fraser valley regional district board of directors …and... · fraser valley regional district €...

FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MERGED OPEN MEETING AGENDA AND ADDENDA

Tuesday, November 25, 20147:00 P.M.

FVRD Boardroom, 45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, BC

Pages

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADDENDA

2.1 Approval of Agenda

All/Unweighted

MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION

THAT the Agenda for the Fraser Valley Regional District Board Open Meeting ofNovember 25, 2014 be approved;

AND THAT all delegations, reports, correspondence, committee andcommission minutes, and other information set to the Agenda be received forinformation.

2.2 Approval of Addenda (if any)

All/Unweighted (2/3 Majority)


THAT the Addenda for the Fraser Valley Regional District Board Open Meetingof November 25, 2014 be approved;

AND THAT all delegations, reports, correspondence, committee andcommission minutes, and other information set to the Addenda be received forinformation.

3. DELEGATION(S)

3.1 Joseph Smith, Morris Valley Road 1 - 1

Garbage at Harrison Mills, Electoral Area C

• Delegation Request Form

1

4. BOARD MINUTES & MATTERS ARISING

4.1 Board Meeting - October 28, 2014 2 - 14

All/Unweighted


THAT the Minutes of the Fraser Valley Regional District Board Open Meeting ofOctober 28, 2014 be adopted.

5. COMMITTEE/COMMISSION MINUTES FOR INFORMATION AND MATTERSARISING

5.1 Draft Regional and Corporate Services Committee - November 12, 2014 15 - 21

5.2 Draft Electoral Area Services Committee - November 12, 2014 22 - 31

6. CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION

6.1 Report of 2014 Election Results - Election by Voting 32 - 37

• Memo dated November 20, 2014 from Suzanne Gresham, Chief ElectionOfficer

7. BYLAWS

7.1 Proposed Security Issuing Bylaw 1300, 2014 (District of Kent) 38 - 48

Motion No. 1: 1st Reading - All/Weighted

Motion No. 2: 2nd & 3rd Reading - All/Weighted

Motion No. 3: Adoption - All/Weighted (2/3 Majority)

• Staff report dated November 25, 2014 from Mike Veenbaas, Manager ofFinancial Services

• Draft Bylaw No. 1300, 2014• Letter dated November 13, 2014 from District of Kent


MOTION NO. 1: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider givingfirst reading to the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley Regional District SecurityIssuing Bylaw 1300, 2014'.

2


MOTION NO. 2: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider givingsecond and third reading to the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley Regional DistrictSecurity Issuing Bylaw 1300, 2014'.


MOTION NO. 3: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consideradopting the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley Regional District Security IssuingBylaw 1300, 2014'.

7.2 Proposed FVRD Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment BylawNo. 1287, 2014

49 - 55

Adoption - All/Unweighted

• Staff report dated November 25, 2014 from Stacey Barker, Manager ofEnvironmental Services

• Bylaw No. 1287, 2014• Letter dated November 4, 2014 from City of Abbotsford• Letter dated November 5, 2014 from City of Chilliwack• Statutory Approval


THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider adopting the bylawcited as 'Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control ServiceArea Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014' subject to approval by the Inspector ofMunicipalities.

7.3 Proposed FVRD Animal Control Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014 56 - 60

Motion No. 1: 1st Reading- All/Unweighted

Motion No. 2: 2nd & 3rd Reading - All/Unweighted

Motion No. 3: Adoption - All/Unweighted (2/3 Majority)

• Refer to staff report in item 7.2• Bylaw No.1298, 2014


MOTION NO. 1: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider giving3

first reading to the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley Regional District Animal ControlRegulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014'.


MOTION NO. 2: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board considergivingsecond and third reading to the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley RegionalDistrict Animal Control Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014'.


MOTION NO. 3: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consideradopting the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley Regional District Animal ControlRegulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014'.

7.4 Proposed FVRD Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment andRegulations Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014

61 - 64

Motion No. 1: 1st Reading - All/Unweighted

Motion No. 2: 2nd & 3rd Reading - All/Unweighted

Motion No. 3: Adoption - All/Unweighted (2/3 Majority)

• Staff report dated November 12, 2014 from Chris Wilson, Manager ofElectoral Area Emergency Services

• Bylaw No. 1299, 2014


MOTION NO. 1: [EASC 2014-205] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional DistrictBoard consider giving first reading to the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley RegionalDistrict Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment andRegulations Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014'.


MOTION NO. 2: [EASC 2014-205] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional DistrictBoard consider giving second and third reading to the bylaw cited as 'FraserValley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishmentand Regulations Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014'.

4


MOTION NO. 3: [EASC 2014-205] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional DistrictBoard consider adopting the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley Regional DistrictElectoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and RegulationsAmendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014'.

7.5 FVRD Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other ChargesAmendment Bylaw No. 1292, 2014

65 - 74

Motion No. 1: 1st Reading - Hope and Area B/Weighted

Motion No. 2: 2nd & 3rd Reading - Hope and Area B/Weighted

Motion No. 3: Adoption - Hope and Area B Weighted (2/3) Majority.

• Staff report dated November 25, 2014 from Milly Marshall, ManagerRecreation, Culture and Airpark Services

• Bylaw No. 1292, 2014


MOTION NO. 1: [RCASC 31-2014] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional DistrictBoard consider giving first reading to the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley RegionalDistrict Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other ChargesAmendment Bylaw No. 1292, 2014'.


MOTION NO. 2: [RCASC 31-2014] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional DistrictBoard consider giving second and third reading to the bylaw cited as 'FraserValley Regional District Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and OtherCharges Amendment Bylaw No. 1292, 2014'.


MOTION NO. 3: [RCASC 31-2014] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional DistrictBoard consider adopting the bylaw cited as 'Fraser Valley Regional DistrictHope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other Charges AmendmentBylaw No. 1292, 2014'.

7.6 FVRD Commercial Aggregate Operations Regulations Bylaw No. 1181, 2014 -Outcome of Public Engagement

75 - 146

• Staff report dated November 20, 2014 from Graham Daneluz, Manager ofElectoral Area Planing/Deputy Planner

5

8. PERMITS

None

9. CONTRACTS AND COVENANTS

9.1 Regional Waste Composition Study 147 - 149

All/Weighted

• Staff report dated November 12, 2014 from Stacey Barker, Manager ofEnvironmental Services


[RACS 2014-079] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board award acontract to TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. further to Request for ProposalNo. 14012 for a regional municipal solid waste composition study to support thegoals and vision of the Fraser Valley Regional District's draft Solid WasteManagement Plan;

AND FURTHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff toenter into contract negotiations with TRI Environmental Consulting Inc,;

AND FINALLY THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize itssignatories to execute a contract with TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. in anamount not to exceed $200,000 (exclusive of taxes) subject to successfulcontract negotiations.

9.2 Dogwood Valley Water System, Land Tenure Application, Electoral Area B 150 - 151

All/Weighted

• Staff report dated November 21, 2014 from Scott Salsbury, UtilitiesSuperintendent


THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories toexecute a Licence of Occupation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and NaturalResource Operations on lands described as a portion of Legal Subdivision 12,Section 15, Range 26, Township 6, W6M, for the purpose of construction andoperation of the Dogwood Valley Community Water System reservoir.

6

9.3 Parkview Water System, Land Tenure Application, Electoral Area H 152 - 153

All/Weighted

• Staff report dated November 21, 2014 from Scott Salsbury, UtilitiesSuperintendent


THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District authorize its signatories to execute aLicence of Occupation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural ResourceOperations on lands described as a portion of Legal Subdivision 5, Section 30,Township 25, ECM, YDYD, for the purpose of construction and operation of theParkview Community Water System reservoir.

10. OTHER MATTERS

10.1 Timeline for New Waste-to-Energy (WTE) Consultation between the FVRD andMetro Vancouver

154 - 155

• Letter dated November 5, 2014 from Minister Mary Polak, Ministry ofEnvironment

10.2 New Building Canada Fund - Small Communities Component 156 - 157

AllUnweighted

• Staff report dated November 25, 2014 from James Storey, Manager ofCommunity Services


THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to submit grantapplications under the New Building Canada Fund - Small CommunitiesComponent for the following projects as requested by the Electoral AreaDirectors:

Area A: Boston Bar Water System Improvements

Area B: Dogwood Valley Water System Upgrades

Area C: Lake Errock Water System Upgrades/Expansion

Area D: Integrated Water System Upgrades and Highway Crossing

Area E: Bell Acres Water System Upgrade

Area F: Hatzic Water System Upgrades

7

Area G: Eagle Road Water System Extension

Area H: Parkview Water System Upgrade

11. CONSENT AGENDA

11.1 CONSENT AGENDA - FULL BOARD

All/Unweighted

All staff reports respecting these items are available in the Directors' Office andon the FVRD corporte website:

http:/www.fvrd.bc.ca/Inside the FVRD/MeetingsAgendasMinutes/

Pages/default.aspx


THAT the following Consent Agenda items 11.1.1 to 11.1.10 be endorsed:

11.1.1 RACS 2014-077

THAT staff prepare a report with respect to whether access should begranted to the West Coast Soaring Club to use the site (SE lookout ofSumas Mountain Park) as a paragliding launch site.

Reference item 3.1 of November 12, 2014 RACS Agenda.

11.1.2 RACS 2014-080

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board provide a letter ofsupport regarding an application to host BC Transit’s annualworkshop;

AND THAT up to $1,500 be allocated from the Strategic Planningbudget to cover costs associated with hosting the annual workshop.

Reference item 5.3.1 of November 12, 2014 RACS Agenda.

11.1.3 RACS 2014-081

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize theexpenditure of up to $36,000 ($31,330 plus tax) from Fire Dispatchappropriated surplus for the purchase a new E911 audio recorderfrom Sensus Communications Solutions.

Reference item 5.4.1 of November 12, 2014 RACS Agenda.

8

11.1.4 EASC 2014-196

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the Hope and District Figure Skating Club in the amount of$1,000 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “B” grant-in-aidbudget to provide funds for supporting the production of the annualfigure skating ice show along with ice user fees for the children in thefigure skating program.

Reference item 5.2 of November 12, 2014 EASC Agenda.

11.1.5 EASC 2014-197

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a grant-in-aidto Hope Senior Secondary Parent Advisory Committee in the amountof $4,700 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “B” grant-in-aidbudget to assist with the costs of purchasing 2 bleachers and 2benches for the soccer team, practice jerseys and training equipmentfor the basketball team and guitar cases for the band program.


11.1.6 EASC 2014-198

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the Citizens of North Lake Errock in the amount of $5,050 to befunded from the 2014 Electoral Area “C” grant-in-aid budget to assistwith the costs of a) rejuvenating a local community park area, b)providing a community Canada Day celebration in 2015 and c) thepurchase of emergency preparedness supplies for the benefit of thelocal community.


11.1.7 EASC 2014-199

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the Harrison Mills Community Emergency Response Team inthe amount of $3,025 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “C”grant-in-aid budget to provide funds for the purchase of emergencypreparedness supplies to be used by the CERT Team in the localHarrison Mills area.


9

11.1.8 EASC 2014-200

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the South Lake Errock Land Owners Society in the amount of$1,450 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “C” grant-in-aidbudget to assist with the costs of compiling an emergencypreparedness kit for the benefit of local residents.


11.1.9 EASC 2014-201

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a grant-in-aidto Popkum Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of $500 to befunded from the 2014 Electoral Area “D” grant-in-aid budget to assistwith the costs of the fire department’s annual Christmas party.


11.1.10 EASC 2014-203

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to beginthe process to remove Lake Errock from the North Side GarbageService Area;

AND THAT staff be directed to address Solid Waste management forthe Lake Errock area by preparing an amendment to the user fees forthe Harrison/Hemlock Garbage Service Area to provide for a twotiered rate system which would charge higher user fee's to users notwithin the service area (Lake Errock) as per Option 2 in the staffreport dated November 12, 2014 with respect to North Side Garbage.


11.2 CONSENT AGENDA - ELECTORAL AREAS

EAs/Unweighted


THAT the following Consent Agenda item 11.2.1 be endorsed:

11.2.1 EASC 2014-204

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to makeone application per Electoral Area for grant funding based on theprojects selected by the Electoral Area Directors.

10


12. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION

12.1 Thompson Nicola Regional District Board Highlights - October 23, 2014 158 - 158

12.2 Thompson-Nicola Regional District Board Highlights - November 6, 2014 159 - 159

12.3 Thompson-Nicola Regional District Board Highlights - November 20, 2014 160 - 160

13. REPORTS BY STAFF

14. REPORTS BY BOARD DIRECTORS

15. PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD FOR ITEMS RELEVANT TO AGENDA

16. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING

All/Unweighted


THAT the Meeting be closed to the public, except for Senior Staff and the ExecutiveAssistant, for the purpose of receiving and adopting Closed Meeting Minutes convenedin accordance to Section 90 of the Community Charter and to consider matterspursuant to:

• Section 90(1)(c) of the Community Charter - labour relations or other employeerelations;

• Section 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter - the acquisition, disposition orexpropriation of land or improvements, if the Board considers that disclosurecould reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the Regional District;

• Section 90(1)(i) of the Community Charter - the receipt of advice that is subject tosolicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose.

17. RISE AND REPORT OUT OF CLOSED MEETING

18. ADJOURNMENT

All/Unweighted


THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board Open Meeting of November 25, 2014be adjourned.

11

1


fraser Valley Regional District DELEGATION REQUEST FORM

Jbs£p/?. f (name of delegate/delegates and organization)

Contact Info (p 0 't :;z 'lb 0 (o 3 (q I r fl<jlJ 111 () ;e t'? r 's (telephone/fax# or email address)

Request to appear as a delegation at the following Meeting (check box)· Date of Meeting /1:1 d d. '[:) ,l,o I r @Fraser Valley Regional District Board

D Fraser Valley Regional Hospital District Board

D D

Regional and Corporate Services Committee

Electoral Area Services Committee

FVRD Staff Contact Person (if available) ------------------------

* where the subject matter of a delegation pertains to matters pursuant to S90 of the Community Cha1ter (attached), the FVRD Board reserves the right to hear such delegations in Closed Meeting.

Technical requirements:

Will you be providing a PowerPoint presentation D (Check box if answer is 'Yes')

If yes, you are required to submit PowerPoint presentation 48 hours prior to the meeting to the Executive Assistant to the Board via email ([email protected])

A delegation wishing to appear before the Board/Committee shall submit a Delegation Request form, together with written copies (if any) of their submission at least seven (7) calendar days prior to the scheduled meeting. The request must stipulate the subject matter. The nature and purpose of the delegation MUST be deemed to be a matter of Regional or Electoral Area significance and within the mandate of the Fraser Valley Regional District/Fraser Valley Regional Hospital District. A delegation is liMited to 10 minutes (unless otherwise extended by leave of the Chair).

The delegation must submit the Delegation Request Form via email ([email protected]) or by fax# (604-792-9684). The delegation will be notified whether the delegation request has been approved or not.

Late Delegation Request: Any person or organization who deems its interests to be affected by an item on a Board/ Committee agenda. and who, because of circumstances, could not have been expected to give notice, may request to appear as a late delegation at the Board/Committee by submitting a written request to appear as a late delegation to the person responsible for corporate administration not later than 12 o'clock noon on the day before the scheduled Board/Committee Meeting. The Late Delegation Request will be considered and the delegation will be advised

accor~ _:;:::>

S igi'i1Ufe0i0€ie9ate

For internal use:

Request approved this _ _,_(-"e"'a_+_h_.~_ Reason for request being declined:---------------------------

Corporate Offr r/Deputy

2


BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Tuesday, October 28, 2014

3:00 p.m.


O P E N M E E T I N G M I N U T E S

Present:

Director Sharon Gaetz, City of Chilliwack, Chair Director Dennis Adamson, Electoral Area B Alt. Director Les Barkman, City of Abbotsford Director Ray Boucher, Electoral Area F Director Leo Facio, Harrison Hot Springs Director Lloyd Forman, Electoral Area A Director Moe Gill, City of Abbotsford Director David Lamson, Electoral Area E Director David Loewen, City of Abbotsford

Director Jason Lum, City of Chilliwack Director Bill McGregor, City of Abbotsford Alternate Director Brian Murphy, Electoral Area C Director Ken Popove, City of Chilliwack Alternate Director Peter Robb, District of Hope Director Patricia Ross, City of Abbotsford Director John Smith, City of Abbotsford Director Chuck Stam, City of Chilliwack Director John VanLaerhoven, District of Kent

Regrets: Director Ted Adlem, District of Mission Director Wendy Bales, Electoral Area C

Director Bruce Banman, City of Abbotsford Director Bill Dickey, Electoral Area D Director Susan Johnston, District of Hope Director Tony Luck, District of Mission Director Al Stobbart, Electoral Area G

Staff Present:

Paul Gipps, Chief Administrative Officer Suzanne Gresham, Director of Corporate and Electoral Area Administration Margaret Thornton, Director of Planning and Development Barclay Pitkethly, Director of Regional Programs Tareq Islam, Director of Engineering and Community Services Mike Veenbaas, Manager of Financial Services Milly Marshall, Manager of Recreation, Culture and Airpark Services Stacey Barker, Manager of Environmental Services Christina Vugteveen, Manager of Parks Jessica Morrison, Environmental Services Coordinator Rebecca Abernethy, Environmental Services Coordinator Tina Mooney, Executive Assistant Neil Bains, Network Analyst II Tyler Davis, Network Analyst I Jaime Schween, Executive Assistant to CAO and Board

3

Fraser Valley Regional District Board of Directors Meeting October 28, 2014 Page 2

There were 5 members of the public and no members of the media in attendance. 1 CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaetz called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. Chair Gaetz noted that the Board joins Canada in mourning the loss of two Canadian Soldiers. In honour, the FVRD flags have been lowered to half-mast. Chair Gaetz acknowledged that Director Susan Johnston, Director John Smith and Director David Lamson would not participate in the 2014 Local Government Elections; accordingly, they would not be returning to the Board. Chair Gaetz thanked each Director for their hard work and tireless efforts in serving the region. Both Director Smith and Director Lamson thanked the Board and staff. 2 APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADDENDA 2.1 APPROVAL OF AGENDA STAM/FACIO THAT the Agenda for the Fraser Valley Regional District Board Meeting of September 30, 2014 be approved; AND THAT all delegations, reports, correspondence, committee and commission minutes, and other information set to the Agenda be received for information. [BD 2014-327] CARRIED All/Unweighted 2.2 APPROVAL OF ADDENDA STAM/FACIO THAT the Addenda for the Fraser Valley Regional District Board Meeting of September 30, 2014 be approved; AND THAT all delegations, reports, correspondence, committee and commission minutes, and other information set to the Agenda be received for information. [BD 2014-328] CARRIED All/Unweighted 2/3 Majority 3 DELEGATIONS Mr. Russ Black, Belkorp Environmental Services and Mr. Seth Hulkower of ICF International provided a presentation to the Board on the cost benefits of waste management options, and highlighted the following points:

ICF International was commissioned to scrutinize Metro Vancouver’s business case for a Waste to Energy (WTE) incinerator;

ICF International reviewed Metro Vancouver’s business case in the amount of $1,000,000,000 and corrected the total to $2,324,000,000 due to miscalculations in:

o moisture in waste, error in capital cost contingency calculations, missing accrual interest during construction and a less aggressive forecast for recovered metals sales prices;

o a lack of operation & maintenance contingency;

4


o an electricity revenue deficit; o a lack of Standard Offer Program for electricity sales from a WTE facility; and o a downside scenario results in a price tag $2,324,000,000.

There is a great deal of uncertainty in the price tag of Metro Vancouver’s WTE facility. Discussion ensued regarding Metro Vancouver’s Bylaw 280, details around Metro Vancouver’s business case for the WTE facility, and whether similar presentations will be made to Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities. It was noted that the report entitled “Economic Analysis of New Waste-to-Energy Facility in Metro Vancouver” by ICF International was publicly available on the web. Chair Gaetz thanked Russ Black for the work done by Belkorp. 4 PRESENTATION BY STAFF 4.1 2014 FVRD Highlights Paul Gipps, Chief Administrative Officer presented a video which highlighted achievements of the FVRD Board and staff during 2014. Mr. Gipps acknowledged Jennifer Kinneman, Communications Manager for her work in preparing the video. 5 BOARD MINUTES & MATTERS ARISING 5.1 Board Meeting – September 30, 2014 MACGREGOR/FACIO THAT the Minutes of the Fraser Valley Regional District Board Meeting of September 30, 2014 be adopted. [BD 2014-329] CARRIED

All/Unweighted 6 COMMITTEE/COMMISSION MINUTES FOR INFORMATION AND MATTERS ARISING The following minutes were received for information:

6.1 Draft Regional and Corporate Services Committee– October 15, 2014

6.2 Draft Electoral Area Services Committee – October 15, 2014

6.3 Draft Recreation, Culture and Airpark Services Commission – October 2, 2014

7 CORPORATE ADMINISTRATION 7.1 Grant-In-Aid Request – Boston Bar / North Bend Enhancement Society, Electoral Area

A FORMAN/ADAMSON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a grant-in-aid to the Boston Bar / North Bend Enhancement Society in the amount of $5,000 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “A” grant-in-

5


aid budget to assist with the costs of finishing the Community Pavilion pillars with stonework and assisting with the publishing of the community newsletter. [BD 2014-330] CARRIED All/Unweighted 7.2 Grant-In-Aid – McConnell Creek Community Hall – Electoral Area F BOUCHER/MURPHY THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the McConnell Creek Community Hall in the amount of $5,000 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “F” grant-in-aid budget to assist with the costs of purchasing new chairs for the hall, installing a roof over a storage container and pouring a cement slab for the picnic table. [BD 2014-331] CARRIED All/Unweighted 7.3 Ratification of Volunteer Fire Department Members STAM/FORMAN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board ratify the appointment of the following volunteer fire department recruit members in accordance with “Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and Regulation Bylaw No. 1198, 2013:” Chilliwack River Valley Volunteer Fire Department: Kathryn Marynowski Chris Cook Keaton Reavie Columbia Valley Volunteer Fire Department: Logan Leboe [BD 2014-332] CARRIED All/Unweighted 7.4 Report of Election Results – Election by Acclamation Chair Gaetz offered her congratulations to Director Dennis Adamson of Electoral Area B, Director Bill Dickey of Electoral Area D, Director Ray Boucher of Electoral Area F, and Director Al Stobbart of Electoral Area G in their election by acclamation. 7.5 FVRD Team Work Wear BOUCHER/VANLAERHOVEN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to develop a policy to allow staff to purchase Team Wear in equal partnership with the FVRD; AND THAT the funds to support the Team Wear initiative come from operational surplus. [BD 2014-333] CARRIED All/Unweighted

6


7.6 2014 Christmas Closure of FVRD Corporate Office STAM/ROSS THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve the closure of the FVRD Corporate office to the public on Monday, December 29th, Tuesday, December 30th, and Wednesday, December 31st, 2014. [BD 2014-334] CARRIED All/Unweighted 7.7 Proposed Revision to FVRD Board and Committee Procedures Bylaw No. 0433, 2001

to address the reconsideration of Matters at a Committee Level Mr. Gipps advised that the proposed revision would allow for reconsideration of items at the Committee level to follow the same process of reconsideration of Board matters. Discussion ensued regarding the time period allowed for reconsideration. GILL/LAMSON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to initiate a bylaw revision of FVRD Board and Committee Procedures Bylaw No. 0433, 2001 to address the reconsideration of matters at a Committee level. [BD 2014-335] CARRIED All/Unweighted 7.8 Amendment to Records Classification and Retention Schedule Concerns were voiced regarding the destruction of records. Ms. Gresham noted that vital corporate records, such as minutes, agendas and bylaws, in additional to other designated corporate records have a permanent retention schedule and are not destroyed. She noted all corporate records are managed in accordance with the Board’s Retention Policy during the active, semi-active and disposition phases of the records’ life cycle (which can last for years and in some cases provide for the archiving of a record). BOUCHER/LUM THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Records Classification and Retention Schedule be amended by:

1) adding a new records classification for FVRD FOI Requests to other Agencies along with a retention of CY+1/6y/D; 2) changing the retention for superannuation records to CY+1/6y/D; 3) changing the retention for Soil Removal and Deposit permits to SO/2y/D; 4) adding Herbicide and Pesticide Application Records to Noxious Weed and Mosquito Control Primaries with Permanent Retentions and changing the media format for Pesticide Use Permits to hard copy; 5) adding a secondary classification for Function Participation to Mosquito Control Records along with a retention of CY+1/6y/P; and 6) adding a new records classification for Hospital District Administrative Reports and Statistics associated retentions.

[BD 2014-336] CARRIED All/Unweighted

Director Adamson Opposed

7


8 BYLAWS 8.1 Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw No. 1293, 2014 FORMAN/SMITH THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give first reading to the bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw No. 1293, 2014”. [BD 2014-337] CARRIED

All/Weighted MURPHY/FACIO THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give second and third reading to the bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw No. 1293, 2014”. [BD 2014-338] CARRIED

All/Weighted MACGREGOR/STAM THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board adopt the bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Revenue Anticipation Borrowing Bylaw No. 1293, 2014”. [BD 2014-339] CARRIED

All/Weighted (2/3 Majority) 8.2 Proposed Security Issuing Bylaw 1296, 2014 (Village of Harrison Hot Springs) FACIO/BARKMAN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give first reading to the bylaw cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw 1296, 2014". [BD 2014-340] CARRIED

All/Weighted VANLAERHOVEN/BOUCHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give second and third reading to the bylaw cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw 1296, 2014". [BD 2014-341] CARRIED

All/Weighted BARKMAN/ROSS THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board adopt the bylaw cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw 1296, 2014". [BD 2014-342] CARRIED

All/Weighted (2/3 majority) 8.3 FVRD Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Establishment Bylaw No. 1287,

2014 (Abbotsford) ROSS/LOEWEN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give first reading to the bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014”. [BD 2014-343] CARRIED

All/Unweighted

8


GILL/VANLAERHOVEN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give second and third reading to the bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014”. [BD 2014-344] CARRIED

All/Unweighted SMITH/MURPHY THAT Bylaw No. 1287, 2014 be submitted to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval once statutory consent of the stakeholders is obtained. [BD 2014-345] CARRIED

All/Unweighted 8.4 FVRD Zoning Amendment Application, Bylaw No. 1116, 2012, Rezoning to facilitate a

4 lot residential subdivision at 12797 Sylvester Road, Electoral Area F FORMAN/ADAMSON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board adopt the bylaw cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 1116, 2012. [BD 2014-346] CARRIED EAs/Unweighted 8.5 FVRD Board Members Oath of Office Bylaw No. 1297, 2014 ROSS/LUM THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give first reading to the bylaw cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Board Members Oath of Office Bylaw No. 1297, 2014". [BD 2014-347] CARRIED ALL/Unweighted STAM/POPOVE THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give second and third reading to the bylaw cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Board Members Oath of Office Bylaw No. 1297, 2014". [BD 2014-348] CARRIED ALL/Unweighted MACGREGOR/MURPHY THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board adopt the bylaw cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Board Members Oath of Office Bylaw No. 1297, 2014". [BD 2014-349] CARRIED ALL/Unweighted (2/3 Majority)

9


9 PERMITS 9.1 Development Variance Permit 2014-24 for a covered porch addition at 41379 Nicomen

Island Trunk Road, Deroche, BC – Electoral Area G BOUCHER/LUM THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board issue Development Variance Permit 2014-24 to vary the front lot line setback of an existing covered deck at 41379 Nicomen Island Trunk Road, Electoral Area “G” subject to consideration of any comments raised as a result of neighbourhood notification. [BD 2014-350] CARRIED

EAs/Unweighted 10 CONTRACTS AND COVENANTS 10.1 Harrison Mills Transfer Station – Award of Operating Contract Concern was expressed regarding the process by which the operating contract for Harrison Mills Transfer Station was awarded. It was clarified that the lowest price is not necessarily the driver as submissions are also evaluated on other criteria aside from price. Discussion ensued regarding the evaluation process for selecting the successful proponent. It was noted that the decision was made and the procurement process was followed strictly in accordance with the Board’s Purchasing Goods and Services Policy. MACGREGOR/FORMAN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to enter into a contract with Lacey Developments for the operation of the Harrison Mills Transfer Station for a three year term and an optional two year extension in an amount not to exceed $28,599.96. [BD 2014-351] CARRIED

ALL/Weighted Directors Adamson and Murphy Opposed

10.2 Yale Firehall #1 Ground Lease and Construction Management ADAMSON/SMITH THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to execute a lease agreement with the Yale Ratepayer’s Association for the lease of a parcel of land upon which the new Yale and District Firehall #1 will be constructed on; AND THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize staff to act as the “General Contractor” for the construction of the new Yale Firehall #1. [BD 2014-352] CARRIED

ALL/Weighted

10


10.3 FVRD Regional Airpark – Land Lease Agreement ROSS/BARKMAN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to enter into a land lease agreement with Fresh Development at the FVRD Regional Airpark. [BD 2014-353] CARRIED

ALL/Weighted 10.4 Renewal of Emil Anderson Construction Land Lease at FVRD Regional Airpark ROSS/BARKMAN THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to execute the renewal of the Emil Anderson Construction Land Lease Agreement, for a 5 year term, at a rate of Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty Eight Dollars and Two Cents, including GST, per annum. [BD 2014-354] CARRIED

ALL/Weighted 10.5 Contract Administrative Monthly Report The report of Pam Loat, Administrative and Information Services Coordinator dated October 17, 2014 was received for information. 11 OTHER MATTERS 11.1 Director Attendance at “Local Governments and First Nations: Critical Issues” Director Adamson noted the importance of the Tsilhqot’in decision, which has far-reaching implications on First Nations’ land claims and title. LUM/BOUCHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to allocate the costs for Director Bales’ attendance at “Local Governments and First Nations: Critical Issues” legal seminar to Area “C”. [BD 2014-355] CARRIED

ALL/Unweighted 11.2 2014 FVRD “Social Housing Inventory” and “Services and Resource Inventory”

Update LOEWEN/POPOVE THAT the updated 2014 Social Housing and Services and Resource Inventories for the City of Abbotsford, City of Chilliwack, District of Mission, District of Kent/Harrison Hot Springs and the District of Hope and Area be posted to the Fraser Valley Regional District’s web site, distributed to member municipalities and be publicized on the Region’s Social Media feeds; AND THAT consideration be given to converting these documents into a web-based database that can be easily updated and therefore be more current. [BD 2014-356] CARRIED

ALL/Unweighted

11


12 CONSENT AGENDA 12.1 CONSENT AGENDA – FULL BOARD/UNWEIGHTED VANLAERHOVEN/MURPHY THAT Consent Agenda Items 12.1.1 to 12.1.5 be endorsed: 12.1.1 [RACS 2014-067] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board endorse the

Electric Vehicle Business Case;

AND THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to consider the findings of the Electric Vehicle Business Case during the next purchase of a corporate fleet vehicle.

