INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday, April 2, 2015 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1:30 p.m. AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda REPORTS 2. Manager Transit and Fleet Proposed BC Ferry Schedule Changes (Voting – B, D, E, F, Sechelt, SIGD, Gibsons) Annex A pp 1 – 3 3. Sustainability and Education Coordinator Water Conservation Program Overview and 2014 Annual Report (Voting – A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt) Annex B pp 4 – 8 4. Manager Utility Services and General Manager Infrastructure Services Middlepoint Water Supply Update (Voting – A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt) Annex C pp 9 – 22 5. Environmental Technician Update on AJB Logging in the Chapman Creek Watershed (Voting – A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt) Annex D pp 23 – 24 6. Administrative Assistant Monthly Report for March (Voting – All Directors) Annex E pp 25 – 27 7. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes of March 2, 2015 (Voting – All Directors) Annex F pp 28 - 32 COMMUNICATIONS 8. Metro Vancouver, Regarding Update on Metro Vancouver’s Response to the Minister’s Rejection of Bylaw 280, dated March 3, 2015 Annex G pp 33 – 34 9. Coast Waste Management Association Regarding Restructuring within Environmental Standards Branch Annex H p 35
Transcript
INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE
Thursday, April 2, 2015 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER 1:30 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Adoption of the Agenda
REPORTS
2. Manager Transit and FleetProposed BC Ferry Schedule Changes(Voting – B, D, E, F, Sechelt, SIGD, Gibsons)
Annex A pp 1 – 3
3. Sustainability and Education CoordinatorWater Conservation Program Overview and 2014 Annual Report(Voting – A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt)
Annex B pp 4 – 8
4. Manager Utility Services and General Manager Infrastructure ServicesMiddlepoint Water Supply Update(Voting – A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt)
Annex C pp 9 – 22
5. Environmental TechnicianUpdate on AJB Logging in the Chapman Creek Watershed(Voting – A, B, D, E, F, Sechelt)
Annex D pp 23 – 24
6. Administrative AssistantMonthly Report for March(Voting – All Directors)
Annex E pp 25 – 27
7. Transportation Advisory Committee Minutes of March 2, 2015(Voting – All Directors)
Annex F pp 28 - 32
COMMUNICATIONS
8. Metro Vancouver,Regarding Update on Metro Vancouver’s Response to the Minister’s Rejection of Bylaw 280, dated March 3, 2015
Annex G pp 33 – 34
9. Coast Waste Management AssociationRegarding Restructuring within Environmental Standards Branch
Annex H p 35
Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda Thursday, April 2, 2015 Page 2 of 2
IN CAMERA
That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with section 90(1) (a), (e), (j) and (k) of the Community Charter “Personal information about an identifiable individualwho holds or is being considered for a position as an officer, employee or agent of the municipality…”, “the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements…” , information that is prohibited, or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited, from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act” and “negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service ...”
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 2, 2015
FROM: Rob Williams, Manager of Transit & Fleet
RE: PROPOSED BC FERRY SCHEDULE CHANGES
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the Manager of Transit and Fleet’s’ report titled “Proposed BC Ferry Schedule Changes” be received for information; AND THAT the Chair write a letter to BC Ferries reaffirming the need to align the ferry schedule with the Transit schedule in a more timely manner.
BACKGROUND This report is provided to inform the Board of pending BC Ferry schedule changes that may have negative impacts to the May/June Transit schedule. At the March 1, 2015, SCRD Transportation Advisory Committee meeting it was noted by Mr. Barry Cavens of the Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee (FAC) that BC Ferries is soliciting input on an alternative option regarding the required 40 eliminated ferry sailings for route #3 Langdale – Horseshoe Bay, as mandated by the Province. More specifically, that previous schedule changes put in place for the shoulder seasons (April-June and September to October 2014) as well as the current off-peak schedule running between October and May that saw a reduction of Sunday sailings from 8 roundtrips to 7 would be revised with the 40 cancelled sailings spread over both Saturday and Sunday. In addition to looking for input on whether to spread the cancelled trips out over both Saturday’s and Sunday’s between October and May, BC Ferries were also looking for feedback on what specific trips should be cancelled each day, AM or PM sailings. It was noted that this change has been prompted due to overloads and issues with on-time performance that have been experienced with the current eliminated 40 sailings all occurring on Sunday’s. An email was received on March 9, 2015 from Mr. Cavens outlining that the FAC had provided a response to BC Ferries regarding the proposed changes. In summary, the FAC provided the following recommendations to BC Ferries:
1. That BC Ferries not proceed at this time with wider public consultation regarding the proposed changes and that the FAC will work with BC Ferries over the next few months on possible options to be implemented after the peak summer season. This would include research on ferry customer usage; and
2. That BC Ferries consider restoring the 8 sailing Sunday schedule starting the May long weekend, May 15, 2015 considering this is the start of the spring/summer travel season.
Annex A
1
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 2 of 3 Regarding BC Ferry schedule Changes
DISCUSSION An email was sent from staff to Mr. Cavens and copied to Chair Nohr on March 3, 2015 outlining that staff and BC Transit were currently finalizing May transit schedules and would need confirmation immediately of any additional May ferry schedule changes in order to accommodate such changes. It was noted that spreading the eliminated trips over Saturday’s and Sundays could be problematic for transit scheduling. Specifically, that if the cancelled sailings were scheduled on sporadic weekends we could have buses travelling to Langdale without a ferry connection considering our daily schedules are set for the duration of a schedule timeframe. This could result in inefficiencies considering there is limited value traveling to Langdale without a connecting ferry. Further, this would be frustrating for transit and ferry riders as they would have to pay close attention to the ferry schedule to know what weekends the eliminated trips fall on. Staff and BC Transit contacted BC Ferries about the proposed changes requesting confirmation on implementation timelines. Unfortunately confirmation of further May ferry schedule changes had not been received from BC Ferries by the BC Transit schedule print deadline and therefore the May transit schedule is based on the current 7 Sunday sailing ferry schedule. If BC Ferries does revert back to the 8 sailing Sunday schedule starting on the May long weekend there will be transit-ferry connection issues. The AM ferry departure connections are the primary concern. The tables below outline the full impact on SCRD transit if BC Ferries implements an 8 sailing Sunday ferry schedule. In the event this does occur posters will be posted on the buses and at main bus shelters notifying riders of the Sunday AM connection issue, a website alert will also be posted. Outbound Travel
SCRD Transit Arrive at Langdale BC Ferries Route #1 Langdale-Sechelt
Route #90 Express Langdale-Sechelt
Depart Langdale
Min Wait
- - 6:20 am - 8:27 am - 8:25 am 2 min late 8:27 am 9:09 &10:24 am 10:25 am 76 & 1 min 11:10 am 10:24 am & 12:34 pm 12:35 pm 131 or 1 min 1:22 pm 2:25 pm 2:45 pm 20 min 3:15 pm 4:30 pm 4:50 pm 20 min 5:27 pm 6:30 pm 6:50 pm 20 min 7:38 pm 8:25 pm 8:45 pm 20 min
2
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Page 3 of 3 Regarding BC Ferry schedule Changes
7:20 am 8:00 am 8:30 am 9:15 am 30 min 9:25 am 10:05 am 10:56 am 11:13 am 51 min 11:30 am 12:10 pm 12:35 pm 1:35 pm 25 min 1:35 pm 2:15 pm 2:30 pm 3:30 pm 15 min 3:50 pm 4:30 pm 4:45 pm 6:45 pm 15 min 5:50 pm 6:30 pm 7:40 pm 6:45 pm 15 min 7:50 pm 8:30 pm 9:35 pm 8:50 pm 20 min 9:45 pm 10:25 pm 11:20 pm 10:45 pm 20 min
3
_____________________________________________________________________________________2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 10, 2015
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee, April 2, 2015
RE: WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM OVERVIEW AND 2014 ANNUAL REPORT
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the Sustainability and Education Coordinator’s report entitled “Water Conservation Program Overview and 2014 Annual Report” be received for information.
