoNs · Serv1ces ,. · ~
~ cQD!DHP. IIIGAGIAGRO [.io~o~ @ .PIONEER. The miracles ofscience · c
159 Q FPGenetics. Go'fClll ~~o2!?P r::=:;: [t] M&,~,a CANADA Crop Protec tion BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245
MONSANTO 00. N.MJ.fll:UUUN&. 8 Nufarm PETRO Representing the Canadian developers, manufacturers and distributors of CropXLife pest control products and products of modern plant breeding. CANAOA Agriculture in Canada generates more than $70 billion in economic activity each year 160 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 3 The agriculture and agri-food system accounts for one in every eight jobs across the country – two million jobs total • cell biologists, chemists, aerial pesticide applicators, geneticists, agri-business managers, seed packing plant operators, plant biotechnologists, lab technicians, marketing and public relations 161 professionals, human resources consultants… BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 4 The challenges facing agriculture Feeding a growing world population: the 162 population is expected BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of to reach 9 billion by 2050 245 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 5 Dealing with water scarcity: by 2030 it’s 163 expected that 3.9 billion BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of people will live in water 245 scarce areas November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 6 Adapting to climate change: farmers are increasingly faced with severe weather conditions, including drought, 164 flooding, frost, severe winds and more. BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 7 The plant science industry helps farmers: • Reduce the environmental impact of agriculture • Adapt and thrive in the 165 face of changing climate BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 conditions • Produce one of the safest, most abundant food supplies 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November in the world 8 Approximately 95 per cent of the canola, 90 per cent of the corn and 80 per cent of soybeans Canadian farmers plant is biotech 166 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 9 GLOBAL AREA OF BIOTECH CROPS Mi II ion Hectares (1 996-201 2) 180 Total Hectares II 28 Biotech Crop Countries 160 -D- Industrial -l:r- Deve lopin 140 - ... - ~ 120 100 167 80 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 60 40 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 20 - I I I 0 ° , --: 0 J ~ ; I I I I I I ~ 0 0 199G 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200.J 200G 2007 2000 2009 2010 201 1 2012 A record 17.3 million farmers, in 28 countries, planted 170.3 miJ/ion hectares (420 million acres) in 2012, a .sustained increase of 6% or 10.3 million hectare.'i (25 million acres) over 2011. Source: Clive James, 2012. Crop protection products and plant biotechnology improve crop quality and increase yields, which leads to: $7.9 billion worth of additional value for 168 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of farmers of field, vegetable 245 and fruit crops $6.4 billion worth of off-farm value (ex. 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November processing, shipping, manufacturing) 11 And $385 million in tax revenue for federal, provincial and municipal governments • Taxes that pay for things like education, healthcare and infrastructure 169 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 12 Saving Canadians money at the grocery store Canadian families save 58% on their weekly grocery bills thanks to crop protection tools and plant biotech 170 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 In the 1960s Canadians spent almost 19% of their household 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November income on food, today they spend only about 10% 13 Growing more using less land Without crop protection products and plant biotech, Canada would need to turn 171 37 million more acres into BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 farmland to generate the same production it does today. That’s almost equal to 37 million 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November Canadian football fields, without the end zones. 14 Plant biotechnology and pesticides help farmers adopt conservation or no-till practices. Conservation tillage … • prevented 12 billion kilograms of C02 from entering the atmosphere in 2008 172 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 • saves 116 million litres of fuel from being used each year November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 15 How is plant biotechnology regulated in Canada? • The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) and Health Canada regulate products of plant biotechnology to protect human, animal and environmental health • The detailed data reviewed look at food safety, environmental safety and livestock safety including: – Composition of the crop 173 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of – Technical process used to modify the food 245 – Full nutrient makeup of the food – Evidence that no toxins or allergens have been introduced 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November – Potential to become a pest, weed or invade natural habitats – ŸPotential to transfer the new traits to other plants Ÿ – Potential impact on non-target species, including humans and livestock – Potential impact biodiversity 16 Internationally, the plant science industry reinvests 11% of its total sales into R&D representing over $5 billion USD per annum • To bring a new plant biotech product to 174 market takes up to BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 13 years and $150 million • Regulatory reviews by 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November HC and the CFIA take on average 3 years 17 How is plant biotechnology regulated in Canada? • More than two decades of tests have shown these crops to be safe for people, animals and our environment • Health Canada has declared that biotech crops are just as safe as non-biotech crops. 175 • Regulatory agencies around the world, BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of including the World Health Organization, 245 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), US, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and so on November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November have all endorsed the safety of GM crops. • Many independent organizations and academic institutions have conducted evaluations and endorse it safety and benefits. 18 Talking about the industry People often have questions about our technologies. It’s our job as an industry to help people better understand what it is we do and the benefits we deliver to Canadians. 176 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 Questions? November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 19 Be proud to work in this 177 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA of 245 industry! www.croplife.ca November 6, 2013 - Item E.6 November 20 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT File No.: 5622.1.1 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Engineering DATE: October 28, 2013 Amendment to the Silver Star Mountain Works Agreement, Vance Creek SUBJECT: Reservoir and Ancillary Works RECOMMENDATION: That the Board agree to amend the Silver Star Mountain, Works Agreement, Vance Creek Reservoir and Ancillary Works, dated September 10, 2008 - Schedule A- Benefiting Land be amended to include the following lands: - Ridge Developments Ltd. -Lot 31, Plan KAP817611ocated at 9751 Cathedral Drive; and - Ridge Developments Ltd. -Lot 27, Plan KAP85187 at 9961 Cathedral Drive. and further That the Silver Star Mountain, Works Agreement be amended to reflect this allocation of 751 pillows (estimated) of water storage capacity to Ridge Developments Ltd. prior to issuance of building permit. SUMMARY: At Silver Star Mountain the original water sources supplying the Village are wells and the Paradise Lake Reservoir, and until recently these were the only water sources available. Water supply from these original sources has allowed development to proceed to the current level, but the maximum capacity for water supply from these sources has been reached. In anticipation of this, Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. constructed the Vance Creek reservoir. Construction of the reservoir has increased the maximum storage capacity, and this will accommodate further development at Silver Star beyond the capacity of the original water sources. The Ridge subdivision was approved and developed for the most part as residentially zoned property, with water allocated to the properties from the original water sources, and so the development was not included in the Schedule A - Benefiting Lands of the Silver Star Mountain Works Agreement, Vance Creek Reservoir and Ancillary Works, dated September 10, 2008, hereinafter referred to as the Vance Creek Reservoir Agreement (attached). Under the Vance Creek Reservoir Agreement, Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. has the exclusive right to allocate water storage capacity of the Vance Creek Reservoir they have been contacted by the Ridge Developments Ltd. requesting permission to purchase water storage allocation to supply the proposed developments located at 9751 and 9961 Cathedral Drive (map attached). The lands are zoned Neighborhood Commercial, and for this type of development the water storage requirements are assessed when a development application is initiated, therefore these properties do not currently have access to water. With the original water sources at their maximum, the District must refer the Ridge Developments Ltd. to Silver Star Ski 178 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Report to: Board of Directors File No.: 5622.1.1 From: Engineering October 28, 2013 Re: Silver Star I Vance Creek Reservoir Works Agreement Page 2 of2 Resort Ltd., and in order for Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. to approve their request, an amendment to the Vance Creek Reservoir Agreement to include the properties within the Benefiting Lands is required. DISCUSSION: Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. has requested an amendment to Schedule A of the Vance Creek Reservoir Agreement to include Lot 31, Plan KAP81761 at 9751 Cathedral Drive; and Lot 27, Plan KAP85187 at 9961 Cathedral Drive in the Benefiting Lands. The maximum volume of water available from the original water sources has been reached, accordingly any future development requires water supply from the Vance Creek Reservoir. In clause 19(b)i) of the Vance Creek Reservoir Agreement, the District confirms that Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. "has exclusive right to allocate capacity of the Vance Creek Reservoir for the purpose of enabling development", and as such the District must defer to the Resort in this regard. Clause 19(b)ii) restricts allocation of the water to the Benefiting Land, described in Schedule A. Staff recommend that the amendment be approved so that Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. will be able to sell a portion of the water storage capacity of the Vance Creek Reservoir to Ridge Developments Ltd. to accommodate the needs of the proposed and future development on these properties. We note that a payment by the Ridge Developments Ltd. to Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. for an allocation of 751 pillows (estimated) of water storage capacity is a payment for a share of the available water storage capacity only. To proceed further with their proposed development the Ridge Developments Ltd. is required to apply to the District for approvals, permits, fees (including Development Cost Charges), etc., as is the normal practice in the development process; and part of the requirements for such approvals will include payment for construction of all necessary water distribution works, including fire hydrants and an expansion of the enclosed Ridge reservoir. Attachments: - Map of Lot 31, Plan KAP81761 at 9751 Cathedral Drive; and Lot 27, Plan KAP85187 at 9961 Cathedral Drive (Ridge Properties) - Agreement dated September 10, 2008 Submitted by: ager Reviewed and endorsed by: Approved for Inclusion: ~JjJ.Eng. General Manager Engineering ec: Rob Smailes, General Manager Planning and Building 179 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 SILVER STAR MOUNTAIN WORKS AGREEMENT VANCE CREEK RESERVOIR AND ANCILLARY WORKS This agreement dated for reference September 10, 2008 is BETWEEN: SILVER STAR SKI RESORT LTD. (Inc. No.BC0631004), PO Box 3002, Silver Star Mountain, B.C. V1 B 3M1 (the "Developer") AND: REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN, 9848 Aberdeen Road, Goldstream, B.C. V1B 2K9 (the "District") GIVEN THAT: A The Developer owns certain lands at Silver Star Mountain Resort and holds a license from the Province over certain untitled Crown lands, comprising all of the land defined herein as the "Benefiting Land", and the Developer intends to eventually develop such land and sell such land for development; B. The Developer wishes to ensure that water supply facilities are available to enable the development of the Benefiting Land and has petitioned the District to construct a new water reservoir and associated works to be owned and operated by the District through its Silver Star Mountain Community Water Utility for the purpose of providing water to the Benefiting Land; C. The District has adopted or intends to adopt certain bylaws for the purpose of paying for the design and construction of such water works; D. The Developer has designed and is nearing completion of construction of the new reservoir and related facilities, and the District wishes to purchase those works in accordance with the terms and conditions of this agreement. THIS AGREEMENT is evidence that in consideration of $1.00 paid by each party to the other and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which the parties respectively acknowledge), the Developer and the District each covenant to and agree with the other as follows: 180 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 2 of 18 Definitions 1. In this agreement, in addition to words defined above, the following words and expressions have the following meanings: (a) "Benefiting Land" means the land legally described in Schedule A (b) "Certificate of Acceptance" means a written certificate of final acceptance of the Works issued by the District Representative pursuant to section 11. (c) "Certificate of Completion" means a written certificate of Completion of the Works issued by the District Representative pursuant to section 11. (d) "Completion" means completion of the Works such that the Works have been fully tested, are functional and can be used for their Intended purpose, all to the satisfaction of the District Representative, acting reasonably, as acknowledged by the issuance of a Certificate of Completion. (e) "Consulting Professional" means a professional engineer retained by the Developer for a purpose referred to in this agreement, who is qualified to practice in British Columbia for that purpose. (f) "Cost of the Works" means the direct costs of constructing and installing the Works plus the cost of engineering, supervision, contract administration, tendering, survey, other professional services, financing, including interest costs, land title office fees and other direct costs reasonably required for completion of the Works and the transfer thereof to the District in accordance with this agreement. (g) "District Representative" means the District's Administrator, appointed from time to time by the Board of the District, or his or her designate. (h) "Province" means the Province of British Columbia. (i) "Reservoir Enabling Bylaws" means Silver Star Mountain Water Reservoir Borrowing Service Establishment Bylaw No. 2191, 2006, as amended, and Silver Star Mountain Water Reservoir Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 2192, 2006, as amended. U) "Servicing Plans" means the drawings, plans and other specifications for the Works listed on Schedule B. (k) ''Standards" means any and all laws, bylaws, statutes, regulations, rules, orders, permits, licences, codes, building codes, professional standards and specifications (including Canadian Standards Association standards) applicable to the Works as they are in force from time to time or in the latest current version, as the case may be. (I) "Warranty Period" means the one-year period commencing from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion. (m) "Warranty Security" means the total amount of money retained by the District under section 18 as security for the performance of the Developer's obligations under section 10. 181 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 3 of 18 (n) "Water License" means Conditional Water Licence 122226 under the Water Act, issued April 4, 2008 by the Regional Water Manager, Water Stewardship Division, Ministry of Environment. (o) "Works" means all of the works and services set out in the Servicing Plans, which works and services include, but are not limited to: i) the Vance Creek reservoir, ii) the pump station at the Vance Creek reservoir, iii) the pipeline to connect the Vance Creek reservoir to the Paradise Reservoir transmission line and the surge tank, valving and fittings, iv) a treatment plant, v) associated works necessary to integrate the Vance Creek reservoir into the District's Silver Star Community Water Utility system; and vi) valves, fittings and other works appurtenant to any of the foregoing works. Design of Works 2. The Developer represents and warrants to, and covenants with, the District that the Servicing Plans have been prepared under the direction of, and sealed under the professional seal of, a Consulting Professional. Construction of Works 3. The Developer shall be responsible for design, construction, installation and completion of all aspects of the Works, in the locations shown on the Servicing Plans, to the standards required by this agreement. In undertaking the Works, the Developer shall: (a) construct, install and complete the Works in accordance with the Servicing Plans and all applicable Standards; (b) obtain the prior written approval of the District Representative, acting reasonably, for any changes to the Servicing Plans; (c) ensure that all Consulting Professionals retained by it for the purposes of this agreement each maintain professional liability and errors and omissions insurance of not less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence during the term of his or her engagement, and provide proof of such insurance to the District promptly following execution of this agreement; (d) comply with any changes to the Works required by the District Representative, acting reasonably, as necessary to satisfy the District Representative, acting reasonably, that the Works will function and operate in a manner satisfactory to the District Representative, acting reasonably; 182 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 4 of 18 (e) not damage any of the District's works, services or property, or remove, alter or destroy any survey pins, posts, or monuments, and, if in default of such obligations, to replace, repair and restore any damage to the satisfaction of the District Representative, acting reasonably; (f) pay the cost of connecting the Works to existing District services; (g) not engage any employee or contractor in the construction or installation of the Works who, in the reasonable opinion of the District Representative, acting reasonably, is unfit, incapable or unskilled; (h) at all times in connection with the construction and installation of the Works employ and keep on site a competent general works superintendent; and (i) promptly correct any deficiencies in the Works that are from time to time identified by the District Representative, to the satisfaction of the District Representative, acting reasonably. 4. Standards of Work (a) The Works shall be designed, provided and constructed to a standard which is sufficient for their intended purpose and shall be designed and completed in accordance with generally accepted engineering practice to the satisfaction of the District Representative, acting reasonably, and In accordance with all Standards. (b) If, during the Warranty Period, the District Representative determines, acting reasonably, that the Works are in any way defective or do not operate in a satisfactory manner, the Developer shall, at its expense, modify and reconstruct the Works immediately so that the Works are fully operative and function in accordance with the standards set out in section 4(a). 5. Developer's Consulting Professionals (a) At all times during the construction and provision of the Works, the Developer shall retain one or more Consulting Professionals to oversee the completion of the Works and provide competent on-site review to ensure the Works conform to the Servicing Plans. (b) With any application to the District for a Certificate of Completion, the Developer's Consulting Professional shall certify under seal in writing to the District that the Works have been constructed in accordance with the Servicing Plans. 6. Developer's Risk - The Developer acknowledges and agrees that the Developer relies exclusively on the Developer's Consulting Professionals and contractors and that the District does not, by its approvals, inspections or acceptance of the Works or Servicing Plans, warrant or represent that the Works or the Servicing Plans are in compliance with any Standards or as to the quality, fitness for purpose, adequacy or safety of the Works, or that the Works are without fault or defect, and the Developer acknowledges and agrees that all approvals and inspection of the Works given or made by the District or the District Representative are for the sole benefit of the District and in no way relieve the Developer from designing, constructing and installing the Works in accordance with this agreement. 183 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 5 of 18 7. Entry Onto Land -The Developer shall permit the District, or ensure the District is permitted, to by its employees, agents and contractors, at any time enter upon all land within which any of the Works are being constructed or installed as may be necessary or convenient for the carrying out of this agreement, Including for the purposes of inspecting or undertaking the Works. 8. Insurance - The Developer confirms that it has taken out and maintained, and the Developer shall continue to maintain, at all times from commencement of construction and installation of the Works until the issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Works, with such insurance company or companies and on such terms as are acceptable to the District: (a) comprehensive general liability insurance against claims for bodily injury (including death) and property damage or loss arising from the construction and Installation of the Works (including failure to properly carry out or negligence in carrying out the Works), in an amount of not less than $5,000,000.00 combined single limit per claim; and (b) builder's risk insurance, insuring the Works against loss or damage to the full replacement cost of the Works, and If the District elects to complete the Works as provided in this agreement, the Developer is conclusively considered to have assigned the benefit of that insurance, and all proceeds of it, to the District. 