INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE

Transcription

1 INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE Thursday October 4, 2012 SCRD Board Room, 1975 Field Road, Sechelt, BC AGENDA CALL TO ORDER 1:30 pm AGENDA 1. Adoption of the Agenda. MINUTES PETITIONS AND DELEGATIONS 2. BC Transit Update and Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference Annex A P1-24 REPORTS 3. Manager of Transportation and Facilities Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference 4. Manager of Transportation and Facilities BC Transit Annual Performance Summary 5. Manager of Transportation and Facilities BC Ferries Langdale Master Plan 6. Manager of Sustainable Services Request for Facility Authorization Stockwell Sand and Gravel 7. Community Energy Manager Cost and Funding Options for Installation of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station at Gibsons and Area Community Centre 8. GM, Infrastructure Services Town of Gibsons Request for Water Service to Lot 31 Chaster Road 9. GM, Infrastructure Services 2006 Water Summit Document 10. Section Secretary, Infrastructure Services Monthly Report for September Joint Vancouver Coastal Fraser Regional Drinking Water Team meeting minutes of June 27, Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting minutes of September 10, Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee (PMAC) meeting minutes of September 20, 2012 Annex B P25-33 Annex C P34-42 Annex D P43-57 Annex E P58-70 Annex F P71-72 Annex G P73-76 Annex H P Annex I P Annex J P Annex K P Annex L P

2 Infrastructure Services Committee Agenda Thursday October 4, 2012 Page 2 of 2 COMMUNICATIONS 14. BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review Annex M P IN CAMERA That the public be excluded from attendance at the meeting in accordance with section 90(1) (X) of the Community Charter XXX... NEW BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT

3 ANNEX 'A' Sunshine Coast Transit System: Summary & Transit Future Plan Overview SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, Myrna Moore, Senior Regional Transit Manager Rebecca Newlove, Senior Transit Planner

4 BC Transit Provincial authority responsible for the planning, funding and operation of transit throughout the Province with the exception of the lower mainland Services over 1.5 million people in BC in over 130 communities in collaboration with 58 local government partners Has contracts with 18 private management companies, 5 public, operating organizations and 14 non-profit agencies Carries more than 50 million passengers annually Operates 81 transit systems conventional, custom and paratransit Owns a fleet of 1,013 conventional and doubledeck buses and minibuses, 17 th largest fleet in North America Manages a $224 million annual operating budget and a $90 million annual capital budget 2

5 BC Transit Model Local Government Plans community, establishes transit priorities and routes Sets service levels and approves budgets Sets fares Provides local tax subsidy BC Transit Turns municipal priorities into transit operating and capital plans Works with Province to access funding Arranges for and manages operations Operates Victoria conventional service Manages capital program 3

6 Services Custom Transit (HandyDART) Door to door Demand responsive People with a disability Links to taxi programs Paratransit Small towns, and rural communities Mix of minibuses, taxis, vans Flexible routing and schedules Conventional Transit Fixed routes & schedules Mainly urban settings Range of vehicles 4

7 Service Background - Conventional Start date: July 31, 1989 Funding: 53.31% Local government share 46.69% Provincial share Operating Company: Sunshine Coast Regional District Routes 4 Hours of Service: Monday to Friday 5:00am 12:15am Saturday and Sunday 7:05am 12:15am Vehicles: 7 Annual service hours (11/12): 18,991 Annual rides (11/12): 510,412 Rides per Hour (11/12): 26.9 (Tier 3 Average 21.8 rides/hour) Fares: Adult: Cash $2.25, Monthly Pass $

8 Service Background - Custom Start date: January 1, 1982 Funding: 33.31% Local government share 66.69% Provincial share Operating Company: Sunshine Coast Regional District Hours of Service: Monday to Friday 8:00am 4:30pm Saturday 10:00am 4:00pm Vehicles: 4 Annual service hours (11/12): 3,343 Annual rides (11/12): 8,149 Rides per Hour (11/12): 2.4 (Tier 3 Custom Average 2.9 rides/hour) Fares: Adult: Cash $2.25 6

9 Ridership and Revenue - Conventional $800,000 $700,000 $716,868 $726,774 $750,826 $600,000 $500,000 Revenue Ridership 477, , ,412 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $- 2009/ / /12 Actual Ridership and revenue are trending upward 7

10 Ridership and Revenue - Custom $18,000 $16,000 Revenue Ridership $17,030 $14,497 $16,463 $14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 7,569 5,893 8,149 $4,000 $2,000 $- 2009/ / /12 Actual Ridership and revenue had a good rebound from 2010/11 8

11 Peer Group Comparison - Conventional $ $ $ $ $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $3.19 $85.83 $4.95 $ $12.08 $ $2.73 $72.90 $- Sunshine Coast Average High Low Operating Cost per Ride Operating Cost per Hour Operating costs are significantly below the average of its peer comparables 9

12 Peer Group Comparison - Custom $ $ $80.00 $60.00 $40.00 $20.00 $31.99 $77.97 $23.67 $72.75 $45.76 $ $14.29 $54.15 $- Sunshine Coast Average High Low Operating Cost per Ride Operating Cost per Hour Operating costs are slightly above the average of its peer comparables 10

13 2011/12 AOA - Conventional $2,500,000 $2,000,000 Actual Budget $2,043,377 $1,908,950 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $717,505 $750,826 $- Total Revenue Total Cost 11

14 2011/12 AOA - Custom $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 Actual Budget $375,581 $331,546 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $20,070 $16,463 $100,000 $50,000 $- Total Revenue Total Cost 12

15 Financial Performance - Conventional Year to date Expenses are tracking below budget by 5% Revenue is currently tracking below budget by 2%. Overall revenue is down slightly due to a larger shift towards BC Bus pass purchases. Year to Date (April August 2012) Budget Actual Variance % Revenue $310,730 $303,762 $6,968-2% Total Expenses $872,660 $831,073 $41,587-5% 13

16 Financial Performance - Custom Year to date Expenses are tracking below budget by 10% Revenue is currently tracking below budget by 18% however historically the winter months make up for this difference Year to Date (April August 2012) Budget Actual Variance % Revenue $8,031 $6,556 $1,475-18% Total Expenses $158,928 $142,506 $16,422-10% 14

17 Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Overview & Terms of Reference 15

18 Purpose: To receive SCRD input to and approval of the scope and timeline for the Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Topics Transit Future Plan Introduction Scope Approach Timeline Recommendation 16

19 Transit Future Plan Introduction What is a Transit Future Plan? A 25 year transit plan that: Creates a vision for transit in the region Guides and prioritizes future investment in the transit system Identifies key transit corridors and the supporting local transit network and infrastructure Encourages transit supportive land use 17

20 Transit Future Plan Introduction Why do we need a Transit Future Plan? To create communities where people can live, work and play without complete reliance on the automobile To ensure the road network is available for the efficient transportation of people and materials To reduce energy consumption and the production of Green House Gas (GHG) emissions primarily through the reduction in use of single occupancy vehicles To provide access to community services such as health care and other goods and services To meet Provincial Transit Plan targets 18

21 Transit Future Plan Introduction What s included in a Transit Future Plan?» Context & Analysis: Demographics, Travel Patterns, Land Use Plans» Vision and Goals» The 25-Year Transit Network» Implementation Plan» First Nations & Stakeholder Engagement 19

22 Scope Project Start-up Context & Analysis Consultation: Phase 1 Vision & Goals Network Concept Plan Consultation: Phase 2 Implementation Plan Consultation: Phase 3 Project Completion Transit Future Plan scoped, TOR agreed and signed Background to the existing service Current and Future community needs, service and market analysis Vehicle, fleet and infrastructure review Comparative analysis with other transit systems Project website developed and launched First Nations & Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 1 Presentations to Town of Gibsons and District of Sechelt Public Consultation Events; onboard passenger and website surveys Vision and Goals created in alignment with existing policies Key transit corridors, route structure & service hierarchy options Infrastructure and resource requirements identified Other considerations and supporting strategies e.g. fares & marketing First Nations & Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 2 Presentations to Town of Gibsons and District of Sechelt Public Consultation Events; onboard passenger and website surveys Draft Transit Future Plan and Implementation Report Present and receive feedback on draft Transit Future Plan Final Transit Future Plan amended and presented to Committee for input and approval 20 20

23 Approach SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee BC Transit Board of Directors Spectrum of Engagement Inform Local Partner: SCRD BC Transit Operator: SCRD Listen & Learn Consult Service Review Partners Report Back Public 21 First Nations & Key Stakeholders Collaborate

24 Timeline Project Start-up Context & Analysis Vision & Goals Network Concept Plan Options Draft Final Report & Implementation Plan Project Completion Sep 2012 Nov 2012 Jan 2012 Mar 2013 May 2013 July 2013 Sep 2013 Committee Presentations First Nations & Key Stakeholder Workshops Public Engagement 22

25 Recommendation: That the Infrastructure Services Committee: Accept for information the annual Sunshine Coast Transit System performance summary; and Approve the Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference. 23

26 Questions? 24

27 ANNEX 'B' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 12, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, 2012 FROM: Brian Sagman, Manager of Transportation and Facilities RE: SUNSHINE COAST TRANSIT FUTURE PLAN TERMS OF REFERENCE RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager of Transportation and Facilities report titled SUNSHINE COAST TRANSIT FUTURE PLAN TERMS OF REFERENCE be received for consideration; AND THAT the Terms of Reference contained in this report be approved. BACKGROUND The objective of this report is to provide the committee with information concerning the Transit Future Plan that is being undertaken by BC Transit, and to seek approval for the attached terms of reference (appendix A). These terms of reference are consistent with the approach generally taken by BC Transit for these types of plans but have been tailored based on the specific characteristics of the Sunshine Coast. The last plan that was undertaken by BC Transit was completed in 2006 which recommended that service between Sechelt and Langdale be improved with additional trips weekdays. At that time service was provided by two buses that operated all day and an additional third bus in the peak periods. This phase of improvements was accomplished with the changes implemented on September 4, 2012 where additional trips were added and we have three buses on the road for daytime hours. The plan had further weekday improvements that involved adding fourth bus initially in peak periods only and subsequently in the off-peak. The phasing in of these improvements was planned in order to manage increases in costs. As a final phase of improvements the plan recommended that a Highway #101 service be operated to/from Langdale ferry terminal every ½ hour. This service would operate in conjunction with a local service through Roberts Creek, Elphinstone, Gibsons and West Howe Sound to terminate at the Langdale terminal. Two additional buses would be needed for the local service for a total of five buses or a 60% increase over the current three bus allocation. In addition to these changes the plan recommended consideration of a number of areas where expansion of the community bus service could be beneficial. These included: Pender Harbour East Porpoise Bay Gibsons/Elphinstone Roberts Creek (north of #101) Selma Park/Wilson Creek West Howe Sound/Port Mellon 25

28 DISCUSSION BC Transit produced draft terms of reference that were provided to staff for comments on September 4, A teleconference to review the document was held on September 5, 2012, and the terms of reference were then to the managers meeting on September 11, Some changes were made to the document to expand and refine the list of stakeholders and to specifically identify the Sechelt and Squamish Nations as invitees to the process. The Terms of Reference require approval by the SCRD Board in order for BC Transit to move onward with the process of developing the plan. Our review indicates that BC Transit has a firm understanding of our strategic and community goals as expressed by the Integrated Transportation Study and by the We Envision document. The finished plan will guide transit service development through the next 25 years. The Key Project Objectives commit to a long term support of local OCP s including the electoral areas and municipalities. The scope of work includes a review of current travel movements and unmet needs that will be based on feedback from the community as well as survey information. A working group involving staff of the SCRD and BC Transit will produce the plan in conjunction with input from a Technical Advisory Team. The First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Group will include representatives from a host of local agencies and community groups who will provide input from a personal standpoint or on behalf of a community group or organization. This input will be designed so as not to duplicate the input provided to the Integrated Transportation Study. A full spectrum of community engagement strategies will be incorporated including: Inform, Listen and Learn, Consult, Report Back, and Collaborate. This engagement will include the use of the Transit Future Bus that is used to promote transit and provide information concerning existing and planned services. The bus provides interactive and educational displays, ipad station, Kid s zone and is staffed by the Transit Future Team. The schedule for this project will extend to September 2013 and includes three rounds of stakeholder and community engagement. The Transit Future Plan process is not only related to the development of a strategy for services but is also viewed as part of BC Transit s efforts to improve communications with funding partners and other stakeholders. 26

29 APPENDIX 'A' Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference Terms of Reference Summary The purpose of this document is to: Provide an overview of the proposed Transit Future Plan objectives and process Outline project phases, scope, structure, roles and responsibilities, and timeline Describe the participation and consultation processes that will be used to engage and gather input from internal and external stakeholders 1.0 Introduction BC Transit, in collaboration with the Sunshine Coast Regional District, is conducting a 25 year Transit Future Plan for the region. The Transit Future Plan is an update of the 2006 Sunshine Coast Transit Business Plan; it envisions what the transit network should look like over the next 25 years and describes what services, infrastructure and investments are needed to get there. The plan will be designed to support local community goals and objectives, such as strengthening the link between transportation and land use in order to support sustainable growth. It will reflect the Sunshine Coast s vision for a sustainable region outlined in We Envision and integrate the transit recommendations of the Sunshine Coast Regional District Integrated Transportation Study. 1.1 Summary of Key Project Objectives To create a long term vision for transit in the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) that: Supports We Envision; the Sunshine Coast s sustainability plan, its vision, strategic directions, targets and actions, including: o Complete, compact, low-environmental impact communities based on energy-efficient transportation and settlement patterns; o Double transit ridership over 2010 levels by 2020; and o Reduce greenhouse gas emissions per vehicle km travelled by 50% by Supports the Official Community Plans (OCPs) of the local governments within the region in addition to other local planning initiatives; Integrates findings of the Sunshine Coast Integrated Transportation Study (2011), BC Ferries strategies and other local transportation studies; Supports key initiatives of the BC Transit Strategic Plan: o Increase integration with other types of sustainable travel; o Influence land use and development patterns; o Identify and establish priority corridors for transit; o Enhance existing partnerships and develop new ones; and o Increase our environmental, social and economic accountability. 27

30 Supports the Provincial Transit Plan (PTP) strategy for expanding fast, reliable, green transit to increase transit ridership and travel mode share; Describes the transit service, fleet and facility changes required to transition existing transit systems to the proposed vision, including identifying improvements that provide an immediate, positive impact, and providing recommendations on priorities and phasing; and Builds community understanding of the value of transit and support for increased transit investment. 2.0 Scope of Work 2.1 Transit Future Plan Study Area The Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan study area includes all municipalities, towns and populated areas within the regional district, even those areas currently not served by transit. 2.2 Project Components The Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan project will address the following: Project Stage Stakeholder & Community Engagement Context & Analysis Description A. Identify key stakeholders and the structure of project working groups and outline key opportunities for review and feedback from each group; B. Identify key opportunities for feedback and review from the public at large; C. Discuss strategies for each public engagement opportunity; and D. Outline media and communications requirements including the use of web and print material. A. Review plans, policies and objectives related to transit, transportation, land use and greenhouse gas emissions in the Sunshine Coast Regional District. This includes, but is not limited to the We Envision; One Coast: Together in Nature, Culture and Community, Official Community Plans (OCP), the Sunshine Coast Integrated Transportation Study, BC Ferries Strategic Plans, the Sunshine Coast and Community Energy and Emissions Plan (CEEP) and other community led plans; B. Review available transit data and collect new data where required; C. Review existing service performance, ridership stats, and efficiency measures; D. Review current travel movements; E. Identify current unmet needs; F. Document current contextual data including demographics, land use, and traffic patterns; G. Inventory existing transit infrastructure and customer information; H. Identify key future travel movements and identify temporal patterns for Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference 1/8 28

31 Project Stage Vision & Goals Network Concept Plan Implementation Plan Final Report Description these movements; I. Forecast service levels required to meet ridership, mode split, and greenhouse gas reduction targets; and J. Review projected demographic and land use trends. A. Lead the creation of a unified vision for transit in the region over the next 25 years that aligns with the We Envision transportation strategic direction, targets and actions and includes significant input from local governments, organizations and the community; B. Determine goals to achieve the overarching vision in addition to preexisting regional, provincial and federal goals; and C. Outline policies and principles that should be adhered to system-wide. A. Identify key transit corridors and general route structure; B. Develop the service hierarchy, identifying high priority corridors and how the local network will feed them; C. Develop a list of facilities required to support the network including but not limited to transit stations and exchanges, park and ride facilities, transit priority measures and passenger information technologies; D. Identify the estimated fleet requirements necessary to meet service demands; E. Project the required infrastructure through the 25-year horizon based on the fleet and facilities requirements for the proposed future network; F. Project the required service hours through the 25-year horizon based on proposed service levels and outline risks related to operating costs; and G. Provide a cost estimate (projected capital and operating costs) for the initiatives identified. A. Broadly prioritize service and infrastructure improvements to incrementally reach the long range vision; B. Identify on-going improvements to occur throughout the life of the plan; C. Identify value added partnership opportunities; D. Discuss opportunities for alternative funding sources; and E. Identify supporting transportation and land use strategies that could be initiated by the Sunshine Coast Regional District to improve the effectiveness of the transit plan. A. The Final Report will describe the planning process, results and recommendations in addition to an Executive Summary tailored to a nontechnical audience; and B. The Final Report will be presented to the working groups for review prior to final approval. Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference 2/8 29

32 2.3 Key Deliverable At the end of each project stage, a summary will be produced for review by the Working Group and, at select stages, by the Infrastructure Services Committee and the public as outlined in Section 4.0 Schedule below. The written Transit Future Plan report will be the final deliverable. 3.0 Roles and Responsibilities The overall goal of the planning process is to ensure the final plan is reflective of community desires. This extends from our local government partners to the public. The project will have four organized groups to guide the development of the plan. A description of the roles and responsibilities of each group in addition to that of the approving authority and partners are outlined below. 3.1 Group 1: Approving Authority The approving authority for the Transit Future Plan as funding partner for the Sunshine Coast Transit System will be the Sunshine Coast Regional District Infrastructure Services Committee and the Board of Directors. Presentations will also be made to the Sunshine Coast Regional District Transportation Advisory Committee to receive input and guidance to the Transit Future Plan. Ongoing communication with the District of Sechelt, Town of Gibsons, reserves and electoral areas will be valuable at key junctures of the process in order to receive their input on the approach and options identified prior to finalizing the plan. 3.2 Partners The Transit Future Plan will be developed via a collaborative approach between BC Transit, the Sunshine Coast Regional District as both regional governing body and operating company and other key community stakeholders, led by BC Transit. The key contacts are as follows: Service Review Partners: BC Transit: Rebecca Newlove Transit Future Plan Project Manager Myrna Moore Senior Regional Transit Manager SCRD: Brian Sagman Transportation & Facilities Manager Cal Bowles Transit & Ports Manager 3.3 Group 2: Project Working Group This group consists of the Project Manager and the Senior Regional Transit Manager from BC Transit and the Transportation & Facilities Manager and Transit & Ports Manager from SCRD. This group will meet on a regular basis and are responsible for the production of the plan and for providing updates to their respective organizations. This group will regularly draw on topic experts and the Technical Advisory Team to increase the group s effectiveness Group 3: Technical Advisory Team The Technical Advisory Team consists of the following: Conventional and custom operating staff including supervisors, management and, in some instance, drivers; BC Transit corporate and strategic planning staff with support from fleet, facilities, marketing, communications and finance departments. The team will lend their expertise and insight into the operations of the transit system as needed throughout the process. This group is led by the Project Manager. Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference 3/8 30

