District of Coldstream Council - Regular Meeting Agenda for March 27, 2017
Municipal Hall, 9901 Kalamalka Road, Coldstream, BC 6:00 PM
1. AGENDA
1.a. Motions to Add or Delete Agenda Items
1.b. Approval of the Agenda as Presented or Amended
2. DELEGATIONS
2.a. 2016 Audited Financial Statements Representatives will be in attendance to present Council with the 2016 Audited Financial Statements.
3. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COUNCIL (Total Time Allotted: 10 Minutes) Each person wishing to speak is asked to keep their comments to two (2) minutes or less.
NOTE:
3.a. This time is to afford members of the public the opportunity to provide additional information regarding agenda items in sections 5 through 10 on the agenda dated March 27, 2017.
Please provide your name and the agenda item you wish to speak to. Comments must be limited to information not previously provided to Council for their consideration or clarification.
If you have questions regarding a matter on the agenda, please submit your questions, in writing, care of the Corporate Officer. A written response will be supplied.
Matters that are not listed on this agenda will NOT be heard by Council. If you wish to address Council regarding business that is not on the agenda, please contact the Corporate Officer, who will assist you with your request.
4. MINUTES
7 - 16 4.a. Minutes for Adoption March 13, 2017 Council Meeting Minutes March 20, 2017 Special Council Meeting Minutes
Council - Regular Agenda Monday, March 27, 2017
17 - 28 4.b. UNADOPTED Committee Minutes for Information Please note that unadopted minutes included in this agenda are subject to change or correction; these minutes are provided to Council for information only. March 7, 2017 unadopted Tourism Committee minutes March 20, 2017 unadopted Committee of the Whole minutes March 21, 2017 unadopted Advisory Planning Commission minutes
5. BYLAWS
29 - 42 5.a. District of Coldstream Sanitary Sewer System Regulation and Rate Bylaw No. 1692, 2017 • A bylaw to regulate the sanitary sewer system and to impose a charge for the use of the sanitary sewer system within the District of Coldstream 1692 (Final Adoption)
Recommendation THAT "District of Coldstream Sanitary Sewer System Regulation and Rate Bylaw No. 1692, 2017" be adopted.
43 - 48 5.b. District of Coldstream Financial Plan Bylaw No. 1693, 2017 • Bylaw 1693, a bylaw to adopt the Financial Plan for the years 2017-2021 1693 (Final Adoption)
Recommendation THAT "District of Coldstream Financial Plan Bylaw No. 1693, 2017" be adopted.
6. REPORTS – UNFINISHED BUSINESS
49 - 53 6.a. Provincial Private Moorage Program • Letter from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations dated March 23, 2017 • Letter from District of Coldstream to Honourable Christy Clark dated February 22, 2017 for reference Response re Private Moorage 02-21-17 BC Premier re Private Moorage Program (SILGA)
Recommendation THAT staff be directed to copy the letter from the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, dated March 23, 2017, regarding Provincial Private Moorage Program, to all UBCM member municipalities for their information.
Page 2 of 117 Council - Regular Agenda Monday, March 27, 2017
7. REPORTS – NEW BUSINESS
55 7.a. Approval of the 2016 Audited Financial Statements • Report from the Director of Financial Administration dated March 17, 2017 2016 Audited Financial Statements
Recommendation THAT Council approved the 2016 Audited Financial Statements as presented.
79 - 80 7.b. 2017 Road Maintenance Program Tender Award • Report from the Director of Infrastructure Services dated March 14, 2017 2017 Road Maintenance Tender Award
Recommendation THAT Council direct staff to award the 2017 Road Maintenance contract to Okanagan Aggregates Ltd. for $856,867.00, excluding taxes.
81 - 82 7.c. Federal Gas Tax - Strategic Priorities Fund • Report from the Director of Financial Administration dated March 21, 2017 Federal Gas Tax - Strategic Priorities Fund
Recommendation THAT Council authorize staff to proceed with the design work for the Kalamalka Road pathway extension from the City of Vernon/District of Coldstream Boundary to College Way with funding from the Federal Gas Tax reserve;
AND THAT Council authorize staff to submit a grant application to the Federal Gas Tax - Strategic Priorities Fund for the Kalamalka Road pathway extension from City of Vernon/District of Coldstream Boundary to College Way project.
83 - 84 7.d. Spring Burning Dates • Report from the Protective Services Coordinator dated March 7, 2017 Spring Open Burning
Recommendation THAT Council designate April 14 to April 30, 2017 as the Spring Open Burning period.
85 - 96 7.e. Carbon Neutral for 2016 • Report from the Director of Financial Administration dated March 1, 2017 Carbon Neutral for 2016
Recommendation THAT the 2016 Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program report be received for information and filed.
Page 3 of 117 Council - Regular Agenda Monday, March 27, 2017
8. CORRESPONDENCE
97 - 98 8.a. Request for Endorsement of Provincial Smoke and Vape-Free Outdoor Public Places • Letter from the Canadian Cancer Society of BC and Yukon dated March 2017 Canadian Cancer Society March 2017
9. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
9.a. Committee of the Whole - March 20, 2017
Recommendation 1 THAT staff be directed to bring forward an amendment to the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw No. 1694, 2017, that would include decibel levels, similar to the Regional District of North Okanagan's noise regulation bylaw.
Recommendation 2 THAT the District property at 16506 Kalamalka Road be cleared of brush and levelled using existing material on site.
99 - 117 9.b. Farm Industry Review Board - Request for Study Related to a Farm Practice • Mayor Garlick will provide a verbal report • "Right to Farm Legislation in British Columbia" Paper authored by Melina Laverty, 2008 M. Laverty 2008 Paper re Right to Farm
Excerpt from the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act:
Responsibilities of the Board Section 11(2): On the board's own initiative or at the request of a municipality or regional district, or of a trust council under the Islands Trust Act, the board may study, report on, and make recommendations concerning, any matter related to farm practices.
10. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS Board Appointed Committees: • Regional District of North Okanagan • Greater Vernon Advisory Committee • Okanagan Regional Library Committees of Council: • (CoW) Committee of the Whole • Finance Committee Other Reports
Page 4 of 117 Council - Regular Agenda Monday, March 27, 2017
11. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TO IN CAMERA
11.a. Reminder: late additions to the in-camera agenda must be indicated in the resolution to adjourn.
Recommendation THAT Council adjourn to an in-camera meeting to discuss issues related to the following paragraph(s) under Section 90(1) of the Community Charter:
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality.
12. REPORT FROM THE IN-CAMERA MEETING
13. ADJOURNMENT
Page 5 of 117 Page 6 of 117
District of Coldstream
Council - Regular Meeting Minutes - March 13, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Garlick called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm
PRESENT: Councillors Dirk, Enns, Kiss and Taylor
ABSENT: Councillors Cochrane and McClean
STAFF: T. Seibel, Chief Administrative Officer K. Austin, Director of Corporate Administration M. Baker, Director of Infrastructure Services P. Higgins, Director of Financial Administration M. Reiley, Director of Development Services
ALSO PRESENT: 1 member of the media 76 people in the gallery
1. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TO IN CAMERA
1.a. Resolution to Adjourn to an In Camera Meeting
Moved by Garlick, seconded by Taylor,
THAT Council adjourn to an in camera meeting to discuss issues related to the following paragraph under section 90(1) of the Community Charter:
(i) the receipt of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.
No. REG2017-46 CARRIED
The meeting recessed at 6:01 pm and reconvened at 6:20 pm.
2. AGENDA
2.a. Motions to Add or Delete Agenda Items None
Page 7 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 13, 2017
2.b. Approval of the Agenda as Presented or Amended
Moved by Enns, seconded by Taylor,
THAT the agenda be approved with an amendment to move item 8.a., Request for Temporary Farm Workers' Housing Bylaw, to follow item 4.b., Unadopted Committee Minutes for Information, and renumber agenda items accordingly.
No. REG2017-47 CARRIED
3. DELEGATIONS
3.a. Request for Temporary Farm Workers Housing Bylaw • Letter from R. Ronan received March 7, 2017 • PowerPoint slides from North Warren Road Residents Association received March 9, 2017
Roxanne Ronan, on behalf of the North Warren Road Residents Association, provided a presentation to Council requesting that they enact a bylaw to limit the number of temporary farm workers on farms. (See attached presentation). Todd Hayes, an Association member, indicated that large numbers of transient and foreign workers without ties to the community presented a danger to children and others. He also noted that besides safety of the community, the Association was concerned with the negative impacts of increased traffic and damage to road infrastructure. R. Ronan Presentation 03-13-17
4. PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS COUNCIL
4.a. Re: Item 9.a. Request for Temporary Farm Workers' Housing Bylaw
Bruce Waldie and Judy Fullerton, of Coldstream, noted that the District's mission statement "fosters orderly growth" and that temporary/foreign workers in high numbers creates high density housing which is undesirable in the area. Mr. Waldie noted that with everything the residents have put up with to date, 150 temporary workers were crossing a line. He also pointed out that Warren Road was not suited to the excess traffic that was expected to be created should 150 workers be housed on the Coral Beach Farms Warren Road site.
Bob Learmonth, of Coldstream, indicated that he interpreted the District's zoning bylaw to mean only one house and one accessory farm building and did not allow for unlimited pickers' shacks. He also indicated that he had heard from an associate who delivered propane to farms that the living conditions for farm workers were slum-like. Mr. Learmonth noted that the term slum seemed harsh and indicated that he had looked up the definition of slum and concluded that what he had heard was accurate.
Glen Lucas, General Manager of the BC Fruit Growers' Association (BCFGA), indicated that the tree fruit sector, after suffering significant production declines in the 80's, had rebounded with the introduction of late harvest crops. He indicated that the BCFGA had strong ties and support for the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). He noted that temporary workers, both domestic and foreign, were a necessity for the farm industry since there was an inadequate supply of local workers. He further noted that the Page 8 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 13, 2017
Canadian Seasonal Agricultural Workers Program (the Program), established in 1966 between Canada and Jamaica and which now includes Mexico and other Caribbean countries, was considered a 'model' program and has been used in British Columbia for the past 10 years. He indicated that BC Growers using the Program are encumbered with added obligations and costs to participate in the Program. As an example, he said that farmers were required to purchase return airfare for workers and maintain required housing standards that were subject to annual inspection. With regard to Mexican workers, Mr. Lucas indicated most come from small communities where employment is low. The Program offers opportunities for workers to improve skills and earn a good income that will benefit their families and home communities. He finally noted that temporary housing is supportive of the preservation of the ALR since it can be removed and the land returned for further farming activity.
Mohammad Abid, of Coldstream, agreed that temporary workers should be housed in reasonable and appropriate accommodations and not just picker shacks. He said that farmers need the workers. He indicated that he supported the previous development variance application from Coral Beach, noting that the proposal was reasonable, that the land chosen was not farmable and there would be employment opportunities created in Coldstream.
Gayle Krahn, of Coldstream and Manager of the Coral Beach Warren and Buchanan Road Farms, agreed that Mexican workers needed to be treated well and with dignity and made assurances that workers were accommodated well. She noted that in order to bring in a cherry crop, one worker per acre was required. She said that workers were typically housed for 3 months. Workers are permitted to stay up to 8 months if they wished; however, Coral Beach preferred a 7 months maximum. Ms. Krahn also noted that many of the workers request/choose to work at Coral Beach, noting that the farm has had some of the same workers over the past 12 years. She indicated that Coral Beach advertises for local workers first and if position can't be filled, then the positions are open to temporary workers. She urged the community to think of the workers as people and not transients.
Roxanne Ronan, of Coldstream and North Warren Road Residents Association, wanted to emphasize that the Association's presentation was not a Coral Beach issue, but rather a request to Council to consider enacting a bylaw to establish a cap on the number of temporary workers residing on a farm property. She noted that many other communities in the Okanagan had enacted policies and bylaws to cap the number of workers and that if Coldstream did not do the same, the District may be taken advantage of by other farm operators since the District was the least regulated of the local communities.
Rob Barton, of Coldstream, indicated that "We are people too. We all pay all the property taxes, they bring in nothing."
Todd Hayes, of Coldstream and North Warren Road Residents Association, questioned why the Program couldn't be made to work for Canadians instead of Mexicans and other foreign workers. He suggested that instead of paying extra costs for airfare and housing, the money could be reallocated to pay better than minimum wages to encourage local workers to fill positions.
Christy Batchelder, of Coldstream, expressed that she wants to know her community and her neighbours. She suggested that culture sticks to culture and becomes a community within a community. She further noted that there wasn't enough housing for local people and that more housing was needed in the community that temporary workers could access so that they would feel and become part of the community.
Page 9 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 13, 2017
Gayle Krahn, of Coldstream and Coral Beach Farms, indicated that there had been no crops in the previous year, so fewer workers were required at that time. The increased need for workers was due to the crops maturing and requiring harvest. She also noted that Coral Beach had used off-site accommodation in the past (Silver Star being one location), however, the workers preferred to stay on the farm to allow for longer working hours rather than being bused to the farm. She noted that the extra transportation time added to what was already a very long day
Herbert Ott, of Coldstream, indicated that the District was on the cusp of industrial farming whereas before there were more "mom and pop" farms. He suggested Council look at existing standards that had been implemented in other communities, noting that those standards were implemented for good reasons. He felt it was important for Council to take a long, hard look at what other communities have put in place. He further indicated that Council need not deny temporary farm workers, but encouraged Council to "put on the brakes" and take a measured approach.
John Keyton, of Coldstream, indicated his concern with respect to chemicals being sprayed on apples and what the apple orchard on Aberdeen Road might be planning for farm worker housing. He noted that even though hour long bus rides might be inconvenient, they are a part of working life as many people have to commute to jobs, including him. He indicated that he supported a farm worker housing bylaw that was reasonable.
Jay Royston, of Coldstream, noted that it had gotten noisier in Lavington over the past 5 years that he had lived in the community. He noted that he had been employed as tree planter in the past and was paid at a piecemeal rate rather than an hourly wage. He suggested that increasing minimum wages may not be the best place to start in terms of encouraging employment locally.
5. MINUTES
5.a. Minutes for Adoption
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Kiss,
THAT the February 27, 2017 Council meeting minutes be adopted as circulated.
No. REG2017-48 CARRIED
5.b. UNADOPTED Committee Minutes for Information Please note that unadopted minutes included in this agenda are subject to change or correction; these minutes are provided to Council for information only.
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Kiss,
THAT the March 6, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting minutes be received for information.
No. REG2017-49 CARRIED
Page 10 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 13, 2017
6. CORRESPONDENCE
6.a. Request for Temporary Farm Workers Housing Bylaw • Letter from R. Ronan received March 7, 2017 • PowerPoint slides received March 8, 2017
Moved by Enns, seconded by Dirk,
THAT staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the District's zoning bylaw that would limit temporary farm workers to 40 residents per farm as recommended in the "Guide for Bylaw Development in Farming Areas", dated 2015, prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture.
No. REG2017-50 CARRIED
7. BYLAWS
7.a. District of Coldstream Sanitary Sewer System Regulation and Rate Bylaw No. 1692, 2017 • Report from the Chief Administrative Officer dated February 28, 2017 • A bylaw to regulate the sanitary sewer system and to impose a charge for the use of the sanitary sewer system within the District of Coldstream
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Enns,
THAT "District of Coldstream Sanitary Sewer System Regulation and Rate Bylaw No. 1692, 2017" be read a first, second and third time by title only.
No. REG2017-51 CARRIED
7.b. District of Coldstream Financial Plan Bylaw No. 1693, 2017 • Report from the Director of Financial Administration dated March 9, 2017 • Bylaw 1693, a bylaw to adopt the Financial Plan for the years 2017-2021
Moved by Enns, seconded by Taylor,
THAT "District of Coldstream Financial Plan Bylaw No. 1693, 2017" be read a third time by title only.
No. REG2017-52 CARRIED
8. REPORTS – UNFINISHED BUSINESS None
Page 11 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 13, 2017
9. REPORTS – NEW BUSINESS
9.a. Building Official's Report for February 2017
• Building Stats February 2017
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Kiss,
THAT the report from the Building Official dated March 1, 2017, regarding Building Official's Report for the Month of February 2017, be received for information and filed.
No. REG2017-53 CARRIED
10. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
10.a. Committee of the Whole Recommendations dated March 6, 2017
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Dirk,
THAT the Lavington Community Association be requested to bring forward a proposal and estimated costs to expand the washroom/storage building at Lavington Centennial Park;
AND THAT staff be directed to investigate grants that could offset the cost of the washroom/storage building expansion.
No. REG2017-54 CARRIED
Moved by Enns, seconded by Kiss,
THAT, with the increased usage of the Okanagan Rail Trail, staff is directed to prepare options to manage on-street parking at the north end of Kalamalka Lake.
No. REG2017-55 CARRIED
Moved by Enns, seconded by Taylor,
THAT staff be directed to investigate continuing the multi-use path, being constructed by the City of Vernon alongside Kalamalka Lake Road, from the Vernon/Coldstream boundary to College Way for 2018 budget deliberations.
No. REG2017-56 CARRIED
Page 12 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 13, 2017
11. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES & COMMISSIONS
11.a. Greater Vernon Advisory Committee
Councillor Kiss inquired as to what had been decided with respect to water rates. Councillor Dirk indicated that the Committee had chosen Option 2, which recommended the most stable and level progression of water rate increases.
Moved by Enns, seconded by Dirk,
THAT staff be directed to send a letter to the Greater Vernon Advisory Committee requesting information be provided to the District regarding the update to the Master Water Plan including the timeline, work plan and financing of the projects contained within it.
No. REG2017-57 CARRIED
12. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TO IN CAMERA
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Kiss,
THAT Council adjourn to an in-camera meeting to discuss issues related to the following paragraph(s) under Section 90(1) of the Community Charter:
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public.
No. REG2017-58 CARRIED
The meeting recessed at 7:56 pm and reconvened at 8:31 pm. The Directors of Financial Administration and Infrastructure Services were not present.
13. REPORT FROM THE IN-CAMERA MEETING None
Page 13 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 13, 2017
14. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Kiss , seconded by Taylor,
THAT the meeting of Council, held March 13, 2017, be adjourned.
No. REG2017-59 CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 8:32 pm.
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Keri-Ann Austin, Corporate Officer Jim Garlick, Mayor
Page 14 of 117
District of Coldstream
Council - Special Meeting Minutes - March 20, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Garlick called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm
PRESENT: Councillors Cochrane, Dirk, Enns, Kiss and Taylor
ABSENT: Councillor McClean
STAFF: T. Seibel, Chief Administrative Officer K. Austin, Director of Corporate Administration M. Reiley, Director of Development Services
ALSO PRESENT: 1 member of the media 12 people in the gallery
1. AGENDA
Moved by Dirk, seconded by Taylor
THAT the agenda for the special meeting be approved as presented.
No. REG2017-60 CARRIED
2. REPORTS – UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2.a. Creekside Park and Kal Beach Landscape Maintenance - 2017 • Report from the Director of Infrastructure Services dated March 15, 2017
Moved by Cochrane, seconded by Kiss,
THAT staff are directed to award the contract for the Creekside Park and Kal Beach Landscape Maintenance for 2017 to The Grounds Guys of Okanagan for the sum of $97,941.41, inclusive of taxes.
No. REG2017-61 CARRIED
Page 15 of 117 Council - Regular Minutes Monday, March 20, 2017
3. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Dirk, seconded by Enns,
THAT the special meeting of Council, held March 20, 2017, be adjourned.
No. REG2017-62 CARRIED
The special meeting adjourned at 6:02 pm.
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Keri-Ann Austin, Corporate Officer Jim Garlick, Mayor
Page 16 of 117
District of Coldstream
Tourism Committee Meeting Minutes - March 7, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:07 pm
PRESENT: K. O'Brien, Chair S. Bicknell, Vice Chair D. Clarke J. Hughes C. Kashuba (entered as noted in the minutes) E. Murphy Mayor J. Garlick (ex-officio member) K. Williamson (non-voting)
ABSENT: Y. Hayden M. Penner Councillor G. Taylor
STAFF: I. Breitkreutz, Deputy Municipal Clerk M. Reiley, Director of Development Services
ALSO PRESENT: No member of the media No people in the gallery
1. AGENDA
1.a. Approval of the Agenda
Moved by Bicknell, seconded by Hughes,
THAT the agenda be approved as circulated.
No. TC2017-11 CARRIED
2. MINUTES
2.a. Minutes for Adoption
Moved by Clarke, seconded by Hughes,
THAT the February 7, 2017 meeting minutes be adopted as circulated.
No. TC2017-12 CARRIED
Page 17 of 117 Tourism Committee Minutes Tuesday, March 7, 2017
3. REPORTS AND ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
3.a. Mobile Food Vendor Policy and Business Licence Bylaw Amendment Report from the Planning Technician dated February 15, 2017
The Director of Development Services reviewed the staff report.