12.1.2 [RACS 2014-074] THAT staff be directed to write letters to Emergency Management BC,

the Ministry of Environment, and local Members of the Legislative Assembly expressing our objection to the proposed emergency open burn of debris from the Fraser River Debris Trap;

AND THAT a request for a full health impact study to be undertaken prior to a decision being made.

12.1.3 [EASC 2014-186] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to

the Dewdney Elementary School PAC in the amount of $1,850 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “G” grant-in-aid budget to provide funds for supporting a) the physical needs of students through healthy food programs, b) household hampers & winter clothes to needy students and c) transportation to special events.

12.1.4 [EASC 2014-187] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to

the Deroche Elementary School PAC in the amount of $1,775 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area "C" grant-in-aid budget to provide funds for supporting a) the physical needs of students through healthy food programs, b) Christmas hampers & winter clothes to needy students and c) transportation to special events.

12.1.5 [EASC 2014-190] THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve the expenditure

up to fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for the purpose of trail improvements at Eagle Point community Park from reserves.

[BD 2014-357] CARRIED ALL/Unweighted

12.2 CONSENT AGENDA – ELECTORAL AREAS/UNWEIGHTED MURPHY/FORMAN THAT Consent Agenda Item 12.2.1 be endorsed: 12.2.1 [EASC 2014-189] THAT the applicant submit updated information regarding the Cultus

Lakeside Condominium proposal;

12


AND THAT the consideration of Development Variance Permit 2014-25 and Development Permit 2014-11 be deferred until after the new Area Director for Electoral Area H is in place and the updated information is provided.

[BD 2014-358] CARRIED EAS/Unweighted 12.3 CONSENT AGENDA – ELECTORAL AREAS A, B AND HOPE/WEIGHTED ROBB/ADAMSON THAT Consent Agenda Items 12.3.1 and 12.3.2 be endorsed: 12.3.1 [RCASC 29-2014] THAT the Recreation, Culture and Airpark Serices Commission formally

appoint members of the public, Theresa Cooke and Glen Keil, to the Donation Sub-Committee;

AND THAT Chair Forman and Commissioner Adamson also be appointed;

AND FINALLY THAT the inaugural Donation Sub-Committee meeting be scheduled for October 16, 2014.

12.3.2 [RCASC 34-2014] THAT staff be directed to negotiate advertising space through

Advantage Hope at the Hunter Creek and Hope Visitor Centre kiosks;

AND THAT the services of a graphic designer be contracted for the creation of the signage that is in keeping with the FVRD - Recreation, Culture & Airpark Services branding.

[BD 2014-359] CARRIED ELECTORAL AREAS A, B AND HOPE/Weighted

12.4 CONSENT AGENDA – HOPE AND ELECTORAL AREA B/WEIGHTED ROBB/ADAMSON THAT Consent Agenda Items 12.4.1 to 12.4.6 be endorsed: 12.4.1 [RCASC 30-2014] THAT the plans for renovation of office spaces in the DSAC be

undertaken as soon as possible:

AND THAT expansion of the gym area be scheduled for 2015. 12.4.2 [RCASC 32-2014] THAT vending machines installed in facilities operated by the FVRD-

Recreation, Culture & Airpark Services Commission provide food and drink options that are in keeping with the Ministry of Health's Nutrition Guidelines for Vending Machines in B.C. Public Buildings policy;

AND THAT staff be directed to proceed with pursuing a contract with Coca Cola for exclusive rights to beverage sales;

AND FURTHER THAT staff be directed to proceed with entering into an agreement with Fraser Valley Vending for the provision of healthy snacks;

13


AND FINALLY THAT concession service contracts include adherence to the Ministry of Health's Nutrition Guidelines for Vending Machines in B.C. Public Buildings policy.

12.4.3 [RCASC 33-2014] THAT the Recreation, Culture and Airpark Services Commission support the Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Fraser Valley by waiving pool or arena admission fees for children in the Big Brothers Big Sisters program.

12.4.4 [RCASC 35-2014] THAT the FVRD - Recreation, Culture and Airpark Services Commission

Ice Allocation Policy revised September 2014, be adopted. 12.4.5 [RCASC 36-2014] THAT the 2014/2015 concession license agreement terms and condition

regarding rental fee structure remain unchanged from 2013; AND THAT staff proceed with advertising for concession services. 12.4.6 [RCASC 37-2014] THAT packaged peanut sales continue to be offered through vending

machines and/or concession services in accordance with the Ministry of Health's Nutrition Guidelines for Vending Machines in B.C. Public Buildings policy.

[BD 2014-359] CARRIED HOPE AND ELECTORAL AREA B/Weighted

13 ITEMS FOR INFORMATION The following items of correspondence were provided for information: 13.1 Letter dated October 2, 2014 from John Horgan, Leader, Official Opposition and Selina

Robinson, MLA Coquitlam-Maillardville regarding outcome of 2014 UBCM Convention. 13.2 Thompson-Nicola Regional District Board Highlights – October 9, 2014. 13.3 Letter dated October 9, 2014 from Municipal Insurance Association of BC regarding

Dividend Cheque. 13.4 Response letter dated September 18, 2014 from Minister Mary Polak, Minister of

Environment regarding the Future of Light Duty Vehicle Emissions Testing After AirCare. 13.5 Response letter dated September 24, 2014 from Minister Mary Polak, Minister of

Environment regarding the British Columbia Wood Stove Exchange Program. 13.6 BC Hydro Interior to Lower Mainland (ILM) Transmission Project – Fall 2014 Project Update. 13.7 Staff report dated October 15, 2014 from Rebecca Abernethy, Environmental Services

Coordinator regarding New Mission Air Quality Monitoring Station. 13.8 Staff report dated October 15, 2014 from Lance Lilley, Watershed Planner and FVRD

Mosquito Control Program 2014 Year End Report.

14


13.9 Email dated October 23, 2014 from Hon. Coralee Oakes, Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development regarding some of the initiatives to which the Province of BC committed during the UBCM Convention.

14 REPORTS BY STAFF Mr. Gipps introduced a new FVRD employee, Tina Mooney, Executive Assistant to Regional Programs and Corporate Services. 15 REPORTS BY BOARD DIRECTORS Director Lamson expressed his faith and trust in the FVRD staff and thanked staff for their support. 16 PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD FOR ITEMS RELEVANT TO AGENDA None 19 ADJOURNMENT SMITH/STAM THAT the Open Meeting of the Fraser Valley Regional District Board of September 30, 2014 be adjourned. [BD 2014-360] CARRIED All/Unweighted The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m. MINUTES CERTIFIED CORRECT: ………………………………………………. ………………………………………………… Director Sharon Gaetz, Chair Corporate Officer / Deputy

15


REGIONAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES COMMITTEE

Wednesday, November 12, 2014 @ 9:00 A.M.



Present: Director Sharon Gaetz, Chair - City of Chilliwack Director Bill Dickey - Electoral Area D Director Patricia Ross - City of Abbotsford Director Leo Facio - Village of Harrison Hot Springs Director John Van Laerhoven - District of Kent Director Susan Johnston – District of Hope Director David Lamson - Electoral Area E Director Ray Boucher - Electoral Area F Regrets: Director Bruce Banman – City of Abbotsford Director Ted Adlem - District of Mission Staff Present: Paul Gipps, Chief Administrative Officer Barclay Pitkethly, Director of Regional Programs Stacey Barker, Manager of Environmental Services Mike Veenbaas, Manager of Financial Services Christina Vugteveen, Manager of Parks Alison Stewart, Manager of Strategic Planning Jennifer Kinneman, Communications Manager Tyler Davis, Network Analyst I Randy Castle – Manager of E911 and Information Technology Meghan Stewart – Parks Student Lance Lilley – Planner Jaime Schween, Executive Assistant Tina Mooney, Recording Secretary Also Present: Andrei Kravchenko, West Coast Soaring Club Mark Greidanus, Chilliwack Park Society

16

Fraser Valley Regional District Regional and Corporate Services Committee Open Meeting November 12, 2014 P a g e | 2

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaetz called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADDENDA 2.1. Approval of Agenda

DICKEY/JOHNSTON THAT the Agenda for the Regional and Corporate Services Committee Open Meeting of November 12, 2014 be approved; AND THAT all delegations, reports, correspondence and other information set to the Agenda be received for information. [RACS 2014-076] CARRIED 2.2. Approval of Addenda

No Addenda items.

3. DELEGATION(S) 3.1. Andrei Kravchenko (West Coast Soaring Club)

Andrei Kravchenko, a representative from the West Coast Soaring Club appeared before the Board to discuss the old paragliding launch site (SE lookout of Sumas Mountain Park). The club’s primary purpose is to develop and maintain safe soaring practices in the area. He discussed paragliding in general and how this site could be maintained and used by this organization. There are a few safety modifications required at the site including clearing the weeds. They have provided a Certificate of Insurance which could be produced each year should this request be approved. Discussions ensued about the differences between hand gliding and paragliding. This organization has been a wonderful steward for recreation in the Fraser Valley and Committee Members praised them for their community support and care for the environment. ROSS/DICKEY THAT staff prepare a report with respect to whether access should be granted to the West Coast Soaring Club to use the site (SE lookout of Sumas Mountain Park) as a paragliding launch site. [RACS 2014-077] CARRIED

17


3.2. Marc Greidanus - Chilliwack Park Society

Marc Greidanus appeared on behalf of the Chilliwack Park Society. He provided a PowerPoint presentation on the cooperative effort between the City of Chilliwack, FVRD and Ministry of Forest to create an interconnected trail system above the eastern hillsides neighbourhood, connecting Allan Road with Bridal Falls and eventually Ryder Lake. The Chilliwack Park Society’s purpose is to advocate for existing new parks and green spaces in Chilliwack that foster healthy and active lifestyles while promoting valuable flora and fauna. They aim to collaborate and build partnerships with local government, residents, First Nations and others to create sustainable parks in this area. Mr. Greidanus stated that many communities use their trails to attract tourism and Chilliwack is not fully promoting its world class potential. He discussed the current build out of plans for the eastern hillsides and noted that there is currently limited access to trails due to the private properties which could impact the future trail system in the area. He discussed his proposal of building a partial trail system and the benefits of it for the community. He indicated that the City of Chilliwack staff are supportive of the proposal. Mr. Greidanus requested the following:

• Trail management agreement for Bridal Falls trail • Trail management agreement for Hanging Valley trail • Budget for trail network creation • Partner with Chilliwack Park Society, FVMBA, Chilliwack Riding Club, Chilliwack Trail

Society, First Nations and the City of Chilliwack. The proposal could benefit the community by promoting outdoor activities which improves both physical and mental health. It would build community connections and increase tourism which will have an economic benefit. Chair Gaetz noted that this project is premature as there are many organizations including the City of Chilliwack, private land owners and First Nations to present this proposal to prior to requesting Agreements from the Fraser Valley Regional District. Discussions ensued regarding the potential of expanding trails into the entire Fraser Valley and not just the City of Chilliwack and how organizations can work together to develop and maintain future trails.

18


4. MINUTES/MATTERS ARISING 4.1. Minutes of the Regional and Corporate Services Committee Open Meeting -

October 15, 2014 FACIO/BOUCHER THAT the Minutes of the Regional and Corporate Services Committee Open Meeting of October 15, 2014 be adopted. [RACS 2014-078] CARRIED

5. REGIONAL PROGRAMS 5.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

5.1.1. Regional Waste Composition Study

ROSS/DICKEY THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board award a contract to TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. further to Request for Proposal No. 14012 for a regional municipal solid waste composition study to support the goals and vision of the Fraser Valley Regional District's draft Solid Waste Management Plan; AND FURTHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to enter into contract negotiations with TRI Environmental Consulting Inc.; AND FINALLY THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to execute a contract with TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. in an amount not to exceed $200,000 (exclusive of taxes) subject to successful contract negotiations. [RACS 2014-079] CARRIED During discussion, a question arose about the study, and staff advised that the data collected as a result of the study would be beneficial to anyone involved in solid waste in this region. 5.1.2. Proposed Sub-Regional Animal Control Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298,

2014 The staff report dated November 12, 2014 from Stacey Barker, Manager of Environmental Services on the proposed Animal Control Regulation Amendment Bylaw was provided for information.

19


5.2. REGIONAL PARKS None 5.3. STRATEGIC PLANNING AND INITIATIVES

5.3.1. BC Transit Annual Workshop

ROSS/DICKEY THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board provide a letter of support regarding an application to host BC Transit’s annual workshop; AND THAT up to $1,500 be allocated from the Strategic Planning budget to cover costs associated with hosting the annual workshop. [RACS 2014-080] CARRIED

Discussion ensued about utilizing this workshop to educate BC Transit of the challenges that exist in the Fraser Valley air shed. This would be beneficial for future requests for hybrid buses in the Fraser Valley. Staff confirmed that they will utilize this opportunity to promote this issue. 5.4. E911 AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

5.4.1. E911 Audio Recorder

BOUCHER/JOHNSTON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize the expenditure of up to $36,000 ($31,330 plus tax) from Fire Dispatch appropriated surplus for the purchase a new E911 audio recorder from Sensus Communications Solutions. [RACS 2014-081] CARRIED

6. CORPORATE SERVICES 6.1. FINANCE

6.1.1. 2015–2019 Financial Planning Process Update

Mike Veenbaas, Manager of Finance and Chief Financial Officer provided information with respect to the 2015 – 2019 Financial Planning Process update and some points of note are as follows:

20


• Due to the general election occurring this year, the process of presenting the budget has been delayed to allow those members of the newly appointed Board the opportunity to provide direction, feedback, and ask questions regarding the proposed budget and work plans;

• Staff are proposing a travelling budget roadshow within each of the electoral areas in January pending discussion with each Electoral Area Directors to obtain the public’s feedback/consultation; and

• The proposed budget will come forward in January to the Board and some services may require increases and these will be presented with the proposed impacts.

Chair Gaetz commended staff on an excellent report.

6.2. ADMINISTRATION None 7. OTHERS MATTERS 7.1. Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion NEB Process – Update

Alison Stewart, Manager of Strategic Planning provided information of the National Energy Board (NEB) Public Hearing process to date with respect to Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project and the FVRD’s participation as an intervener. She noted the following:

• There has been an abundant of information coming forward as a result of this process; • Many information requests are still pending from the National Energy Board and only

three of the seventeen requests have been responded to; and • Air quality is being dealt with through the Fraser Valley Air Quality Committee.

Discussions ensued regarding the status of FVRD’s request and some of the issues that have arisen.

Concerns were expressed with the process and the delay in information being received. Discussions ensued about the project, the concerns being raised by communities and the limited access for public input which is creating a lack of confidence. 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1. Presentation by staff regarding 2014 Highlights

This item be deferred to the next Agenda.

21


9. PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD FOR ITEMS RELEVANT TO

AGENDA None 10. RESOLUTION TO CLOSE MEETING ROSS/VAN LAERHOVEN THAT the meeting be closed to the public, except for Senior Staff and the Executive Assistant, for the purpose of receiving and adopting Closed Meeting Minutes and to consider matters pursuant to:

• Section 90(1)(c) of the Community Charter - labour relations or other employee relations; and

• Section 90(1)(k) of the Community Charter - negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a regional service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the Committee, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the Regional District if they were held in public.

[RACS 2014-082] CARRIED

The Open Meeting recessed at 9:58 a.m. for the purpose of convening the Closed Meeting and reconvened at 10:54 a.m. 11. RISE AND REPORT OUT OF CLOSED MEETING None 12. ADJOURNMENT LAMSON/BOUCHER THAT the Regional and Corporate Services Committee Open Meeting of November 15, 2014 be adjourned. [RACS 2014-083] CARRIED The Regional and Corporate Services Committee Open Meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m. MINUTES CERTIFIED CORRECT: …………………………………….. Director Sharon Gaetz, Chair

22

ELECTORAL AREA SERVICES COMMITTEE

Wednesday, November 12, 2014 @ 1:00 p.m.



Present:

Director Bill Dickey, Chair – Electoral Area D Director Dennis Adamson, Electoral Area B Director Wendy Bales – Electoral Area C Director David Lamson, Electoral Area E Director Ray Boucher - Electoral Area F Director Al Stobbart – Electoral Area G Regrets: Director Lloyd Forman – Electoral Area A Staff Present:

Paul Gipps, Chief Administrative Officer Suzanne Gresham, Director of Corporate and Electoral Area Administration (part) Tareq Islam, Director of Engineering & Community Services Margaret Thornton, Director of Planning & Development Mike Veenbaas, Manager of Finance Barclay Pitkethly, Director of Regional Programs Graham Daneluz, Manager of Planning James Storey, Manager of Community Services Scott Salisbury, Utilities Superintendent Chris Wilson, Manager of Electoral Area Emergency Services Ben Kineshanko, Engineering and Community Services Technologist Tyler Davis, Network Analyst I Jennifer Kinneman, Communications Manager Catherine Fortin, Communications Student Tina Mooney, Executive Assistant Kim Tvergyak, Executive Assistant (Recording Secretary) Also Present: Marilynne Morrison (delegation - item 3.1) 1 member of the public.

23

Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Services Committee Open Minutes November 12, 2014 Page | 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Dickey called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND ADDENDA 2.1. Approval of Agenda

STOBBART/BOUCHER THAT the Agenda for the Electoral Area Services Committee Open Meeting of November 12, 2014 be approved; AND THAT all delegations, reports, correspondence, minutes, and other information set to the Agenda be received for information. [EASC 2014-193] CARRIED

2.2. Approval of Addenda

STOBBART/BOUCHER THAT the Addenda for the Electoral Area Services Committee Open Meeting of November 12, 2014 be approved; AND THAT all delegations, reports, correspondence, and other information set to the Addenda be received for information. [EASC 2014-194] CARRIED

3. DELEGATION(S) 3.1. Marilynne Morrison - Hatzic Water System Affecting Well Water Supply

Paul Gipps introduced Ms. Marilynne Morrison who is appearing as a delegation with respect to the effect of the Hatzic Water System is having on her well water supply. Ms. Morrison thanked the committee for allowing her delegation. Ms. Morrison resides on Sylvester Road across from the Durieu school yard. She mentioned that everyone in this area is on a well, and that this past summer was the first time that their 42’ well was sucking air. They were unable to run any water from more than one place at a time which was very distressing for her business, property and home. Two of their neighbours ran out of water and one of them had to dig another well at their expense. Ms. Morrison is concerned that commercial farms are using the wells and that is affecting the supply to her and her neighbours’ wells. From earlier meetings they were told that commercial users would not be able to tap into their water supply, only residents. Ms. Morrison would like

24


the FVRD to monitor the neighbouring wells and monitor the commercial farm users to let her know why her well is running dry and if it is because of users that they were told would not be using this system she would like compensation from the FVRD for her to dig a new well on her property. Director Dickey thanked Ms. Morrison for her presentation and invited staff to comment on this issue. Staff presented a chart to show testing of the aquifer on the FVRD wells and the effect it had when run for 25.2 hours at 27.4 Litres/Second on the neighbouring wells including Ms. Morrison’s well. Based on the hydrology report it showed that after this test Ms. Morrison’s well went down 2 inches and quickly refilled when testing was completed. Staff also noted that there is a tiered rate system based on water usage, thus the cost of water is significantly higher if more water is used. Staff mentioned that the amount the FVRD wells are used should not be affecting the neighbouring wells, but that staff want to work with the community to see what is happening with the aquifer and solve this problem. It was suggested that FVRD staff monitor a representation of the group of wells as opposed to all the wells in the area, and bring forward a report to the residents of the area. 4. MINUTES/MATTERS ARISING 4.1. Draft Minutes of the Electoral Area Services Committee Meeting October 15, 2014

LAMSON/BOUCHER THAT the Minutes of the Electoral Area Services Committee Open Meeting of October 15, 2014, be adopted. [EASC 2014-195] CARRIED

Opposed Director Bales Director Bales noted that she disagreed with the treatment of Item 4.1 in the EASC Minutes dated October 15, 2014. She again requested that EASC Committee Meetings be Webcast. Staff advised that the issue of Webcasting the Committee will be discussed in January 2015 further to previous Board direction. 5. FINANCE 5.1. 2015 – 2019 Financial Planning Process Update

Mr. Veenbaas presented an updated report on the 2015-2019 Financial Planning Process. He stated that he has had an opportunity to meet with each EA Director to review the proposed 2015 budgest and work plans for EA specific services. As a result of the general election this year the normal process for presenting budgets has been delayed. In January staff are proposing a special EASC meeting to allow for Director and public feedback. Staff are also proposing a “travelling budget roadshow” within each of the electoral areas in January to allow

25


those in our more distant communities to be a part of the financial planning process and get the public feedback. Mr. Veenbaas is hoping to bring the 2015-2019 Financial Plan bylaw to the January Board meeting for adoption, making this ideal to allow departments to move forward with their 2015 work plans to ensure project are not delayed. Director Dickey thanked staff for doing a great job with the budgeting process. A decision on the process for January was put off until the next EASC meeting. 5.2. Grant-in-Aid – Hope and District Figure Skating Club - Electoral Area B

ADAMSON/STOBBART THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the Hope and District Figure Skating Club in the amount of $1,000 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “B” grant-in-aid budget to provide funds for supporting the production of the annual figure skating ice show along with ice user fees for the children in the figure skating program. [EASC 2014-196] CARRIED

Discussion ensued about whether or not to have Grant-in-Aid cheques directly mailed out or presented personally by the Electoral Area Director. It was decided by the EA Directors that they would like the choice to either have them mailed out directly or given to them to hand deliver. 5.3. Grant-in-Aid Request – Hope Senior Secondary PAC -Electoral Area B

Director Adamson declared a conflict of interest and excused himself from the matter as a family member attends Hope Senior Secondary.

STOBBART/BOUCHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a grant-in-aid to Hope Senior Secondary Parent Advisory Committee in the amount of $4,700 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “B” grant-in-aid budget to assist with the costs of purchasing 2 bleachers and 2 benches for the soccer team, practice jerseys and training equipment for the basketball team and guitar cases for the band program. [EASC 2014-197] CARRIED Director Adamson returned to the meeting at the conclusion of the matter.

5.4. Grant-in-Aid – Citizens of North Lake Errock - Electoral Area C

BALES/ADAMSON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the Citizens of North Lake Errock in the amount of $5,050 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “C” grant-in-aid budget to assist with the costs of a) rejuvenating a local community park area, b) providing a

26


community Canada Day celebration in 2015 and c) the purchase of emergency preparedness supplies for the benefit of the local community. [EASC 2014-198] CARRIED

5.5. Grant-in-Aid Request – Harrison Mills Community Emergency Response Team -

Electoral Area C

BALES/STOBBART THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the Harrison Mills Community Emergency Response Team in the amount of $4,025 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “C” grant-in-aid budget to provide funds for the purchase of emergency preparedness supplies to be used by the CERT Team in the local Harrison Mills area. Director Bales sought an amendment to the main motion in order to reduce the amount of the Grant in Aid by $1,000. BALES/ADAMSON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the Harrison Mills Community Emergency Response Team in the amount of $3,025 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “C” grant-in-aid budget to provide funds for the purchase of emergency preparedness supplies to be used by the CERT Team in the local Harrison Mills area. [EASC 2014-199] CARRIED 5.6. Grant-in-Aid – South Lake Errock Land Owners Society - Electoral Area C

BALES/ADAMSON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a Grant-in-Aid to the South Lake Errock Land Owners Society in the amount of $1,450 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “C” grant-in-aid budget to assist with the costs of compiling an emergency preparedness kit for the benefit of local residents. [EASC 2014-200] CARRIED

5.7. Grant-In-Aid Request – Popkum Volunteer Fire Department - Electoral Area D

ADAMSON/BOUCHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board approve a grant-in-aid to Popkum Volunteer Fire Department in the amount of $500 to be funded from the 2014 Electoral Area “D” grant-in-aid budget to assist with the costs of the fire department’s annual Christmas party. [EASC 2014-201] CARRIED

27


Director Lamson asked if there is a way to check to make sure that when Grants in Aid are given out by the Electoral Area’s that they are used for the purpose they are given for? Staff mentioned that the proposed 2015 Workplan contemplates a review the Grant in Aid Policy. Staff noted that it is common in other jurisdictions for the governing body to receive a report from the recipient of a GIA to ensure accountability and transparency. The Board’s current policy does not provide for this. Staff indicated that they are currently looking at best practices around the province. EA Directors suggested that most of them know their area and the groups that request aid, but that they also believe in proper accountability and would like to see this added to the policy. 5.8. Addenda Items - Finance

6. ENGINEERING & UTILITIES 6.1. North Side Garbage Service Area

Discussion ensued that after a recent survey was conducted it was found that significant residents of the community of Lake Errock does not use the Sylvester Road transfers station for disposal of solid waste and that they should be removed from the North Side Garbage Service Area tax roll. However, the survey also shows that the community of Lake Errock mostly uses Harrison Mills transfer station for disposal of solid waste where the community of Lake Errock do not pay into the established Service Area. The issues that arose is that if Lake Errock is removed and does not pay into any garbage service that they would then pay a per bag user fee at any of the Transfer Stations they choose to use. Based on current statistics from the Harrison Mills Transfer Station, a per bag price of $8 is recommended for those not contributing to the operation of the transfer station through taxes. These residents would also not receive their first bag for free as do taxpayers of the service area. Director Bales is concerned that the $8 per bag is too steep and that Lake Errock residents would not use the Harrison Mills Transfer station if they had to pay this as Leq’a:mel Transfer Station rates are cheaper and that the $8/bag should be reduced to what Leq’a:mel is charging. Director Bales also mentioned that she does not believe the current statistics are accurate of what is being brought into the Harrison Mills Transfer Station. Staff mentioned that Leq’a:mel rates are subsidized from the Federal Government and other sources of revenues, so they are able to charge a lower rate. Staff also mentioned that most of the $8/bag are fixed costs to run the Transfer Station at Harrison Mills, and would review the costs after a year of collecting information under the new contract. The new contract at Harrison Mills Transfer Station will allow us to go through a different process of how we collect money, manage and account for garbage going through and identify where the waste is coming from.