33 3.4 Group 4: First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Group The First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Group consists of representatives of the Sechelt Nation and Squamish Nation in addition to staff from local municipalities, institutions, community and business groups, residential associations and select members of the public identified to have a vested interest in transit in the region. Members are expected to provide open, honest and constructive feedback, and should seek input from and represent their organization. This group will likely meet three times during the planning process. Major stakeholders (e.g. municipal staff members) will be engaged more frequently throughout the process via one-on-one or smaller group meetings. Key stakeholders and First Nations members invited to partake in the Stakeholder Advisory Group Workshops may include but not be limited to those outlined in Appendix A. Given the recent extensive engagement undertaken as part of the SCRD Integrated Transportation Study, it will be critical to ensure that stakeholder consultation for the Transit Future Plan does not duplicate recent efforts but, instead, builds upon previous events and feedback. 3.5 Engagement Approach BC Transit will conduct key stakeholder and public consultation that incorporates several strategies from the spectrum of engagement, including: A. Inform provide information that will keep key stakeholders and public up to date and assist them in understanding issues, problems, alternatives, and/or solutions; B. Listen and learn BC Transit, partners, key stakeholders and public listen to and learn about each other s views, plans, concerns and expectations; C. Consult an opportunity for stakeholders and the community to provide feedback on the degree to which the current transit system meets the needs of the community and what role they see transit playing in their community moving forward; D. Report Back report back to stakeholders and the community the project vision, goals and proposed Transit Future Network that were developed using background data and their input. This identifies how public feedback was used to analyze issues and build alternatives and thereby make contributions to the decision making process; E. Collaborate BC Transit, the Sunshine Coast Regional District (acting as both regional governing body and operator) and the local authorities are considered partners in the Transit Future Plan development process, including collaboration on analyzing issues, developing options, identifying preferred solutions and making recommendations. The final Transit Future Plan is presented to the SCRD for approval. Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference 4/8 31

34 4.0 Schedule The Transit Future process takes approximately months from start to finish. The following is an indicative timeline that will be refined and confirmed by the Project Working Group: Date Activity Owner/Lead Sep 2012 Project startup; Transit Future Plan scoped Terms of Reference (TOR) reviewed and agreed o First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Group membership agreed BC Transit SCRD SCRD Sep Oct 2012 Engagement Material developed and agreed BC Transit & SCRD Sep Dec 2012 Context Review BC Transit Oct 2012 Oct 2012 Nov 2012 Presentation to SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee followed by the Board of Directors Introduction to the Transit Future Plan process and endorsement of the TOR Incorporate SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee feedback into final TOR Presentation to SCRD Transportation Advisory Committee Introduction to the Transit Future Plan process and TOR BC Transit/ SCRD BC Transit BC Transit/ SCRD Oct Dec 2012 Phase 1 Stakeholder & Community Engagement BC Transit Media Launch Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Website Launch Presentation to the Town of Gibsons and District of Sechelt introduction to the Transit Future Plan and TOR First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 1 o Review background material o Establish draft Vision, Goals & Targets o Identify Issues & Opportunities Public Consultation; event(s) & survey Jan 2012 Presentation to SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee BC Transit/ followed by the Board of Directors SCRD Context Review findings Community engagement results Draft Vision, Goals and Targets Jan Mar 2012 Develop draft Network Concept Plan options BC Transit Mar 2012 April 2013 Draft Network Concept Plan options agreed with SCRD for public engagement Phase 2 Stakeholder & Community Engagement Presentations to the Town of Gibsons and District of Sechelt SCRD BC Transit Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference 5/8 32

35 Date Activity Owner/Lead First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 2 o Review & finalize Vision, Goals & Targets o Review draft Network Concept Plan options o Identify implementation priorities Public Consultation; event(s) & survey May 2013 Develop implementation plan BC Transit May June 2013 Complete Draft Transit Future Plan report BC Transit June 2013 July 2013 July-Aug 2013 Sep 2013 Phase 3 Stakeholder Engagement First Nations and Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting 3 o Present and receive feedback on draft Transit Future Plan in entirety Incorporate community and stakeholder feedback into final Transit Future Plan and agree with Working Group Final Transit Future Plan presented to BC Transit Board of Directors and project Steering Committee Project Completion: Final Transit Future Plan presented to the SCRD Infrastructure Services Committee and Board of Directors for endorsement/approval includes demonstration of incorporation of stakeholder and community engagement results BC Transit BC Transit BC Transit BC Transit/ SCRD Erinn Pinkerton Director of Corporate and Strategic Planning BC Transit Brian Sagman Manager, Transportation and Facilities Sunshine Coast Regional District Bryan Shoji General Manager, Infrastructure Services Sunshine Coast Regional District Sunshine Coast Transit Future Plan Terms of Reference 6/8 33

36 ANNEX 'C' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 20, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, 2012 FROM: Brian Sagman Manager of Transportation and Facilities RE: BC TRANSIT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the report from the Manager of Transportation and Facilities titled BC TRANSIT ANNUAL PERFORMANCE SUMMARY be received for information. BACKGROUND In the 2010/11 fiscal year BC Transit began producing their Annual Performance Summary (APS) for the Sunshine Coast that examines year over year performance and compares our system to the average for systems of similar size. The objective of this report is to provide background information and to summarize the results of the 2011/12 APS that was received on September 18, 2012 (Appendix A). BC Transit separates their transit systems into three Tiers based on population within the system service area. The Sunshine Coast is one of the Tier 3 systems with about 21,000 residents within the service area. Other Tier 3 systems include: Cranbrook Dawson Creek Fort St. John Kitimat Kootenay Boundary Nelson Port Alberni Powell River Prince Rupert Squamish Terrace Regional It should be noted that in the case of many communities including the SCRD, both conventional and custom transit service are provided but with different funding formulas as follows: Funding Percent Partner Conventional Custom BC Transit 46.69% 66.69% SCRD 53.31% 33.31% Therefore the custom service attracts a much higher level of provincial funding that is in recognition of the higher costs of that type of door-to-door service. DISCUSSION Over the past two years staff have been negotiating with BC Transit to review the cost assumptions that form the basis for the Annual Operating Agreement (AOA) and in turn the level of BC Transit funding for our service. As a result of these discussions the costs of service reflected in the AOA have been increased by about $200,

37 One of the changes that BC Transit has made involves the calculation of our revenue hours for our conventional service. In the past, the hours in the schedule that address our union agreement on break times for drivers had not been included as revenue time and were not funded by BC Transit. Staff argued that a portion of that time would be needed, even if the breaks were not specifically required. In addition to this the 2011/12 AOA reflected the impacts of the BC Ferries introduction of spring and fall shoulder schedules that impacted connections at Langdale terminal. This most recent version of the APS notes an increase of 2,251 conventional revenue hours in 2011/12 that based on these adjustments. One of the fall-outs of the increase in conventional revenue hours is that some of the productivity measures that are based on revenue hours have shown a decrease. We see this as a correction in the data rather than reflecting any changes in how we deliver the service. Conventional Transit Service Highlights of the conventional service are an increase in ridership of 5.4% and an increase in revenue of 3.3%. Staff have been aware that with the introduction of the electronic fareboxes we appear to be getting less cash payments and more customers electing to use tickets and passes. The cost of the service has been contained in comparison to 2010/11 with only a 0.6% increase. This is largely as a result of lower than anticipated maintenance costs. The ridership per hour has fallen by 7.1% however as noted previously changes to the base assumptions has resulted in an increase of 13% in our revenue hours which as impacted our rides per hour in comparison to the previous year. Benchmarking Our operating cost per hour ($85.83) and operating cost per ride ($3.19) are at the low end of our Tier 3 comparable systems that average $ and $4.95 respectively. Another metric, cost recovery, is a measure of operating costs over revenues. Our high ridership puts us at the very top of the group at 39.3%. Custom Transit (handydart) The performance of our handydart system has improved dramatically since 2010/11 with a 38% increase in ridership and 13% increase in revenues. These statistics are based on actual trip data that is provided to BC Transit on a monthly basis although staff are concerned about the disparity between the growth in ridership compared to the smaller increase in revenues. We would have expected the two to move in equal amounts. Those figures will therefore be the subject of further review with BC Transit to confirm their accuracy. The operating cost per hour increased 5.2% which was expected based on increases in fuel costs. We have implemented service on Saturdays however we remain below budget because the reductions implemented in 2009 are being treated as discretionary service for the purposes of the AOA. This protects us in the event that the Board wishes to expand service that would otherwise be treated as new service and subject to additional funding from BC Transit. The dramatic increase in ridership for 2011/12 has resulted in an increase in rides per hour of 28.6%. Therefore the objectives that were identified in 2009 to address low productivity have been achieved through the efforts of staff to improve the utilization of the buses. 35

38 Benchmarking The improvements in ridership on the handydart service have translated into significant improvements in measures of efficiency and effectiveness in comparison to other Tier 3 systems. We are aware that our service area being as long as it is combined with having one hospital located at one end of the area is challenging. However our average cost per hour of $77.97 is moving towards to average of $72.75 which is encouraging. We have made some gains in terms of cost per ride at $31.99 in comparison to the Tier 3 average of $ In 2010/11 we had an average cost per ride of $39.12 so we have certainly seen improvements in our handydart performance but must continue to focus our efforts on moving towards the Tier 3 average. Financial Performance In 2011/12 the conventional transit service was operated at a net surplus of $167,700 based on total revenues and costs while custom transit had a net surplus of $40,400. The comparison of actual to budgeted revenues shows that the conventional service exceeded the budget by 4.6% whereas on the handydart side we have fallen short by 18.0%. The shortfall in handydart revenues is in part due to the reductions in service from 2009 that are not captured in the AOA revenue figures. The total costs for the service were 6.6% lower than the budget for the conventional service and 11.7% lower for the handydart service. This is likely due to the low maintenance costs that we had in 2011/12. Operational Performance Our service continues to benefit from high levels of reliability as measured by the 99.98% of scheduled trips completed on the conventional service. We very seldom have missed trips due to our efforts to utilize other buses to fill in where needed, and our ability to respond quickly to on-road incidents at all times of the day. Our productivity as measured by the ration of revenue hours to payroll hours is very a high at 97% for conventional and 100% for custom service. Our rides per hour for conventional service is 26.9 which is a decrease from 2010/11 due to the correction that resulted in a significant increase in our revenue hours. The rides per hour on custom transit increased 28.6% in 2011/12 due to much higher ridership. The productivity on the custom transit service will continue to be a focus for our staff as we attempt to move towards levels that are typical of Tier 3 systems. Customer Feedback There are very few comments directed to BC Transit in regards to our system. The comments we tend to get directly are generally related to ferry connections and on-time performance. We strive to provide the best possible service to our customers and have in the last five to seven years consistently made that objective the focus of our training and interactions with drivers and other staff. The very low number of complaints that BC Transit receives concerning our service is testament to the success of our efforts to maximize our customer service. 36

39 SUMMARY In general the 2011/12 APS paints a very positive picture of the Sunshine Coast Transit System. This information provides a global perspective on the service which is consistent with the operation of a mass transit system. Although we continue to be diligent in responding to the individual needs of our customers this APS information shows that we are having success overall. 37

40 APPENDIX 'A' September 18, 2012 John France Chief Administrative Officer Regional District of Sunshine Coast 1975 Field Road Sechelt, BC V0N 3A1 Dear John: We are pleased to enclose the Annual Performance Summary (APS) of your transit system. The APS is our commitment to provide you with better annual performance reporting. This annual report provides you with a simple and straightforward document that outlines performance and notable activities that occurred within your system during the April 1 to March 31 operating period. Our goal is to have the APS to you and your elected officials in July of each year and if requested to follow up with an annual presentation to your local elected officials. The attached document reports the performance of your transit system and provides data which will become the basis for future comparison. It includes: key activities revenue and ridership performance financial performance operational performance, and this year we have also added farebox information on route utilization Over time, these APS s will provide a quick reference library from which to develop trend analysis, performance comparison year to year as well as to provide a benchmark for financial efficiency and ridership. We also trust that these reports will help you with your internal reporting requirements. BC Transit is committed to working with you to improve the transit service quality, efficiency and ridership. In conjunction with the multi-year budget forecasts, BC Transit is striving to keep you better informed so that together we can continuously improve the service we deliver. Please feel free to contact me or Peter Rantucci Director of Regional Transit Systems, should you have any questions, suggestions or concerns. Sincerely, Myrna Moore Senior Regional Transit Manager cc: local transit contact 38

41 Sunshine Coast Transit System Annual Performance Summary 2011/12 KEY EVENTS Key events in your transit system this past year included: An amendment to the Conventional Transit Annual Operating Agreement to reflect the work to date that BC Transit and Sunshine Coast Regional District staff have undertaken to improve the alignment of your regional district actual operating costs and related funding levels The Sunshine Coast Regional District sponsored free transit on New Year s Eve 1. Performance Overview CONVENTIONAL TRANSIT Revenue and Ridership Performance Revenue increased by 3.3% compared to the previous year Ridership increased by 5.4% Financial Performance Total operating costs per hour increased 0.6% over last year Actual total costs (total operating costs plus vehicles and facility costs) were 6.6% below the budgeted costs with the main savings being realized in fleet maintenance Operational Performance Service utilization rides per hour decreased by 7.1% over previous year Service reliability goal 99% actual scheduled service delivered 99.98% Service productivity ratio of revenue hours to driver paid hours 97%, the Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) national average is 70% CUSTOM TRANSIT Revenue and Ridership Performance Revenue increased by 13.6% Ridership (based on actual ride counts and including attendants) increased by 38.3% Financial Performance Operating cost per hour increased 5.2% over last year Actual total costs were 11.7% below the budgeted costs due to underutilized service hours and associated variable hourly and fuel costs Operational Performance Service utilization rides per hour increased by 28.6% 39

42 2. Revenue Hours Total hours of service delivered: Conventional 2011/ /11 % Change Revenue Hours 18,991 16, % Custom 2011/ /11 % Change Revenue Hours 3,343 3, % 3. Revenue and Ridership Performance Revenue and calculated ridership: Conventional 2011/ /11 Change* % Change Revenue $750,826 $726,774 $24, % Revenue Passengers 510, ,076 26, % Average Fare $1.47 $1.50 -$ % Custom 2011/ /11 Change* % Change Revenue $16,463 $14,497 $1, % Passengers 8,149 5,893 2,256 *Calculations are based on rounded numbers which may be reflected in differences in the change columns. 38.3% 4. Financial Performance a) Budget to Actual: 2011/12 total revenues and total costs in comparison to 2011/12 Annual Operating Agreement budgeted amounts. Conventional 2011/12 Budget 2011/12 Actual $ Variance* % Variance Total Revenue $717,505 $750,826 $33, % Total Costs $2,043,377 $1,908,952 -$134, % Custom 2011/ /12 Budget Actual $ Variance* % Variance Total Revenue $20,070 $16,463 -$3, % Total Costs $375,581 $331,546 -$44, % *Total Cost in this APS has been adjusted to include both provincial and municipal contributions for lease fees. b) Cost Efficiency: Total operating costs and total costs for 2011/12 in comparison to 2010/11. Conventional 2011/ /11 $ Change* % Change Operating Cost per Hour $85.83 $85.29 $ % Operating Cost per Ride $3.19 $2.95 $ % Total Cost per Ride $3.74 $3.49 $ % Custom 2011/ /11 $ Change* % Change Operating Cost per Hour $77.97 $74.14 $ % Operating Cost per Ride $31.99 $ $ % Total Cost per Ride $40.69 $ $ % *Total Cost in this APS has been adjusted to include both provincial and municipal contributions for lease fees. 40 Page 2 of 4

43 c) Financial Comparables: Comparison to high, low and average values of other BC Transit peer group systems for 2011/12 (system list at end of document). Conventional transit peer group comparison Sunshine Coast Tier High Tier Low Tier Average Operating Cost per Hour $85.83 $ $79.20 $ Operating Cost per Ride $3.19 $12.08 $2.73 $4.95 Cost Recovery 39.3% 39.3% 6.8% 19.0% Custom transit peer group comparison Sunshine Tier High Tier Low Tier Average Operating Cost per Hour $77.97 $ $54.15 $72.75 Operating Cost per Ride $31.99 $45.76 $14.29 $23.67 Cost Recovery 5.0% 12.5% 2.9% 6.8% *Cost Recovery in this APS has been adjusted to include both provincial and municipal contributions for lease fees. 5. Operational Performance a) Service Reliability: Percent of scheduled service trips completed (conventional transit only). Reliability 2011/ /11 % Change % of Trips Completed 99.98% % -0.02% b) Service Productivity: Total revenue hours as percent of driver payroll hours. Productivity 2011/ /11 % Change Conventional 97% 93% 4.4% Custom 100% 100% 0.0% c) Service Utilization: Total rides per revenue hour. Utilization 2011/ /11 % Change Conventional % Custom % 41 Page 3 of 4

44 d) 2011/12 Customer Feedback: Customer Feedback Comments reported per 50,000 Passengers 0 1 Driver related negative Vehicle related negative Service related negative (early/late/missed) Suggestions & General Complaints Compliments Driver & General e) Route usage: Passenger route boardings as percent of total passenger boardings as recorded by GFI fareboxes. Sunshine Coast Route Summary 2011/12 Route Boardings as % of Total 1 Langdale/Sechelt 68.56% 2 West Sechelt 6.83% 3 Sechelt Arena 6.04% 4 Halfmoon Bay 3.71% Other 14.86% Unknown 0.00% Total 100% Tier 3 comparable systems: Cranbrook Kitimat Port Alberni Squamish Dawson Creek Kootenay Boundary Powell River Fort St. John Nelson Prince Rupert Terrace Regional 42 Page 4 of 4

45 ANNEX 'D' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 14, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, 2012 FROM: Brian Sagman, Manager of Transportation and Facilities RE: BC FERRIES LANGDALE MASTER PLAN RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Manager of Transportation and Facilities report titled BC FERRIES LANGDALE MASTER PLAN be received for information; BACKGROUND On September 5, 2012 BC Ferries staff provided a presentation at the Field Road office concerning the Master Plan for Langdale terminal (Appendix A). Staff from the SCRD included John France, Steve Olmstead, and Brian Sagman. In addition Mr. M. Epp, the planner from the Town of Gibsons, attended. There was no representation from the District of Sechelt or the Sechelt Nation. A meeting was held with the Ferry Advisory Committees for Route 3 and Route 13 on August 6, 2012 to provide those committees with the opportunity to bring forward issues. The objective of this report is to provide the committee with information on the scope of the master plan and specifically in relation to the provincial initiative to seek public input on a long term vision for the ferry system. The last plan for the Langdale terminal was completed in This current plan will develop a functional assessment of the terminal to determine long term requirements and a phased implementation of strategies to accommodate those needs. DISCUSSION BC Ferries is undertaking the Master Plan for Langdale terminal in order to ensure that the terminal is able to deliver service in an efficient manner and recognizing the need to control costs. The plan has a 20 year horizon to ensure that it takes into account any needed replacement of major equipment or systems and will form the basis for determining annual budgets for capital and operating costs. The planning process will begin with a needs assessment that will identify current or anticipated issues and then proceed through the identification of options to address those issues. This process will include input and seek agreement from stakeholders and first nations. The result would be a list of projects that will be prioritized and included in the budget process based on an implementation plan. The project organization includes a steering committee of senior BC Ferries staff that will provide direction and any required approvals. A Working Committee of functional representatives from BC Ferries departments will provide technical support and guide the project. A Working Committee (Form Team) of consultants and BC Ferries Terminal Construction staff will translate functional requirements into concept plans. Finally the stakeholder group will include representatives of various community groups, agencies and 43