9. Policy Requirements - All insurance policies required under section 8 must include the District as an additional insured, must Include all of the Developer's contractors and subcontractors as unnamed insured's, must include a cross liability clause and must provide that coverage will not be changed or amended In any material way nor cancelled until 30 days after notice of such change or cancellation has been given to the District. The Developer agrees to deliver a copy of a certificate of insurance in respect of each policy to the District promptly following its execution of this agreement. Transfer of Works to District 10. Warranty- The Developer must, at its own cost, (a) without unreasonable delay in light of the nature of the defect, remedy any defects in any of the Works appearing within the Warranty Period; and (b) make good or pay for any damage to other works or property resulting from the defects under section 1O(a). If the Developer fails to comply with sections 10(a) or (b), the District may remedy such breach and may deduct the costs of doing so from the Warranty Security. If the Warranty Security is insufficient to cover the costs incurred by the District, the Developer must pay such deficiency to the District immediately upon receipt of the District's invoice. Upon the later of the expiry of the Warranty Period and the issuance of a Certificate of Acceptance by the District Representative, the District will release the Warranty Security or the unused portion thereof to the Developer, without interest. 184 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 6 of 18 11. Issuance of Certificates -The District Representative will: (a) within 60 days following application by the Developer for a Certificate of Completion under paragraph (b) of this section or a Certificate of Partial Completion under paragraph (d) of this section, determine, acting reasonably, if the Developer is entitled to the Certificate of Completion or Partial Completion, as the case may be; (b) issue a Certificate of Completion upon being satisfied, acting reasonably, that: (i) the Works have reached Completion; (ii) the Developer has performed all obligations under this agreement that it is required to perform before issuance of a Certificate of Completion; (iii) the Developer has paid all amounts then owing under this agreement; and (iv) all of the conditions precedent under section 24 have been satisfied; (c) issue a Certificate of Acceptance of the Works upon being satisfied, acting reasonably, that the Developer has fulfilled all of its obligations under section 10 and paid all amounts then due under this agreement; (d) notwithstanding the rest of this section, once all of the conditions precedent under sections 24 have been satisfied, the Developer may, in accordance with the rest of this section, apply to the District for a Certificate of Partial Completion with respect to the Works that have then reached Completion and if a Certificate of Partial Completion is issued pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, the District will pay to the Developer the portion of the payment due under section 16 with respect to the portion of the Works with respect to which the Certificate of Partial Completion is issued. For clarity, the District acknowledges that for the purpose of issuing a Certificate under this paragraph (d), the Works for which the application is made will be considered to have reached Completion even if there are non-material deficiencies in such Works provided that such Works are nevertheless functional and will be able to be used for their intended purposes once the rest of the Works have finally reache~ Completion. 12. Works at Owner's Risk Before Completion - The Works are at the sole risk of the Developer until a Certificate of Partial Completion is issued for the Works. 13. Transfer of Works to District - Upon the Issuance of a Certificate of Partial Completion, the Developer is deemed to have assigned, transferred and conveyed to the District all of its right, title and interest in and to the Works, free and clear of any claim by the Developer or any person claiming through the Developer, without payment of any further compensation or consideration or any requirement for fwiher documentation in this regard. Upon issuance of the Certificate of Completion, the District will be solely responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Works, except for the Developer's obligations under this agreement during the Warranty Period. 185 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 7 of 18 14. As-Built Drawings - The Developer will, before issuance of the Certificate of Completion, provide the District final as-built drawings sealed by a Consulting Professional, including 2 complete sets of prints, 1 set of mylar transparencies and 1 set in electronic digital form (Autodesk DWG File Format), of the Works as constructed and installed. 15. No Compensation - Despite any grant under this agreement of any property or any interests in land to the District for public use (including under the tenure to be issued), It is not the intention of the parties that any expropriation, deemed or otherwise, should thereby occur and the Developer will not claim any damages or compensation as a result of such dedication or commitment. Payment to Developer 16. Payment· Upon issuance of the Certificate of Completion or Partial Completion, as the case may be, by the District Representative, the Developer will invoice the District for the Cost of the Works (or, in the case of a Certificate of Partial Completion, the applicable part of the Works to which the Certificate relates) plus 10%, up to a maximum total amount of $7,200,000.00 (inclusive of all taxes) for all of the Works, which invoice will detail the nature and amount of all costs claimed and with such invoice the Developer will submit copies of all invoices, payments and other records evidencing all costs claimed in the invoice. Subject to sections 17 and 18, the invoice shall be payable by the District within thirty (30) days of submission by the Developer, after which interest will accrue at a rate equal to the Bank of Montreal prime rate plus 2%, unless the District disputes the amount claimed in the invoice. In the event that a portion of the invoice Is disputed by the District, the District will pay the undisputed portion within 30 days of the date of invoice and the disputed portion shall be paid into trust with the solicitors for the District to be held in an interest bearing trust account, to be paid out of trust (with trust account Interest) upon agreement of the parties or the order of an arbitrator or the Supreme Court of B.C. 17. Builders Lien Holdback- (a) For the purposes of this agreement, a Consulting Professional shall be the "payment certifier", as that term is used in the Builders Lien Act (British Columbia). (b) The District will deduct from the amount due to the Developer under section 16 a holdback pursuant to and in the amount required by the Builders Lien Act (British Columbia), if any. (c) At such time as the Developer applies for a release of the holdback, the Developer shall submit to the District a sworn statement of an officer of the Developer that all accounts for labour, subcontracts, materials, construction machinery and equipment, and other indebtedness, up to the date of application, incurred by or on behalf of the Developer in designing, constructing, installing and completing the Works have been paid in full, except for holdback monies properly retained by the Developer. (d) The District may avail itself of the rights under the Builders Lien Act (British Columbia), including paying the holdback or other retained monies into court to discharge any claim of lien or lien-related certificate of pending litigation or judgment, as the District may consider necessary in order to protect the District's interests. 186 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 8 of 18 (e) The Developer shall, at its sole risk and expense, do everything necessary, including through the institution, prosecution or defence of legal proceedings, to promptly discharge from title to any land any claims of lien and lien-related certificates of pending litigation and judgments related to the Works. 18. Warranty Security - In addition to the builder's lien holdback under section 17, the District may retain 5% of the amount owing under section 16 as security for the Developer's obligations under section 10. 19. Capacity Expectations (a) The District and the Developer confirm that under the Water License, the maximum quantity of water that may be diverted to fill the Vance Creek Reservoir and used for waterworks purposes is 203,613 cubic meters per annum (the "Capacity"). Based on that Capacity, the number of "pillows" available for development as a result of the addition of the Vance Creek Reservoir will be 14,625 based on a rating of .07183 "pillows" per cubic metre of the above noted storage capacity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the District and the Developer confirm and agree that up to 60,000 cubic meters of water per annum may be used for snowmaklng operations, which would thereby reduce the Allocation by the same amount in each year that such amount of water is used for snowmaking and other resort purposes. (b) The District confirms that: i) the developer has exclusive right to allocate the Capacity of the Vance Creek Reservoir for the purpose of enabling development until it exercises that right under (c) or the District provides notice under (e): and ii) this Capacity will be used only for the purpose of supplying water to the Benefiting Land. (c) The Developer confirms that the process for allocating the Capacity of the Vance Creek Reservoir shall be as follows: i) The Developer, as owner of all of the Benefiting Lands or as the only entity capable of acquiring title to any of the Benefiting Lands pursuant to the conditions of its Master Development Agreement ~J~!ith the Province of British Columbia, agrees that upon the sale, transfer or disposition of any portion of the Benefiting Lands, it will cause a restrictive covenant to be registered against title to such portion in the land title office (in priority to all legal notations, liens, charges and encumbrances except those existing at time of issuance of the Crown Grant) for the benefit of other land owned by the Developer, which restricts the potential development of the portion sold and thereby allocates Capacity to the portion sold. ii) The Developer shall be deemed to have allocated a portion of the Capacity to each portion of the Benefiting Lands so sold, transferred or disposed of proportionately to the number of pillows allocated to such parcel in accordance with the development restrictions set out in the restrictive covenant. 187 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 9 of 18 (d) Subject to section (e) the process set out in (c) shall be the only process used to allocate Capacity. (e) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary In this section, the District may, by providing written notice to the Developer on or before December 31, 2011, permanently allocate and use 18,000 cubic metres of the Capacity for the purpose of providing water to lands other than the Benefiting Land, provided that in exchange therefore the District will pay to the Developer an amount equal to 9% of the total Cost of the Works {plus an amount equal to the amount paid by the Developer under section 21 towards District borrowing interest costs). 20. District Water Supply Requirements - The District will determine water supply requirements for development based on the following: Development Unit Type Pillows per Unit Hotel Room (Studio) 4 1 Bedroom Suite 5 2 Bedroom Suite 6 3 Bedroom Suite 7 Townhouse (Individual Ground Level Entrance) 9 Single Family Lot 12 Duplex Lot 17 Hostel Room 3 Restaurant I Pub 0.2 per seat Commercial Retail 1 per 500m2 District Cost Recovery 21. Developer Payment - Pursuant to the Reservoir Enabling Bylaws, the District intends to borrow funds for the purpose of paying the Developer for the Works under this agreement and in order to avoid the District having to requisition funds to be collected through the taxation of the Benefiting Land to repay that and in consideration of the District's promises under this agreement, the Developer will pay to the District an amount equal to the total amount paid by the District to the Developer pursuant to section 16 plus interest thereon at such rate as may be payable by the District to the Municipal Finance Authority ("MFA") pursuant to its borrowing through MFA and the Reservoir Enabling Bylaws calculated in the same manner as interest is calculated from time to time with respect to that MFA borrowing. The Developer will pay that amount and interest to the District as and when portions of such principal amount and interest payments are payable by the District to MFA within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from the District for same. 188 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 10 of 18 22. Payment Security - The Developer will, as a pre-condition to the District being obligated to make any payment to the Developer pursuant to section 16 and in any event no later than December 31, 2008 and as security for the Developer's payment obligations under section 21, grant a first mortgage to the District, registered in priority to all liens, charges, encumbrances and legal notations, utilizing the Land Title Act prescribed standard mortgage terms with a principal amount equal to the maximum amount set out in section 16, with repayment terms in accordance with section 21, over the properties identified in Schedule C. Catchment Area Restrictions 23. Catchment Area Restrictions - The Developer acknowledges and agrees that Interior Health Authority has granted an exemption with respect to surface water treatment filtration regarding water supplied by the Vance Creek Reservoir on the condition that the catchment area for water entering into the Treatment Plant is subject to certain controls over activities therein and the Developer covenants and agrees that, as holder of a Master Development Agreement from the Province under the Province's Commercial Alpine Ski Policy, the Developer will use reasonable efforts in carrying on its business of development and operating the Silver Star Mountain Resort to prevent contamination of the water entering the Works. Miscellaneous 24. Condition Precedent - The obligations of the District and the Developer hereunder are subject to the following conditions precedent being satisfied on or before December 31 , 2008: (a) The District will have adopted the Reservoir Enabling Bylaws. (b) The Province will have issued a Permit to Commence Construction under the Water Act with respect to the Works based on the applications submitted to the Province as of the reference date of this agreement. (c) The Province of British Columbia has issued to the District a Licence of Occupation for the lands upon which the Works are located. If any of these conditions precedent is not satisfied within the time provided, this agreement will automatically terminate and the parties will have no further obligations to each other hereunder. With respect to paragraph (a) of this section, while the District is not contractually obligated to adopt the Reservoir Enabling Bylaws and this agreement does not fetter the District Board's discretion in that regard, the District will, once the conditions under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section have been satisfied and all pre-conditions to such Bylaws under the Local Government Act have been satisfied, present those Bylaws for consideration by the Board of the District In a timely manner. It is the Intention of both the District and the Developer that if the District does not acquire the Works pursuant to this agreement, the Developer would establish a private water utility to operate the Works and would apply to the Province for a license to operate the Works as a utility and that the District would support such establishment and application. 189 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 .Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 11 of 18 25. Indemnity- The Developer must release, indemnify and save harmless the District from and against: (a) all liabilities, actions, proceedings, damages, expenses, claims and demands whatsoever and by whomsoever brought by reason of the design, construction and installation of the Works, including defects in the Works except to the extent the design, construction or installation was done by or on behalf of the District; (b) all expenses incurred by the District as a result of any damage to any property during the construction of the Works; and (c) all expenses that may be incurred by reason of liens, non-payment for labour or materials, federal or provincial taxes, workers' compensation assessments, employment insurance or union dues check off. For clarity, in this section the term "expenses" includes all legal fees and disbursements. 26. Assignment - The Developer shall not assign its rights under this agreement without the written consent of the District, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 27. Dispute Resolution - In the event of a dispute between the Developer and the District regarding this agreement, the parties shall meet and attempt to resolve the dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute within 45 days after a party first requests a meeting for that purpose, the dispute shall be referred to arbitration pursuant to the Commercial Arbitration Act (British Columbia), before a single arbitrator mutually acceptable to the parties or otherwise appointed in accordance with that Act. 28. Performance Exclusions -Notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary, neither party to this agreement shall be deemed to be in default in respect of the performance of any of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement if any failure or delay in such performance is due to any strike, lockout, civil commotion, war-like operation, invasion, rebellion, hostilities, military or usurped power, sabotage, governmental regulations or controls, inability to obtain any materials or services or Act of God. 29. District Representative's Discretion - Wherever in this agreement the approval of the District Representative is required, some act or thing is to be done to the satisfaction of the District Representative or the District Representative is entitled to form an opinion : (a) the approval, opinion or expression of satisfaction shall be made in writing, signed by the District Representative; and (b) the approval, opinion or satisfaction shall made by the District Representative acting reasonably in accordance with generally accepted municipal engineering practice in British Columbia. 30. No Effect on Powers -This agreement does not: (a) affect or limit the discretion, rights, duties or powers of the District under the common law or any statute, regulation, bylaw or other enactment, nor does it create, or is it the parties' intention to create, any implied obligations regarding such discretion, rights, duties or powers; 190 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 12 of 18 (b) affect or limit the common law or any statute, regulation, bylaw or other enactment applying to the Benefiting Land; or (c) relieve the Developer from complying with the common law or any statute, regulation, bylaw or other enactment. 31. Regulation of Use of Works - The use of the Works shall be regulated and managed by the District in accordance with its ordinary jurisdiction over its works and services. Nothing in this agreement entitles the Developer or any person claiming through the Developer to any extraordinary right to use the Works. 32. No Representations - The Developer and the District each acknowledge and agree that the other party has made no representations, covenants, warranties, guarantees, promises or agreements with respect to the subject matter of this agreement, other than those in this agreement. 33. Notice -Any notice which may be or is required to be given under this agreement must be in writing and either be delivered or sent by fax, addressed as follows: (a) To the Developer: Silver Star Ski Resort Ltd. PO Box 3002 Silver Star Mountain, B.C. V1B 3M1 Attention: Chief Executive Officer Fax No.: (250) 542-1236 (b) To the District: Regional District of North Okanagan 9848 Aberdeen Road Vernon, B.C., V1B 2K9 Attention: Administrator Fax No.: (250) 550-3701 or to such other address or fax number of which notice has been given as provided in this section. Any notice that is delivered or faxed is to be considered given on the day it is delivered or faxed, provided that in either case if that day is a Saturday, Sunday or B.C. statutory holiday, then the notice will be considered to be given on the next day that is not such a day. If a party changes its address or fax number, or both, it must promptly give notice of its new address or fax number to the other party as provided in this section. 34. Interpretation - In this agreement: (a) reference to the singular includes a reference to the plural, and vice versa, unless the context requires otherwise; 191 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 13 of 18 (b) article and section headings have been inserted for ease of reference only and are not to be used in interpreting this agreement; (c) reference to a particular numbered section or article, or to a particular lettered Schedule, is a reference to the correspondingly numbered or lettered article, section or Schedule of this agreement; (d) reference to any enactment includes any regulations, orders or directives made under the authority of that enactment; (e) reference to any enactment is a reference to that enactment as consolidated, revised, amended, re-enacted or replaced, unless otherwise expressly provided; (f) the provisions of s. 25 of the Interpretation Act with respect to the calculation of time apply; and (g) where the word "including" is followed by a list, the contents of the list are not intended to circumscribe the generality of the expression preceding the word "including". 35. Further Acts - Both parties will do all things and prepare and execute all documents necessary to give effect to the intention of this agreement. 36. Time of the Essence -Time is of the essence of this agreement. 37. Waiver- Waiver of a party of the other party's default under this agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent default by that party. 