C. Kashuba entered the meeting at 6:09 pm.
Tourism Committee members made the following comments and suggestions for Council's consideration regarding the draft mobile food vendor (MFV) policy and Business Licence Bylaw amendment:
(1) At Kal Beach and Sovereign Park, parking is at a premium on peak days. A MFV would take away some parking space (2) Wherever MFVs are located, be aware of congestion and safety for vendors and the public. (3) Kelowna promoted culture and the number and types of MFVs. (4) The District could test methods of deciding on MFVs in 2017, such as a lottery of applications or open-bid process. Some municipalities choose MFVs based on a variety of foods served, so not all the same product. (5) Kal Beach is the prime site. The concession is operating this year. Is it possible to allow MFVs on the beach? If not available, what will happen this year? Could use 2017 as a test of "one spot" and allow a different MFV to operate for a week on a rotating basis. (6) Kal Beach is a more visible and viable location for MFVs; therefore, the business licence fee should be higher. (7) A MFV at Kal Beach is convenient to beach users, especially families can remain on the beach with children rather than packing up. (8) How will existing food establishments (e.g., Alexander's Beach Pub, at the Alpine Centre, in Lavington) be impacted by MFVs, and how to alleviate their concerns? (9) Concerns regarding MFVs along the Rail Trail and Westkal Road/Kickwillie Loop area: • congestion • not parked • no particular location • "coffee truck" • parking conflict amongst trail users, tour buses and vendors • popular vendors vs. space available • other businesses coming into the area temporarily such as dropping off bike rentals. (10) At Sovereign Park, a visible site for MFV is near Sovereign house or at the parking lot area. (11) "Vendor fests" or "Food truck Fridays" are possible ways to focus on the Town Centre. (12) MFVs should meet IHA standards and have a garbage management plan. (13) There may be noise from generators. (14) Overall, the Committee thought that MFVs was a positive concept.
Page 18 of 117 Tourism Committee Minutes Tuesday, March 7, 2017
3.b. Update Regarding February 7, 2017 Tourism Committee Recommendations
Mayor Garlick provided an update of the Committee of the Whole's meeting, at which time the Tourism Committee's February 7, 2017 recommendations were discussed:
(1) The District was gathering information to determine future plans for the property at 16506 Kalamalka Road as well as the best connections to the Rail Trail. Some preliminary work may be scheduled in 2017 such as clean-up of the property. The District would also be investigating short-term uses of the house on that site. Staff was preparing a report to Council regarding how to manage parking at the north end of Kalamalka Lake. (2) The District was examining what signage would be appropriate for this year; the signage may be amended in 2018. (3) The recommendation to make a portion of Westkal Road one-way was still under review. (4) The proposed extension of the multi-use path along Kalamalka Road was referred to 2018 budget deliberations for the section from the Vernon/Coldstream boundary to College Way. (5) The purchase of Dutch's Campground was reviewed at an in-camera meeting of Committee of the Whole.
3.c. Committee Priorities
(1) Okanagan Rail Trail Maps from District staff of available parking at the north end of Kalamalka Lake, dated for reference March 7, 2017 Maps from D. Clarke, Tourism Committee member, received March 7, 2017
The Director of Development Services reviewed the maps showing on-street parking areas near the Rail Trail Corridor. He advised that staff were preparing a report to Council on options to manage on-street parking at the north end of Kalamalka Lake.
Tourism Committee members made the following comments and suggestions for Council's consideration regarding possible parking locations and how to get the public to those locations:
(1) Even though the Rail Trail is not officially open, setting a parking precedent this year will establish that habit in the future. (2) Offer amenities such as food and washrooms to attract parking at major parking areas (Kal Beach parking lot and perhaps the District property at 16506 Kalamalka Road). (3) Congested zones are the easy entry points to the Rail Trail, i.e., Mile 88 and Westkal Road/Kickwillie Loop area. (4) In the area of the Rail Trail, the public would probably park on Westkal Road, Watson Drive, Graystone Drive, Hofer Drive and Sage Pointe subdivision. (5) Bikers will range out farther, possibly as far as Kalavista Drive and Kidston Road. (6) Set a two-hour time limit for parking; however, that may restrict trail users who would have to turn back after one hour as well as patrons at Kalamalka Country Club.
Page 19 of 117 Tourism Committee Minutes Tuesday, March 7, 2017
(7) Starting this spring, parking for Kalamalka Country Club on Westkal Road will be impacted by users accessing the Rail Trail. (8) Rail Trail users will likely arrive via Kickwillie Loop or College Way. Instead, could a central parking hub be established at 16506 Kalamalka Road this year? (9) Install speed bumps in the Westkal/Kickwillie area to deal with speeding problem. (10) Post signage at the College and Kickwillie Loop area, pointing to parking areas and washrooms. (11) Establish parking for disabled users and families with children closer to the rail head on Westkal Road and Kickwillie Loop. (12) Establish parking permits to limit entry to the area; however, may have negative effect on residents and requires more enforcement. (13) Establish one-way traffic on Westkal Road; however, parking for residents' guests might then be reduced. (14) Charge for parking in some areas but free parking in other areas further away. (15) Do a vehicle count now for future reference. (16) Shuttle bus to pick up hikers and bikers from more distant parking. (17) Consider a partnership with the College or Kidston School to use their parking lots. (18) Open the Kal Beach washroom and Pumphouse Beach toilet earlier in the season, with signage. (19) Install fencing on the route to encourage entry at one location rather than multiple locations. (20) Where should larger vehicles park, such as RVs? (21) Signage should be District of Coldstream's brand. (22) Does the District want Tourism Vernon funded signs, such as was done for Kalamalka Lake Provincial Park? (23) Vernon Tourism is not promoting the Rail Trail at this time due to parking concerns. Any decisions on parking should be relayed to Vernon Tourism for them to share with the public. (24) The Rail Trail group has 8,000+ followers. Information such as where to park and washroom locations could be posted, even if that information is temporary for now. (25) Kal Store is good source for information centre. (26) Information should be on the Regional District website.
During the discussion, Mayor Garlick advised the Committee that:
(1) Council had set aside $300,000 in the 2017 budget for site works at 16506 Kalamalka Road, which would initially comprise cleaning up the property. (2) Through a Regional District initiative, parking might become available at the Kal Lake Lookout and along the former provincial highway.
Mayor Garlick commented that he planned to ask Okanagan College's Regional Dean, whether part of the College could be used for parking by trail users.
Mayor Garlick also informed the Committee that he would ask for Council's feedback on whether a questionnaire would be useful in seeking input and solutions from residents regarding parking for the Rail Trail.
Page 20 of 117 Tourism Committee Minutes Tuesday, March 7, 2017
(2) Short-Term Rentals
Tourism Committee members made the following comments and suggestions for Council's consideration regarding short-term rentals:
(1) On the Airbnb website, District staff could investigate the number of existing rentals in Coldstream. (2) Positives of short-term rentals: • income to homeowners • could make homes in Coldstream affordable • mortgage helper • assist seniors to stay in their home (3) Negatives of short-term rentals: • less inventory for rental to college students • impact on the neighbourhood • houses empty between rentals • renters may be disruptive to neighbours (4) There is an increasing demand for short-term renters who wish to visit Coldstream due to the Rail Trail and Kalamalka Lake. (5) The Rail Trail could result in Coldstream being more attractive to visit and live, resulting in increased values for land and improvements. (6) The Regional District could consider charging the public to access the Rail Trail as a way to offset maintenance costs: local fee and a visitor trail fee.
During the discussion, the Director of Development Services advised that agri-tourism accommodation was being reviewed in the Zoning Bylaw update.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Hughes, seconded by Bicknell,
THAT the Tourism Committee meeting held on March 7, 2017 be adjourned.
No. TC2017-13 CARRIED
The meeting of the Tourism Committee adjourned at 9:00 pm.
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Deputy Municipal Clerk Chair
Page 21 of 117 Page 22 of 117
District of Coldstream
Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes - March 20, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Garlick called the meeting to order at 6:03 pm.
PRESENT: Councillors Cochrane, Dirk, Enns, Kiss and Taylor
ABSENT: Councillor McClean
STAFF: T. Seibel, Chief Administrative Officer K. Austin, Director of Corporate Administration I. Breitkreutz, Deputy Municipal Clerk M. Reiley, Director of Development Services
ALSO PRESENT: 1 member of the media 14 people in the gallery
1. AGENDA
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Cochrane,
THAT the agenda for the meeting be approved as presented.
No. COW2017-26 CARRIED
2. MINUTES
2.a. March 6, 2017 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes
Moved by Kiss, seconded by Taylor,
THAT the March 6, 2017 Committee of the Whole meeting minutes be adopted as circulated.
No. COW2017-27 CARRIED
Page 23 of 117 Committee of the Whole Minutes Monday, March 20, 2017
3. REPORTS AND ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
3.a. Proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw Powerpoint slides from the Ministry of Agriculture dated March 20, 2017 Draft Noise Regulation Bylaw No. 1694, a bylaw to regulate or prohibit the making or causing of noises or sounds in the District of Coldstream
Ministry of Agriculture representatives Gregory Bartle (Land Use Planner) and Laura Code (Regional Agrologist) spoke to the powerpoint slides and answered questions from the Committee.
Eric Foster, MLA, explained the process for initiating legislative changes and suggested that the District consider submitting a resolution to the Southern Interior Local Government Association as well as contact the Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development. He went on to offer his assistance, if Council were to request the Farm Industry Review Board to report on a matter related to farm practices, pursuant to section 11 of the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act.
Moved by Dirk, seconded by Taylor,
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that staff be directed to bring forward an amendment to the proposed Noise Regulation Bylaw No. 1694, 2017, that would include decibel levels, similar to the Regional District of North Okanagan's noise regulation bylaw.
No. COW2017-28 CARRIED
3.b. Kalamalka Lake Road Closure Report from the Director of Infrastructure Services dated March 14, 2017
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Cochrane,
THAT the report from the Director of Infrastructure Services dated March 14, 2017, regarding Kalamalka Lake Road Closure, be received for information and filed.
No. COW2017-29 CARRIED
3.c. Parking Options at 16506 Kalamalka Road Report from the Director of Infrastructure Services dated March 8, 2017
Moved by Kiss, seconded by Enns,
THAT the report from the Director of Infrastructure Services dated March 8, 2017, regarding Parking Options at 16506 Kalamalka Road, be received for information and filed.
No. COW2017-30 CARRIED
Page 24 of 117 Committee of the Whole Minutes Monday, March 20, 2017
3.d. Tourism Committee Recommendations dated March 7, 2017 March 7, 2017 unadopted Tourism Committee minutes
Moved by Dirk, seconded by Taylor,
THAT the Committee of the Whole recommends to Council that the District property at 16506 Kalamalka Road be cleared of brush and levelled using existing material on site.
No. COW2017-31 CARRIED Enns and Kiss opposed
4. RESOLUTION TO ADJOURN TO IN-CAMERA
None
5. REPORT FROM THE IN-CAMERA MEETING
None
6. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Taylor, seconded by Kiss,
THAT the Committee of the Whole meeting held March 20, 2017 be adjourned.
No. COW2017-32 CARRIED
The Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at 8:34 pm.
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Deputy Municipal Clerk Chair
Page 25 of 117 Page 26 of 117
District of Coldstream
Advisory Planning Commission Meeting Minutes - March 21, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: The Director of Development Services called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
PRESENT: T. Coape-Arnold P. Hague R. Hoyte P. Hughes L. McEwen F. Wood Councillor P. Cochrane (non-voting)
ABSENT: K. Ogden
STAFF: I. Breitkreutz, Deputy Municipal Clerk M. Reiley, Director of Development Services
ALSO PRESENT: No members of the media No people in the gallery
1. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
L. McEwen nominated R. Hoyte to be the Chairperson. Ms. Hoyte agreed to let her name stand and, in the absence of any further nominations, was acclaimed as Chairperson of the Advisory Planning Commission.
Ms. Hoyte assumed the Chair.
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Moved by Coape-Arnold, seconded by Hughes,
THAT the agenda be approved as circulated.
No. APC2017-1 CARRIED
3. MINUTES
There are no unadopted meeting minutes.
Page 27 of 117 Advisory Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, March 21, 2017
4. REPORTS AND ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
4.a. Review of Role and Purpose of the Advisory Planning Commission
The Director of Development Services spoke to the types of matters that could be referred to the APC for advice to Council.
4.b. Mobile Food Vendor Policy and Business Licence Bylaw Amendment Report from the Planning Technician dated February 15, 2017
Moved by Hughes, seconded by Wood,
THAT the Advisory Planning Commission recommends to Council that mobile food vendors be allowed at all proposed locations cited in the report from the Planning Technician dated February 15, 2017, with the exception of the Kalavista Park parking area on the south side of Kalamalka Road.
No. APC2017-2 CARRIED
Moved by Wood, seconded by McEwen,
THAT the Advisory Planning Commission recommends that Council consider allowing mobile food vendors, during the District's review of potential amenities and facilities in the vicinity of the Rail Trail Corridor.
No. APC2017-3 CARRIED
5. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Coape-Arnold, seconded by Wood,
THAT the Advisory Planning Commission meeting held March 21, 2017 be adjourned.
No. APC2017-4 CARRIED
The meeting adjourned at 8:59 pm.
CERTIFIED CORRECT
Deputy Municipal Clerk Chair
Page 28 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017
A BYLAW TO REGULATE THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM AND TO IMPOSE A CHARGE FOR THE USE OF THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM
WHEREAS the Community Charter authorizes Council for the District to provide for municipal services and to enact bylaws to regulate, prohibit and impose requirements in relation to services such as a sanitary sewer system, including to require owners of real property to connect their buildings and structures to the appropriate sewer connections in the manner specified in the bylaw;
AND WHEREAS Council has established and adopted bylaws to provide for the collection and disposal of sewage within the District;
AND WHEREAS Council may, by bylaw, establish different rates or levels of fees in respect of a service of the District;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Coldstream ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
TITLE
1 This Bylaw may be cited as the “DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017”.
INTERPRETATION
2 In this Bylaw:
“BOD” or “Biochemical Oxygen Demand” means the quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory conditions in five (5) days at 20o C, expressed in milligrams per litre as determined by the appropriate procedure in “Standard Methods”.
"COD" or "Chemical Oxygen Demand" means the measure of the oxygen consuming capacity of organic and inorganic matter present in wastewater as determined by the appropriate procedure described in "Standard Methods".
“Commercial unit” means any user other than a residential unit or a multi-family unit.
“Director” means the Director of Infrastructure Services for the District, or a person authorized to act in his or her place.
"District" means the District of Coldstream.
Page 29 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Page 2
"Domestic wastewater" means wastewater that is composed of liquid and water carried wastes associated with the use of water for drinking, cooking, cleaning, washing, hygiene, sanitation or other domestic purposes.
“Industrial wastewater” means wastewater that is composed of liquid and water carried wastes associated with processes employed in industrial manufacturing, trade, or commercial and business establishments, but does not include domestic wastewater.
“Interceptor” means a device designed to separate oil and suspended solids from wastewater effluent.
"Multi-family unit" means each detached residential unit in a mobile home park or one (1) self- contained residential unit in a building containing three (3) or more such units.
“Owner” shall be interpreted as defined in the Community Charter.
“Parcel” means a lot, block, or other area in which land is held or into which land is subdivided.
"Residential Unit" means a dwelling unit for one (1) family consisting of either a detached residence or one (1) dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling.
“Sanitary sewer system” means any sewerage works and appurtenances thereto owned by the District.
“Septic tank” means any device or structure designed for the temporary storage of wastewater.
“Service connection” means a pipe which is located at the property line of a parcel, to the edge of a statutory right-of-way, that connects the wastewater drainage system of a building or other structure on the parcel to the sanitary sewer system.
“Standard Methods” means the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater as published by the American Public Health Association, American Waterworks Association and the Water Environment Federation.
"SS" or "Suspended Solids" means the solid matter, expressed in mg/L, in a liquid as determined according to “Standard Methods”.
3 (1) Unless otherwise provided in this Bylaw, words and phrases used herein have the same meanings as in the Community Charter, Local Government Act and the Interpretation Act as the context and circumstances may require.
(2) A reference to an Act in this Bylaw refers to a statute of British Columbia, and a reference to any statute, regulation, bylaw or other enactment refers to that enactment as it may be amended or replaced from time to time.
(3) Words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.
Page 30 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Page 3
(4) Headings are for convenience only and must not be construed as defining or limiting the scope or intent of the provisions.
(5) Provisions in this Bylaw that authorize the Director or the District to take any action must not be interpreted to mean that the Director or the District has any duty to take such action.
4 Schedules A, B, C and D are attached to and form part of this Bylaw.
5 If any part of this Bylaw is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid part is severed and the remainder of the Bylaw continues to be valid.
ADMINISTRATION
6 The Director is authorized to make orders, deliver notices, approve or refuse to approve applications for service connections and to make other decisions about specific service connections and the sanitary sewer system, and otherwise administer this Bylaw.
COMPLIANCE
7 (1) A person must not install or replace a service connection or interceptor except in accordance with this Bylaw and with the standards contained in the District’s current Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw.
(2) A person who receives an order or direction under this Bylaw must promptly comply with that order or direction.
MANDATORY CONNECTION TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
8 (1) In areas where the sanitary sewer system is located in any portion of a highway or right of way, every owner of an adjacent parcel where a building or other structure is situated must connect such building or structure to the sanitary sewer system by installing and connecting a service connection, in accordance with this Bylaw, within the later of:
(a) twenty-four (24) months after the date this Bylaw is adopted; or
(b) twenty-four (24) months after the date of which a sanitary sewer system is or becomes located in any portion of a highway or other public right of way adjacent to the parcel.
(2) Before installing, repairing or replacing a service connection, the owner must apply for and obtain approval from the Director by submitting payment of applicable fees as established in Schedule C, and a completed application in a form approved by the Director, stating:
(a) the location of the property;
(b) whether the service connection is new or is to replace an existing connection;
(c) the expected characteristics of the discharge;
Page 31 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Page 4
(d) the size, volume, discharge pattern and location of the service connection;
(e) the expected date and reason for disconnection, repair or replacement of an existing connection; and
(f) further information pertaining to the work that is required by the Director.
(3) The Director may refuse to approve a particular application under subsection (1) if the Director considers that:
(a) the content or quality of the wastewater to be discharged into the sanitary sewer system is contrary to this Bylaw;
(b) the standards established in this Bylaw, the Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw or another enactment that applies to the work has not been or cannot be met;
(c) the sanitary sewer system does not have capacity for the expected discharge; or
(d) the expected discharge or work related to the service connection would present a risk to the proper functioning of the sanitary sewer system or a drainage system of the District.
(4) The Director may require an owner to repair or replace a service connection if the Director considers that the existing connection is in need of repair or replacement.
(5) Subsections (1) through (4) do not apply to parcels in the Agricultural Land Reserve or that are owned by the District.
9 All costs pertaining to the service connection to the sanitary sewer system shall be at the expense of the owner.
10 Should the owner fail to connect the parcel to the sanitary sewer system as required in Section 8(1), the Director may, by written notification, order the owner to make connection to the sanitary sewer system, in a manner that is compliant with this and other applicable enactments, within one hundred and twenty (120) days or such time period that the Director considers to be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.
11 In the event the owner fails to make the required service connection within the time period stated in Section 10 or a notice from the Director, the Director may order the required service connection to be made by District employees, or others, and all costs incurred are recoverable pursuant to Section 21 or as otherwise provided by law.
CONNECTION TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
12 Where an existing septic tank is no longer in use, the owner of the parcel upon which the septic tank is situated shall, within six (6) months or longer if approved in writing by the Director, remove the sludge or deposit in the tank and shall thereupon fill the tank with gravel or sand.
Page 32 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Page 5
13 Every owner of a building or other structure where a sanitary sewer is to be installed must ensure the service connection is installed in accordance with the standards contained in the District's current Subdivision, Development and Servicing Bylaw, and that it is installed prior to the installation of the building’s sanitary sewer.
14 Every owner and operator of a food preparation facility must ensure that grease and oil interceptors are installed in the facility and are maintained in good working order so as to prevent the discharge of grease and oil to the sanitary sewer system.
15 Every owner and operator of a vehicle repair and maintenance establishment must ensure that grease, oil and sand interceptors are installed on the business premises and are maintained in good working order so as to prevent the discharge of grease, oil and sand to the sanitary sewer system.
16 Every owner who is required to install an interceptor must ensure it is installed upstream of the sanitary sewer system service connection and is located so as to be readily accessible for inspection and maintenance.
17 The owner or occupier of any premises upon which an interceptor is installed must ensure it is maintained in a good working condition at all times.
18 The owner or occupier of any premises in or upon which a grease, oil or sand interceptor is installed must provide records of maintenance of the interceptor on being requested to do so by the Director.
19 The owner or occupier of any premises must ensure that a control manhole for a service connection is installed and is maintained in good working order and that it is accessible to the District at all times to inspect and sample material entering the sanitary sewer system.
20 The control manhole and flowmeter specification must be approved by the Director prior to connection to the sanitary sewer system.