46 governments. The dialogue between BC Ferries and local governments will be at a staff level and BC Ferries will rely on staff to bring information forward to their respective elected officials. BC Ferries has indicated that they plan on having a public consultation session in the Gibsons area as well as an open house on the Queen of Surrey in order to get feedback on requirements and identified options. The final plan will incorporate feedback from the public and stakeholders and is scheduled for completion in early Based on the discussion with BC Ferries staff it appears that the terminal master plan is being completed independently from the provincial consultation to develop a vision for BC Ferries. In order to ensure that there are no conflicts between these plans BC Ferries will be incorporating strategies that allow the maximum flexibility to respond to changes in vessels or services. Issues One of the objectives of the September 5, 2012 discussion with BC Ferries staff was to identify issues for review within the development of the master plan. The following issues or concerns were raised: The master plan for Langdale is proceeding largely independent of the provincial initiative to develop a vision for BC Ferries service. Although the master plan will provide flexibility to respond to provincial initiatives the lack of coordination is a concern. The plan does not specifically include a process for identifying community needs but is more focused on the needs of BC Ferries within the narrower viewpoint of the Langdale terminal property and immediate surrounding area. However the public consultation process may provide the opportunity to identify these community needs. Operational and traffic impacts of BC Ferries plan to change to a two-way fare payment system. traffic conflicts between vehicles disembarking ferries and those exiting the parking lot Conflicts between vehicles accessing short-term parking and those exiting the passenger drop-off area including buses. The impact on ferry customers accessing the terminal via the Stormaway and private boat floats who may have to re-enter the terminal at the vehicle parking area. Allocation of costs for terminal upgrades and impacts on Route 3 and Route 13 fares. Accommodation for bicycle and pedestrian movements. Plans to mitigate congestion on the Highway #101 Bypass and other roads. Development of a functional overflow parking area. The potential use of smaller ferries including passenger only ferries. The need to accommodate upper deck loading in berth 2. The need to provide access for walk-on passengers that eliminates delays to vehicle loading. Recognition of the aging of our residents and visitors that limits mobility. Based on the BC Ferries plan terms of reference, staff will continue to provide updates to the committee as the plan progresses and relay any concerns back to the working committee function team. 44

47 APPENDIX 'A' Langdale Terminal Master Planning Consultation with the Sunshine Coast Regional District, the District of Sechelt and the Town of Gibsons Sunshine Coast Regional District Administration Office September 5,

48 Overview Master Planning Intro & Process Project Organization Functional Requirements Concept Plans Phases of Work and Budgeting Scope and Schedule Key Issues 46

49 What is a Master Plan? A concept plan that provides the framework for the phased implementation of strategies and actions to accommodate functional needs for the terminal over the longer term A planning method to develop options to address current and future functional needs Consider and incorporate longer term strategic planning initiatives and innovation 47

50 Why do a Master Plan? Ensure better asset management Implement projects in a cost effective, organized and efficient way Create preliminary capital and operating budgets to provide for coordinated and predictable capital planning Ensure affordability and recognize economic constraints 48

51 Master Planning Process Needs assessment - Identify issues and opportunities At each stage, BC Ferries must evaluate the affordability of the proposed development and assess the impact on fares and/or service fee. Develop possible solutions to address issues and opportunities For proposed land developments, ensure BC Ferries controls or owns the land Seek support from the Community, First Nations and Other Stakeholders Define individual projects for budget approval Proceed with design and construction of individual projects 49

52 Project Organization Steering Committee Provide direction and approval Corrine Storey (Sponsor) Captain Jamie Marshall Mark Collins David Hendry Working Committee Function Team Subject Matter Experts Develop functional requirements and guide project Emma McWalter (Lead) Jason Bowman Chris Morris David Carroll David Fagen Gary Williams Captain Jim Stanton Steve Anderson Wayne Ralph / Greg Stewart Jeff Davidson Bruce Paterson Darin Guenette Monique Joubarne / Devin Ramos Karen Tindall Tony Fenlon Ross Cameron Jocelyne Fontaine Navin Sami Steve Matterson Dale Pace Mike Chanin Working Committee Form Team Turn functional requirements into concept plans Aaron Hahn (Lead), SNC-Lavalin BCF Terminal Construction SNC-Lavalin Boldwing Continuum Stakeholders Employees Customers Gerald Tottman (Parking) FACs Sunshine Coast Regional District Town of Gibsons District of Sechelt Municipality of West Vancouver MoTI Marketplace Vendors BC Transit Translink Blue Bus (WestVan Transit) RCMP Fire Ambulance DFO Salvation Army Camp Sunrise Trucking Association Squamish First Nation 50

53 What Are Functional Requirements? Vessel Deployment Berths & Marine Structures Vehicle Approach and Ticketing Vehicle Holding Compound Vehicle Exit Lanes Vehicle Passenger Facilities Foot Passenger Pickup/Drop-off Administrations/Foot Passenger Building Employee Facilities Safety & Security Other Facilities Shop and Offices Utilities/Miscellaneous Risk & Insurance IT & Communications The functional requirements become the backbone of the Master Plan 51

54 Developing Functional Requirements Develop a list of existing assets Identify longer term requirements Approve the functional requirements Provide functional requirements to the Form Team to develop options and concept plans 52

55 Development of Concept Plans Form Team develops concept plans / options Considerations: admin bldg location, primary operating berth, overhead walkway, capacity of holding compound, location and number of toll booths, capacity of parking lot, etc. Form Team will consider at least 2-3 options Look at concept plans and compare to functional requirements Make sure the right people are reviewing the plans Make sure the options developed are public friendly Review Concept Plans with Working and Steering Committees, Employees, Stakeholders and Customers Obtain approval of the Concept Plan from Working and Steering Committees 53

56 Identify Phases of Work & Budgeting Develop phases of work (construction packages) that can be completed independent of each other Develop capital costs for each phase of work and annual operating costs Ensure affordability and incorporate high level capital cost estimates into BCF long term plans Submit funding requests to CPBC and Board of Directors for approval 54

57 Scope of Work & Schedule Activity Project Start Develop Functional Requirements Consultation - Project Intro Review/Approve Functional Requirements Develop Concept Plan Review/Approve Options Consultation - Concept Plans Develop Preferred Option Document Master Plan Construction Package Implementation Working Committee kick-off meeting Steering Committee meeting Working Committee members identify functional needs Employee engagement sessions Ferry Advisory Committees & MOTI SCRD, District of Sechelt and Town of Gibsons Working Committee Steering Committee Consultants Working Committee Steering Committee Employees Ferry Advisory Committees SCRD, District of Sechelt and Town of Gibsons First Nations, MOTI, Transit, Emergency Services, Impark, Salvation Army, DFO, other Public Open Houses Determine project phasing and budget Working Committee review Steering Committee review Schedule May 7 May 22 June 1 May 28 & 29 August 27 September 5 June 19 July 3 August to late Sept Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall 2012 Fall/Winter 2012 Early 2013 Early 2013 Varies 55

58 Key Issues Fleet Operations Terminal Operations Terminal Maintenance Food and Retail Operations 56

59 Thank You 57

60 ANNEX 'E' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 20, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 5, 2012 FROM: Dion Whyte, Manager of Sustainable Services RE: REQUEST FOR FACILITY AUTHORIZATION STOCKWELL SAND AND GRAVEL RECOMMENDATION THAT the Manager of Sustainable Services report entitled Request for Facility Authorization Stockwell Sand and Gravel be received; AND THAT the SCRD support the application for facility authorization under the Solid Waste Management Plan received from Stockwell Sand and Gravel for an asphalt and concrete recycling facility located at District Lot 1556 (District of Sechelt); AND THAT the Chair send a letter to the Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Branch, explaining the proposed project, and seeking advice from the Ministry regarding the suitability of the authorization procedure set out in section of the approved 2005 Solid Waste Management Plan for this particular proposed project. BACKGROUND Under the Environmental Management Act, businesses or facilities that handle municipal solid waste (including recyclable materials not listed under the BC Recycling Regulation) are required to obtain authorization from their Regional District under the approved Solid Waste Management Plan. This process allows the Regional District to consider new waste management facilities and processes against the direction established for regional waste management as set out in the SWMP. It also ensures that the province is informed of new facilities and processes such that they can impose additional requirements on the proponent for licensing, permitting, or community consultation before operations commence. This is typically done only where facility operations may pose a risk to health or the environment. Although the Ministry of Environment (MoE) is in the process of reviewing and approving the updated SWMP (adopted by the SCRD in 2011), the 2005 SWMP remains the SCRD s approved plan. Section of the 2005 SWMP sets out the process for facility authorizations (see Attachment 1). The purpose of this report is to review a recent application for facility authorization and initiate the authorization process. DISCUSSION An application was received from Stockwell Sand and Gravel (Stockwell) on August 30, 2012 for authorization of a proposed asphalt and concrete recycling facility located on District Lot 1556, 58

61 Lot 21 in the District of Sechelt. A copy of Stockwell s application and responses to follow up questions from staff is included as Attachment 2. A summary of the application is provided below. The proposed site is adjacent to Stockwell s existing sand and gravel pit and would use the same access as the pit via Allen Road (see location map included in Attachment 2). Materials to be handled at the site include waste concrete and asphalt from developers and homeowners Materials would be collected on site and crushed to a road base material for resale as such Maximum expected volumes of asphalt and concrete to be kept on site are 1000 metric tonnes and 500 metric tonnes, respectively Facility would be owned by William and Gina Stockwell, owners of Stockwell Sand and Gravel A portion of the property has been rezoned to I-2 designation which allows for the proposed use (confirmed with staff at the District of Sechelt) Stockwell rents and operates a rock crusher four times per year, which takes the waste product and creates road building material for resale Air emissions are expected to be no more than what is currently being emitted through the existing gravel mine operation Runoff from the site will be managed using existing settling ponds located on the site (product will not be washed and will remain on the property for a minimal length of time) Worksafe BC requirements for silica management are addressed and adhered to by the current mine operation and would cover the proposed operation (i.e. worker health and safety measures are in place to regulatory standards) Fine sediment created through the crushing process form an integral part of the road base product and will not require disposal as residual material The site will be staffed with employees from the gravel pit and personal waste will be handled through the facility s existing blue bin recycling program, a portable toilet and garbage bin located at the office and collected weekly Material flows will be tracked using the same process and scale equipment currently used for the mine site and sand sales Stockwell is prepared to provide the SCRD with annual tonnages of material collected and recycled to assist with monitoring regional waste diversion performance For additional details, see Attachment 2. PMAC Comments The application was presented to the SCRD s Solid Waste Management Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee (PMAC) on September 20, 2012 with the proponent s consent. PMAC had the following comments/recommendations with respect to the application: INSERT COMMENTS/RECOMMENDATIONS HERE Based on our review of Stockwell s application, it is recommended that the SCRD support the application for facility authorization as it is aligned with the goals and principles of the 2005 SWMP and updated SWMP. It is further recommended that a letter be sent to the Ministry of Environment as the next step in the authorization process outlined in Attachment 1. 59

62 Facts Fiscal Implications Interdepartmental Implications (also includes any requirement to consult with ISSC) Intergovernmental Implications Sustainability (refer to policy) Analysis Other Options (include pros & cons) If the document has more than one page, include a header that states the Committee name, the Title of the Report, the Date of the meeting and page numbering (Page x of y). Include footer with file string. Appendices should include the heading Appendix A, etc. and should be listed in the body of the report with a brief purpose/function of the appendix. SUMMARY This heading is only to be used for long reports. 60

63 ATTACHMENT '1' Excerpt from Soild Waste Management Plan SWMP ISWMP) pertaining to amendment of 4.3 Addition or Changes of Facilities The SCRD will conduct an annual review of its progress towards the goals laid out in this plan. It is anticipated that some solid waste management system elements will require modification as conditions change, new opportunities arise, new technologies become available or additional programs evolve to help meet the diversion goals. In order to accommodate the need for plan amendments without always triggering a lengthy and expensive amendment process, the SCRD has defined a two-part amendment process: Changes that enhance or substitute system elements will be made according to the authorization procedure laid out below in Section Major changes in disposal facilities (opening and closing landfills, waste export etc), lowering diversion goals or reductions in programs supporting diversion will require a formal amendment to the SWMP, which involves the PMAC, the MWLAP and the public, as well as adoption by the SCRD board, as described in Section Authorization Procedure The authorization of new facilities or the modification of existing facilities may be done without undergoing a formal major change plan amendment process as described in Section below, provided that the changes are being implemented to fulfill the mandate of the Solid Waste Management Plan. Such changes are subject to the successful completion of the procedure outlined below. New facilities covered by this procedure are sites, structures or activities used or carried out for the purpose of managing solid waste or recyclable materials as required by the Solid Waste Management Plan, but do not include landfills. 1. Any party wishing to establish a new or modified waste management facility shall present an application to the SCRD board. This application must contain sufficient information for the board to be able to evaluate the proposal and recommend its acceptance or rejection. The application will be based on the project s potential impact on the community from an environmental, social, and economic perspective. The SCRD may request further information as required for evaluation purposes. The SCRD shall review the proposal for compliance to the Solid Waste Management Plan, and the potential impacts on the community assessed assess 2. If the SCRD decides that the proposal will enhance solid waste management practices, the board will contact the Ministry by letter. The Sunshine Coast Regional District 19 Solid Waste Management Plan Revision January 26, 2005 letter must explain the proposed project, and seek advice from the Ministry regarding the suitability of this authorization procedure for this particular proposed project. 3. The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection must confirm that the proposed project does not require a Plan amendment, and that this authorization process may be used, rather than a full-blown plan amendment. The Ministry will also dictate the level of public consultation required. At a minimum, the public consultation will be required to include the PMAC and the host municipality. The Ministry may also voice any other concerns at this time. 61

64 4. Upon receipt of the letter from the Ministry, the SCRD must inform the proponent of the proposed project of the Ministry s decisions. The SCRD and proponent must negotiate who is to carry out and finance the public consultation. The proponent must also address any technical issues identified by the Ministry and SCRD staff. 5. Upon successful completion of the public consultation, and the resolution of any technical issues, the SCRD will write back to the Ministry with the results of the process. The Ministry will reply with a positive or negative response. 6. SCRD staff will then write a report to the board with a recommendation on the future of the project. The board must then pass a resolution. 7. Upon passage of the resolution, the facility is considered to be part of the Solid Waste Management plan, and a copy of the resolution shall be forwarded to the Minister. 62

65 63 ATTACHMENT '2'

66 64

67 65

68 66

69 67

70 68

71 From: Sent: To: Subject: Stockwell Sand and Gravel Thursday, September 06, :00 AM Dion Whyte re: request for facility authorization Good Morning, Thank you for your quick response to our proposal. As for your questions, I have responded below. How will the proposed facility be accessed? Is access off of Dusty Road? The facility will be accessed via Allen Road, the same as Stockwell Sand and Gravel pit. There is no other road access to the facility. With respect to potential risks to the environment, what measures have been taken to determine there are zero impact to the environment? Have you considered impacts related to: o Air emissions from machinery? o Potential contamination of rainwater and impacts to ground and surface water (if any)? o Will the product be washed (assume not)? If so, how is wash water and sludge handled and what (if any) impacts might this have? Where would the water be sourced? We have considered this. The air emissions would be no more than what is currently being emitted through our gravel mine operation. There will be no ground/surface water impacts due to the fact that there are a series of settling ponds which catch all natural rain runoff. The product will not be washed and the length of time that the product will remain on our property is minimal. With respect to applicable regulations: o You should be aware that the BC Environmental Management Act applies to the management of any municipal solid waste material (including waste asphalt and concrete) this is the legislation that delegates authority to regulate municipal solid waste to Regional Districts under an approved Solid Waste Management Plan (which is why you are going through the current application process with us) WorkSafe BC regulations will also apply. With respect to the facility being proposed, I believe that under WorkSafe regulations the facility may be required to develop and maintain a Silica Management Plan (as silica in crusher dust associated with concrete crushing operations represents a known carcinogen). Please confirm any such specific requirements under WorkSafe or other applicable regulations We first approached the Ministry of Environment when our property was rezoned to Industrial 2 zoning, which allows for concrete/asphalt recycling, seeking approval to begin a waste concrete/asphalt recycling program. They advised us to review their five conditions for waste discharge permit exemptions. They also in turn advised us to contact the Regional District, which is why we have initiated this with you. As the property for the recycling program is adjacent to our gravel pit, the concern with regards to worksafe BC silica regulations are addressed and adhered to by our current gravel mine operation and would therefore also fall into acceptable range with respect to safety impacts to the employees, and community. With respect to residuals, will there be fines that are screened out of the final roadbase material? How will these be managed (e.g. kept on site?) Will the site be staffed? Will there be any waste or recycling associated with personal waste by staff? There will be fines created from the crushing but they get sold as part of the roadbase. The fines are an integral part of the product because without them the more course rock chips would not compact together and create the strength necessary for driving on. The site will be staffed with employees from the gravel pit, and the personal waste associated with staff members is already addressed through blue recycling bins, a portable toilet on site and a garbage bin at the office which is collected weekly. How will you track material volumes/tonnages? Will a weigh scale be installed at the facility? Will tipping fees apply? We will track material volumes/tonnages in the same process as with the gravel and sand sales. We have a scale already in place at our Gravel pit office which will record each incoming waste load and each outgoing sale load. We will charge a fee to dispose of the product and a fee for the recycled product to be sold. Our company is focused on solutions which are mutually beneficial to the environment and the community as a 69

72 whole. Any impacts to the environment caused by our operation are addressed by a strict adherence to the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Mines best practises. With this focus in mind we have cautiously proceeded towards our goal of establishing a Coast-wide central recycling program. 70

73 ANNEX 'F' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 19, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, 2012 FROM: Johan Stroman, Community Energy Manager RE: COST AND FUNDING OPTIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION AT GIBSONS AND AREA COMMUNITY CENTRE RECOMMENDATION THAT the Community Energy Manager s report entitled Cost and Funding Options for Installation of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station at Gibsons and Area Community Centre be received. BACKGROUND The following resolution was adopted at the regular Board meeting of September 13, 2012: DISCUSSION 328/12 No. 11 (in part) THAT a report be provided to the Infrastructure Services Committee on costs and funding options to support the installation of an electric vehicle charging station at the Gibsons and Area Community Centre. Typically, Electric Vehicle Charging Station installations can range between $3,000 to $6,000 depending upon the distance to electrical power source; ground cover material and site specific conditions. In some instances higher costs can be incurred to cut through longer distances of pavement/ concrete or to install a transformer to step-down higher voltage power supply. Funding options were discussed by the SCRD s Management team. It was agreed that the total cost of installing a unit at Gibsons Area and Community Centre based on using existing 240V supply near the main building will be $4,110 plus taxes. This includes: $3,316 for the installation $494 for the Charging Unit (difference between unit cost $4,494 and the CCI Fund grant of $4,000), and $300 for required CCI Fund signage to direct users to the station The installation has been funded through existing 2012 Corporate Budget. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS Once installed, one year of ChargePoint wireless communication services are provided to this unit at no cost. Continued service will cost $220 annually. 71