38. Severance - If any part of this agreement is for any reason held to be invalid by a decision of a court with the jurisdiction to do so, the invalid portion is to be severed and the rest of this agreement will remain valid and in effect. 39. Schedules - The following Schedules are attached to this agreement, and such Schedules and all documents referenced therein, form integral parts of this agreement: Schedule A- Description of Benefiting Lands Schedule B - Servicing Plans Schedule C - Mortgage Lands 40. Governing Law- This agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia which is deemed to be the proper law thereof. 41. Enurement- This agreement will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, as the case may be. 192 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 14 of 18 As evidence of their agreement to be bound by the above terms, the parties each have executed this agreement below, under seal. The Corporate Seal of SILVER STAR SKI RESORT LT . was hereunto ) affixed in the ence of: ) ) C/S ) Name: ) 4 ) ) Na The Corporate Seal of REGIONAL ) DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN ) was hereunto affixed in the presence ) ) CIS ) ) ) ) ) 193 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page15of18 Schedule A Benefiting Land Legal Descriptions of Benefiting Lands Developer Lands that will benefit from the Vance Creek Water Reservoir are listed as follows: Site Legal Description Comments 1 Silver Star Controlled Recreation Area Lease Agreement #33446 Snowmaking, landscaping, etc. 2 Firehall West Block AD, DL 1355, ODYD Future Development KAS 3027, DL 1355, 5262 3 Snowbird Lodge - Stage 1 Future Redevelopment &5309, ODYD Lot B, KAP79848, DL 1355 4 Snowbird Lodge - Stage 2 Future Development & 5262, ODYD Lot 5, Plan 36603, DL 5 Silver Lode Inn Future Redevelopment 1355, ODYD .. Lot A, KAP76316, DL 1355, Main Administration Building Future Redevelopment 6 ODYD 7 Kids Centre Block AF, DL 1355, ODYD Future Redevelopment Block AG, DL 1355 & 5346, 8 Block H Subdivision Future Development ODYD Mixed apportionment from Well 9 Firelight Lodge BlockM, DL 1355, ODYD #12 and Vance Creek 10 Lot E DL 5334, ODYD Future Development 11 Remnant of Carpark D Block AB, ODYD Future Development Future Development. The service area boundaries will be 12 MDA Lands Lease Agreement #33446 need to be amended in Bylaw 2191, 2006 to account for future development of MDA Lands In accordance with Clause 19. e) of this Agreement, the District has the option to acquire 18,000 cubic meters of water from Vance Creek Reservoir to facilitate infill development within the Silver Star Water Utility Service Area. 194 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 16of18 Schedule B Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Plans & Reports 1 .. EBA ENGINEERING, Project No. 8800253; a. Figures 1-7, 12, 15A, & 16 stamped and dated April30, 2008; and b. Figures 8-11, 13, 17A, 17B, 18, 19A, 19B, 20 &21 stamped and dated April29, 2008. 2. MMM GROUP, Project No. 4353; a. Drawing No. C-001 : Title Sheet dated August 22, 2008; b. Drawing No. C-002, Rev. G : Overall Site Plan dated August 23, 2008; c. Drawing No. C-003, Rev. E : Vance Creek Reservoir Area Site Plan dated August 23, 2008; d. Drawing No. C-004, Rev E : Paradise Reservoir Area Site Plan dated August 23, 2008; e. Drawing No. C-005, Rev E : Paradise Reservoir Building Site Plan dated August 23, 2008; f. Drawing No. C-010, Rev E : Paradise to Vance Creek Reservoir Plan & Profile (at Paradise) dated August 23, 2008; g. Drawing No. C-011, Rev D : Paradise to Vance Creek Reservoir Plan & Profile (at Vance Creek) dated August 23, 2008; h. Drawing No. C-012, Rev E : Vance Creek Pump Station Area Site Plan dated August 23, 2008; i. Drawing No. C-013, Rev D: Vance Creek Reservoir Outlet Detail dated August 23, 2008; j. Drawing No. C-014, Rev D: Vance Creek Raw Water Reservoir Low Level Outlet dated August 23, 2008; k. Drawing No. M-000, Rev C : Vance Creek and Paradise Reservoir Water System Schematic dated August 23, 2008; I. Drawing No. M-001, Rev D : Vance Creek Reservoir Building Mechanical dated August 23, 2008; m. Drawing No. M-002, Rev D : Paradise Creek Reservoir Building Mechanical dated August 23, 2008;and 195 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 17of18 n. 2008 Vance Creek and Paradise Reservoir Integration Design Brief dated July - 2008 and the Silver Star Water Supply Integration with RDNO Water System Report dated August 2007. Schedule B (Continued) 3. PWRCO ENGINEERING LTD., Project No. 08050; a. Drawing No. VCR-E01, Rev. 0: Vance Creek Reservoir Single Line, Layouts, BOM dated August 05, 2008; b. Drawing No. VCR-E02, Rev. 0 : Vance Creek Reservoir Power Ladder, Block Diagram dated August 05, 2008; c. Drawing No. VCR-E03, Rev. 0 : Vance Creek Reservoir Schematics dated August 05, 2008; d. Drawing No. VCR-E04, Rev 0 : Vance Creek Reservoir PLC Wiring dated August 05, 2008; e. Drawing No. PCF-E01, Rev 1 : Paradise Reservoir Single Line, Layouts, Panel Schedule dated August 21, 2008; f. Drawing No. PCF-E02, Rev 1 : Paradise Reservoir Block Diagram, Schematics dated August 21, 2008; and g. Drawing No. PCF-E03, Rev 1 : Paradise Reservoir PLC Wiring dated August 21, 2008. 4. K D KETCHEN & ASSOCIATES LTD., Project No. 08-118; a. Drawing No. 08-118-S1, Rev. 0: Paradise Reservoir Mechanical Building Expansion General Specifications stamped and dated August 15, 2008; b. Drawing No. 08-118-S2, Rev. 0 : Paradise Reservoir Mechanical Building Expansion Details stamped and dated August 16, 2008; and c. Drawing No. 08-118-S3, Rev. 0: Paradise Reservoir Mechanical Building Expansion Sections & Doorway Reinforcing Details stamped dated August16, 2008. 196 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 Vance Creek Reservoir Servicing Agreement Page 18 of 18 Schedule C Mortgaged Lands The legal description of the Mortgaged Lands referred to in Clause 22 is as follows: Parcel Identifier: 027 - 556 - 085 Legal Description: Block AG of District Lots 1355 and 5346, Osoyoos Division Yale District. CONTROULD EXCF:PTED FROM SILVER STAR PROVINCIAL PARK Nor ro SCALe UIY f, 2~ 197 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 MODIFICATION TO PRESCRIBED STANDARD MORTGAGE TERMS I. In section I, replace definition of "borrower's promises and agreements" with "means any one or more of the Owner's obligations, promises and agreements contained in this mortgage or in section 21 of the works agreement"; 2. The following new definition is added to section. I: "works agreement" means the Silver Star Mountain Works Agreement - Vance Creek Reservoir and Ancillary Works, dated for reference September I Oth, 2008, between the borrower and the lender". 3. Section 2(1) is replaced with the following: "In consideration of the payment of $1.00 and other good and valuable consideration paid by the lender to the borrower, the borrower grants and mortgages the land to the lender as security for payment of the mortgage money and for performance of all the borrower's promises and agreements". 4. Replace section 4 with the following: "4. The borrower promises to pay the mortgage money to the lender at the place of payment in accordance with the payment provisions set out in the mortgage form, these mortgage ternis and the works agreement". 5. Section5(l)(n)(ii), delete each instance of the word "loan". 6. Section 8(1) is replaced with the following: "If a default occurs, all the mortgage money will, if the lender chooses, at once become due and payable". END OF DOCUMENT C:\Documcnts And :-)ctlings\Brcardan\l.ocal Scttings\Tcmpormy lntcmct Filcs\Mottgagc.-Modificatlon To Struu!ard Tcrms:.DocScpl2, 2008 II :50 AMJMEQ 198 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.8 ---~-- Th:s mop """ com~,,~ by ROIW, us:c.~ d•t.. b 199 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.9 REGIONAL DISTRICT of NORTH OKANAGAN REPORT File No.: 0100.0540 TO: Board of Directors FROM: Corporate Services DATE: October 21, 2013 SUBJECT: 2014 Meeting Schedule RECOMMENDATION: That the 2014 Meeting Schedule for regular meetings of the Board of Directors and its Standing Committees, be approved as follows: Board of Directors: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 Wednesday, February 5, 2014 Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Wednesday, March 5, 2014 Wednesday, March 19 2014 Wednesday, April 2, 2014 Wednesday, April 16, 2014 Wednesday, May 7, 2014 Wednesday, May 21, 2014 Wednesday, June 4, 2014 Wednesday, June 18, 2014 Wednesday, July 2, 2014 Wednesday, July 16, 2014 Wednesday,August6, 2014 Wednesday, August20, 2014 Wednesday, September 3, 2014 Wednesday, September 17, 2014 Wednesday, October 1, 2014 Wednesday, October 15, 2014 Wednesday, November 5, 2014 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Wednesday, December 10, 2014 Greater Vernon Advisory Committee: Thursday, January 16, 2014 Thursday, February 6, 2014 Thursday, March 6, 2014 Thursday, April 3, 2014 Thursday, May 8, 2014 Thursday, June 5, 2014 Thursday, July 3, 2014 Thursday, August 7, 2014 Thursday, September 4, 2014 Thursday, October 2, 2014 Thursday, November..s ,_2014 Thursday, December 4, 2014 7-:f Electoral Area Advisbry Committee: Thursday, January 16, 2014 Thursday, February 6, 2014 Thursday, March 6, 2014 Thursday, April 3, 2014 Thursday, May 8, 2014 Thursday, June 5, 2014 Thursday, July 3, 2014 Thursday, August 7, 2014 Thursday, September 4, 2014 Thursday, October 2, 2014 Thursday, November 6, 2014 Thursday, December 4, 2014 200 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.9 2014 Meeting Schedule Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee: Wednesday, January 15, 2014 Wednesday, February 19, 2014 Wednesday, March 19, 2014 Wednesday, April16, 2014 Wednesday, May 21 , 2014 Wednesday, June 18, 2014 Wednesday, July 16, 2014 Wednesday, August20, 2014 Wednesday, September 17, 2014 Wednesday, October 15, 2014 Wednesday, November 19, 2014 Wednesday, December 17, 2014 Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee: Thursday, January 23, 2014 Thursday, February 20, 2014 Thursday, March 20, 2014 Thursday, April17, 2014 Thursday, May 15, 2014 Thursday, June 19, 2014 Thursday, July 17, 2014 Thursday, August 21 , 2014 Thursday, September 18, 2014 Thursday, October 16, 2014 Thursday, November 20, 2014 Thursday, December 18, 2014 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee: Monday, January 13, 2014 Tuesday, February 11 , 2014 Monday, March 10, 2014 Monday, April 14,2014 Monday, May 12, 2014 Monday, June 9, 2014 Monday, July 14, 2014 Monday, August 11 , 2014 Monday, September 8, 2014 Tuesday, October 14, 2014 Monday, November10, 2014 Monday, December 8, 2014 DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Section 794 of the Local Government Act and Section 94 of the Community Charter the Board of Directors is required to give notice of public meetings. The recommendation contained herein reflects the schedules followed in general in 2014. The meeting dates have been scheduled in conformance with the Regional District of North Okanagan Procedures Bylaw No. 2413, 2009. In accordance with Procedures Bylaw No. 2413 the Board of Directors may: • cancel a Board of Directors meeting provided that two consecutive meetings are not cancelled; • postpone a Board of Directors meeting to a different day, time and place; • convene a Special Meeting of the Board of Directors. Following approval by the Board of Directors, the schedule will be advertised in the newspaper and posted on the Regional District website. Approved for inclusion: 201 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11a SOUTH OKANAGAN – SIMILKAMEEN NATIONAL PARK NETWORK A broad based network of like-minded individuals and organizations of local and national scope, supporting a SOS National Park helping to conserve our national treasure of indigenous plants and animals while enriching people's lives sosnationalpark.wordpress.com S33A C2 RR1, Kaleden, BC, V0H 1K0 (250) 497-6869 October 16, 2013 Patrick Nicol, Chair Regional District of the North Okanagan 9848 Aberdeen Road Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9 by email: [email protected] Dear Chair Nicol and Board Members of the Regional District of the North Okanagan, At the request of Stu Wells, Chair of the Okanagan Basin Water Board and Mayor of Osoyoos, and on behalf of the South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Network, I am sending you a draft resolution re the proposed national park reserve for your consideration. In 2003, the Province of BC and Government of Canada agreed to undertake a study to see if a national park in the South Okanagan-Similkameen is feasible and to identify issues that need to be addressed. In 2010, the study was completed and showed that a national park is feasible. Unfortunately, the Province withdrew from the federal-provincial discussions stating they felt that there was ‘not enough support for the park at this time.’ Since that time and as a result of the Province’s position, many municipalities, Chambers of Commerce, winery and tourism associations are making their support known through formal resolutions. The RDOS and CORD have passed formal resolutions and Stu Wells asked me to encourage RDNO to do the same. I have enclosed a draft resolution that identifies the reasons that the national park will benefit the North Okanagan and the work of RDNO and requests that the Province re-engage in the federal-provincial national park establishment process. A new national park in the region will enhance tourism, business, and wineries; develop new jobs, encourage investment, and improve the economic well-being of the communities in the North Okanagan. It is a central part of TOTA’s 10-year Regional Plan to help build recognition for the Thompson Okanagan as a distinctive region and is an important component of the plan to develop the Thompson- Okanagan tourism corridor with the national park in the south and the Wells Gray International Geo Park in the north. The RDOS, TOTA, the South Okanagan Chamber of Commerce, and the Okanagan Nation Alliance have passed resolutions asking the Province to re-engage and are asking for your assistance in encouraging the Province to re-engage in discussions with the federal government to establish the national park. The federal-provincial and ONA feasibility studies are available on line at sosnationalpark.wordpress.com should you wish to review them. 202 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11a I would be happy to answer any questions. I can be reached at 1-250-497-6869. Or, my colleague, Chloe O’Loughlin, would be pleased to help or answer any questions, you can reach her at [email protected], 604-874-5323. Yours truly, Doreen Olson, Coordinator SOS National Park Network 203 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11b Regional District of the North Okanagan DRAFT resolution on the proposed South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park – October 10, 2013 Background: WHEREAS: the Government of Canada and Province of BC have been working together since 2003 to see if a national park in the South Okanagan-Similkameen is feasible; and WHEREAS: the 2010 national park feasibility study report showed that a national park is feasible and that the Province of BC and Government of Canada should work together, and with the Okanagan Nation Alliance and all related bands, to establish a national park; and WHEREAS: The Okanagan Nation Alliance undertook a national park study and concluded with a unanimous resolution, approved by all ONA communities and leadership, requesting that national park negotiations begin immediately; and WHEREAS: Three independent public opinion polls found at least 2:1 support for a park: McAllister Public Opinion Research (2010), Similkameen Valley Planning Committee (2009), SOS Conservation Program (2008); Conservation: AND WHEREAS Parks Canada is committed to protecting 39 natural regions of Canada in a national park, and this region is one of the few who does not have one; and WHEREAS the South Okanagan-Similkameen provides connectivity from the grasslands in Okanogan County in Washington State to our grasslands in Vernon, and without protection our grasslands will be put at risk; and WHEREAS the South Okanagan-Similkameen is one of the most critically endangered ecosystems in Canada; WHEREAS a national park will protect and restore endangered species, such as the Burrowing Owl, badgers, song birds, and amphibians that are iconic to the region, critical to keeping this ecosystem intact, and integral for many business brands (such as the Burrowing Owl winery.) This is required on federal land by the federal Species at Risk Act; Tourism: AND WHEREAS the proposed national park is an important component of TOTA’s 10- year Regional Strategy that has been endorsed by 90 locally-based leading agencies involved in the advancement of tourism in the Thompson Okanagan Region and supports the vision and approach of TOTA’s Regional Strategy. The national park will: • help build recognition for the Thompson Okanagan as a distinctive region and is an important component of the plan to develop the Thompson-Okanagan tourism corridor with the national park in the south and the Wells Gray International Geo Park in the north, • provide hundreds of new jobs within the region – in the park itself and in communities throughout the region, • increase the number of visitors, and build year round strength by lengthening their stay, increasing the shoulder season, and providing tourism opportunities in every season, • build our existing markets and develop emerging markets, 204 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11b • provide additional support to market the culture & essence of our region’s scenic landscape, weather, unique wineries, award winning wines, outstanding dairy farms and cheese makers, breweries & distilleries, organic farming & local produce & and chefs who are developing regional cuisine & ‘field to table’ to the world, and • bring more visitors to our attractions and events. Community Economic Development: AND WHEREAS the proposed national park will enhance community economic development by: • giving investors more confidence to invest in our communities and businesses; and • bringing significant numbers of visitors through Kelowna International Airport (54% of visitors to BC’s national parks are international); and • bringing more flights to our smaller airports thereby making them more secure; and • bringing young families into the region because of the amenities related to a national park thereby providing more security for our schools, medical services, and more young people to our high-tech industry, etc.; and Additional Regional Benefits: AND WHEREAS: The proposed park area's natural vegetation requires very little water and is naturally resilient to drought, and as the establishment of a national park would not further burden the region's water supply, which would happen if the land were to be sold and subdivided; and AND WHEREAS Parks Canada will bring world-class expertise, funds and staffing to enhance regional fire management and wild fire fighting, both inside and outside the national park; WHEREAS Parks Canada will provide additional, extensive marketing and advertising paid for by the federal government based on sound research and expertise1; WHEREAS: In January 2010, the Province withdrew from the process stating that they felt there was not enough public support for the national park; and AND WHEREAS the Regional District of the Okanagan Similkameen, Regional District of the Central Okanagan, and the Okanagan Basin Water Board have asked the Province to return to formal discussions re national park establishment with the Government of Canada; THEREFORE the Regional District of the North Okanagan formally requests that: 1. The Province of BC re-engage in the formal park establishment process with the Government of Canada and Okanagan Nation Alliance; and 2. That the RDNO be consulted during the national park establishment process. • 1 See: (http://www.pc.gc.ca/progs/np-pn/recherche-search_e.asp?p=1 205 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Proposed National Park Reserve for the South Okanagan-Lower SimilkameenLower Similkameen Feasibility Assessment Overview of Findings and Outcomes Submitted by: the Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee for Ministerial Approval, January, 2011 206 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c The Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee was established in 2003 as a result of the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate on assessing the feasibility of establishing a national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen, and other projects in British Columbia. The Steering Committee is pleased to inform the Honourable Murray Coell, Minister of the Environment for British Columbia and the Honourable Peter Kent, Minister of the Environment and Minister responsible for the Parks Canada Agency, that the feasibility assessment initiated in 2004 is complete. This assessment included a comprehensive process of First Nations engagement, stakeholder and community consultations, and design, evaluation and refinement of a park concept. The Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee recommends to Ministers that: 1. A national park reserve is feasible; 2. The proposed park reserve boundary contained herein be approved at a conceptual level; 3. The governments of Canada and British Columbia sign a Memorandum of Understanding respecting the establishment of a national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen; and 4. Parks Canada continue to work with the Okanagan Nation Alliance and affected bands to achieve shared understandings regarding the protection and future management of the park proposal area. Recommended by: Cairine MacDonald, Deputy Minister, Ministry of the Environment, Government of British Columbia Ron Hallman, Director General National Parks, Parks Canada Bill Fisher, Director General Western and Northern Canada, Parks Canada 207 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Executive Summary The South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen region is located at the southernmost extent of the Interior Dry Plateau and is characterized by a relatively dry climate. The area is one of Canada’s richest areas of natural biodiversity and has a large number of species and habitats at risk. The proposed national park reserve presents a unique opportunity to work with First Nations and local residents to achieve conservation objectives, to restore threatened habitats and species at risk including the burrowing owl, and to collaborate with the broader ranching community to achieve stewardship of this valued landscape. This report summarizes the results of a feasibility assessment undertaken between 2004 and 2010. In 2002, representatives of the Okanagan Nation Alliance and community members were the first proponents for protecting the area around the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area as a national park reserve. In 2003, the governments of Canada and British Columbia signed a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate on assessing the feasibility of establishing a national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen region. The Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee recommends that a national park reserve is feasible. The Steering Committee also recommends that the proposed boundary identified in this report be approved by ministers at a conceptual level, and that negotiations for a national park reserve establishment agreement proceed as outlined in section 4 of the 2003 Canada-British Columbia Memorandum of Understanding. Further, the Steering Committee recognizes the importance of a timely decision due to rapid land use change in this area, and growing requests for ‘certainty’ by key stakeholders, in particular the ranching community. The 2010 Park Concept is revised from an earlier 2006 proposal and includes two distinct areas, the Northern Component and the South Okanagan Grasslands Component. The proposed boundary of the park reserve now includes approximately 284 sq km of provincial parks and protected areas, multi-use Crown Lands and private lands. Private lands would be secured on a willing seller and willing buyer basis. The two components of the 2010 Park Concept make a significant contribution towards Parks Canada’s objectives to represent the Interior Dry Plateau in the national park system. The diverse landscapes provide unique educational and visitor opportunities. A national park reserve would complement and enhance the already well developed tourism economy in the South Okanagan and help local residents, and all Canadians experience this area’s natural beauty and retain it unimpaired for future generations. 