28


Staff stated that Lake Errock will have a choice as to where they take their garbage and that they may look at using a private collection company as well, it is their choice, but we cannot have them pay nothing or reduce the rate from $8/bag as other service areas would then have to subsidize them through taxes. BALES/ADAMSON THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to begin the process to remove Lake Errock from the North Side Garbage Service Area and; AND THAT the user fees to be charged match the price that the Leq’a:mel Transfer Station is charging; AND FURTHER THAT the user fees be re-evaluated after a year. [EASC 2014-202] DEFEATED

Opposed Director Boucher, Director Stobbart, Director Dickey, Director Lamson

BOUCHER/STOBBART THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to begin the process to remove Lake Errock from the North Side Garbage Service Area; AND THAT staff be directed to address Solid Waste management for the Lake Errock area by preparing an amendment to the user fees for the Harrison/Hemlock Garbage Service Area to provide for a two tiered rate system which would charge higher user fee's to users not within the service area (Lake Errock) as per Option 2 in the staff report dated November 12, 2014 with respect to North Side Garbage. [EASC 2014-203] CARRIED

Opposed Director Bales and Director Adamson 6.2. New Building Canada Fund - Small Communities Component

BOUCHER/STOBBART THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to make one application per Electoral Area for grant funding based on the projects selected by the Electoral Area Directors. [EASC 2014-204] CARRIED

Staff mentioned that if the Electoral Area Directors could advise staff which projects they wish to have submitted before the Board meeting on November 25, 2014 so a resolution from the board can be made at that time as the deadline for the New Building Canada Fund Application is February 18, 2015. 6.3. Addenda Items - Engineering & Utilities

29


7. PLANNING & BUILDING 7.1. Addenda Items - Planning & Building

8. ELECTORAL AREA EMERGENCY SERVICES 8.1. Proposed change to Volunteer Firefighter Eligibility Age Requirements

ADAMSON/BOUCHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give three readings and adoption to the Bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and Regulations Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014”. [EASC 2014-205] CARRIED

8.2. Addenda Items - Electoral Area Emergency Services

8.2.1 2014 Electoral Area Emergency Services Update Chris Wilson, Manager of Electoral Area Emergency Services presented an update of Emergency Management Incidents for the 2014 year to date.

• July 18, 2014 - Nahatlatch Forest Fire o Ministry of Forests took the lead on this incident. There were a few cabins in the

area but no evacuation alert was needed. • October 26, 2014 – Fertilizer Truck MVA

o Truck failed to negotiate a curve spilling approximately 21 tonnes of Urea Fertilizer with some entering the Harrison River. Ministry of Environment responded as did North Fraser Volunteer Fire Department. A vacuum truck removed material that was remaining. The Company that was shipping the Fertilizer conducted tests of the Harrison River that showed low risk of short or long term damage from the spill.

• November 4, 2014 – Hemlock Road Slide o Ministry of Transportation, Highways and Infrastructure responded to the slide

and were very quick to assess and re-open the road with some rocks having to be blasted to be removed.

• November 8, 2014 – Bridal Falls Landslide o RCMP, Kent Harrison Search and Rescue responded and it was quickly

determined that there was low risk to residents in the area, by using the SAR technology, FVRD Staff and RCMP made sure everyone in the area was notified. Engineers have reported that the slide was confined to organic material no deeper than 1m and may be caused by drainage issues. It was determined this was a minor event.

Mr. Wilson mentioned that we are now out of Forest Fire Season and moving into flood season from now until Spring.

30


Director Adamson asked if the FVRD could notify other Directors, whose area the incident does not affect, just to keep them informed.

9. OTHER MATTERS 9.1. Addenda Items Other Matters

10. ITEMS FOR INFORMATION 10.1. Addenda Items - Items for Information

11. REPORTS BY ELECTORAL AREA DIRECTORS Director Adamson wanted to thank staff for helping out the Spuzzum Band with addressing and mapping for a new home being built. Director Bales reported that whatever the outcome is after the November 15, 2014 election she has enjoyed being a part of the FVRD and getting to know everyone. Director Lamson reported that this is his very last meeting as a FVRD Director and that he is being replaced by not one but two new Directors as his area has been split into two new areas, he also wanted to thank Chair Dickey for his good leadership, and also the FVRD staff for all their help with the OCP, dyking and all other matters during his term of office. Director Dickey reported that this past month a new community park trail at Cheam Lake Regional Park was opened. Chair Dickey thanked Director Lamson for the 9 years he dedicated as the Director of Area E noting that he has appreciated Director Lamson’s very careful and thoughtful decision making. Chair Dickey mentioned the many successes and projects that Director Lamson has had over his term of office, most recently the reconfiguration of Area E into 2 distinct Electoral Areas Chair Dickey presented a plaque to Director Lamson in recognition of his service and dedication to Electoral Area E. 12. REPORTS BY STAFF CAO Paul Gipps offered staff’s congratulations to Director Lamson for his 9 years of dedicated service to FVRD Electoral Area E and wished him the very best on behalf of staff.

31


12.1. 2014 Highlights This matter was postponed to a future meeting. 13. PUBLIC QUESTION PERIOD FOR ITEMS RELEVANT TO AGENDA None 14. ADJOURNMENT LAMSON/STOBBART THAT the Electoral Area Services Committee Open Meeting of November 12, 2014 be adjourned. [EASC 2014-206] CARRIED The Electoral Area Services Committee adjourned at 2:54p.m. MINUTES CERTIFIED CORRECT: ……………………………………… Director Bill Dickey, Chair

32

Fraser Valley Regional District 45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6 Phone: 1-800-528-0061 or (604) 702-5000 Fax: (604) 792-9684

To:

From:

Date:

Subject:

File No.:

STAFF REPORT

Chair and Members of the Fraser Valley Regional District Board

Suzanne Gresham, Chief Election Officer

November 20, 2014

Report of Election Results - Election by Voting

4200-2012014 Election by Voting

FOR INFORMATION

Section 148 of the Local Government Act requires the Chief Election Officer to submit a report of the elections results to the Fraser Valley Regional District Board within 30 days after the Declaration of Official Election Results. The Declaration of Official Election Results, attached, was made under my hand on November 19, 2014 in accordance with Section 136 of the Local Government Act.

Section 148 of the Local Government Act also requires the Chief Election to include a compilation of the information on the ballot accounts for the election. Please find the required compilation attached.

33

I

Fraser Va!!ey Regional District

DECLARATION OF OFFICIAL ELECTION RESULTS [Section 136 of the Local Government Act]

2014 GENERAL LOCAL ELECTION

Electoral Area Directors

I, Suzanne Gresham, Chief Election Officer, do hereby declare elected the following

candidates who received the highest number of valid votes for the office of Electoral Area

Director of the Fraser Valley Regional District:

N arne of Candidate Declared Elected by Voting Electoral Area

'Terry Raymond Electoral Area "A"

1 Alec Niemi Electoral Area "C"

Orion Engar Electoral Area "E"

Taryn Dixon Electoral Area "H"

·niwack, British Columbia this 19u1 day of November, 2014.

Suzanne Gresham, Chief Election Officer

34

Electoral Area A

Electoral

Electoral

Electoral

Schoo! Disttfct 75

ABOUT US SERVICES

Eiectorai 1-*xea A

Determrn2tion of Off'icial Election results rn accord•·Jnce ''lith Section 135 of the L oc;-;i

Gover-nment Act

Voti"!l F'i~~~N, RAYMOND, Opportunity lames Terry

Advance Voting

N;;ember :: 1 2014 33 l 2.7

Canyon Lanes I Bowling Alley I

General Voting i I

Na';ember "is, 2014 I 52 I 12 70 Canyon Lanes

I Bowling Alley

Total Number of i VaHd Votes Cast I

I I 85 I 13 97

! I

Page I of 1

NEWS, EVENTS NOTICES

©2008 FVRD. All rights re5erved.

http:/ /www.fvrd. bc.ca/NewsEventsTopics/20 14localgovernmentelections/20 14ElectionR ... 19/11/2014

35

Electoral Area C

iklUif;'

A!H.nrrus

Electoral Area C

to etecterd

Detcrmmatmr. of Off ~ral Flection result~i m accorrlancc witt< Se.ct10n US of the l.acal

Government Act

Opportunity

November FVRD Community Access Centre> Deroche

2014 North Fraser 2r Lake Errock

November Hemlock Valley

Hall No,

Total Number of Va!td

12 39

114 107

11 16

Pagel of l

©2008 FVRD. All rights reserved.

http://www. fvrd. bc.ca/NewsEventsTopics/20 14localgovemmentelections/20 14ElectionR. .. 19/1!12014

36

Electoral Area H Page I of I

FVR.D SERVICES

Electoral .'.ne21 E

Eicctora! Area H

Schoci District ;r::;

EIE<ctclral Area

1{one) to he eiedet!

Dr-termina\.lon Offick1\ \'~lectio11 ;·esults w, Gccordance w1H1 Sect\Ol< 13~i of t1te Loc<~f

Governnwnt Act

171 131 109

:©2008 FVRD. All rights reserved.

http:/ /www.fvrd. bc.ca/NewsEventsTopics/20 141ocalgovemmentelections/20 14ElectionR ... 19/1 1/2014

37

Electoral Area E

NOTICES

f:1ectorui C

Disttict 75

Tl'iE

Electoral E

DeterminiltiOn of OffiCri.li E'iection n2surts 111 orccrdancc~ witl\ Section 135 of

GiJvemment Af

I

Opportunity

Opportunity

Chilliwacl<

[combined AVO/GVO ballot' count:]

Total Number Votes Cast

Vaiid

ENGAR, Of'ion

205

205

HERRICK, leanne

42

42

Page 1 of 1

@2008 FVRD. All nghts reserved.

http://www. fvrd. be .caiN ewsEventsT opi cs/2 0 14localgovemmentelecti ons/20 14 Electi onR ... 19/1112014

38

Fraser Valley Regional District 45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6

Phone: 1-800-528-0061 or (604) 702-5000 Fax: (604) 792-9684

MEMORANDUM

To: Chair and Members of the Fraser Valley Regional District Board

From: Mike Veenbaas, Manager of Financial Services

Date: November 25, 2014

Subject: Proposed Security Issuing Bylaw 1300, 2014 (District of Kent)

File No.: 3920-20 / 24836

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider giving Fraser Valley Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw 1300, 2014 three readings and adoption.

BACKGROUND: Regional Districts finance long term debt through the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia for their member municipalities. Section 824(a) of the Local Government Act (Act) states that “a regional district may finance, at the request and sole cost of a municipality, an undertaking for which the council of the municipality has adopted a loan authorization bylaw in accordance with the Community Charter.”

DISCUSSION: The District of Kent has requested funding via the Municipal Finance Authority in their 2015 spring debenture issue for the Community Recreation and Cultural Centre expansion/addition. In accordance with legislative requirements, the District of Kent has adopted the necessary Loan Authorization Bylaw, obtained a Certificate of Approval from the Deputy Inspector of Municipalities, and has passed a Municipal Security Issuing Resolution requesting the FVRD Board of Directors to consent to borrowing on behalf of Kent. In order to facilitate debenture financing, it is necessary for the Board of Directors to adopt a Security Issuing Bylaw. Consideration and adoption of the bylaw are the initial steps in the process to allow Kent to borrow in the Municipal Finance Authority’s 2015 spring issue.

Security Issuing Bylaw 1300, 2014 authorizes the borrowing of One Million Three Hundred Thousand dollars ($1,300,000) for the Community Recreation and Cultural Centre expansion/addition.

39

Page | 2

COST: All debt issuing costs are deducted from the debenture proceeds. The annual debt servicing payments will be remitted by FVRD to the Municipal Finance Authority and will in turn be recovered from the District of Kent.

COMMENTS BY: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: Reviewed and supported

40


BYLAW NO. 1300, 2014 A bylaw to authorize the entering into of an agreement respecting financing between the Fraser Valley Regional District and the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia WHEREAS the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia (the “Authority”) may provide financing of capital requirements for Regional Districts or their member municipalities by the issue of debentures or other evidence of indebtedness of the Authority and lending the proceeds therefrom to the Regional District on whose request the financing is undertaken; AND WHEREAS the District of Kent is a member municipality of the Fraser Valley Regional District (“the Regional District”); AND WHEREAS the Regional District is to finance from time to time on behalf of, and at the sole cost of, the member municipalities, under the provision of Section 824 of the Local Government Act (“the Act”), the works to be financed pursuant to the following loan authorization bylaws: Municipal

Loan Authorization

Bylaw #

Purpose Amount of Borrowing Authorized

Amount Already

Borrowed

Borrowing Authority

Remaining

Term of

Issue

Amount of Issue

1511, 2014

Expansion

of the Community Recreation

and Cultural Centre

$1,300,000

Nil

$1,300,000

20

Years

$1,300,000

TOTAL $1,300,000 Nil $1,300,000 $1,300,000 Total Financing under Section 824: $1,300,000. AND WHEREAS the Fraser Valley Regional District Board (“the Board”), by this bylaw, hereby requests that such financing shall be undertaken through the Authority; THEREFORE the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. CITATION

This bylaw may be cited as the "Fraser Valley Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1300, 2014 ".

41

Bylaw 1300, 2014 Page 2 of 4 2. ENACTMENTS

a) The Board hereby consents to financing the debt of the District of Kent in the amount of

ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,300,000) in accordance with the following terms.

b) The Authority is hereby requested and authorized to finance from time to time the aforesaid undertakings at the sole cost and on behalf of the Fraser Valley Regional District and its member municipalities up to, but not exceeding ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,300,000) in lawful money of Canada (provided that the Regional District may borrow all or part of such amount in such currency as the Trustees of the Authority shall determine but the aggregate amount in lawful money of Canada and in Canadian Dollar equivalents so borrowed shall not exceed $1,300,000 in Canadian Dollars) at such interest and with such discounts or premiums and expenses as the Authority may deem appropriate in consideration of the market and economic conditions pertaining.

c) Upon completion by the Authority of financing undertaken pursuant hereto, the Chair and

officer assigned the responsibility of financial administration of the Regional District, on behalf of the Regional District and under its seal shall, at such time or times as the Trustees of the Authority may request, enter into and deliver to the Authority one or more agreements, which said agreement or agreements shall be substantially in the form annexed hereto as Schedule A and made part of this bylaw (such agreement or agreements as may be entered into, delivered or substituted hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement") providing for payment by the Regional District to the Authority of the amounts required to meet the obligations of the Authority with respect to its borrowings undertaken pursuant hereto, which Agreement shall rank as debenture debt of the Regional District.

d) The Agreement in the form of Schedule A shall be dated and payable in the principal

amount or amounts of monies and in Canadian dollars or as the Authority shall determine and subject to the Act, in such currency or currencies as shall be borrowed by the Authority under Section a) and shall set out the schedule of repayment of the principal amount together with interest on unpaid amounts as shall be determined by the Treasurer of the Authority.

e) The obligation incurred under the said Agreement shall bear interest from a date

specified therein, which date shall be determined by the Treasurer of the Authority, and shall bear interest at a rate to be determined by the Treasurer of the Authority.

f) The Agreement shall be sealed with the seal of the Regional District and shall bear the

signatures of the Chair and the officer assigned the responsibility of financial administration of the Regional District.

g) The obligations incurred under the said Agreement as to both principal and interest shall

be payable at the Head Office of the Authority in Victoria and at such time or times as shall be determined by the Treasurer of the Authority.

h) During the currency of the obligation incurred under the said Agreement to secure

borrowings in respect of “Community Recreation and Cultural Centre Loan

42

Bylaw 1300, 2014 Page 3 of 4

Authorization Bylaw No. 1511, 2014” there shall be requisitioned annually an amount sufficient to meet the annual payment of interest and the repayment of principal.

i) The Regional District shall provide and pay over to the Authority such sums as are

required to discharge its obligations in accordance with the terms of the Agreement, provided, however, that, if the sums provided for in the Agreement are not sufficient to meet the obligations of the Authority, any deficiency in meeting such obligations shall be a liability of the Regional District to the Authority and the Board of the Regional District shall make due provision to discharge such liability.

j) The Regional District shall pay over to the Authority at such time or times as the Treasurer of the Authority so directs such sums as are required pursuant to Section 15 of the Municipal Finance Authority Act to be paid into the Debt Reserve Fund established by the Authority in connection with the financing undertaken by the Authority on behalf of the Regional District pursuant to the Agreement.

3. READINGS

READ A FIRST TIME THIS day of

READ A SECOND TIME THIS day of

READ A THIRD TIME THIS day of

ADOPTED THIS day of

Chair/Vice-Chair Corporate Officer/Deputy 4. CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of “Fraser Valley Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. 1300, 2014” as adopted by the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District on the day of

Dated at Chilliwack, B.C. this day of Corporate Officer/Deputy

43

Bylaw 1300, 2014 Page 4 of 4

SCHEDULE A TO Bylaw No. 1300, 2014

C A N A D A

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

A G R E E M E N T

Fraser Valley Regional District

The Fraser Valley Regional District (the "Regional District") hereby promises to pay to the Municipal Finance Authority of British Columbia at its Head Office in Victoria, British Columbia, (the “Authority”) the sum of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,300,000) in lawful money of Canada, together with interest calculated semi-annually in each and every year during the currency of this Agreement; and payments shall be as specified in the table appearing on the reverse hereof commencing on the ___day of ______, provided that in the event the payments of principal and interest hereunder are insufficient to satisfy the obligations of the Authority undertaken on behalf of the Regional District, the Regional District shall pay over to the Authority further sums as are sufficient to discharge the obligations of the Regional District to the Authority. Dated at _______, British Columbia, this___day of___________, 20__

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF and under the authority of Bylaw No. _____ cited as "Fraser Valley Regional District Security Issuing Bylaw No. _______”. This Agreement is sealed with the Corporate Seal of the Fraser Valley Regional District and signed by the Chair and the officer assigned responsibility of financial administration thereof.

__________________________ Chair

__________________________

Financial Administration Officer Pursuant to the Local Government Act, I certify that this Agreement has been lawfully and validly made and issued and that its validity is not open to question on any ground whatever in any Court of the Province of British Columbia. Dated_______, 20__ Inspector of Municipalities

49


Phone: 1-800-528-0061 or (604) 702-5000 Fax: (604) 792-9684

MEMORANDUM


From: Stacey Barker, Manager of Environmental Services


Subject: Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw and companion Regulatory Amendment Bylaw

File No.: 4010-50-003

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider adopting the bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014” subject to approval by the Inspector of Municipalities; AND THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider giving first, second, and third readings and adoption to the bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014”.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES: The Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) bylaw to amend the service area for animal control to include the City of Abbotsford received three readings by the Board on October 28, 2014. Since then, the Bylaw has also received statutory consent from the stakeholders and has been submitted to the Inspector of Municipalities for approval as required under the Local Government Act. It is anticipated that the bylaw will be approved in time for consideration of this bylaw by the Board at its November 25, 2014 meeting. Should approval not be forthcoming, this matter will be withdrawn from the agenda and considered in due course. The accompanying regulatory amendment bylaw which is being recommended to the Board can only be considered once the Service Area Amendment Bylaw is approved by the Inspector and adopted by the Board. Once both bylaws are in place, the FVRD will be in a position to deliver animial control services to the City of Abbotsford as envisioned.

BACKGROUND: Through a Memorandum of Understanding, the City of Abbotsford currently uses the FVRD’s Animal Control Centre in Chilliwack. The arrangement was initially intended to be temporary, but the facility has proven to have adequate capacity to service both Chilliwack and Abbotsford. The City of Abbotsford and the FVRD also both use the same contractor (BC Corps of Commissionaires) for Animal Control Services; who currently provide essentially the same service to both Abbotsford and Chilliwack using separate licensing systems, accounting systems, bylaw structures, etc. A KPMG study in 2010 confirmed expectations that cost savings could be gained by combining services, which were more fully described in the Business Case that was presented to the Board on October 28,

50

Page | 2

2014. Consequently, the City of Abbotsford and the City of Chilliwack provided their statutory consent to the expansion of the service (attached). Approval from the Inspector of Municipalities is also attached.

DISCUSSION:

Text differences proposed within the “Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014” include the following:

The introduction of a prorated licence fee, if an owner acquires a dog after July 1st of the current licence year.

The introduction of an additional schedule for Abbotsford license fees that will allow the current annual dog licence fees to be carried over under this new bylaw. No changes are being made to the existing dog licence fees for Chilliwack residents.

To encourage early registration, the bylaw will be amended to include a penalty for late payment as is the current practice in the City of Abbotsford. The introduction of this penalty across the region will serve as an incentive for those to renew their licence in a reasonable time period at the beginning of each calendar year and will result in administrative savings for the program.

Amending the list of prohibited exotic animals in order to have one common list of prohibited exotic animals that applies throughout the service area. Any additions are not believed to be of a substantive nature since possession of wildlife and exotic animals remain regulated under provincial and federal laws.

In order to facilitate the provision of service to the City of Abbotsford and to ensure a smooth transition, a one year extension of the contract with the BC Corps of Commissionaires will be given in accordance with existing contract provisions.

COST: n/a COMMENTS BY: DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL PROGRAMS: Reviewed and supported. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: Reviewed and supported CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: Reviewed and supported

51


BYLAW NO. 1287, 2014

A bylaw to amend the boundaries of the Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area ____________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Establishment Bylaw No. 1140, 2011” was adopted by the Fraser Valley Regional District Board (“the Board”) on January 24, 2012; AND WHEREAS the Board has been requested to amend the boundary of the Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area to include the City of Abbotsford; AND WHEREAS consent on behalf of the municipal participating areas of the Fraser Valley Regional District has been obtained in accordance with Section 801.4 of the Local Government Ac (“the Act”); THEREFORE the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. CITATION

This bylaw may be cited as the “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014”.

2. ENACTMENTS (a) “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area

Establishment Bylaw No. 1140, 2011” is hereby amended by extending the boundaries of the Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area to include the City of Abbotsford in its entirety.

(b) That “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area

Establishment Bylaw No. 1140, 2011” be amended by: (i) Deleting Section 2)b) and replacing it with the following: ”The boundaries of the

Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area shall be the boundaries of the City of Chilliwack and the City of Abbotsford”;

(ii) Deleting Section 2)c) and replacing it with the following: “The service area shall include the following participating areas: the City of Chilliwack and the City of Abbotsford”;

52

Bylaw No. 1287, 2014 Page 2 of 2

(iii) Adding Section 2)f) as follows: “The gross municipal share (based on the 2011 Canada Census) is:

City of Abbotsford:

63.1% of total service

City of Chilliwack:

36.9% of total service (c) That the provisions of all bylaws that are now in effect with regard to the establishment

and amendment of the Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area remain in full force and effect.

3. READINGS AND ADOPTION

READ A FIRST TIME THIS 28th day of October, 2014

READ A SECOND TIME THIS 28th day of October, 2014

READ A THIRD TIME THIS 28th day of October, 2014 APPROVAL OF THE INSPECTOR Of MUNICIPALITIES this day of

ADOPTED THIS day of

Chair/Vice-Chair Corporate Officer/Deputy 4. CERTIFICATIONS

I hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014” as read a third time by the Fraser Valley Regional District Board on the 28

th day of October, 2014

Dated at Chilliwack, BC this 29

th day of October, 2014

Corporate Officer/Deputy

54

November 5, 2014

Fraser Valley Regional District 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6

Attention : Pam Loat, Administrative and Information Services Coordinator

Dear Pam :

Re: Statutory Consent for "Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014" (Abbotsford).

Council, at its Regular meeting held November 4, 2014, passed the following resolution:

"Stam Attri/1

) That Council give statutory consent to the "Fraser Valley Regional Dis trict ( Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014"

{Abbotsford).

Carried unanimously"

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the Corporate Services Department at 604-793-2986.

Yours truly,

9~YY1~~ Janice McMurray Deputy City Clerk

Enclosure

8550 Young Road Phone: 604.792.9311 Chilliwack, BC V2P 8A4 Fax: 604.795.8443

www.chilliwack.com

56


BYLAW NO. 1298, 2014

A bylaw to amend Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control Regulation Bylaw No. 1206, 2013

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District (the “Board”) has deemed it advisable to amend Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control Regulation Bylaw No. 1206, 2013. THEREFORE the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. CITATION This bylaw may be cited as the “Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control

Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014”. 2. ENACTMENTS That “Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control Regulation Bylaw No. 1206,

2013” be amended by:

a) Deleting all references to Schedule A and replacing it with “the applicable Schedule A-I or A-II”.

b) Adding emus to the definition of “livestock” in Part B (Interpretation)

c) Deleting Part C and substituting the following: “This Bylaw applies only within the boundaries and participating areas of the Fraser Valley Regional Animal Control Service Area as established by Bylaw No. 1140, 2011” as amended.

d) Adding the following to Part E (Dog Licence Fees)

A person who becomes liable to pay the licence fee before February 16th and does not pay the fee before February 16th shall, notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 10 to 13 inclusive hereof, pay a late penalty of an additional 25%.

e) Adding the following to Part E (Dog Licence Fees)

If an owner acquires a dog after July 1st of the current licence year, the applicable licence fee will be reduced by 50% to a minimum of $10. This reduction does not apply to aggressive or nuisance dogs.

f) Adding the following to Section 38: “or except where permitted under municipal regulation.”

g) Adding the following Section to Part M (Enforcement):

57


The Chief Animal Control Officer may provide for the reduction, waiving or refund of a fee or charge if, as specified in the LGA Section 363 2(e), a person:

a) has already paid towards the costs to which the fee or charge relates,

b) does not require the service to which the fee or charge relates, c) no longer undertakes the activity or thing for which a licence,

permit or approval was required, or d) has prepaid towards the costs of the service to which the fee or

charge relates and use of the service by the person is discontinued.

h) Deleting Schedule A in its entirety and substituting with Schedules A-I and A-II attached hereto and forming and integral part of this bylaw.

i) Deleting Schedule D in its entirety and substituting with Schedule D attached hereto and forming and integral part of this bylaw.

3. DATE OF EFFECT

This Bylaw shall come into force and take effect on January 1, 2015 subject to the adoption of “Fraser Valley Regional District Sub-Regional Animal Control Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 1287, 2014.”





ADOPTED THIS day of

Chair/Vice-Chair Corporate Officer/Deputy 4. CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of “Fraser Valley Regional District Animal Control Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1298, 2014” as adopted by the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District on the day of


58


SCHEDULE A-I

City of Chilliwack Dog License Fees

Category Licence Fee 1

Unaltered Dog (each) $70

Altered Dog (each) $15

Nuisance Dog (each) $100

Aggressive Dog (each) $200

Licence Transfer $5

Licence Tag Replacement $5

1 Subject to penalties as described in Section 14 of this Bylaw.

59


SCHEDULE A-II

City of Abbotsford Dog License Fees

Category License Fee 2

Unaltered Dog (each) $56

Altered Dog (each) $28

Nuisance Dog (each) $100

Aggressive Dog (each) $200

Licence Transfer $5

Licence Tag Replacement $5

2 Subject to penalties as described in Section 14 of this Bylaw.

60


SCHEDULE D

The following list of animals constitutes wild or exotic animals for the purposes of this Bylaw. The list includes all such animals of the listed Family or Order (unless specifically identified as an exclusion), whether bred in the wild or in captivity, and also includes all their hybrids with domestic species. The examples provided in the right-hand column are intended to act as examples only and are not to be construed as limiting the generality of the group.

Restricted Taxa Examples of Animals

1 Non-human Primates apes, lemurs, gorillas, monkeys

2 Canis bush dogs, dingos, racoon dogs, African wild dogs, coyotes, jackals, foxes, wolves; excludes domestic dogs

3 Felidae lions, jaguars, cheetah, tigers, hyenas, cougars, lynx, bobcats, ocelots, servals, leopards; excludes domestic cats

4 Ungulata camels, hippopotamus, rhinoceros; excludes domestic goats, sheep, pigs, cattle, horses, llamas, alpacas, mules and donkeys

5 Rodentia beavers, porcupines, squirrels, gophers; excludes domestic hamsters, guinea pigs, chinchillas, rats, and mice

6 Edentata anteaters, armadillos, sloths

7 Mustelidae badgers, skunks, otters, wolverines, weasels; excludes de-scented skunks and domestic ferrets, minks, and ermines

8 Chiroptera bats

9 Ursidae bears

10 Viverrids civets, genets, meerkat, mongooses

11 Hyaenidae hyenas

12 Cetaceans dolphins, porpoises and whales

13 Proboscidae elephants, including Asian and African

14 Lagomorpha hares, pikas, rabbits; excludes domestic rabbits

15 Insectivora moles, shrews; excludes African Pygmy Hedgehogs

16 Marsupialia kangaroos, wombats, opossums; excludes sugar gliders

17 Strigiformes owls

18 Crocodylidae alligators, caimans, crocodiles

19 Procyonids raccoons, coatis, coatimundi

20 Pinnipedia seals, walrus

21 Other All venomous or poisonous spiders, scorpions, insects, fish, amphibians, lizards, turtles, snakes and other reptiles

61


45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6 Phone: 1-800-528-0061 or (604) 702-5000

Fax: (604) 792-9684

MEMORANDUM


From: Chris Wilson, Manager of Electoral Area Emergency Services

Date: 2014-11-12

Subject: Proposed change to Volunteer Firefighter Eligibility Age Requirements

File No.: 7200-01

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give three readings and adoption to the Bylaw cited as “Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and Regulations Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014”.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES:

Staff is proposing that the minimum age requirement for a junior firefighter to be lowered from 16 years of age to 15 years of age.