BACKGROUND The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the water conservation program as per the following resolution that was adopted at the March 12, 2015 Regular Board Meeting:
124 / 15 Recommendation No. 8
That a report on the Water Conservation Program be provided to the April Infrastructure Services Committee meeting for discussion.
The water conservation education and outreach program is critical to managing the demand for water especially in the drought-prone summer months. This program is responsible for all outreach with the public to manage water use behavior from April to October. Its content is developed based on the goals of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan, water usage trends observed by technical staff, and communications needs determined by observing trends across submissions to local papers, social media, complaint reports and patrol observations. The program consists of a combination of proactive (education) and reactive (enforcement) work with citizens in order to reduce water use, especially summer outdoor water use.
The Sustainability and Education Coordinator develops the program and oversees the implementation with assistance from the Utility management team and field staff. The water conservation program represents 0.25 FTE of the Sustainability and Education Coordinator’s workload. The majority of the implementation is carried out by a temporary, 0.33 FTE Summer Water Conservation Assistant, often filled by a student during the summer term: May to September.
The activities of the water conservation program are grouped into two major categories: activities that take place during May to September, and activities that take place year round.
Annex B
4
_____________________________________________________________________________________2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report
May to September
Training
- Training of water conservation assistant
Education & Outreach
In 2014 the Drought Management Plan was updated. As a result, the main messages of the 2014 water conservation campaigns were:
- Get to know and follow the new watering times - Install a rain sensor on your irrigation system, now required - The time for new lawns is spring (before end of June), not summer (July – October) - Permits for extra watering of new lawns are available for stage 1, $35 - Farmers can be exempt from watering restrictions if: they use low flow drip irrigation or
have a water meter. The SCRD will install a water meter free of charge.
Staff use these main messages to reach out to specific audiences and general audiences:
Specific Audience:
- Specific one on one outreach with known high water users, or those who work with the public in these areas (irrigation system installers, landscapers, property maintenance companies, garden supply stores, hardware stores, parks, fields, repeat overwatering customers)
- Poster campaign on community bulletin boards and in local garden supply / hardware stores
o In 2014, three poster campaigns were run with the themes of: new water restrictions, new rain sensor requirements, permits for extra watering of new lawns
General Audience:
- Staff booths at major events and festivals. o 6 festivals were attended in 2014, resulting in direct contact with 310 individuals
and exposure to 8600 people. - Children’s summer camp workshop
o In 2014, one workshop was provided to 30 summer day-camp children and their leaders
- Drinking Water Week Tours of Water Treatment Plant(s) o In 2014, 200+ students and teachers toured through Chapman Water Treatment
Plant
Sales and management of permits
- Permits for Extra Watering (for establishing new lawns), stage 1 only o 19 Permits were sold in 2014 (first year of operation).
Outdoor Water Use Patrols
5
_____________________________________________________________________________________2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report
The purpose of patrols is to have a presence in the SCRD’s water service area to educate about water conservation and outdoor water use restrictions, as well as to enforce bylaws 422 and 638 using the Bylaw Enforcement Notification (BEN) ticket system. Education and awareness is always the first approach with citizens who are being investigated for overwatering complaints, especially during stages 1 and 2. A warning letter is issued no later than one week after overwatering is confirmed as a gentle reminder for citizens. Tickets are issued after repeat overwatering is confirmed.
- Investigation of citizen-complaints re overuse of outdoor water. o 78 complaints were received in 2014.
- Warning Letters
o In 2014, 35 warning letters were issued based on observed over watering during patrols or investigated complaints.
- BEN Tickets
o In 2014, no tickets were issued
Communications
- Communications planning and implementation – for specific projects o 2014 direct mail to all water users (12,000 households and businesses) re
changes to outdoor water use restrictions o 2014 hand out for farmers involved with farm water research (pilot) project (see
more details below) & new exemptions o 2014 direct mail to all households in North and South Pender Harbour re new
water treatment plant - Detailed communications plans, and respective tools are in place for each of the Drought
Management Plan stages - Ensure timely implementation of all public communications related to current water use
stages and changes to water use stages - These communications are done in collaboration with the three municipalities as we
have all agreed to use the same restrictions for ease of citizens.
Year Round
Rebate Program Management
- Toilet rebate program (up to $200 rebate per toilet for up to 2 low flow toilets per households who are SCRD water customers)
o 84 of applications received, 104 of toilets installed as of October 16, 2014. Final 2014 numbers are being tabulated.
Communications
- SCRD Website resources – development and maintenance - Annual utility bill additional communications – development, production, mailout - Brochures or booklets on specific topics (water wise gardening, agricultural water use
exemptions)
Education & Outreach
6
_____________________________________________________________________________________2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report
- Event/festival attendance as requested, or as opportune, usually Earth Day (April), and Banff Film Festival (Nov)
- Annual development of new outreach themes, target audience(s), outreach planning
Data Analysis / Research
Each year the SCRD analyzes a series of data sets to determine our overall water consumption for the year.
In 2008 the SCRD set the target of reducing overall water consumption in the region by 33% by 2020 (relative to 2008 levels). The progress toward the target is measured by the Average Day Demand of water use over the course of a year. Since 2008, consumption has dropped 6.5%. For context, it is also helpful to look at the trends in water use during the months of April through September which, on average have higher consumption than the rest of the year. Both of these measures are examined across all SCRD water systems.