RECOVERY OF COSTS
21 (1) Any costs incurred as a result of action taken by the District pursuant to this Bylaw shall:
(a) be at the expense of the owner; and
(b) be in addition to and not in substitution for any fine or other penalty to which the owner may be subject pursuant to the provisions of this Bylaw.
(2) The amount stated on an invoice by the District pursuant to subsection (1) is a debt owing to the District by the owner, which, if due and payable by December 31st, and unpaid on that date, may be collected as for taxes in arrears.
Page 33 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Page 6
WASTE DISCHARGE
22 (1) A person must not release or discharge, or cause, suffer or allow the release or discharge into the sanitary sewer system of any waste described in Schedule A [Prohibited Waste] or Schedule B [Restricted Waste].
(2) If, despite subsection (1), any waste prohibited under that section is discharged into the sanitary sewer system, an owner or occupier who becomes aware of such discharge must, as soon as possible, notify the District of that occurrence and take any and all steps which the Director may direct to halt or reduce the discharge and mitigate any anticipated or actual damage to the sanitary sewer system, other property, or injury to persons who may be affected.
ENTRY AND INSPECTION
23 The Director, a building official, or another person employed by the District or authorized by its Council may, at reasonable times, enter on any property to inspect and determine whether this Bylaw is being met or to take remedial or other action authorized by the Community Charter or another statute.
MONITORING OF DISCHARGE TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
24 If the Director finds, through sampling and analysis, that any discharge to the sanitary sewer system from a premises is in violation of this Bylaw, the Director may, by notice in writing, order the owner or occupier of the premises to take steps to comply with the Bylaw and may require the owner or occupier to install monitoring equipment as necessary to demonstrate compliance with this Bylaw.
25 All tests, measurements, analysis and examinations of wastewater required to demonstrate compliance with this Bylaw shall be at the cost of the owner or occupier of the premises where a discharge occurs.
OFFENCE AND PENALTIES
26 Any person who violates any provision of this Bylaw; who neglects or fails to do anything required to be done under this Bylaw; or who causes or allows another person to violate this Bylaw or fail to comply with a requirement of this Bylaw commits an offence and, in addition to being subject to other penalties and remedies available to the District at law, on being convicted is liable to pay:
(a) a minimum fine of $500;
(b) a maximum fine of $10,000;
Page 34 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Page 7
(c) in the case of a continuing offence, for each day that the offence continues, either or both of: i. a minimum fine under paragraph (a); ii. a maximum fine under paragraph (b);
(d) the costs of prosecution and any further penalties which the court may impose in relation to the offence.
FEES, RATES AND OTHER CHARGES
27 The owner of a property is responsible for paying the fees, rates and other charges set out in Schedule C.
REPEAL
28 "District of Coldstream Sewerage Systems Regulation and User Charge Bylaw No. 1480, 2006" and amendments thereto are hereby repealed.
READ A FIRST TIME this 13th day of March 2017 READ A SECOND TIME this 13th day of March 2017 READ A THIRD TIME this 13th day of March 2017 ADOPTED this day of 20█
Corporate Officer Mayor
Attachments: Schedule A – Prohibited Waste Schedule B – Restricted Waste Schedule C – Fees, Rates and Other Charges Schedule D – Properties Exempted
Page 35 of 117
DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Schedule A Page 1 of 1
PROHIBITED WASTE
The following are designated as Prohibited Waste:
1 Any material which causes or will cause an adverse effect.
2 Any stormwater.
3 Any flammable or explosive material.
4 Any pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, or fungicides save and except chemicals contained in stormwater emanating from trees or vegetation treated in accordance with the Pesticide Control Act.
5 Any material capable of obstructing wastewater flow or interfering with the operation of any part of the wastewater collection system. These materials include paper, sanitary wipes, diapers, ashes, cinders, sand, mud, straw, grass clippings, insoluble shavings, metal, glass, rags, feathers, tar, asphalt, creosote, plastics, wood, animal paunch contents, offal, blood, bones, meat trimmings and waste, fish or fowl head, shrimp, crab or clam shells, fish scales, entrails, lard, mushrooms, tallow, baking dough, chemical residues, cannery or wine waste, bulk solids, hair and fleshings, spent grain and hops, whole or ground food or beverage containers, garbage, paint residues, cat box litter, slurries of concrete, cement, lime or mortar.
6 Any material, other than domestic wastewater, which by itself or in combination with another substance is capable of creating odours related to but not limited to hydrogen sulfide, carbon disulfide, other reduced sulfur compounds, amines or ammonia outside or in and around the wastewater collection system.
7 Any noxious or malodorous material which by itself or in combination with another material is capable of creating a public nuisance or hazard to life or may be prevent entry into a sewer or pump station for its maintenance or repair.
8 Any material with corrosive properties which by itself or in combination with another material may cause damage to any part of the wastewater collection system.
9 Any infectious material which by itself or in combination with another material may create a contaminant in any part of the wastewater collection system.
10 Grit removed from commercial or industrial premises including but not limited to grit removed from car washing establishments, automobile garages, restaurant sumps or interceptors.
11 Any material classified as a “hazardous waste” as defined in the Environmental Management Act.
Page 36 of 117
DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Schedule B Page 1 of 2
RESTRICTED WASTE
The following are designated as Restricted Waste:
1 Any wastewater having a BOD in excess of 500 mg/L as analyzed in a twenty-four-hour composite sample, 1000 mg/L as analyzed in a two-hour composite sample, or 2000 mg/L as analyzed in a grab sample.
2 Any wastewater having a COD in excess of 750 mg/L as analyzed in a twenty-four-hour composite sample, 1500 mg/L as analyzed in a two-hour composite sample, or 3000 mg/L as analyzed in a grab sample.
3 Any wastewater having a SS in excess of 500 mg/L as analyzed in a twenty-four-hour composite sample, 1000 mg/L as analyzed in a two-hour composite sample, or 2000 mg/L as analyzed in a grab sample.
4 Any wastewater which contains oil and grease in a concentration that is in excess of 100 mg/L as analyzed in a twenty-four-hour composite sample, 200 mg/L as analyzed in a two-hour composite sample, or 400 mg/L as analyzed in a grab sample.
5 Any wastewater which contains oil and grease derived from a petroleum source in a concentration that is in excess of 15 mg/L as analyzed in a twenty-four-hour composite sample, 30 mg/L as analyzed in a two-hour composite sample, or 60 mg/L as analyzed in a grab sample.
6 Any material which may solidify or become viscous at temperatures above 0°C.
7 Any wastewater having a temperature greater than 65° C.
8 Any wastewater having a pH lower than 5.0 or higher than 11.0 as determined by a grab sample, or less than 5.5 or higher than 10.5 as determined by a two-hour composite sample.
9 Any wastes from the preparation, cooking and dispensing of food that has not been property comminuted to 12 mm or less in any dimension. Such waste must be shredded to such a degree that all particles will be freely carried under the flow conditions prevailing in the sanitary sewer collection system.
10 Any wastewater containing a hazardous, toxic or poisonous substance in sufficient quantity to injure or interfere with any sanitary sewer system or wastewater treatment system which could constitute a hazard to humans or animals, or create a hazard in areas receiving treated effluent.
11 Any wastewater containing dyes or colouring material which pass through and discolour any part of the sanitary sewer system.
Page 37 of 117
Schedule B District of Coldstream Sanitary Sewer System Regulation and Rate Bylaw No. 1692, 2017 Page 2 of 2
12 Any wastewater containing substances in concentrations that are not amenable to treatment or reduction in the wastewater treatment process being employed by the City of Vernon at any given time or that cannot be treated to such a degree during the normal wastewater treatment process to meet the requirements of the City of Vernon’s Ministry of Water, Land and air Protection Operational Certificate or any other applicable provincial or federal legislation that may be in effect.
13 Any wastewater with a concentration, in a combined or uncombined form, in excess of the levels set out below:
Concentration in mg/L Substance Expressed As A B C Aluminum Al 50 100 200 Arsenic As 1 2 4 Boron B 50 100 200 Cadmium Cd 0.2 0.4 0.8 Chromium Cr 4 8 16 Cobalt Co 5 10 20 Copper Cu 2 4 8 Cyanide Cn 1 2 4 Iron Fe 10 20 40 Lead Pb 1 2 4 Manganese Mn 5 10 20 Mercury Hg 0.05 0.1 0.2 Molybdenum Mo 1 2 4 Nickel Ni 2 4 8 Phenols 1 2 4 Phosphorus P 12.5 25 50 Silver Ag 1 2 4
Sulphate SO4 1500 3000 6000 Sulphide S 1 2 4 Tin Sn 5 10 20 Zinc Zn 3 6 12 A: 24-hour composite sample B: 2-hour composite sample C: Grab sample
14 Any wastewater which contains additional water added solely for the purpose of diluting waste which would otherwise exceed the applicable maximum concentrations.
Page 38 of 117
DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Schedule C Page 1 of 2
FEES, RATES AND OTHER CHARGES
BASE FEE AND CONSUMPTION RATE
Consumption Consumption Base Fee Included Rate 1 Residential $94.10 per quarter Up to 15 cubic metres $2.51 per cubic metre
2 Commercial $94.10 per quarter Up to 15 cubic metres $2.51 per cubic metre
3 Multi-Family $94.10 per quarter Up to 15 cubic metres, $2.51 per cubic metre per unit
4 For consumption less than fifteen (15) cubic metres, the base fee shall apply. For consumption greater than fifteen (15) cubic metres, the rate shall be the base fee plus the consumption rate, over fifteen (15) cubic metres.
5 The consumption per metre rate shall be charged based on the measured quantity of water consumption in the first billing period of the year (approximately January to March). This consumption shall be multiplied by the consumption rate for each and every quarter.
6 Interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum shall be charged on any current amounts unpaid by a day designated by the District Treasurer.
PRORATION OF FEES
7 Fixed fees shall be reduced based on the connection date to the system after the start of the quarter:
Connection Date Reduction Net Charge 0 - 30 days 0 $94.10 30 - 60 days 33% $62.10 60 days - end of quarter 66% $31.05
SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION FEES
8 (1) There shall be a fee payable for the installation of a 100 mm diameter sanitary sewer service connection, from the District’s main to the property line, in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000).
Page 39 of 117
Schedule C District of Coldstream Sanitary Sewer System Regulation and Rate Bylaw No. 1692, 2017 Page 2 of 2
(2) In those cases where a developer has installed sanitary sewer connections, the service connection fee shall not be charged. Those owners wishing to connect shall be charged the plumbing permit fee set out in the District's current Building and Plumbing Bylaw, and all subsequent amendments.
(3) In those cases where the District has installed or has paid for the sanitary sewer connections from the District’s main to the property line, the service connection fee shall be the same as subsection (1).
This subsection does not apply to properties identified in Schedule D.
(4) For sanitary service connections exceeding 100 mm in diameter, fees payable shall be the same as subsection (1), plus any additional costs incurred.
WATER SUPPLY
9 Where a user of the sanitary sewer system does not obtain water from the Greater Vernon Water Utility and the base fee as set out in Sections 2 or 3 of this Schedule applies, where the water consumption must be known, then the user shall be required to ensure that all the necessary equipment is in place to obtain the consumption amount.
Page 40 of 117
DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM REGULATION AND RATE BYLAW NO. 1692, 2017 Schedule D Page 1 of 2
PROPERTIES EXEMPTED
Roll # Plan # Lot # Civic Address 1753-000 18800 1 10104 Kalamalka Road 1753-000 9762 1 10104 Kalamalka Road 693-000 320 44 10106 Kalamalka Road 698-000 B4105 10509 Kalamalka Road 700-000 19954 1 11003 Kalamalka Road 700-010 19954 2 11101 Kalamalka Road 701-020 12405 AM1 11105 Kalamalka Road 701-040 31026 A 11109 Kalamalka Road 701-060 KAP47865 A 11103 Kalamalka Road 703-000 8382 2 10305 Kalamalka Road 711-000 8382 10 10207 Kalamalka Road 712-000 8382 11 10203 Kalamalka Road 713-000 B4907 REM 8120 Whetzell Drive 714-000 13576 1 10109 Kalamalka Road 715-005 EPP20278 1 10105 Kalamalka Road 715-010 EPP20278 2 10015 Kalamalka Road 715-015 EPP20278 3 10011 Kalamalka Road 718-000 4123 2 10003 Kalamalka Road 719-000 2544 D 9913 Kalamalka Road 734-060 28737 2 10850 Kalamalka Road 737-100 KAP48655 2 10830 Kalamalka Road 739-000 320 31A 10603 Coldstream Creek Road 742-050 37470 A 10405 Coldstream Creek Road 743-000 D143810F 10402 Kalamalka Road 744-000 320 (DDW2530F) A 10202 Kalamalka Road 807-020 23141 2 9604 Kalamalka Road 827-000 7328 3 9800 Kalamalka Road 828-000 7328 2 9704 Kalamalka Road 829-000 7328 1 9700 Kalamalka Road 830-000 7328 4 9804 Kalamalka Road 831-015 EPP18765 1 9904 Kalamalka Road 831-020 22730 2 9908 Kalamalka road 831-060 25681 4 7907 Bonavista Drive 832-000 8718 1 9912 Kalamalka Road 807-470 23141 47 7909 Giles Drive 807-010 23141 1 7908 Giles Drive 807-450 23141 45 7905 Giles Drive 807-030 23141 3 7904 Giles Drive 807-440 23141 44 7901 Giles Drive 807-040 23141 4 7900 Giles Drive
Page 41 of 117
Schedule D District of Coldstream Sanitary Sewer System Regulation and Rate Bylaw No. 1692, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Roll # Plan # Lot # Civic Address 807-050 23141 5 7812 Giles Drive 807-430 23141 43 7809 Giles Drive 807-060 23141 6 7808 Giles Drive 807-420 23141 42 7805 Giles Drive 807-070 23141 7 7804 Giles Drive 807-410 23141 41 7801 Giles Drive 807-080 23141 8 7800 Giles Drive 807-090 23141 9 7710 Giles Drive 807-400 23141 40 7709 Giles Drive 807-100 23141 10 7706 Giles Drive 807-390 23141 39 7705 Giles Drive 807-110 23141 11 7702 Giles Drive 807-380 23141 38 7701 Giles Drive 807-370 23141 37 7613 Giles Drive 807-120 23141 12 7612 Giles Drive 807-360 23141 36 7609 Giles Drive 807-130 23141 13 7608 Giles Drive 807-350 23141 35 7605 Giles Drive 807-140 23141 14 7604 Giles Drive 807-340 23141 34 7601 Giles Drive 807-150 23141 33 7600 Giles Drive 807-160 23141 16 7506 Giles Drive 807-180 23141 18 7503 Giles Drive 807-240 23141 24 7601 Birch Drive 807-330 23141 33 7600 Birch Drive 807-190 23141 19 9512 Pine Drive 807-200 23141 20 9508 Pine Drive 807-210 23141 21 9504 Pine Drive 807-220 23141 22 9500 Pine Drive 807-230 23141 23 9410 Pine Drive 802-060 KAP50772 6 9404 Pine Drive 802-070 KAP50772 7 9403 Pine Drive 802-050 KAP50772 5 9400 Pine Drive 802-040 KAP50772 4 9312 Pine Drive 802-080 KAP50772 8 9311 Pine Drive 802-030 KAP50772 3 9308 Pine Drive 802-090 KAP50772 9 9305 Pine Drive 802-020 KAP50772 2 9304 Pine Drive 802-100 KAP50772 10 7506 Coldstream Creek Road 802-010 KAP50772 1 7502 Coldstream Creek Road 801-000 14460 1 7402 Coldstream Creek Road 834-020 320 38A 9109 Mackie Drive 964-000 KAP11595 1 8005 Aberdeen Road 965-000 KAP11595 2 8009 Aberdeen Road 975-000 KAP9074 1 9603 Kalamalka Road
Page 42 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM BYLAW NO. 1693, 2017
A BYLAW TO ADOPT THE FINANCIAL PLAN FOR THE YEARS 2017 - 2021
WHEREAS in accordance with the Community Charter, the Council is required, by bylaw, to adopt a Financial Plan for the municipality before the fifteenth day of May in each year;
NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Coldstream ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
TITLE
1 This Bylaw may be cited as “DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM FINANCIAL PLAN BYLAW NO. 1693, 2017.”
INTERPRETATION
2 Unless otherwise provided in this Bylaw, words and phrases used herein have the same meanings as in the Community Charter, Local Government Act and the Interpretation Act as the context and circumstances may require.
3 A reference to an Act in this Bylaw refers to a statute of British Columbia, and a reference to any statute, regulation, bylaw or other enactment refers to that enactment as it may be amended or replaced from time to time.
4 Words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular.
5 Headings are for convenience only and must not be construed as defining or limiting the scope or intent of the provisions.
SEVERABILITY
6 If any part of this Bylaw is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid part is severed and the remainder of the Bylaw continues to be valid.
ATTACHMENTS
7 Schedules A, B and C attached hereto and forming part of this Bylaw is the 2017 – 2021 Financial Plan of the District of Coldstream for the period beginning January 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2021.
Page 43 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM FINANCIAL PLAN BYLAW NO. 1693, 2017 Page 2
READ A FIRST TIME this 14th day of February 2017 READ A SECOND TIME this 14th day of February 2017 A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE was held this 8th day of March 2017 READ A THIRD TIME this 13th day of March 2017 ADOPTED this day of 2017
Corporate Officer Mayor
Attachments: Schedule A – Consolidated Statement of Operations 2017-2021 Schedule B – Consolidated Statement of Reserves 2017-2021 Schedule C – Revenue and Tax Policy Disclosure 2017-2021
Page 44 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM FINANCIAL PLAN BYLAW NO. 1693, 2017
Page 45 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM FINANCIAL PLAN BYLAW NO. 1693, 2017
Page 46 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM FINANCIAL PLAN BYLAW NO. 1693, 2017
Page 47 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM FINANCIAL PLAN BYLAW NO. 1693, 2017
Page 48 of 117 Reference: 227773
MAR 2 3 2017 Via Email: [email protected]
His Worship Mayor Jim Garlick District of Coldstream 9901 Kalamalka Road Coldstream, British Columbia V1B 1L6
Dear Mayor Garlick:
Thank you for your letter of February 22, 2017, to Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, regarding the District of Coldstream Council's resolution on the Provincial Private Moorage Program. As this issue falls under the purview of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, I have been asked to respond.
I understand that you are concerned that dock owners might not be following local government requirements for those docks authorized under a General Permission for the reason that applications will not be required, and therefore, will not be referred to local government for input. Below are a number of current requirements and processes in place to address these issues, along with some of the proposed changes, prompted by your letter, which we hope will further mitigate your concerns:
• The General Permission includes a requirement that dock owners must comply with all laws applicable to the installation and use of a dock. Although this is a broad statement, I want to assure you that this does cover local government bylaws and zoning (as well as, all other relevant provincial and federal legislation).
• The Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations' Private Moorage webpage (see: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/natural-resource-use/land use/ crown-land/ crown-land-uses/residential-uses/pri vate-moorage) and the General Permission checklist will both be updated to specifically advise prospective dock owners to contact local governments to find out if there are any additional legal requirements that must be met before proceeding with the construction of their dock. It will also be made clear that if they do not comply with local government bylaws and zoning, then they will not be eligible to be authorized under the General Permission. At this time, there is only a general reference on the webpage that "other legal requirements (i.e. provincial, federal and local government) may also be applicable."