BACKGROUND:

Junior Firefighter Programs have proved to be successful in many areas, including the FVRD. These programs can:

• Boost membership levels

• Promote mentoring and teamwork

• Promote firefighter retention

• Provide lifelong skills and a unique experience for youth

The Junior Firefighter Program is an option; our Volunteer Fire Chiefs have discretion as to whether to entertain Junior Firefighters in their respective departments. Currently there are 4 Junior Firefighters serving in our Volunteer Fire Departments.

Chilliwack River Valley Volunteer Fire Chief Mike Danyluk has inquired about reducing the minimum age for entry into the Junior Firefighter Program, as he has recently received interest from two local youth regarding becoming junior firefighters at age 15.

62

Page | 2

DISCUSSION:

Currently Bylaw 1198, 2013 has a minimum age requirement of 16 for entry into the Junior Firefighter Program. This is in alignment with the large majority of fire departments in B.C. with Junior Firefighter Programs. That being said, staff are in support of reducing the minimum age from 16 to 15, given that all applicants (including junior firefighters) are assessed for suitability and are also subject to a probationary period.

Staff are also in the process of developing a standard operating guideline (S.O.G.) in collaboration with our Volunteer Fire Chiefs for the Junior Firefighter Program. This S.O.G. will be brought to the Board in early 2015 for adoption and will cover the following areas:

• Eligibility (written consent from parent/guardian, etc.)

• Application and selection process

• General rules and guidelines (including safety and operations)

• Training and evaluation requirements

• Duties and responsibilities in training and incidents (Junior Firefighters are restricted in the types of tasks they can perform)

COST:

No costs associated with this report. COMMENTS BY: DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING & COMMUNITY SERVICES: Reviewed and supported. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: No financial comment. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: Reviewed and supported.

63


BYLAW NO. 1299, 2014

A bylaw to amend Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and Regulation Bylaw No. 1198, 2013

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District (the “Board”) has deemed it advisable to amend “Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and Regulation Bylaw No. 1198, 2013”. THEREFORE the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. CITATION This bylaw may be cited as the “Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and Regulations Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014”. 2. ENACTMENTS That “Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department

Establishment and Regulation Bylaw No. 1198, 2013” be amended by:

a) Deleting Section 6.1 (b) and substituting the following: ”Is 15-18 years of age, with parental consent to participate in the Junior Firefighter Program;”





ADOPTED THIS day of

Chair/Vice-Chair Corporate Officer/Deputy

64


4. CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of “Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Area Volunteer Fire Department Establishment and Regulation Amendment Bylaw No. 1299, 2014” as adopted by the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District on the day of


65


Phone: 1-800-528-0061 or (604) 702-5000 Fax: (604) 792-9684

MEMORANDUM

To: Chair and Members of Fraser Valley Regional District Board

From: Milly Marshall, Manager Recreation, Culture and Airpark Services


Subject: Bylaw No. 0895, 2008 – Recreation, Culture and Airpark Services Rates and Fees

File No.: 3920-20/1292, 2014

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider giving three readings and adoption to the bylaw cited as the “Fraser Valley Regional District Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 1292, 2014”. SUMMARY OF ISSUE At the Recreation, Culture and Airpark Services Commission meeting held on October 2, 2014, the Commission approved an amendment to the 2015 Rates and Fees schedule for facilities, services and programs. As a result, an amendment to the Fraser Valley Regional District Hope and District Recreation Centre Rates and Fees Bylaw is required. DISCUSSION: Through an annual review of rates and fees comparison of like sized and neighbouring municipal recreation facilities, it was noted that the RCAS Arena full facility day rate was significantly lower. As a result, staff recommended an increase of $60.75 be applied to the full facility day rate to ensure rates don’t fall too far below the market value and are maintained at a marketable and competitive rate. COST: None COMMENT BY MANAGER OF FINANCIAL SERVICES: Reviewed and supported. COMMENT BY DIRECTOR OF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: Reviewed and supported.

66


Bylaw No. 1292, 2014

A Bylaw to amend “Fraser Valley Regional District Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other Charges Bylaw No. 0895, 2008”

WHEREAS the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District has deemed it advisable to amend “Fraser Valley Regional District Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other Charges Bylaw No. 0895, 2008” as amended. NOW THEREFORE the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District, in open meeting assembled, enacts as follows: 1. CITATION

This Bylaw is officially cited as the “Fraser Valley Regional District Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other Charges Amendment Bylaw No. 1292, 2014”.

2. ENACTMENT

That “Fraser Valley Regional District Hope and District Recreation Centre Fees and Other Charges Bylaw No. 0895, 2008” be amended by deleting Schedule A in its entirety and substituting Schedule A as attached hereto and forming an integral part of this bylaw.

3. READINGS AND ADOPTION READ A FIRST TIME THIS DAY OF READ A SECOND TIME THIS DAY OF READ A THIRD TIME THIS DAY OF ADOPTED THIS DAY OF Chair/Vice-Chair Corporate Officer/Deputy 4. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of Bylaw No. 1292, 2014 as adopted by the Board of Directors of the Fraser Valley Regional District on the day of . Dated at Chilliwack, B.C. this day of Corporate Officer/Deputy

67


FRASER VALLEY REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 1292, 2014

SCHEDULE A Hope And District Recreation And Cultural Centre Fees And Other Charges

Drop In Admissions -Pool/Gym/Arena (GST & PST Included)

Adult $5.00

Child $2.25

Senior $4.50

Student $4.00

Youth $3.75

Family $9.00

Other Groups $2.00

Extra Child $1.00

Shower $2.25

Family 50% off Sundays $4.50

Toonie Wednesdays $2.00

50% Off Fridays to 5:00pm

Senior Monday to 5:00pm $2.00

Last Hour Swim or Gym $3.25

Ages 85 and older $2.00

Arena Rates (GST & PST Included)

55+ Hockey Program $3.00

Adult Shinny Hockey $3.00

Parent and Tot skate $4.50

Casual Hockey Day Rate $3.00

Student Casual Hockey $3.00

Youth Casual Hockey $3.00

Family (2 Adult 3 Children) $9.00

Helmet Rental $2.25

Skate rental $3.00

Skate sharpening $5.50

Adult Ice Rental - Non Prime Time $153.00

Adult Ice Rental - Prime Time $162.00

Early Bird $55.50

Youth Ice $74.00

Youth Ice 1/2 sheet $74.00

Arena Dry Floor - Adult/hr $41.50

Arena Dry Floor - Youth/hr $23.00

68


Membership Rates (GST & PST Included)

Adult Membership Rates

10 Pass $42.50

20 Pass $79.50

1 Month $50.75

1 Month All Inclusive $69.25

3 Month $115.50


6 Month $211.00


1 Year $400.00

1 Year All Inclusive $511.00

Senior Membership Rates

10 Pass $38.00

20 Pass $71.25

1 Month $45.25


3 Month $100.75


6 Month $162.50


1 Year $302.25


Family Membership Rates

10 Pass $77.50

20 Pass $147.00

1 Month $102.50

3 Month $231.00

6 Month $412.00

1 Year $807.50

Child Membership Rates

10 Pass $17.50

20 Pass $ 33.25

1 Month $ 15.75

3 Month $ 36.00

6 Month $ 63.75

1 Year $ 118.25

Youth Membership Rates

10 Pass $ 31.50

20 Pass $ 58.75

1 Month $ 36.00

3 Month $ 80.50

6 Month $ 144.25

1 Year $ 265.25

69


Membership Rates (GST & PST Included) con’t

Student Membership Rates

10 Pass $ 33.25

20 Pass $ 62.75

1 Month $ 38.75

1 Month All Inclusive $ 57.25

3 Month $ 86.00


6 Month $153.50


1 Year $ 283.75


Facility Rental Rates (GST & PST Included)

Meeting Room - Adult $10.00

Meeting Room - Commercial $24.50

Meeting room - Day Rate $55.50

Mezzanine - Adult/hr $20.25

Mezzanine - Commercial $26.00

Mezzanine - Day Rate $101.50

Multipurpose - Adult (2013 NF Profit) $64.75

Multipurpose - Commercial $83.25

Multipurpose - Day Rate $323.50

Full Facility (ARENA) - Day Rate $800.00

Lane Rental - Hourly $14.00

Pool Rental - Hourly $143.25

Lockers - Monthly $3.00

Equipment Rentals (GST & PST Included)

Set Up and Takedown Fee /hr $17.14

LED Sign - Day Rate $20.00

LED Sign - Week Rate $110.00

LED Sign - Month Rate $400.00

Projector $50.00

TV w VCR or DVD $10.00

Microphone $10.00

Sound System (amp) $25.00

Sound System (sound board) $25.00

70


Dan Sharrers Aquatic Centre Rates (GST & PST Included)

Open Water Diving $350.00

Stroke & Endurance for Adults 1/2hr private $15.00

Stroke & Endurance for Adults 1/2 hr semi-private $12.00

AWSI $325.00

WSI $ 345.00

Lifesaving Instructor $ 260.00

NLS $ 250.00

Canadian Swim Patrol $ 50.00

Junior Lifeguard $ 50.00

Bronze Star $ 50.00

Bronze Medallion or Cross $120.00

Red Cross Preschool Swim Lessons $ 30.00

Red Cross Level 1-6 Swim Lessons $ 45.00

Red Cross Level 7-10 Swim Lessons $ 60.00

Private - 1/2 hr $ 15.00

Semi-Private - 1/2 hr $ 12.00

Adult Swim Lessons $ 45.00

Golden Agers Swim Lessons $ 45.00

Personal Training

Health/Fitness Consultation $36.00

Strength Starter Private $55.00

Fitness Evaluation $74.00

Body Composition $20.00

Strength Trainer Private $217.00

Strength Trainer Semi-Private $123.00

Food & Nutrition Analysis $75.00

71


DSAC – Program Rates (GST & PST Included)

Childcare Programs

School Daze Off Camps (Pro D) $ 30.00

School Break Camp - Day $ 32.00

School Break Camp - Week $ 125.00

Summer Camp - Day $ 29.50

Summer Camp - Week $ 118.00

Summer Camp - 9 Week $ 824.50

Summer Camp - 2nd Child $ 110.00

Summer Camp - 3rd Child $ 103.25

Summer Camp - 4th Child $ 96.00

Childminding $ 4.00

Busing $10.00

Child Programs

Parent & Strollers $5.00

Merry Music $75.00

Survivor Academy for Kids $30.00

Halloween Cookie Decorating $5.00

Crafty Kids $20.00

Teen Night $15.00

Girls Night Out $10.00

Clay Sculpting $30.00

Rainbow Loom Meet Ups $2.00

Kids PJ Party $5.00

DIW Sewing $30.00

Yoga for Youth $20.00

Children's Active Playtime $2.00

Learn to Crochet $50.00

Tots Soccer $40.00

Movie Night $3.25

Pee Wee Gym $2.00

Pool Party $3.25

Tykes T-Ball $25.00

Outdoor Movie Nights

Popcorn $2.00

Coffee $1.50

Hot Chocolate $1.50

Hot Dogs $3.00

72


DSAC – Program Rates (GST & PST Included) con’t

Youth Programs

Birthday Party - 12 kids $143.25

Birthday Party - up to 16 kids $180.25

Birthday Party - up to 20 kids $212.50

Dive In Movie Nights $3.25

Night Basketball $ 30.00

Tween Dances $ 5.00

Cooking $ 40.00

Indoor Soccer $ 30.00

Student/Adult Programs

Food Safe $80.00

Drop In Sports $2.00

First Aid Programs

Red Cross Emergency First Aid $80.00

Red Cross Standard First Aid $150.00

Red Cross CPR-C & AED $75.00

Red Cross Child Safe with CPR-B $75.00

Red Cross Babysitting Course $65.00

Red Cross People Saver 5-6 yrs $15.00

Red Cross People Saver 7-8 yrs $ 15.00



Miscellaneous

Photocopying $0.15

Brochure Ad 1/2 page $150.00

Brochure Ad 1/4 Page $100.00

Brochure Ad Full Page $300.00

NSF Charge $25.00

73


Resale Products (GST & PST Included)

Other Products - Arena

Hockey Laces 84"x120" $7.50

Hockey Laces 72" $5.75

Hockey Tape - Clear $4.50

Hockey Tape - Black $5.00

Hockey Tape - White $4.50

Skate Guards $8.00

Whistles $10.00

Referee Whistle $15.00

Hockey Puck $2.50

Visor Anti Fog $8.00

Mouth Guards $8.00

Pro Wrap $4.50

Roller Skate Security Deposit $40.00

Roller Skate Rental - Day $3.00

Roller Skate Rental - Month $10.00

Other Products - Aquatics

Swimmers 32Ilbs + $2.25

Swimmer 24-34 Ilbs $2.25

Swimmers 16-26 Ilbs $2.25

Gabbys Swim Diapers $8.00

Float Bands $3.00

AWSI Manual $98.00

Swim Cap $7.00

Macks Ear Plugs $3.50

Nose Clip $3.00

Shampoo $2.00

Conditioner $2.00

Arnica Oil $5.00

Healing Salve $7.00

Towel $10.00

Sweat Towel $3.00

Aqua Socks $12.25

Headphones $15.00

First Aid Manual $30.00

Technoflex JR $15.50

Speedo Hydrospex JR $15.50

Speedo Sengar JR $11.00

Technoflex JR Rocket $21.25

Speedo Vanquisher JR $13.75

Speedo Hydrospex $16.75

Technoflex 4.0 $16.50

Speedo Vanquisher $16.75

74


Resale Products (GST & PST Included) con’t

Speedo Splasher $5.75

Speedo Sengar $13.50

Other Products - Birthday Party

Hot Dogs $1.50

Extra Pizza $20.00

Extra Cake $35.00

Extra Juice $1.00

Field Rentals (GST & PST Included)

Single Use - per game $10.00

League - Adult - per team $50.00

League - Youth per team $25.00

T-Ball $0.00

Tournament - per team $25.00

75



Fax: (604) 792-9684

MEMORANDUM


From: Graham Daneluz, Manager of Electoral Area Planning / Deputy Planner


Subject: FVRD Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No. 1181, 2014

File No.: 3920-20—Bylaw 1181

FOR INFORMATION

This memorandum presents submissions received during the public comment period on Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No. 1181. Submissions from the Public and Industry are presented in their entirety in Attachments 2 and 4. Public comments are analyzed in the memo and in Attachment 3. Industry Comments are presented in their entirety in Attachment 4 and analyzed in Attachment 5.

Attachment 1 - Background Information (Staff Memo dated Sept 25, 2014)

Attachment 2 - Public Submissions & Summary Table

Attachment 3 - Public Submissions: Analysis & Response

Attachment 4 - Industry Submissions

Attachment 5 - BC Stone, Sand & Gravel Assoc. Submission: Analysis & Response

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The public comment period for proposed Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No. 1181, 2014 is complete. Submissions from the public and industry are presented here. Of the 18 submissions from the public, 7 (39%) expressed outright opposition. The rest provide suggestions for improvement. All three submissions from Industry express opposition to the bylaw.

BACKGROUND

At the September 30, 2014 regular meeting, the FVRD Board passed the following resolutions to give first reading to Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw 1181, 2014 and to direct referrals and a public comment period for the bylaw:

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board give 1st Reading to Fraser Valley Regional District Commercial Aggregate Operations Regulation Bylaw No. 1181, 2014;

AND THAT Fraser Valley Regional District Commercial Aggregate Operations Regulation Bylaw No. 1181, 2014 be subject to a one month public comment period along with referral to First Nations within the Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Areas further to previous Board direction;

76

Page | 2

AND FINALLY THAT Staff be directed to report back to the November 25, 2014 Fraser Valley Regional District Board meeting regarding the outcome of the public comment period and referral to First Nations.

This bylaw is the result of a long and extensive process involving:

public input on general principles for management of gravel resources and operations, maps and bylaw provisions;

extensive dialogue, advice and review by the Ministry of Energy & Mines;

review by provincial agencies to ensure the bylaw does not duplicate or overlap their roles;

input from industry; and,

legal advice and review.

The fundamental purpose of the bylaw is find a balance between the need a long-term supply of aggregate for the provincial and regional economy and the negative impacts of gravel operations that are experienced locally by nearby residents.

Details of the bylaw and more information about its origin are provided in the September 25, 2014 memorandum by Suzanne Gresham, Director of Corporate and Electoral Area Administration which is included here (without appendices) as Attachment 1.

Notice of Comment Period

Since proposed Bylaw 1181 is relatively complex and technical, a targeted approach of communicating directly with potentially interested and informed parties was used:

the proposed bylaw was referred for comment to 33 First Nations;

an email was sent to 18 Electoral Area ratepayer groups/community associations known to FVRD requesting comment on the proposed bylaw;

an email requesting comments was sent to 106 individuals who previously emailed comments to FVRD about gravel issues;

the proposed bylaw with a request for comments was mailed to all 36 holders of Mines Permits for gravel extraction in the FVRD’s Electoral Areas;

a new page was added to the corporate web site to provide information and request comments on the bylaw; a link to this page was placed on the main home page to direct traffic to the bylaw page; and,

staff attended the October 7, 2014 meeting of the Hatzic, Durieu, McConnell Creek Ratepayers to explain the bylaw, provide copies and answer questions; copies of the bylaw were also provided to Director Bales to take to distribute at community meeting.

The comment period was opened on October 10, 2014 when emails and letters went out as described above. It closed at the end of the day on November 17, 2014.

Bylaw 1181 draws on regulatory powers provided under Part 22 of the Local Government Act and also screening and landscaping powers in Part 26. Bylaws exercising these powers do not require public notice or consultation. Accordingly, there is no legal duty to provide notice or consult respecting Bylaw 1181. Past and current efforts of the Board to engage in public dialogue about gravel matters, including Bylaw 1181, are above and beyond any legal requirements.

77

Page | 3

Results of bylaw referrals and the public comment period are discussed below. Submissions from the public are outlined first, then submissions from Industry. No submissions were received from First Nations.

DISCUSSION

Public Comments

A total of 18 submissions were received from members of the public during the comment period for proposed Bylaw 1181. A summary table and all of the public submissions are included in Attachment 2.

The chart below shows the area of residence of those provided comments. The most submissions (6) were received from EA “C” residents followed by EAs “B” and “F” with four each. One submission was received from EA “E” and three from individuals whose place of residence is unknown or not within the electoral areas.

Seven submissions, or 39%, express outright opposition to the bylaw. Eleven (61%) provide suggestions for improving or amending the bylaw but do not obviously express or imply opposition to it. No submissions expressed outright support.

39% Oppose Outright 61% Suggest Improvements 0% Support Outright

Area B4

Area C6

Area E1

Area F4

Non‐EA3

Submissions by Electoral Area

Area B

Area C

Area E

Area F

Non‐EA

78

Page | 4

Reasons for Opposition

The theme running through several of the seven submissions opposing proposed Bylaw 1181 is a perception that the bylaw was developed in a secretive manner to benefit the aggregate industry at the expense of Electoral Area residents who live near gravel operations. Two submissions opposing the bylaw express concerns that the development of a barge loading facility on Fraser River would damage sturgeon, habitat and sport fishing interests. The connection between proposed Bylaw 1181 and development of a barge loading facility on the Fraser River is unclear.

The various reasons cited for opposing proposed Bylaw 1181 are:

lack of transparent process; development of bylaw was secretive or `behind closed doors`;

lack of trust or faith in FVRD`s purposes for the bylaw;

belief that the Province and/or industry will not respect the bylaw or will override it;

expectation that FVRD will not enforce the bylaw; that there will be insufficient political will to effectively administer the bylaw;

the bylaw has unspecified underlying flaws that render it ineffective;

solutions to gravel issues require changes to the Mines Act and cannot be improved by a bylaw;

the bylaw amounts to a rubber stamp for easier permitting processes;

the bylaw would allow mining in areas that have not been the subject of studies to prove they are suitable for gravel extraction;

fees collected will not support effective enforcement, particularly if legal action is required ;

the bylaw offers up vast tracts of land to the gravel industry;

the bylaw fails to deal with health concerns of people living near gravel operations;

gravel pits are allowed too close to residential areas;

professionals hired by gravel operators produce biased reports; independent assessment and monitoring is required; and,

the bylaw is illegitimate and does not provide social license for gravel operations.

Suggested Improvements

Many of the submissions contain suggestions of different ways to improve proposed Bylaw 1181. These suggestions are summarized and categorized in the table in Attachment 3. The table includes staff comments to assist the Board in assessing public comments.

Industry

Submissions were received from the BC Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (BCSSGA) and from two individual gravel operations. All are in opposition to proposed Bylaw 1181. These submissions are included as Attachment 4.

In a letter dated September 30, 2014, the BCSSCA states that their association is unable to support the bylaw due to outstanding concerns they feel are not addressed. These concerns were outlined in previous letters of August 13, 2014 and April 23, 2014. A table identifying issues raised by BCSSGA and responses to the issues is included in Attachment 5.

79

Page | 5

Of the 32 comments identified by BCSSGA over two rounds of reviewing the bylaw, 50% (16) were accepted and incorporated into proposed Bylaw 1181 as currently drafted; 31 % (10) were partly incorporated into the current draft of the bylaw or otherwise addressed; and, 19% (6) were not addressed in the bylaw.

First Nations Referrals

Referrals were sent to 33 First Nations. No responses were received.

COST

This memorandum provides information to the FVRD Board. There are no costs or budgetary implications at this time.

COMMENTS DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE AND ELECTORAL AREA ADMINISTRATION: reviewed & supported DIRECTOR OF EA PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT: reviewed and supported CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: reviewed & supported

Accepted1650%Partly Accepted

1031%

Not Accepted

619%

BCSSGA Comments

Accepted

Partly Accepted

Not Accepted

80203342-1


MEMORANDUM To: Chair and Members of the Fraser Valley Regional District Board

From: Suzanne Gresham, Director of Corporate and Electoral Area Administration

Date: September 25, 2014 Re: Aggregate Pilot Project Implementation Subject: Proposed Fraser Valley Regional District Commercial Aggregate

Operations Regulation Bylaw No. 1181, 2014 File No.: 3900-20/Bylaw 1181 2014

RECOMMENDATION:

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board consider giving 1st Reading to Fraser Valley Regional District Commercial Aggregate Operations Regulation Bylaw No. 1181, 2014; AND THAT Fraser Valley Regional District Commercial Aggregate Operations Regulation Bylaw No. 1181, 2014 be subject to a one month public comment period along with referral to First Nations within the Fraser Valley Regional District Electoral Areas further to previous Board direction; AND FINALLY THAT Staff be directed to report back to the November 25, 2014 Fraser Valley Regional District Board meeting regarding the outcome of the public comment period and referral to First Nations. BACKGROUND: The Aggregate Pilot Project (APP) was initiated by the Minister of State for Mines in 2004 in response to growing conflict and the potential for litigation with respect to aggregate management in the region, particularly in the Electoral Areas. Former MLA Randy Hawes led this initiative and a tri-partite APP Committee was struck initially comprised of representatives from the Ministry of Energy and Mines, the FVRD, and the Aggregate Producers Association of BC (now known as the BC Sand, Stone and Gravel Association - BCSSGA).

81203342-1

Page 2 Originally, the APP was intended to be a regional initiative. Over time it became evident that the focus around aggregate management in the region was more in an Electoral Area context, even while there may continue to be a longer term vision around the possibility for a universal approach to aggregate management in the region. There has also been discussion more recently around what the future of aggregate management might look like from the provincial perspective but from what we understand, there is no current mandate changes in this regard. The focus therefor has remained at the Electoral Area level in terms of APP implementation and Bylaw 1181 speaks to this. The APP Committee met over the course of several years with the objective of developing recommendations which would generally serve to:

• Reduce conflict in our communities

• Avoid litigation

• Provide certainty for all stakeholders

• Provide a meaningful aggregate management planning and regulatory framework in the Electoral Areas

• Secure a stable, sustainable and long term supply of aggregate given that aggregate is a limited non-renewable public resource critical to the socio-economic development of the Province, the FVRD and First Nation communities

• Recognize community values and local planning objectives while also

recognizing the need to support a viable commercial aggregate extraction industry inclusive of processing on site

• Ensure strategies are in place to mitigate the impacts of aggregate operations on local Electoral Area communities

• Reconcile, coordinate, streamline and harmonize approval processes as

between the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the FVRD in the face of concurrent legislative authority

• Provide the FVRD with a cost recovery mechanism to support the costs of

service delivery and administration

• Identify areas, through a mapping exercise, which would restrict or prohibit commercial aggregate operations in designated areas and conversely allow for commercial aggregate operations in other designated areas

82203342-1

Page 3 In 2009 the APP Committee delivered a report detailing a number of recommendations necessary to support articulated APP Principles and achievement of APP Objectives. This report was endorsed by the FVRD Board. The APP Committee continued its work in developing an implementation framework – a cornerstone of this framework is the development of a new bylaw which would regulate commercial aggregate operations in the Electoral Areas. Between 2009 and 2013, a series of APP maps were developed. Originally the mapping focused on designating “red-green-yellow” areas and included applying these designations on crown land. In 2012 provincial staff resources were dedicated to see APP through to completion. One of the major pieces of work that has been accomplished since 2012 is the finalization of the APP mapping. The province was unable to support mapping designations on crown land given provincial jurisdiction and authority with respect to crown land. The province is certainly supportive of designating areas to “fill the gap” where there is no provincial oversight or jurisdiction. With the exception of “crown land interface areas”, the current (2013) mapping does not designate crown land. Instead, the 2013 mapping, which was formally endorsed by the FVRD Board on December 18, 2013, designates “Community Areas” and “Areas of Restriction”. “Community Areas” are designated areas which would be subject to more stringent regulation under proposed Bylaw 1181 given their proximity to communities within our Electoral Areas and the need to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are in place to address community impacts resulting from commercial gravel operations. Areas outside designated “Community Areas” are subject to less regulation under proposed Bylaw 1181. “Areas of Restriction” which are designated in Bylaw 1181, will restrict or prohibit commercial aggregate operations in these areas. This mapping serves to provide certainty for all stakeholders and is integral to Bylaw 1181. This mapping is in the public domain and has also been endorsed in principle by Ministry of Energy and Mines staff and the BCSSGA. The fee component set out in Bylaw 1181 is another essential aspect of the proposed new aggregate management framework in the Electoral Areas. The bylaw provides for rationalized volumetric based fees that will be collected from Permit Holders under the bylaw and used to support the costs of on-going service delivery. Over time, it is anticipated that these fees will largely off-set the need for tax requisition in this service. Over the past year+, staff have been working through the technical details around APP implementation with the province and has engaged the BCSSGA in workshops on 2 occasions to solicit their feedback. Staff have also met with the provincial Chief Inspector of Mines and has had an on-going relationship with his staff regarding implementation measures and Bylaw 1181 specifically. Every Ministry that “touches gravel” has been consulted and has provided feedback with respect to Bylaw 1181. It has been a very collaborative effort with extremely positive results. There has been a tremendous amount of time and resources committed by the FVRD Board over a significant period of time on the APP initiative. The bylaw before the Board is a major milestone and critical APP implementation measure and the culmination of many years of combined effort between the Province, the FVRD, and the BCSSGA in addition to community input to date.