74 With only a few Electric Vehicles expected to use the station in its first year, the cost of electricity (estimated at $3 to $5 per vehicle charging) will be nominal. As Electric Vehicle uptake grows a flat charge to users of the EV charging station can be charged to offset the wireless services and the electricity costs. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS Recreation is providing access to the facility and space to profile the installation of a community facing Electric Vehicle charger. In exchange the cost of installation is provided corporately. INTERGOVERNMENTAL IMPLICATIONS The Town of Gibsons has provided strong support for the installation through a letter of endorsement. Staff is working with Town of Gibsons to finalize an appropriate location at the facility. This reflects the approach of Collaborative Leadership outlined in the Strategic Plan. 72

75 ANNEX 'G' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 19, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, 2012 FROM: General Manager, Infrastructure Services RE: TOWN OF GIBSONS REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE TO LOT 31 CHASTER ROAD RECOMMENDATION THAT the GM, Infrastructure Services report entitled Town of Gibsons Request for Water Service to Lot 31 Chaster Road be received; AND THAT the request for SCRD water service be declined in favour of provision of onsite well water service through Town of Gibsons approval processes. BACKGROUND In response to a letter from the Town of Gibsons dated July 9, 2012, requesting the SCRD to consider allowing a property within the Town of Gibsons boundary, at Lot 31 Chaster Road, to connect to the SCRD water distribution system, the following resolution was adopted by the Board at the regular meeting held on September 13, Res. 328/12 No. 20 The Infrastructure Services Committee recommended that the correspondence, dated July 9, 2012, from the Town of Gibsons regarding Request for Water Service be received; AND THAT staff provide a report to the October Infrastructure Services Committee meeting outlining the pros and cons of this application for SCRD water service. DISCUSSION This request for water service was discussed at a staff level between the Town of Gibsons and SCRD prior to receiving the formal letter. Following these discussions, SCRD staff recommended that Lot 31 be serviced by the Town as it is in their jurisdiction and servicing via a private well did not appear to be a significant hardship for the land owner. Further, there was no evidence provided that demonstrated that a well would be a considerable risk to the aquifer. As can be seen on the attached map, the SCRD water system currently terminates one lot short of Lot 31 and would have to be extended to provide service to the subject lot. This lot and adjoining acreage will all benefit from the future servicing plans identified in the Town s proposed Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan. Although there are a few instances where the SCRD does provide water service cross boundary, such as Payne Road and the recently converted properties along the highway west of Pratt Road, all these instances were results of boundary changes and not individual service 73

76 requests. The Town, however, has permitted the SCRD to install water service connections to the Town water system in order to service properties in Area E along Reed Road, as the SCRD does not have a watermain fronting those properties. The logistics of providing cross boundary servicing is fairly straight forward and would only require a letter agreement and some billing and accounting adjustments, however, we are concerned with the precedence that an approval would make as there are a number of unserviced properties beyond Lot 31 that may request similar consideration. In addition, both organizations have spent considerable effort and expense separating the two water systems and reconciling cross boundary servicing accounts, in order to minimize if not eliminate future cross servicing arrangements. It is also our opinion that requiring the installation of a private well to service the property is not a significant risk to the Town s aquifer, as the property would not have high risk land use and the Ground Water Regulation requires that wells be installed by a qualified contractor to a standard that would minimize the risk of contamination. SUMMARY Due to the precedent nature of the request, and as the proposed land use for the subject property is considered low risk from a water quality perspective, and that requiring variances through the development approval process does not appear to be a significant hardship, it is recommended that the Board not approve the request for cross boundary water servicing to Lot 31 Chaster Road, within the Town of Gibsons. 74

77 995 Lot 31, Plan 4438, DL 684 : B N 5 18 O 4 6 PartN1/2of A F 11 B E D C B 2 C 3 D OF8 22 AOF8 Subject Property BOF8 A 7 B 1OF8 C 6 AOF B 1 3 2OF8 2 U VOF OF Q SOF10 R F 1001 B MAHAN RD D G B 2 1 H C B F K C 3 AM10 I 5 L M 96 J D E G CHASTER RD 1 6 AOF G D I 6 7 Secret E AOF12 Beach 3 J Park 12EXC CHARMAN RD 2 SHAW RD 863 F POINT RD GOWER Date: 19/09/2012 This information has been compiled by the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) using data derived from a number of sources with varying levels of accuracy. The SCRD disclaims all responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this information. Legend 75 Municipal Boundary Parcel Boundaries Park Cemetery Gospel Rock Neighbourhood Plan Area Water Mains Roads Five Meter Contours Streams

78 76 ANNEX 'R'

79 ANNEX 'H' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 21, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, 2012 FROM: Bryan Shoji, GM Infrastructure Services RE: 2006 WATER SUMMIT DOCUMENT RECOMMENDATION THAT the General Manager, Infrastructure Services report entitled 2006 Water Summit Document be received for information. BACKGROUND Further to the delegation from Mark Rogers of AJB Investments Ltd., regarding water storage opportunity on District Lot 2461, the Board adopted the following resolution at the regular meeting held on September 13, Res. 328/12 No. 1 (in-part) DISCUSSION THAT the 2006 Water Summit documents be provided to the October 4th Infrastructure Services Committee meeting for review. In his presentation, Mr. Rogers referenced the 2006 Water Summit Document as the information source for the following two slides: 77

80 Following staff review of the attached Water Summit document and past Board directives, the referenced information appears to be accurate with one exception being that constructing a new dam on Chapman Creek was not one of the three options examined to increase the Chapman water supply. The omitted option was the installation of a floating pump station. 78

81 A Framework for Creating a Sunshine Coast Water Master Plan By Dr. Michelle Evelyn Dr. Michael Jackson and Vince Verlaan 79

82 80

83 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Executive Summary Key Issues, Recurring Themes, and Recommended Actions With rapid population growth on the Sunshine Coast, issues related to water consumption, drinking water quality, human effects on aquifers, and protection of aquatic species and habitat are becoming increasingly important. To provide impetus on this key issue, the Sunshine Coast Water Summit was organized. The two-day Summit brought together scientists and water management professionals to exchange knowledge with over 80 local stakeholders and to foster the development of a shared understanding on water issues. Speaker presentations and breakout sessions allowed participants to explore different crucial areas in drinking water management and, with the help of specialist facilitators, to consider these specifically in relation to the Sunshine Coast. Throughout the meeting, the following questions were used to guide the dialogue: What do we know? What do we need to know? What is missing? What actions are needed to move forward? The overall goal of the Summit was to take the first step in identifying specific aims, objectives and actions required to develop a draft Water Management Framework for the entire Lower Sunshine Coast. The following key issues were identified: Hydrology and Scientific Data Collection Solid scientific data about local climate and hydrology is required on which to base water management decisions and planning. Partnering with university scientists is recommended to help to facilitate data collection and knowledge transfer, and provide additional funding options. There is an immediate and urgent need to develop a strategy to maintain critical flows for fish and people in Chapman Creek during the dry summer period. Governance An umbrella agency, with real authority and stable funding, is needed to oversee development of a Water Master Plan and facilitate cooperation and coordination between the many distinct water systems on the Sunshine Coast. Planning must include both short-term pressing concerns and longer-term goals. Development and Demographics Efforts must be made to reduce high rates of water consumption on the Sunshine Coast using a combination of education and universal metering. Even if water consumption by existing residents is reduced, overall water demand will continue to rise with increasing development and population growth. A regional growth strategy that incorporates water, sets maximum build-out rates, and identifies future water sources, is urgently needed. Health and Safety High arsenic levels in rural wells represent a serious health threat to local residents. Small water purveyors face serious water quality concerns, and lack access to government funding resources for required infrastructure and multibarrier treatment. Natural Resource Management There is frustration over the lack of local control over industrial activity, including logging and mining, in drinking water source watersheds. Systemic changes are needed to ensure that fisheries and watersheds receive a higher priority in management decisions. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September i- 81

84 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment PRINCIPLES TO MOVE FORWARD We have identified pressing issues related to water management on the Sunshine Coast. We have developed an analytical framework to guide water management thinking and planning. A framework for collaborative action is needed which includes integrated governance and encompasses major stakeholders, including government, industry, scientists, and the public. Information is incomplete and solid unbiased science is necessary for good decision-making. We must act now on the basis of what we do know and pursue what we don t know. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The following have been identified as the most pressing recommended actions to move the process forward: Catalogue existing information, identify gaps, and formulate short- and long-term research questions and data collection strategies to provide sound scientific information to support management decisions. Undertake an integrated strategy to identify and obtain stable funding to support research, data collection, water management and planning activities necessary for sound water management on the Sunshine Coast. Collaborate with university researchers to undertake a regional water vulnerability study and climate monitoring to produce necessary scientific data to guide water planning. Assess summer water storage and supply options, including possibility of pumping from Construction Aggregate wells into SCRD reservoir during critical summer dry periods to increase supply. Continue and expand immediate conservation steps (public education, metering) to reduce high water consumption rates on the Sunshine Coast. Create an umbrella governing mechanism that is forward-thinking in planning for the Sunshine Coast and is guided by neutral outside consultants to work in an atmosphere of collaboration with stakeholders to create a Water Master Plan that has some long term design and is tied to a timeline. Develop an Action Plan for flow levels in Chapman Creek for fish during the summer. The status quo is not acceptable. Undertake a source assessment study and a low flow study of the Creek. Develop a regional growth strategy that incorporates water supply and consumption and sets maximum build-out rates, and includes planning for new sources of water as the population grows. Undertake source-to-tap risk assessment studies, including response plans. Publicize the findings and act on what is learned. Enable water providers to connect with health authorities more effectively. Participate in a Land and Resource Management Planning process (LRMP) to situate water management planning within a larger land and resource management framework. Work with industry more proactively to find solutions to water management issues. Institute systemic changes so that watersheds receive higher level priority in management decisions. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September ii- 82

85 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This Sunshine Coast Water Summit developed as a partnership between the Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society and the Sunshine Coast Community Foundation (SCCF). The partnership came about as a result of a grant to the SCCF by the McConnell Foundation / Community Foundations of Canada. The Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) generously provided matching funding for the project. Additional financial support for the Summit was provided by Watershed Watch Salmon Society, Gibsons Building Supplies, Curtis Lumber and Pharmasave. We would like to express our gratitude to the following individuals who provided valuable support over the course of this project: Over 80 Summit participants volunteered their time, devoted their energy and shared their ideas Speakers and panels members including Diana Allen (Simon Fraser University), Brian Carson (Carson Land Management Ltd.), Stewart Cohen (University of British Columbia), Michael Jackson (Lagoon Society), Steve Lee (Sunshine Coast Regional District), Grant McBain (Department of Fisheries and Oceans), Bob Weston (Vancouver Coastal Health Authority), and Paul Whitfield (Environment Canada) took the time to share their knowledge and experience. Summit Facilitator Vince Verlaan of Wellspring Facilitation & Planning Inc. did a fantastic job of keeping us on track and on time, and mediating meaningful conversation and productive action. Project Steering Committee Members including Dr. Michael Jackson (Lagoon Society Chair), Don Basham (Sunshine Coast Community Foundation), Elise Rudland (Sunshine Coast Community Foundation), Tim Adams (Vancouver Coastal Health Authority), Bob Patrick (University of Guelph), Lois Kennedy (Sunshine Coast Resident), Georgia Ohm (Lagoon Society), Vince Verlaan (Wellspring Facilitation & Planning Inc.) and Michelle Evelyn (Halcyon Professional Services). Georgia Ohm, Michael Jackson, Michelle Evelyn, and David Stiles helped to facilitate break-out sessions, and Jennifer Carson, Gillian Kydd, John Field, Suzan Essiembre, Dale Jackson and Katherine Evelyn assisted at the Summit. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September iii- 83

86 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary... i Hydrology and Scientific Data Collection... 1 Overview... 1 Data Requirements... 1 Existing Data... 2 Data Management... 2 Connecting with University Scientists... 2 Chapman Creek Water Supply... 3 Future Water Supply Sources... 3 Climate Change... 4 Small Water Systems... 4 Interconnecting Water Systems... 4 Health and Safety... 5 Overview... 5 Arsenic... 5 Microbial Contamination... 6 ph... 6 Multibarrier Protection... 7 Source Protection... 7 Small Water Purveyors... 7 Governance... 8 Overview... 8 Governance Model... 8 Legislation... 8 Integrated Governance... 8 Development and Demographics... 9 Overview... 9 Decreasing Water Consumption... 9 Public Education... 9 Metering Population Growth and Development Demographics Land Use Planning Natural Resource Management Overview Mining Logging in Watersheds Urban Forestry Alder in Riparian Zones Fisheries Watershed Management LRMP Industry and Government Action Plan Steps Hydrology and Scientific Data Collection Health and Safety Governance Development and Demographics Natural Resource Management Summit Description List of Participants Additional Resources Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September iv- 84

87 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Hydrology and Scientific Data Collection Overview There is concern about the lack of data on which to base a Sunshine Coast Water Master Plan. A central management agency with stable funding is required to collate and analyze existing and new data, maintain data in one central repository, and oversee research studies. A data collection strategy must be developed which addresses both short-term pressing needs and longer-term goals. Partnering with university scientists would help to facilitate data collection and knowledge transfer, and provide additional funding options. The Chapman Creek system, which supplies much of the Sunshine Coast s drinking water, is nearing the limit of its capacity during summer dry periods and will face mounting pressure with increasing population growth and climate change impacts. There is an urgent need to develop a strategy to maintain critical flows for fish and people in the short-term. Alternate supply sources must be identified and protected as soon as possible. Small water purveyors are also facing similar supply issues that must be addressed in the near future. In some cases, linking infrastructure from different systems can enhance water storage options, provide back up and emergency supplies, and provide for greater flexibility in water management. Data Requirements There is a need to clearly identify which types of data are required to help address both short-term needs and longer-term goals. Data collection must be carefully planned, keeping in mind water management goals and strategies. In formulating a data collection strategy for the Sunshine Coast Water Master Plan, managers should investigate what types of data are being collected in other jurisdictions and how they are being used to direct planning. Two key sources of data relevant to water management and planning include: a) Climate data (especially timing of snow pack melt, temperature, and rainfall), and b) Hydrologic data (surface and groundwater) The Lower Sunshine Coast does not currently have an Environment Canada weather station to collect climate data. However, one is planned for the airport in Sechelt and another is planned for the Iris Griffith Interpretive Centre in Pender Harbour. A single weather station may not be sufficient for an area the size of the Sunshine Coast. A series of smaller, more inexpensive weather stations may be preferable to fewer big, elaborate stations. Each water purveyor might wish to maintain its own weather station. Groundwater monitoring is important to track ground water quality and ground water level fluctuations. The BC Ministry of Environment operates a network of 163 observation wells on developed aquifers in British Columbia. However, there are no wells on the Lower Sunshine Coast that are part of this network. Regional groundwater vulnerability mapping can help identify recharge areas and areas vulnerable to contamination and salt water intrusion. The Town of Gibsons, which relies on groundwater for approximately two thirds of its water needs, has also carried out a groundwater mapping project. A comprehensive vulnerability study undertaken by Professor Diana Allen (Simon Fraser University) in the southern Gulf Islands has yielded important information to guide planning in that region. A similar groundwater vulnerability mapping project is recommended for the entire Sunshine Coast. Diana Allen speaks about her research Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

88 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Snow pack and snow melt data are especially important to track climate change impacts. The BC Ministry of Environment maintains a network of snow survey stations throughout the province. Manual snow surveys are conducted at each station eight times per year around the beginning of every month from January through June with extra measurements at mid-month in May and June. In addition, six Automatic Snow Pillows (ASP) stations relay data daily from remote sites via satellite. A manual snow survey station exists at Chapman Creek. T he station was sampled from 1993 to 2003, but was inactive in 2004 and It was provisionally scheduled to be sampled four times (Feb 1, March 1, April 1, May 1) in /2006 Snow Pillow Data, Squamish Station There is concern over the length of time data collection must be carried out before the data are useful. There is also concern over how a longterm data collection timetable will impact the short-term decision-making timetable. Existing Data Data do exist that might be useful in water planning. For example, the Town of Gibsons maintains a rain gauge and temperature gauge and a private individual on Gambier Island has been collecting weather data for 40 years. Fisheries and Oceans Canada operates an extensive monitoring network in the overall Sakinaw watershed, including two weather stations. Collating the data from all of the existing small weather stations on the Sunshine Coast could provide useful information. One possibility is that data could be submitted online through a link to the Town of Gibsons and/or SCRD websites. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority maintains GPS location records for many water intakes on the Sunshine Coast. It would be possible to correlate this location information with existing and newly collected water quality data. The challenge will be to bring existing information together and arrange for integrated data collection, interdisciplinary standardization, and long term funding. Standardized protocols will be necessary to ensure compatibility of data. Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) issues will be a major concern. The fact that some existing databases do not provide a continuous record, may limit how useful they are. Data Management A central agency is needed to collate and analyze existing and new data, maintain data in one central repository, and oversee research studies. It is unclear which agency would take on this role, although the Sunshine Coast Regional District (SCRD) is an obvious choice. Whichever agency takes on this role would require a steady income stream to maintain activities for years. There is concern about the availability of funding resources and staffing. Identifying consistent funding streams is a top priority. Connecting with University Scientists Developing partnerships with scientists from British Columbian universities and colleges is a good strategy to facilitate data collection and knowledge transfer, and provide additional funding options. The Okanagan and the Gulf Island regions provide examples of successful integration of university scientists into regional water research, planning and decision-making. A local scientific research station would help to attract scientists to come and work on the Sunshine Coast. In addition, there are already many scientists living on the Sunshine Coast that have valuable skills and experience and would be eager to participate in water research and management activities if funding were available. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

89 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Chapman Creek Water Supply Chapman Creek is the primary water source for SCRD drinking water supplies, providing 92% of the water supply to SCRD customers. There is broad concern about pressure on the Chapman Creek system. Many people feel that the existing system is nearing the limit of its capacity during the summer dry periods and recommended flow levels for fish are not being maintained. Chapman Lakes Storage Summers of 1998 and 2003 Although conservation and education programs may help to reduce water demand by SCRD customers, pressure on Chapman Creek will nonetheless intensify with increasing population growth and development on the Sunshine Coast. A plan is urgently needed to help maintain critical water flows in Chapman Creek for both fish and people over the next 10 years. storage capacity and recharge rates and identify suitable well drilling locations. Surface water sources are more predictable than ground water, but water quality is affected by many factors and more treatment is required. The SCRD has explored other surface water source options including Rainy River, McNair Creek, Dakota Creek, Lyons Lake, Klein Lake, Langdale Creek, Carlson Creek, Clowhom Lake, and Gray Creek. However, these were deemed not to be viable options in the 20 to 50 year planning horizon. The SCRD considers that extending the existing Chapman Creek water source would be more cost effective and reliable than undertaking new source development. The SCRD is currently considering three options: a) damming up Chapman Lake by 2 meters to increase storage capacity by 35-40%; b) constructing a storage lake in a gravel mining area; or c) installing a permanent pumping facility. The SCRD is currently assessing these options, and exploring long-term future water source development options for the Lower Sunshine Coast. Some have suggested that pumping ground water from existing Construction Aggregates wells to supplement the Chapman Creek supply during the critical summer dry period is another possibility to be explored. Future Water Supply Sources Given the present and future pressures on the Chapman Creek water supply, it is essential that we identify and protect other potential aquifer and surface water sources for future use. Aquifer water is cleaner than surface water due to natural filtration and requires less treatment. However, ground water on the Sunshine Coast is susceptible to arsenic contamination due to the nature of the geology of the Coast and is at risk of salt water intrusion in some areas. Wells on the Sunshine Coast are generally low production so would provide limited supply. Groundwater vulnerability mapping is recommended to assess Steve Lee, General Manager, SCRD Infrastructure Services describes the Chapman Creek water system Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