SCRD water conservation efforts are at their height in July and August, particularly focused on customers in the Chapman (regional) water system. It is helpful to look specifically at the consumption data for this system. Note that consumption for July and August (on average) nearly doubles from the Average Day Demand.
Average Day Demand appears to rise and fall with an overall reduction of 6.5% from 2008 to 2014
Consumption from April to September overall appears to rise and fall with an overall reduction of 5.9%
Consumption in July and August appears to be decreasing, with an overall reduction of 4.1%
Water consumption and the impacts of conservation efforts can be further understood with analysis that includes temperature and precipitation. This analysis is beyond the scope of the conservation program – but has been recently undertaken as a graduate research project, specifically focusing on Chapman watershed.
Additional research in 2014 included two small projects which were piloted to observe the trends in water usage in 2 groups of water users: known high water users (with water meters), and a sample of farm properties. Each of these projects were undertaken with a mind to learn about
7
_____________________________________________________________________________________2015 APRIL ISC Water Conservation Education and Outreach Program Overview & Annual Report
the details of water usage, and where needed and possible, work with individual customers to put conservation measures in place.
- The ‘high water user analysis’ is a data set that allows the SCRD to look at the trends of
water usage over time (back to 2005), and by season, for each of the known high water users with water meters (for example: fields, parks, other public properties, commercial properties).
- Farm water research project (pilot project in Area E in 2014, in Sechelt for 2015) was created to learn about farm property water use. Most farms in the region to date have not been metered and hence we have very little information about their actual water use. As the region pushes forward with the two important goals of water conservation and increased food production, and does so during the climate change impacts of drought-prone summer months, it is increasingly important to understand this sector’s current
and future water needs. The farm water research project installed water meters at farm properties (identified in the Agricultural Area Plan Phase 1) in area E. This was done free of charge to the property owners and with the promise to: 1) share data (annually) with property owners if desired, and 2) not charge a metered rate for a minimum of one year.
A note on water metering and the link to proactive education, outreach and communications:
- The communities that have water meters are able to look at usage trends by neighbourhood and community and adapt or tailor their proactive and reactive water conservation strategies according to specific data (currently only SCRD commercial water users have regular reads of water meters. Soon North and South Pender Harbour will have this ability. Town of Gibsons is also metered)
- At this point in time we know that summer water use nearly doubles during the hottest, driest months, which leads us to the assumption that outdoor water use is a main target area for conservation. We expect that there are nuances to this general trend that will be learned once regional water meters are installed and read and that our specific audiences and messaging may shift as a result.
Future Efforts
From 2014 onward, the water conservation program has worked specifically to refine its messaging and target audiences. Our team has observed an increase in community awareness / concern regarding the summer water use following the drought of 2012; we are building on this social capital.
We expect that overall consumption (and summer consumption) will continue to be reduced as our team applies our best data and further develops trusting relationships in the community. In 2015-2016 our team will include a temporary year-round staff person. We expect that this addition of resources to our team will also improve awareness and reduce consumption in advance of the installation of water meters.
8
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2015-MAR-11 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint Water Supply Update.docx
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 16, 2015
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 2, 2015
FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services
RE: MIDDLEPOINT WATER SUPPLY UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the Manager of Utility Services and General Manager, Infrastructure Services Report dated March 16, 2015 titled “Middlepoint Water Supply Update” be received for information.
BACKGROUND
A report on Middlepoint Water Supply dated February 25, 2015, was received by the Infrastructure Services Committee for consideration at the March 5, 2015, meeting (Attachment AA), leading to the following resolution that was adopted the March 12, 2015, regular Board meeting: 124/15 Recommendation No. 6 Middlepoint Water Extension
THAT the Manager Utility Services and General Manager Infrastructure
Services’ report dated February 25, 2015 titled “Middlepoint Water
Supply Update” be received;
AND THAT the discussion of the Middlepoint Water Supply Project be
deferred pending further Board review of the Comprehensive Regional
Water Plan.
Links to the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan and Area A Water Master Plan (2011) were provided to Board Directors by email on March 6, 2015. DISCUSSION
The content and recommendation from the February 25, 2015, staff report concerning Middlepoint water supply expansion remain current and unchanged.
Annex C
9
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2015-MAR-05 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint Water Supply Update.docx
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 25, 2015
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – March 5, 2015
FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services Bryan Shoji, General Manager, Infrastructure Services
RE: MIDDLEPOINT WATER SUPPLY UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the Manager of Utility Services and General Manager, Infrastructure Services Report dated February 25, 2015 titled “Middlepoint Water Supply Update” be received. AND THAT the Middlepoint Water Supply project be considered during the next update of the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan. BACKGROUND
In October 2007 there was a petition request received by the SCRD to supply Regional water to the Lower Middlepoint area (49 parcels from Mercer Road to Iska Road). Subsequent to that request, some preliminary engineering and costing were completed and two staff reports (see Attachment ‘A’) were presented at the September and October 2009 Infrastructure Services Committee meetings with a recommendation to present the report to the Lower Middlepoint residents. At the regular Board meeting of September 10, 2009, the following resolution was adopted: 377/09 Recommendation No. 21 Lower Middle Point Water Supply
THAT the staff report entitled “Lower Middle Point Water Supply” be received;
AND THAT staff present this report to the Lower Middle Point community to determine if there is adequate support for this project;
AND THAT a copy of this report be sent to Nicholas Simons for his information;
AND FURTHER THAT discussion on this matter be deferred to the October 2009 Infrastructure Services Committee meeting.
Attachment AA
10
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Regarding Middlepoint Water Supply Update Page 2 of 2
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2015-MAR-05 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint Water Supply Update.docx
At the regular Board meeting of November 12, 2009, the following resolution was adopted:
THAT the Manager of Utility Services’ and General Manager of Corporate Services’ report entitled “Middlepoint Watermain Extension - Funding” be received;
AND THAT staff be directed to present this second report regarding Middlepoint Watermain Extension to the Lower Middlepoint community;
AND THAT the funding options presented in this report form the basis for a Board Policy related to funding water service extensions;
AND FURTHER THAT staff clarify in their presentation that the community must choose only one of the presented options.
The report’s findings were presented at an Open House at Coopers Green Hall on March 13, 2010 where 16 residents attended (see Attachment ‘B’). Staff outlined the area under consideration for Regional water service and the cost recovery options available to the residents for the $2.4 million (2009 dollars) project. Staff outlined the next step in the process being provision of a formal petition for service that would be produced by Regional District staff and circulated by the proponents to the residents. Staff advised the property owners to discuss the information amongst themselves and advise the SCRD of their preferred cost recovery option and confirm their desire to move to formal petition. No further response has been received from the property owners concerning the petition.