83203342-1

Page 4 Should the Board give Bylaw 1181 first reading, the intent is to provide for a one month public comment period and referral to First Nations further to previous Board direction. Staff would then report back to the Board at its regular meeting on November 25, 2014 as to the outcome of the public engagement process and consider its options with respect to next steps. DISCUSSION The Board established the soil removal and deposit service in 1996 by bylaw - the stakeholders in this service are all of the Electoral Areas. The FVRD is currently requisitioning taxes in support of this service and this service will (and must) remain intact should the Board consider moving forward with Bylaw 1181. As well, there is an existing regulatory bylaw in place which will be repealed should Bylaw 1181 be enacted. In keeping with the Board’s express regulatory authority under Section 723 of the Local Government Act with respect to the removal of sand, gravel and other soil, Bylaw 1181, 2014 is specifically oriented towards regulating commercial aggregate operations in the Electoral Areas of the Fraser Valley Regional District. Much of the technical work and fairly exhaustive consultations over the course of the last year or so have focused in on the regulatory framework for this bylaw. Towards this end, the most recent work has focused on undertaking a “regulatory gap analysis” for the purpose of determining where the lines of jurisdiction and authority between the province and the FVRD are either replicated under the FVRD’s existing regulatory bylaw, or where there is a “regulatory gap” that needs to be filled going forward. Aside from the proposed regulatory provisions, the bylaw also recognizes and attempts to strike a balance between the need to mitigate the off-site impacts of commercial gravel operations in Electoral Area communities with the need to also support a viable and sustainable commercial aggregate extraction industry in these same areas. As well, the bylaw is intended to clearly identify what compliance measures need to be taken in order to minimize the requirement for future bylaw enforcement efforts by the Board. Additionally, the bylaw is intended to be a “one stop shop” meaning that aggregate producers can look to one regulatory bylaw instead of several which is often the case elsewhere. With the above objectives in mind, and in consultation with the province and BCSSGA, staff looked at four potential regulatory models as outlined below and we landed on Model 3 – these models have been shared with the Electoral Area Services Committee. Model 1: Get out of the business of regulating the commercial aggregate industry

and consider collapsing the service Model 2: Maps only – designate areas of restriction, prohibition and opportunity

with no additional regulatory provisions Model 3: MAPS, GAPS AND FEES – designate areas of restriction, prohibition

and opportunity; regulate only those areas where there are “regulatory gaps” as between provincial and local government authority; and impose rationalized volumetric based fees

84203342-1

Page 5 Model 4: Comprehensive regulatory bylaw which goes beyond filling regulatory

gaps in addition to maps and rationalized volumetric based fees The regulatory provisions and associated mapping set out in Bylaw 1181 are crafted with Model 3 in mind and can generally be summarized as follows:

1. Addresses “regulatory gaps” not filled by the provincial government - does not duplicate the regulatory authority of the provincial government where there is clear provincial jurisdiction and authority, e.g. the bylaw does not regulate such things as haul routes, ground vibration, environment water quality, geo-technical issues

2. Professional reliance/performance based model with roles for coordinating and registered professionals (depending upon the nature of the permit application)

a. Allows for flexible performance based compliance measures

b. Requirements for a Coordinating Professional for large scale operations are harmonized with MoEM requirements

c. Small scale operations typically exempt

3. Addresses community interests by regulating the off-site impacts of commercial

gravel operations in 3 key areas: Dust, Noise and Drinking Water [Note: these are the areas where we typically receive complaints]:

a. Dust – quantitative standard derived from the Ministry of Environment’s Ambient Air Quality Guidelines which are oriented towards industrial activity

b. Noise – Nuisance standard coupled with a quantitative standard that is supported by the MoEM

(i) In the Community Areas, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00

p.m. Monday through Saturday, no person shall cause or permit noise related to aggregate removal or processing to exceed fifty five (55) dBA Leq (3 min) exclusive of ambient sound when measured from any boundary of a parcel on which aggregate removal or processing is occurring, excluding the portion of the parcel boundary that is the approved area of access to and egress from the permit area.

85203342-1

Page 6

In the Community Areas, between the hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, and on Sundays and statutory holidays, no person shall cause or permit noise related to aggregate removal or processing to exceed fifty (50) dBA Leq (3 min) exclusive of ambient sound when measured from any boundary of a parcel on which aggregate removal or processing is occurring excluding the portion of the parcel boundary that is the approved area of access to and egress from the permit area.

(ii) Where the proposed method of noise control approved in a permit includes a sound deflection structure, all vehicles and machinery engaged in aggregate removal or processing on the land must be kept within the confines of the sound deflection structure, except where aggregate removal is undertaken for the purpose of constructing the sound deflection structure.

(iii) The requirements with respect to noise do not apply to the noise that may be generated by the movement of trucks entering or exiting a parcel in the approved area of access to and egress from the permit area.

c. Drinking Water – quantitative standard derived from the Drinking Water Protection Act, discussions with FHA, case law and MoEM standards. It should be noted that through discussions with FHA, they have identified a regulatory gap that can best be filled in this bylaw. Whereas FHA’s role is more reactionary, we have the ability to be pro-active given our ability to regulate potential off-site impacts to drinking water through the regulatory provisions of this bylaw.

4. Regulates screening requirements to mitigate against the visual impacts

associated with commercial gravel operations

5. Regulates requirements with respect to site hazards, e.g. commercial gravel operations can not create a danger to the land or other lands, nor can they lower the ground elevation level below the flood construction level specified in FVRD lands use planning bylaws

6. Confines aggregate stockpiles to the permit area

7. Does not regulate on-site operations which are addressed by MoEM through the Mines Permit process

8. Regulates processing activities with respect to dust, noise and impacts to drinking water associated with commercial gravel operations where processing is an allowable land use under zoning bylaws

9. Recognizes all valid and subsisting Soil Removal Permits issued under the existing regulatory bylaw

86203342-1

Page 7

10. Imposes rationalized volumetric based fees (reference section below)

a. $.20 per cubic meter of aggregate removed from a “Community Area”, and where a permit area is partially within and partially outside a “Community Area”;

b. $.15 per cubic meter of aggregate removed entirely from lands outside a “Community Area”

11. Imposes fees for unlawful removal of aggregate

a. $.40 per cubic meter of aggregate removed from a “Community Area”, and where a permit area is partially within and partially outside a “Community Area”;

b. $.30 per cubic meter of aggregate removed entirely from lands outside a “Community Area”

12. Designates areas where commercial gravel operations are restricted or

prohibited through mapping schedules – designated “Areas of Restriction”

13. Designates areas where commercial gravel operations may operate subject to regulation – designated “Community Areas” and areas designated outside “Community Areas”

a. More stringent regulation inside designated “Community Areas”

b. Less stringent regulation outside designated “Community Areas”

14. Provides for a number of exemptions whereby certain activities will not require a Permit under the bylaw (reference Part 4 of Bylaw 1181)

15. Permit Application fees which differentiate between smaller and larger scale operations harmonized with similar MoEM fees

a. $2,500 where the volume of aggregate removed from the permit area will exceed 5,400 cubic metres in any 12 month period – large scale

b. $1,250 where the volume of aggregate removed from the permit area will not exceed 5,400 cubic metres in any 12 month period – small scale

16. Hours of operation are not regulated

17. Authorizes the Chief Administrative Officer/designate to inspect a permit area

upon reasonable notice

18. Requires the applicant to provide signage on the site which is subject to application and details the requirements for signage content

87203342-1

Page 8

19. Administrative provisions with respect to the application process, permit issuance, amendments, transfer, renewal and refusal and record keeping, annual audits, delegations and appeals

20. Details the powers of the FVRD Board with respect to permit issuance, refusal, amendment, transfer, renewal

21. Provides for monitoring and reporting requirements

22. Provides for enforcement provisions

a. Stop Work Order

b. Permit Revocation and Suspension

c. Compliance

23. Repeals existing regulatory bylaws

24. Bylaw Schedules

a. Schedule A – Plan of Restricted and Community Areas (Mapping)

b. Schedule B – Confirmation of Commitment by Permit Holder and by Coordinating Professional

c. Schedule C – Sign Specifications

d. Schedule D – Methods to Determine Quantity of Aggregate Removed

Conversion Factors – Conversion of Metric Tonnes to Cubic Metres Volume Surveying

On the matter of fees, Section 363 of the Local Government Act requires that the Board must make a report available to the public respecting how a fee imposed under a bylaw has been determined. In this case the fees to be imposed under Bylaw 1181 are the volumetric based fee that will be imposed inside and outside “Community Areas” for each cubic metre of aggregate removed from the permit area; the fees for unlawful removal; and permit application fees (already rationalized above). The Board clearly has the authority to impose fees under Bylaw 1181 in accordance with Section 723 of the Local Government Act – heretofore such fees had to be approved by the Minister of Community, Sport and Cultural Development but that is no longer the case in view of recent legislative changes in this regard. This section of the report will address how volumetric based fees have been determined. It is important to understand that there is ample aggregate available in the FVRD’s Electoral Areas to secure a long term supply of quality aggregate - this supply is diverse, well distributed and efficiently located – please refer to the series of power point slides attached to this report as Appendix 1 to illustrate this along with demand forecast data.

88203342-1

Page 9 In a municipal context, volumetric bases fees are typically higher than the fees set out in Bylaw 1181. Aside from the costs associated with a municipal soil removal and deposit service, the fee differential is largely because municipalities are responsible for maintaining road infrastructure whereas regional districts do not have jurisdiction over roads, rather roads are the responsibility of MoTI in an Electoral Area context. Clearly though there are other on-going costs which are needed to adequately administer the FVRD’s soil removal and deposit service, in addition to the on-going costs envisioned to implement and administer Bylaw 1181. We currently do not have sufficient funds on hand to properly administer this service going forward and it would be fiscally irresponsible to expect the taxpayers in the service area to bear these costs. The funding model over the next several budget years therefore contemplates the use of appropriated surplus + tax requisition + volumetric based fees on a sliding scale. This means that over time it is anticipated that the service will be largely funded by the imposition of volumetric based fees – please reference Appendix 2. Should Bylaw 1181 come into force, the service delivery model will be much more robust and will require additional capacity and resources which will need to be funded accordingly. Anticipated service delivery requirements going forward are generally set out below and will be reflected in the 2015 Budget for Service Area 604. It is anticipated that the costs of service delivery will range from $187,000 - $235,000 over the next 6-7 budget years.:

• Bylaw implementation (a number of start-up initiatives) • On-going bylaw administration and permitting • Dedicated personnel with technical and planning expertise

o 1.5 FTE new positions envisioned for 2015 • Dedicated Vehicle • Compliance and Enforcement • Policy Development • Community Engagement and Outreach • Relationship building with local aggregate operators • Overhead • Aggregate inventory and demand forecasting updating (future budget years)

Next Steps for the Board’s consideration

1. Board’s consideration of 1st Reading – Full Board/unweighted vote in accordance with Sections 791(2) and 791(3)(b) of the Local Government

2. 1 month public comment period and referral to First Nations within the Electoral Areas of the FVRD

3. Staff Report to November 25, 2014 Board Meeting detailing the outcome of the public engagement and referral process + consideration of further readings

4. Submission of Bylaw 1181 to the Minister of Energy and Mines for approval if/when the bylaw receives 3rd reading

89203342-1

Page 10

5. Consideration of adoption once the bylaw is approved.

6. 2015 – Bylaw Implementation Measures

Other Next Steps

1. Submission of 2015 draft Budget 604 to EASC for consideration

2. Development of a companion Electoral Area wide Service Area Establishment Bylaw for noise, dust and other nuisances, screening and landscaping with respect to commercial aggregate operations to compliment Bylaw 1181 (consent only of Electoral Area Directors will be required)

COSTS As reflected above REPORT REVIEWED AND SUPPORTED Chief Administrative Officer APPENDICES Appendix 1 – Aggregate Supply and Demand Appendix 2 – Volumetric Based Fee Rationalization

90

1 15‐Oct‐14 Reg C Longmore C 43895 Birch Lane, Lake Errock X Lack of transparency, secretive, FVRD just wants funds from pits, lack of enforcement, only lipservice.

2 15‐Oct‐14 Theodor & Freda Mellenthin F 36042 Hartley Road, Mission Concerns: Trucks speeding and the noise of their brakes, road safety

3 16‐Oct‐14 Wendy Bales C 42802 Tait Road, Deroche X Concerns: Proposed bylaw has some flaws and will not be effective enough in making any noticeable changes to the current situation

4 16‐Oct‐14 Sylvia Langmann C 12499 Low Road, Lake Errock X Concerns: Support for Reg's comments.

5 17‐Oct‐14 Steffen Neumann F 13122 DeGraff Road, Mission Concerns: Road condition. Suggests an annual fee for road maintenance.

6 27‐Oct‐14 Arne Zabell B Concerned about lack of public consultation and inadequate notice

7 2‐Nov‐14 Tony Rees C 12476 Aplin Rd, Lake Errock X Require pits to be 1 km from residences; if pits are located close to existing homes compensation should be provided; a more robust ability to enforce bylaws is required; end reliance on industry commissioned studies because they are biased; accept

only independent expert studies; rigourous monitoring of pollutants is needed; Strong community involvement is required including notice of permits.

8 2‐Nov‐14 David Haughan F Hatzic Valley Suggestion: Based on the estimated removal volume from the permit holder that a percentage (e.g 50%) would be paid within 6 months of the removal of aggregates starting.

9 14‐Nov‐14 Orion Engar E 50625 O'Byrne Road Concerns: Keep small mine footprints that do not degrade the scenic beauty and recreation uses for the burgeoning tourism economy in the Chilliwack River Valley.

10 15‐Nov‐14 Aaron McDonald X Concerns: what bylaws are proposing for noise, dust, and drinking water? Who pays for the clean up in the case of an accident to either vessel or barge? And how much of the proceeds will go to protection of the Fraser river? Increase of truck traffic

and traffic on already busy river. Keep river for sustaining life

11 15‐Nov‐14 Mike Armstrong C 44156 Bayview Rd., Lake Errock Concerns: Reasonable setbacks from residential communities, operating on weekends and holidays, noise levels of operation and trucks. Keep bylaw simple to allow effective enforcement. Noise limit in bylaw is not enforceable. Keep gravel operations

1 km from communities.

12 16‐Nov‐14 Sue VandeVelde‐Savola B 4403 210a Street, Langley, BC Concerns: Othello Community impacts; further watershed destabilitzation from mining aggregate. Restrict operations from the entire Coquihalla River Watershed area. Request public hearing before bylaw moves forward.

13 17‐Nov‐14 Lynn & Gordon Durnin X Concerns: potential barge operation on the Fraser River would damage sturgeon habitat. Opposed to anything like dredging that harm river habitat, sport fishing

14 17‐Nov‐14 Evan Bell B Concerns: Noise, dust, trucks not driving in a safe manner, road condition and feels a public hearing should take place. All of Coquihalla Watershed should be in Restricted Area.

15 17‐Nov‐14 Sandy and Len Forward C 42894 Tait Road, Deroche Concerns: Property is not within the designated restricted area on map (Map‐11).

16 17‐Nov‐14 Graham Zillwood B 67700 Othello Road Concern: damage being done to Coquihalla River watershed and fish habitat; truck traffic, road safety, noise, odour, debris on road

17 17‐Nov‐14 Bruce Edwards F To eliminate the annoyance of high peak sound levels which cause noise complaints, add "and 75 dBa Lpeak"

18 17‐Nov‐14 Walter Neufeld, FCA X Concers with overall process, outdated policies, secrecy, collusion with industry, corruption of due process, FVRD mishandling, betrayal of trust, lack of social license,

Date Name Opposed Brief Summary of CommentsAddressEA

911

From: Sandy Forward >Sent: November-17-14 11:35 AMTo: Planning Info; Suzanne GreshamSubject: Proposed Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No. 1181Attachments: Screen shot 2014-11-17 at 11.11.15 AM.png

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Completed

Re: Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No. 1181 Attention:: Suzanne Gresham Deputy Corporate Officer Fraser Valley Regional District After reviewing the map for our Electoral District C (Map 11 ‐Deroche, Lake Errock, Harrison Mills), we noted with some distress that our property and a few others of our neighbors are not protected or included as part of the Restricted Areas. (Please see attached map with our property inside the green square). We are requesting an immediate response as to why they have not been included as part of the 'restricted and community areas' and a revised and amended map for this proposed bylaw showing them as being in the restricted and community area. Sincerely, Sandy and Len Forward 42894 Tait Road, Deroche, BC, V0M 1G0 604 Hello. As someone with an interest in gravel management issues in FVRD’s electoral areas, your opinion is important to the FVRD Board. The FVRD Board is considering a new bylaw that would regulate commercial gravel operations in the electoral area of the Region. Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No. 1181, 2014 includes: ‐ a permitting system for gravel operations; ‐ regulations related primarily to noise, dust and impacts to drinking water; ‐ “Community Areas” where higher standards of noise and dust mitigation apply; ‐ “Restricted Areas” where new commercial gravel operations will not be allowed; and, ‐ annual fees paid by gravel operators to support the administration of the bylaw.

922

A copy of the bylaw and the maps can be downloaded from the FVRD web site at http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/InsidetheFVRD/CommunityPlanning/Pages/Gravel‐Operations.aspx The Board invites you to submit comments that will help the Board evaluate the proposed bylaw. Comments can be submitted by email to [email protected], on the FVRD website at www.fvrd.bc.ca; by fax to 604‐792‐9684 or by mail to the address below. Please provide your comments not later than 4:30 PM Monday, November 17, 2014. All comments received will be presented to the FVRD Board at regular meeting on November 25, 2014. After review of public comments, the Board will consider next steps for the bylaw. If you have questions about Bylaw No. 1181, please contact me at [email protected] or 604‐702‐5032. Yours truly, Suzanne Gresham Deputy Corporate Officer Fraser Valley Regional District #1 ‐ 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6

94Page 1 of 2

FVRD Citizens Association

Submission to

FVRD re Aggregate Pilot Project & Bylaw 1181 vs

FVRD Communities Best Interests

2014 November 17 Mme Chair; I am writing today on behalf of the FVRD Citizens Association (FCA) and on behalf of all FVRD citizens who are negatively affected by the outdated policies which current drive Conflict Gravel permitting & practices in and around FVRD communities. I write to advise the FVRD that FCA categorically Objects & Rejects the FVRD’s proposed Gravel Operations Bylaw #1181 which is substantively based on the “Aggregate Pilot Project’s” (APP) fundamentally flawed analysis/findings. The APP was developed in secret by the Minster of Sate for Mining working in collusion with the aggregate industry & FVRD Directors who were disallowed to inform or include their constituents’ best interests. As a result of those corruptions of due process, the APP’s final draft reflected the aggregate industry’s agenda at the expense of adversely affected communities. The resultant Three Zone Colour Coding was likewise hijacked by aggregate industry interests while meaningful community input was disallowed and/or junked. The FVRD’s mishandling of the APP process has demonstrated a disturbing political trend whereby our nations democratic underpinnings are being undermined for the benefit of powerful special interest groups, which have colluded with, and corrupted, our elected representatives. Municipal and regional government are the closest Canadians ever get to representative government but the FVRD has abdicated its duty & betrayed its constituencies trust. The FCA rejects the FVRD’s current Gravel Operations Bylaw #1181 for the reasons outlined above and for all the reasons made plain by the thousands of letters citizens sent to the FVRD (please review your archives). Social License is withheld from the Gravel Operations Bylaw #1181 & the flawed APP that it is based on. Both are illegitimate documents for the reasons outlined above and they will be treated as such by your constituency.

95Page 2 of 2

FCA understands the importance of gravel to modern society and for that reason took the time to produce an alternative to the APP. FCA undertook an initiative to draft the Aggregate Supply Program - ASP as a basis for discussion of a viable win-win-win alternative to the flawed win-lose APP, and the sham process in which we are now engaged (Community-centric alternative to the draft Aggregate Pilot Project, D R A F T # 1 0, December 12, 2010.” Web link: http://www.abbotsfordtoday.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Aggregate-Supply-Plan-Edit-6-112910.pdf) FCA is still prepared to provide one or two representative of its member organizations to quietly work out with governments and industry a win-win-win protocol to benefit residents, governments and the aggregate industry. The inevitable result of continued refusal to include true representatives of aggrieved residents is increased anger and direct action. Representing a fake “due process” as the real thing is an affront to constituents and undermines democracy. Your citizens’ wait on the FVRD to respect the trust your citizens bestowed you to carry out your democratic responsibilities in good faith. I request that the FVRD include this Submission of Objection verbatim as FCA’s formal submission to the FVRD regarding Bylaw 1181 and the APP, rather than placing a summary on the record. Please confirm. Submitted with all due respect, Walter Neufeld, President FVRD Citizens Association 604-308-5530 “An association of associations working together for the common good”

961

From: graham < >Sent: November-17-14 12:22 PMTo: Planning InfoSubject: Bylaw 1181 ,2014

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

To whom it may concern, I am very concerned as a resident of the Othello area who has to live with the ongoing gravel trucks going past my door for months on end dropping asphalt as they pass and the smell and noise ! never mind the safety with all the combined traffic of the Nestle trucks and tourists visiting the Coquihalla Valley Provincial Park to see the Wonder and beauty of the Othello Tunnels…On a wore out and cracked narrow Country road.. I am concerned about the any further damage being done to our water shed and the Coquihalla River and it’s fish habitat…I bought here to have a connection with this beautiful area not to be bullied by commercial gravel and asphalt and increasing issue’s with Nestle Water trucks ! I hope you think about how this is affecting our lives in a negative way and just be thankful you don’t have to live in this ongoing situation as we have to Help us ! don’t hurt us or the River anymore Please !! Thank You Graham Graham Zillwood 67700 Othello Road 604‐ Sent from Windows Mail

981

From: Bruce Edwards < >Sent: November-17-14 3:58 PMTo: Graham DaneluzSubject: As discussed, re bylaw 1181 -2014 p15 to eliminate the annoyance of high peak

sound levels which are the source of noise complaints, I suggest adding "and 75 dBa Lpeak"

... and 75 dBa Lpeak.... What do you think?

991

From: Henry & Sue Sent: November-16-14 5:10 PMTo: Planning InfoSubject: Re: FVRD Bylaw 1181, 2014 - Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw


After following the APP over a number of years, it appears that, Bylaw 1181 is following in those footsteps with no consideration being given to private landowners, residents, neighbourhoods, and communities, and the potentiallylife-changing effects that gravel operations may have on same. It is well-publicized that many neighbourhoods and communities throughout BC have been forever altered by the negative effects of gravel operations moving into same. Specifically, the community of Othello, which is primarily rural residential, must live with negative effects of the Provincial Othello Pit. Noise, dust, odour (asphalt), and fast-moving gravel trucks mix vicariously on a narrow, ill-maintained, country road shared by local pedestrians, pets, cyclists, tourists, and Nestle Waters semi-trucks. While it appears that some portion of the Community of Othello is restricted (per map provided), I believe the restricted area should be expanded to include any potential site that would need to feed onto Othello Road, and it should be expanded to include the whole of the Coquihalla River watershed. A recent report received from the Provincial Steelhead Biologist reveals that "there's no doubt that anthropogenic impacts along the Coquihalla corridor has had detrimental effects on summer steelhead and bull trout habitiat." With combined watershed impacts from logging, two pipelines, two fibre lines, the Coquihalla Freeway, pollution and human bank erosion from camping and tourism, in combination with extremely volatile river levels, it does not make intuitive sense to allow further watershed destabilization from mining aggregate in this area. In conclusion, it is requested that gravel pit operations be restricted from the entire Coquihalla River Watershed area, for the sake of its human inhabitants, for fish habitat, and for the living watershed. It is further requested that a public hearing be held prior to moving forward with this bylaw. Sue VandeVelde-Savola 604-

1001

From: G Durnin Sent: November-16-14 7:11 PMTo: Planning InfoSubject: Hatzic Gravel Barge

To whom it may concern My wife and I are avid sport fishers, we both volunteer with the Fraser River Sturgeon Society sturgeon tagging program. I was very alarmed to hear that you were considering setting up a gravel barge operation above one of the most important sturgeon rearing and wintering holes on the Fraser River. Hatzic hole has long been known to hold juvenile and mature sturgeon year round but also is an important wintering hole for a large population of sturgeon. As you are probably aware, the sturgeon are on an endangered list. So with that said, anything that could cause harm or alter their habitat, I would be very opposed to any project that may bring harm to it or them caused by any kind of dredging that would be required. The proposed area is far to shallow to allow tugs and barges constant access to the shore line. I would hope you will rethink this project and deny it from going ahead. If not we will be forced to fight this projected to the fullest extent of our ability's as sport fishers. Thank You Lynn & Gordon Durnin 604 4403 210a Street Langley BC

1011

From: Mike Armstrong Sent: November-15-14 8:04 PMTo: Planning InfoCc: Graham Daneluz; Wendy Bales; Suzanne GreshamSubject: Bylaw 1181 Feedback request by today, Nov 15th, 2014


Please take my feedback into consideration for modifying the proposed Bylaw 1181, as requested. All Bylaws should be created as enablers of the OCP and to prevent unwanted behaviours, and kept simple enough so that enforcement is possible within the existing budgets. Under the draft Bylaw 1181, Noise control section points 48-51 propose to allow noise levels in the "community areas" in the range of 50 dBA from "Mondays through Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays". This sounds like every day of the week all year that we will be subjected to a noise equivalent to a normal conversation. We should be allowed to enjoy quiet for at least 2 days a week, ideally on Sat/Sun & holidays. Enforcement will be impossible since the noise is not to exceed 3 continuous minutes, and cannot include the noise of trucks (point 51). This could never be enforced as written since no decibel meter can exclude truck noises vs gravel noises. Please make it simple and enforceable by not allowing industrial gravel operations to work at any hours on Sat/Sun and Holidays. The most simple solution to noise and dust enforcement in residential areas is to determine a reasonable setback for gravel operations from residential communities. For example, the Lake Errock community of 300 plus homes should not be subjected to a gravel operation which could cause a negative influence on the residents enjoyment of their property. A setback of 1km, etc could be calculated so that dust and noise will have no impact. The Bylaw mentions berms and other noise barriers, but all the mapping excludes topographical details, which can have a huge impact on any gravel operation. For example, most people think of gravel "mines" as pits, but in the Lake Errock community, the Ekset gravel mine permits are directly across the street from the homes but tower over 100 meters above on the hillside. Standard 8 meter berms provide very little barrier to noise or dust. Please modify the Bylaw to include reasonable setbacks for gravel operations from any established / existing community of homes. In addition, do not allow operations to work on Sat/Sun or holidays so that we can enjoy some quiet days from the grandfathered operations, such as Lake Errock Ekset mine permits. Finally, please simplify the Bylay so that enforcement is possible with existing technology (no noise levels excluding truck noise, etc). Please confirm receipt of this feedback, and let me know of the process to include these proposed changes. Thanks, Mike Armstrong 44156 Bayview Rd Lake Errock, BC

102

Re FVRD Bylaw 1181, 2014 - Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw

11/14/14FVRD Board

Dear FVRD board members:

Past estimates suggest that the Chilliwack River Valley (CRV) receives at least 1 million visitors each year. Rafters, kayakers, fishers, hikers, bikers and ATV users, paragliders, horse riders, hunters, bird watchers and star gazers to name a few. In fact over 30 user groups regularly frequent the CRV for many distinct and varied recreation purposes.

The CRV is an often unrecognized yet valuable jewel in Chilliwack's own backyard, a rich asset for Chilliwack's economy, regularly drawing tourists and their cash from throughout the Fraser Valley, BC and around the world.

It is widely speculated that the unrecognized value of CRV's tourism economy is actually greater than funds accrued from resource extraction in the valley at this time. As the FVRD's population is predicted to double over the next 20 to 30 years, CRV's tourism value based on green spaces and the beauty of its natural surroundings, will only increase. The question begs, are we doing enough to nurture and preserve the valley for future generations? And more importantly, as it relates to gravel mining bylaw 1181, will any new, potentially unsightly mines be allowed to operate in areas that are in line-of-sight or in areas frequented by those million+ tourists who value CRV's natural beauty so highly?

To be clear, my aim is not to forbid resource extraction and its jobs from this valley, CRV has been able to manage somewhat to date. My aim is to make sure that the current tipping point we are facing, where resource extraction has begun to lessen CRV's value to tourists, is fully recognized and more appropriately balanced, by safeguarding the visual appeal and beauty that cannot be replaced, if greater industrialization is allowed to take over.

I have personally sat in a meeting at the Ministry of Forests and heard with my own ears how CRV is projected to be “logged out” and will soon enter an “industrial phase”. Certainly CRV can handle a mature and responsible logging industry. One that replants and is more keenly sensitive to the value of tourism and line of sight environmental impacts. But large scale mines could more permanently damage the beauty and value of this tourist destination.

I urge the FVRD do its utmost to mitigate future impacts to CRV's burgeoning tourism economy, by finding a way to only allow small mine footprints, that would not degrade the scenic beauty and recreation use, now so appreciated by thousands and thousands of visitors and high value tourists.