208 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Executive Summary (cont’d) The bands of the Okanagan Nation Alliance implicated in this proposal have stated an interest in sharing their vision towards protecting the ecological and cultural integrity of this area for future generations, and designing a process of collaboration to achieve this vision as part of the national park reserve establishment process. This includes a commitment from Parks Canada that legislative measures will not compromise future settlements of Aboriginal Title and Rights, and that traditional activities and the use of traditional knowledge will be included in park planning and management. Collaborative work with the Lower Similkameen and Osoyoos Indian Bands, and the Okanagan Nation Alliance is in early stages; the goal is to develop a mutually agreeable approach to guide a park establishment process, as well as future planning and management of a national park reserve. Due to the cultural importance of ranching in this area, and community feedback about impacts to the ranching community, Parks Canada has committed to an adaptive management framework that supports continued livestock grazing in the park concept area in a manner consistent with ecological objectives and park values. Further development and refinement of the adaptive management framework will enable flexibility and innovation inproactively working with the ranching sector over the long term. Recent input from ranchers and the ranching community suggests increased support for this approach. A socio-economic assessment completed in 2008 concluded that there would be a significant positive economic impact associated with the establishment of a national park reserve, if Parks Canada staff and facilities were located in smaller communities. The assessment also predicted no significant negative socio-economic impact from changes to regional land use. This assessment assumed a multi-decade transition to a full national park reserve and assumed that recommended mitigation measures would be applied. A long term transition will be necessary and will require a strong commitment between Parks Canada, the Government of British Columbia and the Okanagan Nation Alliance. In summary, the proposed national park reserve presents an important provincial and federal opportunity to work together to protect one of Canada’s treasured places and leave a living legacy that connects people to nature, culture and history. In 2011, BC Parks will celebrate its 100th anniversary of the creation of the first provincial park in British Columbia. Also in 2011, Parks Canada will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of Canada’s national park service, the first in the world. This could be an opportunity for both governments to recognize this significant area of biodiversity, profile the rich history of the region and jointly share a commitment to protecting the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen for all Canadians. 209 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Why establish a national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen? • Enhance protection of British Columbia’s temperate grassland ecosystems – landscapes that are critically endangered globally. • Consolidate and connect the existing network of provincial and national protected areas – through the purchase of private lands and through partnerships with surrounding landowners and users. • Build strong and meaningful relationships with the Okanagan Nation. • Establish partnerships with the Okanagan Nation and local communities to collaborate on conservation, management and education – building upon traditional local ecological knowledge. • Facilitate collaboration between scientific researchers, ranchers, range professionals and the Okanagan Nation to achieve ecological management objectives and protect key “at risk” habitats within the national park reserve and to improve current range conditions in surrounding grasslands and to manage wildlands in rural-urban transition areas. • Make it easy for people from the Southern Interior and other Canadians to visit the park for an hour, a day or longer – by offering a wide range of first class opportunities to experience and connect with this nationally significant natural and cultural heritage area. • Raise the profile of the South Okanagan and Lower Similkameen as a tourism destination by adding new visitor experience opportunities to the existing marketing mix, encouraging investment in the local tourism infrastructure and creating strategic benefits for the tourism industry. 4 210 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Table of Contents Introduction….……….……………………………………… 6 Elements of Feasibility….…………………………………… 7 The Park Concept Overview….……………………………… 8 Relationship and Collaboration with First Nations….………… 12 Conservation Target Analysis.….….….….….….….…..….… 13 Communications with Local Government Officials….…….….. 14 Socio-Economic Assessment….……………………………. 15 Public Consultation and Outreach .….….….….….….….….. 19 Long Term Transition to a National Park Reserve….………………………………….. 21 Recommendations.….….….….….….….….….….….….… 22 Appendices.….….….….….….….….….….….….………… 23 211 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Introduction The South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen is part of the Interior Dry Plateau natural region of Canada, and one of 39 regions identified by Parks Canada as a distinctive component of the national landscape. This region is not yet represented in Canada’s system of national parks. Located in the extreme south of the Interior Dry Plateau where the northern edge of the Great Basin reaches into British Columbia, the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen is one of Canada’s richest areas of biodiversity. From both national and provincial perspectives, this is an area of high conservation value and an excellent candidate area for Parks Canada to represent the Interior Dry Plateau natural region. In 2002, representatives of the Okanagan Nation Alliance and community members were the first proponents for protecting the area around the South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area as a national park reserve. In 2003, Canada and British Columbia signed a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate on assessing the feasibility of establishing a national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen, together with other projects in British Columbia, under the guidance of the Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee. A local Working Group was established to build and assess the proposal. The feasibility assessment was initiated in 2004, incorporating an iterative process of consultations, design, evaluation, and refinement of a park concept. This report is a summary of the feasibility assessment results and concludes with key recommendations from the Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee that the assessment is complete and that a national park reserve is feasible. Work continues with the Okanagan Nation Alliance and affected bands to design and participate in a process of collaboration in the park establishment process. The Working Group was established by the Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee to facilitate implementation, coordination and communication of the feasibility assessment process. The group is comprised of representatives from the Government of British Columbia (Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Forests and Ministry of Agriculture and Lands) and Parks Canada. 6 212 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Elements of Feasibility Assessment As part of the Canada-British Columbia Memorandum of Understanding, several key elements were required in the feasibility assessment. The table below outlines the elements and how they were addressed. Memorandum of Understanding Item How Addressed • Trial Boundaries (Ecosystem Conservation Target Report) – Boundary Proposals • 2006 Draft Park Concept (650 sq km) • 2010 Revised Park Concept (284 sq km) • Achievement of conservation targets – Analysis of natural and cultural resources • Cultural history overview – Analysis of social and economic impacts • Social, Economic and Environmental Baseline Study, 2005 – Assessment of mineral and other • Social and Economic Assessment (based on 2006 proposal) natural resource potential • Extensive Consultations – Assessment of impact on access to land – Analysis of environmental impacts • Ecosystem Conservation Target Report – Mitigation for adverse economic impacts and • Recommended approach to transition described in management options to accommodate existing Social and Economic Assessment land uses • New approach to grazing (2010) – Identification of all land uses that must be discontinued – Report on consultations undertaken with federal • Phase I Report on Consultations (Draft) and provincial agencies, affected First Nations, • Phase II Report on Consultations (Draft) Local Governments and local communities • 2010 Consultation Overview The studies listed above, combined with consultations, assisted Parks Canada and the Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee with identifying opportunities, issues and concerns. They guided the development of the park concept during the assessment process. 7 213 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c The Park Concept Overview Throughout the feasibility assessment, Parks Canada has sought feedback from First Nations, local communities and stakeholders in order to develop a park concept which fits within the regional context. In 2006, a draft Park Concept was introduced to the community, and feedback was gathered from open houses, forums, workshops and meetings. Further discussions assisted Parks Canada and the Working Group in better understanding where common interests from First Nations, communities, the public, and stakeholders could be combined to build a common vision. The revised 2010 Park Concept presents a more collective vision and approach, including a smaller revised boundary and an adaptive manage- ment approach to grazing. Past discussions and renewed dialogue with local bands and the Okanagan Nation Alliance have been instrumental in revisions to the 2006 Park Concept (see Relationship and Collaboration with First Nations section). 8 214 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c The Proposed Park Reserve Boundary The map on the following page illustrates that the new 2010 Park Concept includes two distinct areas, the Northern Component and the South Okanagan Grasslands Component. The proposed boundary of the park reserve now includes approximately 284 sq km of provincial parks and protected areas, multi-use Crown Lands and private lands (private lands would be secured on a willing seller and willing buyer basis.) Derived from the 2006 draft Park Concept which was 650 sq km, changes to reduce the size of the park concept were made in response to First Nations, key stakeholders, and some members of the public who expressed concerns that the original plan was “too much, too fast.” See Appendix 1 for the 2006 draft Park Concept map. Northern Component highlights include: - 10 sq km of aquatic habitats, the rare ‘pocket desert’ habitat (antelope brush), species at risk, a concentration of cultural sites and a signature view - Cooperative management with the Canadian Wildlife Service at Vaseux Lake Migratory Bird Sanctuary and Bighorn National Wildlife Area - Partnerships in adjacent areas including White Lake and Vaseux protected areas, National Research Council lands, and other conservation lands - Accessible nature education and interpretation values with excellent day use opportunities - Potential interpretive theme: ‘Snakes and Lakes’ South Okanagan Grasslands Component highlights include: - Grasslands, ponderosa pine parklands, interior Douglas fir forests and a scenic upland joining the Similkameen and Okanagan valleys - Approximately 93 sq km of provincial protected area in 5 parcels; 83 sq km of multi-use Crown land; 98 sq km of private land - Consolidation of fragmented protected areas; provide opportunities for road-accessible day use, trails, viewpoints, star gazing, interpretation - Experience elevation gradient spanning five ecosystems - Receive and orient visitors, and interpret the region at existing or new visitor centres (outside the park reserve) - Integrate an extensive trail system within the proposed park with existing community roads and trails - Potential interpretive theme: ‘From the Desert to the Stars’ These two components make a significant contribution towards Parks Canada’s national goals in this natural region. The grasslands and other associated ecosystems are areas rich in biodiversity, and are home to many species. The diverse landscapes provide unique educational and visitor opportunities to experience one of the driest, hottest and most threatened ecosystems in Canada. 9 215 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen • 2010 Draft Park Concept 10 216 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Approach to Grazing Management Due to the cultural importance of ranching in this area, and community feedback about impacts to the ranching community, Parks Canada has committed to an adaptive manage- ment framework that supports continued livestock grazing in the park concept area in a manner consistent with ecological objectives and park values. Further development and refinement of the adaptive management framework will enable flexibility and innovation in proactively working with the ranching sector over the long term. Recent input from ranchers and the ranching community suggests increased support for this approach. (see Livestock Grazing in the Socio-Economic Assessment Section). 11 217 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Relationship and Collaboration with First Nations Representatives of the Okanagan Nation Alliance were among the first proponents for a national park reserve in the South Okanagan and Lower Similkameen. Following some challenges part way through the feasibility assessment process, and delays in substan- tive discussions, the affected bands of the Okanagan Nation stated an interest in sharing their vision towards protecting the ecological and cultural integrity of this area for future generations, and designing a process of collaboration to achieve this vision as part of the national park reserve establishment process. Foundational issues for the Okanagan Nation Alliance relate to protection of claims to title and rights. Key interests include protecting the land from further alienation; restoring healthy ecosystems; collaborative management; traditional and contemporary activities; training and employment; economic opportunities; assistance with Spotted Lake and on- reserve conservation lands; and community relationships. The Okanagan Nation Alliance requires that the park establishment process, and all that this process entails, does not erode their claims to title and rights. Parks Canada has consistently communicated that a park establishment process cannot resolve claims to title and rights. In a letter sent to the Chiefs of the Okanagan Nation Alliance on October 6, 2010, Parks Canada stated several commitments, including a commitment that legislative measures will not compromise future settlements of title and rights claims, that traditional activities will continue, and that traditional knowledge will be used in park planning and management. Collaborative work with local bands and the Okanagan Nation Alliance will further develop the relationship and a mutually agreeable approach that will guide the establishment, planning and management of the national park reserve. The Osoyoos Indian Band and Lower Similkameen Indian Bands have shared responsibilities regarding the current park proposal. The Okanagan Nation Alliance will provide support in specific areas. In December, 2010, the Chiefs agreed to engage in a long term work plan to gather information, address core issues, and to develop shared understandings and protocols for working together, and with Parks Canada towards establishment of a national park reserve. Of significance, the Lower Similkameen Indian Band has stated from the beginning that it cannot support having Snowy Protected Area included in the park proposal at this time. They have also recently expressed concern about how best to protect this and other areas in the future. “Skwrakan, St’tek, Sklkwelt, NpececK’ulawx, Tkrmius and Nasnulaxw are the area names that the Sylix use, to refer to the area, west of Similkameen River and south of Keremeos to the U.S. border. ….This area is viewed by the Lower Similkameen people as their backyard or n’tatixwmn, and all access to this area is through reserve lands. There is an extended history of use and occupancy, including hunting, gathering, cattle grazing, logging, wood cutting, spiritual, cultural, and sites referred to in stories and oral history.” 12 218 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Conservation Target Analysis The South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen is located at the southernmost extent of the Interior Dry Plateau and is characterized by a relatively dry, warm climate. The vegetation is predominantly grassland and shrub-steppe at lower elevations with coniferous park- land at higher elevations. This area is also recognized for its nationally significant wetlands and riparian areas that provide essential habitat to birds (Important Bird Areas), amphibians and reptiles. The South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen is one of Canada’s richest areas of natural biodiversity and has a large number of species and habitats at risk. The Dry Interior Plateau of British Columbia is one of Canada’s most diverse natural regions. Within its boundaries, and sometimes in a distance of only a few miles, one can travel from arid, sandy, cactus-covered bench lands up to treeless arctic-alpine mountaintops. – Richard Cannings In 2008, Parks Canada completed an Ecosystem Conservation Target Analysis. This tool was designed to assist planning, support decision-making, and build a framework to consider options for park boundary design. It addressed three planning objectives: • Representing the Interior Dry Plateau natural region, • Representing the special and unique features of the South Okanagan-Similkameen, and • Configuring a park reserve boundary to facilitate long term retention or restoration of ecological integrity, one of Parks Canada’s key guiding principles. Results from the conservation target analysis suggest that the 2010 Park Concept adequately represents key biogeoclimatic zones, as well as priority habitats and special features. It represents the unique elements of biodiversity found in this region and nowhere else in Canada. In addition, there are fifty-six federally-listed species at risk known to occur in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen and most are found within the Park Concept area. The 2010 Park Concept focuses on protection of the lower elevation grasslands where species diversity is highest and most at risk. Several existing provincial parks and protected areas, including the White Lake Grasslands Protected Area and Snowy Protected Area, capture larger landscapes that help represent a broader diversity of ecosystems in the region. While the park concept area is smaller, it is still larger than 13 of Parks Canada’s existing 42 parks, including the recently established Gulf Islands National Park Reserve. The 2010 Park Concept presents a unique opportunity to work with First Nations to achieve conservation objectives, to restore threatened habitats and species at risk including the burrowing owl, and to collaborate with the broader ranching community to achieve stewardship of a valued landscape. 13 219 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Communications with Local Government Officials Early in the feasibility assessment process, an eight member Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Committee was formed to provide input to the assessment process. The committee is comprised of local elected officials from communities and rural areas adjoining the park proposal, including the Mayors of Penticton, Osoyoos, Keremeos, Oliver, and Regional Directors from rural Cawston, Oliver, Osoyoos and Okanagan Falls. Formal and informal briefings with the committee and individual members occurred throughout the feasibility assessment. In November 2010, the committee was provided with a written update regarding the 2010 Park Concept. Due to upcoming municipal elections, the committee members were unable to state a public opinion regarding their support of a national park reserve proposal at this time. They also stated that further community engagement is important. 