DISCUSSION
Correspondence has recently been received from two residents of the Middlepoint area requesting that the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) again consider the provision of water supply to this area. The original request for water supply to the Middlepoint area was for approximately 25% of the overall subject area with an estimated cost of $2.4 million. The recent letters are requesting water supply for the entire general area which is between the Regional Water System and the South Pender Water System. A preliminary cost estimate for this extended service is between $10 and $15 million, subject to detailed engineering design. This project is not identified in the Comprehensive Regional Water Plan (CRWP). Over $36 million of projects are identified in the CRWP to service the needs of the entire region over the next 25 years. If the Middlepoint watermain extension initiative is a priority, it is recommended that the Board consider this project during the next update of the CRWP.
11
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 2, 2009
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee –, September 3, 2009
THAT the staff report entitled “Lower Middle Point Water Supply” be received by the Infrastructure Services Committee for information. AND THAT Infrastructure Services staff be directed to present this report to the Lower Middle Point community to determine if there is adequate support for this project. BACKGROUND
At the regular Board meeting of November 8, 2007, the following Board resolution (546/07) was adopted; Recommendation No. 13 – Lower Middlepoint Area Water Supply
THAT the letters from Director Rees, and the letter from Lori S. Pickering dated October 22, 2007 regarding the petitions associated with Ms. Pickering’s “Access to Drinking Water Petition” and Map, be received;
AND THAT staff have the package of information put in the infrastructure system to service Donnelly Road as soon as possible;
AND THAT a feasibility study be completed prior to applying for grant funding for the extension; on the understanding that if the project does not proceed, costs for the feasibility study will be funded from gas tax revenues for Areas A and B.
Attachment A
12
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Middle Point Water Supply Page 2 of 4
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-SEP-02 ISC Staff Report - Lower Middlepoint Water Supply.doc
DISCUSSION
Infrastructure staff has proceeded with conducting the feasibility study to supply Chapman water to the Lower Middle Point area and have developed options for funding this project. Middle point area residents representing 37 of 49 properties that would benefit from the proposed water main extension signed a petition to have Sunshine Coast Regional District water service extended to their area. The issue driving this request was the lack of safe potable water. The Middle Point area has little surface water, shallow soils with bedrock at or near the surface for much of the area. Most properties have wells drilled into the bedrock that have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic that require residents to install expensive in-house treatment systems, buy bulk water or use the contaminated water increasing the risk of serious health problems. Proposed Extension Based on a hydraulic review of the proposed water main extension for the Middle Point Area, it was determined that a 250mm main line and a balancing reservoir would be required to provide for adequate fire flows and peak hourly flows. The water main extension will consist of a 250 ductile iron water main extending from the existing 250mm water main at the North end of Mercer Road on Highway 101 to Iska Road with 200mm water distribution mains branching into Donnelly Drive and Iska Road. A total of 4.3 Kilometers of piping will be required for this project and a 100,000 gallon reservoir is required and would likely be located on Iska Road, east of the Highway with a top elevation of 92.5m to match the existing Secret Cove reservoir. The extension will be able to serve 49 existing parcels along the proposed water main route. A sketch of the proposed water main and properties to be served is attached in Appendix “A”.
Cost Recovery In 2004, the Board approved framework for a policy to extend water servicing to new areas. Based on this policy framework, the Board adopted a recommendation to recover costs for the Mercer Road water main extension financed by the SCRD through an amendment in the Sunshine Coast Regional District Revised Water Rates and Regulation Bylaw No. 422 to include a separate schedule for collecting an additional connection fee for the properties benefitting from a water main extension. The fee is collected when the property owner applies for a water service connection or a subdivision is created that requires connections. This method has a specified time period for cost recovery and the costs per connection were based on an estimate of the existing and future potential parcels that could be connected to the water system over this specific time period. The proposed Middlepoint water main extension could be funded following the same framework as the Mercer Road extension. Based on experience from the Mercer Road Project, staff recommends that the time period for repayment of the project be over a twenty year period.
13
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Middle Point Water Supply Page 3 of 4
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-SEP-02 ISC Staff Report - Lower Middlepoint Water Supply.doc
The following connections are expected over the twenty year period. Total Number of
Parcels that would potentially be served by the proposed water main extension
Estimated number of parcels connected to the water system over a twenty year period
. Number of existing parcels that could be serviced by the water main extension. 41 parcels are built on
49 49
Based on current zoning and elevation limitations, the estimated number of new parcels that could be created by subdivision and be serviced in the future by the proposed water main extension
53 24 *
Total number of parcels
102 73
* Based on approximately 2% annual growth.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS It is anticipated there will be full recovery of the costs over a twenty year period with annual interest charges added to the unit water connection fee to offset the financial costs of carrying the project costs. The cost per parcel would be calculated by dividing the estimated existing and potential new lots that would connected to the water system by the total costs of the water main extension. The Sunshine Coast Regional District has two options for financing this project, which is with or without a government grant. The total estimated cost of this project is $2,400,000. Using the above formula, the following estimated unit fees would need to be charged for full recovery. In either option, the property owner would also be required to pay the standard fee for installing a water service connection as well as the Unit Connection Fee. Option 1 – No Government Grant Total Estimated Cost $2,400,000 Total number of potential connections 73
(Over a twenty year period) Unit Connection fee = Total cost divided by 73 = $32,900
Option 2 – With a Government Grant providing funding for 2/3rd’s of the project.
14
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Middle Point Water Supply Page 4 of 4
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-SEP-02 ISC Staff Report - Lower Middlepoint Water Supply.doc
Total Estimated Cost $2,400,000 Total Estimated Cost less Grant $800,000 Total number of potential connections 73
(Over a twenty year period) Unit Connection fee = Total cost divided by73 = $10,960 Financial costs of carrying the debt have not been included in the above estimates.
Summary The Lower Middle Point Water Supply project would be self financed with cost recovery by existing properties and future subdivision of Lands. The project would be funded initially by the SCRD through the SCRD Regional Water Service Function however it will require significant resources if constructed and the cost of carrying the financial burden for Option 1 will be significant for the Regional Water Budget. There are no guarantees that costs will be recovered in the 20 year period for either option. Recommendation Option Two be utilized as the cost recovery option for funding the Lower Middle Point Water extension, making the project subject to receiving a 2/3rd government grant.