Page 1 of 2
Ministry of Forests, Lands an • Once the above changes are made to the webpage, prospective dock owners who contact FrontCounter BC (the ministry' s first point of contact regarding applications and use of Crown land), will also be given the same information directly by staff. • Currently, before any new dock is constructed or any existing dock is significantly modified in freshwater, the proponent must apply to the ministry (through FrontCounter BC), for an authorization under the Water Sustainability Act (WSA), section 11: "Changes in and about a stream" (fresh waterbody). In the Okanagan Region, when an application for a section 11 WSA authorization is submitted, the Natural Resource District advises clients that they must comply with local government bylaws, and then will inform local government of those WSA applications for docks that will be subject to a General Permission. (This process is being considered for other interior locations, but is for now being focussed on the Okanagan Region.) • The ministry understands that property owners do not always know or fully understand the provincial government laws that apply to their activities. It is for this reason that most of the dock building companies in the Thompson-Okanagan have been informed directly about the revised Private Moorage Policy and the General Permission requirements. I believe there is opportunity for local governments to follow-up with these companies, as well, in order to ensure that the local government requirements are being adhered to by the dock builders. I trust that the requirements and information currently in place, as well as the proposed revisions described above, will address your concerns in regards to the policy changes. I encourage local governments to work with Regional Land Authorization staff to identify areas of particular concern with higher risk of impacts that may warrant consideration as "application-only areas." Thank you again for writing. Sincerely, p!V~ I ,/ 911ve Peterson Assistant Deputy Minister pc: Honourable Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia Honourable Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Eric Foster, MLA, Vernon-Monashee Andy Oetter, Director, Authorizations, Thompson-Okanagan Region Greg Kockx, Manager, Operational Program, Tenures, Competitiveness and Innovation Division Page 2 of2 Page 50 of 117 DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM 9901 KALAMALKA ROAD, COLDSTREAM, BC V1B 1L6 Phone 250-545-5304 Fax 250-545-4733 Email: [email protected] Website: www.coldstream.ca "Rural Living At Its Best" February 22, 2017 File : 0230-20 SILGA 2017 Resolution The Honourable Christy Clark, M.L.A. VIA EMAIL: [email protected] Premier of British Columbia PO BOX 9041 STN PROV GOVT Victoria BC V8W 9El Dear Premier Clark: Re: Provincial Private Moorage Program At their meeting held February 14, 2017, The District of Coldstream Council adopted the following resolution: THAT the Ministry of Forest, Lands and Natural Resource Operations amend the Provincial General Permission for the Use of Crown Land for Private Moorage to explicitly require that a General Permission for private moorage requires compliance with any local government regulation pertaining to the construction, placement and use of private moorage; AND THAT Front Counter BC reinstate its practice of referring Private Moorage applications to municipalities; AND FURTHER THAT if the Ministry does not amend the Provincial General Permission for the Use of Crown Land for Private Moorage, that the Thompson Okanogan area be designated an · "Application Only Area". The District has forwarded this resolution to the Southern Interior Local Government Association to seek support at the 2017 Annual Convention with the intention of presenting this resolution at the 2017 UBCM Convention. The District hopes that you will support ou r efforts to ensure that local government requirements are protected as they relate to the construction of docks in our communities. Yours tr~ ----- ?-= C ~ . Jim Garlick Mayor ENCL. 2017 SILGA Reso lution and Background Information Pc : • Eric Foste r M.L.A. Vernon-Monashee, via email [email protected] • Honourable Steve Thomson, Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resou rce Operation, via email [email protected] • Greg Kockx, Manager Land Tenures Bra nch, Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, via email [email protected] • UBCM Membe r Municipalities Page 51 of 117 RESOLUTION TO THE Southern Interior Local Government Association (SILGA) Provincial Private Moorage Program District of Coldstream WHEREAS the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations has amended the private moorage program permitting residential docks to be authorized under a "General Permission" rather than an application-driven Crown land tenure; AND WHEREAS residential docks authorized under a "General Permission" will not require a referral to the local government for compliance with local government requirements: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations amend the Provincial General Permission for the Use of Crown Land for Private Moorage to explicitly require that a General Permission for private moorage requires compliance with any local government regulation pertaining to the construction, placement and use of private moorage; AND THAT Front Counter BC reinstate its practice of referring Private Moorage applications to municipalities; AND FURTHER THAT if the Ministry does not amend the Provincial General Permission for the Use of Crown Land for Private Moorage, that the Thompson Okanagan area be designated an "Application Only Area". BACKGROUND INFORMATION Under the previous process applications for a dock approval included a form of tenure for the area of the waterbody where the dock was to be located. Previously a person would receive tenure over the area, usually for a ten-year period of time. Through that process the local government would receive a referral to confirm compliance with use and dock dimensions. If the local government's requirements were satisfied and the dock met provincial guidelines, tenure would be granted and the dock permitted. Under the new General Permission standards, tenure is not granted; the property owner has the right to install a dock on the water provided it meets the provincial guidelines. Page 52 of 117 One of the conditions to comply with the General Permission is that the dock has to comply with any local government requirements. Unfortunately there is no check at the provincial level to see if it complies, nor is there a referral to the local government for comments. When an application is submitted to the province, provided it meets provincial requirements and environmental criteria, the owner will be advised that they can construct the dock. That approval is conditional to the dock meeting local government requirements. The onus is then on the property owner to check with the local government to make sure the local government requirements are met. This creates a scenario where people will believe they have what they need once the province "signs off" and may not check with the local government for their requirements. It would be better for all parties if the province were to continue to refer applications to the local government prior to allowing the General Permission. Page 53 of 117 Page 54 of 117 District of DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM Coldstream REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FROM: Patricia (Pat) Higgins FILE NO. 1830-01 Director of Financial Administration DATE March 17, 2017 SUBJECT: Approval of the 2016 Audited Financial Statements 1. Purpose: For Council to approve the 2016 Audited Financial Statements. 2. Recommendation: THAT Council approve the 2016 Audited Financial Statements as presented. 3. Alternatives & Implications 4. Discussion/ Analysis Section 167 (1) of the Community Charter requires that the annual financial statements of the municipality are presented to Council for approval. In addition, Section 171 of the Community Charter requires that the municipal auditor report to Council on the annual financial statements of the District. Canadian Auditing Standard 700 (CAS 700) now effectively states that the auditor's report date will be no earlier than the date of the approval of the financial statements, in final form, by the Council of the local government. This means that Council must first approve the final form of the Financial Statements before the Auditors will date the audit report. This process is consistent with the prior year. BDO Canada LLP has now completed the audit of the annual financial statements. The financial statements, shown in draft final form and attached to this report, are available for review and discussion. The following highlights some of the main items from 2016: • Increase in Cash and Temporary Investments due largely to budgeted transfers to reserves and year end surplus; • Increase in Accounts Receivable due largely to uncollected taxes and utilities, and other miscellaneous receivables at the end 2016; • Increase in debt due to the short term borrowing for the acquisition of land; • Increase in Development Cost Charges due to various developments approved during the year; • Total revenues were 134.5% of budgeted revenues. This is due largely to developer contributions from the recognition of park assets and the Highlands Phase 9 development. • Total expenses were 96.8% of budgeted expenses. The under budget is largely due to lower than excepted treatment and disposal costs for sewer and not being billed the full complement of 7 RCMP members. Page 55 of 117 5. Strategic Objectives N/A 6. Legislative Authority N/A 7. Financial Implications Prepared by: /~#/ .. ...r-· ~-~ Patricia (Pat) Higgins Director of Financial Administration Chief Administrative Officer REVIEWED WITH DATE COUNCIL AGENDA INFORMATION Financial Adm in ISi Regular Date: Mar 27/17 Corporate Admin D In-Camera Date: ____ Infrastructure Services Dcow Date: ____ Development Services D CoW In Camera Date: Other: _____ ---- D Other Date: ---- Page 56 of 117 - ;cerz-~-- DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM Financial Statements For the year ended December 31, 2016 Contents Management's Statement of Responsibility 2 Independent Auditor's Report 3 Financial Statements Statement of Financial Position 4 Statement of Operations and Accumul 5 Statement of Cash Flows 6 Statement of Change in Net Financial Liability 7 Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 8-10 Notes to Financial Statements 11-20 Schedule 1 - Segment Disclosure 21 Page 57 of 117 - -- ·-:,:-· ·1 Management's Statement of Responsibility These financial statements and accompanying schedules of the District of Coldstream are the responsibility of management and have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for local governments as established by the. Public Sector Accounting Board of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. Management is responsible for implementing and maintaining a system of internal controls that are designed to provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded, transactions are properly authorized and recorded, and reliable financial information is available on a timely basis for preparation of the financial statements. These systems are regularly monitored and evaluated by management. These financial statements have been audited by BDO Can LLP, independent external auditors appointed by the District of Coldstream. The following In ent Auditors' Report describes their responsibilities, scope of examination, and opinion on the ncial statements. The external auditors have full access to Council. Patricia (Pat) Higgins T · vor Seibel, CPA, CA Director of Financial Administration --~~'hief Administrative Officer March 27, 2017 Page 58 of 117 2 Independent Auditor's Report To the Mayor and Council of the District of Coldstream We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the District of Coldstream, which comprise the statement of financial position as at December 31, 2016 and the statements of operations and accumulated surplus, change in net financial liability, and cash flows for the year then ended, and a summary of significant accounting policies, and other explanatory information. Management's Responsibility for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair prese ion. of these financial statements in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting stand and for such internal control as management determines is necessary to enable the preparat· e financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error. Auditor's Responsibility Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financi ents based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with Canadian generally ace auditi. standards. Those standards require that we comply with ethical requirements and plan an the audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements are free of material An audit involves performing procedures to idence 11bout the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. The procedures selec the auditor's judgment, including the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of statements, whether due to fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor c er al control relevant to the entity's preparation and fair presentation of the financial stat der to design audit procedures that are appropriate in circumstances, but not for the purpo pressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity's internal control. An audit also includes eva ing the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion. Opinion In our opinion, these financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the District of Coldstream as at December 31, 2016 and the results of its operations and cash flows for the year then ended in accordance with Canadian public sector accounting standards. Chartered Accountants Vernon, British Columbia March 27, 2017 Page 59 of 117 3 District of Coldstream Statement of Financial Position December 31 2016 2015 Financial assets Cash 8: Portfolio Investments (Note 1) $ 6,356,363 $ 5,715,981 Accounts receivable (Note 2) 2,528,930 2,451,818 Deposit · Municipal Finance Authority 227,782 225 565 9,113,075 8,393,364 Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued liab'ilities (Note 3) 2,633,091 3,051,534 Deferred revenue (Note 5) 675 Reserve · Municipal Finance Authority 227,782 225,565 Development cost charges 1,388,310 1,147,508 Debt (Note 6) 4,452,835 4,418,299 8,702,693 8,842,906 Net financial asset/(liabi!ity) 410,382 (449,542) Non-financial assets Inventory 13,713 11,371 Prepaid expenses 153,446 132,184 Tangible capital assets (Note 4) 63,895,935 60,925,883 64,063,094 61,069,438 Accumulated surplus (Note 7) $64,473,476 $ 60,619,896 Contingent Liabilities (Note 14) Commitments (Note 15) Director of Financial Administration Page 60 of 117 The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements.. 4 District of Coldstream Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus For the year ended December 31 2016 2016 2015 Budget Actual Actual Revenues Taxation-net $ 5,736,693 $ 5,735,015 $ 5,366,374 Grants in lieu of taxes 133,822 133,661 126,704 Sale of services 1,502,283 1,615,050 1,513,937 Licenses, fines and rentals 581,247 689,766 719,995 Return on investments 32,000 133,074 131,961 Unconditional grants 479,093 452,609 482,756 Conditional grants 1,233,035 503,448 1,150,572 Development cost charges 200,000 Developer contributions 4,049,690 90,938 9,898, 173 13,312,313 9 583 237 Expenses (Note 12) General government services 831,277 789,590 Protective services 1,950,889 1,817,896 Transportation services 3,654,367 3,495,503 Environmental health services 117,891 80,265 Development services 338,050 32.9,871 Park services 873,593 699,060 Sewer services 1,462,039 1,428,858 Interest 255,860 259,998 9,483,966 8,901,041 Annual surplus 104,245 3,828,347 682,196 Gain on disposal of tangible capit 25 233 2 544 Annual surplus (Note 13) 104,245 3,853,580 684,740 Accumulated surplus, beginning of year 60,619,896 60,619 896 59 935 156 Accumulated surplus, end of year $60,724,141 $64,473,476 $ 60,619,896 Page 61 of 117 The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 5 District of Coldstream Statement of Cash Flows For the year ended December 31 2016 2015 Operating activities Cash received from: Taxation $ 5,797,794 s 5,277,287 Fees, permits, licenses and fines 2,298,586 2,111,451 Grants 956,057 1,633,328 Investments 133,074 131,960 9,185,511 9 154,026 Cash paid for: Wages and benefits (2,831,615) (2,701,008) Materials and supplies (716,077) (728,132) Contracted services (2,707,503) (2,574,613) Interest charges (255,860) (259,998) Other (1,181,303) (795,201) (7,692,358) (7,058,952) Cash provided by operating activities 1,493,153 2,095,074 Capital activities Proceeds on sale of tangible capital assets 25,233 2,544 Purchase of tangible capital assets (1,153,341) (2,001,062) (1,128,108) (1,998,518) Financing activities Development cost charges 240,801 150,853 Proceeds of debt 250,000 Repayment of debt (215,464) (206,887) 275,337 (56,034) Increase in cash and portfolio investments during year 640,382 40,522 Cash and portfolio investments, beginning of year 5,715,981 5,675,459 Cash and portfolio investments, end of year (Note 1) $ 6,356,363 s 5,715,981 Page 62 of 117 The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 6 ____-_,_-_- __ >----,------.- __ - -- ·-- _... ___ -, District of Coldstream Statement of Change in Net Financial Liability For the year ended December 31 2016 2016 2015 Budget Actual Actual Annual surplus $ 104,245 $ 3,853,580 $ 684,740 Acquisition of tangible capital assets (3,722,585) (5,203,031) (2,091,999) Amortization of tangible capital assets 2,109,689 2,232,979 2,011,308 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets (25,233) (2,544) Proceeds on disposal of tangible capital assets 25,233 2,544 Acquisition of inventory (2,341) 1,939 Acquisition (use) of prepaid expense (21,263) (9,364) (1,612,896) (2,993,656) (88,116) Decrease (increase) in net financial asset/(liabHity) 859,924 596,624 Net financial liability, beginning of year (449,542) (1,046,166 $ $ 410,382 $ (449,542) Page 63 of 117 The accompanying summary of significant accounting policies and notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 7 District of Coldstream Summary of Significant Accounting Policies December 31, 2016 Basis of Accounting The financial statements of the District of Coldstream are prepared by management in accordance with local government accounting standards established by the Public Sector Accounting Board ("PSAB") of the Chartered Professional Accountants of Canada. The resources and operations of the District are segregated into various funds for accounting and financial reporting purposes, each being treated as a separate entity with responsibility for the stewardship of the assets allocated to it. The financial statements are prepared using the accrual basis of accounting. The accrual basis of accounting records revenue as it is II earned and measurable. Expenses are recognized as they are incurred and measurable based upon receipt of goods or services and/ or creation of a legal obligation to pay. Basis of Consolidation The financial statements funds of the District. lnterfund revenues, expenditures, asset have been eliminated. Revenue Recognition Taxation revenues are re a at the time of issuing the property tax notices for the fiscal year. services and user fee revenues are recognized when the e or p uct is provided by the District. Grant funding becomes receivable. Deferred Revenue Funds receive purposes which are externally restricted by legislation, r llJ...QJ;,agreement and are not available for general municipal p accounted for as deferred revenue on the statemen position. The revenue is recognized in the statem t of o at ons in the year in which it is used for the specified p LI rp~cc. "Ill"'- Tangible Capital Assets Tangible capi l assets are recorded at cost which includes all amounts that are directly attributable to acquisition, construction, development or betterment of the asset. The cost, less residual value, of the tangible capital asset is amortized on a straight line basis over their estimated useful life as follows: Land not amortized Land improvements 15 · 40 years Buildings 20 · 50 years Vehicles 10 - 30 years Equipment 5 · 15 years Road infrastructure 10 · 75 years Drainage infrastructure 30 - 70 years Sewer infrastructure 30 - 70 years Assets under construction, work in progress, are not amortized until the asset is available for productive use. Tangible capital assets received as contributions are recorded at their fair value at the date of receipt and also are recorded as revenue. Page 64 of 117 8 District of Coldstream Summary of Significant Accounting Policies December 31, 2016 Temporary Investments Temporary investments consist of guaranteed investment certificates with a chartered bank and deposits with the Municipal Finance Authority pooled investment money market funds. These investments are recorded at cost, which approximates their quoted market value. When, in the opinion of management, there is a permanent decline in value, investments are written down to their market value. Financial Instruments It is management's opinion that the District is not exposed to significant interest, currency or credit risks arising from its financial instruments, unless otherwise noted. The fair values of the District's financial instruments approximate their carrying values, unless otherwise noted. Use of Estimates The financial statements of th District have been prepared by management in accordance with nadian generally accepted accounting principles. As such, manage required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the ed in the financial statements and accompanying notes. A uld differ from those estimates. Government Transfers de legislative grants, are recognized in od in which the events giving rise to the transfer occur, pr transfers are authorized, any eligibility criteria have been met, a r sonable estimates of the amounts can be made. Non-Financial Assets · ot available to discharge existing liabilities and provision of services. They are not intended for course of operations. The change in non-financial asset year, together with the excess of revenues over s the change in net financial liability for the year. Development Cost Charges Development Cost Charge (DCC) levies are restricted by by-law in their use for road, drainage and sewer expenses and the revenue is deferred until the expenses are incurred. When DCC expenses are made, a corresponding amount is recorded as "Development cost charges" in revenues. Contaminated Sites Liability A contaminated site is a site at which substances occur in concentrations that exceed the maximum acceptable amounts under an environmental standard. Sites that are currently in productive use are only considered a contaminated site if an unexpected event results in contamination. A liability for remediation of contaminated sites is recognized when the organization is directly responsible or accepts responsibility; it is expected that future economic benefits will be given up; and a reasonable estimate of the amount can be made. The liability includes all costs directly attributable to remediation activities including post remediation operations, maintenance and monitoring. The liability is recorded net of any expected recoveries. Page 65 of 117 9 District of Coldstream Summary of Significant Accounting Policies December 31, 2016 Employee Future Benefits Employees are entitled to sick leave benefits, accrued monthly, to a maximum of 180 days. Employees are entitled to a payout of their unused sick leave balance upon satisfaction of pre-established criteria. The District's cost of the sick leave benefits are accounted for based on the actuarial valuation. Actuarial gains and losses are amortized on a straight line basis over the expected average remaining service life of the employee group. Budget The budget figures are from the Annual Budget Bylaw to be adopted by May 15 of each year. They have been reallocated to conform to PSAB financial statements. Subsequent amendments have been made by Council to reflect changes in the budget as required by law. Page 66 of 117 10 District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 1. Cash and Portfolio Investments Cash and Portfolio investments are comprised of the following: 2016 2015 Cash $ 2,929,346 $ 319,807 Municipal Finance Authority - temporary investments 182,176 680,451 Guaranteed Investment Certificates 3,244,841 4,715,723 $ 6,356,363 $ 5,715,981 The restricted and unrestricted balances are as follows: 2016 2015 Restricted cash and cash equivalents Restricted revenues 1,388,985 $ 1,147,508 Statutory reserves (Note 7) 3,523,802 2,754,539 4,912,787 3,902,047 Unrestricted cash and cash equivalents 1,443,576 1,813,934 $ 6,356,363 $ 5,715,981 Temporary investments bear interest 2.19%) while the Guaranteed Investment Certificates bear interest ranging from 2.05% (2015 - 1.60% to 2.10%) with maturities ranging from January 2017 to Sept 2. Accounts Receivable 2016 2015 Federal Government $ 63,072 $ 100,509 Taxes - current 396,140 362,898 - arrears 260,198 222,559 Utility billings 1,484,068 1,557,883 Trade 325,452 207,969 $ 2,528,930 $ 2,451,818 3. Accounts Payables and Accrued Liabilities 2016 2015 Accounts payable and accrued liabilities $ 2,362,366 $ 2,790,116 Employee future benefits (Note 11) 270,725 261,4' 8 s 2,633,091 $ 3,051,534 Page 67 of 117 11 ra i?i District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 4. Tangible Capital Assets HISTORICAL COST ACCUMULATED AMORTIZATION NET BOOK 1.016 Opening Additions Disposals Closing Opening Additions Disposals Closing VALUE Land s 9,355,891 s 410,846 $ $ 9,766,737 $ $ s s $ 9,766,737 Land improvements 1,988,763 1,904.500 3,893,263 164,659 760,538 3,132,725 Buildings 7,395,685 450,000 7,845,685 171,072 1,273,424 6,572,261 Vehicles 5,063,640 161,847 333,166 4,892,321 213,288 333,166 2,246,285 2,646,036 Equipment 2,107,697 727,865 111,614 2,723,948 144,155 111,614 1,587,321 1,136,627 Road infrastructure 33,907,425 951,626 65,932 34,793,119 966,040 65,932 14,187,896 20,605,223 Drainage infrastructure 13,250,105 305,398 13,555,503 239,781 4,276,543 9,278,960 3,984 6,584,233 10,547,689 Sewer infrastructure 17,007,460 124,462 17,131,922 (:l Work in progress 43,190 166,487 209,677 209,677 $90,119,856. $ 5,203,031 $ 510,712 $94,812, $ 2,232,979 $ 510,712 $ 30,916,240 $ 63,895,935 ACCUMULATED AMORTIZATION NET BOOK 2015 Opening Additions ·g Opening Additions Disposals Closing VALUE Land s 9,264,953 $ 90,938 55,891 s s $ s $ 9,355,891 Land improvements 1,897,043 91,720 1,988,763 517,092 78,787 595,879 1,392,884 Buildings 7,395,685 7,395,685 944,030 158,322 1,102,352 6,293,333 Vehicles 4,604,466 478,472 5,063,640 2,211,235 174,226 19,298 2,366,163 2,697,477 Equipment 1,990,206 117,491 2,107,697 1,451,342 103,438 1,554,780 552,917 Road infrastructure 32,549,391 1,488,926 130,892 33,907,425 12,492,043 926,637 130,892 13,287,788 20,619,637 Drainage infrastructure 13,250,105 13,250,105 3,799,939 236,823 4,036,762 9,213,343 Sewer infrastructure 16,954,394 53,066 17,007,460 5,917,174 333,075 6,250,249 10,757,211 \rVork in progress 271,805 4,706 233,321 43,190 43,190 $88,178,048 $ 2,325,319 $ 383,511 $90,119,856 $ 27,332,855 $ 2,011,308 $ 150,190 $29,193,973 $60,925,883 During the year, $4,049,690 was contributed by developers broken down as follows: $359,280 Land, $450,000 Buildings, $1,904,500 Land Improvements, $408,874 Roads, $581,250 Equipment, $187,784 Drainage, $124,462 Sewer, $33,540 Streetlights Page 68 of 117 12 District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 5. Deferred Revenue 2016 2015 Balance, beginning of year $ $ 673,286 Contributions received 675 471,700 Capital projects (844,674) Interest earned 4,337 Revenue Recognized (304,649) Balance, end of year $ 675 $ Gas Tax Agreement funding is provided by the Government of Canada. The District entered into a Renewed Gas Tax Agreement that differed in several key wa s from the previous agreement. These changes have resulted in the District's revisiting the acco ng treatment relating to the receipt and expenditure of these funds. As a result, beginning i , Gas Tax transfers will be recorded as revenues when received, then held in surplus, and n on assified as deferred revenue. The Renewed Gas Tax Agreement also provides that any s ent am ts from the previous agreement will be brought forward to the new agreement. 