90 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Climate Change Climate change has been identified as a force that will work to intensify summer water shortages on the Sunshine Coast in the longterm. In our region, climate change is expected to produce warmer temperatures, wetter winters and drier summers. Modeling by Paul Whitfield of Environment Canada indicates that climate change will also impact local river systems. Rain-snow hybrid rivers, like Chapman Creek, will become increasingly rainfall driven. Percent Englishman Capilano Coquitlam Cheakamus Elaho Lillooet Snow Water Equivalence Relative to Present Modelled Modelled future snow water equivalence in coastal rivers wi th climate change (Whitfield 2002) As snowmelt processes become less important, models indicate that there will be an increased frequency of low flow events and a shift in the timing of low flow events to summer/fall periods only. Small Water Systems Small water purveyors on the Sunshine Coast are also facing problems related to limited water supply and growing populations. For example, the South Pender Harbour Waterworks District currently supplies approximately 1,000 customers from McNeill Lake. The lake is approaching maximum carrying capacity and during summer dry periods, pumping may be required from an additional source at Harris Lake. As the region is experiencing rapid growth, the Improvement District will need to seek additional water supplies in the near future. Upper Haslam Creek and Harris Lake are being considered as possibilities. Interconnecting Water Systems Linking systems between different water purveyors can create additional storage, provide back up and emergency supplies, and provide for greater flexibility in water management. For example, in Garden Bay, the SCRD is in the process of taking over day-to-day operations and administration of the Garden Bay Waterworks District to create a new SCRD North Pender Harbour Service Area which includes both Garden Bay customers and Hotel Lake customers. The SCRD intends to link the infrastructure of the two systems to provide redundancy in all systems, back-up in case of repairs or emergencies, and increased capacity for fire fighting. The potential for further interconnection and collaboration between water purveyors in different watersheds on the Sunshine Coast should be investigated. Paul Whitfield of Environment Canada speaks about the Georgia Basin climate system Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

91 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Health and Safety Overview Public health concerns on the Sunshine Coast are related to arsenic in wells, microbiological contamination of drinking water, and low ph of surface water supplies. Increasingly, Canadian regulatory agencies are advocating a multibarrier approach as the best method to ensure a safe drinking water supply. Small water purveyors on the Sunshine Coast are in a difficult position, without access to government funding resources for required infrastructure treatment projects. Residents and purveyors are concerned about a lack of a local control over what types of activities are permitted in local drinking water watersheds. pitcher type filtration units or boiling. There are some point of treatment/point of use units available for households that remove arsenic by reverse osmosis. There is an urgent need to address the problem of arsenic in wells on the Sunshine Coast. When the new Health Canada Drinking Water Guideline takes effect, over half of the 450 wells on the Sunshine Coast monitored in the 1994 study will have water considered unsafe for drinking and there are likely even more wells with problems that were not studied. Arsenic Arsenic has been identified as a major problem affecting wells on the Sunshine Coast. Elevated levels of arsenic in groundwater occur naturally in the region in areas of granitic bedrock with volcanic intrusions. Surveys by the Ministry of Health in 1994 and by University of British Columbia in 1999 indicated that many wells on the Sunshine Coast had unsafe levels of arsenic. The highest arsenic levels were detected in the Middlepoint, Secret Cove, Halfmoon Bay and Pender Harbour areas. The arsenic problem primarily affects private wells serving single households. However, the problem also occurs in some small water systems, such as the Pender Harbour High School and Keats Camp. Arsenic is toxic and is considered a human carcinogen. It is associated with an increased risk of a variety of cancers, including tumours of the bladder, kidney, liver and lung. The Health Canada Guideline for Drinking Water Quality maximum acceptable concentration for arsenic, recently changed from mg/l to mg/l. Furthermore, the new guideline includes the principle of As Low As Reasonably Achievable, recognizing that there is no safe level of exposure to arsenic above zero. Residents whose well water is found to contain arsenic concentrations above the drinking water guideline should use bottled water, obtain water from a safe alternate source or install efficient treatment units. Arsenic is not removed by Arsenic levels in wells on the Sunshine Coast The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is working to educate rural residents about the problems of arsenic in drinking water and about the new Drinking Water Guidelines. They are encouraging rural residents to test their well- annually since arsenic levels can change over time, and they are providing information water about treatment options. The Health Authority is also working with land-developers to ensure comprehensive testing of water quality in wells serving new housing developments. Homeowners in areas with high arsenic concentrations in private wells may wish to establish new small community sytems. Another option is for these homeowners to link their homes to the SCRD system or other community systems. For example, a new extension of the SCRD water system to Arbutus Bay will help deal with approximately 10% of the known wells with high arsenic levels. As more rural residents opt to join the SCRD system, there will be increasing demand on the SCRD water supply. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

92 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Microbial Contamination Untreated surface water supplies are vulnerable to microbiological contamination from a wide variety of protozoa, bacteria and intestinal viruses. All water systems that use surface water sources and have two or more hook-ups are required to treat water. The same rule applies to systems using ground water under surface water influence. The addition of chlorine is highly effective against most microorganisms. However, cysts formed by protozoa such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia can withstand chlorine. An approach that combines chlorination with sufficient filtration achieves parasite cyst removal, disinfection effectiveness, and reduction of disinfection bi-products. Drinking water purveyors are required to take bacteriological samples on a regular basis. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority works in partnership with the purveyors to oversee sampling and provide the laboratory services. Testing results are posted on the VCHA website. Three small water systems on the Sunshine Coast are presently facing serious water quality problems due to lack of treatment facilities. Several are currently on boil water advisories and/or under notice from the Drinking Water Officer that water quality issues must be resolved. Improving the water quality and safety in these areas is an urgent concern. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is requiring all new water systems and expecting existing systems to plan towards a treatment standard of 4 log (99.99%) removal or inactivation of viruses, 3 log (99.92%) removal or inactivation of Giardia and Cryptosporidium cysts, and less than 1 NTU for turbidity. Chapman Creek Water Treatment Facility Historically, the Chapman Creek surface water supply received minimal treatment (chlorination) and was subject to high colour and periodic turbidity events. In 2002, the SCRD began work on a project to construct a water treatment plant for the Chapman Creek water system. The total project cost of $7 million was supported in part by a $3.8 million Canada/BC Infrastructure Grant. Construction began in 2003 and the plant opened in The treatment process at the plant includes coagulation, flocculation, DAF clarification, filtration, and chlorination. ph Lo w ph has been identified as another problem affecting drinking water on the Sunshine Coast. The ph of pure water is 7. In general, water with a ph lower than 7 is considered acidic, and with a ph greater than 7, basic. A one-unit change in ph indicates a ten-fold change in hydrogen ion concentration. Thus, small changes in ph can significantly alter the chemistry of source waters. The Health Canada Drinking Water Guidelines state that the aesthetic objective for ph in drinking water is between 6.5 and 8.5. Low ph water is corrosive to water infrastructure (e.g., copper and lead pipes, hot water tanks, etc.). Low ph water can have indirect impacts on health by increasing levels of toxic metals in drinking water. If lead solder is used in pipes, for example, the acidity of the water can cause increased rates of lead leaching. Kidney dialysis patients are especially sensitive to ph levels in drinking water. Low ph drinking water is a source-specific issue and is considered relatively low priority by the Health Authority in comparison to microbiological issues. Treatment of water with a neutralizer such as soda ash can help raise the ph of treated water. Running tap water in the mornings to flush out the pipes is recommended. Bob Weston of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority speaks about drinking water and health issues Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

93 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Multibarrier Protection To protect public health and ensure that drinking water is kept clean, safe and reliable, Canadian government agencies are embracing a new model for water treatment that involves implementing multiple barriers throughout the drinking water system from source to tap. The four key components in the multibarrier approach include: Protection of drinking water sources Treatment of water, including disinfection and, where necessary, other treatments such as filtration, UV, coagulation, and floccation Maintenance of a well-designed and operated water distribution system with a continuous flow and pressurized pipes and the presence of residual disinfectant to counter bacterial regrowth. Comprehensive testing and monitoring of drinking water. In addition, the multibarrier approach includes the use of processes and tools that improve the overall management of a drinking water program, such as legislation and policies, guidelines and standards, training and education, and communication with the media and the public. Source Protection Source protection is identified as the critical first step in the multibarrier approach to water safety. As part of this step, land-uses that potentially cause contamination of surface or ground- water supplies should be limited or eliminated in drinking watersheds. Activities of concern include logging, mining, agriculture and road building. Sunshine Coast residents have expressed frustration at a perceived lack of protection for drinking water supplies, such as the Chapman Creek watershed, and lack of local control over what activities are permitted in drinking watersheds. Small Water Purve yors Some small water purveyors on the Sunshine Coast are experiencing serious problems with water quality, and three are facing boil water advisories. Because small water improvement districts are not eligible for government grants, they must finance their own expensive treatment infrastructure. Furthermore, the volunteer boards of small water systems are personally liable for issues relating to health. Some Improvement Districts may opt to join the SCRD system. The SCRD has taken over many small systems in the past decade. For example, the users of the Garden Bay Waterworks District recently voted to amalgamate with the SCRD. Other small purveyors may opt to continue to operate independently, seeking funding from non-government sources including local industry and stakeholders, and attempting to lobby the government to change the rules. Components of a Multibarrier Approach to Water Protection (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, 2004) Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

94 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Governance Overview There is a need for inter-agency cooperation, coordination and planning to develop a regional water strategy that includes the many distinct water systems on the Sunshine Coast. Creation of an umbrella agency, with real authority and stable funding, is recommended to oversee development of a Sunshine Coast Water Master Plan. A governance model should be based on a foundation of sound, unbiased science and should maintain a high level of citizen participation, stakeholder involvement and sustained connection between governance, information flow and public education. An improved communications approach is needed to enhance communications between the SCRD and the general public. Governance Model A successful model for the management of water on the Sunshine Coast should include: A foundation of good knowledge about climate, hydrology, ground water, surface water, treatment costs, water use Decisions based on sound, unbiased science Planning that draws on international literature and experience, local expertise and site-specific information, and uses best practices that fit the Sunshine Coast A high level of citizen participation and stakeholder involvement Governance activities that are linked with public education to change behaviour Sustained connection between governance and information flow to allow for adaptability and responsiveness the Drinking Water Protection Act, the Drinking Water Protection Regulation, the Groundwater Protection Regulation, the Environmental Assessment Act, and the Fish Protection Act. There are also numerous Municipal and Zoning by-laws that serve to protect drinking water. There is a need to clearly define and fully understand all of the different acts and legislation relevant to the management and protection of water resources on the Sunshine Coast. Integrated Governance The Sunshine Coast includes a diversity of distinct water systems and sources of supply and includes many different water purveyors and government agencies with an interest in water management. There is a need for inter-agency cooperation, coordination and planning to develop a regional water strategy. There is also a need for clarity regarding authority in decision making at various levels of governance. It would be helpful to create an umbrella agency, with real authority, to take the lead in developing a Sunshine Coast Water Master Plan. An example of an umbrella agency operating in another region is the Okanagan Basin Water Board/Okanagan Water Stewardship Council. There is concern over where the funding and resources would come from to spearhead integrated water planning and management activities. There is also concern over whether the local water purveyors and governments would agree to be managed by a central authority. Legislation There are many different government regulations that have bearing on water management activities and decision-making. Relevant federal legislation and guidelines include the Fisheries Act, the Health Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the Canada Water Act, and the Health Canada Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. Relevant provincial legislation includes Stewart Cohen speaks about water management and planning in the Okanagan Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

95 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Development and Demographics Overview The high rate of water consumption on the Sunshine Coast is a serious concern. Local education programs should be continued and expanded, and a universal metering program should be implemented as soon as possible to reduce water demand. However, even if water consumption by existing residents is reduced, it is clear that overall water demand will continue to rise with increasing development and population growth on the Sunshine Coast. A regional growth strategy that incorporates water and sets maximum build-out rates is urgently needed. Water must be directly connected to development decisions and planning should direct growth to minimize water use. Decreasing Water Consumption The high rate of water consumption on the Sunshine Coast is a serious concern. According to the Town of Gibsons Water Supply Strategic Plan (2005), residential water use by SCRD customers has been estimated at 540 litres per capita per day, higher than in most communities in the Lower Mainland. However, without comprehensive water metering, the SCRD is limited in its ability to separate residential from non-residential consumption. There is some concern that focusing on increasing supply only encourages more water use. It is clear that efforts must also be made to reduce consumption. Public Education L ocal education programs aimed at increasing knowledge and changing attitudes to reduce water consumption are universally agreed to be worthwhile. Many conservation programs are already in place on the Sunshine Coast and there is broad support for continuing and expanding these existing education programs. because these people make use of the water resource primarily during the summer when water supplies are most limited. Programs should also focus on the needs of fish, particularly the needs of salmon in Chapman Creek. Activities based at the Chapman Creek fish hatchery play an important role in educating children and their families about these issues. Education programs should also emphasize the connections between conservation, ecosystem health and quality of life. The 2004, SCRD per capita average daily water demand was 644 litres per customer per day, including residential, institutional, commercial and industrial customers. The SCRD is aiming to reduce this figure to meet or exceed the 1999 Canadian national average of 575 litres per customer per day. Managers estimate that conservation would free up 15-30% of both infrastructure and supply storage. Existing Water Conservation Programs on the Sunshine Coast SCRD Enforced Sprinkling Timing Regulations Ultra Low Flow Toilet Requirements for new buildings 6 Litre Toilet Replacement Program Bathroom Fixture Replacement Program Water Wise Garden Award Water Efficiency Assessment & Awards Program for businesses and institutions Water Wise Planting Information Demonstration Xeriscape Gardens Town of Gibsons Golden Lawn Award Sprinkling Timing Restrictions Building/Plumbing Code Changes Reduced Irrigation in Town Parks Education programs should target not only yearround residents, but also visiting tourists, cottage owners, and recreational property owners, Water Conservation Tips on Town Website Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

96 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Metering There is concern that the soft-sell education programs are not sufficient to reduce water consumption. In addition to education, there is strong support for universal water metering, with increasing block rates, at high cost for high water use. People feel that pricing should be used as a deterrent to high consumption, and should reflect the environmental costs of water use. Metering has proven its effectiveness in many other jurisdictions. Water consumption rates typically fall by 18-25% following installation of meters, in part because installation of meters helps to detect leaks in systems. Implementing metering programs has a high cost (installation of residential meters ranges from $180 to $1028 per meter) but metering ultimately pays for itself. In 2005, the SCRD applied for grant funding from the British Columbia Community Water Improvement Program to support a universal metering program but was unsuccessful. Some Water Summit participants advocated piloting a metering program in one area of the Sunshine Coast where consumption is especially high. Such a program could be used to collect data on water use and monitor the effectiveness of metering. Others felt that the effectiveness of metering had already been proven, and that we should move ahead as soon as possible with a universal metering program. In both Gibsons and the SCRD, all new water service connections must install meters. The SCRD intends to use future water main extensions and repairs as cost-effective opportunities to install water meters on existing service connections, and will install meters on all non-metered non-residential water connections. T he SCRD is planning to implement a voluntary metering program in the near future to encourage residents to switch to a metered rate. Population Growth and Development Even if water consumption by existing residents is reduced, overall water use will continue to rise due to increasing development and population growth on the Sunshine Coast. In fact, some people justify water use as a tactic to discourage new development ( why should I conserve if more growth is coming? ). According to figures in Official Community Plans, the population of the Sunshine Coast is expected to rise from 25,000 to 40,000 in the next years. Expanding population and development will intensify pressure on existing water supplies and on water treatment and distribution infrastructure. Demographics There is a need to better understand the impact of demographics on water use and on infrastructure design. Anecdotal evidence suggests that newer developments on the Coast tend to be lower density settlements with larger yards which use more water. The availability and costing of water can also affect demographics. For example, high water costs may limit choices for low income families. There is concern about equitable allocation of water, both in terms of regional availability of safe drinking water and availability for all water users (re. income, needs, etc.). New housing projects should be used to pilot green building models and technologies for water conservation. Innovative strategies for new development could include rainwater harvesting, grey water recycling, etc. Land Use Planning There is concern about the lack of a coast-wide regional development strategy. It is of paramount importance that we develop a regional growth strategy that incorporates water, sets maximum build-out rates, and includes planning for new sources of water as the population grows. The strategy must be developed using solid scientific data about the water resource and the capacity of the Sunshine Coast. Land use planning must influence and interact with water management. Water must be connected to development decisions. Planning should direct growth to minimize water use, incorporate sustainability, and preserve green space. Infrastructure can be used to direct, control and restrict growth. It is clear that land use planning must address both short-term pressing issues (e.g., pressure on the Chapman Creek system) and longer-term requirements. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

97 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Natural Resource Management Overview There is concern about logging and mining in drinking water source watersheds on the Sunshine Coast, and about the lack of attention to fisheries and watershed protection in water management decisions. Some people feel that watersheds should be off-limits for industrial activity or that activities with potential effects on drinking water resources should be postponed until impacts are clear. There are differing opinions about the impacts of logging and mining in watersheds on water quality and water flows. A Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) process on the Sunshine Coast may yield positive results in the long term. However, action is needed immediately to deal with pressing problems. Systemic changes are needed to ensure that watersheds receive a higher priority in management decisions. Mining There is concern about the potential impact of mining activities on drinking water on the Sunshine Coast. In particular, there is concern about Pan Pacific Aggregates proposed mining operations on the Sechelt Peninsula. Among the issues raised are the potential for wash-water and mining byproducts to flow into water supplies diversion of groundwater seepage (and possibly surface water) from the headwaters of Haslam Creek, source for South Pender Harbour Waterworks District s water. contamination of watersheds including fishbearing creeks and lakes on both sides of the Caren Range by dust and silt contamination of waters by arsenic brought up in water pumped from deep wells drilled to supply the mine with wash water significant water use required by washed rock processing activities Mining company representatives assert that their mining plan to develop a carbonate rock source to produce chemical (calcium and magnesium) rock will not impact ground or surface water supplies. They state that chemical rocks are produced from limestone and dolomite and are environmentally benign. They plan to recycle water in their operations to reduce water use. Furthermore, they suggest that the large limestone pit left at the end of mining operations, which will have a capacity of 40 million cubic meters, could potentially be used as a drinking water reservoir to solve water storage problems for the Sunshine Coast. Logging in Watersheds There is concern over the impact of logging in watersheds on drinking water quality. The Sunshine Coast has a long history of public opposition to logging in community watersheds. Water Summit speaker, Brian Carson, who has conducted extensive water quality studies in various Sunshine Coast rivers, argues that good logging operations do not impact water quality. He states that, water quality and timing of flows can be preserved by well-built roads, good maintenance and sensitive harvesting. However, other Summit participants expressed concern that it is impossible to know in advance whether an area will be well-logged or not, or profitable or not. Brian Carson speaks about water quality and watershed management on the Coast Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