14 220 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Socio-Economic Assessment The Socio-Economic Assessment was an independent study by resource economists to assess social and economic implications of park establishment to economy and land use, communities and lifestyle. This 2008 study identified impacts that would remain if the 2006 Park Concept was implemented and mitigation strategies were applied. Impacts were categorized as significant or not significant, evaluating the extent of the residual economic effect after miti- gation. Note that the Assessment did not evaluate implications for First Nations. The Socio-Economic Assessment determined that overall there would be a significant positive economic effect associated with the establishment of a national park reserve, if Parks Canada staff and facilities were located in smaller communities. It also predicted no significant negative socio-economic impacts from changes to regional land-use. While the Socio-Economic Assess- ment was based on the larger 2006 Park Concept area, the changes to the concept area appear to have reduced the number of affected tenures and the likelihood of negative residual impacts. Land Use Implications The degree of impact was estimated by person-years of employment and income. In general terms, the Socio-Economic Assessment found that the magnitude of the loss is not expected to be large (referring to permanent loss) relative to the local industry, local economy, and local labour markets. Furthermore, the residual long-term impacts were determined to be “not significant” for all economy and land use values and activities. “Not significant” does not mean “insignificant”. None of the values discussed and examined in the Socio-Economic Assessment are considered insignificant; their importance is highlighted by inclusion in the analysis. In the Socio-Economic Assessment, “not significant” refers only to the residual effect (after mitigation) of the project. Summary Table of Land Use and Implications After seven years of study, Parks Canada has a detailed understanding of the history and commitments associated with existing land use. Parks Canada, working with the Government of British Columbia, local communities, stakeholders and other partners has identified options for mitigating changes to land use and has developed approaches to accommodated, modified or terminated existing land uses. Table 1 summarizes the land use impacts, issues, stakeholder feedback, proposed mitigation and outstanding considerations. 15 221 of 245 Table 1: Summary of Land Uses and Implications for National Park Reserve Establishment (note: this does not include input from the Okanagan Nation Alliance) Land Use Issue Scope and stakeholder feedback Proposed Mitigation/SEA impacts Outstanding Considerations Ranching/ Livestock grazing not normally South Okanagan Grasslands component only: Purchase one or more large ranches and retire Develop details on approach to vegetation mgmt; Grazing permitted in national parks; existing 5 grazing leases & 11 licenses; 12 tenure holders associated crown range tenures; reconfigure collaborate with stake-holders on approach to address crown range tenures are required to (2 First Nations; ranchlands on reserve); 5/12 are more grazing use on remaining area and develop their interests; work with Agriculture Land Commission sustain existing ranches. likely to experience adverse impact; initial loss of exist- adaptive management strategy to retain livestock to determine strategy. ing use estimated at 25-50% (i.e. 2500-5000 animal grazing over the long term consistent with man- unit months); Agricultural Land Reserve concentrated in agement for ecological values; provide long time south 1/3 of area; Impacts to grazing/agriculture of great frames for stakeholders to adjust; Socio-Economic concern to locals/ stakeholders who prefer new grazing Assessment (SEA) found the residual effect was approach to 2006 phase-out. negative but not significant. Mining Mining is not permitted in South Okanagan Grasslands component only: Mining Boundary modification/phased approach to park Confirm approach to 33 claims established since national parks. reserve 1002003 over component; 10 tenure holders, 22 establishment reduces area of claims affected mining reserve was enacted; renew detailed discus- mineral claims (2 in provincial protected area), approx. and # of tenures; acquire crown grants through sions with the Province of BC about mineral potential in 1020 ha affected by pre-reserve tenures; 14 tenure hold- willing-seller willing buyer; work with the Province South Okanagan Grasslands Component. ers, 33 mineral claims, approx. 2850 ha have post-reserve of BC to develop approach to terminating other status; 1 known gravel pit (land act tenure); unknown tenures. SEA found the residual effect was November November E.11c - Item 6, 2013 number of crown grants with subsurface rights; Moderate- negative but not significant. high mineral capability; concerns about lost access to min- eral deposits & approach to compensation; some desire for boundary modification to exclude certain claims. Helicopters Helicopter training is a novel use; no South Okanagan Grasslands component only: 2 local Permit continued use by both companies, subject established tenures and history in operators; at least 15 landing sites; 2 park use permits; to environmental assessment. BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA AGENDA - REGULAR DIRECTORS of BOARD national parks so business owners operators are concerned about park visitor opposition and The 2008 SEA predicted residual negative effect are uncertain of treatment they could added restrictions/costs; Local politicians and residents although not significant; residual effect may be expect; Parks Canada has agreed to concerned about loss of Penticton airport services. There reduced based on new mitigation strategy; 2008 245 permit use, subject to environmental were approximately 200 landing sites found in the 2006 mitigation recommended continued use for of impact assessment. park concept area and more information is needed to Canadian Helicopters only. refine what is in the 2010 park concept. 222 Forestry/ Forest harvesting is not permitted South Okanagan Grasslands component: Phase out forest harvest tenures with compensa- Work with the Province of BC to update water license Water in national parks; water tenures are per- 252 ha affected in Osoyoos Indian Band Woodlot 1500; tion where applicable; continue with fire & forest info including wells & select approach to water licenses mitted but licenses have 5 year terms 3902 ha THLB; 5525 m3/yr Annual Allowable Cut; 0.2% health management; Phase out water licenses not transfer: e.g. Parks Canada tenure or province retain and lack provisions for priority of use. of annual timber supply; 68 water licences; some required; retain remaining water license responsibility for water licensing as in Grasslands untenured water wells. tenures and wells required. Predicted SEA Impact National Park. Northern component: 23 water licenses; no forestry; also to forestry was negative but not significant; impact some untenured water wells. to water was indeterminate and not significant. Hunting/ Recreational hunting and guided South Okanagan Grasslands Component: 1 guide Phase out hunting over a time period to be Need to understand scope/issues for First Nations Fishing/ hunting are not allowed in national territory and yearly permit; 34% overlap (27,600 ha); defined in discussions with the Province of BC re: hunting and management of problem Guide parks; traditional hunting by First Approx yearly average use by sport hunters: 350 licenses; and local First Nations. Determine strategy for wildlife;participation in management of problem Outfitting Nations is permitted; Recreational 2000 hunter days; 90 animals mainly deer (mule, white- retirement and/or negotiate compensation for wildlife, if issues develop. BC Wildlife Federation fishing is permitted, but normally tailed deer), but also black bear & cougar; small game guide territory/ permit. Retain recreational fishing remains opposed. stocking lakes only occurs where harvest valued but magnitude unknown; 4 fishing lakes. where consistent with management for ecological required to restore indigenous fish Northern Component: sport hunting limited to one lot, integrity; seek opportunities for augmenting fish/ populations. mainly ducks; 1 fishing lake (Vaseux). wildlife population & fishing/hunting opportunities outside. Residual effect was negative or indetermi- nate but not significant. Other There are a variety of established recre- Multiple tourism and rec opportunities; locals and tourists Parks Canada wishes to develop opportunities for Need for enhanced understanding of recreation use Recreation/ ation uses / tourism activities that occur are concerned about user fees, new limits to use and visitor experience, recreation, learning and enjoy- to be permitted; this will occur as part of future park Tourism within or are affected by the proposed termination of existing uses; tourism operators interested ment, where consistent with protecting ecological management planning and through negotiations with park concept; some are permitted in in enhancing visitor numbers, opportunities for tenures integrity; The residual effect on tourism was found the Province of BC related to park establishment. a national park (many non-motorized and shared marketing; recognition that land uses shift to be positive but not significant; negative but not activities); others are not (e.g. motorized with some gaining and others losing opportunities. significant impacts were noted for some recreation off-road uses like ATV/motorcycle). uses such as motorized recreation. BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Livestock Grazing Twelve ranchers hold grazing tenures in the park concept area. Of these, five are most impacted by the proposal. Livestock grazing is not normally permitted in national parks, but will be permitted in the park concept area, under an adaptive management framework. To achieve reductions in intensity of grazing use, Parks Canada would purchase one or more large ranches on a willing seller willing buyer basis, and work with the Government of British Columbia to reconfigure grazing use over the park concept area. This would include retiring some Crown range tenures associated with the private land acquisitions. Grazing would be excluded from some areas, where necessary to achieve park ecological and other objectives, and to provide benchmarks for scientific comparison. In other areas where graz- ing would continue, it would be managed in a manner consistent with ecological objectives and values. Partnerships and stewardship activities on lands outside the park concept area will contribute significantly to the park objectives and should therefore be an important component to park development and man- agement over the longer term. Feedback from several affected ranching families suggests an increased level of comfort with the park concept based on boundary changes (smaller area), and the new adaptive management approach, which includes grazing, and proposed mitigation. Parks Canada recognizes that further work is required to refine the adaptive management framework in collaboration with ranchers, First Nations, range professionals and scientists. Parks Canada will work towards a park management model that addresses ecological integrity, sustainable grazing, and is guided by science, active monitoring and partnerships. COMMERCIAL Helicopter Use Commercial helicopter training activities in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen are currently permitted under provincial jurisdiction for two companies (Canadian Helicopters and Eclipse Helicopters). They use multi-use crown land, protected areas and private lands, with permission from the land owner. Although helicopter use occurs for operational purposes in some national parks across Canada, commercial helicopter training would be a new use. Local citizens and community representatives have expressed concerns that restricted use within a national park reserve could cause adverse impacts to existing helicopter business and negatively impact revenue to the Penticton Airport Authority. The 2010 Park Concept has reduced the impact to helicopter landing sites by reducing the size of the park and the number of sites included within it. Therefore, the potential impact to helicopter training is significantly reduced. Discussions will continue with the affected companies, and operational changes to helicopter use in the park concept area are not anticipated. Trapping, Recreational Hunting & Guide Outfitting Activities such as trapping, recreational hunting and guide-outfitting are currently allowed in both protected areas and on multi-use crown land. These activities are not allowed within a national park reserve. Hunting use in particular, has strong support by local advocates who form the core of those that oppose establishment of a national park reserve in the region. The reduction in the size of the park has served to minimize adverse impacts on these activities as fewer guide outfitters and trappers are affected by the park proposal. In particular, the highly valued local sheep hunting and wilderness hunting opportunities in Snowy Protected Area are no longer part of the park proposal. Within the 2010 Park Concept, mitigation strategies will focus on long transition times for phasing out hunting; however, some stakeholders do not support any reductions in available opportunities. With the confirmation of the feasibility of this park reserve, Parks Canada will continue to dialogue with all interested parties regarding these matters as the establishment process proceeds. 17 223 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Economy and Land Use: The Socio-Economic Assessment determined that residual impacts (after mitigation) are “not significant” for all values - forestry, minerals and mining, helicopter training, trapping, agriculture, ranching, tourism, and guide outfitting. Community The potential socio-economic effects of a national park reserve on communities (namely Oliver, Osoyoos, Keremeos and the surrounding rural areas) include the economic impacts directly associated with park operation jobs, and related broader economic development impacts, primarily in the tourism sector. Community: Significant positive economic impact of establishing a national park reserve (jobs/dollars spent), if Parks Canada concentrates its facilities in small communities. Income and employment effects are not large but they are long term and continuous. While the income and employment effects are not large, they are long term and con- tinuous. If Parks Canada concentrates its facilities in small local communities, they are more likely to have a significant positive impact on the economy. While the national park reserve impacts are expected to be positive for communities, the long term residual impacts are expected to be low for community growth and development combined with impacts on private land and other tenures. They are deemed by the assessment as “not significant” over the long term. Lifestyle Lifestyle was measured by four values: community well-being; rural lifestyle; park-related lifestyle and recreation. The long term residual impacts on community well-being were considered indeterminate (or neutral) and not significant. The impacts on rural lifestyle, most notably ranching, were considered negative; those for park-related lifestyle were predicted to be positive. Neither impact was considered significant. Lifestyle: The Socio-Economic Assessment said that although both positive and negative residual impacts were noted for lifestyle, the long term residual impacts were rated not significant. For example, the assessment identified some negative effects for rural lifestyle and motorized recreation while positive effects were identified for park-related lifestyle (e.g. education, learning, environmental/aesthetic values) and non-motorized recreation.) The impacts on public recreation are clearer. Most non-motorized user groups will gain opportunities and better recreation experiences, while Off Road Vehicle recreation users will lose opportunities due to the long term effects that these activities can have on wildlife, species at risk and sensitive habitats. Overall the net effect on public recreation is predicted to be neutral and not significant over the long term. Mitigation steps will be important to ensure all user groups are aware of allowed uses, park policies, management guidelines and transition strategies. 18 224 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Public Consultation and Outreach This section of the report reviews communication and consultation over a seven year period. Conducting consultations with communities and key stakeholders was instrumental in providing advice and local knowledge to the feasibility assessment and planning process. Although much of the detailed outreach, public meetings, and stakeholder meetings occurred between 2004-2008, targeted consultation has occurred since April 2010 to gather feedback from key stakeholder groups on the revised park concept (see Appendix 2 for list of groups/stakeholders consulted). Feedback has generally been positive, however, there continues to be some local opposition, primarily from sportsman groups, and motorized recreation users. As the feasibility assessment concludes, there is a growing need to reconnect formally with the public and stakeholders, report on the findings of the feasibility assessment, indicate where changes and modifications have been made to the park concept, and respond to concerns and opportunities identified. Consultation and Outreach – 2003-2008 There have been two phases of broad public consultation, both involving open houses. The first phase defined the scope of issues and opportunities (2004), and the second examined a park concept including mapped boundaries (2006). Over 1800 people attended the open houses, and hundreds more filled in comment forms and/or emailed the project manager. The following is a summary of concerns and opportunities, which were incorporated into the shaping of the first draft park concept, and later, the modified 2010 Park Concept. In 2007, Parks Canada commissioned a survey of local residents in order to better understand how residents would use a national park reserve, how a national park reserve might affect desire to live in the area, and to obtain an indication of public support for national park reserve establishment. Results of this survey indicated that overall, supporters outnumber opposition by approximately 2:1. 100% Need more info 80% 30.6 25.6 27.1 “Do you support or oppose establishment of Don’t know 5.6 (the proposed) national park?” 2.2 4.7 60% 8.7 Neither support or oppose 12.7 9.9 2.6 3.8 • Based on 777 responses to a random mail survey, 6.6 Slighlty oppose 14.7 15.6 40% chart shows results of answers to questions 17.9 10.2 Strongly oppose 9.1 6.6 Slightly support Overall support outnumbers opposition 2:1. Many 20% 23.6 32.5 29.6 Strongly support residents are undecided or need more information. 0% Similkameen South Okanagan Similkameen and Valley Valley Okanagan Valleys Indication of Support from Similkameen Valley Planning Society Amenity Migration Survey, 2007 19 225 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Consultation and Outreach – 2008-2010 Two other local surveys were completed by non government organizations in 2008 and 2010. Key results for the surveys found that: a) There was ‘continuing support for additional conservation efforts’, and b) ‘63% of respondents favoured protecting a portion of the South Okanagan Similkameen in a national park, and 26% opposed protection in a national park’. Details from these surveys are found in Appendix 3. Priority discussions have included First Nations as well as specific individuals, groups, organizations, community leaders and business interests. Parks Canada has renewed relationships with as many of the key stakeholders as possible. Recent stakeholder meetings have focused on listening to concerns and providing updates about recent changes to the proposed park concept, the new approach to grazing and the desire for renewed discussions with First Nations. Targeted consultations included: ranching stakeholders (10/12 affected tenure holders; all except First Nations tenure holders); local and regional government representatives, members of the Ad Hoc Science team; Canadian Helicopters; non-government organizations (Nature Conservancy Canada, Grasslands Conservation Council of BC, Desert Centre Society), and representatives of key provincial government agencies (Ministry of Forest and Range; Agriculture Land Commission, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands). Anecdotally, revisions to the park concept have been well received and those involved in consultation generally express improved comfort with revised mitigation strategies and the reduced scope of impacts. CONCERNS OPPORTUNITIES Loss of recreation use opportunities Ecosystem conservation and protection of (e.g. hunting, fishing, motorized recreation, unique flora and fauna horseback riding, hang gliding etc.) Sustainable tourism and recreation Loss of a rural lifestyle Natural history and cultural interpretation, Loss of commercial land use opportunities, education, visitor centres economic opportunities (grazing and agriculture), and forestry (opportunities and fire wood cutting) Enhanced conservation in surrounding areas Increased government involvement Enhanced enforcement, infrastructure and services Costs to local residents (fees) Economic benefits and job opportunities Holistic natural resource management (fire, wildlife) Recreation and visitor opportunities Desire to maintain current approach to land Research opportunities ownership, management, stewardship and use Need to mitigate impacts, adequate transition Protection from development period, fair compensation Partnerships for local participation in Suggestions to reduce the draft Park Concept planning and management area (remove South Okanagan Grasslands Protected Area, or Snowy Protected Area) Suggestions to expand the Park Concept area (add White Lake-Vaseux, Cathedral Provincial Park, Okanagan Mountain Park) 20 226 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Long Term Transition to a National Park Reserve A long term transition program, likely over several decades, will be necessary to achieve desired land assembly and full protection under the Canada National Parks Act. This approach would likely include a combination of federal and provincial legislation and policies. It will also require a strong commitment between Parks Canada, the Government of British Columbia, and the Okanagan Nation Alliance to ensure success over the longer term. The benefit of this approach is that it will allow for respectful adjustments to hunting, grazing and other activities in the region, over the longterm, as the establishment of a national park reserve is implemented. The components of transition include: First Nations Relationship • Develop a collaborative working relationship with the Okanagan Nation Alliance in establishment, planning and management of the future protected area. Agreements • Develop an agreement between the governments of Canada and British Columbia to confirm completion of the feasibility assessment, and subsequently, a federal-provincial land transfer agreement. This agreement outlines the terms and conditions agreed to by the federal and provincial governments under which the national park reserve will be assembled and established, as well as outlining the process of land transfer. • Craft and