2016 Deferred Revenue is from payment received for ,rental in 2017. 6. Debt Bylaw Purpose 2016 2015 Debenture debt outstanding: 1438 Drainage $ 33,175 $ 64,770 2214 Buildings 4.52% 2,983,545 3,114,993 2513 Retaining Wall 3.25% 41,217 43,.196 2535 Building 3.40% 1,144,898 1,195,340 4,202,835 4,418,299 Other debt outstanding: 1689 General Capital 2021 1.38% 250,000 $ 4,452,835 $ 4,418,299 future principal requirements are due as follows: Year Amount 2017 $ 205,710 2018 192,582 2019 192,582 2020 192,582 2021 192,582 Thereafter 1,506,957 Actuarial adjustments 1,969,840 $ 4,452,835 Page 69 of 117 13 ------" ..,,-.- •.•.. ·.·,:_-.·,.-.-.- -c:c 'i.7'-~----.--·--- District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 7. Accumulated Surplus The accumulated surplus consists of individual fund balances and reserves as follows: 2016 2015 Surplus Invested in tangible capital assets $ 59,670,388 $ 56,507,584 General surplus (deficit) (1,972,079) (1,454,137) Sewer surplus 1,724,269 1,518,779 59,422,578 56,572,226 Operating reserves Community Works (Gas Tax) 675,754 304,649 Police stabilization 180,000 216,611 Election 10,000 5,000 Snow removal 10,000 10,000 Parks 326,315 339,329 Fire equipment 10,000 35,000 Community amenity 21,619 29, 119 Fire training centre 19,141 Building stabilization 25,000 25,000 Road improvement 13,780 13,780 Water devolution 49,711 49,711 Future expenditures 189,917 205,792 Economic Development 8: Pla 15,000 40,000 1,527,096 1,293,132 Statutory reserves Equipment Replacement Reserve 749,339 649,497 Sewer Improvement Fund 776,695 646,385 Land Sale Reserve Fund 102,962 136,215 Building Reserve Fund 466,835 360,135 Road Reserve Fund 1,235,223 747,830 Drainage Reserve Fund 192,748 214,476 3,523,802 2,754,538 $64,473,476 $ 60,619,896 Page 70 of 117 14 District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 8. Trust Funds The District has excluded the following trust funds and associated cash from the Statement of Financial Position and related interest earnings and transactions from the Statement of Operations and Accumulated Surplus: a) Cemetery Trust Fund The District operates and maintains the Coldstream Cemetery. As required under Provincial legislation, a portion of the plot sales and marker installation fees must be retained for the future maintenance of the cemetery. 2016 2015 Balance, beginning of year $ 123,022 $ 119,037 Interest income 2,201 1,617 Care fund contributions 5,045 3,985 Contribution to maintenance (2,201) (1,617) Balance, end of year $ 128,067 $ 123,0ZZ b) Highlands Crossing Trust Fund The District received funds in advance crossing lease. These funds are h commitment. 2016 2015 Balance, beginning of yea $ 2,561 $ 2,530 Interest income 31 31 Balance, end of year $ 2,592 s 2,561 Page 71 of 117 15 District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 9. Taxation Revenue The District is required to collect taxes on behalf of and transfer these amounts to the government agencies noted below: 2016 2015 Tax Collected: General Purposes $ 5,735,015 $ 5,366,374 Collections for other Governments 8,082,058 7,883,048 13,817,073 13,249,422 Less Transfers to Other Governments: School Tax 4,734,409 4,659,327 North Okanagan Regional Hospital District 618,553 601,564 North Okanagan Regional District 2,174,106 2,080,607 Municipal Finance Authority 439 412 British Columbia Assessment Authority 124,611 128,020 Okanagan Regional Library 429,940 413,118 $ 8,082,058 $ 7,883,048 10. Government Transfers 2016 2015 Federal Community Works Fund · G $ 487,592 $ 1,149,330 Provincial Climate Action Revenue Incentive ogram 10,569 10,290 Strategic Community Investment Funds 422,847 453,273 BC Highways - Street Lighting 1,713 1,242 Total Provincial 435,129 464,805 Other Okanagan Basin Water Board 19,193 19,193 Municipal Insurance Association 6,950 Community Wildfire Planning Grant 7,193 Total Other 33,336 19,193 $ 956,057 $ 1,633,328 Page 72 of 117 16 --:---:--_;,_-_,_._.-,•.----:,.-:,::\··c District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 11. Employee Future Benefits The District provides certain post-employment benefits in the form of vested sick leave benefits to its employees. 2016 2015 Accrued Benefit Obligation, beginning of year $ 208,080 s 211,747 Service cost 23,874 21,604 Interest cost 6,768 6,910 Actual benefits paid (25,095) (4,431) Actuarial (Gain)/Loss 7,591 (27,750) Accrued Benefit Obligation, end of year $ 221,218 s 208,080 An actuarial valuation for these benefits was perf ermine the District's accrued benefit obligation as at December 31, 2016. T valu ion, along with actual benefit payments differing from expected, created an ac ·n at December 31, 2016. The actuarial gain is being amortized over a period equal to the ees' average remaining service lifetime (10.4 years). Reconciliation of funded status: 2016 2015 Deficit at end of year $ (221,218) $ (208,080) Unamortized net actuarial (gain (49,507) (53,338) Accrued Benefit Liability $ (270,725) $ (261,418) Actuarial assumptions used to determ e the District's accrued benefit obligation are as follows: 2016 2015 Discount rate 3.30% 3.00% Expected future inflation rate 2.50% 2.50% Expected wage and salary range increases 2.50% 2.50% Page 73 of 117 17 District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 12. Object Reporting 2016 2015 Advertising and promotion $ 34,616 $ 37,736 Amortization 2,232,979 2,011,308 Equipment and facilities 475,198 469,447 Insurance 137,485 134,297 Interest 255,860 259,998 Memberships and licenses 18,570 19,431 Miscellaneous 84,774 76,002 Office supplies 49,826 48,489 Policing costs 669,313 670,335 Professional development 188,237 95,455 Professional services 1,353,062 1,334,285 Sewer contract 685,129 569,992 Supplies and materials 191,053 210,196 Telephone and utilities 276,249 263,061 Wages and benefits 2,831,615 2,701,009 9,483,966 s 8,901,041 't 1 3. Financial Plan The Financial Plan anticipated use ccumulated in previous years to balance against current year expenditures year revenues. The following shows how these amounts were combined: 2016 2015 Addback: Capital expenditures 3,722,585 3,062,385 Debt principal payments 114,823 114,823 Less: Amortization (2,109,689) (1,995,510) Debt proceeds (250,000) Budgeted transfers from accumulated surplus (1,373,474) (1,800,854) Adjusted Annual Surplus (Deficit) $ 104,245 s (619,156) Page 74 of 117 18 -.,.,_,_,-_._-_.,.,.-.-.-,·-:-·,_.,----.,"//- District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 14. Contingent Liabilities a) Commencing December 31, 1987, the District entered into a self-insurance plan with other British Columbia municipalities. The District is obliged under the plan to pay a percentage of its fellow insurers' losses. The District pays an annual premium, which is anticipated to be adequate to cover any losses incurred. b) The District is responsible as a member of the Regional District of North Okanagan for its proportion of any operating deficits related to the functions in which it participates. The Regional District of North Okanagan debt is, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a direct, joint and several liability of the District and each member Municipality within the district, including the Corporation of the District of Coldstream. The Municipal Finance Authority debentures are cov. d by a loan agreement with the Municipal Finance Authority which provides that, if y time the payments provided for in the agreement are not sufficient to meet the 's obligations in respect of such borrowings, the resulting deficiency becomes a liai:Jl!l,j.ty of tR ·strict. c) The municipality and its employees contribu e Municipal Pension Plan (the Plan), a jointly trusteed pension plan. The board of truste r senting plan members and employers, is responsible for overseeing the manage f the an, including investment of the assets and administration of benefits. The Plan is ployer contributory pension plan. Basic pension benefits provided are based on a for a. s at December 31 , 2016 The plan has about 189,000 active members and appro ely 8 0 retired members. Active members include approximately 37 contributors fro e istri of Coldstream. Every three years, an actuari · performed to assess the financial position of the plan and adequacy of plan f tuary determines an appropriate combined employer and member contribution the plan. The actuary's calculated contribution rate is based on the entry-age norma thod, which produces the long-term rate of member and employer contributions sufficient provide benefits for average future entrants to the plan. This rate is then adjusted to the extent there is amortization of any funding deficit. The most recent valuation for the Municipal Pension Plan as at December 31, 2015, indicated a $2,224 million funding surplus for basic pension benefits on an ongoing concern basis. The next valuation will be as at December 31, 2018, with results available in 2019. The District of Coldstream paid $249,824 (2015 - $245,033) for employer contributions while employees contributed $216,923 (2015 - $211,788) to the plan in fiscal 2016. d) The District is the defendant in various lawsuits. In the opinion of management, the overall estimation of loss is not determinable. These claims have not been provided for in the financial statements. Settlement, if any, made with respect to these actions would be expected to be accounted for as a change to expenditures in the period in which realization is known. e) The bank has issued, on behalf of the District of Coldstream, letters of guarantee with respect to the College Way Extension (Grid Road). The aggregate amount outstanding at December 31, 2016 was approximately $40,000 (2015 - $40,000). Page 75 of 117 19 District of Coldstream Notes to Financial Statements December 31, 2016 15. Commitments a) The District has entered into a lease agreement with the City of Vernon to accommodate the RCMP positions for which the District is responsible. The lease is for a five year term and expires December 31, 2016. Annual lease payments are based on the proportion of the District's detail strength to the total detachment strength. The payment for the next year will be approximately $72,083. b) The District of Coldstream has entered into a 5 year agreement with the Regional District of the North Okanagan whereby the District operates the portion of the water system that is located within and east of the District borders. Under the agreement the District is responsible for the day to day operation of the water system, and is wholly reimbursed for the operating expenditures made to undertake these duties. c) The District of Coldstream has an operating line of dit with the Bank of Montreal for an authorized amount of $800,000, bearing interest at b ·, e rate. At December 31, 2016, the balance outstanding on the operating line of credit · $nil). Page 76 of 117 20 ' ------ District of Coldstream Schedule 1 - Segment Disclosure December 31, 2016 The District of Coldstream is a diversified municipal government institution that provides a wide range of services to its citizens. The District se,vices are provided by departments and their activities are reported in these Service Areas. Departments disclosed in the Segmented Information, along with the services they provide are as follows: General Government Services - Mayor & Council, Administration and Finance Departments The Departments within General Government Services are responsible for adopting bylaws; adopting administrative policy; levying taxes; acquiring, disposing and managing District assets; ensuring effective financlal management; monitoring performance and ensuring that District service standards are met. Protective Services - Police Department and Fire Department The mandates of the Police and Fire Departments are to enforce laws, prevent crime, and maintain peac:.:e, order, and security by protecting life, property and the environment through the provision of emergency response. infrastructure Services - Engineering Department and Public Works Department The Infrastructure Department is responsible for the planning and design of the District's infrastructure. The Public works department is responsible for the maintenance of the District infrastructure. Development Services - Planning and Development Department The Planning and Development Department is responsible for preparing la use plans, bylaws and policies for development in the District and for reviewing and approving new development. Building and Bylaw Services - Building Department and Bylaw Departme The Building and Bylaw department is responsible for conducting p struction projects, including both new and renovation projects, fire inspections, business licensing and e with existing regulations. General Protective Building Government Services & Bylaw 2016 2015 Revenues Taxation - net $ 5,868,676 $ $ $ $ 5,868,676 $ 5,493,078 Sale of services 1,488,641 1,513,937 License, fines & rentals 360,416 455,359 816,175 719,995 Return on investments 133,074 133,074 131,961 Grants 24,712 956,057 1,633,328 Developer Contribution 4,049,690 90,938 6,386,878 9,250 455,359 13,312,313 9,583,237 Expenses Advertising 29,464 5,152 34,616 37,736 Amortization 179,347 1,850,039 2,232,979 2,011,308 Equipment/facilities 475,198 475,198 469,447 Insurance 125,449 10,677 1,359 137,485 134,297 Interest 255,860 255,860 259,998 Memberships 14,291 2,064 345 550 1,320 18,570 19,431 Miscellaneous 43,753 10,043 20,047 10,930 84,774 76,002 Office supplies 47,114 2,712 49,826 48,489 Policing costs 669,313 669,313 670,335 Professional Dev. 21,069 153,916 7,456 4,126 1,670 188,237 95,455 Professional Serv. 151,592 62,683 1,124,199 14,587 1,353,062 1,334,285 Sewer contract 685,129 685,129 569,992 Supplies 1,450 189,603 191,053 210,196 Telephone & utilities 44,367 21,914 208,481 676 812 276,249 263,061 Wages & benefits 769,466 356,587 1,314,362 224,039 167,161 2,831,615 2,701,009 1,681,772 1,494,952 5,876,218 249,130 181,893 9,483,966 8,901,041 Annual surplus (deficit) 4,705,106 (1,453,634) 543,291 (239,880) 273,466 3,828,347 682,196 Gain on disposal of tangible capital assets ______..;2;.;5-'C,2;.;3.;;.3 ______-"2-'-5"',2"3.:.3 __.,....,;2,544 Annual surplus (deficit) $ 4,705,106 $ (1,453,634) $ 568,524 $ (239,880) $ 273,466 $ 3,853,580 $ 684,74~ Page 77 of 117 21 Page 78 of 117 District of DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM ' Coldstream REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FROM: Michael Baker FILE NO. 5330-24-07 Director of Infrastructure Services RFT-2017-04 DATE March 14, 2017 SUBJECT: 2017 Road Maintenance Program Tender Award 1. Purpose: To present a 2017 Roads Maintenance Program Update to Mayor and Council for decision on award. 2. Recommendation: THAT: Council direct staff to award the 2017 Road Maintenance contract to Okanagan Aggregates Ltd. for$ 856,867.00 excluding taxes. 3. Alternatives & Implications Option #1: Award the contract Council award the 2017 Road Maintenance contract to Okanagan Aggregates Ltd. for $_856,867.00. Okanagan Aggregates Ltd. is a local company based out of Armstrong that the municipality has used in past years. Option #2: Do not award the contract and issue new tender Council could decide to change the scope of the contract and re-issue. Upon review of the contract and unit prices, this option is not recommended. As more tenders are issued in the province and contractors secure work for the season, unit prices tend to increase. Option #3: Do not award the contract and cancel 2017 Road Maintenance Program Council could cancel the 2017 Road Maintenance Program. This option is inconsistent with the 2017 strategic priorities pertaining to sustainable infrastructure. 4. Discussion/ Analysis On March 14'h, 2017 tenders were received for the 2017 Road Maintenance project. Three tenders were received and they were opened the same day at 14:00. The tenders included a 10% contingency and the bid results were reviewed for any error or omissions. The adjusted results are as follows: Page 79 of 117 Company Tender Price >eter's Brothers Construction Ltd. $ 903,228.15 'ernon Paving $ 1,026,051.35 Jkanagan Aggregates Ltd. $ 856,867.00 The tender prices do not include G.S.T. Funds are available within the approved budget for the 2016 Road Maintenance Program. It is recommended that we proceed with the construction of Bessette Road, Anjou Drive, Ridgemont Drive, Varsity Drive, Fairmont Place, College Drive, Wolfe Drive, Lavington Way, Sarsons Place, Upland Heights, Senita Court, Wilmar Way, and Glendora Way, for a total tendered amount of $856,867.00. Any remaining funds from this account would be directed to geotechnical quality assurance, spot repairs as required and 2018 carry forward. 5. Strategic Objectives Sustainable infrastructure is a 2017 strategic priority. 6. Legislative Authority The 2017 Road Maintenance Program is included in the 2017 Financial Plan and received early approval to issue the tender. 7. Financial Implications Funds are available within the approved budget for the 2017 Road Maintenance Program. Prepared by: Approved for submission to Council: /~A V ./1 Michaei'Baker, A.Sc.T. Tre ti_/~~~,Seibel,,SA, CPA, CA Director of Infrastructure Services Chief Administrative Officer REVIEWED WITH DATE COUNCIL AGENDA INFORMATION Financial Adm in ~ Regular Date: fJ,o,r, ~-i/, 1 Corporate Admin D ln,Camera Date: ____ Infrastructure Services Dcow Date: ____ Development Services D CoW In Camera Date: Other: _____ ---- 0 Other Date: ____ Page 80 of 117 District of DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Coldstream FROM: Patricia (Pat) Higgins FILE NO. 1855-03 Director of Financial Administration DATE March 21, 2017 SUBJECT: Federal Gas Tax - Strategic Priorities Fund 1. Purpose: To provide Council with potential funding information to complete the Kalamalka Road pathway extension from the City of Vernon/District of Coldstream boundary to College Way. 2. Recommendation: THAT Council authorize staff to proceed with the design work for the Kalamalka Road pathway extension from the City of Vernon/District of Coldstream boundary to College Way with funding from the Federal Gas Tax reserve; AND FURTHER THAT Council authorize staff to submit a grant application to the Federal Gas Tax - Strategic Priorities Fund for the Kalamalka Road pathway extension from City boundary to College Way project. 3. Alternatives & Implications There are several options for Council to consider at this time. Option #1: Do nothing With this option, we won't proceed with the project or grant application at this time. The advantage with this option is that we won't have to allocate funding resources to this project and save them for other projects. The disadvantage is that we could miss out on an opportunity to receive 100% funding for the construction of the pathway. Option #2: Complete Design and Grant Application With this option the staff would proceed with the design work, submit a grant application and budget for the construction of the project in 2018. An RFP would be issued in early 2018 once the status of the grant application was known. The advantage with this option is that we would be able to address the connectivity of the multi-use pathway from the City of Vernon to the Okanagan Rail Trail. We would also leverage grant funds to complete this project. 4. Discussion/ Analysis A recent announcement has been made inviting local governments to prepare applications for the next round of Federal Gas Tax funding delivered through the Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF). All local governments outside of Metro Vancouver are eligible to apply to this program. The SPF provides up to 100% funding for eligible capital and capacity building projects. The objective of this round is to fully commit the remaining funding available for the StrategicPage 81 of 117 Priorities Fund under the current Administrative Agreement. It is anticipated that a minimum of $180 million be available to eligible local governments, making it the largest single intake for the Federal Gas Tax Fund in BC Staff have identified that the Kalamalka Road pathway extension from the City of Vernon/District boundary to College Way would be a project that would qualify under the guidelines for eligible projects. As there is no design for this project, it is being recommended that Council give authorization for staff to proceed with getting a design completed right away so that staff have more accurate information when submitting the grant application. Local governments will have close to three months to prepare their applications. The deadline for submissions is June 1, 2017. 5. Strategic Objectives Council has identified the Okanagan Rail Trail as a strategic priority particularly in supporting the people and activities associated with the Rail Trail. The multi use pathway would provide a safe route for pedestrians and cyclist from the District boundary to College Way. 6. Legislative Authority District Policy #TD23 directs staff to identify possible sources of Federal/Provincial funding for infrastructure or other projects and bring those sources forward to Council before applying for grants. 