Thank you for your attention and consideration.Orion EngarCRV resident 34 years

1042

submitted by email to [email protected], via the FVRD website at www.fvrd.bc.ca; by fax to 604 792‐9684; or, by mail sent to the address below. All comments will be considered by the FVRD Board at their regular meeting on November 25, 2014. If the FVRD Board decides to advance the bylaw with further readings, it will then need the approval of the Minister of Energy and Mines before it can be adopted. A copy of Bylaw No. 1181 is enclosed for your review. Additional copies and higher quality maps can be downloaded from our web site at: http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/InsidetheFVRD/CommunityPlanning/Pages/Gravel‐Operations.aspx If you have questions about Bylaw No. 1181, or would like to set up an appointment to discuss any concerns you may have, please contact Kristin or Andrea at [email protected] or 604‐702‐5487. The FVRD Board looks forward to hearing from you. Yours truly, Suzanne Gresham Deputy Corporate Officer Fraser Valley Regional District 1 – 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6

1051

From: Arne Zabell [mailto: ] Sent: October-27-14 2:42 PM To: Graham Daneluz Cc: Dennis Adamson; Suzanne Gresham; Margaret Thornton Subject: Re: Fw: Update - Comments on Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw Well nothing officious about that eh! Very glad the FVRD ensures that its statutory obligations are met . To clarify the FVRD Board is inviting comments by not inviting comments from the general public because they don't have too! and if you did not comment before you obviously have nothing to add? I assume this is the same process that Randy Hawes initiated as a regional plan but is now just an electoral area one? Thanks so much Arne Zabell On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Graham Daneluz <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mr. Zabell,

At the request of Director Adamson, I am providing additional information about the public comment process for Bylaw No 1181.

The Local Government Act requires different levels of public consultation/notice for different types of bylaws, and the Board must ensure that its statutory obligations are met in this regard. The proposed Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw is a regulatory bylaw. As such, there is actually no statutory duty to consult, hold a public hearing or advertise regulatory bylaws in newspapers. Nevertheless, for a number of years now FVRD has been at the centre of a dialogue with the public, industry, other government agencies and stakeholders about how to address impacts to local communities from gravel operations while supporting an economical supply of aggregate over the long term. Proposed Bylaw No. 1181 is the result of this dialogue. The FVRD Board has now invited further comments from interested parties on the proposed bylaw. Rather than put ads in local newspapers, which we have found to be marginally effective and, as mentioned above not required for a regulatory bylaw, we have attempted to communicate directly with interested parties and representative groups. Comments must be submitted by November 17, 2014. Comments can be dropped off at the FVRD office, submitted by email to [email protected], fax to 604 792‐9684 or mailed to FVRD, 1‐45950 Cheam Avenue, Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6. After the close of the comment period, all submissions will be considered by the FVRD Board at the regular meeting on November 25, 2014.

The proposed bylaw, along with supplementation information, is available at: http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/InsidetheFVRD/CommunityPlanning/Pages/Gravel‐Operations.aspx

If you have any questions about Bylaw 1181, please call or email.

Best regards,

1062

Graham Daneluz Manager of Electoral Area Planning / Deputy Planner Fraser Valley Regional District #1 ‐ 45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6 Tel: 604 702‐5046 or 1‐800‐528‐0061 Email: [email protected]

From: Arne Zabell [mailto Sent: October-27-14 9:39 AM To: Dennis Adamson Cc: Suzanne Gresham; Margaret Thornton; Graham Daneluz Subject: Re: Fw: Update - Comments on Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw

So in reviewing Graham's email the FVRD is not going to publicly advertise this new bylaw?

Is it now the policy of the FVRD to implement bylaws without notification to those effected?

What exactly is the policy of the FVRD in regards to implementing new bylaws? With respect to Bylaw 1181, what is the comment period and what is the procedure being followed and is it consistent with current FVRD policies regarding new bylaws?

Thank you and I await your answers.

Arne Zabell

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Dennis Adamson <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Graham Daneluz Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 09:14 AM To: EA_Directors Cc: Paul Gipps; Suzanne Gresham; Margaret Thornton; Jennifer Kinneman Subject: RE: Update - Comments on Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw

Hello again.

I was asked about the steps we have taken to invite comments on Bylaw 1181. Since everyone is probably wondering the same thing, I thought I would send this reply to all.

We have invited comments from interested parties as follows:

- A letter requesting comment, along with a copy of the bylaw, has been mailed to all First Nations and all gravel operators in the Electoral Areas.

- An email requesting comments has been sent to 18 ratepayer groups/community associations (all the groups we have contact info for).

1073

- An email requesting comments has been sent to 106 individuals who have previously emailed comments to us about gravel issues.

- A new page has been added to the corporate web site. It includes a few FAQ, background info on the bylaw, the bylaw itself and its various maps. The new page is located at: http://www.fvrd.bc.ca/InsidetheFVRD/CommunityPlanning/Pages/Gravel-Operations.aspx . There is a link on the main home page under the “News” header that takes people there.

Staff attended the October 7, 2014 meeting of the Hatzic, Durieu, McConnell Creek Ratepayers to provide copies of the bylaw, give a short outline of the bylaw and answer questions. Copies of the bylaw were provided to Director Bales to take to a community meeting she held. If any Directors needs copies of the bylaw or would like staff to attend a community meeting, please let us (Suzanne or me) know.

As always, please call or email if I can be of any help with this.

Cheers,

Graham

From: Graham Daneluz Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 08:56 AM To: EA_Directors Cc: Paul Gipps; Suzanne Gresham; Margaret Thornton; Jennifer Kinneman Subject: Update - Comments on Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw

Good morning,

We are now a quarter of way through the public comment period on Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No 1181. As of this morning, we have received six comments – four from Electoral Area “C” and two from Electoral Area “F”. Here is a brief summary:

two submissions express concerns about road safety/traffic issues;

two submissions are highly critical of FVRD and the APP process;

one submission states that the bylaw has flaws and won’t be effective in improving the situation; and,

one submission is supportive of the restricted areas concept, but does not support anything that increases costs to operators.

In addition to the submissions noted above, we have received a few phone calls or email enquiring about the bylaw. I expect that enquiries and submissions will increase the latter half of the public comment period which ends on November 17, 2014. All of the comments received will be summarized and presented to the Board at the regular meeting on November 25, 2014.

I’ll provide another update next week. In the meantime, please call or email if you have any questions or concerns.

1091

From: Aaron Mcdonald Sent: November-15-14 9:45 AMTo: Planning InfoSubject: # not your river

I would just like to ask exactly what bi laws is the fvrd proposing to have in place regarding the noise, dust, and drinking water? Who pays for the clean up in the case of an accident to either vessel or barge? And how much of the proceeds will go directly back to protection of the Fraser river white sturgeon? Their are trains, and roads that have worked just fine. My other concern is the increase of truck traffic to our part of the lower mainland as well as the increase of traffic on our already busy river. Lets not take after the money hungry politicians to the south. Keep our river for what it's meant for, Sustaining life! Sent from my iPhone

110

1

November 2, 2014

Dear Ms Gresham,

Thank you for the email eliciting our opinions concerning the new aggregate industry bylaws drafted by

FVRD.

As you know this plan to offer up vast tracts of land to the gravel industry has met with intense

opposition. Bylaw No. 1181 fails to deal with the fact that it is unhealthy for people to live near these

lightly regulated and virtually unmonitored polluting moonscapes. The threats to air and water and the

oppressiveness of long hours of industrial noise, together with a poorly regulated trucking industry

causing constant traffic problems, make gravel pits stress-causing, dangerous and unpleasant neighbours.

This is made worse by the industry’s contempt and disregard for any residents nearby and the BC

Government’s Ministry of Energy and Mines’ hiring of former mining employees, who are sympathetic to

the industry and unqualified to make the health related decisions they so readily make. The Ministry of

Energy and Mines also fails to monitor these operations and, even when they know there is a problem

and actually take action, they only rarely impose penalties. Further as you know the Ministry has colluded

with gravel pit operators and supported them in ignoring FVRD attempts at controlling the industry.

The Lake Errock pit permit proved beyond doubt that the provincial permitting process is a sham. I have

written to the FVRD about that before. I must say that I will remain convinced that the industry has the

FVRD where it wants it until I see the maps on the FVRD website showing that the permitted finger of land

above Lake Errock is filled in with the diagonal red striped “restricted” designation.

KEY ISSUE

The key issue here is that nobody should have to live near these dreadfully destructive operations - they

make clear cutting of forests look positively green. As your staff report and the bylaw draft acknowledge,

the noise, dust and water pollution are serious issues. As someone who actually lives next to a gravel pit,

not just someone reviewing documents in an office, it is clear that efforts to date to “mitigate” these

pollutants have all been a complete and utter, miserable failure.

There needs to be a specified and regulated distance between existing inhabited areas and these pits.

Their noise travels 2 km easily and the dust, particularly fine particulate matter, travels even further. No-

one should live within a kilometer of a Fraser Valley gravel pit. Residents should be compensated if a pit is

imposed on them. The fair thing to do is to offer to purchase their property at market value and

compensate them further for the disruption in their lives. As it is, fear of upsetting the industry means

that governments choose to let the hapless residents absorb the cost with health impacts, decimated

property values, and ruined communities, while the governments’ pals in the gravel extraction industry

walk away with enormous profits.

111

2

There is aggregate in the Lower Mainland that is far away from communities and that is where the

industry must go. The industry does not want this as they seek to minimize transportation costs, and, as

they do not care about our communities, they pressure governments to bend to their will. Destroying land

farther away from human habitation will reduce the noise issue primarily, it will somewhat mitigate the

dust problem (mainly for larger particulate matter), though the water issues will remain, and a robust

monitoring system will need to be put in place. Ensuring pits are farther away from human habitation will

reduce the pits’ current excessive impact on residents and will decrease the anger and fear of the people

of the Fraser Valley.

The people of Lake Errock have experience with dealing with gravel pits and we have learned a lot about

how the industry operates and their relationship to governments. From the routine breaking of

regulations, routine failures in enforcement, to back room deals between industry and the various levels

of government, and the minimizing of information to residents - the list goes on - it is not a pretty picture.

I need to add that other levels of government have abdicated their responsibilities toward a clean

environment. The de-staffing of the BC Ministry of Environment and, federally, the de-staffing of the

Department of Fisheries and Oceans have meant that these government agencies are so feeble they can

do virtually nothing and for the most part do not even respond to complaints.

ISSUES re: BYLAW No. 1181

Bylaw No. 1181. Point 26, page 10.

NOISE

As long as governments rely on contracted professionals hired by the applicants for permits and by gravel

pit operators, gravel pits will be too noisy. We at Lake Errock have experience with this. As part of the

recent permitting requirements, the company Brown and Strachan came to do sound testing and pre-

warned the operator immediately before the testing and inevitably the noise level was determined to be

within acceptable levels. It is important to understand that these contracted companies depend on the

industry for their existence and that the pit company chooses which companies they hire and are allowed

to not publish any unfavourable report. Remember, the companies own the content of the reports, not

the consulting firm or any level of government. All professionals understand that this lack of independent

involvement creates bias, known as funding bias. This is why real studies these days require disclosure

statements and studies funded by parties who may profit from the results or recommendations would be

considered questionable. Not so in gravel operations where bias is ignored - because it suits the industry

and their pals in the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

The only serious way to manage noise is on-going independent monitoring. Professional level sound

monitoring equipment is a lot cheaper these days and instituting an independent monitoring system is

not prohibitively expensive any more. It also enables the monitoring to be consistent, not intermittent

and subject to cheating.

112

3

The noise mitigation efforts at Lake Errock have been inadequate. In our experience, what this bylaw

describes as the ”plans” (including noise control plans) outlined by operators remain just that. Serious

efforts to change are not undertaken, it is just talk then back to business as usual.

DUST

The process of gravel extraction inevitably leads to the release of toxic substances; this is just how it is.

Dust from gravel pits is not just a harmless nuisance; its contents include metals with varying levels of

toxicity as well as silica, none of which anyone would want to breathe in, and some kinds of which are

cancer causing. In all the years the Lake Errock pit operated, no-one ever tried to analyze what was in the

dust. The companies certainly had no interest in having that exposed, and governments colluded. This

bylaw does nothing to change that.

In Lake Errock we experienced appalling amounts of dust, with no help from the FVRD or the BC

Government. The Fraser Health Authority has been concerned though even their efforts have been

lackluster. That said, any serious attempt to monitor dust must involve the health authority. They have

the expertise to make health decisions – expertise no other agency has, certainly not the Ministry of

Energy and Mines. Bylaw No. 1181 does not require that the contents of the dust be monitored. This must

be rectified. Serious testing would involve testing the aggregate in the site as well as regular monitoring of

the dust - most importantly in dry weather and when processing occurs and when changes to activity in a

pit occur.

It is great to have a maximum amount of particulate matter allowed, but if you hardly ever monitor it and

have no idea what the dust is made up of, it is clear that it is just another ploy to make things look OK and

appease the industry. They know any monitoring they publish will never exceed any limits and they rely

on governments not monitoring their activities.

Dust mitigation measures include the use of large amounts of water. The problem then becomes the

management of the polluted water. In Lake Errock all water from the pit runs into the lake, rainwater

flushes through the pit and takes the silt into the lake. Nothing was ever done to mitigate this and I see

nothing in the draft bylaw that reassures me that water will be adequately monitored and controlled.

WATER

This is the most intractable problem. The pit operator at the end of Ohman Road initially made promises

that the water flowing into the pit would remain clean and would flow out still clean. Evidence indicates

that the operator just went ahead and destroyed the water courses and carried on business as usual with

no penalties – no surprise there. Again, there needs to be monitoring outside and inside of the gravel pit,

and there needs to be subsequent enforcement. Without these changes, the current problems will

continue. As FVRD has been made aware, Lake Errock has been polluted by the pits next to it, as have

water courses in the area.

113

4

The Fraser Valley needs to protect its aquifers - they are more valuable to the community than ensuring

short term profit for resource extraction corporations. The Fraser Valley faces potential water shortages

not a potential gravel shortage.

With regard to point c(iv) it is easy for the applicant to obtain a report from a professional who is

dependent on the mining industry and it is guaranteed that the report will confirm that their measures

are going to be fine and dandy. We have learned – if it is not independent it is not reliable.

Point c(ii) requires monitoring annually – the industry will do it no more often than that and will most

likely do all it can to avoid monitoring unless absolutely forced too. Ask yourself, if your family’s water

supply was liable to interference from a gravel operation would you feel OK on relying on the company to

test and wouldn’t you want it tested more than just annually. Annual testing means you just get to find

out that the company has been poisoning your family for a few months. Also the bylaw needs to stipulate

what needs to be tested for – and, to know what needs to be tested for, the regulating agency needs to

go and test the aggregate on site at various places in the pit area. Only testing water supplies for bacterial

contamination is inadequate when polluters such as gravel pits are in the area. Again it needs to be

independent testing or testing by the FVRD.

Even when pits are located far from human habitation the impact on water needs to be seriously

monitored and regulated. The Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Energy and Mines are no help

in preserving water sources. This bylaw would indicate that the FVRD are also not engaged in preserving

secure access to clean water for its residents - more explicit protection needs to be incorporated into this

bylaw.

Bylaw No. 1181. Inspection, point 33, page 12

The industry will want to thwart FVRD’s ability to inspect and enforce bylaws. I was involved in a project

conducted by Fraser Health Authority in 2013, and the pits kept the health authority from on site testing.

In the past the industry has been very successful at keeping FVRD from carrying out inspections,

monitoring and enforcing bylaws, and I do not see how this clause in the bylaw will remedy that. You will

remember how the proponent of the Ohman Road pit impugned the qualifications of the professionals

from FVRD as well as the people working for the consulting firm hired by FVRD (letter from DeBench Sand

and Gravel, Sept 15, 2009) - ironically the industry expect the rest of us to trust the consultants they have

selected. FVRD will know how the industry used their superior finances to out-maneuver and “out-lawyer”

FVRD when FVRD tried to enforce its regulations. This bylaw needs some teeth to ensure it can be

enforced - I don’t see that here.

Weak regulations, minimal (at best) monitoring and a lack of enforcement have been the hallmark of

governments’ relationships with mining. The disaster at Mount Polley is not a surprise to those of us in

Lake Errock, it is the inevitable consequence of the all too cozy relationship between the Ministry of

Energy and Mines and the mining industry, together with the inability of local governments to have any

control over the industry. What does this bylaw do to improve that situation?

114

5

Bylaw No. 1181. Community Notice, point 42, page 14

This would be a great improvement over the Ministry of Energy and Mines’ secretive announcement

process - they put a small ad in the classified section of a local paper once. But the suggested signage is

still inadequate. When the issue about ending the use of train whistles came up in Lake Errock, FVRD

mailed notices and even had letters hand delivered. But when it came to the pit permit application FVRD

did nothing, despite the fact that the pit is a far more serious threat to the community than the train

whistle. If it were a deliberate plan to minimize public awareness, it worked pretty well; there are still

people in Lake Errock who did not find out that a gravel extraction permit was rapplied for and issued

until after it was a done deal.

If you are going to do this seriously then a letter needs to go out to all residents within potential noise and

dust range of any proposed pit – at least 2 to 5 km. Also when any change in the permit is granted the

community should be made aware. In 2013 the Sonora pit was allowed to significantly increase its

tonnage and no effort was made by the industry or governments to let people living nearby know that a

change had occurred - this is simply not acceptable. We found out because the pit started operating

outside its hours and we complained.

Bylaw No. 1181. Site Specific Conditions, point 67a, Page 18

Our experience is that companies at all levels do not want to engage with the local residents. It proves to

be more profitable to hide behind the skirts of the all too willing staff at the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Their goals are to exclude residents and ignore and minimize residents’ concerns. The only time the pit

proponent met with Lake Errock residents, the meeting occurred because he was forced to meet us by the

Mines Review Committee. In the meeting he mainly deferred to the Mines Inspector present or

responded with “No comment”. For this part of the bylaw to work, the FVRD will need to come up with

more structure than is currently evident in this clause!

Bylaw No. 1181. Part 12, Completion of Operations, page 25

If there is some effort to ensure the operator cleans up the polluted mess that is left after extraction is

complete I thought it might be here. I do not find that here. Essentially if you don’t get the money for

reclamation up front, there is no guarantee that the industry will clean up after themselves. Ownership

moves from one branch of the corporate network to the next, as it has in Lake Errock, and the public will

likely be left to pay the cost.

RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY

Throughout this bylaw there is an implicit trust in the aggregate industry to act differently than it really

does. They are corporate interests concerned solely with profit and rewarding shareholders. If it increases

profit they will try to locate next to any community, if a regulation will cost them money they will ignore

or undermine it, they will make sure that studies and expert opinion they pay for is favourable, and they

use their wealth and power to lobby governments and to endeavour to make bylaws such as this as

115

6

favourable as possible. They are not concerned with the environment now and certainly not in how it will

be in 30 years time. For the industry the expenses related to noise, dust and water pollution mitigation

are to be minimized. Wherever possible, costs are to be externalized. We know for certain they do not

care about residents nearby their operations.

Sadly, this is in many ways rational corporate behaviour – they are looking out for the company and its

shareholders. It is the role of government to protect the people who elect them. If not the government,

then who? I understand that in the last 35 years governments have chosen to follow the path of

minimizing regulations for corporations and that some of that culture still is present at FVRD.

There are some minor steps in the right direction in this bylaw; nonetheless, I imagine the industry is

reasonably satisfied with this draft. But if FVRD is interested in ensuring a healthy future for residents of

the Fraser Valley this bylaw needs some improvements:

• Require pits to be a significant distance from residences

• If pits are located near to an existing residence, compensation must be provided

• A more robust ability of the FVRD to monitor and enforce bylaws

• End reliance on industry commissioned studies and reviews – require independent expert opinion

only as a basis for decisions

• Serious monitoring of pollutants: independent, frequent testing, with an understanding of all

possible pollutants that could be present

• Serious community involvement. Direct individual notification with permit applications. Require

the industry to be engaged with the communities they negatively impact.

If this bylaw goes through as drafted, I think we all know that those communities suffering the

consequences of having the poorly controlled extraction industry as neighbours will continue to fight back

as loudly, as adamantly and as pointedly as they have to date. With regard to climate change (it is

undeniably with us and worsening) governments need to move away from blindly supporting unbridled

resource extraction and think longer term and more broadly - the corporate sector will not. Governments

also have a responsibility beyond immediate economic expansion at any price, that is a responsibility to

protect the Fraser Valley for all our children and grandchildren. This means protecting the water supply,

maintaining clean air to breathe, and undertaking to be stewards of the environment. Strengthening this

bylaw will be part of that legacy.

Sincerely

Tony Rees

PO Box 104, Lake Errock, BC, V0M 1N0

1161

From: Steffen Neumann Sent: October-17-14 12:30 AMTo: Planning Info; Subject: Gravel Pit Bylaw - McConnell Creek


What about an annual fee for the upkeep of the roads? The roads out here are all punched out and are in horrendous condition. Sincerely S. Neumann

1171

From: Wendy Bales Sent: October-16-14 9:08 AMTo: 'Tony Rees'; 'Sylvia Langmann'; 'Muck';

'Lynn Perrin'; 'kat wahamaa'; 'Jan'; 'Garry Beattie'; 'Elizabeth Pellizzari'; 'Cynthia Berge'; 'Baker Trail Village FVRD Area E'; ; '**ACES ***'; Planning Info

Subject: RE: FVRD Bylaw 1181, 2014 - Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw


Thank‐You Reg, Please do not hold your breath! In my opinion: As far as I am concerned the new APP and proposed bylaw still has some of the main underlying flaws that need to be fixed in the Mines Act. Mainly it is a rubber stamp for easier permits in some areas that have not been studied for other sustainable needs and cumulative impacts. It does not give the FVRD a right to stop Mines permits in areas that they have agreed to for mining through their maps and outlying areas will have less red tape. I doubt that the tonnage fees will ever give them enough to take even 1 case to court as they plan to use most of the money for staff and extra expenses. You would also need enough directors that would vote in favor of real enforcement of infractions to bylaws, which would have no teeth if they know that you have a history of not taking any legal action. More on this later, as I am on the run again today. Wendy

From: Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 2:47 PM To: ; Tony Rees; Sylvia Langmann; Muck; Lynn Perrin; kat wahamaa; Graham Daneluz; Jan; Garry Beattie; Elizabeth Pellizzari; Cynthia Berge; Baker Trail Village FVRD Area E; ; **ACES ***; Planning Info Subject: Re: FVRD Bylaw 1181, 2014 - Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw

I find it somewhat ironic at this stage, that you are asking for my input into future aggregate operations, when just a few years ago, you did not have the least interest in anything that the most impacted citizens of the FVRD had to say. Are you saying now that you intend finally to be transparent regarding gravel pits, when everything you have done in the past was hidden behind closed doors in secret? You are the most hypocritical, self serving, secretive regional district imaginable. Do not think for one minute that we believe that all of a sudden you actually give a damn about the people you supposedly serve. The real reason for this seemingly about face is nothing more than the realization that you can get your hands on additional funds from licensing gravel operations, and taking tonnage fees. Remember, I sat in on numerous gravel meetings including those at the FVRD and outlying area districts, and witnessed first hand what really happens. I have seen my own Area Director sworn to secrecy, lied to, and

1191

From: Theodor Mellenthin Sent: October-15-14 9:10 PMTo: Planning InfoSubject: Gravel pit


We live at 36042 Hartley RD, just by a big hill where the trucks whistle by, otherwise it’s a beautiful serene quiet area. What can be done so that the trucks don’t use their motor brakes and create an unpleasant loud noise and upset our serenity? Also ,some trucks speed up and down the hill and making extra noise and wouldn’t be able to stop going downhill if someone came out of the side road like Spratt Rd. or an animal ran across the road? Our shepherd dog got killed by a vehicle going too fast! Thank you . Ted & Freda Mellenthin

121

Attachment 3 – Public Submissions: Comment Analysis and Response

Public Submission Staff Comment

Mapping The owners of the property at 42894 Tait Road, Electoral Area “C” request that their property be designated “Restricted Area” and in the “Community Area”

Local government bylaws prohibit gravel extraction, as the proposed Bylaw 1181 would in “Restricted Areas”, require the approval of the Minister of Mines. Accordingly, mapping for draft Bylaw No. 1181 was developed through negotiations with the Ministry and the BC Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. It is informed by public comments, mapping of gravel deposits, streams, properties lines and many other features. The maps attempt to strike a balance between ensuring a long-term economic supply of aggregates and the interests of local communities that are impacted by gravel operations. Lake Errock is a particularly challenging place to achieve such a balance.

The subject property is entirely within the “Community Area”. As shown on the map, the subject property is party within the “Restricted Area” but much of it is within a corridor of land that is outside the “Restricted Area” in a location of high quality gravel deposit. The corridor would support a direct connection to Lougheed Highway for operators working this deposit in the future and thereby avoid conflicts between industrial traffic and residential traffic on local roads. Potentially, operators could share a single access to the highway rather than have industrial traffic enter the road network from different locations. Overall, the “Restricted Area” boundaries in the Lake Errock area protect a significant amount of land that otherwise could be permitted for gravel mines (and which contain marketable gravel deposits) while providing for a longer-term supply of gravel close Highway 7, markets and existing operations in the area.

The staff comment below is intended to explain why the bylaw maps are drafted how they are. The staff comments are not a refutation of the request by the land owners, which the FVRD Board should consider.

122

The “Restricted Area” should be applied to the entire Coquihalla River watershed. The “Restricted Area” should be expanded to include any potential site feeding onto Othello Road.

As described above, the bylaw mapping attempts to balance long-term economic needs with the negative impacts gravel operations have on nearby residents. The map below shows the current mapping for the Othello Road area, which is within the “Community Area” (thick black line) and partly within the “Restricted Area (red hatching).

The current boundaries of the “Restricted Area” includes private lands and some crown land along Othello Road in EA “B”. This boundary could be reviewed to ensure it is appropriate. The Province of BC does not support designating large areas of Crown land, such as the Coquihalla watershed, as “Restricted Area” and are unlikely to support such a change.

Do not allow gravel mines in areas that are in “line-of-sight in the Chilliwack River Valley or in areas of beauty and natural value frequented by tourists/recreationalists

As shown on the map below, the valley bottom and the lower slopes of the Chilliwack River Valley are within the “Restricted Area” and “Community Area” designations. While gravel operations could locate in mid and upper elevations, the existing mapping should protect most recreational values.

123

Bylaw Specifications & Requirements Supplement the Noise Control sections (s. 48-49) of the bylaw to add a peak sound level of 75 dBA Lpeak to the 50 and 55 dBA Leq (3 min) noise limits

Current provisions in proposed Bylaw 1181 limit noise to an average of 50 (night) and 55 (day) decibels measured over 3 minutes in the A-weighting scale. Leq – or equivalent continuous sound level - is the continuous sound level averaged over three minutes. Leq is the most common method to describe sound levels that vary over time. It gives a single decibel value which takes into account the sound energy over a period of time. During this time period, sound levels will increase and decrease, but shouldn’t exceed an average of 55 dBA. The A-weighting scale emphasizes sound energy within the frequency sensitivity of the human ear at low levels. Sound level meters set to the A-weighting scale will filter out much of the low-frequency noise they measure, similar to the response of the human ear. This is the most commonly used weighting scale. Noise measurements made with the A-weighting scale are designated dBA. The Ministry of Energy & Mines recommends the 55 dBA 3 min Leq standard and has implemented it n some Mines Permits issued for lands in FVRD’s electoral areas.

It has been suggested that in addition to the regulation described above, there should be a limit on the peak sound pressure of 75 dBA which about as loud as noisy urban daytime traffic or a noisy restaurant. If this requirement was added, average noise level would remain at 55 dBA but temporary or brief spikes in noise could not exceed 75 dBA. Consultation with the Ministry of Energy & Mines is required to determine the impact of the suggested change. It could be anticipated that this peak sound limit would be exceeded by activities such as blasting that result in loud noises, potentially in excess of 75 dBA, for brief periods.

Simplify bylaw requirements to improve enforceability

The proposed bylaw generally attempts to identify performance standards and leave it up to gravel operators and their professionals to determine how to meet the standard. The proposed bylaw has been simplified to focus primarily on noise, dust and drinking water. Other elements are covered by Provincial or Federal agencies.

Unfortunately, noise, dust and water quality can be difficult to measure because they are highly mobile. Connecting a problem to a source can be incredibly challenging. For example, attributing dust at a particular location to one specific source is difficult where there are multiple sources of dust. Dust, water and noise reflect and move around unpredictably. It requires technical instruments and knowledge to measure them.

Proposed Bylaw 1181 would provide an improved range of options for enforcement including ticketing and administrative actions such as permit revocation. It would also require annual monitoring and reporting by registered professionals to identify any issues of non-compliance. Should it be required, fee revenues could be used for independent monitoring or investigation.

124

Add restrictions to prevent operation on weekends and holidays

The approach of proposed Bylaw 1181 is to address noise levels rather than hours of operation. During day hours (7 am to 7 pm), noise levels can reach 55 dBA 3 min Leq. During evening hours (7 pm to 7 am), the maximum noise level is reduced to 50 dBA 3 min Leq. However, Section 67 of proposed Bylaw 1181 would allow the FVRD Board to impose permit conditions related to hours of work if this was deemed necessary by the Board. The FVRD Board should consider whether these provisions are adequate or whether outright restrictions on operating on weekends and/or holidays are appropriate.

Gravel operations should be setback 1 km from existing communities or residential areas

A blanket setback of 1 km from existing residential areas would result in the application of “Restricted Areas” to a much larger part of the land base. It is unlikely that the Province of BC would support this approach. The proposed mapping framework of “Restricted Areas” and “Community Areas” is an attempt to balance the interests of local residents with the need for a long-term economic supply of aggregate. As a result, in some areas the bylaw would separate residential uses from gravel operations. In other areas, it would not.

Proposed Bylaw 1181 would prohibit new gravel operations in “Restricted Areas” which cover many areas of more intensive residential development, though not all. In other areas, instead of trying to totally separate gravel operations from rural residential areas, proposed Bylaw 1181 sets out performance standards and professional assessment/mitigation processes that operators must satisfy to reduce impacts to surrounding community areas. Requirements are greater in “Community Areas” where conflicts with residential uses are possible. The premise is that gravel operations and rural residential uses can co-exist in these areas if sufficient effort is made to mitigate negative impacts of gravel operations on surrounding lands.

Require independent expert assessment and monitoring, not biased reports produced by industry consultants

Proposed Bylaw 1181 employs a professional reliance model common in modern regulatory approaches. It puts the burden of specialized and costly technical on proponents and their registered professionals. Registered professionals are members of professional associations set up under law and which have codes of ethics, mandates to work in the public interest, practice review mechanisms and disciplinary procedures to hold them accountable. At its best, the professional reliance model allows flexibility and creativity in meeting standards prescribed by government. Detractors feel that “funding bias” and economic interests skews the registered professionals towards the interests of their paying clients over public interest.

Proposed Bylaw 1181 requires that registered professionals assess the impacts of proposed gravel operations on noise, dust and drinking water and determine ways to mitigate these impacts. The bylaw would also require annual monitoring and reporting by registered professionals to identify any issues of non-compliance. Should it be required, fee revenues could be used for independent monitoring or investigation on an as-needed case-by-case basis.

Enhance monitoring of pollutants with frequent, independent testing

125

Enhance provisions about community notice and involvement in permit applications

Section 25(d) of proposed Bylaw 1181 required applicants to provide a communications plan that addressed how the applicant proposes to communicate with the surrounding community both before and during operations. Section 67(a) allows the Board to impose permit conditions to ensure there is sufficient method of communication with surrounding residents.

Under Section 42 of the proposed bylaw, applicants are required to post a sign on the property subject to a permit application. As a routine part of application review and processing, it is anticipated that a notice would be sent to property owners and occupiers within a defined radius of the proposed gravel operation.

Require the industry to engage with surrounding community

Section 67 of proposed Bylaw 1181 would allow the FVRD Board to impose permit conditions to ensure there is sufficient method of communication between applicants and members of the community.

Fees Based on estimated removal volume, a percentage of fees (i.e. 50%) should be paid within 6 months of start up

The payment of fees once per year is sufficient for budgeting and financial purposes.

Have an annual fee for road maintenance

As FVRD does not have jurisdiction over roads, it is not possible to collect a fee related to road improvements. Fees collected under proposed Bylaw 1181 must be, on average, proportionate to the costs for the services FVRD provides in relation to the bylaw.

Values & Priorities Protect the tourism/recreation economy of the Chilliwack River Valley over industrial uses such as gravel mining

The valley bottom and the lower slopes of the Chilliwack River Valley are within the “Restricted Area” and “Community Area” designations. While gravel operations could locate in mid and upper elevations, the existing mapping should protect most recreational values.

Process Hold a public hearing before advancing the bylaw Preceding sections of this memorandum describe the approach used to invite comments on proposed

Bylaw 1181. Previous reports describe past public engagement efforts regarding mapping and conceptual approaches to managing gravel operations and resources (i.e. APP recommendations). Bylaw should be publically

advertised Appoint community representatives from the FCA to quietly work with government and industry a win-win-win protocol

126

Matters not within FVRD’s Jurisdiction Concerns regarding the condition and use of roads, road safety and speed of vehicles

FVRD has no jurisdiction over roads or changes to the Mines Act. These matters should be referred to the responsible authority.

Changes to the Mines Act do not appear to be on the horizon. Proposed Bylaw 1181 is an attempt to work within existing legislation to improve the situation.

Need changes to the Mines Act

If pits are located near an existing residence, compensation should be provided

This is beyond the authority and jurisdiction of FVRD.

1271

From: Earl Sent: October-24-14 1:51 PMTo: Planning InfoCc: Taje, Eddy EMPR:EX; Marryann BouffardSubject: FVRD Commercial Aggregate Operations Bylaw No. 1181,2014


The FVRD Board of Directors, On behalf of Upland Resources Inc. and Statlu Resources Inc. RE: The bylaw inclusions: 1. A permitting system for commercial gravel operations: - Currently we are happy with the permitting process provided by the BC Government through Front Counter BC. - This process gives our project applications access to the relevant Ministries and First nations through the referral process all at one location. - We would not support additional permitting requirements imposed by the FVRD. - We believe this additional permitting requirement would cause great delays to permitting which are already lengthy. - We believe this would create an additional opportunity for non stakeholders to protest applications. - The sand and gravel industry is very competitive and additional fees and royalties could make FVRD based gravel operations non competitive with other area's of the Lower Mainland. - We prefer to have only one governing body handling our permitting and operational responsibilities. - The sand and gravel industry is in good regulatory hands at the moment. 2. Regulations relating primarily to noise, dust and impacts to drinking water: - These are currently issues under the administration of the Ministries of Mines, Work Safe BC and Environment. - We do not supporting additional supervision of these issues. 3. "Community Areas where higher standards of noise and dust mitigation will apply" - We believe you can now regulate those issues under your current mandate. - We would not support this as an additional regulation 4. "Restricted Areas" where new commercial gravel operations will not be allowed" - Sand and gravel is a scarce resource yet can be mined successfully near populated areas. - This may deny some private landholders the opportunity for economic gain. - Citizens that purchase homes must do their due diligence and investigate what type of industrial activity may take place in that area before making a purchase. - Homes should not be constructed in areas know to have gravel reserves N.B We support "Restricted Areas" as this will alleviate the above issues. However we believe this is a matter accomplished through consultation and agreement with the Provincial Government, First Nations and the FVRD 5. Annual fees paid by gravel operations to support the administration of the bylaw. - We do not see any area that would derive additional benefit to the community and the gravel industry with the implementation of the above bylaw. - We do not see the need for the additional fees, and would not support such.

1282

6. The requirement for a coordinating professional would be redundant as these tasks are now undertaken my the qualified Mine Manager as defined under the Mines Act. - This would be an additional cost of doing business. - This would make your requirements inconsistent with those of the rest of the province. N.B We would not support this requirement. 7. N.B Is the provincial government giving up to the FVRD its jurisdiction in regard to this bylaw infringement? 8. Statlu Resources Inc. have a current mines permit and a current 10 year License of Occupation and road use agreement covering operations at its gravel pit. How will this affect our current operations and future permitting of the Statlu gravel operations? Five year terms are not acceptable for many obvious reasons that we shall not get into at this time. This would be redundant as renewal mechanisms are now in place giving longer terms. 9. Multiple jurisdictions regulating the same issues. We will not support this type of organization as it creates uncertainty and investment requires certainty. Currently we have the Ministry of Mines inspecting our operations and who also represents Work Safe BC and reports to all other relevant Government agencies as required. This works well and is acceptable to us. In conclusion we support the "Restricted Areas" concept but non of the other items that add costs to our aggregate operations. We need a clearly defined and level playing field so to speak which we now have. Any additional fees and royalties will be redundant and more like a cash grab than a responsible necessity to cover additional costs of enforcing these bylaws that should not be enacted.. Thank You, Upland Resources Inc. and Statlu Resources Inc. per: Earl E. Wilder. President/CEO of both companies.

R

m m

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8463 - Release Date: 10/27/14

1301

From: Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: September‐30‐14 8:57 AM To: Suzanne Gresham Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: RE: Proposed FVRD Commercial Aggregate Operations Regulation Bylaw Suzanne Thank you of the opportunity for discussion on the bylaw and I understand the challenges of balancing the public interest while also having a sustainable industry of gravel extraction. As a producer I do NOT support the bylaw that will be presented for first reading. The BCSSGA has raised a number of issues and challenges that need to be addressed before this document moved further. I have attached again the comments that I ask you to review again before moving forward. I appreciate the need to move forward but I encourage you not to lose sight of the goal…a collaboration of FVRD, MEM and the producers. Thank You Scott Boshart Cel. 604. Office 604.462.7799 Fax 604.462.7752

132

BCSSGA Comments on Draft Bylaw 1181-2014

Aggregates Build B.C.

www.gravelbc.ca August 13 2014

Page 2 of 6

Location Issue Proposed Correction

Definitions Definition of registered professional

Is the definition complete? After "including" add "… without limiting the generality of the foregoing."

Definition Definition of removal is too broad

Limit remove and removal to products crossing the site boundary.

Sections 6 & 14

Structures is too broad Add to the end "not otherwise permitted under the Mines Act."

Section 16 Exemptions These exemptions should match the Mines Act exemptions.

Section 17c May undercut s8 Add language to subordinate s17 to s8

Section 23 Are two separate parcels separated by a road considered to be under one permit?

If it is under one permit by Mines, it should be under one permit at the local level.

Section 24e Should be able to submit the Mine Plan (Notice of Work) to provide most of the information. FVRD should not be concerned with details within the mine site.

Add: "Submit a copy of the Notice of Work to the Ministry of Mines and add additional information required under this section." to clarify a whole new set of reports and submissions is not required.

Section 25 Requirements for certification may make it impossible to find a QP willing to sign that the plan will "ensure" compliance.

See our comments on noise control, dust control and drinking water.

Section 33 ‐ 37

Requirements for certification may make it impossible to find a QP willing to take on the role. The cost of this requirement may be prohibitory.

Consult with professional associations to see what will be possible from their perspective.

133



www.gravelbc.ca

Page 3 of 6


Section 44 "unreasonable detrimental impact" is totally subjective. Further, impact is on adjacent lands, not people or residences. E.g. under this requirement, a pit would have to provide a screen between it and an adjacent ready mix or asphalt plant. The provision is so broadly drafted, it will be impossible to comply.

There may be other provincial standards which can be referenced, but be sure the requirements are attainable in an aggregate operation with variable topography and view lines. It will not be possible to screen some sites .

Section 46 This is already covered by the Mines Act.

Delete

Section 47 Likely unenforceable as overly broad. We repeat that our industry should not have special noise conditions different from other industries or operations. Noise should be covered in a general bylaw.

Need to take into account site specific conditions, the background levels, trucking noise, safety mandated warning alarms, etc.

Section 50 "a nuisance to any other person or any other property" is subjective and can undercut the specific targets.

Remove language of nuisance and leave in compliance with objective standards. We are still seeking advice on the appropriateness of the subjective levels stated.

Section 51, 52 Too broadly worded. Deal with surface water discharge by using the Mine Permit limit (25 mg above background). We need to have a better idea of what the FVRD concerns are regarding ground water to recommend specific solutions.

Section 56 We cannot be responsible for noise created on the adjacent property

Remove this requirement.

Section 60 FVRD reports and advice being used need to be available to the permit holder for a proper response.

Add wording so that any reports relied upon by the FVRD be made available to the permit holder.

134



www.gravelbc.ca

Page 4 of 6


Section 62 a "relevant to the Regional District's interests" is too vague.

Add "... related to aggregate removal or deposit." The District’s interests should be defined or there should be a period after “Community Charter”.

Section 63 The board should not be able to add new potentially prohibitory requirements beyond those stated in the bylaw.

Add language to ensure that all board decisions are based on criteria known to the proponent at the time the application is started.

Section 63 a Restrictive conditions relating to communications with members of the community and adjacent recreational properties and businesses is a violation of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A local government may not, by bylaw, mandate conditions restricting speech in such a broad and potentially restrictive manner.

Add language to ensure no attempt is made to restrict speech.

Section 64e This is vague and potentially discriminatory. No one should have to go through the process then find out they are not going to be allowed to get a permit.

Delete

Section 70 Only one renewal allowed. i.e. max 10 years operation. Not enough in many cases. (a) and (c) do not take into account suspensions which are being challenged or whose causes have been remedied.

Enable indefinite renewals, or at least match that of the provincial permit

135



www.gravelbc.ca

Page 5 of 6


Section 78 CAO can require a whole new permit application when a permit holder applies for an amendment.

There should be some subjective criteria which the CAO should use to determine if the requested amendment is so significant that a whole new application is required.

Section 81 Requirement to report twice annually is overly burdensome

Provincial permit regulations require an annual report. This should be sufficient for the regional district, using the annual audited statement in s 87.

Section 83 It is not likely records are kept on all sites.

Recognizing the such records are often kept in head office, allow a couple of days to get the records to the CAO

Section 86 One stated conversion will not be scientifically accurate for all sites, creating inequities.

Add the following: "…unless the permit holder can demonstrate a different conversion factor for the aggregate from that site which has been scientifically determined by an independent third party."

Section 97 This is a very broad provision. There may be conditions of a permit where a breach might be so trivial that it would be completely unfair to require aggregate removal and processing to cease until the breach has been cured or rectified.

Normally, there should be a provision that gives notice to the operator that FVRD considers there has been a breach and a period of time to rectify the breach before operations have to cease.

Section 102 a It should not be left to the operator to guess which enactments it must comply with strictly in order to avoid the revocation and suspension of a permit.

“another related enactment” should be defined.

Section 102 d “the permit was issued in error;” We don’t know what this means. Is this supposed to mean that if the FVRD decides later on that they should not have issued a permit that it was “issued in error”?

This is too broad and must be defined.

136



www.gravelbc.ca

Page 6 of 6


Section 103 Overly broad to the point it could be used to prohibit.

Limit the Board's ability to impose requirements that go beyond the stated specifics in the bylaw. The Board's powers should not extend to the point they can impose new conditions that would be prohibitory from an economic, logistical or other perspective.

Section 103 e If the haul routes are provincial highways, does the local government have the jurisdiction to do this? Probably not.

Restrict to powers the FVRD already has.

Section 106 c Potential conflict with the Mines Act. Mine regulation 1.3.1 states: "Other than an inspector, only persons authorized by the manager shall enter or be permitted to enter a mine."

There needs to be some linking of subsection (c) and the overall safety requirements under the Mines Act that require anyone coming onto a mine site to report to and obtain the permission of the mines manager before being on the site.

Section 112 d Overly broad. Could be used prohibitively.

See comment re s 103

137

Hillcrest Village PO Box 36065

Surrey, British Columbia Canada V3S 7Y4

Tel: 778. 571.2670 Fax: 778. 571.2680

www.gravelbc.ca [email protected]

BC Stone, Sand & Gravel Association

April 23, 2014 Fraser Valley Regional District 1-45950 Cheam Avenue Chilliwack, BC V2P 1N6 Attention: Paul Gipps and Suzanne Gresham

Dear Sirs/Mesdames:

Re: Draft Fraser Valley Regional District Bylaw No. 1181, 2014 (the “Draft Bylaw”) Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you in Chilliwack on April 9, 2014 to discuss the Draft Bylaw. The British Columbia Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (the “BCSSGA”) appreciated the opportunity to hear about the Draft Bylaw and to share our views and concerns with regard to it. In the meeting, we agreed to provide you with comments in writing about the Draft Bylaw. We write to provide you with that further feedback. We understand from our discussions in the meeting, that a number of provisions in the Draft Bylaw are going to be substantively revised and a new draft circulated for comment. Consequently, we have focussed our written comments on some of the broader issues of concern in the present form of Draft Bylaw. We will provide further detailed comments as to specific language of the Draft Bylaw once we have received and reviewed the next version. We appreciate your offer to meet with us to discuss the next draft, and we look forward to arranging such a meeting. Viability of the Industry The BCSSGA agrees with and endorses the proposition on which the Draft Bylaw is founded; namely that a viable commercial aggregate extraction industry is essential and that the Draft Bylaw must balance regulation of the industry with the ability of aggregate producers to continue operating. We recommend, given the foundational importance to the Draft Bylaw of the continued viability of the industry, that a reference be incorporated into the recitals as follows:

WHEREAS a viable commercial aggregate extraction industry is crucial for the economic development of the Regional District;

With the inclusion of viability of the industry as an underlying premise of the Draft Bylaw, the BCSSGA acknowledges the FVRD’s role and interest in regulating the impacts of extraction operations which manifest themselves outside of the property boundary of a mine.

138

- 2 -

Aggregates Build B.C. www.gravelbc.ca

Recommendations:

(a) Add a recital confirming that viability of a commercial aggregate extraction industry is a foundational premise of the Draft Bylaw.

(b) Revise the provisions in the Draft Bylaw set out below that may otherwise undermine the viability of the industry.

Grandfathering We understand from the presentation by the FVRD that the Draft Bylaw is intended to “grandfather” existing mines in their current form and manner of operating. The BCSSGA agrees that a grandfathering approach for existing operations is critical to ensuring a continuing viable commercial aggregate extraction industry. However, the effect of sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Draft Bylaw is to make its terms applicable to existing permits and applications. Recommendation:

(a) Revise sections 8, 9 and 10 to expressly grandfather existing permits and operations rather than allowing the operations only to the extent they are not inconsistent with the requirements of the Draft Bylaw.

Duplication of Regulation As discussed in our meeting, duplication of permit application and regulatory requirements has the potential to threaten the viability of the industry by imposing unreasonable additional costs and by creating confusion and uncertainty with respect to applicable standards. The current form of the Draft Bylaw includes provisions that are duplicative of matters which are addressed by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (the “Ministry”) through its stringent permit application process and its enforcement program, particularly with respect to regulation of matters within the mine site itself. The Draft Bylaw also includes provisions that are duplicative of matters addressed by the FVRD’s zoning bylaws and its bylaws of general application. Both types of duplicative provisions should be eliminated in order to create a coherent Draft Bylaw that strikes a proper balance between regulating the external effects of aggregate extraction while ensuring a viable industry. Duplication with the Ministry’s Regulation As discussed in our meeting, the Ministry regulates and inspects operations on the property itself in accordance with the conditions of an operator’s Mines Permit. Such permits are issued only after a rigorous application and consultation process.

139

- 3 -


Only a Ministry inspector is authorized to enter a mine property to inspect and enforce compliance with Ministry and Mines Permit requirements. Extraction and processing, except for the manufacture of asphalt, concrete or ready-mix concrete is already subject to regulation under the Mines Act, its regulations and the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code. Duplication of these regulations is not necessary or helpful. Subject to our comments respecting duplication with FVRD’s own regulations set out below, and except for the manufacture of asphalt, concrete or ready-mix concrete, FVRD should limit regulation in the Draft Bylaw to matters from the “property line out”, and remove those provisions that seek to regulate the mine operation itself. In that respect much of s. 25(e) and (f) in the Draft Bylaw is unnecessary and will be addressed in an operation’s Mines Permit. Similarly, the provisions in s. 26 and Part 6 of the Draft Bylaw relating to the effects of an operation should be limited to the effects on adjacent properties only, and should not address watercourse effects or haul plans within the mine property itself. One means of at least partially reducing duplication between the Ministry process and the FVRD process would be to have the permit processes be coordinated in terms of the permit periods and timing and requirements for renewal. Recommendation:

(a) Revise ss. 25(e) and (f), s. 26 and Part 6 to remove all regulation that relates to the mine operation or the site itself without external impact on adjacent properties.

(b) Coordinate the term of FVRD permits with the length of Mines Permits.

Duplication with FVRD’s Regulations We understand from the presentation of the FVRD that the numerous provisions regulating of land use in the Draft Bylaw, and in particular the regulation of processing, was intended to provide a single, uniform legislative standard for aggregate processing. BCSSGA would certainly consider supporting a Draft Bylaw which accomplished such a goal. Unfortunately, the Draft Bylaw does not supplant land use regulation in the form of FVRD’s zoning bylaw. Rather, s. 6 expressly provides that zoning bylaws still apply. Similarly, the Draft Bylaw restrictions on noise, dust and traffic do not replace bylaws of general application such as the FVRD’s noise bylaw. Rather, the Draft Bylaw adds to the existing bylaws. As a result, aggregate extraction is subject to redundant and potentially conflicting regulatory regimes. Additionally, the aggregate extraction industry is subject to different standards and consequences for non-compliance than any other industry. BCSSGA strongly urges either that land use relating to commercial aggregate operations be entirely dealt with exclusively within the Draft Bylaw, or that it be dealt with exclusively through the zoning bylaw, but not both. To that end, either s. 6 should be revised to permit processing in accordance with the Draft Bylaw irrespective of zoning considerations, or all of the regulation of land use should be removed from the Draft Bylaw.

140

- 4 -


Likewise, issues such as noise, dust and traffic should be addressed in bylaws of general application. Such regulation ensures that the aggregate industry is not singled out for different standards from other industrial operations. Recommendations:

(a) Revise s. 6 of the Draft Bylaw to provide that processing is allowed in accordance with the Draft Bylaw irrespective of zoning, or remove the regulations relating to land use in the Draft Bylaw.

(b) Remove the regulations relating to noise, dust and traffic and regulate those through bylaws of general application.

Role of Professionals The BCSSGA understands the FVRD’s desire to involve professionals and to have materials of a particular quality and reliability submitted as part of the permit application process. However, a number of the requirements in respect of the professionals will be virtually impossible for permit applicants to achieve. For example, s. 30 of the Draft Bylaw requires a registered professional to submit a report that does not contain statements that limit the reliance that may be placed on a report. No professional will provide a report without such caveats. Section 37 of the Draft Bylaw requires the coordinating professional to comply with the bylaw. Again, no coordinating professional will be willing to take on that obligation on behalf of a permit holder. Fees The BCSSGA supports a reasonable fee payable to the FVRD for aggregate extraction. The current proposed fee is higher than we would have expected in the circumstances. Nevertheless, we are happy to discuss an appropriate fee level once the ultimate scope of the Draft Bylaw is clearer. The Draft Bylaw as a Model As set out above, the BCSSGA is pleased to collaborate with and continue to seek to improve the Draft Bylaw based on the FVRD’s express commitment to a viable continuing commercial industry. However, the BCSSGA has grave concerns about the Draft Bylaw becoming a model for other municipalities, and in particular, municipalities that have not recognized the need for a viable commercial aggregate extraction industry. In the absence of a good faith acknowledgment of the need for a commercial aggregate extraction industry and for an adequate, long-term regional supply of aggregate, a municipality could take advantage of the significant discretion available in the Draft Bylaw to craft an effective prohibition of the industry. One need look only to the recent case involving the District of Peachland (see http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/13/02/2013BCCA0273.htm) which sought to impose a 200 cubic metre per year limit on soil removal as a “regulation”, even while admitting the District wished to prevent commercial operations from becoming established in its jurisdiction. While the British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded such a low annual extraction limit was effectively a prohibition, a municipality under the current Draft Bylaw could impose just such a maximum annual

141

- 5 -


volumetric limit on soil removal or processing for any operation by virtue of s. 76(c). Moreover, because the Draft Bylaw contemplates the Minister of Energy and Mines approving the Draft Bylaw to prohibit soil removal, it would be difficult for an operator to challenge even clearly prohibitory annual volume limits or other similar conditions imposed for the purpose of prohibiting in the guise of regulation. The Ministry is provided only with a gatekeeper function in respect of soil removal bylaws in that a bylaw is either approved or not. There is no ongoing supervisory or coordinating role for the Ministry in respect of an approved bylaw. Once the power to prohibit in a bylaw is approved by the Ministry, it would be unable to ensure the good faith use of discretionary powers provided to a municipality under a bylaw. That would be the case even if the municipality at issue were to use its discretion to render Mines Permits valueless or to interfere with the Ministry’s attempts to ensure a sufficient long term supply of aggregate is available in all regions of British Columbia. Consequently, it is important in BCSSGA’s view, that for the Draft Bylaw to be workable, any municipality seeking to adopt it must first have a true, good faith commitment to the continuation of a viable commercial industry. Otherwise, adoption of the Draft Bylaw could be used by a municipality to prohibit the commercial extraction of aggregate. Conclusion We are pleased that the FVRD has invited us to participate in the discussion of the Draft Bylaw. Such consultation helps demonstrate the necessary commitment to the viability of the commercial industry necessary for the Draft Bylaw to be successful. We are also happy to clarify or discuss our foregoing comments in greater detail either in writing or in another meeting. We look forward to receiving a further revision of the Draft Bylaw and to providing our detailed comments in regard to it. We also look forward to another in-person consultation session with respect to the next version of the Draft Bylaw. If you require anything further in the meantime, please feel free to contact the undersigned. Yours truly,

The British Columbia Stone, Sand and Gravel Association

For Ted Carlson, President

cc: Stewart Guy Ed Taje

142

1

BCSSGA Comments on Draft Bylaw 1181-2014 (Rec’d Aug 15/14) FVRD

Section Issue Proposed Correction Comments 1 Definitions Definition of registered professional Is the definition complete? After "including" add "… without limiting

the generality of the foregoing."

Agree. This section will be amended to broaden its application to other categories of

professionals.

2 Definition

Definition of removal is too broad

Limit remove and removal to products crossing the site boundary.

Partly agree. The bylaw will be amended to clarify that no fees are payable on material until it

leaves the permit area. However, the regulations of the bylaw apply unless exempted under

Part 4. Excavation from the ground creates impacts that are intended to be addressed by the

bylaw.

3 6 & 14 Structures is too broad Add to the end "not otherwise permitted under the Mines Act." Disagree. Zoning bylaws may include setbacks from lot lines and other provisions that apply.

4 16 Exemptions These exemptions should match the Mines Act exemptions. Disagree. Mines Act exemptions are: 1) MoTI pits, 2) activities exempted by Regulation (only

MoTi pits at this time); and 3) specific proposals exempted by the Chief Inspector of Mines.

Bylaw exempts MoTI pits. Other exemptions are at the discretion of the Minister of the Chief

Inspector; there are no defined criteria that FVRD is aware of. In addition, even if a mine is

exempted by the Chief Inspector, the activities will generate impacts that are intended to be

regulated by the bylaw. This matter was discussed this matter with MEM staff who advised

that FVRD should maintain permit requirement under the bylaw. Furthermore, the draft

bylaw already provides significant exemptions that are not available in most other local

government bylaws.

5 17c May undercut s.8 Add language to subordinate s17 to s8 Disagree. Section 17 enables the issuance of a permit for existing operations in Restricted

Areas. Section 8 states that existing soil permits will continue to apply. In both cases, zoning

determines whether processing may occur. Section 17 is not subordinate to Section 8.

6 23 Are two separate parcels separated by a road considered to be under one permit?

If it is under one permit by Mines, it should be under one permit at the local level.

Agree. The bylaw as drafted allows a single permit for an operation that covers two properties

separated by a road, stream or ROW. No amendments are required.

7 24 e Should be able to submit the Mine Plan (Notice ofWork) to provide most of the information. FVRD should not be concerned with details within the mine site.

Add: "Submit a copy of the Notice of Work to the Ministry of Mines and add additional information required under this section." to clarify a whole new set of reports and submissions is not required.

Partly agree. Will amend this section to clarify that applicants can submit MEM to the extent

that these materials satisfy the information requirements of the bylaw. In many cases, the

information submitted to MEM will be perfectly suitable for FVRD’s purposes. However, the

intent of the bylaw is to fill gaps not covered by others. As a result, it requires noise, dust and

drinking water assessments and info that MEM may not ask for. Furthermore, it must be

recognized that FVRD will be relying of the certifications of registered professionals for the

purposes of bylaw permitting and administration, so the materials submitted must address

this.

143

2


Section Issue Proposed Correction Comments

8 25 Requirements for certification may make it impossible to find a QP willing to sign that the plan will "ensure" compliance.

See our comments on noise control, dust control and drinking water. Partly agree. The bylaw will be amended to clarify that, at the time of permitting, the

professional is only being asked to certify that their plan, if followed, will ensure operations

meet bylaw requirements. After issuance of the permit, annual reports from a professional

are required to assess whether the operation is in substantial compliance with the permit and

the bylaw based on monitoring data and observed facts. We believe these are reasonable and

practical things to ask of professionals.

The bylaw is built on a “professional reliance” model that requires professionals to assess

impacts, develop mitigation strategies to meet bylaw requirements, monitor and adjust as

needed. The ability to rely on professionals is fundamental to this approach. The benefit of a

professional reliance model is that it avoids highly prescriptive regulations and enables flexible

best practices that are adjusted over time as required.

FVRD’s current bylaw has very similar provision for a coordinating professionals and registered

professionals. This hasn’t been as issue to date.

The draft bylaw has been referred to APEGBC for comment. Once comments from APEGBC are

received, these provisions will again be evaluated and amended as required. Due to timing of

9 33 ‐ 37 Requirements for certification may make it impossible to find a QP willing to take on the role.The cost of this requirement may be prohibitory.

Consult with professional associations to see what will be possible fromtheir perspective.

Agree. The draft bylaw has been referred to APEGBC for review and comment. Once

comments from APEGBC are received, these provisions will again be evaluated and amended

as required. Due to timing of receipt of APEGBC comments, this may be done after first

reading of the bylaw.

10 44 "unreasonable detrimental impact" is totally subjective. Further, impact is on adjacent lands, not people or residences. E.g. under this requirement, a pit would have to provide a screenbetween it and an adjacent ready mix or asphalt plant. The provision is so broadly drafted, it will be impossible to comply.

There may be other provincial standards which can be referenced, but be sure the requirements are attainable in an aggregate operation with variable topography and view lines. It will not be possible to screen some sites.

Partly agree. The ‘reasonableness’ standard offers some flexibility and is preferable to a

prescriptive regulation. It involves some subjectivity, but within a “reasonableness”

framework that provides important constraints. The provisions is limited to adjacent

landowners affected.

The reasonableness standard requires the Board or a court to consider what is objectively

reasonable given the circumstances. Aesthetic considerations are, however, inherently

difficult to regulate.

It is understood and expected that not all viewpoints can be screened due to topography or

other factors. However, the provision limits application to adjacent properties, which should

reduce instances where screening is not possible.

A policy will be developed to assist the Board and staff in administering this aspect of the

bylaw; topography and sightlines will be addressed in the policy. Furthermore, the policy will

state that this provision should not be relied upon to prohibit an operation.

11 46 This is already covered by the Mines Act. Delete Disagree. The bylaw provision has a different basis that the Mines Act. It is intended to

protect buffer areas, which stem from the bylaw, and to avoid nuisance to surrounding lands.

This matter was discussed with MEM staff who recommended that the provisions be retained

for the reasons outlined above.

144

3



12 47 Likely unenforceable as overly broad. We repeat that our industry should not have special noise conditions different from other industries or operations. Noise should be covered in a general bylaw.

Need to take into account site specific conditions, the background levels, trucking noise, safety mandated warning alarms, etc.

Partly agree. Will amend bylaw as suggested to exempt noise at the place of access/egress (where noise mitigation is very difficult) and to clarify that the noise levels are exclusive of ambient sound. However, we do not agree that a bylaw of general applicability is desirable and is not justified by public concern. Noise complaints received by FVRD primarily relate to gravel operations. Substantiating a nuisance claim involves a significant burden of evidence and therefore can’t be used baselessly. A policy will be developed to help guide staff and board in the application of these sections.

13 50 "a nuisance to any other person or any other property" is subjective and can undercut the specific targets.

Remove language of nuisance and leave in compliance with objective standards. We are still seeking advice on the appropriateness of the subjective levels stated.

Disagree. Noise is a key issue for residents of communities with aggregate operations. It is

advisable to retain both the nuisance provisions and the quantitative standard. The

quantitative standard of 55 dBA LEQ (3 min) was recommended by MEM and is used in some

existing Mines Permits issued for aggregate operations in FVRD Electoral Areas. Furthermore,

FVRD has received reports from acoustical engineers determining that specific operations

meet this standard. Accordingly, we believe it is an achievable standard, particularly with the

exemption regarding the access/egress location.

14 51, 52 Too broadly worded. Deal with surface water discharge by using the Mine Permit limit (25 mg above background). We need to have a better idea of what the FVRD concerns are regarding ground water to recommend specific solutions.

Agree. The provision is too broadly worded. The section will be amended to define what is

meant by contamination of drinking water and to limit consideration to biological and

chemical parameters.

15 56 We cannot be responsible for noise created on the adjacent property

Remove this requirement. Agree. Will amend this section to specify that each permit holder responsible for noise

created within their respective permit areas.

16 60 FVRD reports and advice being used need to be available to the permit holder for a proper response.

Add wording so that any reports relied upon by the FVRD be made available to the permit holder.

Partly agree. Information relied upon in the review of a permit application should be made

available to the permit applicant or permit holder. This operational action is best addressed in

policy rather than in the bylaw itself. It will be included in a forthcoming policy to guide

administration of the proposed bylaw.

17 62 a "relevant to the Regional District's interests" is too vague.

Add "... related to aggregate removal or deposit." The District’s interests should be defined or there should be a period after “Community Charter”.

Agree. The section will be amended.

18 63 The board should not be able to add new potentially prohibitory requirements beyond those stated in the bylaw.

Add language to ensure that all board decisions are based on criteria known to the proponent at the time the application is started.

Agree. This section will be clarified such that that all conditions must relate to the application

and compliance with the bylaw. In addition, the anticipated policy that accompanies the

bylaw will help guide staff/Board so as to avoid improperly applying bylaw provisions.

145

4



19 63 a Restrictive conditions relating to communications with members of the community and adjacent recreational properties and businesses is a violation of Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A local government may not, by bylaw, mandate conditions restricting speech in such a broad and potentially restrictive manner.

Add language to ensure no attempt is made to restrict speech. Agree. This provision will be amended to specify that an adequate method of communication

is required and to ensure no attempt is made to restrict speech.

20 64 e This is vague and potentially discriminatory. No one should have to go through the process then find out they are not going to be allowed to get a permit.

Delete Partly agree. This provision will be amended to clarify that conditions may be more specific,

but will not set new criteria.

21 70 Only one renewal allowed. i.e. max 10 years operation. Not enough in many cases. (a) and (c) do not take into account suspensions which are being challenged or whose causes have been remedied.

Enable indefinite renewals, or at least match that of the provincial permit

Agree. It was not the intention to limit renewals. This section will be amended to clarify this

intent.

22 78 CAO can require a whole new permit application when a permit holder applies for an amendment.

There should be some subjective criteria which the CAO should use to determine if the requested amendment is so significant that a whole new application is required.

Partly agree. Policy will be developed to flesh out criteria for major amendments and to guide

the CAO in making determinations.

23 81 Requirement to report twice annually is overly burdensome

Provincial permit regulations require an annual report. This should be sufficient for the regional district, using the annual audited statement in s 87.

Agree. This section will be amended to only require one report per year rather than two.

24 83 It is not likely records are kept on all sites. Recognizing the such records are often kept in head office, allow a couple of days to get the records to the CAO

Agree. This section will be amended to allow a reasonable period to produce records.

25 86 One stated conversion will not be scientifically accurate for all sites, creating inequities.

Add the following: "…unless the permit holder can demonstrate a different conversion factor for the aggregate from that site which has been scientifically determined by an independent third party."

Agree. Relevant provisions will be amended to allow site‐specific conversion factors scientifically determined by a QP.

146

5



26 97 This is a very broad provision. There may be conditions of a permit where a breach might be so trivial that it would be completely unfair to require aggregate removal and processing to cease until the breach has been cured or rectified.

Normally, there should be a provision that gives notice to theoperator that FVRD considers there has been a breach and a period of time to rectify the breach before operations have to cease.

Agree. This provision will be removed.

27 102 a It should not be left to the operator to guess which enactments it must comply with strictly in order to avoid the revocation and suspension of a permit.

“another related enactment” should be defined.

Agree. This provision will be amended to limit application to the Local Government Act only.

28 102 d “the permit was issued in error;” We don’t know what this means. Is this supposed to mean that if the FVRD decides later on that they should not have issued a permit that it was “issued in error”?

This is too broad and must be defined. Agree. This provision will be deleted.

29 103 Overly broad to the point it could be used to prohibit.

Limit the Board's ability to impose requirements that go beyond the stated specifics in the bylaw. The Board's powers should not extend to the point they can impose new conditions that would be prohibitory from an economic, logistical or other perspective.

Partly agree. These provisions relate to conditions of a suspension or revocation. A

suspension or revocation is by its nature a prohibition. Terms are adequately tailored to

address compliance with bylaw, not additional requirements. Policy will be developed to

guide administration of the bylaw to avoid using regulatory provisions to prohibit.

30 103 e If the haul routes are provincial highways, does the local government have the jurisdiction to do this? Probably not.

Restrict to powers the FVRD already has. Agree. This provision will be deleted.

31 106 c Potential conflict with the Mines Act. Mine regulation 1.3.1 states: "Other than an inspector, only persons authorized by the manager shall enter or be permitted to enter a mine."

There needs to be some linking of subsection (c) and the overall safety requirements under the Mines Act that require anyone coming onto a mine site to report to and obtain the permission of the mines manager before being on the site.

Partly agree. The provision as drafted refers to “safe and reasonable” access which should

address concerns about mine safety and the intent of the Mines Act provisions. A balance is

required between the need for timely access to determine bylaw compliance (as is provided

for under the Local government Act) and the need for mine safety.

Policy will be developed to ensure FVRD staff are aware of the Mines Act provisions and the

need for Mine Managers to protect the safety and integrity of the Mine Site. Coordinating

safe and reasonable access to mine sites is an operational activity involving liaison with the

mine manager to determine access opportunities that meet the needs of both parties.

32 112 d Overly broad. Could be used prohibitively. See comment re s 103 Disagree. It is necessary to have the ability to refuse a permit application if the information

submitted does not satisfy bylaw requirements.

147



Fax: (604) 792-9684

MEMORANDUM

To: Chair and Members of the Regional and Corporate Services Committee

From: Stacey Barker, Manager of Environmental Services


Subject: Proposed contract award relating to Request for Proposal No. 14012 for a Regional Municipal Solid Waste Composition Study

File No.: 1230-30/RFP 14012

RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board award a contract to TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. further to Request for Proposal No. 14012 for a regional municipal solid waste composition study to support of the goals and vision of the Fraser Valley Regional District’s draft Solid Waste Management Plan; AND FURTHER THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to enter into contract negotiations with TRI Environmental Consulting Inc.;

AND FINALLY THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to execute a contract with TRI Environmental Consutling Inc. in an amount not to exceed $200,000 (exclusive of taxes) subject to successful contract negotiations.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Strategies outlined in the Fraser Valley Regional District’s (FVRD) draft Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) support conducting a comprehensive municipal solid waste composition study. In anticipation of approval of the Plan from the Minister of Environment, to build a strong business case, and to move forward toward developing a Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility in the FVRD, the composition study is an important first step. Before future waste diversion programs can be designed, the information a waste composition study provides is essential. The multi-season study allows the FVRD to gain a current and detailed understanding of the composition, origin and contributing streams (including residents, businesses, institutions and light industry) of the municipal solid waste (MSW) managed within the Regional District.

BACKGROUND: Data collected from the waste composition audit will establish a baseline for future monitoring and provide the necessary analytical data which will be critical in the development and implementation of

148

Page | 2

the waste reduction strategies outlined in the FVRD’s draft SWMP that is currently before the Minister of Environment awaiting approval.

Most regional districts carry out these types of audits on a regular basis. The FVRD has never done a true regional audit, and the last sub-regional audit, only focusing on ICI, occurred over 10 years ago. Conducting a waste audit of this nature is long overdue. The City of Chilliwack, the City of Abbotsford and the District of Mission, all conduct routine waste audits. Although the data available from these studies is very useful, it does not go into the level of detail that the FVRD required for the implementation of the SWMP. This enhanced level of detail, occurring over multiple seasons, is necessary for the development of Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facilities and is similar to that which is carried out routinely in Metro Vancouver. The methodology for the waste composition audit will be based on industry standards. The information collected in the waste composition study will also be made available to our municipal partners and will prove very useful for informing decisions on their individual waste management systems. The data will be made available public and it is anticipated private industry will utilize the information to inform investment strategies to support the goals of the FVRD’s draft SWMP. DISCUSSION: A Request for Proposal, with a closing date of October 10th, 2014, was issued in an effort to solicit qualified consultants capable and experienced at preforming comparable large scale municipal waste composition audits. As a result of this proposal call, three proponents submitted proposals. The proposals were evaluated based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the Reqeust for Proposal and set out below:

1. Experience running a project for local government 2. Experience with projects of comparable scale and setting 3. Experience with projects of comparable methods and objectives 4. Clarity and completeness of the proposal 5. Proposed methodology 6. Approach to meeting secondary program objectives (customer, accountability and

sustainability) 7. Total base cost 8. Additional costs 9. Overall value of proposal

In accordance with the Fraser Valley Regional District “Purchasing Goods and Services Policy”, the multi-staff evaluation team recommends that TRI Environmental Consulting Inc. be awarded the contract with respect to RFP 14012. This recommendation is based upon the following: TRI Environmental Inc. has provided waste composition services to the Ministry of Environment, many local municipalities including City of Surrey, City of Vancouver and City of North Vancouver, and several Regional Districts including Fraser Fort George, Metro Vancouver, North Okanagan, and Columbia Shuswap. TRI Environmental Inc.’s proposal ranked the highest in the evaluation and is deemed to be the best overall proposal even though this proposal ranked second in terms of price (albeit well within the funds on hand).

149

Page | 3

COST: Payment for the contract will be segmented into 4 stages, as work will start in 2014, but continue until the fall of 2015. The cost will be covered by the Regional Solid Waste Management Appropriated Surplus Account. It is estimated that by the end of 2014, this account will have a balance of approximately $675,000. There is sufficient room in this account to cover the cost of this essential waste audit. The contract value recommended is consistent with the cost of other local studies. For example, the City of Chilliwack conducted a recent waste composition study for the cost $55,000 with a qualified contractor at their Bailey Landfill, over a single season, providing statistically accurate data for the approximately 20,000 tonnes of waste. In comparison, the FVRD’s regional audit will cost approximately $200,000, include up to 7 facilities, will cover all 4 seasons, and provide statistically accurate data for the regional waste stream of more than 200,000 tonnes. The FVRD’s audit will provide more detail and size fractions for smaller material, which is necessary for the development of a Mixed Waste Materials Recovery Facility. COMMENTS BY: DIRECTOR OF REGIONAL PROGRAMS: Reviewed and supported. DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE/ELECTORAL AREA ADMINISTRATION Reviewed and supported. CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER: Reviewed and supported. CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: Reviewed and supported

150


STAFF REPORT


From: Scott Salsbury, Utilities Superintendent

Date: November 21, 2014, 2014

Subject: Dogwood Valley Water System, Land Tenure Application

File No.: 3021-62-Popkum RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to execute a Licence of Occupation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations on lands described as a portion of Legal Subdivision 12, Section 15, Range 26,Township 6, W6M, for the purpose of construction and operation of the Dogwood Valley Community Water System reservoir.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The need for a reservoir upgrade for the Dogwood Valley Water system has been identified and is included in the 2014/2015 work plans, the upgrade includes well pump upgrades, construction of approx. 600 meters of water main and a new larger reservoir caplable of satisfying the current and future fire flow and emergency storage needs of the community.

The proposed site is on Crown Lands and is located on an upper bench on Nickel Mine Road. A recent geotechnical investigation of the proposed site has determined that subsurface conditions are favourable for the intended/proposed use.

BACKGROUND

The Dogwood Valley Water System currently does not have a reservoir or any other means to meet emergency and fire protection storage requirements. Booster pumps are currently in operation to deliver adequate domestic water pressure to the users of the water system.

DISCUSSION

The Dogwood Valley Water System Upgrade design works identified in the 2014 work plan have been completed and the project has been approved by the Area Director to move forward as an application for funding under the “Cananda-British Columbia New Building Canada Fund-Small Cummunities Fund program”

151

Page 2

COST

The cost of the online application for a Licence of Occupation is $1,000.00.

COMMENT BY DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND COMMUNITY SERVICES:

Reviewed and supported.

COMMENT BY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:


COMMENT BY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER:


152


STAFF REPORT


From: Scott Salsbury, Utilities Superintendent

Date: November 21, 2014, 2014

Subject: Parkview Water System, Land Tenure Application

File No.: 3021-62-Parkview RECOMMENDATION: THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board authorize its signatories to execute a Licence of Occupation with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations on lands described as a portion of Legal Subdivision 5, Section 30, Township 25, ECM, YDYD, for the purpose of construction and operation of the Parkview Community Water System reservoir.

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The need for a reservoir upgrade for the Parkview Water system has been identified and is included in the 2014/2015 work plans, the upgrade includes well pump upgrades, construction of approx. 680 meters of water main and a new larger reservoir caplable of satisfying the current and future fire flow and emergency storage needs of the community.

The proposed site is on Crown Lands and is located on an upper bench off the Liumchen Forest Service Road. A recent geotechnical investigation of the proposed site has determined that subsurface conditions are favourable for the intended/proposed use.

BACKGROUND

Currerntly the Parkview water system has a small concrete reservoir in place for water storage. The current capacity of this reservoir does not meet volume requirements for emergency or fire protection storage. The location of the current reservoir does not provide adequate pressure to several of the properties located at higher elevations and many comments have been received by the FVRD from property owners regarding inadequate pressures

DISCUSSION

The Parkview Water System Upgrade design works identified in the 2014 work plan have been completed and the project has been approved by the Area Director to move forward as an application for funding under the “Cananda-British Columbia New Building Canada Fund-Small Cummunities Fund program”

153

Page 2

COST

The cost of the online application for the Licence of Occupation is $1,000.00.







156


STAFF REPORT


From: James Storey, Manager of Community Services


Subject: New Building Canada Fund – Small Communities Component

File No.: 1855-30-30307

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the Fraser Valley Regional District Board direct staff to submit grant applications under the New Building Canada Fund – Small Communities Component for the following projects as requested by the Electoral Area Directors:

Area A: Boston Bar Water System Improvements

Area B: Dogwood Valley Water System Upgrades

Area C: Lake Errok Water System Upgrades/Expansion

Area D: Area D Integrated Water System Upgrades and Highway Crossing

Area E: Bell Acres Water System Upgrades

Area F: As Hatzic Water System Upgrades

Area G: Eagle Road Water System Extension

Area H: Parkview Water System Upgrades

SUMMARY OF ISSUES

The New Building Canada Fund provides up to $218 million to support infrastructure projects in communities with populations under 100,000. The Provincial and Federal Governments will each contribute $109 million respectively. As with previous BCF programs, the funding is 2/3 grant and 1/3 funded by the local government. The application deadline is February 18, 2015.

Regional Districts may submit one application per community in their area. Staff suggests submitting at least one project from each Electoral Area if possible.

DISCUSSION

Following the determination of projects by the Area Directors, Staff will begin preparing cost estimates and business cases for the submissions.

157

Page 2

COST

Applications for funding must demonstrate that the local 1/3 share of funding has been or is being secured. It should also be noted that Federal “Stacking” rules also apply. In other words, Gas Tax Funding cannot be used for the full 1/3 local share. There is a maximum of 50% that can comprise the Federal share. Options for the local share can include reserves, in some cases, or borrowing.







158

The CurrentBoard of Directors

Chair: Bill HumphreysDistrict of Barriere

DirectorsTim PennellElectoral Area "A"

(Wells Gray Country)

Willow MacdonaldElectoral Area "B"

(Thompson Headwaters)

Sally WatsonElectoral Area "E"

(Bonaparte Plateau)

Steven RiceElectoral Area "I"

(Blue Sky Country)

Ronaye ElliottElectoral Area "J"

(Copper Desert Country)

Ken GillisElectoral Area "L"

(Grasslands)

Randy MurrayElectoral Area "M"

(Beautiful Nicola Valley — North)

Herb Graham Electoral Area "N"

(Beautiful Nicola Valley — South)

Bill KershawElectoral Area "O"

(Lower North Thompson)

John SternigElectoral Area "P"

(Rivers and the Peaks)

Andy AndersonVillage of Ashcroft

John RantaVillage of Cache Creek

Ron AndersonVillage of Chase

John HarwoodDistrict of Clearwater

Jim RivettVillage of Clinton

Ken ChristianCity of Kamloops

Tina LangeCity of Kamloops

Peter MilobarCity of Kamloops

Arjun SinghCity of Kamloops

Marg SpinaCity of Kamloops

Pat WallaceCity of Kamloops

Robin SmithDistrict of Logan Lake

Jessoa LightfootVillage of Lytton

Susan RolineCity of Merritt

Al RaineSun Peaks Mountain Resort

Presentation from the Smoke Free Coalition Mr. Jeff Conners provided a presentation on Smoke Free Parks, an initiative spearheaded by the Smoke Free Coalition, which is made up of the Canadian Cancer Society and the Interior Health Authority. The Smoke Free Coalition is requesting that local governments implement a bylaw that prohibits smoking in parks owned and operated by local governments to reduce cancer risk from second-hand smoke.

Tailings Storage at New Gold Mine

Mr. Scott Davidson, Environment and Social Responsibility Manager at the New Afton Mine, and Mr. Matt Davis, Project Engineer, provided a presentation about the New Afton Tailings Facility. They highlighted how New Gold Inc. has closely followed the tailings-storage regulations established by the province and continues to have a strict schedule for monitoring and reporting.

OCP for Cherry Creek & Savona Adopted

Cherry Creek–Savona Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 2472 was adopted. Bylaw 2472 has now replaced Bylaw 1447 as the new OCP for the Kamloops Lake area, including the unincorporated communities of Cherry Creek, Tobiano and Savona. This OCP captures residents’ collective goals, the communities’ vision for the future, and timely policies to implement the plan’s renewed long-range objectives.

Six Electoral Areas to Require an Election

Nominations for the office of Director for

each of the 10 TNRD electoral areas closed at 4 p.m. on Friday, October 10. In six of the TNRD’s electoral areas, two candidates were nominated and elections will be held in those areas on November 15. Only one candidate was nominated in each of the remaining four electoral areas and those candidates have been declared elected by acclamation.

Westwold Legion To Receive Energy Conserving Upgrades

The Westwold Legion Hall will receive upgrades to the doors, roof and insulation thanks to $40,000 of Federal Gas Tax – Community Works Fund component revenues allocated to Electoral Area “L” (Grasslands).

Village of Clinton to Receive HVAC System Upgrade

The Village of Clinton office will receive upgrades to the HVAC system thanks to $15,000 from the Federal Gas Tax Revenues – Community Works Fund component allocated to Electoral Area “E” (Bonaparte Plateau).

Gas Tax Funds Assist with Development of Septage Receiving Facility in the North Thompson

Up to $20,000 of Federal Gas Tax – Community Works Fund revenue allocated to Electoral Area “O” (Thompson Headwaters) was approved to assist in funding the development of the septage receiving facility in Barriere, which will serve the North Thompson Valley.

Audit Committee Meeting — Wednesday, November 5 at 10:30 a.m.Policy Review Committee Meeting — Wednesday, November 5 at 1:30 p.m.

Thompson Regional Hospital District Meeting — Thursday, November 6 at 9 a.m.Regular Board of Directors Meeting — Thursday, November 6 at 1:15 p.m.

Highlights from the Thompson-Nicola Regional DistrictBoard of Directors’ Meeting of October 23, 2014

http://www.facebook.com/thompson.nicola.regional.district

http://www.twitter.com/TNRD

159








(Bonaparte Plateau)


(Blue Sky Country)




(Grasslands)
























Funds Provided to Western Canada Theatre for the 2015-16 Season

Ms. Lori Marchand provided a presentation on behalf of Western Canada Theatre and requested that the TNRD provide funds to support the theatre company’s 2015-16 season. The Board resolved to provide the funding in the amount of $3,200 to be funded from each of the 10 electoral areas.

Consistent Remuneration for TNRD’s Volunteer Fire Departments

Blackpool, Pritchard and Vavenby Vol-unteer Fire Departments each had their own remuneration scales as set by bylaw. Amendments were approved to move to equitable and consistent remuneration for the three fire departments.

Bylaws Adopted to Authorize Borrowing for a New Fire Hall for Paul Lake

Approval has been received from the Inspector of Municipalities for the adoption of the bylaws establishing the Paul Lake fire protection financial contribution service and authorizing borrowing of up to $260,000 for construction of a fire hall. The Board adopted the Paul Lake Fire Protection Financial Contribution Service Area Establishment Bylaw No. 2476, 2014, and Paul Lake Fire Protection Loan Authorization Bylaw No. 2477, 2014, to move forward with the process.

Committee Meeting Schedule Approved

The 2015 committee meeting schedule was approved by the Board for 10 of the TNRD’s standing and select committees.

Assent Process Approved for Black Pines Community Water System

Staff were authorized to carry out an assent process by petitioning property owners within the Black Pines Community Water System service area for approval to borrow up to $460,000. This sum will represent one-third contribution toward the $1.35 million cost of building a new intake, subject to successful application for a Building Canada Funding grant in the amount of $900,000.

Funding Provided to Success By Six

Discretionary funds from Electoral Area “B” in the amount of $3,000 was approved for the re-carpeting of a space used for community programs by Success By Six.

Provisional Financial Plan Adopted

Through Bylaw No. 2488, the TNRD 2015-19 Provisional Financial Plan was adopted. The 2015 Provisional Budget estimates a tax requisition of $23,647,663. This represents an overall decrease of 0.85 per cent, or $202,202, from the 2014 annual budget of $23,849,866. The Provisional Budget also includes setting aside $1,134,572 into operating reserves for anticipated future needs.

Emergency Management and Protective Services Committee — Thursday, November 20, at 10 a.m.Regular Board of Directors Meeting — Thursday, November 20, at 1:15 p.m.

Highlights from the Thompson-Nicola Regional DistrictBoard of Directors’ Meeting of November 6, 2014



160








(Bonaparte Plateau)


(Blue Sky Country)




(Grasslands)
























Update on Hydro Power Projects from Sorgent.e CEO

Mr. Lucas de Haro, CEO of Sorgent.e Hydro Canada Corporation, provided a presentation on the proposed Serpentine and Clemina hydro power projects. Both projects are run-of-the-river hydro-generation dams that are being proposed for construction in Electoral Area “B” (Thompson Headwaters). Should the projects come to fruition, they are expected to bring the equivalent of nearly 400 full-time jobs and approximately $2 million in direct and indirect economic development to the area.

CN Bunkhouse Connects to Blue River Community Water System

Blue River Community Water System Service Area Amendment Bylaw No. 2487, 2014, was adopted by the Board. The bylaw allows for the extension of water service from the Blue River Community Water System to a bunk house that CN is currently constructing, which is located adjacent to the existing water system area.

Pritchard Fire Hall Receives $77,000

There are sufficient funds in the Pritchard Fire Protection Reserve Fund to allow for an expenditure of $77,000 for the expansion of the Pritchard Fire Hall. To authorize the expenditure, the Board adopted Pritchard Fire Protection Reserve Fund Expenditure Bylaw No. 2495, 2014.

Board Policies Updated

The following new Board Policies were adopted for inclusion in the Board Policy Manual:• UBCM Meeting Requests Policy• Appeal Policy • Bylaw Enforcement Investigations Policy• Community Clean-Up PolicyThe following Board Policies were amended:• Flag Protocol Policy (1.4.1)• Discretionary Funds Policy (5.1.4)• Service Establishment Policy (6.1.1)• Directors Mobile Computers Policy (3.1.1)The Goods and Services Procurement Policy was repealed.

Change to Gas-Tax Funding Formula

Starting in 2015, five per cent of the Federal Gas Tax — Community Works Fund proceeds received by the TNRD will be set aside for a global pooled fund available to all Electoral Areas. The remaining 95 per cent will continue to be allocated to each Electoral Area using the current methodology.

Upgrades for the Blue River Community Water System

A transfer of $70,000 from Electoral Area “L” to Electoral Area “B” in Gas Tax funds will cover the additional project costs for the Blue River Community Water System upgrade project.

Inaugural Board of Directors Meeting — Thursday, December 11, at 7 p.m.Sandman Signature Ballroom, 225 Lorne Street, Kamloops, B.C.

Highlights from the Thompson-Nicola Regional DistrictBoard of Directors’ Meeting of November 20, 2014



fraser valley regional district board of directors …and... · fraser valley regional district €...

Documents