15
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-OCT-26 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint WM Extension Funding.doc
SCRD STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 26, 2009
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – November 5, 2009
FROM: Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services
Joan Merrick, General Manager of Corporate Services
RE: MIDDLE POINT WATER MAIN EXTENSION - FUNDING
RECOMMENDATION(S)
THAT the Manager of Utility Services’ report dated October 26, 2009, entitled “Middle Point Water Main Extension - Funding” be received. AND THAT Infrastructure Services staff be directed to also present this second report to the Lower Middle Point community. AND THAT the funding options presented in this report form the basis for a Board Policy related to funding service extensions. BACKGROUND
The following resolution was adopted by the Board at its regular meeting held September 10, 2009 (377/09 No.21)
THAT the staff report entitled “Lower Middle Point Water Supply” be received;
AND THAT staff present this report to the Lower Middle Point community to determine if there is adequate support for this project;
AND THAT a copy of this report be sent to Nicholas Simons for his information;
AND FURTHER THAT discussion on this matter be deferred to the October 2009 Infrastructure Services Committee meeting.
Mercer Road Water Main Extension Summary As a background to funding options to be presented in the report, this summary is provided for the Mercer Road water main extension project which was constructed in late 2005 at a total cost of $940,949, and was partially offset by a grant of $577,454. Based on a report from February 2006 the board approved a repayment option that would allow the property owners to pay a fee as they connect to the system. It was originally projected that 36 current properties plus an additional 100 newly developed properties (within 10 years) would connect to the system. The connection fee $ 2630.50 was based on the total internally funded cost, $363,495, divided by 136 total connections. The connection fee is indexed at 4.75% annually and will continue until
16
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Regarding Middlepoint Watermain Extension Page 2 of 3
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-OCT-26 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint WM Extension Funding.doc
the full recovery is made. To date only 51 properties have connected ($134,697) leaving $228,798 plus interest as the balance still to be recovered.
DISCUSSION MIDDLE POINT WATER MAIN EXTENSION Finance staff was requested by Infrastructure staff to review this project as it relates to funding options for the Lower Middle Point water main extension project. As outlined in the previous staff report, Lower Middle Point Water Supply; September 2, 2009, the extension would include 4.3 km of piping and a 100,000 gallon reservoir. There are 49 existing parcels along the proposed water main route; potential subdivision could over time (20+ years) create up to 53 additional parcels. The total cost is estimated to be $2,400,000. If 2/3rd grant funding was received, then the recoverable amount could be reduced to $800,000. However, grants are not guaranteed and it is likely that any grant received for this project would reduce the chance of receiving a grant for other water projects currently in water capital plan. Staff are proposing three options for this potential project. Staff does not advocate a similar arrangement to the Mercer Road project for three reasons:
1. The costs are significantly higher 2. The Regional District would be required to borrow (except under option 1)for this project
and would need to undertake a public approval process 3. The Mercer Road project has shown that the recovery is unpredictable
The advantage of the following proposed methods of recovery is that the Regional District would not be required to provide internal financing for the project and would be assured of 100% recovery on the project within a reasonable time period. In addition, the parcel tax would be the most equitable as it would apply to both improved and unimproved lots equally. The parcel tax would also be reduced as more parcel are created through subdivision. Option 1: Full payment in advance The 49 parcels would have to agree to pay a proportionate share of the cost prior to the Regional District agreeing to undertake the project (This could be based on development potential). Option 2: Create a new service and finance for 20 years Under this option the property owners would need to petition the Regional District for a new service. In order to establish a new service approval from 50% plus one is required based on both assessed value and number of parcels. Once the service is established the RD could then borrow the funds to construct the water main. The debt costs would be recovered by way of a parcel tax applied to each of the 49 parcels plus any additional parcels created through subdivision. The properties in the new service would also become part of function 370 Regional Water for which they would also be assessed the regular user fees and parcel taxes.
17
Staff Report to Infrastructure Services Committee Regarding Middlepoint Watermain Extension Page 3 of 3
N:\Infrastructure & Public Works\5600 Water Supply & Distribution\5600-04 Water Mains\Middlepoint WM Extension\2009-OCT-26 ISC Staff Report - Middlepoint WM Extension Funding.doc
Option 3: Combined Method Under this method the property owners would pay a combination of Option 1, 50% and Option 2, 50%. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
With out Grant With 2/3rd Grant
Option 1 pay up front * 48,980$ 16,327$
Option 2 annual parcel tax ** 6,231$ 2,077$
Option 3 pay up front * 24,490$ 8,163$
annual parcel tax** 3,115$ 1,038$
Based on:
Cost 2,400,000$ $800,000
Annual debt costs 305,297$ 101,766$
* based on 49 parcels
** to be adjusted downward as more parcels are created
18
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT PUBLIC MEETING
MIDDLEPOINT WATERMAIN EXTENSION MARCH 13, 2010
PRESENT: Chair Director Area B G.Nohr Director Area A E.Graham Manager of Utility Services D.Crosby Manager of Corporate Services J.Merrick Planner II A.Allen Recording Secretary J. Alford
PUBLIC: 16
CALL TO ORDER 1:02 p.m
Director Nohr opened the meeting by making introductions and welcoming the public.
1. Dave Crosby, Manager of Utility Services addressed the public with regards to the proposed Middlepoint watermain extension project. Dave has been contacted by property owners in the Middlepoint area requesting that the SCRD investigate the viability of constructing a watermain extension to the Middlepoint residents. At this time the properties in question are receiving water from private wells. Should the extension go ahead, the water supply would come from the Chapman Creek water system (Regional water service) and would be provided by running a 250mm (10”) watermain along the highway to a proposed reservoir site. A new reservoir would also need to be constructed as part of this project. Staff have completed a preliminary investigation of the proposed area and confirm that cost estimate to complete this project would be in the region of $1,400,000 for the watermains. Approximately $250,000 to construct a new reservoir and $122,000 for water to feed the reservoir. Approximately 30% of the total costs would be contingency engineering fees. Total estimated cost for the project is $2,400,000. Also, you must take into account the “other associated costs”:
Annual parcel tax for proposed new service – estimated at $4,000 per year
Cost to bring waterline from SCRD connection onto property to dwelling – this cost would differ with each property but you could be looking at possibly $20,000
Attachment B
19
Annual user fee – SCRD annual water user fee for 2010 is $191.45
Installation of pressure system (only applicable to parcels east of the highway)
The proposed extension would service all properties along the highway on the water side (maps were provided to show the properties that could be included). It is possible that the properties on the east side could be serviced but this service could not cover new subdivisions. Properties in question could possibly install a pressure system to pump the water up the hill, but would need each lot individually assessed by an engineer to determine.