7. Financial Implications Funding for the design work of the multi use pathway will come from the Gas Tax reserves. Council had earmarked $300,000 from the Gas Tax reserves for the Kalamalka Road pathway extension and parking in the 2017 budget. If successful, grant funding will provide up to 100% funding for the construction of the pathway. Approved for s ~----b-_y:_·_··-_-_·___ r_· ------Patricia (Pat) Higgins Director of Financial Administration Chief Administrative Officer REVIEWED WITH DATE COUNCIL AGENDA INFORMATION Financial Ad min [:gJ Regular Date: Mar 27 /17 Corporate Admin D In-Camera Date: ____ Infrastructure Services Dcow Date: ____ Development Services D CoW In Camera Date: Other: _____ ---- 0 Other Date: ---- Page 82 of 117 District of DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL Coldstream FROM: Matt Treit FILE NO. 0220-01-1 Protective Services Coordinator DATE March 7, 2017 SUBJECT: Spring Open Burning Period Dates 1. Purpose: To set dates for the 2017 spring open burning period. 2. Recommendation: THAT Council designate April 14th to April 30th, 2017 as the Spring Open Burning period. 3. Alternatives & Implications As of today's date, the weather is gradually warming with no substantial snow in the long term forecast. In order to give people time to complete their yard clean up, it is recommended that burning start once the weather has warmed up and the snow is melted. Agricultural water turn-ans traditionally start April 15th. Designating the dates from April 14th to April 30th will give people three full weekends to complete their burning. While the bylaw states that there will be a fifteen day burning period, these suggested dates will encompass seventeen days including three weekends and Good Friday. 4. Discussion/ Analysis On August 22, 2011, Council adopted Fire Prevention Bylaw No. 1592, 2011, which prescribesthat burning dates be set by resolution of Council. Part 2, Section (3) of the bylaw: {3} The Bylaw Enforcement Officer or a person designated by the Fire Chief may issue one burning permit per property annually, in the form attached to this bylaw as Schedule "A", for the burning of prunings and non-compostable garden refuse in either the fifteen (15} day period in the Spring or the fifteen (15} day period in the Fall, the commencement dates of which shall be set by resolution of Council, inclusive on sites of two (2) hectares (4.94 acres) or more. 5. Strategic Objectives N/A 6. Legislative Authority N/A Page 83 of 117 -~~- ··~-_.__ ., __ , . -_-_-.,-.·_-,_.-_c_---.·.c--.~ . :-_-___ ,,.,.,, .. .,.,,_. ,_- ___ -__ --.-.·-• -;;.- ----.·-.-,·--·.-cc·~.--c.·· 7. Financial Implications N/A Pr~v MattTreit Protective Services Coordinator REVIEWED WITH DATE COUNCIL AGENDA INFORMATION Financial Admin ll!l Regular Date: M,:;.;,. #17. Corporate Adm in D In-Camera Date: ____ Infrastructure Services Dcow Date: ____ Development Services D CoW In Camera Date: Other: _____ ---- D Other Date: ____ Page 84 of 117 C:\Users\mtreit\Desktop\Burning Dates Spring 2017.docx District of DISTRICT OF COLDSTREAM Coldstream REPORT/RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL FROM: Patricia (Pat) Higgins FILE NO. 1855-07 Director of Financial Administration DATE March 1, 2017 SUBJECT: Carbon Neutral for 2016 1. Purpose: To advise Council that the District is Carbon neutral for 2016. 2. Recommendation: THAT the 2016 Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program Report be received for information. 3. Alternatives & Implications N/A 4. Discussion/ Analysis In 2009 the District of Coldstream signed onto the Climate Action Charter which required the signatories to be Carbon Neutral by 2012. At the same time the District of Coldstream was eligible to receive the Climate Action Revenue Incentive Program (CARIP) grant which is an annual grant based on the amount of carbon tax paid by the municipality. The grant is currently 100% of the carbon tax paid. Since receiving the CARIP grant starting in 2009, the grant monies have been put into an operating reserve in order deal with the future need of becoming Carbon Neutral. In 2012 the District used these CARIP funds to purchase carbon offsets in order to become carbon neutral and meet our objectives under the Climate Action Charter. The following table summarizes the funds available and offsets purchased during 2016. 31-Dec-15 Opening Balance 22,366.35 31-Dec-16 CARIP Grant 10,290.20 31-Dec-16 Purchase offsets (7,940.00) Funds as of December 31, 2016 24,716.55 Based on the data inventoried for 2016 the District had total GHG emission of 397 (tC02e ). We were able to purchase carbon offsets at $20/tC02e which resulted in the net cost of $7,940 for the Carbon offsets. There have been several initiatives undertaken by the District of Coldstream since signing onto the Climate Act1cin Charter that have the direct purpose of reducing our Carbon footprint. These initiatives include: • Development of a Civic Bui lding Action Plan (GD16) • Development of a Fuel Efficient Action Plan (GD17) • Development of a Green Infrastructure Plan (GD18) Page 85 of 117 • Adopt the Solar Ready Initiative • Install Solar Panels on the Old Firehall • Acquire a Hybrid vehicle • Adopt a Tax Revitalization Program to support Sustainability Initiatives Attached is the 2016 Climate Action Revenue Incentive Public Report. This report provides a snapshot of the initiatives undertaken by the District during 2016 and possible initiatives for 2017. We are required under the terms of the CARIP program to report publicly in order to continue to be eligible for the grant program. 5. Strategic Objectives N/A 6. Legislative Authority The Province of BC requires that a municipality complete and report publicly the information submitted in the 2016 CARIP Climate/Action/Caron Neutral Progress Survey before June 1, 2017. 7. Financial Implications N/A Prepared by: n to Council: ~ iggins Director of Financial Administration REVIEWED WITH DATE COUNCIL AGENDA INFORMATION Financial Admin [gJ Regular Date: Mar 27 /17 Corporate Admin D In-Camera Date: ____ Infrastructure Services Dcow Date: ____ Development Services D CoW In Camera Date: Other: _____ ---- 0 Other Date: ---- Page 86 of 117 "":-:-:-:--->--- . ------ ' I 2016 BROAD PLANNING ACTIONS Broad Planning Actions Broad planning refers to high level planning that sets the stage for GHG emissions red uctions, including plans such as Official Community Plans, Integrated Community Sustainability Plans, Climate Action Plans or Community Energy Emissions Plans. Land use planning that focuses on Smart Growth principles (compact, complete, connected, centred) plays an especially important role in energy and GHG reduction. Community-W ide Actions Taken in 2016 The District completed its OCP which includes appropriate targets and policies to target GHG reductions. Community-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 The District will begin to create policies to target GHG reductions as the new OCP has been approved by Council. Corporate Actions Taken in 2016 I Consider a corporate climate action plan. I Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 I Consider a corporate climate action plan. I Snapshot Questions What GHG reduction targets are included in your local government's Official Community Plan Yes or Regional Growth Strategy? Are you familiar with the Community Energy and Emission Inventory (CEEI}? Yes No Does your local government use the Community Energy and Em iss ions Inventory (CEEI) to measure progress? ' Which of the following does your local government use to guide climate action implementation? • Community Energy and Emissions (CEE) Plan ~ No • Climate Action Plan Yes • Integrated Community Sustainability Plan No • Official Community Plan (OCP) Yes • Regiona l Growth Strategy (RGS) Yes • Other: Yes Does your local government have a climate action reserve fund? Yes Does your local government have a Corporate Climate Action Plan? No 21 Page Page 87 of 117 . . - - -·- ~ . . -.- -.- . ------. 2016 BUILDINGS AND LIGHTING ACTIONS Building and Lighting Actions Low-carbon buildings use the minimum amount of energy needed to provide comfort and safety for their inhabitants and tap into renewable energy sources for heating, coo ling and power. These buildings can save money, especially when calculated over the long term. This category also incl udes reductions real ized from energy efficient street lights and lights in parks or other public spaces. Community-Wide Actions Taken in 2016 I Include any cha nges to Density w ithin the OCP. I Community-W ide Actions Proposed for 2017 I Create development concepts such as density bonusing as detailed in the OCP. I Corporate Actions Taken in 2016 Review municipal buildings for possible energy efficie nt upgrades. Continued implementation of the Civic Building Action plan and Fuel Efficient Action plan. Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 Review municipal buildings for possible energy efficient upgrades. Continued implementation of the Civic Building Action plan and Fuel Efficient Action plan . 2016 ENERGY GENERATION ACTIONS Energy Generation A transition t o renewable or low-emission energy sources for heating, cooling and power supports large, long-term GHG emissions reductions. Renewable energy including waste heat recovery (e.g. from biogas and biomass), geo-exchange, micro hydroelectric, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic, heat pum ps, tidal, wave, and wind energy can be implemented at different scales, e.g. in individ ual homes, or integrated across neighbourhoods t hrough district energy or co-generation systems. Community-Wide Actions Taken in 2016 I Community-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 I Corporate Actions Taken in 2016 I Co ntinued implementation of t he So lar Re ady in itiative. Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 Snapshot Questions 31 Page Page 88 of 117 Is your local government developing, or constructing a district energy project? No Is your loca l government operating a district energy system? No Is your loca l government developing or const ructing a renewable energy project? No Is your local government operating a renewable energy project? No Yes Are you aware of the Integrated Reso urce Recovery guidance page on the BC Climate Action Toolkit (insert link here}? 2016 GREENSPACE/ NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION ACTIONS Greenspace Greenspace/ Natural Resource Protection refers to t he creation of parks and greenways, boulevards, community forests, urban agriculture, riparian areas, ga rdens, recreat ion/ school sites, an d other gree n spaces, such as remediated brownfield/contaminated sites as well as t he prot ection of wet land s, waterways and other naturally occurring features. Community-Wide Actions Taken in 2016 Completed Parks Mast er Plan to dea l with loca l parks, current and future. Community-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 Investigate possi ble opportunit ies for food product ion on local government lands (e.g. communit y ga rdens in local parks) Corporate Actions Taken in 2016 I Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 I Snapshot Question Does your local government have urban forest pol icies, pla ns or progra ms? Yes 2016 SOLID WASTE ACTIONS Solid Waste Reducing, reusing, recycling, recovering and managing the disposa l of the residual solid waste minimizes environmental im pacts and supports su sta ina ble environmental ma nagement, greenhouse ga s reductions, and improved air and water quality. 4 1Page Page 89 of 117 Community-Wide Actions Taken in 2016 I Communit y-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 I Corporat e Actions Taken in 2016 I I Corporat e Actions Proposed for 2017 I Snapshot Questions Does your local government have construction and demolition waste reduction policies, plans No or programs? Does your local government have organics reduction/diversion po licies, plans or progra ms? No 2016 TRANSPORTATION ACTIONS Transportation Transportation actions that increase transportation system efficiency, emphasize the movement of people and goods, and give priority to mo re efficient modes, e.g. walking, cyc ling, ridesharing, and public transit, can contribute to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and more livable communities. Community -Wide Actions Taken in 2016 Continued implementation of bike paths in the community. Community-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 Construction of Phase 2 Coldstream Creek Multi-Use Path. Continued implementation of bike paths in the community. Contribute to the construction of the Ra il Trail mult i use pathway between Vernon and Kelowna . Corporat e Actions Taken in 2016 Continued implementation of the pedestrian and bicycle master plan. Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 Continued implementation of the pedestrian and bicycl e master plan. Participate in bike to work week promotion . . Develop transportation strat~gies that address ways t o reduce GHG and air pollution. ~~~-- -· - - ~ ------~ ·- - ~ SI Page Page 90 of 117 - - ""=:=---:--- =------_:------·-:::.. -: - Snapshot Questions Does your local government have policies, plans or programs to support: • Walking Yes • Cycling Yes • Transit Use Yes • Electric Vehicle Use Yes • Other Yes Does your local government have a t ransport ation demand management (TOM} strategy (e .g. No to reduce single-vehicle occupancy trips, increase travel options, provide incentives to encourage individuals to modify t rave l behavior}? Does your loca l government have policies, plans or programs to support local food Yes production (thus red ucing t ransportation emissions}? 2016 WATER AND WASTEWATER ACTIONS Water and Wastewater Managing and reducing water consumption and wastewater is an important aspect of developing a sustainable built environment that supports healthy com munities, protects eco logical integrity, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Community-Wide Actions Taken in 2016 I Provide rebates for low-flow toilets. I Community-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 I Provide rebates for low-flow toilets. Corporate Actions Taken in 2016 I Implementation of the Li quid Waste Management Program. I Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 I Implementation of the Liquid Waste Management Program I Snapshot Questions Does your loca l government have water conservation po licies, plans or programs? Yes 6 JPage Page 91 of 117 :--. -:. -__ -:.-·.--.---:--=------~ - ··-':,::-;>---.,.--: ------:- .· -. ---.. -- .. __. :-: :> :-: ------' ·;:. · _: ___ ---~:-_ -. 2016 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION ACTIONS Climate Change Adaptation For loca l governments, adaptation to a cha nging climate ca n take t he form of changes in policy, management, technology and be haviour that minimize negative impacts or exploit opport unities. It can involve both "hard" and "soft" so lut ions, incl uding: changes in infrastructure engineering, planning, zoni ng, bylaws, and public ed ucat ion. Community-Wide Actions Taken in 2016 I Community-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 I Corporate Actions Taken in 2016 I Purchase of fuel efficient vehicles for fleet. Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 I Purchase of f uel efficient vehicles for f leet. Snapshot Questions Are you awa re of t he Plan2Adapt guidance page on t he BC Climate Action Toolkit? Yes Are you awa re of the Preparing for Climate Change, An Implementation Guide for Local Yes Governments in BC on the BC Climate Action Toolkit? Have you visited the climate change adaptation guidance page on the BC Climate Action Yes Toolkit? In 2016 did you consider climate change impacts in any of the following areas? (check if yes) Risk reduction strategies Risk and Vulnerability assessment Asset manageme nt Infrastructure upgrades (e.g. stormwater syste m upgrades) Cross-department working groups Emergency res ponse planning Land-use policy changes (eg. OCP, DPA) Eco nomic diversification initiatives Ecosystem-based approaches (incl. shorelines) Incent ives (e.g. property owner reducing stormwater run-off) Public education and awareness Resea rch (e .g.mapping, participation in studies) Other (P lease Identify) 7 1P a ge Page 92 of 117 . · -. - --· - -:::---:---.-... - ... .c·-~~-•I I .,_ -: 2016 OTHER CLIMATE ACTIONS Other Climate Actions This section provides loca l governments the opportunity to report other climate actions that are not captured in t he categories above. Community-Wide Actions Taken in 2016 I Community-Wide Actions Proposed for 2017 I Corporate Actions Taken in 2016 I Corporate Actions Proposed for 2017 Other Are you fa miliar wit h the Community: Lifecycle Infrastructure Costing Tool {CU C)? No Have yo u used CLIC? No INNOVATION AND PEER-TO-PEER LEARNING Innovation This section provides t he opportunity t o showcase an innovative Corporate and/ or Com munity-Wide red uct ion or adaptation activity that your loca l government has undertaken and that has had a significa nt impact or has the potential to have a significant impact. Projects incl uded here may be featured as su ccess stories on t he B.C. Climate Action Toolkit and/or shared wit h other local governments to inspire further climate act ion. Please add li nks to additional information where possible. Community-Wide Innovative Action Corporate Innovative Action SI Page Page 93 of 117 Programs, Partnerships and Funding Opportunities Local governments often rely on programs, partnerships and funding opportunit ies to achieve their climate action goals. Please share the names of programs and organizations that have supported yo ur loca l government's cl imate actions by listing each entry in t he appropria te box below. I Programs and Funding 2016 CARBON NEUTRAL REPORTING Reporting Emissions Did yo u measure your local government's corporate GHG emissions in 2016? Yes (Yes/No) If your local government measured 20 16 corporate GHG emissions, please report 372 the number of corporate GHG em issions (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) from services delive red directlt by your loca l government: If your local government measured 2016 co rporate GHG emissions, please report 25 t he number of co rporate GHG emissions (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent) from contracted services: TOTAL A: CORPORATE GHG EMISSIONS FOR 2016 397tC02e Reporting Reductions and Offsets To be carbon neutra l, a loca l government must ba lance their TOTAL corporate GHG emissions by one or a com binat ion of the following actions: • undertake Option 1 Projects (G CC-supported) • undertake Option 2 Projects (alternative) community GHG emissions reduction projects t hat meet project eligibility requirements • purchase ·carbon offset s from a credible offset provider If applicable, pl ease report the 2016 GHG emissions reductions (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent {tC02e)} being claimed from Option 1 GHG Reduction Projects: OPTION 1 PROJECTS REDUCTIONS Energy Efficient Retrofits Sola r Thermal 9I P a g e Page 94 of 117 -- - . . -- -~- ~ - .·.·~ .... :·:. ····.~--~-~ I Household Organic Waste Composting Low Emission Vehicles Avoided Forest Conversion TOTAL B: REDUCTIONS FROM OPTION 1 PROJECTS FOR 2016 tC02e If applicable, please report the names and 2016 GHG emissions reductions (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tC02e)) being claimed from Option 2 GHG Reduction Projects: OPTION 2 PROJECT NAME REDUCTIONS TOTAL C: REDUCTIONS FROM OPTION 2 PROJECTS FOR 2016 tC02e If applicable, please report the number of offsets purchased (in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tC02e)) from an offset provider for the 2016 reporting year: (NOTE: DO NOT INCLUDE ANY FUNDS THAT MAY BE SET ASIDE IN A CLIMATE ACTION RESERVE FUND) OFFSET PROVIDER REDUCTIONS Offsetters 397. TOTAL D: OFFSETS PURCHASED FOR 2016 397tC02e TOTAL REDUCTION AND OFFSETS FOR 2016 (Total B+C+D) = 397tC02e Corporate GHG Emissions Balance for 2016 Your local government's Corporate GHG Emissions Balance is the difference between t otal corporate GHG emissions (direct + contracted emissions) and the GHG emissions reduced through GCC Option 1 and Option 2 projects and/or the purchase of offsets. CORPORATE GHG EMISSIONS BALANCE FOR 2016 = (A-{B+C+D}} =O tC02e If your Corporate GHG Emissions Balance is negative or zero, your local government is carbon neutral. CONGRATULATIONS! lO I Page Page 95 of 117 ,::--:---~------ · ;.- . -~~ GCC CLIMATE ACTION RECOGNITION PROGRAM Green Communities Committee {GCC) Climate Action Recognition Program The joint Provincial-UBCM Green Communities Committee (GCC) is pleased to be continuing the Climate Action Recognition Program aga in this year. This multi-level program provides the GCC w ith an opportunity to review and publicly recogn ize the progress and achievements of each Climate Action Charter (Charter) signatory. Recognition is provided on an annual basis to local governments who demonstrate progress on their Charter commitments, according to the following: Level 1- Progress on Charter Commitments: for local governments who demonstrate progress on f ulfilling one or more of their Charter commitments Level 2 - Measurement: for local governments who have measured their Corporate GHG Emissions for the report ing year and demonstrate that they are familiar with the Community Energy and Emissions Inventory (CEE I) Level 3 - Accelerating Progress on Charter Commitments: for those local governments who have achieved leve l 1 and 2 and have demonstrated undertaking significant action (co rpora tely or community wide) to reduce GHG emissions in the reporting year (ie: through undertaking a GHG reduction project, purchasing offsets, establishing a reserve fund). Level 4 -Achievement of Carbon Neutrality: for loca l governments who achieve carbon neutrality in the reporting year. For purposes of Level 3 recognition, if applicable, please identify any new or ongoing corporate or community wide GHG reduction projects (other than an Option 1 or Option 2 project) undertaken by your local government that reflects a significant investment of time or financial resources and is intended to result in significant GHG reductions: I PROJECT NAME: Based on your local government's 2016 CARIP Public Report, please check the GCC Climate Action Recognition Program level that best applies: Level 1 - Progress on Charter Commitments Level 2 - Measurement Level 3 - Achievement of Carbon Neutrality Yes Not Sure 111 P a ge Page 96 of 117 March, 2017 RE: Municipal endorsement of provincial smoke and vape-free outdoor public places legislation To BC’s municipal leaders, The Canadian Cancer Society invites all BC municipalities - those with tobacco bylaws and those without - to endorse the Society’s recommendation that the province expand the scope of the Tobacco and Vapour Products Control Act to include bar and restaurant patios, playgrounds, parks and beaches as smoke-free areas, with ministry guidelines legislated for post-secondary campuses. In absence of strong provincial guidelines, more than 70 municipalities have committed to outdoor smoke-free bylaws. Bylaws are effective, but are limited to their geographical boundaries. The Society is calling on the BC government to update provincial legislation so all British Columbians have equal access to clean air and positive role modelling. Endorsing this recommendation will provide the following benefits: 1. You would be helping protect nearly 1 million British Columbians, many in rural and remote areas, who live in communities without outdoor tobacco bylaws. 2. Universal provincial policy and broad awareness measures would make BC residents and tourists more aware of smoking restrictions, thereby increasing compliance. 