98 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment There is concern over provincial government control over logging in local watersheds. Some feel that the new Forest and Range Practices Act does not sufficiently protect watersheds. There is particular concern about language in the Act relating to actions to protect non-timber values (e.g., designating community watersheds, setting water quality objectives, protecting wildlife habitat). According to the new Government Actions Regulation, actions can be taken only if doing so would not unduly reduce the supply of timber from British Columbia s forests; and only if the action is consistent with all other objectives, including maintaining or enhancing an economically valuable supply of commercial timber, and enabling logging companies to be vigorous, efficient and world competitive. There is concern about the inclusion of the Chapman Creek and Gray Creek drinking watersheds in the timber harvesting area in the District of Sechelt s community forest tenure. There is concern that the District will be forced to log within the watershed if there is not enough supply outside. Urban Forestry Forest harvesting activity includes both industrial logging and urban forestry. In the case of urban forestry, when lots are cleared for urban development they are never returned to forest. This land conversion can seriously impact water quality. According to Water Summit speaker, Brian Carson, Conversion of forested land to residential properties is by far the biggest threat to water quality (and timing of flows) on the Sunshine Coast for the many households not hooked up to SCRD water. Fisheries There is concern over the lack of consideration given to fisheries and fish in water management decisions. There is an impression that the SCRD does not consider fish when applying for water licenses, since fish are not their responsibility, but rather that of higher levels of government. Two sites of particular concern on the Sunshine Coast include Hotel Lake and Chapman Creek. In the case of Hotel Lake, concern over excessive water withdrawal from the lake led to a court challenge to block transfer of two water licenses to the SCRD. In 2005, the BC Environmental Appeals Board blocked the transfer, ruling that the SCRD would have to do more studies, including a master water plan for the Pender Harbour area, a water balance study for Hotel Lake, and studies to determine the minimum acceptable water level for Hotel Lake. In the case of Chapman Creek, high water demand during the period of summer drought has significant impacts on flow levels. Instead of maintaining the recommended flow level for fish of 10% of the mean annual discharge, the level in Chapman Creek is less than 1% of mean annual discharge. As demands on the Chapman Creek w ater source continue to intensify in the coming years, the situation for fish will become more and more serious. Fisheries should receive a higher priority in water management decisions and monitoring studies should be carried out to track the status of fish populations in rivers on Sunshine Coast. Alder in Riparian Zones Over the past decades, logging in the Chapman and Gray Creek watersheds has changed the forest composition from old-growth coniferous forest, to communities with a higher proportion of broadleaved trees, particularly alder. A large portion of the riparian zones in these watersheds now consists of even-aged alder stands that are dying en masse. Because broadleaved vegetation leaches higher levels of organic acids than coniferous vegetation, the ph of runoff may be lowered, causing water quality problems. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

99 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Watershed Management There is concern that watersheds receive low priority in management. Many community members feel that systemic changes are needed to ensure that watersheds became a more explicit part of economic decision making. Watershed management should include an interest not only in the quality and quantity of drinking water, but also an interest in the functioning of the whole watershed ecosystem, including fish, trees, wildlife and the whole ecological community. Some people feel that all industry should be excluded from drinking water source watersheds. It has been suggested that the SCRD should consider a policy of buying up land within watersheds. The Sechelt Indian Band and the Sunshine Coast Regional District recently signed a landmark agreement to safeguard drinking water and protect Chapman and Gray Creeks. Under the agreement, the SIB and SCRD will jointly manage the watersheds which are situated within both the SIB s territory and the SCRD s potable water service authority. A Joint Watershed Management Advisory Committee will be formed which will make recommendations related to watershed management and laws and bylaws surrounding the watersheds. While the provincial government will still have ultimate authority over allowing or disallowing development in the watersheds, the agreement creates a powerful and influential local body which will give strong voice to community wishes. LRMP The Sunshine Coast has applied to enter into a Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) process. The proposed LRMP is an interdisciplinary, bigger picture approach that is expected to entail a very long process (more than 10 years) and provides no guarantees. Water summit participants felt that we cannot wait for the LRMP process to be complete before addressing the urgent water issues faced by the Sunshine Coast. Industry and Government Industry representatives have expressed frustration over the perceived poor relations between industry and local government. They wish to develop a more productive partnership and non-adversarial system of management. They have expressed a willingness to help fund the required water studies on behalf of the community, and to work with government to help solve pressing water issues on the Sunshine Coast. Local government representatives have expressed frustration that many taxation revenues from industrial activities on the Sunshine Coast leave the local region to go to the provincial government. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

100 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Action Plan Steps The following actions were recommended by Water developing a Sunshine Coast Water Master Plan: Summit participants as important first steps in 1. Hydrology and Scientific Data Collection Formulate research questions (what do we need to know in both the short-term and long term? What data must be collected?) Look at what data is being collected in other jurisdictions and how it is being used Catalogue what has been done, what data we have, and what gaps exist Undertake an integrated strategy to obtain funding for data collection and research Work with Diana Allen (Simon Fraser University) and Murray Journeay (Natural Resources Canada) and include university graduate students and Capilano College students Develop Action Plan for flow levels in Chapman Creek for fish before the summer of 2007 Create a research centre on the Sunshine Coast, linked to academic centres, to provide high quality data to assist decision makers 2. Health and Safety Increase public education to change behaviour Undertake research of public awareness of water issues to increase understanding of current conditions Enable water providers to connect with health authorities more effectively (e.g., Arsenic) Increase industry and staff knowledge Some people feel that the SCRD should take on the responsibility of providing clean water to all Sunshine Coast residents Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

101 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment 3. Governance Create an umbrella governing mechanism that is forward thinking in planning for the Sunshine Coast. Use a neutral outside management consultant to work with stakeholders to create a Water Master Plan Involve stakeholders in the form of an independent Advisory Committee to help create a Water Master Plan Terms of Reference The SCRD could coordinate, set up and fund the Advisory Committee that would choose the consultancy firm The consultancy group and the Advisory Committee should be independent of the SCRD and be impartial The process should have some long term design and be tied to a timeline Create an atmosphere of collaboration and provide clarity regarding responsibility An enhanced communication strategy should be created to improve communications between the SCRD and the public. 4. Development and Demographics Develop a regional growth strategy Revamp subdivision regulations on the Sunshine Coast (e.g., tree removal) Institute preconditions before people apply for Preliminary Layout Approvals (PLAs) Develop a better understanding of attitudes of citizens toward water conservation, and of the relationship between demographics and attitudes Examine pilot bylaws for green development (e.g., University of Victoria, Ducks Unlimited) 5. Natural Resource Management Undertake source-to-tap risk assessment studies, including response plans. Publicize the findings and act on what is learned Undertake a source assessment study of Chapman Creek Apply best management practices Participate in a Land and Resource Management Planning process (LRMP) Create a full inventory map of water resources, including wells and surface water sources, on the Sunshine Coast Work with industry more proactively to find solutions to water management issues Institute systemic chances so that watersheds receive higher level priority in management decisions Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

102 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Summit Description With rapid population growth on the Sunshine Coast, issues related to water consumption, drinking water quality, human effects on aquifers, and protection of aquatic species and habitat are becoming increasingly important. At the same time, provincial legislation governing source protection and drinking water quality continues to evolve with potentially serious financial implications for water governance, particularly for small Water Improvement Districts. Locally, the water issue is widely recognized as one of the most pressing environmental concerns. To provide impetus on this critical issue, the Sunshine Coast Water Summit was organized. The Summit brought together scientists and water management professionals to exchange knowledge with local stakeholders and to foster the development of a shared understanding on water issues. The 2-day Summit took place on March 22 to 23, Scientists, industry professionals and representatives from local government addressed scientific and policy issues from a variety of perspectives. Best practice case studies from other regions of Canada were presented by specialists who had participated in these initiatives elsewhere to show how the collection of quality scientific information links with the decision-making and policy-forming processes. Local experts outlined the state of knowledge of the water sources currently known to be available and provided background information on the current governance and policy environment on the Sunshine Coast. Over 80 stakeholders from the local community, including representatives of the Sechelt Nation, local, regional, provincial and federal government agencies, non-governmental organizations, and other interested parties, participated in discussions, analysis and forward planning to establish how lessons learned from case studies in other regions could be applied to the Sunshine Coast. Breakout sessions allowed participants to explore different crucial areas in drinking water management and, with the help of specialist facilitators, to consider these specifically in relation to the Sunshine Coast. Breakout topics included: Hydrology and Scientific Data Collection; Governance, Health and Safety; Development and Demographics; and Natural Resource Management. Throughout the meeting the following questions were used to guide the dialogue: What do we know? What do we need to know? What is missing (data, considerations)? What action plan steps are needed to move forward? The overall goal of the Summit was to take the first step in identifying specific aims, objectives and actions required to develop a draft Water Management Framework for the entire Lower Sunshine Coast. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

103 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Agenda (Wednesday, Mar. 22) Science and the Decision Making Process In Water Management 8:00 Registration 9:00 Welcome/Opening Remarks/Agenda Overview 9:30 Speaker Presentations I 9:30-10:00 Stewart Cohen: Moving Beyond the Damage Report: An integrative approach to climate change adaptation in water resources management in the Okanagan 10:00-10:20 Steve Lee: The Development of the Chapman Creek Water Facility 10:20 Q&A 10:40 Coffee 10:55 Speaker Presentations II 10:55-11:25 Diana Allen Groundwater on the Gulf Islands: What we ve learned 11:25-11:45 Brian Carson Watershed Management and Water Quality on the Sunshine Coast 11:45 Q&A 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Briefing on the format and objectives of Breakout Sessions 1:15 Breakout Session I A: Hydrology and Scientific Data Collection B: Governance, Health and Safety Issues in Water Management 2:15 Coffee 2:30 Breakout Session II C: Development & Demographics D: Natural Resource Management (Fisheries, Forestry and Mining) 3:30 Report Back and Convergence 4:30 Closing 4:45 Closing (Thursday, Mar. 23) Planning for a Sunshine Coast Water Management Framework: Investing in Stakeholder Partnerships 8:00 Arrival and Networking time 9:00 Speaker Presentation III 9:00-9:20 Paul Whitfield The Clim ate System and Water in Georgia Basin 9:20-9:40 Bob Weston Sunshine Coast Drinking Water: The Health Issues 9:40-9:50 Q&A 9:50 Breakout Session III Breakout groups focus on the 4 topics examined on Day 1: what do we know about this topic? What do we need to know? What is missing? Generate 3 questions to take to the expert panel discussion at 10:50 10:35 Coffee 10:50 Panel Response to the questions generated in Breakout Session III 12:00 Lunch 1:00 Breakout Session IV Breakout groups develop action plans for moving forward, taking next steps together. Complete sheets on priority actions and next steps 3:00 Coffee all attendees can review sheets from all breakout groups 3:30 Report back from breakouts; convergence in plenary (discussion block) Raise Questions and Concerns, circulate sign-up sheets 4:30 Next steps are summarized Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

104 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment List of Participants Speakers and Panel Members Diana Allen, Associate Professor & Department Chair, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University Brian Carson, Carson Land Resources Management Ltd. Stewart Cohen, Adjunct Professor, Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, UBC Michael Jackson, Chair, Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society Steve Lee, General Manager Infrastructure Services, Sunshine Coast Regional District Grant McBain, Community Advisor, Pacific Region, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Bob Weston, Chief Environmental Health Officer, Coast Garibaldi, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Paul Whitfield, Environment Canada, Meteorological Service Other Water Summit Participants Ti m Adams, Drinking Water Officer, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Bo b Anstead, Hatchery Manager, Sunshine Coast Salmonid Enhancement Society Ri ck August, Fisheries Coordinator & Band Councilor, Sechelt Indian Band Do n Basham, Chair, Sunshine Coast Community Foundation Bobbi Bennett, Administrator, South Pender Harbour Waterworks District Jean Bennett, Dean, Sunshine Coast Campus, Capilano College Brad Benson, Director, Sunshine Coast Water First Society Anthony Bing, Director of Operations, AJB Investments Ltd. Verne Bullock, Egmont Cove Property Owners Association Karen Careless, Granthams Landing Improvement District Adriane Carr, Leader, Green Party of British Columbia Jennifer Carson, Water Conservation Assistant, Sunshine Coast Regional District Anne Clemence, Pender Harbour and District Wildlife Society Tanis Douglas, Watershed Watch Salmon Society/Fernhill Consulting John Ellis, Pan Pacific Aggregates Ltd. Suzan Essiembre, Adminstrative Assistant, Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society Michelle Evelyn, Education Committee, Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society Katherine Evelyn, Programme Assistant, Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society John Field, Instructor, Capilano College / Director, Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society Patricia Gallaugher, Director, Centre for Coastal Studies, Simon Fraser University Fred Gazely, Area F Area Planning Committee Gordon Gray, Director Sunshine Coast Salmonid Enhancement Society Susan Hall, Quarry Harbour Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

105 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Ken Harford, Malaspina Engineering Joe Harrison, President, Area A Quality Water Association Jason Herz, Resource Advisory Committee, Sunshine Coast Regional District Douglas Holmes, Chief Administrative Officer, Sunshine Coast Regional District Bill Hughes, Planning Forester, BC Timber Sales Nicole Huska, Sunshine Heights Owner and Residents Dale Jackson, Director and Secretary Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society Barbara Kapelli, Area A Quality Water Association Lois Kennedy, Sunshine Coast Resident Angela Kroning, Moonstone Enterprises Gillian Kydd, Nature School Coordinator, Ruby Lake Lagoon Nature Reserve Society Helen LeBlanc, Clearwater Utilities Inc. Ron LeBlanc, Clearwater Utilities Inc. Louis Legal, Clean Air Society Glenn Lewis, Sunshine Coast Botanical Garden Society Cal Mark, Project Manager, Pan Pacific Aggregates Ltd. Dave Marquis, Terminal Forest Products Ltd. Elia McNutt, Sunshine Coast Springs Ayda Mehrjou, Office of Blair Wilson, M.P. Martin Mees, Egmont Cove Property Owners Association Bob Milton, Director, West Porpoise Bay Community Association Garry Nohr, Director, Sunshine Coast Regional District Ray Parfitt, Municipal Planner, District of Sechelt Cameron Reid, Mayor, District of Sechelt Gail Riddell, Director, Capilano College Eldercollege Program Tony Richmond, Elphinstone Electors Organization/OCP Review Elise Rudland, Area B Area Planning Committee/Secretary / Sunshine Coast Community Foundation Dianne Sanford, Moonstone Enterprises Dagmar Schulz, Clean Air Society Bryan Shoji, Director of Municipal Operations, Town of Gibsons Julie Southerst, Pender Harbour and District Wildlife Society Ken Sneddon, Sechelt Creek Contracting Ltd. Marc Soprovich, President, Renewable Power Corporation, (McNair Creek Hydro Project) David Stiles, Halcyon Consulting John Termuende, Edutech Technologies Corp. Gerry Tretick, Councillor, Town of Gibsons Vicky Weekes, Simon Fraser University Dion Whyte, Engineering Technologist, Sunshine Coast Regional District Ian Williamson, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University Paul van Poppelen, Microbial Technologies Vince Verlaan, Wellspring Facilitation and Planning, Inc. Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

106 Conveners Report DRAFT For Public Comment Additional Resources From Source to Tap: Guidance on the Multi-Barrier Approach to Safe Drinking Water. Produced jointly by the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water and the CCME Water Quality Task Group. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, BC Ground Water Association BC Ministry of Environment, Resource Information BC Ministry of Environment, Ground Water Information BC Ministry of Environment, Water Stewardship Division, River Forecast Centre h ttp:// BC Ministry of Health, Drinking Water Program thservices.gov.bc.ca/protect/water.html B C Water Inventory Data Management System Canadian Ground Water Association Canadian Society for Hydrological Sciences wra.org/about_cwra/cshs/cshs.html Canadian Water Resources Association Canadian W ater Quality Association Environment Canada Freshwater Website Environment Canada Groundwater Website Suns hine Coast Water Summit Website Sunshine Coast Regional District, Water h ttp:// Town of Gibsons, Water Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ht tp:// Water Centric Planning Sunshine Coast Water Summit Report September

107 ANNEX 'I' SCRD STAFF REPORT DATE: September 20, 2012 TO: Infrastructure Services Committee October 4, 2012 FROM: Section Secretary, Infrastructure Services RE: MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER 2012 RECOMMENDATION(S) THAT the Section Secretary, Infrastructure Services report entitled Monthly Report for September 2012 be received. BACKGROUND This report is prepared monthly as information for the Infrastructure Services Committee. UTILITIES DIVISION WATER TREATMENT PLANT In August the Chapman Water Treatment Plant produced and supplied 673,632 m3, a 15.8% increase from the five year average. WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM In July, 17 water meters were installed a slight decrease from our monthly average of 19. Due to low reservoir levels and prolonged dry weather, Stage 2 Outdoor Water Use Restrictions (sprinkling evenings only permitted) was announced on September 10th and Stage 3 (sprinkling ban) on September 18th, following the process outlined in the SCRD Drought Management Plan. If the dry weather continues, we project that Stage 4 (complete ban on outdoor water use) may have to be implemented around October 8th, depending on how well the public reduces their water consumption. Restrictions will not be lifted until the reservoir levels recover, which may take several days of steady rain events. The elevated restrictions have been advertised as follows: - Press release issued to local media (with press conference to follow) - Posted to SCRD website (advisory and FAQ sheet) - Advertisements in local newspapers - Urgent Notice delivered to all mailboxes through unaddressed mail - Direct contact with large water users - Flyers posted in selected locations - Sunshine Coast Emergency Program distribution list - Earned media (newspaper articles, Coast TV, community distribution lists) - Information distributed internally to all SCRD staff and Directors - Information distributed to municipalities - Sprinkling patrols and direct outreach with residents 105

108 CAPITAL WORKS The water mains replacement project in West Sechelt is 95% complete. The water main replacement on Forbes Road is 100% complete. SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION COMMUNITY ENERGY AND EMISSIONS PLAN Electric Vehicle Charging Plan on the Sunshine Coast was supported through planning meetings. Potential site hosts (businesses and institutions) are being approached. Cost assessment for EV Charging station at GACC received (see Staff Report). Developed plan and communication to businesses interested in installing an EV Charging system at their facility (SCRD Bulletin; Social Media and shared communications with local municipalities). Communications support, partner engagement and preparations for the Climate Action Kit release were done. The upcoming Launch event at Gibsons Public Library on Saturday October 6th from 1 to 2:30pm. A date for the Sechelt Public Library launch event is anticipated for mid-late October. Supporting funding from BC Hydro secured. Supporting funding to support Energy Rebate Program secured with FortisBC SOLID WASTE The Sechelt Landfill received 1,410 tonnes in August, a 2% decrease from August last year. Year to date there has been a 5% decrease in tonnage received from the same period in 2011 and an11% decrease in tonnage received from the same period in The Pender Harbour Landfill received 238 tonnes of material in August, an 8% decrease from August last year. Year to date there has been a 7% decrease in tonnage received from the same period in 2011 and a 14% decrease in tonnage received from the same period in TRANSPORTATION AND FACILITIES DIVISION TRANSIT As noted at the September 10, 2012 Transportation Advisory Committee meeting the next transit schedule will go into effect on October 9, Staff have been working towards simplifying the service by operating buses between Sechelt and Langdale as either express (via Highway #101/Gibsons Way/Marine Drive) or Local which divert off the highway to service lower Roberts Creek, Elphinstone and Gibsons Landing. The improvements in the September and October schedules have resulted in two additional trips between Sechelt and Langdale as well as the extension of three trips from Gibsons to Langdale. This has also resulted in increases to local service weekdays as follows: Trips southbound to Langdale via: Lower Roberts Creek +3 Elphinstone +5 Gibsons Landing