2. Andrew Allen, Planner II addressed the public from a planning perspective. He explained the existing zoning and bylaws in the affected areas which fall under both electoral areas A and B. Andrew advised that if this watermain extension goes through, this could lead to property owners in this area applying for subdivisions. The property owners in Electoral Area A would also be in a position to request re-zoning as the OCP supports 4,000 square metre parcels in waterfront areas, and amendments to the bylaw which could allow for much smaller subdivision lots than are existing. The parcel sizes for subdivision purposes are different in both electoral areas providing for different density provisions.
3. Joan Merrick, Manager of Corporate Services addressed the financial details of this proposed new service. Joan advised that to proceed with this watermain extension legislation states that support would be required from a minimum of 50% of property owners, and minimum 50% of assessed property values. The next step of the property owners is to decide if they wish to petition the SCRD to request that this service be implemented. The petition question will be drafted by the SCRD and provided to the proponents for distribution (Lori Pickering). If the petition is successful and the estimated costs of construction is $2,400,000 there are two options for funding this project:
a. Pay up front – approximately $49,000 as a one time payment from each property owner in the proposed service area
b. Borrow – the SCRD would borrow the $2,400,000 on behalf of the property owners and the property owners would re-pay this loan to the SCRD (would need to establish a new parcel tax) at a rate of approximately $4,000 annually for up to 20 years (this rate could be reduced depending on future subdivisions of the affected lots)
Joan also advised that the costs payable by the property owners could be significantly reduced if the SCRD were to be successful with a grant application for this project. 2/3 of the costs could possibly be received from grant funding. Joan stated clearly that there is no guarantee that we would be successful in a grant application for this project and that there are higher priorities set by the Board for grant applications at this time. Ie; metering, North Pender water treatment plant and expansion of the Chapman Creek water treatment plant.
The floor was opened for questions as follows:
20
Could the new service not be serviced by the existing reservoir?
No. A new reservoir is needed to fulfill this project. The new reservoir would be smaller
than the existing reservoir located in Secret Cove
If the extension were to go ahead, would property owners existing lines be damaged
during construction?
Existing lines should not be affected. Any existing lines would be checked out before
construction starts. If anything was damaged, the SCRD would immediately repair the
damage
Where would the proposed waterline run?
The line would run along the highway where the existing bike path currently runs. The
SCRD would ensure that the bike path is returned to its existing state after the line is
installed
If this project was to go ahead, what is the expected timeline until completion?
We would expect the project to be completed within a year
What about fire protection? Where would you install fire hydrants?
The standard is that a fire hydrant in installed at the entrance of each road (where
possible) and then fire hydrants would be installed every 150m
What if the majority want the service but I do not wish to be part of it, can I opt out?
No. Legislation states that if you are included in the service area and front the water
system then you would have to pay. There is not an option to opt out on an individual
basis
What if I choose not to connect to the SCRD waterline?
You will still have to pay the associated costs for this watermain extension. Should you
still wish not to hook up to the line, you will not be charged the annual user fee (approx
$191.45 for 2010)
I don’t think most of the property owners would even consider going forward with this
project unless we knew we got the grant funding, can we go ahead and apply for the
grant and then decide?
The funding is only offered to “shovel ready” projects. We would need to establish the
service and then apply for the grant funding. We cannot guarantee or speculate whether
we would be successful. If we were successful on the grant application, this could reduce
the annual parcel tax (pay back) to approximately $1,300 per year which is much more
palatable. Although we have based these estimations on the existing 49 parcels that
would benefit from this new service, these costs could also be reduced by future
subdivisions. Ie; should one, or more, of the benefitting parcels decide to subdivide, then
the new parcels would be factored into the repayment scheme. Any parcel benefitting
from the new service (during the 20 year payback period) would have to pay
You say that there are already high priority projects on the burner for grant funding.
Why should those be higher priority than our?
21
The Board decides which projects are high priority and give staff direction. These are
existing/ongoing projects that the Board has given clear direction to staff are high
priority and the Board has directed staff to apply for the grant funding
What is the life expectancy of the new waterline?
With the materials that we use for our waterlines we would estimate the life expectancy
to be around 80 – 100 years
We have arsenic in our wells. Why would this not be made a priority for grant
funding?
Staff cannot answer that question. We do not know how the provincial and federal
government decide which projects are prioritized for receiving funding. But, we do know
that they appear to be very conscious of funding water conservations projects. Also we
do not know if the funding money is distributed somewhat by receiving area, ie; a
significant amount of funding has already been provided to Pender Harbour area, in the
area of 6 – 7 million dollars
What if we pay for this service now and then the SCRD joins this service to the Pender
water system?
Something like that could be 20 years off. It’s just so far into the future that we really
couldn’t comment on this eventuality at this time. Also for the long term we would look
at all lakes in the Pender area to ensure that we utilize them effectively
Could we help swing the grant by saying that we would subsidize the water use by
using our private wells also?
We always like to encourage that you use private well water for things like irrigation etc,
but this would not help the cause for grant funding. You would also have to use 2
separate lines which is just more expense
Dave Crosby advised all present that he feels that enough preliminary work has been done on this project
to be classed as “shovel ready”, therefore the SCRD could apply for grant funding should the property
owners advise us that they want to proceed with the project. The SCRD could have the petition question
drafted and forwarded to the proponents for circulation within about a month.
Staff advises that the interested property owners discuss their options further and advise the SCRD of
TO: Infrastructure Services Committee – April 2, 2015
FROM: Monte Staats, Environmental Technician
RE: UPDATE ON AJB LOGGING IN THE CHAPMAN CREEK WATERSHED
RECOMMENDATION
THAT the staff report entitled “Update on AJB Logging in the Chapman Creek Watershed” be received for information;
BACKGROUND Following the initial staff report on the harvesting activity on AJB Investments (subsidiary of Surespan) private managed forest lands property in the Chapman Creek Watershed, dated October 28, 2014, staff have been providing monthly written or verbal updates on the logging activity and future harvesting plans. DISCUSSION AJB’s Harvesting Activities AJB’s harvesting activities on block CH1 (west side of Chapman Creek watershed) appear to remain suspended. Since January, 2015, there has been no evidence of any activity at the harvesting area. AJB’s 2015 Harvesting Plans Staff have contacted AJB on numerous occasions but have not received any information on AJB’s planned harvesting activities for 2015. As per the Private Managed Forest Lands Act, AJB is not required to provide the SCRD with their harvesting plans. Managed Forest Council The Managed Forest Council (MFC), who regulates private managed forest lands under the Private Managed Forest Lands Act, is still in the process of conducting their investigation into the SCRD’s and Vancouver Coastal Health Authorities concerns regarding the condition and lack of maintenance to AJB’s erosion and sediment control measures at their harvesting area. In a related matter, Staff have requested that the MFC present to a future ISC meeting regarding the MFC’s regulatory role on private managed forest land. The MFC has responded and indicated their preference to present remotely via the web, but have yet to commit to a specific Infrastructure Services Committee date.
NEXT STEPS Staff will continue to monitor turbidity at the SCRD’s water treatment plant and will collect water quality data at the harvesting area if further investigation is deemed necessary. Staff will also continue to request information on the planned harvesting activities for the spring. Planning Staff are currently working on establishing a protocol agreement with Private Managed Forest Land owners and the Managed Forest Council in order to ensure a clear and timely channel of communication with all owners of Private Managed Forest Lands.
THAT the Administrative Assistant, Infrastructure Services’ report titled “Monthly Report for March 2015” be received.
BACKGROUND This report is prepared monthly as information for the Infrastructure Services Committee.
UTILITIES DIVISION
WATER TREATMENT PLANT In February the Chapman Creek Water Treatment Plant produced and supplied 295,044 m3, a 2.1% increase over the five year average. In February the South Pender Water Treatment Plant produced and supplied 25,347 m3. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
4 water meters were installed in various areas of the Regional water system.
CAPITAL WORKS
99% complete: North Pender Harbour Meter Project (2 installs remaining). 99% complete: South Pender Harbour Meter Project (6 installs remaining). Pinning of the McNeill Lake dam has resumed.
TRANSPORTATION AND FACILITIES DIVISION
TRANSIT The May transit schedule has gone to print based on a 7 sailing Sunday ferry schedule as confirmation of changes to the Sunday ferry schedule had not been received by the print deadline. If BC Ferries and the Ferry Advisory Committee agree to revert back to an 8 sailing Sunday schedule starting in May, there will be transit-ferry connection issues. FLEET Preparation is underway to retire the remaining 4 heavy duty Flyer buses and the delivery of 4 Nova buses. Delivery of the Nova buses is expected in early April.
Annex E
25
Infrastructure Services Monthly Report for March 2015 Page 2
PORTS Quarterly inspections have been completed and resulting seasonal maintenance has begun, including ensuring sufficient signage is posted at each dock.
SOLID WASTE DIVISION
The contract for the South Coast Coupon Clean Up Event was awarded.
Through the Asbestos Exposure Control Plan (AECP) process, other materials were identified as potential asbestos hazards and will be handled as controlled waste at the SCRD Landfills. Finalizing procedures regarding implementation of the asbestos containing material disposal plan and asbestos communications plan.
Updating written materials to be included with demo and renovation permits.
As of April 2, 2015 the mattress disposal fee charges will be in effect.
Note: Monthly tonnage includes all material received at both landfills combined.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Ton
nag
e
Monthly Landfill Tonnage
2013
2014
2015
26
Infrastructure Services Monthly Report for March 2015 Page 3
The Regional Round Table on Sustainability launched with its first meeting in September 2014. Four meetings have been held in total, three meetings focused on overall plan priorities and one focusing on the local economy and jobs strategic direction. The meetings have resulted in 25 priorities for 2015 that are in the process of being prepared to present to the organizations that are most likely to accept responsibility for implementing the actions. Senior staff from 25 organizations have participated in the meetings, they will assist in presenting priorities to their own organizations during the month of April. Indicator development is the next area of focus for the round table.
27
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
March 2, 2015
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM OF THE SUNSHINE
COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT OFFICES, 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, BC.
PRESENT: Director, Electoral Area E, Chair Lorne Lewis
(Voting Members) Director, Electoral Area A Frank Mauro
Director, Electoral Area B Garry Nohr
Director, Electoral Area D Mark Lebbell
Director, Electoral Area F Ian Winn
Director, Town of Gibsons Silas White
Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Don Legault
BC Ferries Nathan Maddrell
South Sunshine Coast Ferry Barry Cavens
Advisory Committee
Progress Plan Marj McDougall
Trustee, School District No. 46 Pammila Ruth
Transportation Choices (TraC) Alun Woolliams
ABSENT:
ALSO PRESENT: Manager, Transit and Fleet Rob Williams
5. Performance Term 4 (PT4) Process for fares from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2020
6. Sunday Schedule Review
Points from the ensuing discussion included:
Week days or other options rather than Saturday and Sunday for eliminating sailings
More statistics, surveys, information is required to make decisions
Negative impact on tourism with reduced sailings
Public rely on ferry service for work
Inconsistent schedules makes it difficult for the public as well as transit scheduling
7. Fare Flexibility and Digital Experience Initiative
COMMUNICATIONS
Update on ferry traffic congestion at Earls Cove Ferry Terminal
Rob Williams presented the letter sent to BC Ferries in regards to the traffic congestion at Earls
Cove Ferry. He received a message back that they are working on a plan that will be
implemented for the upcoming summer season.
Selma Park bike lanes, west from Highway 101 & Selma Park Road
Alun Woolliams noted concerns regarding that the area west from Highway 101 and Selma Park
Road is very dangerous for cyclists. The road shoulder remains in critically poor condition and
requested this area be made a priority for road construction.
Discussion ensued and the following was noted:
Engineering costs and limited budget influences the choices made regarding what road work is
done. Further work is needed and the hope is that budgets will allow for continuation of work
being done. In the interim, “Share the Road” signage alerts both cyclists and drivers that they
are required to be on the road together.
30
Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting March 02, 2015 Page 4 of 5
Recommendation No. 3 Follow up January 22, 2015 letter to MoTI
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that staff follow up with the Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) regarding the letter sent January 22, 2015 concerning
bike lane improvements on Highway 101 at Selma Park Road in order to increase public safety.
Safety concerns with excessive vehicle speed on North Road and Marine Drive in Hopkins
Landing
Director Winn noted the receipt of a letter and petition regarding safety concerns with excessive
vehicle speed on North Road and Marine Drive in Hopkins Landing.
Speeding in both directions is a significant safety issue. Residents have signed a petition and are
requesting better signage to slow vehicles down. The residents are requesting Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) do more comprehensive traffic studies, add signage
including flashing signs to alleviate this issue.
Don Legault responded that a traffic study might be difficult to undertake this year due to budget
but will make a request. He noted that a request has been made to reduce the speed limit in this
area. The cost of flashing signage is very high and the likelihood of that happening is not very
good.
Recommendation No. 4 Excessive speed on North Road and Marine Drive in Hopkins
Landing
The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that MoTI be requested to study the
traffic volumes and speed to and from the ferry terminal along Marine Drive and North Road;
AND THAT additional signage and other safety measures be undertaken to improve the safety
for motorists and bicyclists on Marine Drive, North Road, Reed Road, and smaller feeder roads.
Progress Plan
Marj McDougall, Community Resource Centre - The Progress Plan thanked the Transportation
Advisory Committee for including them in the committee and extended an invitation to the event
for the final version of The Progress Plan on Thursday, March 5, 2015, 4:00pm-6:00pm at the
Sechelt Band Hall, Sechelt, BC.
Chair Lewis thanked Marj McDougall and the Progress Plan for their input and contribution to
the Transportation Advisory Committee.
ROUNDTABLE
Director Lebbell commented about looking at options to cost share for repairs needed to
maintain and improve the bike lane and fixing the degradation of posts at the edge of the
shoulder in the 1300 block of Highway 101.
31
Minutes of Transportation Advisory Committee Meeting March 02, 2015 Page 5 of 5
Don Legault noted they are reviewing if funding is available for work to be done in this area.
Director Lebbell enquired about speed indicators mounted on telephone poles or portable speed
readers that sit on a trailer. Don Legault responded that one portable trailer can be brought
down from Powell River to be used here on the Sunshine Coast.
Director Winn commented that road maintenance on Gambier Island should be brought forward
as a topic at the next meeting.
Nathan Maddrell commented on a quote from Nicholas Simons in the newspaper regarding BC
Ferries not attending the Transportation Advisory Committee meetings. The records show that
BC Ferries does attend and play a role in these meetings. Members agreed that BC Ferries have
been attending meetings.
Staff Sergeant Vishal Mathura enquired if there is a strategic plan in relation to transportation
on the Sunshine Coast with short and long term goals, top priorities, costs involved. Members
responded that there is an integrated transportation study and 10 Year Plan done.
Pammilla Ruth questioned where road construction stands at this time for the intersection at
School Road, Gibsons Way and North Road. Don Legault mentioned that the Town of Gibsons
(TOG) is working on an estimate for the cost and is progressing on this project. Pammilla Ruth
suggested that the painted “Look” road sign with an arrow might be a good idea to put at each
corner of this intersection.
Chair Lewis reported that the sign that says, “End of Public Road” was stolen at the west part of
Reed Road. and hung on a forestry road. Don Legault will replace this sign at Reed Road and
Henry Road.
Chair Lewis mentioned the problem with the drainage at 1200 Gower Point Road. Don Legault
reported that a culvert will be taken out in early April which should improve the drainage in that
area.
Jon Hird mentioned the culvert drop off on Reed Road and the need for visual awareness for
public safety. Don Legault commented that Capilano Highways is responsible for that area and
he will request that something visual be installed.
NEXT MEETING May 4, 2015
ADJOURNMENT 12:00 pm
32
Executive OfficesTel. 604432-621.5 Fax604451-6614
MAR File: CR-12-O1/CP-16-02-016Ref: ID 5547
Mr. Garry Nohr, ChairSunshine Coast Regional District1975 Field RoadSechelt, BC VON 3A1
Dear Chair Nohr:
Re: Update on Metro Vancouver’s Response to the Minister’s Rejection of Bylaw 280
I am writing to thank you for your support of Metro Vancouver’s proposed Greater VancouverSewerage and Drainage District Bylaw 280, 2015 (Bylaw 280) and to provide an update on MetroVancouver’s work following rejection of Bylaw 280 by Minister Polak on October 17, 2014.
Unfortunately, we are seeing an increase in commercial waste bypassing regional disposal facilitiesand as a result, avoiding our disposal bans and tipping fees, which are in place to help us achieveour aggressive waste reduction and recycling goals and to support a financially sustainable regionalsolid waste disposal system. Our understanding is that similar issues exist in many other regionaldistricts around the Province.
On February 13, 2015, Metro Vancouver adopted a new Tipping Fee Bylaw to better reflect the costof solid waste disposal services and to encourage waste haulers to deliver garbage to MetroVancouver facilities rather than ship this waste to remote disposal facilities. Effective April 6, 2015,tipping fees will be set based on the weight of each load of garbage. The new fees will be:
o Large loads exceeding nine tonnes: $80 per tonne.• Medium loads between one and nine tonnes: $109 per tonne to a maximum load fee of
$720.• Small loads up to one tonne: $130 per tonne and a maximum load fee of $109.• A transaction fee of $5 applied to all loads.• The minimum cost for small loads will increase to $15 with the addition of the transaction
fee
Even with these changes, Metro Vancouver’s solid waste function anticipates an operating deficit in2015. We are continuing to explore additional initiatives to eliminate the deficit, support ouraggressive waste reduction and recycling goals and ensure a financially sustainable regional solidwaste disposal system.
Annex G
33
Sunshine Coast Regiona’ District
Update on Metro Vancouver’s Response to the Minister’s Rejection of Bylaw 280
Page 2 of 2
We encourage you to continue to engage on this important solid waste management issue both
with the Provincial government and other regional districts.
Yours truly,
//
/I I I —
Malcolm Brödie, Chair
Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Committee MeiiVancouver Board
GM/PH/ah
cc: Mr. John France, CAO
Enclosure: Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Bylaw No. 288, 2015
10413400
34
1
Coast Waste Management Association
To: CWMA - Will Burrows ([email protected])Subject: Restructuring within Environmental Standards Branch
Dear Stakeholder,
I am pleased to announce the restructuring of Environmental Standards Branch within the Environmental
Protection Division. As of March 23, 2015, a new branch focusing on Extended Producer Responsibility
(EPR) will be in place and operational.
Cameron Lewis, a highly sought after leader within the public service, will be assuming the role of Executive
Director of the Waste Prevention Branch. Cameron has an undergraduate degree in Political Science and a
Master’s Degree in Public Administration. He started his career with the Province as a member of Treasury
Board Staff, in what is now the Performance Budgeting Office, in 1998. He has served as a budget Manager
with the Ministry of Management Services, in various director and executive director roles with the Ministry of
Energy and Mines focussing on oil and gas development, and most recently with the Ministry of Justice,
Emergency Management BC, in the area of emergency management.
The Environmental Standards Branch will continue to be led by Kris Ord, A/Executive Director and will be
comprised of the Clean Communities, Clean Technologies, Clean Air and Integrated Pest Management
sections.
During the transition from one branch to two, there will be some minor shifting of work within each of the
branches and I have asked that staff keep you apprised of these shifts as they occur.
Extended Producer Responsibility is a very important program within the Ministry. This restructuring will
provide the program with leadership and capacity for the future.
I look forward to working with all of you as we move EPR forward in BC.