3. Provincial policy would help change social norms about tobacco use, reduce youth uptake and contribute to reducing BC’s $2 billion annual economic burden that is attributed to tobacco. Thirty municipalities have thus far endorsed the Society’s recommendation that the province expand the scope of the Act. This is in addition to the Union of BC municipalities’ 2012 Resolution B92, which called for provincial outdoor tobacco legislation. Smoke and vape-free public places protect citizens from second-hand smoke exposure, support people who want to quit smoking and provide positive role modelling for children and youth. We continue to celebrate BC’s municipal momentum on this issue, and are seeking your endorsement for provincial action. The endorsement form, found on the back side of this letter, may be sent to Jenny Byford at [email protected]. Sincerely, Jenny Byford Advocacy Lead, BC and Yukon Jenny Byford, Advocacy Lead Main 101 – 1537 Hillside Avenue Victoria, BC V8T 2C1 T 250-592-2244 F 250-382-8130 Page 97 of 117 1 888 939-3333 | cancer.ca TF 1-800-663-7892 Endorsement of Smoke and Vape-free Outdoor Public Places in BC Smoke and vape-free outdoor public places legislation would prohibit smoking and vaping in BC’s outdoor public places, including restaurant and bar patios, playgrounds, parks and beaches, with ministry guidelines legislated for post-secondary campuses. “Smoking” would include burning a cigarette or cigar, or burning any substance using a pipe, hookah pipe, lighted smoking device or electronic smoking device, with some exemptions for the ceremonial use of tobacco in relation to traditional aboriginal cultural activities. Our community endorses a requirement in British Columbia for smoke and vape-free outdoor public places, as outlined above. Or Our community endorses a requirement in British Columbia for smoke and vape-free outdoor public places, as outlined above, but with the following modifications (please list): Name of Community: Name of Mayor (or representative): Title: Signature: Date: Name, phone and email for community contact: The names of communities that endorse this policy will be shared with the provincial government and may be used in communications with stakeholders and mass communications. Endorsement letters will be received by Jenny Byford, Advocacy Lead, Canadian Cancer Society, BC and Yukon via fax, email or mail. 2 Jenny Byford, Advocacy Lead Main 101 – 1537 Hillside Avenue Victoria, BC V8T 2C1 T 250-592-2244 F 250-382-8130 1 888 939-3333 | cancer.ca TF 1-800-663-7892 Page 98 of 117 Right-to-Farm Legislation in British Columbia Melina Laverty University of Toronto Law School Prepared for Environment Probe 2008 Page 99 of 117 Introduction As their popular name suggests, “right-to-farm” laws are a form of statutory protection of farmers.1 While laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, their main purpose is to protect farmers from lawsuits, primarily those based on nuisance. The first such legislation was enacted in the United States in 1963 to protect feedlots in Kansas. By 1994, every state had enacted some form of right-to-farm law.2 Canadian provinces followed their lead, and eventually every province across Canada implemented some form of right-to-farm law [see Table 1]. British Columbia enacted its first right-to-farm law in 1989. Table 1. Current Right-to-Farm Legislation in Canada Province Statute Alberta Agricultural Operation Practices Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-7 British Columbia Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.131 Manitoba Farm Practices Protection Act, C.C.S.M. 1992, c. F45 New Brunswick Agricultural Operation Practices Act, S.N.B. 1999, c. A-5.3 Newfoundland and Farm Practices Protection Act, S.N.L. 2001, c. F- Labrador 4.1 Nova Scotia Farm Practices Act, S.N.S. 2000, c.3 Ontario Farming and Food Production Protection Act, S.O. 1998, c.1 Prince Edward Island Farm Practices Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1988, c.F-4.01 Quebec Act Respecting the Preservation of Agricultural Land and Agricultural Activities, R.S.Q. c.P-41.1 Saskatchewan Agricultural Operations Act, S.S. 1995, c. A-12.1 Historically under the common law, property owners had the right to the “reasonable use and enjoyment of their property.”3 The activities they could conduct on their property were limited to ones that did not harm their neighbours. This is summed up in the Latin maxim sic utere tuo, ut alienum non laedus, literally “use your own property so as not to harm another’s.” The principle underlying this maxim is thought to date to the mid- thirteenth century judge and scholar Henry of Bracton. These ideas would later serve as the foundation for nuisance law.4 1 Brubaker, E. Greener Pastures: Decentralizing the Regulation of Agricultural Pollution. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007) 2 American Farmland Trust. Right-to-Farm Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.farmland.org. 3 Brubaker, E. Property Rights in the Defence of Nature. (Toronto: Earthscan, 1995) at 39-43. 4 Ibid at 41. Page2 100 of 117 The classic nuisance case involved some kind of unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of land. This could include a host of disturbances, such as dust, smoke, odours, or noise. The standard to determine whether something constituted a disturbance was based on what a reasonable person would find disturbing. Historically, when nuisance cases were before the courts, judges issued injunctions, or orders requiring the defendants to stop the nuisances. This right to an injunction most famously arose in the Shelfer case.5 In that case, an electric generator was creating a nuisance; the court held that an injunction was the appropriate remedy, and that damages should be awarded instead of injunctions only in exceptional cases. A second remedy to nuisance suits arose in the United States and involved a “balancing of equity” as between the plaintiff and the defendant. In cases where defendants (most typically large companies) provided important socio-economic services to society, and the costs to prevent the nuisances would be too high, the courts awarded damages in lieu of injunctions. In both the United States and Britain, courts tended to give industry more leeway to pollute and afforded less protection to the rights of private property owners than they did in Canada. Black v. Canadian Copper Co.6 represented a departure from traditional nuisance law decisions in Canada.7 In that case, farmers in Sudbury Ontario complained about crop losses from nearby copper and nickel smelters. Justice Middleton awarded a modest amount of damages but did not issue an injunction against the company. In part, this was because the mining industry supported much of the community. Following this case, the provincial government enacted the Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act,8 removing the remedy of injunction against the emitters of sulphur fumes.9 Another famous Canadian nuisance case is that of KVP Co. v. Mckie et al.10 KVP operated a pulp and paper mill on the Spanish River. The waste from its operations was polluting the river downstream, killing fish and making the water unfit to drink. Property owners downstream of the mill, including tourist lodge operators, commercial fishermen and farmers, were directly impacted by waste. In contrast to Black v. Canadian Copper, the courts stuck to the traditional nuisance remedy and ordered an injunction requiring KVP to stop polluting the water. Initially the legislature amended the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act to require judges to balance the interests of injured property owners with the socio-economic impact on the communities who depended on the pulp and paper industry. The amendment was too late to assist with the appeal. Following the Supreme Court decision against the mill owners, the government stepped in and enacted the K.V.P. 5 Shelfer v. City of London Electric Lightning Company [1895] 1 Ch. 287 6 Black v. Canadian Copper Co. (1917) 12 OWN 243 7 Dewees, D. and M. Halewood. 1992. The Efficiency of the Common Law: Sulphur Dioxide Emissions in Sudbury. 42 University of Toronto Law Journal 1 at 8; McLaren, J.P.S. The Common Law Nuisance Actions and the Environmental Battle – Well Tempered Swords or Broken Reeds. 10 Osgoode Hall L. J. 552-60; Nedlsky, J. Comparative Perspectives on Nuisance Law 1880-1930 in D.H. Flahery. Essays in the History of Canadian Law. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1981) 8 Damage by Fumes Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1921, c.85 9 Supra Note 5 at 11. 10 K.V.P. Co. Ltd. v. McKie et al., [1949] S.C.R. 698 Page3 101 of 117 Company Limited Ac,11 enabling KVP to continue to pollute the river. Clearly, farmers are not the only ones that governments have sought to protect from nuisance cases via statute. Parallels are also seen between the statutory protection of the lumber industry in the nineteenth century with that of farmers now.12 Strong lobbyists within the lumber industry, such as the lumber barons of the Ottawa River, cited the importance of lumber to the economy and the costs of preventing sawdust from entering neighbouring streams. They urged the government to protect them from economic ruin.13 The Ontario government responded by enacting An Act Respecting Sawmills on the Ottawa River.14 The Act removed the threat of an injunction and allowed courts to order only damages when the industry adversely impacted private property rights. Eventually, increasing evidence of the pollution of the nation’s waterways by industry and its interference with other interests such as navigation and fisheries led to the enactment of environmental legislation. The social costs of industrialization began to be recognized, and there was an understanding that government support for industry came with a duty to protect the broader public interest.15 The parliamentary debates in British Columbia leading up to the introduction of right-to- farm legislation highlight the similarities between government’s efforts to protect powerful industrialists in the nineteenth century and its efforts to protect farmers today. In particular, the emotional appeals about the economic struggles to survive as a farmer and the importance of farmers to society echo the industrialists’ claims. The Evolution of Right-to-Farm Laws in British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve Act Assistance to farmers in British Columbia began with efforts to set aside land for agricultural use.16 Reserving land for farming was considered particularly critical in British Columbia and it is not surprising that it was the first province to enact this type of legislation. The mountainous landscape meant there was a shortage of developable land, resulting in competition for land to meet both urban and agriculture needs. Less than five percent of land in British Columbia, concentrated in the valleys, is suitable for agriculture.17 Prime farmland (less than one percent of the land base) is found in the areas under most pressure for urbanization. In 1973, the Agricultural Land Commission Act, 11 K.V.P. Company Limited Act (1950, c. 33) 12 Mclaren, J.P.S. 1984. The Tribulations of Antoine Ratté: A Case Study of Environmental Regulation of the Canadian Lumbering Industry in the Nineteenth Century. U.N.B. Law Journal 33 at 203-259. 13 Ibid at 224. 14 Ibid at 204 and 224. An Act Respecting Sawmills on the Ottawa River, S.O. 1885, c. 24 s.1. 15 Ibid at 255. 16 Pierce, J.T. and O.J. Furuseth. 1982. Farmland protection planning in British Columbia. Geojournal 6(6):555-560 17 Curran, D. 2007. British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve: A Legal Review of the Question of Community Need, April 4, 2007. Smart Growth BC, Vancouver BC. Page4 102 of 117 now known as the Agricultural Land Reserve Act (ALRA), was enacted.18 The ALRA allowed special zoning for agricultural land reserves (ALRs) to be created by the provincial government. Agricultural land reserves total about 4.7 million hectares, with slight fluctuations in total area since they were created in 1973.19 Since 2002, the Commission has begun to allow a broader range of uses on the ALRs based on community needs. The factors that are considered include the social, economic, environmental, and heritage needs of the community. These factors are currently incompatible with section 10 of the ALRA, whose focus is the preservation of agricultural land. Agriculture Protection Act The first right-to-farm legislation, the Agriculture Protection Act, was not enacted in British Columbia until 1989. The Act protected farmers from injunctions and damages as a result of nuisance claims, as long as the farmers were farming reasonably and complying with their permits. The Act did not impact municipal bylaw powers. The parliamentary debate20 on the Act was limited. The Agriculture Protection Act was introduced on June 2, 1989, by the Hon. John Savage, the agriculture minister for the ruling Social Credit party. One argument made by New Democratic Party MLA Mr. Glen Clark during the debates was that many complaints arise due to farmers breaking municipal bylaws. According to Mr. Clark bylaws are sometimes put in place once a conflict arises, reducing the farmer’s ability to farm. He did not see how the statute would protect the farmer in this situation. His colleague Mr. Dale Lovick raised concerns about aquaculture operations. The Agriculture Protection Act was replaced by the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act in 1996. Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA) The central feature of the FPPA is the protection of normal farm practices from nuisance suits. This is outlined in section 2 of the FPPA: 2 (1) If each of the requirements of subsection (2) is fulfilled in relation to a farm operation conducted as part of a farm business, (a) the farmer is not liable in nuisance to any person for any odour, noise, dust or other disturbance resulting from the farm operation, and (b) the farmer must not be prevented by injunction or other order of a court from conducting that farm operation. (2) The requirements referred to in subsection (1) are that the farm operation must (a) be conducted in accordance with normal farm practices, 18 Agricultural Land Reserve Act, RSBC 1996, c. 10 19 Agricultural Land Commission Statistics. Available at: http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr/stats/Statistics_TOC.htm. 20 1989 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 34th Parliament Hansard, June 2, 1989 and June 26, 1989. Page5 103 of 117 (b) be conducted on, in or over land (i) that is in an agricultural land reserve, (ii) on which, under the Local Government Act, farm use is allowed, (iii) as permitted by a valid and subsisting licence, issued to that person under the Fisheries Act, for aquaculture, or (iv) that is Crown land designated as a farming area under subsection (2.1), and (c) not be conducted in contravention of the Health Act, Integrated Pest Management Act, Environmental Management Act, the regulations under those Acts or any land use regulation. As noted above in s.2(b), the FPPA only applies to land that is in the agricultural land reserve, land where farm use is allowed under the Local Government Act, land licensed for aquaculture, and Crown land designated as a farming area. One of the unique features of the FPPA when it was enacted in British Columbia compared to other provinces was that it linked the right-to-farm concept with reductions to local government powers over farming activities. This feature was later added to other legislation. The FPPA overrides municipal bylaws related to nuisances from agriculture for most farms. However, it does not override such bylaws where farm use is allowed as a result of the Local Government Act. This appears in section 2(3) of the FPPA: 2 (3) The following apply if each of the requirements of subsection (2), except subsection (2) (b) (ii), is fulfilled in relation to a farm operation conducted as part of a farm business: (a) despite section 260 (3) [bylaw contraventions] of the Community Charter, a farmer does not contravene a bylaw made under the following provisions of the Community Charter only by conducting that farm operation: section 8 (3) (d) [firecrackers, fireworks and explosives]; section 8 (3) (e) [weapons other than firearms]; section 8 (3) (h) [nuisances, disturbances and other situations]; section 8 (3) (k) [animals]; section 8 (5) [firearms]; (b) despite section 267 of the Local Government Act, a farmer does not contravene a bylaw made under the following provisions of the Local Government Act only by conducting that farm operation: section 703 [animal control authority]; section 724 [noise control]; section 725 [nuisances and disturbances]; section 728 [fireworks]; Page6 104 of 117 (c) despite section 274 [actions by municipality] of the Community Charter and section 281 [enforcement by regional district] of the Local Government Act, the farmer must not be prevented by injunction or other order of a court from conducting that farm operation. The FPPA made certain amendments to the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323, including: • Section 963(5) (now s. 903(5)), which provides that the power to make zoning bylaws contained in the section cannot be exercised by a local government to prohibit or restrict the use of land for a farm business without the approval of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (the “Minister”); • Section 973.2 (now s. 916), which authorizes the Minister to publish farming standards to guide local governments in preparing bylaws; • Section 973.3 (now s. 917), which provides that a local government may, subject to the Minister’s approval, make farming bylaws on matters such as the conduct of farm operations and types of buildings and equipment to be used in farm operations; and • Both ss. 963(5) and 973.3 were made subject to s. 973.4 (now s. 918), which clarifies that they do not apply to a local government unless an Order in Council so declares. Part 3 of the FPPA establishes an administrative tribunal, the Farm Industry Review Board (or FIRB), formerly known as the Farm Practices Board, to resolve disputes among landowners. The FIRB handles nuisance claims arising under the Act. The FIRB administers three statutes: the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act (NPMA), the Agricultural Produce Grading Act (APGA), and the Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA). Originally the Board was chaired by and made up of members of the British Columbia Marketing Board, as well as not more than 10 additional members appointed by the Minister. However, this stipulation was repealed in July 2003 and now the Board is made up of seven members, including a Chair and Vice Chair. The Board is effectively a merger of members of the BC Marketing Board and the Farm Practices Board. In November 2003, members appointed to those Boards continued their terms as members of the new FIRB. Appointments to the FIRB are made by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council upon the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture. Parliamentary Debates Related to the FPPA Examining the parliamentary debates, or “Hansards,” sheds some light on the political motivations that led to the enactment of the FPPA. Overall, most parties and speakers were in support of the bill, with only one Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) showing a strong dissenting opinion, although even he supported the bill. Many MLAs were looking for more protection of farmers. Members of the Legislative Assembly did Page7 105 of 117 take issue with some of the details of the legislation, however. Among the principal arguments in support of the bill were: • Agriculture’s importance to the provincial economy; • Food as a basic need of humanity; • Farms’ struggles to be economically viable; • Removal of other income support programs and subsidies for farmers; • Conflicts at the farm-urban interface and the need for an inexpensive way to resolve disputes; • Recognition that farming is changing: farms are more industrialized and people need to accept these new methods; and • The need to help farmers make ends meet if the uses to which they can put their land are restricted by government. The Hon. David Zirnhelt, the MLA representing Cariboo South and a member of the ruling New Democratic Party, introduced the legislation (then Bill 22). It had its first reading on May 16, 1995,21 and its second reading on May 30, 1995.22 According to Mr. Zirnhelt, the legislation’s main purpose was to protect farmers. During the debates, most MLAs alluded to the perceived economic importance of agriculture as a reason for the legislation. Although figures cited by legislators as to the exact size of the industry varied, agriculture was described as a large economic sector in British Columbia, employing approximately 30,000 people and bringing in $1.5 billion dollars, while food processing accounted for another $4.0 billion dollars. (Given the high level of government subsidies to the industry, it is questionable how much agriculture in fact contributes to the economy.23 British Columbia provides the least subsidies to its farmers compared with other provinces; still, for every dollar earned, the government provided British Columbia’s farmers with nearly $2.00 in subsidies between 1991 and 2000.24) During the debates, most legislators also discussed food as a basic need and the ways in which the legislation would help farmers and local governments deal with disputes arising from food production. Mr. John van Dongen, the Liberal MLA representing Abbotsford, while supportive of the Bill, was concerned that the Farm Practices Board would be made up of members of the BC Marketing Board rather than farmers.25 He was also concerned about nuisance actions brought under the Health Act related to sewage disposal and felt farmers were unfairly treated. He thought that something should be done to alleviate this issue for farmers as well. 21 1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament HANSARD, Tuesday May 16 1995. Vol. 20(2) at 1. 22 Note that the BC General Election was held on May 28, 1996. The New Democrat Party lost a substantial number of seats to the Liberals though still formed the government. The Social Credit party lost all its seats. 23 Solomon, L. and C. Elliott. 2002. Agricultural Subsidies in Canada 1992-2001. June 13, 2002. Urban Renaissance Institute, Toronto. See also Statistics Canada Agriculture Division http://www25.statcan.ca:8081/AgrProfile/otherLinks.jsp 24 Ibid. Note the Canadian average was $3.76 between 1991 and 2000. 25 1995 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 35th Parliament Hansard, Tuesday May 30 1995. Vol. 20(12) at 5 Page8 106 of 117 Ms. Jan Pullinger, the MLA from Cowichan-Ladysmith, noted “… there is not much that is more basic to us as a society than our ability to provide for ourselves – to grow food.”26 She also mentioned that the Liberal opposition leader (then Gordon Campbell) was calling for agricultural land to be managed locally. In her view, this legislation was key. Farmers, rather than depending only on the “goodwill of municipalities and local politicians,” needed an “arms-length adjudicator.” Mr. Lyall Hanson from North Okanagan disagreed with the suggestion that the Act would create an “equal partnership” between the Ministry of Agriculture and local government. As he read the Act, it was clear that the final authority rested with the Ministry. The Minister retained considerable powers under the Act. The Act on its face created substantial power at the provincial level to control farming at the expense of municipalities, effectively reducing their efforts to plan locally and enact local bylaws. Ms. Lynn Stephens, the MLA for Langley, noted in her statement that she had watched the transformation of the Fraser Valley “…primarily a farming community – grow into one of quite an urban setting.”27 She was particularly concerned that farmers under the Act would have to comply with environmental standards and not contaminate wells or waterways, which was an issue in her community. Mr. Norm Lortie, from Delta North, stated that people needed to realize that farming has changed. For farmers to be competitive in the global market they needed to use the most up-to-date equipment, such as huge greenhouses and helicopters.28 He was among several MLAs who clearly saw this legislation as protecting industrial farming rather than just the family farm. Mr. Fred Gingell, the Liberal MLA for Delta South, noted that “if the use of land is going to be tied up, then the owners of that land have to be protected and assured that the economic viability of their operation is sound.”29 One of the main reasons he supported the legislation was that farmers had suffered continued cuts in other areas. He felt that additional support should be given to farmers to ensure they were able to continue to farm. He was also concerned about the makeup of the Board, arguing that it should include members of the Agricultural Land Commission and local government, either municipal or regional. Furthermore, he felt that people needed to recognize that farming was changing and that farms were no longer family run and required farm workers. Many found it difficult to put in septic tanks for additional residences on their lands. Even those MLAs who had concerns about the legislation supported it in principle. The main concern was that, although the legislation was called a “right-to-farm” act, this was a misnomer as it would not do enough to support farmers. Members noted that farming was no longer economically viable, particularly compared to farming south of the border, 26 Ibid at 10. 27 Ibid at 15. 28 Supra Note 22 at 16-17. 