109 Additional trips northbound from Langdale via: Langdale Heights +4 Marine Drive +5 Gibsons Landing -1 Elphinstone +3 Lower Roberts Creek +1 The next schedule change is planned for May 2013 in conjunction with the BC Ferries Spring Shoulder schedule. PORTS The adjustments that were required to the new section of float for Gambier Harbour have been completed so that the new section will be at about the same height as the existing float. Staff are now in the process of planning for the removal of a section of the existing float to make way for the new section to be attached. The design of this new section of float that uses low maintenance materials will form the basis for the RFP for replacement of the West Bay float. Staff have undertaken power washing at the Halfmoon Bay dock and are preparing to do power washing at several other docks including Keats Landing. The power washing program is integral to our maintenance program given that this is the best method to prevent deterioration of dock structural components. FLEET SERVICES Fleet staff are preparing for the annual inspections of our commercial vehicles as required by the Motor Vehicle Act. We have also been notified of the pending delivery of two additional vehicles for the Parks Department and three for Water works. 107

110 ANNEX 'J' JOINT VANCOUVER COSTAL - FRASER REGIONAL DRINKING WATER TEAM MEETING MINUTES 27-June-2012 Location: Present: rd Street, Surrey Len Clarkson (VCH-Chair) Marc Zubel (FH) Jeff Moore ( MOTI) Bob Weston (VCH) Barry Boettger (OPHO) Rob Wood (MOH) Brian Shoji(SCRD) Mike Day (Whistler) Allan Johnrude (MFLNRO) Recorder: Blair Choquette (FH) 1.0 Introductions 2.0 Minutes of Previous Meeting (18 April 2012) Reviewed and accepted as read. 3.0 Additions / Changes to Agenda None 4.0 Forest Practices Board Forest Practice Board is conducting a special investigation of community watersheds across the province. Action: Allan to invite a representative from the FPB to make a presentation at the next meeting. 4.1 Regulatory Oversight of Community Watersheds Mike Day expressed concerns that there is a lack of enforcement within designated watersheds and that local governments are limited in what they can do to prevent unauthorized use ( i.e. snowmobiling in a non-motorized area) Mike to follow up with Kim Meyer (Regional Manager -Compliance & Enforcement) for further information and assistance. Action: Allan to invite John Hawkings (Manager- Recreational Sites and Trails BC) to make a presentation to the group at a future meeting 4.2 Water Act Modernization Action: Proposed presentation on the current status of the Water Act Modernization will be differed to a future meeting date. Len to issue invite. 108

111 4.3 Update on SCRD (Source Assessment Response Plan) Brain reported that a Board meeting is scheduled for July 5 th The purpose of the meeting is to review feedback received from the public and adopt the recommendations. Tim Adams will be attending the meeting on behalf of VCHA 4.4 Update on Texada Limestone Quarry No new information. VCH has yet to receive a response from MEM. 4.5 Update on RDWT Review Process Rob provided a brief summary of the review findings. See attached from Brenda Janke (Director, Integration and Engagement MOH) dated June 22, Roundtable on Status of VC & Fraser Team Allan: suggested we may want to use Jefferd creek as a learning experience to help shape how the team functions in the future (i.e. standing committee; information exchange; pragmatic output). Brian: frequency of the meeting is not an issue. Policy was a driver for them to participate. Keeps them update on drinking water issues. Conference call is good option. Mike: Time commitment is not an issue. Meetings are an avenue for insight. Len: is willing to continue as Chair for the interim Rob: Shorter meeting; tight agenda; conference calls & suggested we may want to revisit protocol Next Meeting: October 17 th,

112 ANNEX 'K' SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 10, 2012 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 Director, Town of Gibsons Gerry Tretick Director, District of Sechelt Alice Lutes Director, Electoral Area A Frank Mauro Director, Electoral Area B Garry Nohr Director, Electoral Area D Donna Shugar Director, Electoral Area F Lee Turnbull ALSO PRESENT: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure Don Legault Alt. Director, Area F & Rte13 Ferry Adv.Com. Joyce Clegg Manager, Transportation and Facilities Brian Sagman Cycling Advocate Martin Prestage Insurance Corporation of BC Tom Webster Capilano Highways Eric Paris S. Sunshine Coast Ferry Advisory Committee Barry Cavens Sunshine Coast Speed Watch Jon Hird Constituency Assistant to Nicholas Simons MLA Kim Tournat RCMP Todd Bozak Trustee, School District No. 46 Dave Mewhort Emergency Program Coordinator Bill Elsner Recording Secretary Diane Corbett Media 2 REGRETS: BC Ferries, Langdale Terminal Operations Mgr. Maureen Darragh Citizens On Patrol, Sechelt Ruth McLarty School District No. 46 Silas White CALL TO ORDER AGENDA 10:30 am The Agenda was adopted as amended, with the following addition: 6a Lysander Road 110

113 MINUTES Recommendation No. 1 Minutes The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the minutes of June 25, 2012 be adopted as circulated. COMMUNICATIONS Recommendation No. 2 Correspondence The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the following correspondence be received: Honourable Blair Lekstrom, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, regarding BC Transit Review Richard Richmond regarding S bends, 3200 and 3300 block, Beach Avenue, Roberts Creek Jakob Knaus regarding BC Ferries - June Traffic Statistics Recommendation No. 3 S Bends on Beach Avenue The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the Area D Director meet with Don Legault of the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure to discuss potential remediation of the S bends on Beach Avenue. BC Ferries June Traffic Statistics Mr. Cavens reported that the BC Ferries Annual Report showed that ferry traffic had reached a 21-year low for foot passengers and a 13-year low for vehicles. Possible reasons for this were considered by the group, including increased fuel costs, increased ferry fares, increased support for spending locally. Director Turnbull remarked that the increase in ferry fares had been significant in terms of the cost of living. The Director commented that there was a need for additional provincial funding, and that the concept that the ferry service should pay for itself is not sustainable. She further suggested there were structural issues, and that the attitude and support from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure was not consistent with the approach taken with the inland ferries. The BC Ferries community consultation process was discussed. Alternate Director Clegg reported that the Ministry recently had hired a consultant for the process; a report was due to the Minister by year-end, with implementation by June The Ferry Advisory Committee Chairs had identified as an issue the lack of financial support from the Ministry, which had not changed since inception of the Coastal Ferry Act in

114 Director Mauro expressed concern about the figures provided on commercial traffic, which was down ten percent. Further discussion was moved to later in the meeting. Recommendation No. 4 Speed Watch Reports The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that Sunshine Coast Speed Watch reports come to the Transportation Advisory Committee rather than the Policing Committee. Recommendation No. 5 Deferred Correspondence The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the correspondence from Mike Corrigan, BC Ferries President and Chief Executive Officer, regarding parking at Langdale terminal be deferred to the October 29 meeting. Constable Bozak remarked that BC Ferries had done a good job of addressing the parking situation at Langdale terminal over the summer months. He also noted that the speed on the bypass had been changed to 60 kilometres per hour and that overall people obeyed the speed limit sign. NEW BUSINESS Lysander Road Director Shugar described a situation that had arisen concerning a subdivision on Kraus Road in Roberts Creek a few years ago in which the road was widened and put through to Marlene, and was now being used by drivers as a short cut. Concerns had been received from residents that, with the last of the lots having now being subdivided, Lysander Road would be put through. Director Shugar wondered if it would be possible to revisit that plan. Mr. Legault noted that the SCRD would have been advised of the plans for Lysander through the normal development referral process. Director Shugar advised that there was an understanding concerning the changes to Krause Road but not in relation to the plans for Lysander. Mr. Legault indicated that he would review this with Director Shugar on site, however this issue would fall to Jeff Moore, the Provincial Assistant Approving Officer. ROUNDTABLE Priority Considerations for Eventual Re-Build of Langdale Terminal Mr. Cavens reported that BC Ferries was starting a process to develop a master plan for Langdale terminal. A meeting in August provided an opportunity for BC Ferries to explain how the process would unfold and for the Ferry Advisory Committees (FACs) to bring forward issues from the community. 112

115 FACs proposed, in terms of costs, doing no more than is necessary as a base case; then any additional costs could be quantified. There was a concern with the timing of the Langdale Master Plan given that the province is developing a vision for BC Ferries services and how the system will evolve over the next twenty years. The Ferry Advisory Committees want BC Ferries to develop the Langdale Master Plan in conjunction with the Provincial long term vision for BC Ferries. Other community issues raised at the August meeting included: Foot passenger loading (not mixed with cars) Consideration of using three smaller ships instead of the two larger vessels Upper deck loading on the secondary berth is there something else we can do rather than putting in a second deck? Access for seniors, the physically challenged and other pedestrians how can we accommodate our aging population? Impact of fare collection at Langdale installation of additional ticket booths; potential line ups on the Bypass; need for Route 13 passengers to access the walk to the main access location Safety of vehicles in the parking lot trying to merge with vehicles coming off ferries There was also a meeting on September 4, 2012 with staff of the Regional District and the Town of Gibsons attending. Mr. Cavens explained that the planning process was proceeding. There would be Open Houses sometime in the fall; BC Ferries would like to hear community ideas on issues. Director Tretick thanked Mr. Cavens for the report. He emphasized that the long term thinking needed to be clearly understood and agreed upon by the community, and wondered if the community through local governments would have a significant role to play in terms of the master plan. Mr. Sagman noted that BC Ferries intended to work with local government at a staff level on the master plan and rely on staff to bring information forward to their board or council. Director Mauro proposed that the Langdale exercise be defined as a needs assessment rather than a potential terminal re-build. Director Tretick concurred and proposed identifying that as the understanding of this group. Mr. Cavens explained that the BC Ferries planning for the Langdale terminal and the Province s visioning of ferry service on the coast in the long term would come together at some point. He remarked that he would encourage BC Ferries to work with the communities to see what they need. Director Lutes thanked Mr. Cavens for the report. A master plan ten years ago was given by BC Ferries; Director Lutes thought it had not suited the community, and was focused on pushing traffic through. She hoped this could be addressed through the public meetings. 113

116 Recommendation No. 6 Langdale Terminal Re-Build The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that the topic of a Langdale terminal rebuild be referred to a staff report to be delivered to the next Infrastructure Services Committee. It was reported by Ms. Tournat that MLA Nicholas Simons would be meeting with the Minister soon. Community Consultation on Ferry Service Mr. Cavens and Ms. Clegg discussed the community engagement process on coastal ferries to be undertaken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure in an effort to enhance affordability, efficiency and sustainability of the ferry service (information available at The initiative commenced over the summer and was expected to conclude by year-end; the consultant, Kirk and Company Consulting Limited, had been hired recently to conduct the consultation process. Mr. Cavens pointed out that the consultation was an opportunity to make clear to the government what residents, businesses, and governments need in terms of ferry service. The need for a collective community response to the consultation was emphasized in ensuing discussion, in light of the importance of the ferry service in terms of the social, economic, and environmental aspects of the Sunshine Coast. Recommendation No. 7 Community Consultation on Ferry Service The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that a letter be sent by the Chair to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, and copied to the Deputy Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, MLA Nicholas Simons, and Kirk and Company Consulting Limited, requesting further information about the terms of reference of the consultant and specifically the direction to reduce service to save thirty million dollars annually, and emphasizing that ferry dependent communities want to maintain existing service. Responding to an inquiry from Director Tretick on traffic flows for the new school in Gibsons, Mr. Mewhort indicated that the final details were still being worked out regarding the start date for construction, which would begin in the spring. Director Turnbull commented to Mr. Legault on roads in the Langdale and Hopkins areas. Ms. Clegg expressed appreciation for the funds to develop new parking areas on Gambier Island and commented on the very good job done by the contractor. Director Shugar thanked Mr. Legault for the cross hatching by the fire hall entrance and mentioned she would advise the public about this through her newsletter. She noted that no crosswalk lines had been painted from the library to the Gumboot and inquired about this. Mr. Legault indicated he would look into this. 114

117 Recommendation No. 8 Change of Signage by Roberts Creek Elementary School The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that staff confirm what correspondence has been received from School District No. 46 relating to support for changing signage in the area of Roberts Creek Elementary School from a school zone to a playground zone and if that request has been forwarded to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Legault responded to an inquiry about knotweed, noting that the Coastal Invasive Plant Council (CIPC), which had identified and mapped some locations of knotweed last spring, gave a contract to Capilano, whose staff was in the process of addressing invasive species. Director Mauro commented on seal coating in various locations and requested a commitment to follow up regarding treatment of loose stones and areas where potholes were re-developing. Mr. Paris responded that within the next week a ditching machine would come around. After that those roads would be surveyed, when staff would identify those needing additional sweeping. Constable Bozak noted that the largest amount of fatal accidents and major injuries occur in the area between Flume Road and Lower Road. He proposed that this committee should look at what could be done along this portion of Highway 101. Mr. Mewhort thanked John Hird for Speed Watch and work being done around schools, an excellent way to alert people to speed limits. Regarding the pick up and drop off policy at the elementary school, Mr. White will report at the next meeting. Mr. Webster remarked that currently ICBC have a distractions education campaign provincewide, targeting cell phone use. He had invested in pedestrian reflectors that he hoped to disseminate through transit. Mr. Prestage apologized on behalf of the Transportation Choices Society (TraC) regarding the delay in completing the report on bike lane maintenance and indicated that the group intended to forward a report for the next meeting. Director Nohr inquired about the width of the new bike paths in Trout Lake area. He commented on potholes at Welcome Woods area in need of attention. Mr. Sagman announced that a new transit schedule would be in effect on October 9 th. BC Transit is in the process of developing a Transit Future Plan; staff recommended that they work through the Transportation Advisory Committee as one of several options for technical advice. Regarding erosion on the Ocean Beach Esplanade, it was mentioned that Capilano Highways had plans for those repairs. A culvert will be replaced and extended, and at a second location rip rap will be put in. In the 2 nd location, district engineers had looked and reviewed it but Mr. Legault was not aware if anything would happen in the immediate future and awaited their plan. The project would likely involve a partnership with Capilano Highways. 115

118 Recommendation No. 9 Highway 101 Speed Limit Discussion The Transportation Advisory Committee recommended that a discussion be scheduled for the next Infrastructure Services Committee meeting regarding lowering the Highway #101 speed limit. NEXT MEETING October 29, 2012 ADJOURNMENT 12:24 p.m. 116

119 ANNEX 'L' SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT SOLID WASTE PLAN MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE September 20, 2012 DRAFT MINUTES OF MEETING #5 OF THE PLAN MONITORING ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT HELD IN THE CEDAR ROOM AT 1975 FIELD ROAD, SECHELT, B.C PRESENT: Chair B. Sadler F. Diamond K. Jhasim E. Lands J. Collins ALSO PRESENT: Manager of Sustainable Services Dion Whyte Ministry of Environment D. O Malley Infrastructure Secretary S. MacKenzie Media 0 Public 0 ABSENT: ABSENT WITH REGRETS: J. Cleghorn G. Foss J. Harrison P. Strain F. Mauro CALL TO ORDER: 1:03 p.m. The Chair indicated that Mr. Mauro was in the meeting room to advise us that he was occupied in another committee meeting, so would not be attending this meeting. Adoption of Agenda Adopted. Minutes from June 21, Meeting #4 The draft minutes were reviewed by the group, and approved. 117

120 Business Arising from the minutes None. Suggested amendments to some specific wording in the Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP) Members discussed changes to wording contained in the introductory section of the updated SWMP. This is in response to concerns raised by J. Cleghorn in previous meetings with respect to the appropriateness of retaining the existing wording. David O Malley indicated that to make this type of change to the SWMP is fairly simple. The proposed change would be submitted to the Ministry of Environment directly for approval. This type of change should not need to go through a public process, as it does not change the meaning or intent of the SWMP. Recommendation #1: Revisions to the Solid Waste Management Plan The Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee recommended that the SCRD submit a request to the Ministry of Environment that the following change in wording be made to the updated SWMP. FROM: TO: "True Cost" Accounting The price of a product does not currently reflect the full costs of the environmental degradation and public health impacts associated with the virgin resource extraction, processing, manufacture, transportation, and disposal of that product. When the market prices begin to include such costs, the more environmentally-friendly product will also be the less expensive. True cost accounting requires industry to assume a full cost accounting approach to business and investment. Senior levels of government can influence markets to recognize and report the full cost of production. All levels of government can employ true cost accounting principles with regards to internal business and policy decisions. "Triple Bottom Line" Accounting Triple bottom line accounting requires industry to assume a full cost accounting approach to business and investment. Senior levels of government can influence markets to recognize and report the full cost of production. All levels of government can employ triple bottom line accounting principles with regards to internal business and policy decisions. 118

121 AND THAT the following paragraph in the SWMP be removed: Ending Tax Payer Subsidies for Wasteful and Polluting Industries Pollution, energy consumption and environmental destruction start at the point of virgin resource extraction and processing. Our tax dollars subsidize many industries that make products from virgin materials, such as timber and mining. Zero Waste proposes ending these federal subsidies to enable recycled and reused products to compete on an even playing field. Without the subsidies, the market can determine which are truly the less expensive products. Responsibility in this area lies primarily at provincial and federal levels, however local government can ensure that waste disposal activities are not subsidized (relative to recycling and resource recovery activities) in order to create a level playing field for business. For example, local taxation to subsidize landfill fees would make waste disposal appear artificially inexpensive, which in turn creates barriers to the development of viable resource recovery and recycling industries. In the SCRD, no taxes are used to subsidize landfilling operations. Tipping fees paid by users of landfill facilities cover all costs associated with operating, monitoring, and eventually safely closing the landfill. PMAC visit to GRIPS and the Pender Harbour Landfill in June 2012 Members would like to tour the remaining solid waste related sites on the Sunshine Coast, as soon as possible. Potential sites to visit are: Sechelt Landfill, Salish Soils, Direct Disposal Recycling Facility, Direct Disposal Compost Facility, Caps Off Bottle Depot Sechelt, Caps Off Bottle Depot Gibsons, Gibsons Green Waste Facility, Gibsons Disposal, Bypass Auto, Gibsons Landfill (closed), and Halfmoon Bay Landfill (closed). Members would like to visit the Gibsons area sites on one day, and Sechelt area sites over two other days. Howe Sound Pulp & Paper (HSPP) Landfill was suggested as a site to visit. Dion Whyte explained that HSPP s landfill handles industrial waste, and this type of landfill is not under the scope of the SCRD Solid Waste Management Plan. PMAC Annual Report: Ed Lands was requested to provide an overview of how the PMAC compiled the PMAC Annual Report Card in previous years. Members came to an understanding on the process they would like to follow, which brought about the following recommendation. 119