implement a legislative framework for interim management of lands within the park boundary; this framework would likely include a combination of federal and provincial legislation and policies. Planning/Implementation • Develop and implement a land assembly strategy that includes strategic acquisition of private lands within the boundary (willing seller, willing buyer). At least some acquisitions will need to occur early in the transition process before opportunities are lost and to facilitate changes to grazing management. • Establish an interim local advisory committee to support park management, planning and implementation. • Develop and implement interim park management guidelines with the participation of affected stakeholders, governments, land management experts and staff that takes the park through the land assembly process and toward achievement of long term objectives. • Collaborate with ranchers, range professionals, and scientists to develop an adaptive management framework and a vegetation management plan that includes a combination of ungrazed benchmarks and areas with continued livestock grazing. • Build a team of provincial, federal and First Nations staff to implement an effective national park reserve establishment process in collaboration with stakeholders and local communities. Engaging the public • Inform and engage the general public about the revised 2010 Park Concept. • Demonstrate a commitment to communities to address issues and concerns. • Engage communities to jointly celebrate Parks Canada’s 100th anniversary and British Columbia’s 100th anniversary for the provincial park system, while celebrating the shared commitment to a new 21 national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen. 227 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Recommendations The 2010 Park Concept represents a significant departure from the earlier, larger draft concept. The changes to the size of the area, the adoption of an adaptive management framework, and positive steps towards re-engagement with the Okanagan Nation Alliance and local bands are an outcome of dialogue, consultation, and implementation of the feasibility assessment. The Canada-British Columbia Steering Committee recommends that a national park reserve is feasible. The Steering Committee also recommends that the proposed park reserve boundary identified in this report be approved by ministers at a conceptual level, and that negotiations for a national park reserve establishment agreement proceed as outlined in section 4 of the 2003 Canada-British Columbia Memorandum of Understanding. Further, the Steering Committee recognizes the importance of a timely decision due to rapid land use change in this area, and growing impatience for ‘certainty’ by key stakeholders, in particular the ranching community. In 2011, BC Parks will celebrate its 100th anniversary of the creation of the first provincial park in British Columbia. Also in 2011, Parks Canada will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of Canada’s national park service, the first in the world. This could be an opportunity for both governments to recognize this significant area of biodiversity, profile the rich history of the area, and jointly share a commitment to protecting the South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen for all Canadians. The South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen… Working together to protect one of Canada’s treasured places – a living legacy connecting people to nature, culture and history. 22 228 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Appendix 1: 2006 Draft Park Concept The 2006 draft Park Concept was 650 square kilometres and was comprised of three components (North, West, and East). The 2006 Park Concept was reduced in size to create what is now the 2010 Park Concept in response to First Nations, key stakeholders, and some members of the public who expressed concerns that the concept was ”too much, too fast.” 23 229 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Appendix 2: Groups/Stakeholders Consulted in Feasibility Assessment Advisory Committees: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Agriculture: Regional District Okanagan-Similkameen (RDOS) SOS Stewardship BC Grapegrower’s Association Land and Resource Management Plan Nature Conservancy of Canada Desert Centre Ranching: Provincial Ministries: Earthcare Most ranchers within Park Concept area Environment EMAN National Science Organization Southern Interior Cattlemen’s Association Agriculture and Lands Nature Canada BC Cattleman’s Association Forests Okanagan Similkameen Park Society White Lake Stock Association Tourism, Culture and Arts Federation of BC Naturalists Southern Plus Feedlot Energy, Mines, Petroleum Resources Naturalists Clubs: North Okanagan, Transportation & Highways Oliver/Osoyoos, South Okanagan, Aviation: Central Okanagan Thompson Okanagan Management Committee Canadian Helicopters Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Alliance Agricultural Land Commission Eclipse Helicopters Osoyoos Lake Water Quality Society Penticton Airport (Manager) Federal Agencies: The Land Conservancy Save our Parkland Association Canadian Wildlife Service Allan Brooks Nature Centre Society Forestry: National Research Council/Dominion Radio Northwest Conservation Alliance (US) Lower Similkameen Community Astrophysical Observatory Western Canada Wilderness Committee Forest Association US Dept of Fish & Wildlife BC Conservation Corps Weyerhauser Naramata Conservation Initiative Gorman Bros. Lumber Regional/Local Government: RDOS board Education Institutions: Mineral Exploration/ RDOS staff (planners, GIS) University of BC-Okanagan Development: IAC Regional Growth Strategy University of BC Association for Social, Economic, Environmental Thompson River University Mineral Exploration of BC Advisory Committees for Regional Growth Strategy Okanagan University-Salmon Arm Okanagan Shuswap Central Okanagan Regional District Mineral Exploration Group City of Penticton Mineral Tenure Holders Town of Princeton Tourism Organizations: Town of Osyoos Similkameen Country Town of Oliver Destination Osoyoos Recreation Users: UBCM display Osoyoos Hotel/Motel Association South Okanagan Soaring Club Interior Health Okanagan Partnership South Okanagan Horsewoman’s South Okanagan-Lower Similkameen Association tourism representatives (21) Mt. Kobau Astronomical Society Park Interest Groups: Okanagan Astronomical Society Grassland Park Review Coalition Back Country Horseman’s Association South Okanagan National Park Network Wildlife Organizations: South Okanagan Sportsmans Association Oliver District Riding Club Southern Pines Riding Stable Community Economic Development: Guideoutfitters Guideoutfitters Association of BC South Okanagan Snowmobile Club EDO’s (Oliver, Osoyoos, Penticton, Trappers Similkameen Snowmobile Club Keremeos, Princeton) BC Wildlife Federation BC Snowmobile Federation Community Futures Penticton Fly Fishers South Okanagan ATV Club Similkameen Valley Planning Society Okanagan Outfitters ATV/BC Quad Riders Association of BC Penticton, Oliver Chamber of Commerce Keremeos-Cawston Sportsman Association BC Off-road Motorcycle Association Destination Osoyoos South Okanagan Dirt Bike Club Oliver Economic Development Society Heritage Societies: Okanagan Partnership Utility: Fairview Townsite Society Terasen Gas Osoyoos Museum Conservation Organizations: Fortis BC Oliver & District Heritage Society Ad Hoc Science Group TV Society (CGIV/CHBC) Oliver Museum South Okanagan Similkameen Nk’Mip Desert Cultural Centre Conservation Program Nature Trust of BC 24 White Lake Ecosystem Group Grasslands Conservation Council of BC 230 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11c Appendix 3: Petitions and Surveys Petitions In early 2005, prior to development of the draft Park Concept, a petition organized by the Grassland Park Review Coalition gathered about 6000 signatures and was presented to MLA Barisoff. This petition opposed the formation of a national park reserve, but favoured implementation and support of the Okanagan Shuswap Land and Resource Management Plan and other ongoing management initiatives. Later the same group organized a “no national park” sign campaign encouraging local landowners and residents opposed to the park to erect signs stating their opposition. Park Supporters (Canada Wilderness Committee, local naturalist clubs, and the South Okanagan-Similkameen National Park Network) formed a group to support a local national park reserve. The group responded with their own petition seeking signatures from those supporting a national park reserve. Sponsored by the South Okanagan Similkameen National Park Network, the Burrowing Owl Conservation Society of BC and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, a petition with over 19,000 signatures was submitted to the federal government in 2008. Surveys A 2008 public opinion survey (Species at Risk Public Opinion Survey) sponsored by the South Okanagan-Similkameen Conservation Program addressed conservation attitudes more generally and found continuing support for additional conservation efforts. The survey was based on a random telephone survey of 300 Okanagan-Similkameen residents. Most recently, a random telephone survey was funded by the Western Canada Wilderness Committee (Local support for a national park in the Southern Okanagan-Similkameen, McAllister Opinion Research, 2010). 405 respondents in the Southern Okanagan- Similkameen region were asked, “Would you favour or oppose protecting a portion of the South Okanagan-Similkameen in a national park?” The study found that 63% of respondents favoured protecting a portion the South Okanagan-Similkameen in a national park, and 26% opposed protection in a national park. Would you favour or oppose protecting a In the last year, key discussions with the ranching community, the science community, portion of the South Okanagan-Similkameen? park supporters, local/regional government and provincial government agency staff regarding the new, 2010 Park Concept have suggested that perceptions may be Strongly Favour 43 shifting with support increasing for development of a national park reserve in the region, Somewhat Favour 20 based on the new 2010 Park Concept including a smaller footprint and a new approach Total Favour 63 Depends/Neutral 4 to livestock grazing. Somewhat Oppose 8 Strongly Oppose 18 Total Oppose 26 Don’t Care/ 7 Not Applicable 25 231 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11d SOS National Park Reserve – the Business Case A national park will diversify & strengthen the local economy, enhance tourism/ business development, provide significant numbers of new, long-term jobs within the park and in local communities, and increase flights into local airports. It will help gain international recognition, grow emerging markets & increase competitive advantage. No cost to the Province: All costs for national park establishment & management are borne by the federal govt. Financial benefits: In a 2003 Canada-BC Memorandum of Understanding, Canada agreed to: • provide new opportunities for tourism, resort development and recreation associated with the park • develop new economic initiatives that will benefit the local communities • develop employment & procurement practices that will provide opportunities for local persons & communities • provide $ for capital expenditures & $ for operating expenditures over the park development period • additional monies for land purchase • after ten years, $5 million annually for on-going operating costs of the national park While the Province is saying ‘no park at this time’ these benefits cannot be accessed. Provincial revenues: According to The Economic Value of Parks Canada each national park in BC provides the following annual revenue on average (Note: revenues will start small & grow over time as the park is developed): 1 • $37.1 million in provincial GDP per year per national park, • $25 million in labour revenue & $3.5 million in tax revenue per year per national park, • $49 million in visitor spending per year per national park, Job Development: A BC-based national park develops on average 570 full-time jobs & 20-25 permanent park- related jobs. The 2003 MOU stipulates that Canada will fund employment related benefits to local communities. Regional economic & job development benefits: • Tourism benefits: The park is in TOTA’s 10-yr Regional Plan to develop the tourism corridor from Wells Gray to the nat’l park in the south. It will increase numbers of visitors & visitor spending, extend shoulder seasons, increase agri-tourism & aboriginal tourism. It will support local festivals, museums & attractions. • Business benefits: Businesses such as wineries, organic farmers, fruit stands, farmer’s markets, etc. all will benefit from increased visitation and visitor spending, and exposure to world-wide markets. Increased community wealth will increase economic benefits and job development for all businesses in region. • Transportation benefits: Airports will get more daily flights, recruit more airlines, & become more secure. The South Okanagan Similkameen lost business due to the Coquihalla, the park will help regain what was lost. • Investment opportunities increase: A national park is an incentive for investors to fund needed and new services, e.g. a hotel in Oliver, upgrading of Osoyoos airstrip, new storefronts in Keremeos, etc. • Conservation and Land Protection: The area includes provincial Protected Areas, private & crown land – a national park will keep this landscape intact & protect this critically endangered area. The Govt of Canada is legally required to protect & restore endangered species in a national park – a savings to the Province. • Wildfires, water/drought, wildlife: Parks Canada brings funds, staff & expertise to collaborate with govts to enhance wildfire prevention/management, drought/water management, & problem wildlife inside & outside the park. An intact landscape managed by Parks Canada will prevent further drain on the water table and wildfires. The existing businesses in the park area: In the 2003 MOU between the Province & Canada, Canada agreed to accommodate existing users of the land (helicopter training, ranching, and mining). The region and its citizens want these businesses to continue their operations AND to have the benefits of a national park – both are possible. 1 Note: figures represent established BC national parks, the benefits of this national park will grow over time 232 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11e Formal Public Support for SOS National Park – since January 2010 Governments, First Nations, Organizations October 10, 2013 Since the release of the National Park Feasibility Study, and as a result of the Province’s withdrawal from the federal-provincial park discussions in 2010, the following organizations have approved formal resolutions or sent formal letters: • supporting national park establishment or • asking the Province to re-engage in the federal-provincial discussions National, Provincial and Regional gov’t & organizational support Regional District of the Okanagan Similkameen (April 2012) Regional District of the Central Okanagan (Sept 2013) Okanagan Basin Water Board (Sept 2013) Thompson Okanagan Tourism Assoc (2013) South Okanagan Similkameen National Park Network (2013) Regional District of the North Okanagan (on agenda – Oct 2, 2013) BC Wineries Institute (on agenda – Oct 2013) First Nations support Feasibility Study Report (2012) Letters to the Premier from ONA Grand Chief Stuart Phillip (March & October 2013) Municipal Government Support Town of Osoyoos (2012) Village of Keremeos – community survey (2013) City of Vernon (on October 2013 agenda) City of Penticton (On October 2013 agenda) Chamber of Commerce/business/airport support South Okanagan Chamber of Commerce (2013) Kelowna Chamber of Commerce (2013) Petition: 24 Organic farmers in Cawston & Keremeos (2012) BC Wineries Institute (on October 2013 agenda) Tourism associations’ support TOTA (2013) TOTA 10-year Regional Strategy (supported by 90 organizations, all First Nations) Destination Osoyoos (2013) Tourism Penticton (2013) Environmental/Conservation Org’s BC Spaces for Nature (2011) Greenpeace (2011) David Suzuki Foundation (2011) Osoyoos Desert Society (2011) Georgia Strait Alliance (2011) South Okanagan Naturalists’ Club (2011) South Okanagan Naturalists Club (2011) Twin Lakes Aquifer Group (2011) Okanagan Similkameen Parks Soc (2012) West Coast Environmental Law (2011) S. Okanagan Rehab Centre for Owls (2012) Wildsight (2011) South Okanagan Naturalists’ Club (2012) WWF-Canada (2011) CPAWS (2011) Nature Canada(2010) ForestEthics (2011) 233 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11e Studies and Public Opinion Polls 2003 Memorandum of Understanding between Province of BC & Gov’t of Canada: In 2003, the Province of BC declared its interest in a SOS national park in its Throne Speech. In May 2003, the Province of BC & Gov’t of Canada signed an MOU that outlined the terms of reference for the national park feasibility study, outlined significant financial benefits & job dev- elopment opportunities for BC, and agreed that the existing businesses would be accommodated. Government of Canada: A new national park reserve in the South Okanagan-Similkameen is a priority of the federal government. This national park reserve would represent their Natural Region #3 - the Dry Interior Plateau that is recognized as a critically endangered landscape at both the federal & provincial level. Currently the Government of Canada is waiting for the Province of B.C. to re- engage in the national park reserve establishment process. Federal-Provincial National Park Feasibility Report (2010): The 8-year feasibility study had two purposes: 1. to confirm that a national park is feasible and 2. to identify issues that will be resolved in the next stage of the process In 2010, study results were submitted, by the federal-provincial steering committee (comprised of four senior staff from both governments), to the Province of BC and Government of Canada. The report recommends that a national park reserve is feasible, the 2 govts should sign a MOU to establish a national park & start negotiations immediately (e.g. final boundaries, land & permit transfers, security for businesses operating in the park area), and Parks Canada & ONA should continue their work. First Nations Feasibility Study Report (2012): The 3-year Okanagan Nation Alliance national park reserve study concluded with a unanimous resolution approved by all ONA communities & leadership: That ONA advance to the next phase of the National Park Reserve establishment process, the negotiations phase, as there will be no diminishment to Syilx Title & Rights, and that on all of the issues, with the exception of the issues related to the Province’s role, a determination of feasibility was made. Public opinion: 4 public opinion polls show at least 2:1 support for the national park: 1. McAllister Public Opinion Research (2010), 2. Similkameen Valley Planning Committee (2009), 3. Southern Okanagan Similkameen Conservation Program (2008) 4. Parks Canada (2007) Note: There are 23 No National Park signs. This shows that 23 people oppose the park. Science Dr. Kai Chan on behalf of 233 scientists (2011) Petition: 21,000 names submitted to Parliament of Canada & the Province of B.C. (2011) 234 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item E.11f Minister of the Environment Canada Leona Aglukkaq [email protected] Minister of the Environment BC Mary Polak [email protected] MLA Boundary Similkameen BC Linda Larson [email protected] MLA Penticton BC Dan Ashton [email protected] MLA Kelowna - Mission BC Steve Thomson [email protected] MLA Kelowna - Lake Country BC Norm Letnick [email protected] MLA Vernon-Monashee BC Eric Foster [email protected] Premier, MLA Westside-Kelowna BC Christy Clark [email protected] MP Kelowna - Lake Country Canada Ron Cannan [email protected] MP Okanagan Coquihalla Canada Dan Albas [email protected] MP Southern Interior Canada Alex Atamanenko [email protected] MP Okanagan - Shuswap Canada Colin Mayes [email protected] Grand Chief UBCIC Stewart Phillip [email protected] Chief Lower Similkameen Indian Band ONA Rob Edward [email protected] Chief Upper Similkameen Indian Band ONA Charlotte Mitchel [email protected] Chief Osoyoos Indian Band ONA Clarence Louie [email protected] Chief Penticton Indian Band ONA Jonathan Kruger [email protected] Chief Westbank First Nations ONA Robert Louie [email protected] Chief Upper Nicola Band ONA Daniel Manuel [email protected] Colville tribes ONA Michael Finley [email protected] Okanagan Indian Band ONA Byron Louis [email protected] Chair RDOS Mark Pendergraft [email protected] Chair CORD Robert Hobson [email protected] Patrick Nichol [email protected] CEO Parks Canada Alan Latourelle [email protected] Lines 1, 2 & 3: 10 Wellington St. 28th floor Gatineau Quebec K1A0H3 Room 112 Parliament Bldgs Victoria BC V8V 1X4 Box 998 6369 Main St. Oliver, BC V0H1T0 235 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1a REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in the Board Room at the Regional District Office on Thursday, October 17, 2013 Members: Director M. Macnabb Electoral Area “C” Chair Bruce Naka Member at Large Vice Chair Councillor M. Besso District of Coldstream Director P. Nicol City of Vernon Director B. Fleming Electoral Area “B” Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” Director E. Foisy Electoral Area “E” Tom Boeve Agricultural Producer Ian Eggen Agricultural Producer Dennis Lapierre Agricultural Producer Mike Randell Agricultural Producer Peter Stockdale Agricultural Producer Ralph van Dalfsen Agricultural Producer Tony Van den Tillaart Agricultural Producer Wendy Aasen Member at Large Doug Gordon Young Farmer Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator J. deGroot Executive Assistant (Temp.) (taking minutes) Also Present: Public CALL MEETING TO ORDER The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:08 p.m. The Chair welcomed Director Foisy to the Committee. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting – October 17, 2013 Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Wendy Aasen That the agenda of the October 17, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be approved with the following addition: Item C.6 – Restricted Farm Losses CARRIED 236 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1a Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 2 - October 17, 2013 ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting – September 11, 2013 Moved and seconded by Director Fleming and Bruce Naka That the minutes of the September 11, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee be adopted as circulated. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Agricultural Land Commission Application SMITH, R. & L. [File No. 13-0326-D-ALR] Discussion ensued regarding the following: Reasons for the application; Soil capabilities for the non-ALR portion of the subject property; Issues/difficulties with farming in the Creighton Valley Road area; Issues/difficulties to farm a smaller parcel; and Irrigation, size and topography of the subject property; Comments: No benefit for agriculture and no reasons given to help support the subdivision; Breaking up a large field limits ability to farm (hay) a property; Proposal would not be positive for agriculture; and Subdivision would make farming difficult and diminish the farming potential of the subject property. Regulating Combined Heat and Power Generation at Greenhouses in the ALR Discussion ensued regarding the following: Mechanics of Heat and Power Generation in greenhouses; Cogeneration with fossil fuels to create heat helps with plant growth when the CO2 recycled; Electricity production is not an agricultural use but could this lead to commercial electricity generation on ALR Lands? Economics play a huge role in the matter; and Natural gas is much more efficient than wood waste; economics require a customer for wood waste to be economical. Moved and seconded by Mike Randell and Bruce Naka That the report dated October 1, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the Ministry of Agriculture discussion paper addressing the regulation of cogeneration within greenhouses be received for information. CARRIED 237 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1a Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 3 - October 17, 2013 Potential Dates for Agricultural Tour Discussion ensued regarding the following: Tour clusters within areas was suggested; Tom Boeve would be willing to host a tour within the Spallumcheen cluster; however, December would work better; Joel Allen’s greenhouse, Coldstream Ranch and an organic apple orchard were suggested as a Coldstream cluster; Options for tours such as dairies, feed mills, orchards, processing facilities, slaughter facilities and wineries were suggested; Coral Beach Farms who have cherry farms in Lake Country, Coldstream and the Westside has been arranged for a tour on Saturday, November 2 at their Lake Country location; Staff will look into coordinating transportation for the tour; and Staff will look into other farms/wineries to tour in the area to fill an approximately 6 hour day tour. Update on Committee Membership Discussion ensued regarding the following: There are gaps in the representation on the Committee such as orchardists, wine makers/distillers, cheese makers and poultry. Members should advise their agricultural producer contacts that the Committee is looking for new membership in these areas. Restricted Farm Losses Dennis Lapierre provided information regarding recent court rulings on restricted farm losses for small scale farmers. Discussion ensued regarding the following: Importance of the issue for small scale farmers and the economic impacts of this matter; and Legislative hurdles to agriculture. The Committee decided to bring this matter forward to the next meeting. Genetically Modified Organisms: Options Discussion ensued regarding the following: Options presented in the staff report; Mandate for the Committee regarding Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs); Role of the Regional District regarding GMOs; Reaching consensus to send something to the Board, if consensus cannot be reached there is the option to just provide comments without a recommendation to the Board ie// send discussion notes/items that have been considered; Financial impacts on the Region have not been considered; The Agricultural Area Plan has not been completed; Legalities with the Right to Farm Act have not been considered. Can we limit introduction of new GMOs to the region (i.e. alfalfa); There is some urgency to the matter; Labelling; Consumers make the decisions; No consensus but more support Option 1, some support Option 2.b; 238 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1a Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 4 - October 17, 2013 Most support sending all information to the Board. Staff will write a report to the Board outlining the direction of the Committee. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m. Certified Correct: Chair Corporate Officer 239 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1b REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the REGIONAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in the Boardroom at the Regional District Office on Thursday, October 16, 2013 Members: Director K. Acton Village of Lumby Chair Director J. Pearase Electoral Area “F” Vice Chair Director S. Fowler City of Armstrong Director D. Dirk District of Coldstream Director H. Cyr City of Enderby Alternate Director C. Fraser Township of Spallumcheen Director P. Nicol City of Vernon Director B. Fleming Electoral Area “B” Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” Director E. Foisy Electoral Area “E” Staff: R. Smailes General Manager, Planning and Building A. Kittel Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator J. deGroot Executive Assistant (Temp.) (taking minutes) CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee Meeting – October 16, 2013 Moved and seconded by Director Cyr and Alt. Director Fraser That the agenda of the October 16, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee be approved as presented. CARRIED ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee Meeting – September 26, 2013 Moved and seconded by Directors Fairbairn and Fowler That the minutes of the September 26, 2013 regular meeting of the Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee be adopted as circulated. CARRIED DELEGATIONS The Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator provided an overview on evaluation of the Regional Growth Strategy and indicators such as the Quality of Life Survey. William Trousdale, President, EcoPlan International presented on the Quality of Life Survey including the following: Draft report has been prepared and the results are presented here; There was a good coverage of the region for the responses; 240 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1b Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 2 - October 16, 2013 Results of the survey regarding the North Okanagan as a place to live, retire, play; Economic development , such as workforce and income, Agricultural and food source; Water Use Conservation; Transportation; Environment; Community and Housing indicators; Areas which ranked high: Overall Quality of Life, Agriculture and Food Systems and Water while Transportation, Housing and Economic Development ranked low; and The information from the study will be accessible and easy to get on a website which is currently under construction. Questions and discussion ensued regarding the following: How can we know these results presentment the Region If there is not accurate representation of the demographics of the Region in the responses? - The data is good but more suggestive. Not as accurate as random sampling but this is still good data for a public process. Can use the data in other ways in more specified analysis and the confidence levels go up. Comments that were captured can be provided which provide additional information; Partnering with other groups can help to get more results; using students to get their parents to fill the information out; and Census data is important for local governments. Moved and seconded by Directors Pearase and Alt. Director Fraser That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that a letter be sent to the Federal Government to ask the Compulsory Long Form Census be reinstated the in order to enable government to obtain effective data from their constituents. CARRIED NEW BUSINESS Regional Growth Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation Program Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Alt. Director Fraser That the report dated October 1, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding the Regional Growth Strategy Monitoring and Evaluation Program be received for information. CARRIED Regional Housing Needs Assessment Moved and seconded by Director Dirk and Alt. Director Fraser That it be recommended to the Board of Directors the Regional Housing Needs Assessment be considered during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities. CARRIED Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement Moved and seconded by Director Dirk and Alt. Director Fraser That it be recommended to the Board of Directors a Regional Transportation Implementation Agreement be considered during the identification of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities. CARRIED 241 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1b Regional Growth Management Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Regular - 3 - October 16, 2013 Discussion ensued regarding the following: Priorities could come forward next month; Process for prioritization is proposed as a brief workshop for this Committee; Monies are set aside to bring this forward from previous years (surpluses); Grants and budget parameters are available which can be pursued and will be discussed more at the next meeting; Priorities need to be set from the items noted here, some can be dealt with through staff and some could be done by a consultant; and Some of the priorities could be woven into each other; Regional Employment Lands Inventory Website Launch Discussion ensued regarding the following: There has been refinements to the plan since the presentation from the City of Vernon’s Economic Development Officer; and The Committee members would like to be invited to the event to launch the website. Moved and seconded by Directors Fleming and Pearase That the report dated October 1, 2013 from the Regional Growth Strategy Coordinator regarding Regional Employment Lands Inventory Website Launch be received for information. CARRIED Regional Economic Development Action Plan Concept Discussion ensued regarding the following: How do we develop these things – should we Invite groups to be apart of this?; and The committee would like to have information actions and places that have been successful so we can try to use those strategies here. Moved and seconded by Director Dirk and Alt. Director Fraser That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the report dated September 4, 2013 regarding the exploration of the Regional Economic Development Action Plan concept be considered during the selection of 2014 Regional Growth Strategy implementation priorities. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 2:51 p.m. Certified Correct: Chair Corporate Officer 242 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1c REGIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH OKANAGAN MINUTES of a REGULAR meeting of the WHITE VALLEY PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE ADVISORY COMMITTEE held in the Board Room at the Village of Lumby Municipal Hall, Lumby, BC on Tuesday, October 15, 2013. Members: Director R. Fairbairn Electoral Area “D” (Chair) Councillor R. Ostafichuk Village of Lumby (Vice Chair) Director E. Foisy Electoral Area “E” Staff: T. Nelson Community Development Coordinator and Recording Secretary R. Huston Public Works and Parks Superintendent, Village of Lumby M. Fortin Program Coordinator, Village of Lumby T. Kadla Administrator, Village of Lumby J. Sundin Director of Finance Also Present: Public CALL MEETING TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. APPROVAL OF AGENDA White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee – October 15, 2013 Moved and seconded by Councillor Ostafichuk and Director Foisy That the Agenda of the October 15, 2013 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee meeting be approved as presented. CARRIED ADOPTION OF MINUTES White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee – August 12, 2013 Moved and seconded by Councillor Ostafichuk and Director Foisy That the minutes of the August 12, 2013 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee meeting, be adopted as circulated. CARRIED 243 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1c White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee Minutes – Regular [2] October 15, 2013 DELEGATIONS Cherryville Rink Society (LARSON, Lisa) The Cherryville Rink Society presented on the following: - School kids using rink regularly - Interested in fundraising for concrete/brine lines (5 year plan) NEW BUSINESS Distribution of Agendas The Community Development Coordinator provided information on how agendas may be distributed in the future to the Board of Directors and Committee Members. Preliminary 2014 Budget Discussions Staff requested direction from the Committee on their requisition target for 2014 budgeting purposes and the following discussion ensued: - Committee gave support in principle to a 4% increase in the 2014 Budget - Staff to prepare the 2014 Budget to include a 4% increase with emphasis on reserve contributions Funding Request from Okanagan Regional Library – Lumby Branch Moved and seconded by Director Foisy and Councillor Ostafichuk That it be recommended to the Board of Directors that the funding request from the Okanagan Regional Library for $900 to purchase window covers for the Lumby branch, located within the White Valley Community Centre, be respectfully denied. CARRIED REPORTS White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Monthly Reports – August and September 2013 Parks - Public market in Oval Park is done for the season, area will be winterized Lumby Curling Club - Brine pumps had leaks in system and were repaired Pat Duke Arena - Space heaters were replaced - Maintenance on compressor and brine pump done 244 of 245 BOARD of DIRECTORS - REGULAR AGENDA November 6, 2013 - Item G.1c White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture Advisory Committee Minutes – Regular [3] October 15, 2013 Outdoor Pool - Great pool year, pass sales were successful - No vandalism this year Moved and seconded by Councillor Ostafichuk and Director Foisy That the August and September 2013 White Valley Parks, Recreation and Culture monthly reports be received for information. CARRIED ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 9:00 a.m. Next meeting: Tuesday, November 12, 2013. Certified Correct: Chair Corporate Officer 245 of 245 Greater Vernon Sub-Regional Parks and Trails Service Agreement This Agreement made the ______day of ______, 2013. BETWEEN: REGIONAL DISTRICT NORTH OKANAGAN 9848 Aberdeen Road Coldstream, BC V1B 2K9 (“RDNO”) AND: DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM 9901 Kalamalka Lake Road Coldstream, BC V1B 1K6 (Coldstream) AND: The Corporation of the CITY OF VERNON 3400 30th Street Vernon, BC V1T 5E5 (Vernon) BACKGROUND A. RDNO, Vernon and Coldstream, are each a party to this Agreement. B. Vernon, Coldstream, Area “B” and Area “C” (the “Participants”) were participants in the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service (the “Service”) which was created in 1978 under authority granted in 1976 Supplementary Letters Patent over a defined area (“Designated Area No. 1”). The RDNO converted the service to a bylaw based service in 2000 under the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation, and Culture Service Conversion and Service Establishment Bylaw No. 1648, 2000. C. In 2012, the RDNO and the Participants reviewed the Parks, Recreation and Culture function with the intention to resolve service withdrawal initiatives and ongoing conflict amongst the Partners. The Review dealt separately with the following components of the service; • Parks Service (defined below), • recreation facilities and programming service and • arts, culture and youth service. D. The RDNO and the Participants agreed to make changes in how the Parks Service is delivered in Designated Area No. 1 and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated November 21, 2012 (the “Parks MOU”) outlining how the Parks Service was to be structured and delivered. NOW THEREFORE this Agreement witnesses that in consideration of the mutual benefits and obligations of the parties to this Agreement, each of the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1 SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS 1.1 “Act” means the Local Government Act, RSBC 1996, C.323 and any amendments thereto or legislation enacted in substitution therefore from time to time. 1.2 “Agreement” means this Greater Vernon Sub-Regional Parks and Trails Service Agreement. 1.3 “DCC” means development cost charges as permitted under the Act. 1.4 “Effective Date” means the later of January 1, 2014 or the final reading of the Greater Vernon Parks Service Establishment Bylaw. 1.5 “Legal Interest” means a registered or unregistered right to the use or occupancy of a Local Park, a Sub-Regional Park or a Sub-Regional Interest that is recognized by the courts of British Columbia as an enforceable right. Legal Interest includes fee simple title, leasehold interests, interests arising under an easement or right of way and any interest arising under any charge registered in the Land Title Office. 1.6 “Local Park” means those parks located within the jurisdictions of the Participants that are intended to be used primarily by persons residing in the immediate vicinity of such parks. As of the Effective Date, Local Parks are those parks identified in Schedules 2, 2a, 3, 3a, 4 and 5. Local Parks and their related services are the responsibility of the Participants in whose jurisdiction the Local Parks are located. Local Parks may include buildings, community parks, athletic parks, neighborhood parks, city wide parks, areas identified in parkland development agreements, trails, natural areas and tot lots. Future Local Parks are not limited to the categories included in this definition. 1.7 “Master Plan” means the Regional District Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (2004) as amended from time to time. 1.81.7 “Parks Service” means all services provided by the RDNO in relation to Sub- Regional Parks including: (a) The operation and maintenance of all Sub-Regional Parks as listed in Schedules 1, 1a and 1b; and (b) The acquisition, development and maintenance of new Sub-Regional Parks within the Parks Service Area at the discretion of the RDNO. 1.9 “Park Designations” means the parks classifications as outlined within the Master Plan. 1.101.8 “Parks MOU” means the memorandum of understanding between the RDNO and the Participants dated November 21, 2012. 1.111.9 “Parks Service Area” means all areas within the boundaries of the City of Vernon, District of Coldstream, Electoral Area “B” and Electoral Area “C”. 1.121.10 “Participants” means City of Vernon, District of Coldstream, Electoral Area “B” and Electoral Area “C” all of which are parties to the Parks MOU. 1.13 “Standards of Service” means the service levels reasonably set by RDNO, from time to time, for the operation, maintenance and repair of Sub-Regional Parks and Sub-Regional Interests. The existing Standards of Service are attached as Schedule 7. 1.141.11 “Sub-Regional Interest” means any interest of the RDNO in: (a) Any facility that is located within a Local Park or Sub-Regional Park as outlined in Schedules 2a, 3a, 4 and 5; (b) Any service or program used by citizens throughout the Parks Service Area that is conducted or coordinated by the RDNO; and (c)(b) Any Sub-Regional Park. 1.151.12 “Sub-Regional Parks” means those parks located within the boundaries of City of Vernon, District of Coldstream, Electoral Area “B” or Electoral Area “C” that are intended to be used by persons residing throughout the Greater Vernon Area. As of the Effective Date, Sub-Regional Parks are those identified in Schedule 1, 1A, 1B and may be added to, or expanded, to increase the number or area of the Sub-Regional Parks. Sub-Regional Parks may include athletic parks, trails, natural areas, open space reserves and ecological reserves. Future Sub-Regional Parks are not limited to the categories included in this definition. 2 PARKS OWNERSHIP 2.1 Following the effective date, the beneficial owner of a Local Park is the Participant in whose jurisdiction the Local Park is located. and tThe beneficial owner of all Sub-Regional Parks will be the RDNO. 2.2 Immediately following the Effective Date where Legal Interest of a Local Park is not in the name of the Participant who is the beneficial owner, the holder of such Legal Interest will transfer the Legal Interest into the name of the Participant who is the beneficial owner and will sign all documents necessary to effect such transfer. 2.3 Immediately following the Effective Date, where Legal Interest of a Sub-Regional Park is not in the name of the RDNO, the holder of such Legal Interest will transfer the Legal Interest to the RDNO and will sign all documents necessary to effect such transfer. 2.4 The RDNO will be responsible for all costs associated with the transfer of Local Parks and Sub-Regional Parks including registration, legal costs and taxes. 2.5 In the event that the Legal Interest of a Local Park or a Sub-Regional Park cannot be transferred to a beneficial owner for whatever reason, then the holder of such Legal Interest will continue to hold such Legal Interest in trust as bate trustee for the beneficial owner. 2.6 Each party who holds a Legal Interest in a Local Park or a Sub-Regional Park in trust for the beneficial owner will grant to the beneficial owner all rights of occupancy use or license necessary for the operation of such park by the beneficial owner in accordance with the Standards of Service for such park and the party holding such interest will sign all documents that are deemed reasonably necessary by the beneficial owner for such occupancy, use, or license. 2.7 Whenever a party holds a Legal Interest in trust for a beneficial owner, no transfer of such Legal Interest will be permitted without the prior written authorization of the beneficial owner. 2.8 Legal and beneficial ownership of newly acquired Local Parks will rest with the Participant in whose jurisdiction the new Local Park is located. Legal and beneficial interest of newly acquired Sub-Regional Parks will rest with the RDNO. 3 ACQUISITION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE 3.1 Local Parks (a) Following the effective Effective dateDate, each Local Park will become the responsibility of the Participant in whose jurisdiction the Local Park is located and that Participant will have the care and control of such Local Park. (b) Each Participant is responsible for funding, developing, maintaining, and operating all Local Parks within their jurisdiction. Local Parks for each Participant are identified in the following schedules: (i) Vernon – Schedules 2 and 2a (ii) Coldstream – Schedules 3 and 3a (iii) Area “B” – Schedule 4 (iv) Area “C” – Schedule 5 (c) Planning, acquisition and provision of future Local Parks will be the responsibility of the Participant in whose jurisdiction the Local Park is located. (d) Any Local Park created or acquired subsequent to signing the Parks MOU is the sole responsibility of the Participant in whose jurisdiction the Local Park is located and shall include acquisition, development, management, and disposition. (e) Except as provided in this aAgreement, each Participant agrees to assume maintain and abide by any existing parkland, leasing, easement or right of way agreements that involve a Local Park or a Sub-Regional Interest. (f) Each Participant at their discretion, will be responsible for the creation of their own DCC bylaw and for parkland dedication, both in accordance with the Act. Funds raised by a Participant for Local Park purposes including funds raised under a DCC bylaw or by way of cash in lieu of parkland dedication will be retained by and used by the Participant. (g) Participants are free to improve the service they provide to the Local Parks as they see fit. 3.2 Sub-Regional Parks (a) Each Sub- Regional Park, including any new Sub-Regional Park, is the responsibility of the RDNO who will have the care and control of Sub- Regional Parks. (b) All Sub-Regional Park designations will not change without the consent of the RDNO and the Participant in whose jurisdiction the Sub-Regional Park is located. RDNO consent shall be obtained in accordance with the governance section of the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Conversion and Service Establishment Bylaw No. 1648, 2000Greater Vernon Parks Service Establishment Bylaw. (c) Except as provided in this aAgreement the RDNO agrees to maintain and abide by assume any existing leasing agreement, easement agreement, right of way agreement, covenant agreement or agreement relating to Sub-Regional Parks. (d) The RDNO, at their discretion, will be responsible for the creation of their own DCC bylaw and for parkland dedication, both in accordance with the Act. Funds raised by the RDNO for Sub-Regional Park purposes including funds raised under a DCC bylaw will be retained by and used by the RDNO in their sole discretion, as permitted under the Act. (e) All parties commit to the rezoning of agree that Kalamalka Beach Park and Kalamalka Beach parking lot will be rezoned as to parkland and will be Sub-Regional Parks. 3.3 Local Parks With Sub-Regional Interests (a) Each Participant will be responsible for the care and control of Local Parks with Sub-Regional Interests within their respective jurisdictions. (b) The Participants agree to maintain Standards of Service of Sub-Regional Interests and not to remove a Sub-Regional Interest in a Local Park without prior consent of the RDNO. RDNO consent shall be obtained in accordance with the governance section of the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Conversion and Service Establishment Bylaw No. 1648, 2000Greater Vernon Parks Service Establishment Bylaw. The Participants agree to provide a level of service that is substantially consistent with historical levels. (c) The cost to maintain the Sub-Regional Interests in Local Parks to the Standards of Service for Sub-Regional Interests will be incurred by the Participant in whose jurisdiction the Local Park is located. The participants may choose to maintain Sub-Regional Interests to a higher standard at their own cost. 3.4 Parks Scheduling Except as indicated in writing by the RDNO or a Participant, the scheduling of all Sub-Regional Parks, Local Parks and Sub-Regional Interests will be done by the City of Vernon. If the RDNO or a Participant does not wish the City of Vernon to schedule a Local Park, Sub-Regional Park or Sub-Regional Interest, the RDNO or the Participant will provide one (1) month’s written notice of such exclusion to the City of Vernon. (a) If a pParticipant requires park scheduling to be changed for parks maintenance or other reasons which may arise the pParticipant may supply as much notice as possible to the City of Vernon. Changes in scheduling will be done in consultation between the RDNO or a pParticipant and the City of Vernon. 3.5 Fees and Charges (a) Fees and charges for use of Sub-Regional Parks and use of Sub- Regional Interests in Local Parks will be set by the RDNO. (b) Fees and charges for use of Local Parks will be set by the Local Jurisdiction. (c) The City of Vernon will provide centralized booking and collection of user fees for use of Local Parks, Sub-Regional Interests and Sub-Regional Parks. The City of Vernon will charge an administration fee of 15% of fees collected. Revenue for Sub-Regional Parks, less the Administration Fee, will be submitted to the RDNO and Rrevenue collected for use of Participant Local Parks and Sub-Regional Interests in Local Parks, less the administration fee, will be submitted by the end of October each year to the respective Participant in whose jurisdiction the Local Park or Sub- Regional Interest is located. Fees collected for use of Local Parks within the City of Vernon and Sub-Regional Interests in Local Parks within the City of Vernon will be retained by the City of Vernon. (d) The RDNO and the Participants will provide the City of Vernon with the applicable fees for Local Parks, Sub- Regional Interests in Local Parks and Sub- Regional Parks by May 30th of each calendar year so that Vernon may compile the Manual of Fees and Charges document by June 30th of each calendar year. This document will outline the fees associated for all parks in the Greater Vernon area and will be the basis for the revenue collected by Vernon. (e) The annual cost of providing the Parks Service will be apportioned among the Participants in accordance with the Greater Vernon Parks Service Establishment Bylaw. 3.6 Governance and Service Reviews Matters relating to governance, and service reviews and withdrawals of the Parks Service will be determined in accordance with the Greater Vernon Parks, Recreation and Culture Service Conversion and Service Establishment Bylaw No. 1648, 2000Greater Vernon Parks Service Establishment Bylaw. 3.7 Disposition of Assets (a) Existing DCC Funds (i) DCC funds collected prior to January 1, 2012 and held in reserves at the Effective Date will be credited to the participants as follows: (A) RDNO will be credited 40% of such DCC funds (B) Participants will be credited 60% of such DCC funds, to be credited based on the following percentages: (I) Vernon 66.70% (II) Coldstream 16.36% (III) Area “B” 8.5% (IV) Area “C” 8.44% (ii) DCC funds collected after December 31, 2011 up to the Effective Date and held in reserves at the Effective Date will be credited as follows: (A) 60% of such DCC funds will be credited to the party from whose respective jurisdiction such DCC funds were collected; and (B) 40% of such DCC funds will remain with RDNO. (iii) Any funds credited in accordance with this paragraph 3.7(a) will be credited together with interest, based upon average balance (as calculated by Opening Balance + Closing Balance divided by 2) before interest. All DCC funds will be credited on the trust conditions that such funds will only be used for providing and improving parkland. (b) New DCC Funds DCC funds collected after the Effective Date will be collected, allocated and used in accordance with the requirements of the Act. (c) Statutory Reserves (Including 2005 Referendum Funds). Funds in the Statutory Reserve, including those from the 2005 Referendum will remain with the RDNO to be used for the purposes for which it was collected. 2005 Referendum funds will be used as outlined in RDNO Bylaw 2083, 2005 attached as Schedule “8”. (d) Operating Reserves (Accumulated Surplus) $1,000,000.00 from existing Operating Reserves will be distributed to the Participants based on the following percentages: (i) Vernon 66.70% (ii) Coldstream 16.36% (iii) Area “B” 8.5% (iv) Area “C” 8.44% The remainder of the operating reserves are to remain with the RDNO. 4 IMPLEMENTATION This Agreement will take effect on the Effective Date. Should full implementation of the terms of agreement not be fulfilled by the Effective Date, all Parties commit to using their best efforts to implement all terms and conditions as soon as possible. 5 GENERAL 5.1 Time Time shall be the essence of this Agreement and the transactions contemplated in this Agreement. 5.2 Notice Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be sufficiently given if delivered personally or if sent by prepaid registered mail to the address indicated on page one provided that any party shall be entitled to designate another address by giving notice of it to the other party in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Any notice so mailed shall be deemed to have been received, except during a period of interruption of normal postal service, on the fourth business day following the date of mailing. 5.3 Further Assurances Each party shall from time to time execute and deliver or cause to be executed and delivered all such further documents and instruments and do or cause to be done all further acts and things as any of the other party may reasonably require as being necessary or desirable in order to effectively carry out or better evidence or perfect the full intent and meaning of this Agreement or any provision hereof. 5.4 Non-Assignment No party may assign its rights under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the other parties. 5.5 Binding Effect This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties to it, their respective heirs, executors, administrators, and other legal representatives and, to the extent permitted in this Agreement, their respective successors and assigns. 5.6 Extended Meanings Words importing the singular number include the plural and vice versa, and words importing the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders. 5.7 Headings The headings are for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 5.8 Applicable Law This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable in British Columbia. 5.9 Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter of the Agreement and contains all of the representations, warranties, covenants and agreements of the respective parties, and may not be amended or modified except by an instrument in writing executed by all parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior agreements, memoranda, and negotiations between the parties. 5.10 Counterparts This Agreement and all documents ancillary to this Agreement that require signature by more than one party may, unless indicated otherwise, be executed in as many counterparts as may be necessary or by facsimile, each of which shall together, for all purposes, constitute one and the same instrument, binding on the parties, and each of which shall together be deemed to be an original, notwithstanding that all of the parties are not signatory to the same counterpart or facsimile. 5.11 Schedules The following Schedules form part of this Agreement: a) Schedule 1, 1a and 1b – List of sub-regional parks and plans showing the Grey Canal Trail and BX Creek Trail which are Regional District responsibility. b) Schedule 2 – List of City of Vernon local parks c) Schedule 2a – List of City of Vernon parks with sub-regional interest d) Schedule 3 – List of District of Coldstream local parks e) Schedule 3a – List of District of Coldstream parks with sub-regional interest f) Schedule 4 – List of Area B local parks g) Schedule 5 – List of Area C local parks h) Schedule 6 – Removed by Consensus i) Schedule 7 – Standards of Service j) Schedule 8 – Greater Vernon Services Parkland Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 2083, 2005 Ballot Question 5.12 This aAgreement supersedes/replaces the agreement dated September 21, 2000, referred to in bylaw 1648 as appendix A. Made effective this ______day of , 2013. For and on behalf of: For and on behalf of: Regional District of North Okanagan City of Vernon ______Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Print Name: Print Name: ______Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Print Name: Print Name: For and on behalf of: District of Coldstream ______Authorized Signatory Print Name: ______Authorized Signatory Print Name: Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction BX Creek Trail (As Per Schedule 1a) RDNO Area B, Area C, 2.89 T / NAT Subregional Vernon BX Falls Park / Trail RDNO Area C 1.54 T / NAT Subregional Creekside Park Coldstream Coldstream 7.71 NP / Subregional ATHL DND Army Camp RDNO Lease with Federal Vernon 22.28 CWP Subregional Government Greater Vernon Sports Field and Athletics RDNO Lease with Okanagan Coldstream 5.80 ATHL Subregional Facility College Grey Canal Trail (As Per Schedule 1b) RDNO Area B, Area C, T Subregional Vernon Kal Beach Vernon Coldstream 3.90 CP Subregional Kal Beach Parking Lot City of Vernon Coldstream NAT Subregional Kin Beach City of Vernon Vernon 1.70 CWP Subregional Kin Race Track (Moved to 2a) RDNO Area B 9.42 CWP Subregional Kin Race Track (Moved to 2a) City of Vernon Vernon 7.16 CWP Subregional Marshall Field Park City of Vernon Vernon 19.44 ATHL Subregional Middleton Mountain Prebashewski (Trail) RDNO Coldstream T Subregional Middleton Mountain Property (Coldstream) Coldstream Coldstream NAT Subregional Middleton Mountain Property (Farnsworth) RDNO Coldstream 36.42 NAT Subregional North Vernon Park RDNO Vernon 1.42 NP Subregional Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Paddlewheel Park (includes Lot 12 Plan RDNO & Lease Vernon 3.01 CP Subregional 3932 / 7889 Okanagan Landing Rd) Ranchlands RDNO Coldstream 126.79 NAT Subregional Rocky Ridge Park RDNO Vernon NAT Subregional Truman Dagnus Lougheed Provincial Park Provincial Lease Pending Vernon NAT Subregional Swan Lake RDNO / Ducks Unlimited Area B 49.37 NAT Subregional PARK TYPE: ATHL = Athletic Park CP = Community Parks NP = Neighborhood Parks T = Trails BX Creek Trail Schedule 1A Gulfview Pl 6 Ave Hwy 97A 7 Ave 4St Overlook Pl L and A Cross Rd Greenhow Rd Hwy 97 Offramp KeddlestonRd Aspen Rd Swan Lake Goose Lake Rd Rogers Rd unsigned Baker Hogg Rd Jackpine Rd Forsberg Rd McLennan Rd Greenaway Rd Melford Rd Ladner Rd Grey Canal Rd Hitchcock Rd Lochdale Rd Wallace Rd Lincoln Rd unsigned Chew Rd Chew Crane Rd Tillicum Rd BremmerRd Deer Park Dr Phoenix Dr Rugg Rd Foothills Dr Pleasant Valley Rd scale access Herbert Rd Raven Rd Herry Rd Lynx Dr Blue Jay Rd Hwy 97 Ranch Rd Star Rd Rimer Rd Dixon Dam Rd Dam Dixon Hartnell Rd Old Kamloops Rd Butters Rd L Rd andL A 27 St Day Rd 19 St Hughes Rd 26 St Alain Rd Anderson Way 24St Haney Rd 48 Ave 20St Silver Star Rd Haynes Rd 34St 45 Ave 46 Ave Bx Rd 31 St 43 Ave 29St Briggs Rd 41 Ave 9 St E Vernon Rd 35 St 34St 32St 40 Ave 0 1 2 4 Kilometers 1:42,000 Grey Canal Trail Schedule 1B Greenhow Rd Highland Rd Louis Estates Antoine Rd Aspen Rd Rogers Rd Swan Lake McLennan Rd Mountridge Rd Jackpine Rd Forsberg Rd McKoryk Rd Keddleston Rd Louies Lane Goose Lake Rd Grey Canal Rd Hitchcock Rd Ladner Rd Hawhola Rd Wallace Rd Okanagan Lake Chew Rd Chew Crane Rd Bremmer Rd Bremmer Phoenix Dr Foothills Dr Westside Rd Raven Rd Dixon Dam Rd Pleasant Valley Rd Herry Rd Lynx Dr Stump Rd Highway Frtg Star Rd Ranch Rd Rimer Rd Hartnell Rd Butters Rd 27 St Rd andL A Hughes Rd 48 Ave Silver Star Rd Anderson Way Bx Rd 31 St 45 Ave 43 Ave 16 St Old Kamloops Rd Kamloops Old 42 Ave 41 Ave Bolduc Rd 29St 39 Ave Mutrie Rd De Roo Rd 38 St 36 St 25St 28St 35 Ave 32 Ave 33St Davison Rd 19St Heritage Dr 30 Ave 22St unsigned 27 Ave 29 Ave 26St Crosby Rd 18St 32 St 32 34 St 34 Southwind Rd 24 Ave 13 St 21 Ave 15St Galiano Rd Bella Vista Rd 17 Ave 19 Ave FrancisSt Cameo Dr E VernonRd 43 St 15 Ave Bodwell Rd 34St 15 Ave 25 Ave St30 14 Ave Bellevue Dr Sarsons Rd Old Stamp Mill Rd Scott Rd Ravine Dr Teal Dr Mission Rd Cypress Dr Hwy 6 Tronson Rd Okanagan Lake Middleton Way College Way Browne Rd Scenic Dr Mt Grady Rd Longacre Dr Terrace Dr Hwy 97 Middleton Dr Hwy 6 Buchanan Rd Crofton Rd Bench Row Rd Kalamalka Rd Sunset Blvd Rendell Dr Hill Dr Grey Rd Buchanan Rd Okanagan Landing Rd Clerke Rd Lavington Way Mt Ida Dr Park Lane 0 1 2 4 Kilometers 1:57,000 Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction 25th Avenue Linear Park City of Vernon Vernon 1.34 T Local 0.13 for 3 2903 39th Street RDNO Vernon BLDG Local lots 0.13 for 3 2901 39th Street RDNO Vernon BLDG Local lots 0.13 for 3 2807 39th Street RDNO Vernon BLDG Local lots RDNO (SROW's Trails & Park Anderson Ranch Property Vernon PDA Local Knoll) City of Vernon (Crown / Armory Park Vernon 1.45 NP Local Federal) City of Vernon (RDNO Becker Park - Trail Right of Way Vernon 0.02 NAT Local SROW's) Becker Park South Extension City of Vernon Vernon 0.12 NAT Local Becker Park City of Vernon Vernon Caetani Property City of Vernon Vernon 0.51 BLDG Local CEC Young RDNO Vernon 1.73 NAT Local Cenotaph Park City of Vernon Vernon 0.23 CWP Local CLD Parks Agreement (Adventure Bay) RDNO Vernon PDA Local Coursier Park City of Vernon Vernon 0.45 BLVD Local FB Jacques Park City of Vernon Vernon 0.83 NAT Local Girouard Park RDNO Vernon 1.01 NP Local Heritage Park (Agreement with SD No.22) City of Vernon Vernon 1.24 NP Local Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Heron Glen Tot Lot RDNO Vernon TOT Local Hesperia Development Operation RDNO Vernon PDA Local Hudac Tot Lot (11th Street) City of Vernon Vernon 0.09 TOT Local Kal Rotary Skateboard Park City of Vernon Vernon 0.13 NAT Local Kimura Tot Lot (Pottery Road Ravine Park and Tot City of Vernon Vernon 0.10 TOT Local Lot) - 18th Avenue 2694 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2606 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2598 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2596 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2592 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2588 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2580 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2574 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2554 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local 2548 Lakeshore Road RDNO Vernon COMM Local Mission Hill Park City of Vernon Vernon 3.23 NP Local Okanagan Hills (Rise) Parkland Agreement RDNO / City of Vernon Vernon PDA Local Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Pioneer Park City of Vernon Vernon 0.21 NP Local Predator Ridge (Lot 2, KAP 85324 Falcon RDNO Vernon NP Local Point Way) Predator Ridge Parkland Agreement RDNO / City of Vernon Vernon PDA Local Sawicki Park RDNO Vernon 2.43 NP Local Silver Star Foothills (Hitchcock Rd.) RDNO Vernon NP Local Silver Star Foothills (Whistler Place) RDNO Vernon 2.45 NP Local Sterling Estates City of Vernon Vernon 0.12 TOT Local Tavistock Property (Lakefront Adventure RDNO Vernon 5.70 NAT Local Bay) Toppers Cleaners (3010-31St Ave) RDNO Vernon BLDG Local Tot Lot - (43rd St) S. Vernon STP City of Vernon Vernon 0.20 TOT Local Tot Lot - Lot 10 Plan 26325 City of Vernon Vernon 0.05 TOT Local Tot Lot (19th Avenue) City of Vernon Vernon 0.11 TOT Local Tot Lot (44th Street) Kiwanis City of Vernon Vernon 0.09 TOT Local Vernon Creek Fulton Rd to Okanagan Lake RDNO Vernon 0.05 T Local PARK TYPE: ATHL = Athletic Park NP = BLDG = Building PDA CWP = City Wide Parks T = NAT = Natural Areas TOT Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Alexis Park (Ball Diamond, Horseshoe Pits) City of Vernon Vernon 1.46 NP Local Grahame Park (Agreement with SD No.22) (Ball RDNO Vernon 4.29 NP / ATHL Local Diamonds, Football Fields) Kin Race Track (ball diamonds) RDNO Area B 9.42 CWP Local Kin Race Track (ball diamonds) City of Vernon Vernon 7.16 CWP Local Lakeview Park & Pool (Peanut Pool) (Ball City of Vernon Vernon 2.03 NP / ATHL Local Diamonds) (Added to Facilities MoU) MacDonald Park (Soccer Fields) City of Vernon Vernon 7.16 ATHL Local Polson Park (tennis courts) City of Vernon Vernon 13.43 CWP Local Ranger Park (BMX Track) City of Vernon Vernon 0.77 ATHL Local PARK TYPE: ATHL = Athletic Park NP = Neighborhood Parks Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Aberdeen Park (Adjacent RDNO Office) RDNO Coldstream NAT Local Coldstream Cenotaph Coldstream Coldstream 0.13 CWP Local Coldstream Meadows Parkland Agreement RDNO Coldstream PDA Local Coldstream Valley Estates Park RDNO Coldstream 0.96 NP Local Graystone Drive Park Coldstream Coldstream TOT Local Jeffers Park (Lavington) Coldstream Coldstream AR Local Jestef Parkland Coldstream Coldstream 0.81 NP Local Kalavista Beach Coldstream Coldstream 0.01 NP Local Kalavista Park Coldstream Coldstream NP Local Kalview Park Coldstream Coldstream 0.49 NP Local Kinlock Boat Launch Coldstream Coldstream CWP Local Kirkland Beach Coldstream Coldstream 0.13 NP Local Lisheen Beach Coldstream Coldstream 0.15 NP Local Lochhaven Tot Lot Coldstream Coldstream 0.34 TOT Local Log Cabin Property (8505 Kalavista Drive) RDNO Coldstream NP Local Long Lake Beach Coldstream Coldstream 0.20 NP Local Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Long Lake Estates Drive Park Coldstream Coldstream 0.47 NP Local Mackie House Mackie House Foundation (RDNO Lease Coldstream BLDG Local Waterfron) McKergow Meadows Coldstream Coldstream 8.50 NAT Local Middleton Mountain Park SD No.22 / RDNO Lease Coldstream 3.60 NP Local Middleton Mountain Trails (Creed Loop) Coldstream Coldstream T Local Middleton Mountain Trails (Fortis BC) Coldstream Coldstream T Local Morphet Dog Park Coldstream Coldstream 1.40 NP Local Postill Drive Green Area Coldstream Coldstream 0.20 NAT Local Pumphouse Beach Coldstream Coldstream 0.30 CP Local Sovereign (Coldstream Centennial) Coldstream Coldstream CP Local Stenquist Park Coldstream Coldstream 0.93 NP Local Tebo Drive Park (8404 Tebo Drive) Coldstream Coldstream 0.10 TOT Local Uplands Heights Park (Uplands Drive, Coldstream Coldstream Coldstream NP Local Valley Estates) Webster Park Coldstream Coldstream 1.65 NAT Local West Kal Boat Launch Coldstream Coldstream 0.30 CP Local Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Whisper Ridge Park Coldstream Coldstream NP Local PARK TYPE: AR = Arena NP = Neighborhood Parks BLDG = Building PDA = Parkland Development Agreement CP = Community Parks T = Trails CWP = City Wide Parks TOT = Tot Lot NAT = Natural Areas Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Coldstream Park (Ball Diamonds) Coldstream Coldstream 4.09 NP Local Creekside Park (Ball Diamonds, Soccer Coldstream Coldstream 7.71 NP / ATHL Local Fields) (moved to Schedule 1) Kalavista Boat Launch Coldstream Coldstream 0.15 CP Local Kalavista Park (Boat Launch Parking) Coldstream Coldstream 0.66 NP Local Lavington Park & Pool (Ball Diamonds, RDNO / SD No.22 Coldstream CP / ATHL Local Soccer Field) (added to Facilities MoU) PARK TYPE: ATHL = Athletic Park CP = Community Parks NP = Neighborhood Parks Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Cools Pond RDNO Area B 2.15 NAT Local Gibbs Road Park RDNO Area B TOT Local N'Kwala Park * (Soccer Fields) SD No. 22 - Lease Area B 3.02 NP Local PARK TYPE: * Represents Subregional Interests NAT = Natural Areas NP = Neighborhood Parks TOT = Tot Lot Name Ownership Location Area HA Type Jurisdiction Black Rock RDNO Area C NAT Local Boss Creek Development RDNO Area C T / PDA Local BX Community Park * (Soccer Fields) RDNO Area C 1.01 NP Local BX Ranch Park RDNO Area C 10.94 NP Local Keddleston Park RDNO Lease Area C 4.01 NAT Local Mutrie Road Park RDNO Area C 2.71 NP Local Silver Star Resort Parkland Agreement RDNO Area C PDA Local PARK TYPE: * Represents Subregional Interests NAT = Natural Areas NP = Neighborhood Parks PDA = Parkland Development Agreement T = Trails