29 Supra Note 22 at 27. Page9 107 of 117 due to the removal of income support programs to farmers and the increasing costs for water and taxes. Mr. Cliff Serwa, the MLA for Okanagan West and a member of the Social Credit party, was one of the few to come out strongly against the Bill, although even he supported it in principle. The main reason he did not support it was because he felt the existing legislation – the Agricultural Protection Act introduced in 1989 – was sufficient and that this was just the same legislation under a new name.30 (Mr. Zirnholt’s response to this was that the old act differed significantly as it put the onus on the farmer to show his practice was reasonable.) Mr. Serwa felt that the current government was wasting taxpayers’ money and that the new Act was just political grandstanding. He did not think the government really supported farming given they had removed most of the support programs for farmers. These concerns were echoed by Mr. Allan Warnke. He also felt that the name “right-to-farm” created too many expectations given what the legislation would actually do.31 Mr. Gordon Wilson, the Progressive Democratic Alliance Leader (who had formerly led the Liberal party and later joined the New Democratic Party) and MLA for Powell River- Sunshine Coast, believed that the bill was more controversial than it appeared from the debate among the elected members.32 He envisioned problems arising from the definitions of a farm operation, particularly concerning aerial and chemical spraying, which he thought the province should be moving away from. He felt issues would arise related to the Pesticide Control Act. With farms so close to residential areas, there was drift of spray onto school yards as well as contamination of wells. The Board regulating the Pesticide Control Act was very pro-industry, he said, although he later went on to say that this Board should be merged with the Farm Practices Board, in part to prevent having two different tribunals deciding on the same matters. Mr. Wilson raised other concerns about the proposed composition of the Farm Practices Board, noting that the public would be justified in asking why they did not have a representative on the Board. He also raised issues related to aquaculture and what would be considered “normal” practice. As he stated, “...the right to farm is not the right to abuse that privilege…” The Farm Industry Review Board Mandate of the Farm Industry Review Board The FIRB’s mission is to promote an agri-food industry that serves the public interest. The Board administers three statutes: the Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act (NPMA), the Agricultural Produce Grading Act (APGA), and the Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA). Under the NPMA, the Board supervises regulated marketing boards and hears appeals from their orders, and signs federal-provincial agreements related to supply- managed commodities. Under the APGA, the Board hears appeals related to grading 30 Supra Note 22 at 32. 31 Supra Note 22 at 42-46. 32 Supra Note 22 at 47-50. Page10 108 of 117 licenses. Under the FPPA, the Board hears complaints related to nuisances arising from agricultural activities and conducts studies and reports on farm practices. Decisions of the Farm Industry Review Board The FIRB hears a limited number of cases each year compared to some administrative tribunals (such as Worker’s Compensation Tribunals). The FIRB heard only three, nine, and four cases in each of 2004/05, 2005/06, and 2006/07 respectively related to the FPPA. The existing backlog of cases from previous years was reduced to four by 2007/8 [see Table 2.]. The formal complaints filed over the last four years range from three to eight. No clear pattern as to the resolution of formal complaints has emerged; for example, in 2007/8 the majority of cases settled, in 2006/07 nearly half were withdrawn, while in 2005/6 most cases were heard in a formal hearing. Aside from formal complaints, the FIRB also receives a number of informal complaints each year. For example, it received 32 complaints in 2006/07. The FIRB also administers marketing appeals under the NPMA; it handled 37, 38, and 28 in each of 2005/06, 2006/07, and 2007/08. While it is difficult to measure, right-to-farm legislation, by virtue of its name, may lead to a chilling effect. Plaintiffs may hesitate to bring their dispute forward knowing that they face an uphill battle and that farmers have the “right to farm.” Table 2. Summary of Complaints Administered by the FIRB 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08* Carried over from 11 12 9 4 previous fiscal year Filed 5 8 3 6 Total Administered 16 20 12 10 Resolution Withdrawn 0 0 3 1 Resolved by 1 2 1 5 settlement/mediation Heard/Decided 3 9 4 1 Total Complaints 4 11 8 7 disposed Other – adjourned 0 0 1 1 for FPPA section 11 (2) review Active Complaints 12 9 4 2 carried forward (Jan 17, 2005) (Jan 23, 2006) (Mar 3, 2007) (Apr 2008) *As of April 2008 The complaints fall into a number of classic nuisance categories, including noise, odour, and dust [see Tables 3, 4 and 5]. They can be grouped most commonly into problems Page11 109 of 117 with noise, typically from bird scaring devices, such as propane cannons on orchards (often cherry) and blueberry farms; and problems with odours from animal farming (mostly poultry, including chicken and ducks) and turf. As of April 2008, the six cases before the Board included one involving dust, one concerning noise from a propane cannon, three related to odour, and one unusual case related to boat access. Frequently more than one nuisance is a concern in any particular complaint. Not surprisingly, nearly all of the disputes have occurred in either the Fraser River Valley or the Okanagan Valley, the heart of B.C.’s agricultural production. Isolated cases have arisen on Vancouver Island, the Gulf Islands, and in Central Kootenay region. Though the FPPA also covers forestry production, there has been no case before the FIRB involving forestry matters. Table 3. 2008 complaints filed as of April 2008 Issue # of Complaints Location Cattle/Dust 1 Penticton, Okanagan Blueberries/Propane 1 Abbotsford, S Fraser Valley cannon - noise Turf Farming/Odour 1 Delta, S Fraser Valley Turf Farming/Irrigation 1 Delta, S Fraser Valley Pump - Odour/Noise Winery/Farm Gate Sales - 1 Saturna Island, Gulf Islands Boat Access Chick Hatchery - Odour 1 Abbotsford, S Fraser Valley Source: FIRB Statistics at http://firb.gov.bc.ca Of the 10 hearings between 2004/5 and 2006/7, in four of the cases both the respondent and complainants were farmers [see Table 4]. This is not unusual given the way the ALR is distributed; farmers are often on adjacent land. Four of the cases in these years related to chicken farms, and another two related to other animals (horses and hogs). Three cases were from cherry farms, and one was from a turf farm. Table 4. Complaints 2004/5-2006/7 Issue Farm # of Location Outcome Complaints Noise, cannons Cherry 2 Central Saanich; Modify practice, Okanagan prepare wildlife predation mgmt plan Dust, manure, Chickens 2 S Fraser Valley; No changes; odour S Fraser Valley modify practice Flies, rats Chickens 2 S Fraser Valley; Modification Skeena River ordered Valley Page12 110 of 117 Odour Turf 1 Delta, S Fraser Supported farmer Valley with minor modifications Dust, manure, Horse 1 Oliver, Okanagan Modification parasites ordered Odour, flies, Hog 1 Nanaimo, Modification manure Vancouver Island ordered Noise, sprays, Cherry 1 Wynndel, Central Some modifications helicopter to dry Kootenay but farmer didn’t have to do exactly what plaintiff wanted – just what was reasonable Source: Compiled from McNally Case Summaries and FIRB Online Decisions Of the 10 hearings between 1997 and 2003/4, four cases related to propane cannons, another related to bird recording scare devices, four cases related to odours, and one related to pesticide use [see Table 5]. Table 5. Complaints 1997-2003/4 Issue Farm # of Location Outcome Complaints Propane cannons, Blueberry 2 Abbotsford (S No ruling; noise Fraser Valley); modifications Surrey (Fraser ordered Valley) Propane cannons, Vineyard 1 Kelowna, Central Modifications noise Okanagan ordered Propane cannons, Fruit Trees 1 Kamloops No noise (hobby jurisdiction farm) over hobby farms – dismissed Bird scare devices Cherry 1 Okanagan Prepare predation management plan Odour, noise Compost 1 Central Saanich No modifications needed Odours Duck 1 Chilliwack, Fraser New Valley complaint must be submitted Page13 111 of 117 Odours Duck 1 Aldegrove, Fraser Stop farming Valley until modifications made Odours Chicken 1 Langley, Fraser Modifications Valley ordered Pesticides (water Cherry 1 Wynndel, Central No further contamination), Kootenay modifications helicopters to dry ordered Source: Compiled from Tsiplove Case Summaries 2004 and FIRB Online Decisions. The Disempowerment of Municipalities One important aspect of British Columbia’s right-to-farm legislation is the extent to which the province is reducing the ability of local governments to deal with land use and farming issues. Aside from the loss of municipal bylaw powers related to farming, another issue that has arisen is that a municipality cannot represent a body of constituents against farming interests at the Board. With a growing population, disputes between farmers and urban development are likely to be an increasing phenomenon. As Madam Justice Newbury stated, Perhaps more than in any other Canadian province, the subject of land use has become a subject of public debate and conflict in British Columbia. Environmentalists regularly risk contempt of court to protest logging and mining operations; aboriginal bands confront governments and private landowners in efforts to preserve a traditional way of life tied to the land; and even in urban centres, real estate developers often come into conflict with residents and others wishing to protect and enlarge green park areas. Not surprisingly, municipal councils have become one arena for controversies of this kind.33 The above quote was cited in Windset Greenhouses,34 a recent case that highlighted the conflict between municipal bylaw powers and the powers of the province under the FPPA with respect to farming and zoning. Windset Ltd. purchased property in Delta to build large greenhouses. When Windset attempted to get building permits, the municipality indicated that a new by-law coming into force would require restrictive covenants related to wildlife habitat enhancement, lighting glare, and the heating of the greenhouses. As noted in that decision, the Ministry of Agriculture in a letter to the municipality of Delta indicated that in light of the FPPA it did not think that Delta could impose conditions on the farmers.35 Delta aimed to regulate the land under the Property 33 First National Properties Ltd. v. Highlands (District) (2001) 152 B.C.C.A. 83, 198 D.L.R. (4th) 443 at 1 (BC CA) 34 Windset Greenhouses (Ladner) Ltd. v. The Corporation of Delta, [2007] 8 W.W.W.R. 503, 66 B.C.L.R. (4th) 59, 2007 BCCA 126 (CanLII) (BC CA) 35 Ibid at 10 and 11. Page14 112 of 117 Law Act. At the British Columbia Supreme Court in 2003, this was found to be ultra vires municipal powers. The Principles and Practices Governing the FIRB’s Decisions Jurisdiction In contrast to the common law, central to all of the FIRB’s decisions is the interpretation of the statute itself. An initial question in any case before the FIRB is whether or not the case falls within its jurisdiction. Sometimes it is obvious and so this is not considered. According to Hanson v. Asquini,36 complaints related to hobby farms are outside the FIRB’s jurisdiction and do not fall under the FPPA as such farms are not considered a “farm business.” In this case, since the farmer was not making money it was deemed that his activities were not covered by the Act. In Deverell v. Morning Bay Vineyard,37 Ms. Deverell had grown an organic garden since 1974 known as the “Tree of Life Garden” on Pender Island, one of the Southern Gulf Islands. Not long after her neighbour established a vineyard, the Deverells began to have problems with excess water running onto their property. A number of trees on their property died as a result. There were also other issues such as, noise, smoke, dust, and spraying. The main issue before the Board was whether the water drainage used by the vineyard was a normal farming practice. The FIRB ordered Morning Bay Vineyard to complete an integrated water plan. While it found that the water management issues were within their jurisdiction, the actual position of the vineyard on the property was not (as this was considered a land use planning or zoning issue). In Morgan Creek,38 the FIRB ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear complaints related to propane cannons even though s.24 (1) of the federal Migatory Bird Regulations allows people to put up devices to scare birds to protect crops and property. One of the reasons was the possibility of dual compliance with relevant federal and provincial legislation. The Meaning of “Normal Farm Practices” After jurisdiction issues are settled, the FIRB uses a two-step analysis in its decisions. First, the complainants must have met an evidentiary burden to show they are impacted by the farm’s activities. Then, the second question examined is whether the respondent farmer is following a “normal farm practice.” The aim of the FIRB is to determine if the practice follows accepted standards on similar farms under similar conditions. A “normal farm practice” is defined in section 1 of the FPPA as: a practice that is conducted by a farm business in a manner consistent with: 36 Hanson v. Asquini, FIRB, October 31, 2003 37 Deverell v. Morning Bay Vineyard, FIRB, October 25, 2007 38 Morgan Creek Homeowners Associaton v. Sekhon, Preliminary Jurisdictional Issue, FIRB (March 2, 2000) Page15 113 of 117 a) proper and accepted customs and standards as established and followed by similar farm businesses under similar circumstances, and b) any standards prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and includes a practice that makes use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices and any standards prescribed under paragraph (b). The FIRB website indicates that the main decision that defines the meaning of “normal farm practices” is the British Columbia Court of Appeal decision in Central Saanich (District) v. Kimoff.39 In that case, Kimoff had painted “Kimoff Farm” on a water tower on his property. This contravened a local bylaw, which said that no signs other than sandwich or municipal signs could be constructed. Kimoff applied for a sign permit but did not receive it. The Court of Appeal did not rule on the case as it said it was outside its jurisdiction. It is unclear why this case is referred to on the FIRB site, since the Court of Appeal did not rule on the case and there is not a written decision from the FIRB either. The FIRB uses a contextual analysis when defining what normal farm practices are, and considers the specific factors of the case before it. Among the factors examined are: the proximity of the neighbours, their use of the lands, geographic or meteorological features, the type of farming in the area, and the size and type of the operation.40 The FIRB also considers the efforts made by farmers to adjust their practices and respect their neighbours, and the levels of disturbance. In the case of bird scare devices, as noted in Wright v. Lubchynski, 41 the FIRB must consider that “…the management of the [bird scare device,] that is placement, number, direction, time and frequency of firing, can be affected by the proximity of neighbouring residences or the geography of the areas.” The FIRB appears to be trying to create consistency among its decisions. While administrative tribunals are not bound by precedent, the FIRB seems to show good practice by attempting to lay out a consistent decision-making framework. For example, the Board looked back to Eason42 when deciding Ollenberger.43 Similarly in Judd, 44 the FIRB considered its decision in Lubchynski. An issue that doesn’t arise in the FIRB’s decisions is whether a normal practice should be deemed unacceptable even if it is very harmful. One sees the evolution in negligence cases in which courts, aside from looking at the standard or custom of the time to determine whether the acts of the defendant were reasonable, look beyond that to see whether the standard should be changed. Just because everyone in the industry is following the minimal standard doesn’t mean that it is reasonable.45 This was most famously outlined in the US case of T.J. Hooper. In that case, tug boat owners were held liable for sinking a barge after getting caught in a storm. The tug boat did not have radio receivers on board to enable it to receive weather reports. While some tug boats had 39 Central Saanich (District) v. Kimoff, 2002 BCCA 169, (BC CA) 40 Judd v. Webber, FIRB, November 17, 2004 at 42 41 Wright v. Lubchynski August 12, 2002 at 33 42 Eason v. Outlander Poultry Farms Ltd., FIRB, (March 10, 200) 43 Ollenberger (Geertsma) v. Breukelman, FIRB (March 23, 2006) 44 Judd v. Webber, FIRB, November 17, 2004 45 Trimarco v. Klein 436 NE 2d 502 (NY CA 1982); The TJ Hooper 60 F2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932) Page16 114 of 117 them, others did not and they could not yet be considered standard in the industry. Justice Learned Hand noted, “Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission…”46 One wonders whether the FIRB would would find a normal but very harmful farm practice acceptable, or whether such a case might create an incentive to raise the bar and increase standards. Remedies Section 6 of the FPPA sets out the remedies the FIRB can order: The Board can dismiss a complaint or order a farmer to cease or modify a practice so that it is consistent with normal farm practices. Of the cases that are heard, most of them result in the Board requiring the farmer accused of creating a nuisance to modify his practice in some way. Only rarely must the farmer cease the practice until he has made the modifications. Orders of the FIRB frequently request that the farmer come up with a management plan – for example, a wildlife predation management plan when the dispute concerns propane cannons. The farmer is asked to show what the actual predation problems are and, one would expect, to justify why he has chosen the control methods that he has. This is likely a means by which the FIRB can make a decision if the case appears again, and a way to determine if the farmer’s methods are reasonable given the conditions. These remedies contrast with the common law, where an injunction would normally be ordered if a particular practice was found to be harmful. In its decisions, the FIRB appears to be doing some balancing as between the plaintiff and the defendant that may be similar to the “balancing of equity” approach that arises in US decisions. The farmer is seen as providing an important contribution to the economy and this is balanced against the right of the private property owner to be free from nuisance. Role of Intervention Interveners are seen regularly at many hearings of the FIRB. Intervention at times can lead to imbalance at a hearing by allowing one side to lead more evidence than the other. This could be seen as a “double barreling” of the defence. At the same time, intervention can be a useful way for the Board to receive additional background information that might assist it in deciding the case before it and in judging whether a practice is “normal.” There have been numerous examples of intervention in cases where the interveners supported the position of the defendant farmer, including: • BC Poultry Association (Ollenberger) • BC Chicken Grower’s Association (Laxton) • South Vancouver Island Direct Farm Marketing Association (Mcleod) • BC Broiler Hatching Egg Producers’ Association (Baran) • BC Blueberry Council (Clapham 1997) 46 The TJ Hooper 60 F2d 737 (2d Cir. 1932) as quoted in Weinrib, E.J., Tort Law: Cases and Materials, Second Edition (Toronto: Emond Montgomery, 2003) at 85. Page17 115 of 117 • BC Columbia Blueberry Council, BC Fruit Growers’ Association, Bhullar’s Blueberry Farm (Morgan Creek 2000) There have been two cases in which municipalities have intervened to support the plaintiff’s position. However, these differed from interveners supporting the defense. In both cases, the municipalities complained initially, but were unable to obtain party status as they were not natural persons. As a result, a representative plaintiff brought the case forward with the municipalities acting as interveners. The two cases were: • Corporation of Delta (West Coast Instant Lawns) • City of Terrace (Daybreak Farms) Appeals While higher courts can and do review administrative decisions on questions of fact, law, or mixed questions of fact and law, courts show a great deal of deference to a tribunal’s decision, especially if it is related to the tribunal’s principal statute. There are several reasons for this but the principal one is parliamentary supremacy. Parliament has created the tribunal with a specific goal and purpose, and courts have to respect this. Another reason courts often defer to tribunal decisions is that the tribunal has specialized expertise. Courts will also tend to defer to questions that relate more to the facts as the initial trier-of-fact is deemed to have more understanding of the subtlety of the case, having observed all the witnesses firsthand. The standard of review sets out when a court will overturn an administrative decision. Until recently, Canadian courts recognized three standards of review: patent unreasonableness, reasonableness simpliciter, and correctness. This changed in 2008 with the Supreme Court’s decision in Dunsmuir.47 The court established a two-step test for determining the standard of review, and set out just two standards of review for administrative decisions: reasonableness and correctness. When determining whether the decision made was reasonable, the court considers whether the tribunal considered irrelevant factors, whether it included all relevant factors, whether the statute was interpreted reasonably, and whether the decision was defensible given the facts and the law. A correctness standard applies for certain questions of law, such as constitutional questions, decisions that are outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction or expertise, or questions of central importance to the legal system. In these cases, the court will defer less to the tribunal’s findings. Under section 8(1) of the FPPA, the appeal of FIRB decisions to the Supreme Court of British Columbia is limited to questions of law or jurisdiction; under section 8(2) of the FPPA, there is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to the Court of Appeal with leave. In the case of the FIRB, the Board is made up of people involved in the agricultural industry. It has direct experience with the industry and is deemed the most able to make fair decisions. It also has arguably the most experience 47 Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick (2008) SCC 9 Page18 116 of 117 interpreting its home statutes and applying the same principles to cases. As a result of these factors, one would expect the courts to show a great deal of deference to its decisions. And indeed, in Lubychynski v. Farm Practices Board,48 the Supreme Court deferred to the FIRB and noted that it was within its jurisdiction to order a farmer to use netting as opposed to cannons. Given the limitations on the appeal and the specialized nature of the FIRB, questions of what constitutes a “normal farm practice” will often be left to the Board. While the FIRB members have specialized expertise related to farming, the composition of the board also creates potential conflicts of interest. The FIRB recognizes this concern in its strategic plan for 2008/9-2010/11.49 The first objective of the plan is to ensure effective self-governance, which includes the development and implementation of a conflict of interest policy. Conclusion The FIRB was created to deal with disputes between property owners. An overriding feature of the ALR and the FPPA is the extent to which the province is protecting and subsidizing agriculture at the expense of other land uses. Another important undercurrent of the right-to-farm legislation is the extent to which the province is reducing the ability of local governments to deal with land use and farming issues. Given the size and strength of the lobbying power of the farming industry and its support by legislators across the political parties, right-to-farm legislation will likely remain intact for some time. In contrast to governments’ perverse subsidies to some other industries, those to farmers will stay because of the simple fact that farmers “provide us with food.” On an emotional level, farmers are considered more critical to society than some other industries. Aside from legislative changes, changing the composition of the FIRB is one way in which decisions might be more balanced and the community voice might be heard more clearly amid the many industry interests that are currently in place. Another force that might moderate the “right to farm” is the public’s increasing concern about health and about farming’s impacts on other resources, such as drinking water. Like food, safe drinking water has deep emotional appeal and raises both community concerns and political interest. 48 Lubychynski v. Farm Practices Board 2004 BCSC 657 at 18. 49 FIRB Strategic Plan 2008/9 to 2010/11. Available at: http://www.firb.gov.bc.ca Page19 117 of 117