122 Recommendation #2: Annual Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee Report Card The Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee recommended that staff create a draft Annual Plan Monitoring Advisory Committee Report Card based on current data, for review and eventual endorsement by the PMAC. Infrastructure Services Committee (ISC) Minutes Deferred to next meeting, to allow all members to absorb the handouts provided. NEW BUSINESS: Ideas or Issues from Members deserving consideration by PMAC Joe Harrison brought forward to the Chair via , that the future of Pender Recovery Centre should be addressed sooner rather than later, as the costs will only increase over time. PMAC membership is missing members from First Nations, Area B and Area E, while local businesses are under-represented (e.g. construction & demolition sector). Staff will be advertising for additional members, targeting these specific groups. A suggestion was made that staff attend community meetings to solicit participation. Dion indicated that staff does not have the capacity to attend various area meetings to recruit members at this time. Members requested that the website with information on the recent Metro Vancouver Zero Waste Challenge Conference (held on September 14, 2012) be provided to members. Members indicated that the signage for the new Sechelt Recycling Depot is inadequate. Staff agreed, and said that this issue is currently being, however SCRD does not have authority over placement of signage along the highway. Members requested that the recording secretary add a second standing item to the PMAC agenda under NEW BUSINESS, titled Report from Staff in order to receive information from SCRD staff on current activities and issues concerning the solid waste program. 120

123 EPR Report Card publication The Chair inquired of the Ministry representative if he could enlighten/educate the PMAC members about the expanding Extended Producer Responsibility programs and whether there was a link between these programs and a rumoured move to Waste To Energy (WTE) facilities, as covered by various mainland media. D. O Malley indicated that this is not his area of expertise, but that each area is treated differently with respect to approvals for implementing new Waste to Energy facilities, depending on local conditions. Provincial policy exists to mitigate the potential for reusable and recyclable materials to be incorporated into feedstocks for Waste to Energy facilities. Application for Facility Authorization - Stockwell Sand and Gravel Dion Whyte explained that this application for facility authorization is for the group s information and feedback to the ISC. This document would normally be vetted through the PMAC after the ISC and Board have reviewed it, but due to the fact that a PMAC meeting was scheduled, staff brought it forward at this time to expedite the process. Stockwell Sand and Gravel has already been in contact with the Ministry of Environment, and will deal directly with the Ministry of Environment on any permitting issues or conditions set by the province. This process does not involve the SCRD. Stockwell Sand and Gravel has applied to the SCRD for authorization under the approved SWMP to establish and operate an asphalt and concrete recycling facility adjacent to its existing gravel pit in the District of Sechelt. Members generally felt the proposed facility would support the direction of the SWMP, and mentioned their concerns over the following points: Neighborhood impacts associated with dust created when crushing the asphalt and concrete Neighborhood impacts associated with noise during the crushing process Staff indicated that the proposed use is permitted under the current zoning for this property, and that zoning designations typically take similar factors into consideration. Staff also indicated that the proponent is proposing to rent a crusher four times per year. Members mentioned that they appreciate this application, as there is no concrete recycler on the Sunshine Coast at this time that will provide service to the residential and construction sector. PMAC would like this facility authorization application to go through the normal process of being received by the ISC and the Board, and then referred to the PMAC for comment. NEXT MEETING: October 25 th, 2012 (short meeting and site visit to Sechelt Landfill) ADJOURNMENT: 3:05pm 121

124 ANNEX 'M' BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review Table of Contents Introduction / Executive summary 1 Message: Minister Mary Polak 2 Message: Joe Stanhope, Regional District of Nanaimo, Chairperson 2 Message: Heath Slee, President UBCM 2 1 Government Letter of Expectation 3 2 BC Transit Board Size 3 3i Board Skills Matrix 3 3ii Appointment of Board Members 3 3iii Non-elected Board Members 3 3iv Staggered Board Terms 4 3v Board Appointment Guidelines 4 4 Appointment of Commission Members 4 5i Approval of Capital Projects 4 5ii Approval of System-Wide Capital Decisions 4 5iii Notice to BC Transit of Service Change 5 5iv Policy Consultation with Local Government 5 5v Engagement of Local Government and Operators 5 6 BC Transit Involvement in Local Government Planning 5 7 BC Transit Strategic Communications Plan 5 8 Clear Direction on Provincial Transit Plan 5 9 Improvement to Operating Agreements 6 10 Multi-Year Operating Agreements 6 11 Single Agreement 6 12 Appropriate Service Standards 6 13 BC Transit Performance Reports 7 14 Performance Reporting Templates 7 15 Annual BC Transit Reports 7 16 Commercial Ventures 7 17 Capital Funding Approval with Output Targets 7 18 Intercity Transit Policy 7 VRTC Governance of Victoria Transit System 8 For more information 8 On March 15, 2012 the B.C. Government appointed a three-person Independent Review Panel to review BC Transit performance and operations. The review was in response to concerns from some local governments about aspects of BC Transit operations that affect their communities. The independent panel held 25 meetings with 40 local governments across the province, and received 30 submissions from local government and other key stakeholders. It delivered the report, including 18 recommendations, to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure on August 1, The government immediately published the report online, giving local governments and the general public the opportunity to review the recommendations before issuing a response. The report confirmed that BC Transit provides first-rate, efficient and cost-effective transit services to the people of British Columbia. While the delivery of transit services works well in British Columbia, there is always room for improvement. The report also highlighted the need for stronger partnership and better communication around transportation planning and delivery. Its key themes are governance, decision-making and accountability. The Review Panel recommendations highlight the need to communicate effectively and to re-evaluate how the BC Transit Board operates. The government is excited at the prospect of working cooperatively with BC Transit and local governments to reach the vision articulated so clearly in the report, aptly named: Modernizing the Partnership. Continued on P

125 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review Continued from P1 Partnerships are only as strong as the commitment to make them work. The Review Panel s report is a roadmap showing how to improve our public transit system, and a call to action to both provincial and local governments to revitalize our partnership. Minister s Message It has been just over a year since representatives from local governments voiced concern about their relationship with BC Transit. Our government took those concerns very seriously and appointed an independent panel to review BC Transit. I am impressed with the work of the independent panel and believe the report and our response provide a comprehensive foundation to move forward and improve transit service for families and communities in British Columbia. As the independent panel confirmed, we have an excellent transit system in British Columbia, particularly in terms of ridership, supply of service and efficiency of the services provided. Our province is well recognized for providing the highest per capita transit investment in Canada, making it possible to offer transit services in many smaller communities in addition to our larger cities. The panel confirmed that BC Transit provides good value and efficient service; however there is always room for improvement. We intend to modernize the shared system so that local governments and BC Transit have the right tools to deliver service in each of the unique and diverse communities that they serve. We recognize the need for an approach that suits the diverse needs of all B.C. families and communities. For example, the service needs in communities like Dawson Creek, are much different than in Nanaimo or Kelowna. Our aim in this response is to strengthen the partnership between local governments and BC Transit with better information sharing and a more open decision making process while recognizing that this partnership must be flexible enough to accommodate the unique needs of every community. We have an excellent transit system in British Columbia. By continuing to work together, we will ensure an even better transit service, one that continues to meet the diverse needs of all B.C. families and communities. Joe Stanhope Regional District of Nanaimo Chairperson I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Province and the members of the BC Transit Independent Review Panel for their hard work throughout this important process. The Regional District of Nanaimo operates one of British Columbia s larger transit systems in partnership with BC Transit. While we appreciate the benefits of working with BC Transit, the RDN started having a number of concerns about the partnership and how it was working. We worked with other local governments across BC and brought those concerns to the Minister asking for an independent review. The Minister listened to our concerns about BC Transit and responded by setting up an independent review panel. I am hopeful the recommendations of the panel will give local government and BC Transit new ideas and tools that will improve the way we can work together, particularly in the areas of rising costs, funding, governance and communications. This has been a very good process conducted by an excellent three-member panel. The independent panel worked hard to obtain meaningful feedback from local governments, and the resulting report will be very helpful as we move forward. Thank you very much to the Minister of Transportation for the strong support for this independent review. Heath Slee Union of British Columbia Municipalities, President The approach taken by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure on the BC Transit independent review has been consultative and helpful. The independent panel did a good job at engaging local governments to solicit meaningful feedback. The release of the report provided another step forward and was well received. Now that the provincial government has provided an official response to the report, local governments will be able to judge for themselves whether the recommendations address the concerns raised during the consultation period. I encourage all communities that utilize BC Transit s service to provide feedback to the Minister

126 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review 1 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should work with local governments and with public transit services to develop the Government Letter of Expectations to BC Transit. The Letter of Expectations should clearly establish the roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of the provincial government, local governments and BC Transit. }} Lead Organizations: Union of British Columbia Municipalities, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: The Government of British Columbia will ask UBCM to develop a process that encourages local governments to provide timely and relevant input for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure to consider in the Government Letter of Expectation to BC Transit. The Minister will consider the local government perspective when defining expectations for BC Transit. The first cycle of this process must conclude by June 2013 to be considered for the next Government Letter of Expectation. 2 The provincial government should increase the membership of the Board of Directors from seven to nine. While this recommendation requires legislative change, the following recommendation (Recommendation 3) can be implemented with either a seven or nine person Board. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: The B.C. Government supports strengthening the Board of Directors, and will assess the benefits, challenges and logistics of expanding the size of the board. In the meantime, government will proceed immediately with all elements of Recommendation 3. 3 Recognize the partnership for the delivery of public transit at the BC Transit Board. Specifically: 3i. The Board of BC Transit should provide local governments with a Board skills matrix to guide the selection of nominees to the Board. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: All partners in the delivery of BC Transit services will benefit from a skilled, qualified and motivated Board of Directors. BC Transit is currently identifying the skills requirements to ensure that the most highly qualified candidates are considered and approached for board appointments. 3ii. The provincial government should revise the appointment process for the Board of Directors to allow local government to directly appoint representatives to the Board. Prior to legislative change Cabinet should accept board nominations from local governments for appointment to the Board. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: An effective board of directors accurately reflects and articulates the interests of all partner-members. The B.C. Government invites UBCM to establish and administer a process for local governments to identify and recommend qualified individuals for the BC Transit Board and Transit Commissions. These names will be put forward for the consideration of the Minister. 3iii. It is common practice that elected officials do not sit on the boards of crown agencies, since their responsibilities as Director may conflict with their accountabilities as an elected official. The Panel considered two options for the appointment of the local government representatives and did not reach a conclusion on a preferred approach. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: As above, an effective board of directors accurately reflects and articulates the interests of all partnermembers. The Minister is satisfied that the current process of including elected officials on the Board of BC Transit works well, and expects no changes in the immediate future

127 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review 3iv. Provincial government and local government Board appointments should be made on the basis of staggered terms to allow for Board continuity. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit, local governments }} Next Steps: A board of directors that strikes a balance between refreshing turnover and stability among its membership will be able to develop and implement a long-term vision. Together, the Ministry and the BC Transit Board will develop a new appointment process to create staggered board terms to help ensure board continuity. 3v. The provincial government and local government should negotiate appointment guidelines to be consistent with standard board practices regarding appointments and terms. In order to implement these recommendations, local governments would need to determine the appropriate body to coordinate the appointment process. }} Lead Organizations: UBCM, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: As with Recommendation 3iv, the Ministry will begin consulting immediately with local government on the appointment process. These will continue to be consistent with legislation and government appointment policies, including Board Resourcing and Development Office requirements. 4 The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act to allow local government to appoint all members of a transit commission and allow the transit commission to hire its own clerical and technical staff. In the interim, Cabinet should accept nominations from local governments for appointment to transit commissions and BC Transit will continue to provide clerical and technical staff to transit commissions. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, local government }} Next Steps: The Ministry will work with local governments for support in developing new, transparent and effective ways to nominate representatives for consideration to transit commissions. While nominations must continue to be consistent with legislation, there are opportunities to explore new processes that strengthen the board s effectiveness. The provincial government will continue to fund BC Transit activities as a shared service, and local governments can continue to hire additional clerical or technical staff if they choose. 5 Local government and BC Transit decision making authority should rest with the partner that bears the consequences or benefits of any decision. Where a decision of one partner will have an impact on the other partner, consultation should occur: 5i. The BC Transit Board should ensure that BC Transit decision making explicitly considers the impact on local governments and should ideally include a mechanism for local government sign off. For example, the BC Transit Board told the Panel that all decisions of the BC Transit Board that have capital cost implications for an individual transit system must have local government approval. BC Transit should ensure that all local governments are aware of this policy. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, UBCM }} Next Steps: Together, BC Transit and local governments will identify opportunities and appropriate processes to ensure local voices are heard by BC Transit, and that BC Transit keeps local governments current on issues that will directly affect them. In many cases, this can happen within existing mechanisms (e.g. Transit s Enterprise Investment Initiative and renegotiation of Annual Operating Agreements between BC Transit and local governments). 5ii. The BC Transit Board should ensure that any system wide capital spending decisions made by the BC Transit Board has input from an advisory panel consisting of local government representatives. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local governments }} Next Steps: The BC Government agrees an advisory panel is an option worthy of consideration. The BC Government encourages local governments to provide their input to the BC Transit Board

128 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review 5iii. Local governments should provide sufficient notice to BC Transit on service adjustments so that the financial consequences of that decision are appropriately shared between the partners. }} Lead Organizations: UBCM, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The government encourages local government to carefully consider decisions that have financial consequences and to provide sufficient notice to BC Transit on service adjustments that have financial implications. 5iv. The Province should consult with local governments on provincial public transit policy. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: In partnership with BC Transit, the Ministry will consult with local government on appropriate public transit policy, including intercity transit policy (See Recommendation 18). 5v. BC Transit should ensure that it engages with and considers the input of local governments and transit operating companies in route planning and scheduling activities. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: BC Transit will consult with local governments and operating companies to enhance agreements and clarify the roles and input of the parties into route planning and scheduling. Working together will ensure that local knowledge and expertise are part of the decision-making process. 6 Local government should involve BC Transit in key planning issues and invite BC Transit to participate in official community planning processes. Local governments should provide BC Transit with information regarding decisions that may impact public transit including: Long term municipal transit budgets; Land use planning; and Transportation planning and zoning decisions that will result in developments that will require transit services, or impact the ability to deliver public transit. These requirements should be outlined in operating agreements between BC Transit and local governments. }} Lead Organizations: UBCM, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry encourages local government to include BC Transit in key planning issues that may affect public transit. Working together will ensure that local knowledge and expertise are part of the decision-making process. 7 BC Transit should develop a strategic communications plan that includes provincial government, BC Transit and local government strategic goals for transit and share the plan with local governments. The plan should outline key dates and timelines for provincial government, BC Transit and local government decision making processes. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, UBCM }} Next Steps: The Ministry will provide information and support to BC Transit as it develops a strategic communications plan. This includes budget building and approval processes, submission deadlines for project or operating budgets and other timely and relevant information. 8 The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure should provide BC Transit with clear direction on its role in implementing the Provincial Transit Plan. }Lead } Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry will work with BC Transit staff to define BC Transit s role in implementing the Provincial Transit Plan through the Government s Letter of Expectation. Ministry staff will work with BC Transit to provide detail around the terms and deliverables in the Government s Letter of Expectation

129 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review 9 BC Transit and local governments should enhance accountability in operating agreements. While some roles and responsibilities are contained in existing Master Operating Agreements and Annual Operating Agreements, accountabilities could be strengthened by: 9i. Establishing information sharing requirements appropriate for all partners in operating agreements, including timelines and dates, performance measures (see recommendation 13) and local government planning (see recommendation 6). }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local government }} Next Steps: The Government of British Columbia supports this recommendation. 9ii. Establishing local government financial accountability for service decisions that result in costs that must be covered by BC Transit (see recommendation 5) }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local government }} Next Steps: The B.C. Government supports greater financial accountability from all partners, including local government. 9iii. Improving transparency by including the provincial share of debt servicing costs }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local government }} Next Steps: BC Transit will provide information about the provincial share of debt servicing costs to local governments. 9iv. Committing BC Transit to provide financial information to local governments based on the calendar year. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, UBCM }} Next Steps: BC Transit will consult with local governments to ensure that annual financial information is provided in a format that meets local governments reporting needs. 10 The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to enable multi-year operating agreements. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry and BC Transit will work together to determine what existing measures may allow for multi-year operating agreements. 11 The provincial government should amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to require only one agreement between local governments and BC Transit, and one operating agreement between BC Transit and a transit operating company for each transit service area. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure }} Next Steps: The Ministry and BC Transit will work together to determine what existing measures may allow BC Transit to enter into: one agreement with local government; and one agreement with the transit operating company, for each transit service area. 12 BC Transit should work with local governments to set appropriate service standards for each transit system and provide annual data on system and route performance. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, UBCM }} Next Steps: BC Transit has already started to establish performance standards and will consult with local government on their expectations

130 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review 13 BC Transit should provide reports to Councils and Regional District Boards at least twice a year on: system ridership; cost per capita; passengers per capita; service hours per capita; cost per hour; cost per rider; and revenue cost ratio. BC Transit should also provide each local Council and Board comparisons with peers and performance over time for each of these measures. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: BC Transit will amend its reporting schedule to provide this key information to local governments. 14 BC Transit should develop, in partnership with local government staff, performance reporting templates which meet local government staff needs. The review panel offered templates as part of its review. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit, local governments }} Next Steps: BC Transit will consult with local governments to implement templates that best meet the needs of local governments. 15 BC Transit should report in detail annually to local government on its administration costs, its fleet management activities and the benefits it provides from centralized purchasing in comparison to other transit systems across Canada. }} Lead Organizations: BC Transit }} Next Steps: BC Transit will include this information in its Corporate Annual Report and other appropriate communications. The Ministry encourages BC Transit and local governments to work together proactively and share information. 16 The provincial government should provide the Board of BC Transit with the authority to authorize commercial revenue activities within an established framework. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: The Ministry supports commercial ventures as a significant opportunity to generate transit revenue when specific requirements are met: there is no direct competition with the private sector or another local government, and revenues are used to offset public investment. As a first step, the Province will provide the BC Transit Board with policy guidelines, including how partners would share any resulting revenues. 17 The provincial government should provide BC Transit its capital funding through the established service plan process with output targets. }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: Together, the Ministry and BC Transit staff will determine what areas of the service plan process may need to be enhanced (e.g. capital planning) and will confirm service plan processes and output targets. 18 The provincial government should develop a policy framework for intercity routes among multiple jurisdictions and if required amend the BC Transit Act and Regulation to provide for a stable mechanism to implement these routes }} Lead Organizations: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, BC Transit }} Next Steps: An intercity transit policy to address commuter service to regional centers is in development. The Government of British Columbia will consult with local governments as this policy is developed

131 BC Government Response to BC Transit Independent Review Victoria Regional Transit Commission The Review Panel did not find consensus on transit governance in Greater Victoria, and instead, presented three options. The Government of British Columbia expects local governments in Greater Victoria will continue their discussion and is prepared to re-examine this issue once a consensus is reached. For more information: }} BC Transit Review website: }} BC Transit website: }} BC Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure website: }} UBCM website: }} Government Letter of Expectation to BC Transit: